ADDRESS IN ANSWER TO HER MAJESTY'S SPEECH.

HL Deb 07 June 1859 vol 154 cc23-97

The QUEEN'S SPEECH having been reported by the Lord Chancellor,

THE EARL OF POWIS

rose to move an humble Address in Answer to Her Majesty's gracious Speech, and said:—My Lords, so short a time has elapsed since the commencement of the last Session of Parliament that your Lordships will be naturally inclined, on the present occasion, rather to confine your attention to the one or two points of domestic administration and foreign policy which are referred to in Her Majesty's gracious Speech, and, as a consequence, to relieve me from the necessity of recapitulating to your Lordships those various measures of legal and social improvement which were adverted to, at the commencement of the last Session, by my noble Kinsman who then discharged the duty which I have now the honour to perform. Several of these measures have, indeed, been brought under the consideration of the Legislature; but their progress has necessarily been interrupted by the dissolution; and it will be for your Lordships and the other House of Parliament to consider how you may best and with the least possible delay replace them in that position which they had reached in each House respectively previously to the dissolution of Parliament. In matters of private legislation, the Bills will, I believe, be allowed to pass as it were per saltum, and by merely formal proceedings, to the stage at which they had arrived previously to the dissolution, and will therefore virtually be resumed at the points at which they were left when the dissolution closed business. This cannot be the case with Public Bills: yet since through the discussions which have taken place, men's minds have become familiarized with the chief features of these measures—such, for instance, as the Bankruptcy Bill and that for conferring a Parliamentary title to landed estate, as to which their promoters are already in the possession of the views of the leading Members of Parliament—it is not, I think, too much to expect that the time allotted for the consideration of their earlier stages will, in consideration of that which has already been afforded them, be materially abridged.

My Lords, I think that upon this occasion it would be out of place were I to enter into a discussion of the topics which are involved in the late dissolution, or were I to indulge in any speculations which that dissolution is likely to have on the relative strength of political parties—and I am the more strongly of that opinion because the dissolution arose in the first place out of a question brought before the other House of Parliament only, and which has never been regularly before your Lordships; and in the second place, because it is a measure which tells exclusively upon the constitution of the other House:—I could not, therefore, without an infringement of that wise constitutional usage which renders the Members of your Lordships' House reluctant to deal with subjects in which the interests, dignity, or actions of the other branch of the Legislature are chiefly involved, enter into any consideration of those topics, I will therefore, in referring to the recent dissolution, content myself with simply asking your Lordships to return your Thanks to Her Majesty for having at so early a period reassembled Her Parliament, a step in the advantage of which, in the present critical state of Europe, every one will concur. Her Majesty, in Her gracious Speech from the Throne, has alluded to those important questions of the national finances and the national defences which cannot fail immediately to engage the anxious attention of the Legislature; and Her Majesty then suggests whether it would not be more prudent to take up the important and embarrassing question of Parliamentary Reform at the commencement of next year, rather than to attempt in the month of June to grapple a second time with the difficulties with which it is beset. The satisfactory settlement of so extensive and so delicate a question requires a full and solemn deliberation, with the concurrence of a large number of the Members of both branches of the Legislature: and it is quite clear that even should a measure of Parliamentary Reform pass through the other House of Parliament during the present Session, it is impossible that it should be brought under your Lordships' consideration until a most unusual and most inconvenient season of the year. It is, therefore, I think fitting that Parliament should consider whether the subject of Parliamentary Reform may not be considered with more advantage in the Session of next year: and, indeed, if we look back to Parliamentary precedents we shall find that such spasmodic legislation has not always been followed by the advantages anticipated. Although it is true that since the dissolution no events of moment have occurred, either with respect to India or our colonial possessions, yet it will task to the utmost the energies not of the Governor General only, hut of the Government at home to restore order to Indian finance, to continue those public works which are of so much importance to the material prosperity of that country, and to disband some part of those innumerable levies which press so hardly upon the resources and consume, for the moment, so considerable a portion of the revenues of India.

My Lords, whilst speaking on the subject of India, your Lordships will allow me to notice with satisfaction the honours which have been conferred on the Governor General, and the Governor of Bombay, and the circumstance that Her Majesty has greeted the return to England of one of the most distinguished of the old East India Company's servants, by bestowing upon Sir John Lawrence well merited decorations, and by adding his name and experience to the number of Her Privy Council; and I must at the same time be allowed to say that in my opinion—with all the prestige of the Imperial Government, and with all the advantages which competitive examination is able to produce, it will be long before the new administration of Indian affairs furnishes men who will eclipse those civil servants of the East India Company, who from small beginnings in the course of a single century, raised up that great empire which reflects so much glory upon the civil and military agents of the great corporation in whose name they acted. Your Lordships will also greet with pleasure the return to his country of the noble Earl who has opened up such important fields to British commerce in China and Japan, and who has recently given to the citizens of London an account of his mission as amusing as if it had been a trip to Mont Blanc. Your Lordships will also hear with pleasure that a new colony has recently been erected in Australia, so that British Columbia is no longer the youngest of the British dependencies. I think, also, that it is to the credit of our Colonial administration—that in spite of the excitement amongst the population attendant on the discovery of new Gold Fields, the early history of British Columbia is characterised by the utmost tranquillity and good order, and that there has been an utter absence of any excesses among the inhabitants, such as occurred in California or even in Victoria.

But, my Lords, even the absorbing question of Reform pales before the excitement of foreign politics. The attention of all Europe is concentrated upon Italy. Per varios casus, per tot discrimina rerum, Tendimus in Latium; I wish my noble Friend the Foreign Secretary could add— Sedes ubi Fata quietas Ostendunt. Although the noble Earl's efforts to maintain the peace of Europe have, unfortunately, not been successful, the noble Earl has adopted the most decided arrangements for maintaining the neutrality of this country, amidst the deplorable conflicts now raging between Austria and France, and Sardinia, upon the fertile plains of northern Italy. The papers which Her Majesty in Her gracious speech has intimated will be laid on the table of the House, will show how unceasing and how active have been the exertions of Her Majesty's Ministers to avert the horrors of War; the Government has proclaimed the desire of this country to observe a strict neutrality, and this policy seems generally to have been approved by public opinion. We desire no extension of power or territorial aggrandizement in Italy; we seek for no exclusive influence in any part of Europe, our national Church has no connection with that of Rome; but it is not so with the belligerent powers, who are now engaged in deadly combat, and we cannot expect France and Austria to look upon these things from a purely English point of view. We must not be surprised that France and Austria, each of whom declares itself to he the favourite child of the Church, should look with jealousy upon any attempt of the other to attain power by the exercise of paramount influence over the Sovereign Pontiff, who wields over the churches of their respective dominions, not a nominal but a real and effectual supremacy on questions of practice and doctrine, and over the nomination and promotion of their clergy. Austria, too, is as proud of Lombardy and Venice as this country was of her new England Colonies, and remembering the long protracted struggle which we maintained for the retention of tho3e provinces, through many disasters, we cannot expect that Austria will easily surrender her Italian provinces. France looks back to the battle of Pavia, though three centuries of military history, and the traditions of Italy are as popular with the French grenadier, as an invasion of Scotland or a campaign in Normandy or Poitou was to the archers or yeomen of the Plantagenets. But as we are altogether free from these ecclesiastical or historic influences, it is to be hoped that Her Majesty's Government will be able to preserve that attitude of neutrality which they have adopted, and that, abstaining from any share in this war, we may await the time when we shall be able to exert our influence effectually for the restoration of peace to Europe, and be able to effect something for the permanent happiness of Italy, a land which is associated with so many classical and so many beautiful recollections. But even though we may succeed in escaping the actual horrors of war, we cannot, I am afraid, avoid all the evil consequences which arise out of that unhappy state of things. The trade of this country was seriously affected by the declaration of war. The rise in the rate of discount shows how sensitive commerce is to the interruption occasioned by war; and at the present moment there are largo branches of our manufacturing interests, connected with the export trade to Germany in a complete state of stagnation. In other respects, as regards the state of our Home markets, trade is generally in a sound and satisfactory condition. Our Iron trade and our Shipping interest have been for a time in a state of great depression; perhaps it is as well that we should be reminded by these facts how indispensable is the continuance of peace to commercial prosperity; and that we cannot remain indifferent while other European powers are engaged in a deadly struggle.

My Lords, the accession of a new King to the throne of Naples has enabled Her Majesty to renew diplomatic relations with that country. In a State where the Royal authority is supreme, differences with foreign Powers readily disappear on the accession of a new Sovereign. At such a crisis the renewal of friendly relations with Naples is manifestly of great importance; and it may also be of great advantage to have by the side of the new Sovereign a representative from whom he may, perhaps, be willing to receive suggestions for improving the condition of his people, and ensuring the tranquillity of his dominions.

My Lords, among the complications which now unhappily exist in regard to so large a portion of Europe, it is satisfactory to know that, although there are some questions connected with Central America which still remain to be adjusted, our relations with the Government of the United States were never upon a more satisfactory footing than at the present moment. This reference to foreign affairs naturally leads me, my Lords, to the subject of our national defences. While Europe counts her soldiers by millions, and half a million of men are in actual conflict on the plains of Italy, it would be absurd for us to have the Channel and our Mediterranean posts unguarded. Our neutrality, my Lords, would be little respected if we made no preparation for our national defence should we be attacked. The great Powers would answer us with the words of the soldier in the play, "We will argue in platoons." It is not, therefore, to be wondered at that Her Majesty's Government have ventured to overstep the powers entrusted to them, and to take steps for increasing our naval forces. Her Majesty has also informed us that it will be necessary to ask for further supplies for the exigencies of the public service. This is necessary even for our protection at home; and it is incumbent on the Government to run no risk of losing such possessions as Gibraltar and Malta. With the same view Her Majesty's Government have cordially accepted the offers of assistance for our home defence which the national spirit and pratrictism have called forth from all parts of the country. Considering the smallness of our regular army, the rifle corps now forming in every part of the kingdom will form an important addition to our military strength, and as they will enlist a class of men different from those who serve in the line or militia, the Government have wisely desired to interfere as little as possible with the local arrangements or internal constitution of these corps, and have directed their attention chiefly to making them available by sketching out a general plan of organization and by issuing general regulations as to their arms and ammunition. These corps will form a body of skilled marksmen and intelligent men who cannot fail to present a formidable obstacle to any force that should dare to attack us. We have now several thousand guns surrounding our coasts, in the manning of which volunteer companies of artillerymen would be able to render valuable assistance; and I am happy to find that the Government are determined to give every possible assistance to these patriotic volunteers in affording them the means and opportunity of practising, and of attaching themselves to particular guns and batteries. Such, my Lords, is the way to make our neutrality respected, and to secure the safety of our shores.

My Lords, I think I have now gone through the subjects touched upon in Her Majesty's gracious Speech. I cannot, however, conclude, without alluding to the temper, forbearance, and moderation which distinguished the speeches of noble Lords opposite during the discussion of matters connected with foreign affairs. I trust that both in this and the other House of Parliament the same praiseworthy course will be pursued in the present Session: for if the remonstrances and representations of England are to have their proper effect abroad, that result can only be obtained through the unanimity of political parties upon questions of foreign policy—an unity of opinion which has hitherto happily existed despite of the differences of opinion on questions of domestic interest.

Permit me now to thank your Lordships for the attention with which you have listened to me, and to express a wish—which I know is common to us all—that this country may continue to enjoy that peace and prosperity which have been the prevailing character of the twenty years, during which we have had the happiness of being reigned over by our gracious Queen.

The noble Earl concluded by moving—"That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, in answer to Her Gracious Speech from the Throne."

The following is a copy of the Address agreed to:—

"MOST GRACIOUS SOVEREIGN,

"WE, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal subjects, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble Thanks to Your Majesty for the gracious Speech which Your Majesty has been pleased to make to both Houses of Parliament.

"WE humbly thank Your Majesty for informing us, that Your Majesty has, with Satisfaction, availed Yourself, in the present anxious State of Public Affairs, of the Advice of Your Parliament, which Your Majesty has summoned with the least possible Delay.

"WE humbly thank Your Majesty for having directed that Papers shall be laid before us, from which we shall learn how earnest and unceasing have been Your Majesty's Endeavours to preserve; the Peace of Europe.

"WE humbly assure Your Majesty that we partake in Your Majesty's Regret that those Endeavours have unhappily failed, and War has been declared between France and Sardinia on one Hide and Austria on the other. We rejoice to learn that Your Majesty, receiving Assurances of Friendship from both the contending Parties, intends to maintain between them a strict and impartial Neutrality; and that Your Majesty hopes, with God's Assistance, to preserve to your People the Blessings of continued Peace.

"WE humbly thank Your Majesty for informing us, that, considering the present State of Europe, Your Majesty has deemed it necessary, for the Security of Your Majesty's Dominions and the Honour of Your Majesty's Crown, to increase Your Majesty's Naval Forces to an Amount exceeding that which has been sanctioned by Parliament. Your Majesty may rely with Confidence on our cordial Concurrence in this precautionary Measure of defensive Policy.

"WE humbly thank Your Majesty for informing us, that The King of the Two Sicilies having announced to Your Majesty the Death of The King His Father and His own Accession, Your Majesty has thought fit, in concert with The Emperor of the French, to renew Your Majesty's diplomatic Intercourse with the Court of Naples, which has been suspended during the late Reign.

"WE rejoice to be assured that all Your Majesty's other Foreign Relations continue on a perfectly satisfactory Footing.

"WE humbly thank Your Majesty for having directed that a Bill be prepared for giving Effect, so far as the Aid of Parliament may be required, to certain Suggestions of the Commissioners whom Your Majesty had appointed to inquire into the best Mode of efficiently manning the Royal Navy, and assure Your Majesty that this important Subject shall receive our immediate Attention.

"WE humbly assure Your Majesty that we learn with Satisfaction that Measures of legal and social Improvement, the Progress of which in the late Parliament was necessarily interrupted by the Dissolution, will again be brought under our Consideration.

"WE humbly thank Your Majesty for informing us, that Your Majesty would with Pleasure give Your Majesty's Sanction to any well-considered Measure for the Amendment of the Laws which regulate the Representation of your Majesty's People in Parliament; and we humbly assure Your Majesty, that should we be of opinion that, the Necessity of giving our immediate Attention to Measures of Urgency, relating to the Defence and financial Condition of the Country will not leave us sufficient Time for legislating with due Deliberation during the present Session on a Subject at once so difficult and so extensive, we trust to be enabled at the Commencement of the next Session to give our earnest Attention to a Question of which an early and satisfactory Settlement would be greatly to the Public Advantage.

"WE humbly express our Gratification that Tour Majesty feels assured that we shall enter with Zeal and Diligence on the Discharge of our Parliamentary Duties; and in common with Your Majesty we pray that the Result of our Deliberations may tend to secure to the Country, the Continuance of Peace abroad and progressive Improvement at home."

VISCOUNT LIFFORD

said, My Lords, upon ordinary occasions I have been unwilling to trespass upon your Lordships' time and attention by addressing you at any length, and I am glad to find myself relieved on the present occasion from doing so, by the able speech of my noble Friend who has preceded me. I hope, however, before I proceed to the subjects suggested by Her Majesty's gracious Speech, I may be permitted for a moment to refer to the circumstances under which Her Majesty has been advised to address two Parliaments within the space of five months. For some weeks past your Lordships' deliberations have been suspended and the Parliament has been dissolved in order that the question might be submitted to the country whether Her Majesty's Government possess the confidence of the nation. That question has been answered not unfavourably by the constituencies of the United Kingdom. The question that was discussed by the constituencies during the elections was not whether they should have a Reform Bill or not, but by whom the government of the country should be carried on. The answer to the appeal of the Government was most unequivocal in that part of the kingdom with which I am more particularly connected. A result so unexpected by the Opposition they have attempted to account for in the way usual to an expiring faction—by an alliance between Her Majesty's Ministers and the Pope and Cardinal Wiseman. I believe, however, that the people of Ireland have pronounced in favour of Her Majesty's Government for reasons social not political. In the first place they feel that the relations between landlord and tenant in Ireland, which had before created so many heart-burnings, are in a much more satisfactory state than they have ever been before. In the next place they know that the most even-handed justice has been administered to all without respect of creed or parties, and the present Most Excellent Lord Lieutenant of Ireland has gained the affections of the people by the anxious attention he bestows on the domestic resources of the country, and by his ardent desire to benefit all classes alike. I do not doubt the loyalty of Liberal candidates, but it is the fact that they have always had the support of the disaffected in Ireland, and therefore the success of the Government would not surprise any one who knew how much disaffection has disappeared; noble Lords opposite will rejoice to hear that the amelioration of the country, under a system of justice and conciliation, which was commenced by their predecessors, is daily increasing under the present administration, who have succeeded in obtaining for the Crown the loyalty, the respect, and the affections of a warm-hearted people.

I will now, however, my Lords, turn to the topics contained in the Speech from the Throne. When we last met here, prior to the dissolution of the Parliament, the question of peace and war hung in the balance. We received from Her Majesty's Ministers an assurance that they would use their utmost endeavours to maintain the peace of Europe, and that, if unhappily they failed in their efforts, they would do the utmost in their power for an honourable neutrality. Unhappily, however, these efforts, though admirably directed, have proved unsuccessful in preserving the peace of Europe; but we have the satisfaction of learning from Her Majesty's Speech that our neutrality is secure. Her Majesty says:— Those endeavours have unhappily failed; and war has been declared between France and Sardinia on one side, and Austria on the other. Receiving assurances of friendship from both the contending parties, I intend to maintain between them a strict and impartial neutrality; and I hope, with God's assistance, to preserve to my people the blessing of continued peace. Her Majesty then adds:— Considering, however, the present state of Europe, I have deemed it necessary to the security of my dominions and the honour of my Crown to increase my naval forces to an amount exceeding that which has been sanctioned by Parliament. I am sure that the wisdom of this course will be at once manifest, and that Parliament and the country will cordially conour in the policy thus indicated, and will cheer- fully bear the expenses these precautionary measures may occasion.

Her Majesty further announces to us that, in consequence of the death of the King of the Two Sicilies, she has thought fit, in concert with the Emperor of the French, to renew diplomatic intercourse with the Court of Naples.

Your Lordships will, I am sure, rejoice at this announcement, though it is to be regretted that the moral effect which had been expected to be produced by the withdrawal of our Ambassador has failed to be realized.

Her Majesty is further graciously pleased to inform us that— Measures of legal and social improvement, the progress of which, in the late Parliament, was necessarily interrupted by the dissolution, will again be brought under your consideration. Such questions do not always meet with the attention they deserve, but as they are recommended by Her Majesty in Her Speech, and are unconnected with party or political feelings, I am sure that when brought forward they will receive the attention of Parliament.

I now come, my Lords, to the subject of the measure for improving the representation of the people. I think that this question must necessarily be deferred to the next Session of Parliament. And, my Lords, I must say, that I deeply regret that the Bill introduced last Session by Her Majesty's Government was not passed into a law; because that measure contained provisions which would have extended to every educated man in the country, as well as to every prudent and intelligent artizan who deposited £60 in a savings' bank, the been of the elective franchise:—certainly, this clause was peculiarly adapted to admit to the franchise such persons as, though possessed of knowledge, skill, and economy, are nevertheless passed over under the present electoral system. But, my Lords, it has been said, that the question of Parliamentary Reform is unfit to be committed to the hands of a Conservative Administration. The noble Lord the Member for London is often put forward as if he were the only person who was entitled to deal with this subject. But if he was in 1833 Paymaster of the Forces, who was Colonial Secretary? How few now on these benches opposed the Reform Bill of 1832? I see near me one honoured head (Lord Lyndhurst) who then defended the constitution from what he deemed dangerous innovation; but I see, too, before me, on the Opposition benches, many noble Lords who began life as determined enemies of Reform. Do I taunt those noble Lords with inconsistency? I do not think that a change of opinion necessarily of itself constitutes a ground of taunt or reproach—on the contrary, I think that a change of political conduct is often the severest and truest test of the honesty of statesmen. But there are two modes in which a statesman may change his opinions: one is by sacrificing principle for the sake of party, and the other by sacrificing party for the sake of principle. Mr. Burke sacrificed party to principle. The Duke of Welling, ton sacrificed party to political necessity. Sir R. Peel sacrificed party to conviction, and the name of Sir Robert Peel had now become a household word in every English home. The noble Earl, too, now at the head of Her Majesty's Government, subordinated his party to his principles, when it was sought to trench upon the property of the Irish Church, and he now sat in that House with a decided majority of their Lordships, and with an united following of more than 300 Members in the other House of Parliament. The political contests of the last months have been, except in one instance, marked by the absence of party language. In that single instance, the hon. Member for Birmingham has recently told an excited multitude that the higher classes in this country have an immediate interest in plunging the country into war. This is an assertion which may be disproved by a simple reference to the army and navy lists and to the income-tax returns. The same hon. Gentleman has also laid down the monstrous proposition that the owners and occupiers of land are sufficiently represented in this House—an assembly which can neither initiate nor even modify a measure imposing taxation. The country generally repudiates such extravagant and subversive doctrines. But without the hon. Member for Birmingham, and unless they do his bidding, the noble Lord (the Member for London) and the noble Viscount (the Member for Tiverton) are politically powerless. The question now forces itself on our notice, How is the Queen's Government to be carried on? The crisis foreseen by Lord Jeffrey has been postponed for twenty-five years by the "finality" of the noble Lord the Member for London and the Conservative tendencies of the noble Viscount the Member for Tiverton. The Reform Act of 1832 has been followed by many excellent measures of internal improvement, not a few of which have been promoted by Conservative Governments acting in obedience to that to which no Minister need be ashamed to yield—namely, the bidding of a mature, enlightened and unequivocally expressed public opinion. Many of these were seen in the measures of last year; but I trust that neither ambition nor party spirit, nor the nobler but not less dangerous motive of democratic prejudice—untaught by history, that the result of democracy is despotism—will deal a heavy blow and great discouragement to the cause of representative government in Europe and the extension of the franchise at home. My Lords, I feel much honoured in being permitted to Second the Address moved by the noble Earl.

EARL GRANVILLE

My Lords, we have often had the advantage of hearing in this House the noble Earl who moved the Address, yet I cannot but acknowledge the singularly conciliatory manner in which he has performed the duty which has been confided to him to-day; and I may also add that the noble Lord who seconded the Address, though he has not altogether refrained from attack, yet has performed his part in such a, manner that I hope he will be encouraged to take a more frequent part in the discussions of this House. The noble Earl (the Earl of Powis), directly alluding to me, has been pleased to say that I am in the habit of addressing your Lordships with ability, and without exhibiting a factious spirit. Now, although in the observations I am about to address to the House, the first quality for which the noble Earl gave me credit may be entirely absent, I trust I shall prove the justice of the noble Earl's second remark with reference to my conduct, although I must necessarily touch upon questions in my views of which I cannot expect all your Lordships to agree with me. The Speech we have this day heard from the Throne is the third which Her Majesty has been advised by Her Ministers to address to Parliament during the present year. There have been differences both with regard to the circumstances under which those Speeches have been delivered, and the topics to which they have referred; and I regret to say that the Speech we have heard to-day has been addressed to us at a far more important crisis, and under circumstances likely to lead to far graver complications than existed when Her Ma- jesty was graciously pleased to address Parliament at an earlier period of the year. In the first Speech, delivered by Her Majesty at the commencement of the last Session, one of the principal topics touched upon was Parliamentary reform. In the Speech in which Her Majesty dissolved the last Parliament the principal topic, if I remember rightly the somewhat unusual words placed in Her Majesty's mouth, amounted to an invocation to Divine Providence to give a majority to the present Government. And I am obliged to add, that in addressing that prayer Her Majesty's Ministers have not forgotten the moral of the fable—they have not played the part of the waggoner in the fable, and contented themselves with prayers alone, but they have applied their Governmental shoulders most energetically to the wheel. In the Speech which has been delivered to-day no reference is made as to whether this prayer has or has not been granted; but the noble Lord who last spoke has intimated that the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Derby) is at the head of a large majority in this House—which majority, I admit, he has taken practical means of increasing—and that he will be supported by the votes of 300 Members in the other House of Parliament. If the number be, as the noble Lord states, only 300, I apprehend the addition to the Government force has not been great, and that it is still the fate of the Government to be in a minority. I fear then it is still the intention of Her Majesty's Ministers to attempt to carry on the government of the country by a minority of Parliament; and it is to the fact of the Government having been conducted by a Ministry who were in a minority in the other House—who were not sure of the confidence of that assembly—that I attribute much of what I think every one must deplore in the management of affairs both at home and abroad. It has been an error on the part of the political leaders of the Conservative party, with regard to the course they have pursued in Opposition—and still more in Government—that they have been too anxious to please everybody. I do not belong to the Conservative party in this country. Every day I rejoice that I have consistently belonged to that Liberal party who, from my earliest recollection, have always originated and promoted—if they have not always been the persons to carry—those great measures of progress which have been placed on the Statute-book. At the same time, while I advert to the errors of their leaders, I feel a great respect for the Conservative party. I acknowledge that it has a strong hold on the sympathies of a large portion of the people of this country—that so long as its principles are well defined and its conduct is in accordance with them it possesses very great importance in the country, and I believe that the Government would at this moment have stood in a stronger position if they had applied their conservative principles with moderation and judgment, instead of going to the right and to the left, trying to outbid others in popular propositions. The noble Earl (the Earl of Derby) shakes his head; but I will venture to point out some circumstances occurring within the last year, which I think somewhat justify the assertion I have made. I will first refer to the attempts at legislation. I hardly recollect a case either during the last Session or in the previous year when—whether Her Majesty's Government submitted to Parliament their own propositions, or adopted those of their predecessors in office, signal failure was not the result. In some instances this result was undoubtedly attributable to the endeavour to court a confidence which they felt they did not possess. The India Bill of the present Government was one of the greatest failures I ever remember; and it cannot be doubted that what made that Bill so great a failure was, in a great degree, the attempt to catch classes and individuals by a popularity-seeking measure. In the same way the subject of church rates was lately brought before Parliament, and the Government were obliged to abandon their measure. With regard to the question of Reform, the noble Earl (the Earl of Powis) has argued that it is unjust to assert that the Conservative party is not the best fitted to frame a measure for the reform of the representation. Well, my Lords, all I can say is that the experiment they made in this respect proved so signal a failure that, not only everybody opposed to the Government, but everybody on the same side with the Government, who was not actually in office, agreed in giving their measure their energetic condemnation. But I may refer to another class of measures. The Bill for the abolition of the property qualification was one which, in my mind, was perfectly unobjectionable; and the only drawback to it was that sort of distrust which is created by finding a party immediately after their accession to power—passing measures to which rightly or wrongly they had, when out of office, opposed. Nothing, I think, could be more unsatisfactory in its final result than the mode in which the question of the admission of Jews to the other House of Parliament was settled last year. Nothing could have placed the Government in a falser position. In the first instance they objected to the admission of Jews on the highest religious and moral grounds, which whatever strength they may intrinsically possess must necessarily remain as strong at the present moment as they ever did; and afterwards they came forward, not with an honest measure, settling the question, but with a proposal which Gentlemen on the opposite side of the House were bound to accept, because they found that, to a greater or less extent, it would enable them to attain practically the object they had in view, but which, while it left a certain stain of bigotry on the legislation of the country, proved to be so bungling a settlement of the question as to give rise during the last week, and even before the discussions of Parliament had commenced, to something like an unseemly controversy. This style of legislation, however, is not abandoned. I see, from the very long sentence which forms the last but one of Her Majesty's Speech, that notwithstanding the experience the Government gained from one of the ablest debates I ever remember in the House of Commons, and the discussions which have taken place on the hustings, they say in effect with reference to the subject of Reform, "We have no opinions at all; we shall be ready to do one thing or the other; it is not for us to guide the House of Commons, it is for them to do what they please." The noble Earl (the Earl of Derby) shakes his head again; but it appears to me that the terms of this sentence would justify an argument either for at once proposing a settlement of the question of reform or for postponing it for a shorter or a longer period. This is one of those points upon which, in my opinion, the Government ought to decide for themselves, and I think there is no excuse for their not deciding it except the consciousness that they do not possess the full confidence of Parliament. I may refer to another subject which relates to the department of a noble Earl opposite—I mean the Transatlantic packet service. I think no more important matter can en- gage the attention of the Executive Government than that of carefully watching find administering the grants of public money. What are the facts? Mr. Cunard had applied to the late Government for an extension of his contract, and the answer he received was that the Post Office Commission had recommended that for the future no contract should be made except by public tender, and that no contract should be made for more than five years. It was thought that different circumstances might occur, new packet stations might be formed, and other changes might be brought about within five years, which might render it unadvisable to bind the country for a longer period. It happened, moreover, that Canada had made an improvident bargain to pay £50,000 per annum, and in any future arrangement it was desirable to bear that bargain in mind, with a view to economising the public expenditure. When therefore the company which held the contract applied for a renewal of the engagement, our answer set these facts before them. But, within a month after the present Government came into office Mr. Cunard's contract was revived with a very considerable extension, while the Canadian subvention was left untouched. And, after all that came the grant of £80,000 for a packet service from Ireland to America. Now, that arrangement may have been right or it may have been wrong; but it certainly does offer a very bad appearance to the public when they find that the vacant seat for the representation of that port is filled up by a gentleman who is to represent not national but particular interests. There are some other matters,—such as the removal of mail packets from Plymouth to Liverpool, and the arrangement with telegraphic companies,—which are open to observation, but as to which I will not weary your Lordships by going- into details. It certainly does appear that there has been too much facility in granting those concessions, arising from the natural fears of a weak Government desiring to obtain support in every quarter. The noble Lord who seconded the Address has spoken of a party cry being raised against the Government on account of the support which it has received in Ireland from the Roman Catholic clergy. There is no person in this House more anxious than I am that every concession should be made to the just claims of every religious denomination, whether Roman Catholic, Pro- testant Dissenter, or Jews, but I do think that when such concessions are made, it is much to be regretted that they should not be made in such a manner and at such a time as to prevent any suspicion from attaching to them of being made rather as means for obtaining political power. I think it is objectionable that gentlemen should go to the hustings boasting of the concessions which they have made in favour of Roman Catholic chaplains in the army, when the same parties a short time before had actually forced by their votes the preceding Government to rescind the very small sum granted for Roman Catholic chaplains in gaols. Motives are suggested in some of the cases I have alluded to, they are hinted at in others, and every one must feel that it would have been much better if these concessions had been quite free from all suspicion of political objects. Upon a still more important question it is believed the Government have acted upon similar motives—the great question of finance. What was the last Budget of the Government? It contained the Same seductive suggestion which would present itself to the mind of any easygoing improvident man—to postpone to a future day the evils of the present moment. But although it may suit the Government to pursue that course, I think it places the finance of this country in a very unsatisfactory light. It may be very well for a Chancellor of the Exchequer addressing his constituents to talk of the National Debt as a mere flea-bite, and to expatiate upon the pleasant prospect of our having to pay, in event of war, £20,000,000 in income-tax for twenty years,—but before we arrive at that, as I think, deplorable condition, let us consider what is the actual state of our legislation in regard to our revenue. I am very much mistaken if, after deducting the £2,000,000 which will come in from the terminable annuities, we do not find there is something like £7,000,000 a year to be made up by future legislation. I think that the system which appears so easy, of putting off all difficulties, instead of acting upon well-defined principles, will be found to lead to an eventual accumulation, which will prove a serious matter for a future Government to deal with. I now come to the consideration of foreign affairs, and I can assure the noble Earl at the head of the Department, that I have not the slightest intention of making any personal attack upon him. I believe that no man is more anxious than he is to maintain the honour and interest of his country. But I do not think it would be just or fair in me, at a moment when the noble Earl is attacked, and is likely to be still more attacked, not to point out briefly some of the points upon which I imagine censure may be imputed to him, and thus giving him an opportunity of making such a statement in this House as he may think fit. I am quite ready to admit that, in passing any judgment upon foreign affairs, we are very likely to fall into error, because of the imperfect information we possess. As to documentary evidence, furnished to us by the Government as the means of forming a judgment on these subjects, I can only remember a few papers relating to the Cagliari and the Refugee affair, on the Right of Search a few papers; the despatches so well known referring to the case of the Charles et Georges; those, with a short letter to the shipowners, pointing out the actual result of the repeal of the navigation laws, complete our information—if we except a very long letter, extending over three very closely printed pages of royal quarto, pointing out, with almost mathematical exactitude, the disadvantages of good spelling and neat handwriting. Now, as to the Cagliari affair, I admit the noble Earl showed considerable skill in bringing it to a satisfactory termination, he having the benefit of certain information which was not possessed by the late Government, and being also assisted by the favourable feeling of the late King of Naples towards a Conservative Government. Another subject which I may mention is, the controversy which arose with the United States respecting the right of search, in which the question chiefly agitated was one which did not constitute the real difficulty between this country and America, and I am sorry that in the communications which then passed the noble Earl should have represented as concessions the abandonment of principles which were never contended for by this country. This was not a satisfactory mode of settling the question, and the extraordinary despatch of Mr. Dallas, and the publication of it, shows that respect is not the feeling of the Government of the United States towards Her Majesty's present Government. In the Royal Speech we are told that our relations are perfect with all foreign Powers, and I am very glad to hear it. I may observe that I have always thought with respect to Russia, that after the war was over, and the articles of the Treaty of Paris were executed, there was no reason why this country should not be upon perfectly friendly relations, always combined with that watchfulness, which it is the duty of the Foreign Office to exercise. The present Government and especial facilities for establishing such relations, inasmuch as they were not concerned in the conduct of the late war, nor in the somewhat irritating negotiations which followed the Treaty of Paris; but I am not aware that any progress has been made, or is making, towards ascertaining the sentiments of Russia in the present disturbed slate of Europe; and it would be as surprising as it would be agreeable, if the noble Earl could now state anything satisfactory upon that point. I now come to the point of the greatest importance—that which occupies the minds of all men in this country, and throughout Europe. War is now actually raging. One of the most beautiful provinces of one of the most beautiful countries in the world is being devastated. Hundreds of thousands of men are ranged in arms against their fellow Christians to kill or to be killed, causing desolation and misery among millions. I believe there is no sentiment in which we are all more likely to agree than that this great and disastrous war is an unnecessary war. It is quite impossible as yet to foresee whether any good results may flow from it. I am quite aware that in the excitement of the moment France, whose thoughts have always been associated with military glory, has now had her aspirations renewed; that Sardinia, famous as she always has been for military courage, inspired now by the freedom which she herself enjoys, and actuated by feelings of sympathy for the suffering people of the Italian Peninsula, is anxious to be led to victory by her most heroic King, and I am sure, too, that Austria is also in a state of excitement, having a large and magnificent army celebrated for endurance under military discouragement—smarting, too, as she may be, for military reverses, and, perhaps, as I was informed, just before entering the House, inspired by more recent military successes—it is impossible at present to expect from those Powers a calm and impartial consideration of the state of affairs. If there be time for calm reflection, I think each belligerent must ask himself the question whether they have not each in different ways and in different degrees contributed to bring about this most melancholy war. If such thoughts come across the mind, I flatter myself that other reflections will occur, and that in the judgment of Europe and the verdict of history he who first shows a real desire for the renewal of peace, and makes moderate proposals to that end, will stand infinitely the highest in the estimation of mankind. Another point which interests us more closely is what position England now takes. I believe no one will contend that England has contributed to this war; hut has everything been done by Her Majesty's Government which it was possible to do to avert this calamity? As far as wishes, intentions, and zeal go, I have not the slightest doubt that the answer will be in the affirmative on the part of Her Majesty's Government; but the question is still doubtful, and can only be cleared up by the production of more numerous papers than we at present possess, whether Her Majesty's Government have shown that skill, that firmness, and that ability in dealing with an important crisis which might have given stronger hope of preventing the horrors of war. To do justice to noble Lords opposite, they have generally been frank and explicit in their declarations; but we find in their declarations on this subject many contradictions. We are perfectly ignorant at this moment whether Her Majesty's Government took any practical step before the meeting of Parliament in February, or within three weeks afterwards, to put a stop to the unfortunate state of things which then existed. There is great confusion about Lord Cowley's mission. We find that the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the last Parliament on one occasion (I forget the exact date) stated that Austria and France had agreed to evacuate the Papal States with the concurrence of the Pope, and that under those circumstances it was intended to send Lord Cowley to Vienna on a mission of peace. [Dissent from the Ministerial benches.] I am open to correction, hut those are the words reported to have been uttered by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Of course there must be some confusion, because, as far as we know, Austria and France never agreed to evacuate the Papal States, and the Pope was never asked for his concurrence, though I believe the Pope did make a demand for the withdrawal of the French and Austrian troops; but it is perfectly clear that it was not "under those circumstances" that Lord Cowley was sent to Vienna. Every one must approve a man entitled to much confidence as Lord Cow- ley being sent on a mission of that sort; but I should like to know whether there was any understanding with the Emperor of the French as to the definite objects of the mission, and whether any understanding was come to with him as to not taking any step either in war or diplomacy until the mission had arrived at some conclusion? I should also like to see, by the production of papers, whether the propositions made to Austria were reasonable, and such as Austria ought to accept—whether, having made those propositions, Her Majesty's Government applied their whole moral influence to induce Austria to accept them, and whether they failed or succeeded? We were told again, on the authority of the loader in the other House, that Lord Cowley's mission was, if not eminently, entirely successful; and if that were the case, I hope the papers, when produced, will show why, when so considerable a person as Her Majesty's representative at Paris was sent to Vienna, and succeeded in all his objects, and Her Majesty's Government stated their opinion that a Congress was an undesirable plan of settling these differences, they consented to throw over the plan which had been completely successful as far as it had gone, and to refer the whole business to a Congress. There are other matters which require some elucidation. I should like to know how far and why Her Majesty's Government advocated a system of disarmament before entering into the Congress, and how far, if at all, they yielded to the motion that it was reasonable to require Sardinia alone to disarm. All these matters can be cleared up by the papers and the explanations which the noble Earl the Secretary of State can give; and how far praise or blame attaches to the Government must depend on those explanations. But that which I am sorry to say is patent now, is that in every object which Her Majesty's Government sought, and which they told us they alone could succeed in obtaining, the failure has been as complete as it possibly could be, and I am very much afraid that if we knew anything of the state of Europe at present the result of the manner in which this business has been conducted would appear to be that we are disliked by Italy, that something like contempt is felt for us throughout the whole of Germany, and that it is very doubtful how far we have influence with the French Government. I will not go over the question which I have gone over twice before, without getting any answer, but merely express my conviction that the Government placed themselves in the greatest possible difficulty by the false step they made when they turned the late Government out of power. [Laughter.] I do think the act of turning the late Government out of power, considering the enormous blunders of the present Government, was a false step and a great mistake. But what I intended to say was, that the mode in which the present Government turned them out was one which placed them in a very disadvantageous position in their relations with other Powers, and more particularly with regard] to France. I believe that a French alliance, under certain conditions, is most desirable for this country. I believe that the Emperor of the French has been desirous of maintaining that alliance, and I believe that he is desirous of maintaining that alliance now. I believe that one of the principal reasons which have influenced him in that course—and it is the best possible reason for all alliances—has been self-interest; but I believe that other circumstances have contributed to that feeling. I believe that he has a regard for the opinion of the country in which he resided for some time; and I believe that for the last nine or ten years another consideration has had great effect with him—namely, a belief in the high character, the straightforward conduct, and the practical ability and sense of the public men of this country. If anything was ever calculated to shake that belief it was the course taken a year ago in turning out the late Government. An attempt had been made on the Emperor's life, on the life of his wife, and on the lives of persons around him. It excited great indignation. The leader of the Conservative party in this House himself suggested that the lacuna in our law! should be filled up so as to meet the case which had occurred. In the other House the leaders of the Conservative party supported that view upon the occasion of the first reading of the Conspiracy Bill. But when other persons, of perfectly different politics, opposed the Government, the favourable moment was seized for a party victory, and, on the flimsy pretence of an offensive letter not having been answered, which, in the first official communication of the noble Earl he described as not intended to be the least offensive, we saw the great Conservative party, under the guidance of their leaders, upset and destroy that Bill. I am not arguing whe- ther that Bill was right or wrong. The point now is, that the conduct of the present Government was so vacillating that it was difficult to reconcile it with good faith, and with a desire to maintain the peace of Europe, and that such conduct did make the position of the noble Earl very disadvantageous in conducting foreign affairs. I am not going to prophesy; I think he would be a rash man who made any prophecy whatever as to the final termination or probable result of the present war. I am glad to see in the Speech assurances put forward by Her Majesty's Government of their desire to maintain neutrality and keep us at peace; I think, at (he same time, that it would be an utter dereliction of duty on the part of any Government positively to declare, in the face of the world, that under all circumstances whatever we should remain neutral and maintain peace, and would clearly lead to the belligerent parties on either side not regarding our interests or wishes, and to lead to complications which, whether we wished it or not, must end in war. I dare say there are many present who have opposite views on the object and result of this war; but I have nothing to do with individual opinions. It is quite clear that it is the duty of the Government, as a Government to keep a real neutrality on this question, and then I will not say there is an impossibility of our resorting to force; but I hardly see any circumstances which would justify it. Sydney Smith, in one of his letters, states that "making war as the liberty-mongers of the whole of Europe is an attractive, but an expensive and ruinous amusement," and I think there is sense in that light manner of talking. On the other hand, it is utterly impossible for any Government to be so totally ignorant of the wishes of the country as to embark in a war for riveting the rule of a despotic State on other foreign countries which have passed under their dominion. The policy to be pursued is to remain neutral, to keep ourselves at peace, and to watch for the first opportunity when with real force and effect we may come in for the purpose of re-establishing peace, and securing better government and greater happiness in other countries. That policy is the proper one to pursue; but it requires in the application greater skill and greater firmness than Her Majesty's present advisers have hitherto exhibited. I have now, my Lords, touched—how very imperfectly I am aware —upon the various points in respect to which I believe Her Majesty's Government to be open to censure. It may be, that in consequence of my having imputed to them blame in those cases in which they seem to me to deserve it, it would be deemed only consistent that I should move an Amendment to this Address. It is not, however, my intention to take that course; and, if your Lordships will but favour me with your attention for a few moments longer, I will explain to you why it is that I have come to that determination. It has usually been the practice, upon dissolving Parliament, that the dissolution should take place upon some question on which the Government of the day happened to have been beaten. Her Majesty's present advisers did not take that course. They were beaten on the Reform Bill which they laid before the other House of Parliament; but the appeal which they made to the country they based upon the question, whether or not they possessed its confidence, and were to retain that of Parliament. An answer has been given to the appeal, and there is, I imagine, little doubt that means will, in some way, be taken in the other House to ascertain what the verdict is which the country has pronounced. In the Speech which preceded the dissolution of Parliament, blame was expressed for the course which had rendered that dissolution necessary in a tone that I never knew adopted before. I deny that that blame was in any way to be justified. We, indeed, the Members of the Liberal party, might have some reason to complain of our conduct towards one another; but, so far as Her Majesty's Government is concerned, I cannot help saying that that House of Commons, in which they were considerably in a minority, behaved towards them with the utmost fairness and forbearance. During the whole of last year, a very large section of the Liberal party supported the measures of the party opposite upon the ground—certainly not very flattering to a Conservative Administration—that they tended more to the promotion of democracy than those of any other Government. I may add, that on the only vote which was in reality taken in a decisive shape against the Ministry, and which led to the late dissolution, a very large number of Liberals gave them their support. On the subject of foreign affairs, I can only say that I think the manner in which the House of Commons acted with respect to them reflects upon that body the highest credit. I believe that the way in which on three different occasions they left in the hands of their leaders the privilege of speaking on those interesting topics, and the prudence which was then exhibited by the speakers, were not only the theme of general admiration, but afforded considerable support to the Government, and produced the greatest possible effect upon the minds of the rulers of Austria, France, and Sardinia. Her Majesty's Government, nevertheless, I admit, having been defeated, adopted a perfectly constitutional course in dissolving Parliament. The justification of the step which they took must altogether depend on the circumstances of the case. It remains to be seen whether they were right in depriving the country of that weapon which they possessed to influence foreign Courts; for we must not forget that that very last step which rendered war imminent was taken only four days after the dissolution occurred. Another question upon which the propriety of that dissolution must depend is, whether Her Majesty's Government really believed that they were likely to obtain a majority in Parliament. If they imagined that such would be the case they must, I think, have been greatly deceived in their expectations; and I certainly cannot regard it as a wise or a statesmanlike policy that they should merely seek to strengthen their party for the purposes of future opposition, instead of securing the advantages of a powerful Government. What verdict the House of Commons may pronounce upon their conduct I, of course, cannot foretell. It is at all events perfectly clear—much as we may regret that we are not ruled by the best Government—that it is of the utmost importance we should have a Government; and if the vote of the House of Commons should be adverse to the present administration, the results will not, I trust, be unsatisfactory to the country. If, upon the other hand, that vote should be in favour of Her Majesty's present advisers, I for one am prepared to say most sincerely and distinctly—and I shall be very much surprised if I am opposed by those around me—that although we on this side of the House will not abstain from watching the course of public events, yet we shall always be found ready to give our support to the Government—where support can be conscientiously given—and entirely refrain from anything like factious or embarrassing opposition. For the reasons which I have just given I hope I may stand excused—while I think there is much to blame in the conduct of Her Majesty's Ministers, and, while I deem it desirable that they should not continue in power—from calling upon this House to come to-night to a decision which can with more propriety be arrived at in the other House of Parliament, and which, whatever it may be, all real and impartial persons must be desirous should result in leaving the affairs of the country in the hands of a good Government.

THE EARL OF MALMESBURY

My Lords, although my noble Friend who has just spoken has made one of those speeches which we usually hear on such occasions as the present, and has carefully avoided discussing the subjects mentioned in Her Majesty's Speech, yet I cannot regret that he has addressed your Lordships, in as much as the observations which have fallen from him are not altogether devoid of interest. I am personally much obliged to my noble Friend for having given me fair notice of those Parliamentary attacks which I must expect, and which I shall be fully prepared to meet whenever the time for making them shall have arrived, but which I do not think it right or convenient to your Lordships that I should further advert to this evening, inasmuch as you are not in possession of that information which it is desirable you should possess before such discussions are entered upon, and which I trust to be able to lay upon the table of the House in the course of three or four clays. It is my intention to place before you at full length all the correspondence which has taken place between Her Majesty's Ministers and foreign Governments in relation to the war which has unfortunately recently broken out on the Continent, and to acquaint you with the efforts which have been made by Her Majesty's Government to prevent that calamity. The correspondence will embrace communications extending over some five or six months, and although it is somewhat lengthy, yet I have thought it better to lay it before you entire and to run the risk of its appearing somewhat tedious rather than keep back any part of it from your inspection. I shall, under those circumstances, make no defence at the present moment against the charge which my noble Friend has brought forward, to the effect that Her Majesty's Government are responsible—not indeed, he admits through want of zeal or energy, but through want of skill and ability—for not having arrested the calamity of a war in Europe. We have, at all events, my Lords, so far succeeded as to have prevented this country from being involved in the contest; nor do I think it is upon the theatre of the present war that noble Lords opposite should seek their ground of battle if they mean to make an attack on Her Majesty's Government. Before the noble Earl who has just spoken again reverts to this subject, I hope he will peruse, not only the despatches which I have written during the late negotiations, but that he will also direct his attention to those which were laid before Parliament in 1848, and in which a noble Viscount in "another place" took so prominent a part. And while giving expression to this hope, I may be allowed to say that much of what has now fallen upon my hands is due to the policy which that noble Viscount pursued in 1848, who then had a golden opportunity, such as has fallen to the lot of no other statesman, of emancipating a large portion of Italy, and rescuing it—if indeed rescue it can be called—from the oppression of which Austria is accused. My noble Friend must not forget what were called the "Italian Papers," in 1848, when he makes his attack upon mo. They will serve to point out to him more clearly what has been effected in 1859, and I am not afraid of the comparison which may be instituted between the Government of that day and Her Majesty's present Administration. I will say no more upon the subject, because were I to do so I should be addressing your Lordships upon a subject on which you are not at present called upon to express an opinion, and you could not understand allusions which I should be obliged to make; but when the noble Earl makes his attack upon me, I shall be perfectly prepared to meet it.

LORD HOWDEN

said, he should not have trespassed at all upon the attention of their Lordships upon the present occasion but that he was anxious to obtain some information on a point not only of great importance, but which gained fresh importance every day, and which appeared to him to have been studiously avoided in the Speech from the Throne. It could not have escaped their Lordships' recollection that about a month ago—he believed it was on the 3rd of May—a proclamation had been placarded all over Paris and the principal towns in Finance, which was meant to be not only an explanation of the past, but a sort of programme of the future. In that proclamation occurred the following phrase, which he should translate to their Lordships as well as he could:—"The Austrians have brought things to such a pass that they must be either masters of Italy, or Italy must be free to the Adriatic." Now, he did not quarrel with those words, though he did not understand them—that was of no consequence—but he ardently hoped that they were well understood by Her Majesty's Government. He was not about to extenuate the transgressions of Austria, but it was proper that we should know what might arise out of the punishment of those transgressions if France were to administer the punishment. The phrase which he had quoted might mean a little, or it might mean a great deal, according to the method adopted in working it out; but it was most important that that meaning should be known to the Government, and should be made known through them to the people of England. Did it mean that Lombardy and the territory up to the Adriatic was to be subjected to an Italian domination, existing in some Italian head,; or as a part of some prevalent theory? He had no objection whatever to that—he wished it might be the ease with all his heart—but he was sure it would be a matter some what difficult of execution, for when we have seen how the Constitutional System in Piedmont, that country which was to serve as a model to all the Peninsula, with the Liberty of the Press and everything belonging to a free country took flight—tenues secessit in auras—before the first explosion of a cannon, we are, in truth, not bound to place much faith in any enduring fabric of constitutional Liberty in Italy. Again, did it mean that France was to obtain a supremacy over those provinces by some new-fangled Confederation like the Confederation of the Rhine? Perhaps in these times such a scheme would not be very feasible. Was Piedmont, guided by the finger and supported by the arm of France, to obtain supremacy by a summary process of annexation, like the annexation of Massa and Carrara, respecting which he trusted the Government would furnish some information. No person in the House or out of it more sincerely wished for the freedom of Italy to her natural frontiers than he, but he did not wish to see a mere exchange of a new bad domination for an old bad domination, by the mere process of putting on new varnish and rubbing off the old. Strange things were going on at that moment. A foreign po- tentate had gone into Italy with the liberation of that country inscribed on his banner, and on his arrival there revolutions took place in some parts of that country, whilst in another part of Italy, and certainly the most interesting part—a part where, from all that had been written, from all that he had heard, and indeed from all that he had himself seen, the evils of bad domination were more grievous than in those provinces which were undergoing this so-called process of liberation, or regeneration, or whatever else it might be called—the same potentate had actually increased his force in order to prevent an expression of opinion consonant with what had taken place in other parts, and cognate to his own declaration that he had come to deliver Italy, This was a very difficult and delicate matter to touch upon, and, therefore, he would not dilate longer upon it. All he wished, in common with many of their Lordships, was to have a plain explanation of an ambiguous phrase. It might be that this phrase was only put into the document because it looked well to the eye and sounded well to the ear, which was a reason for many things that are done on the other side of the water; but after the efforts which had been made by the Government—efforts which might have been better directed, but which he believed had been honestly made—he thought he had a perfect right to know what that phrase in the proclamation meant; for if this expulsion of the Austrians from Italy was to be carried out by Piedmont, that could only be done by the assistance of a Power who was more likely to make Piedmont a department of the French Empire, what a great part of her had been before, the department, du Mont Blanc, than to treat Piedmont as an independent state. With regard to the declarations in favour of peace, he confessed he never had any confidence in them. He would not have believed them if they had been made to his Friends on that (the Opposition) side of the House, for he had a firm conviction that if it suited the ends and calculations of the Emperor of the French to enter upon war, war they would have sooner or later—perhaps after a little illusory negotiation into which he might think it decent to enter. There was another point to which he would refer. About six weeks ago a noble Lord, a Member of this House, denied in the most formal way the existence of a Russian—what should he call it?—alliance, understanding, prospec- tive convention, or whatever it was with France. It was also denied, but in a much less formal and precise way, by a Member of the other House of Parliament, both being officially connected with the Government. Now, he wished to ask the Government whether they were ready to make the same denial now?—for he had great reason to believe that for the last three weeks there had been something like an exchange of communications and consultations going on this subject which might or might not have come to the knowledge of Her Majesty's Government. As to the phrase of Prince Gortschakoff that something did exist, but that that something-was not hostile to the interests of England, he would remark that it would be much more satisfactory to them and the country if they were allowed themselves to judge of what was good or bad for the interests of England, for persons on all sides and in every part of the country might not be of the some opinion on that subject as Count Cavour, Prince Gortschakoff, and the Emperor of the French. Before sitting down he would take the liberty of giving a piece of advice to the noble Earl at the head of the Foreign Department, whom he acquitted of any premeditated intention in doing an unseemly act, or of advisedly sending abroad calumnious assertions, and ask him for his own sake, as well as for the sake of others, when he spoke of this wanton and wicked war, to abstain from alluding to the supposed expectations and adumbrated intrigues of exiled Princes, whose virtues and misfortunes ought to place them beyond the reach of such insinuations, whose position was as difficult as it was painful, but whose conduct, ever since they had been in this country in exile, had gained for them the respect of all, from the august Lady on the Throne of this land to the humblest cottagers on the banks of the Thames.

THE MARQUESS OF NORMANBY

said, he had taken no part in the discussions of this House since he had held a diplomatic appointment in Italy, and he had thought that his Parliamentary career was completely closed. Though, however, for reasons into which he need not enter, it would have been more agreeable to his feelings to have remained silent, he could not help addressing a few remarks to their Lordships on this occasion. In the speeches of his noble Friends (Earl Granville and the Earl of Malmesbury) there had necessarily been much reserve as to the state of things on the Continent, a reserve called for by the actual official position of one and the possible official position of the other; but he (the Marquess of Normanby) had no such reason for withholding a free expression of his opinions, though he might be restrained by a sense of what was due to the interests of the country. His noble Friend (Earl Granville) had stated to the House his reasons for not moving an Amendment to the address. Now having listened attentively to his noble friend he (the Marquess of Normanby) must say he thought the explanation unnecessary; for among all the points to which this noble Friend had alluded he had failed to perceive one on which it would be possible to substantiate a charge against Her Majesty's Ministers. On the subject of the late dissolution it was not his intention to trouble the House; but he was much surprised that any of his political friends should, in that act of the Government, find a justification for a constitutional attack on Her Majesty's Ministers. Indeed, from information which had reached him in another country, he believed that that dissolution had been forced on the Government. He thought it must be obvious that, after what had taken place in "another place" the noble Earl opposite had no other alternative than to dissolve. The noble Lord the member for London could not he blamed for having moved an Amendment on the second reading of the Reform Bill; and his Resolution having been carried, Her Majesty's Ministers could not be blamed for having appealed to the country. In 1841 he was the only member of Lord Melbourne's Administration who opposed a dissolution. Why did he do so? Because he did not think that there was any reasonable expectation of the Government of the day obtaining a majority by means of the dissolution, and because the divisions on which the Government had been defeated were divisions taken in their own Parliament. Lord Melbourne agreed in his opinion to a great extent, but he was not able to resist the majority of his Cabinet and the dissolution took place; but Lord Melbourne's Government were never accused of anything unconstitutional in doing so, and he should have been very much surprised if any Amendment had been moved on the present occasion, on the ground that there was any constitutional objection to the late dissolution. Again, he did not think it was sufficient ground of attack for any party to say to the existing Government, "You are in a minority in the House of Commons," unless that they could at the same time show that there was some section of politicians known to the country which was, without a compromise of those principles on which it had hitherto acted, prepared to conduct the affairs of the Empire. It was with that view he should be obliged to object to what seemed to be the line of policy adopted elsewhere by gentle-men for many of whom he had the highest personal respect. Having said so much on that subject, he should now observe that it would be very important to this country to know whether in respect of recent negotiations with foreign Powers we had been deceived or not. He believed that we had been deceived. We were told that France was not preparing for war, was not armed at all, but was merely taking measures to supply the deficiencies caused by the late war with Russia. Now, that having been told to us, we could not have expected to find that in, he might say, a few hours, large masses of troops, some of whom were on the African service, had been collected within a short distance of the Italian frontier. They were informed, moreover, that the deliberations of the proposed Congress, were to be conducted with due respect for the treaties of 1815, and yet—here he spoke from personal knowledge—the very next day after the arrival of the French Fleet at Genoa a conspiracy, which had been hatched under the protection of the diplomatic flag of Sardinia, broke out in Florence, and the Sovereign of the country, who held his Crown under the sanction of those treaties, and who only desired to maintain the neutrality to which he was bound by treaty, was expelled from his capital. Similar attempts, but without success, in Modena and Parma, followed the landing of the French in Italy; and subsequently a French Prince, with a corps d'armée, arrived in the port of Leghorn, and issued a proclamation. Some excuse for this visit was necessary; and what was the cause assigned by Prince Napoleon for his extraordinary expedition? He was sent to Leghorn, he said in his proclamation, for purely strategical purposes; but any military officer could tell him that the only strategical object which his presence in Tuscany could serve was to keep him as far as possible from the seat of war. But if his expedition had no real strategical object, it might have an important dynas- tic and political object. We had heard of a secret understanding with Russia, and he had heard, that though not in the same terms, that understanding was founded on the treaty of Tilsit, one of the clauses of which declared that the Mediterranean should become open only to the Powers bordering upon that sea; that clause, if carried into effect, would gravely affect British interests, for its execution would begin with the expulsion of the English from Malta, Gibraltar and the Ionian Islands. Had any progress been made in the realization of that project? He need only mention the acquisition of Villafranca by Russia, and the fact that not only was the port of Genoa at present in the hands of the French, but that French officials had taken a lease of some buildings for three or four years. The French also held Civita Vecchia, another step in advance. Their Lordships knew that before the death of the late King of Naples a dispute arose between certain members of the Royal Family as to the succession to the throne. At that time the Grand Duke Constantine happened to be in Naples, and he was applied to for support by the Duke of Calabria and his party. The Grand Duke answered, as he was informed, "We are always for legitimate succession, and therefore we will support you; but, remember, what we most want is a port in the Adriatic." Such was another step towards the monopoly of the Mediterranean contemplated by the Treaty of Tilsit. Nor was that all. Venice was blockaded by a French fleet, and Trieste was and would continue to be treated in the same way. England, therefore, ought to be upon her guard, and while preserving a strict neutrality ought to show no sympathy with the purposes or persons implicated in the transactions to which he had referred. The noble Lord the Member for Tiverton, at a private meeting of his party, had expressed his earnest sympathy with the Italians, and upon the occasion of his election he used these words, "I trust before the end of the campaign Austria will be expelled from Lombardy." Yet the noble Lord must know that in every one of the proclamations recently issued by the French the words "Italian freedom" were omitted. It was true that "Italian Independence" still remained; but the independence referred to meant the result of assistance given by a great Power which Europe had formerly endeavoured to exclude from the soil of Italy, This speak- ing lightly of the treaties of 1815 came with a singular ill-grace from the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton, who of all living statesmen in England was the only one who had art and part in their formation. Some of the provisions of those treaties might at first have been rather strained and arbitrarily applied; but the Government of this country had always held itself bound and pledged to their stipulations, and the noble Viscount to whom he had referred had been many years in office while they were in force. In speaking, however, in the way he had done he was speaking against his own personal sympathies. He had had much more personal connection, in his diplomatic career, with France and Italy than with any other part of the world, and entertained the most agreeable recollections in reference to both. He had assisted (using the French sense of the word) at many painful scenes incident to the change of Government in France, and he must always bear his grateful testimony to the manner in which the present ruler of that country had received him while discharging his official functions as British Ambassador. He had taken a different view of some questions from that entertained by that illustrious Prince—as it was natural that an Englishman should—and he had always fully avowed that difference of opinion, and yet he was bound to say that that circumstance had not caused the slightest change in the nature of their intercourse. His (the Marquess of Normanby's) conduct of affairs at Florence had also convinced the Tuscans that he had the interests of Italy at heart. But the question arose, how had all this complication of affairs in Europe come upon us in the year 1859? and why was it that arrangements which had lasted during the entire existence of many of us should at length, under the encouragement received from an illustrious Ally, have become intolerable to the Italians? He recollected the first attempt at revolution in 1821. He had resided in Italy two years before that, and he was aware of all the springs which moved that enterprise. He was also residing at Milan in 1830; and he must say the circumstances which attended the outbreak which then occurred there had greatly damped his expectations of any advantage being derived to Italy from the exertions of the Italians themselves. In the month of March or the beginning of April, 1848, Marshal Radetzky was driven out of Milan by an insurrection, and King Charles Albert was proclaimed, the proclamation being ratified by a soi-disant popular election. Yet King Charles Albert was soon afterwards driven from the town of Milan, and hooted by the very population which had supported him. In the present case, then, England ought to be careful how it showed the sympathy which we must all be supposed to feel for a patriotic cause unless we were convinced that the contest was really the result of a patriotic movement, and was not part of a great scheme of personal ambition from which the rest of Europe might suffer. In certain publications which were conducted with great talent in this country, it was stated that no proof had been given that all the present complication arose from the aggressive proceedings on the part of Sardinia during the last few years. He could give some examples to show that the accusation against Sardinia was not entirely without foundation. When Sardinia joined in the war in the Crimea the question naturally occurred to everybody, except those who were glad of her assistance, what could her object be? The war in the Crimea was not a war of nationality, or a war of sentiment. If anything, it was rather a war for the balance of power, and for objects purely political. There was no freedom to be conferred upon anyone. Still Sardinia joined the western Powers and sent a large contingent to the war, and was accordingly admitted to the Congress of Paris. At that Congress she made a proposition which, to a certain extent, was listened to in a manner which rather surprised him. But it was also transmitted to Italy by the French Government, and became the subject of discussion among all those best acquainted with the state of Romagna. In the month of June, 1856, while this proposition was the subject of debate in the Sardinian Chamber, the Marquis Massimo d'Azeglio, a very eminent authority on such a question, said that Count Cavour, while professing to establish order and concord, was sowing the seeds of discord and rivalry; and he advised that statesman not to be in a hurry to do anything, pointing out that he would probably only provoke bloodshed and premature revolution, and throw back for years all chances of practical improvement. The same wise counsellor advised Count Cavour not to disturb the action of time, but to let it do its work. This was sensible and wise advice. But the conduct of Sardinia to the neighbouring Duchies was systematically irritating. An extradition treaty existed between Modena and Sardinia; but three priests, who were Modenese subjects, having been murdered in the Sardinian territories, and the Duke of Modena, having applied for the extradition of the assassins, the request was refused. A second application met with a similar refusal, and the Duke of Modena, in complaining of the non-execution of the treaty, said, "This is the first time I ever heard assassination is not murder when it is connected with treason." He mentioned this fact, in consequence of statements which had been published in this country, to show the constant provocation on the part of Sardinia, and because as Austria had been so strongly condemned these facts would go to show to some extent that she had not acted without provocation. He could state from his own personal knowledge what was the nature of the popularity of the Piedmontese Government, which has been cited as a model Government. At the period of the last elections in Sardinia he was in company with a number of Piedtnontese subjects, of different political opinions, and in conversation on the political progress of the Sardinian Government, one of these gentlemen said,—"If you put on one side all the Sardinian Government have done that they ought to have left undone, and on the other side all they have not done that they ought to have done, you will find a very trifling balance on the one side or the other." Within the last few days a suggestion has been made for the transfer of the Duchies of Parma and Modena to the kingdom of Sardinia; but did their Lordships believe that the happy and contented population of those duchies would be ready to acquiesce in such an arrangement? Probably their Lordships might not be aware of the different rate of taxation in those States. While the taxation of Sardinia was nearly 55 per cent the taxation of the Duchy of Parma was only 8 per cent, and that of Modena was still less. In Piedmont, too, the taxes were levied in the most arbitrary manner, and the personal freedom of a man's saying what he liked was unknown there. In the course of last winter some strong opinions against the marriage of an illustrious member of the Royal family of Sardinia were expressed by the members of a club which was composed of persons of high position. These opinions came to the knowledge of Count Cavour, who threatened to close the club if such language was any longer held by its members. He thought, then, that there were a great many facts to be examined before they could decide on the expediency of altering the settled Governments of Italy. Immediately after the expressions used by the Emperor of the French at the beginning of the year, and the speech of the King of Sardinia at the opening of the Piedmontese Chambers, meetings of the party called "Constitutionalists" or "Piedmontese," began to be held at the house of the Sardinian Minister in Tuscany, and a set of pamphlets were circulated among the subjects of the Grand Duke by the persons attending these meetings, which did not do justice to the intellectual vigour of the Italians, for although treasonable enough, they were remarkably feeble. Then, when the King of Sardinia raised a loan, money in profusion was sent into Tuscany to encourage the enrolment of volunteers, and their Lordships had no conception of the intrigue and corruption which were practised in endeavouring to induce the Tuscan troops to enter the service of Sardinia. On the evening of the 26th of April, when it was known that the French fleet with troops on board had appeared off Genoa, about 15,000 people, not one of whom was decently clad, wandered about the streets of Florence uttering seditious cries and overawing the respectable inhabitants. He had heard it imputed to the Grand Duke that he gave orders for the bombardment of Florence, and knowing how inconsistent it was with the character of the Grand Duke, and with the facts themselves, he felt it to be his duty to give a complete and authentic denial to that statement. He was informed by the hereditary Grand Duke that not only was no such order ever given, but none had ever been meditated. The whole story arose from the fact that when the safety of the ducal family was threatened, they retired into the palace of the Belvidere, and gave orders to have the gates closed against the mob. He had also heard various accounts of the disposition of the Tuscan troops in favour of the Government of Piedmont; but in fact it was so unfavourable that he had heard that the men had mutinied, and that the Piedmontese had threatened them with decimation. Those troops owed allegiance to the Grand Duke; they were deluded by false promises, but they afterwards regretted their conduct, and then it was the threat of decimation was held out. He had also seen the Duchess of Parma during her temporary withdrawal from her territory; but the measures taken during her absence had been such as to lend to her return to a country where she had since her husband's death exercised the Government in a satisfactory manner. At the present moment it would be well to bear in mind the. opinion entertained by the Emperor Napoleon 1. of the Italians—although he (the Marquess of Normanby) did not concur in that opinion. In the Memoirs of Prince Eugene Beauharnais, recently published in Paris, of course by permission, there was a letter from Napoleon I., in which he said of the Italians, "Do not let them forget I am master. Italians will only obey the voice of a master, and will esteem you in proportion as they fear you. Your system must be simple—l' Empereur le veut—and you must never depart from it." He hoped this country would evince a firm determinatiom at the proper time to resist any scheme for universal dominion. He hoped, too, the Government would not overlook the spirit of Germany, which, from his personal knowledge, he could declare was completely unanimous. Any attempt at divided sympathies might lose us the friendship and esteem of the whole of Germany. It was boasted at Paris that within three weeks they would have Lord Palmerston at the head of the English Government, and that England would then enter into their policy; but certainly, looking at the last transactions of the noble Lord with regard to the external policy of France, he did not think the noble Lord was the proper person to be at the head of the English Government at this moment. The coup d'état was un fait accompli. The people of France acquiesced in the rule of their Emperor, and we had nothing to do with it. But at this conjuncture we ought not to have, as the Minister of England, a statesman who had given express approbation to that act. As to the question asked by the noble Seconder of the Address, how the Queen's Government was to he carried on, they had heard much of a certain combination of parties, and therefore it must not be forgotten that the first subject which would occupy a new Administration would be Reform, and with it the ballot. He honoured and respected opinions, whatever they might be; but he said that whenever a majority of the Cabinet gave their consent to that proposition a great blow would be struck at the manliness of the British character. He believed that the ballot became of much greater consequence as the external dangers of the country multiplied, and that no nation who had not honesty and courage enough to express their opinions without being sheltered behind a ballot-box would ever make those efforts which might he required in times of urgent difficulty. He had long felt that his political career was over, and therefore his opinion signified very little; but he thought it would be a disadvantage to displace the Government until those who would succeed to power had shown more unity of purpose. He did not wish to see as Prime Minister a statesman who had declared that Austria must be driven out of Lombardy. He did not entirely approve of Austrian government, and he could show from despatches that he was far from doing so. The Austrians had not the art to make the worse appear the better cause, and sometimes they unfortunately made the better appear the worse. But he thought it was a country which we could trust, and he entirely agreed with the noble Earl (the Earl of Ellenborough), who, when he spoke at Cheltenham the other day, said it was a country from which we had received great services. Therefore he said, "Keep out of the war, and do not place at the head of the Government a Minister who has expressed sentiments inimical to rights we have ourselves, by treaty, conferred." At such a crisis as this, both in our internal affairs and in our external relations, he should wish to be assured of the means of carrying on the Government before he could consent to turn out the Ministers now in office; and, looking at the persons who were proposed to succeed them, if it were put to the vote, he, for one, should give his vote in favour of Her Majesty's present Government.

THE EARL OF CARLISLE

said, he did not rise with any intention of entering upon the wide field of general topics which a debate upon the Address must always lay open to discussion, and that extensive ground had already been eloquently and satisfactorily travelled over by his noble relative (Earl Granville). The general question of foreign affairs and of our foreign policy must be without doubt the most interesting and important of any that could now stimulate public attention. He so entirely concurred in the policy announced in the Speech from the Throne, and in the opinion which was generally, he might say unanimously, entertained by all the leading statesmen of this country, including Lord Palmerston, that we should observe a strict neutrality, that it would be quite superfluous for him to address their Lordships on that subject. But he might be permitted to say that he felt sure that Lord Palmerston admitted as fully as any man, and would maintain, the policy and the duty of keeping this country aloof, under every possible circumstance which did not affect its honour, from what had been so well described as the wanton, wicked, and bloody war that was now desolating the fairest regions of Europe. The impartiality of the noble Marquess who had just sat down could not be admitted when he hinted that Lord Palmerston would not be actuated by impartiality in his feelings or conduct towards the belligerent Powers, There was a real and honest determination on the part of the leading men of all parties in this country to keep us to the strict letter of neutrality; and it would be wholly superfluous for him to add any words of his to that general declaration. He would allude to one matter connected with the issue of the late general election and the present position of political parties, which assumed a particular interest to him, on account of his having been more than once closely connected with the affairs of Ireland. He was specially induced to do so by some expression which had dropped from the noble Seconder of the Address, who spoke with an ability and candour which every one must have recognized, and with a special courtesy which beyond all men he (the Earl of Carlisle) must appreciate. He did not wish to cast the smallest imputation on the Executive Government of Ireland, still less upon the accomplished nobleman who had succeeded him in the office of Lord Lieutenant; but in the course of the late elections he (Lord Carlisle) could not help observing, for the first time—certainly for the first time to the same extent—an approximation to cooperation—and, he might almost say, to a coalition—between those who held extreme Protestant and Roman Catholic opinions. The noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Derby) having appealed to the country in order to ascertain whether the Government which he had once headed and adorned, still possessed the public confidence, must have been gratified to find that his continuance in office was made the rallying cry alike of Protestant Enniskillen and Roman Catholic Waterford. At first sight this might appear to be a triumphant testimony to the fairness and impartiality of the conduct of Her Majesty's present advisers. For his own part, however, having during the whole of his public life been connected with that party which was identified with the support of the Roman Catholic claims, and having made his first speech in Parliament on a Motion, the object of which was to give effect to those claims, he felt in no respect disheartened or rebuked by the unwonted junction which had recently been exhibited in Ireland. If he could suppose the Roman Catholic Church either dominant or jointly established with some other Church in this country, he could imagine that in such a case the Roman Catholic priesthood and the members of that faith would be found allied with the Tory, Conservative, stationary, and anti-progressive party—call it what they might—as they were allied to that party in all the old-established Roman Catholic Governments of Europe. But so long as the English or Irish Roman Catholic Church was sustained by the voluntary support of its own members, and so long as it saw placed above it another Church in the enjoyment of the ostensible favour and temporal endowments of the State, so long—or at least so long as no complication arose, abroad rather than at home, to disturb the ordinary course of events—so long, he felt persuaded, the great bulk of that Church—and the remark applied to the laity, perhaps, more than the clergy—would find their natural place amongst that party which at all times, and under all circumstances—when their friendship did not contribute to the attainment of power, but rather to popular and royal alienation, and to long exclusion from office—maintained the great principle that religious opinions ought not to be a bar to the enjoyment of civil rights or privileges. To that principle the party to which he (the Earl of Carlisle) belonged had always adhered; whether with regard to the Roman Catholics or the Protestant Dissenters, the Quakers or the Jews; and although by fighting their battles they had exposed themselves to great obloquy, grievous misrepresentations and protracted proscription, it had invariably happened that in the end they found their principles adopted and their opponents becoming their most faithful imitators.

THE EARL OF EGLINTON

said, he had no intention of taking part in the discussion of that evening until he heard the observations which had fallen from the noble Earl who had just spoken (the Earl of Carlisle), and in reply to which he felt called upon to address a few observations to the House. He had, he was ready to admit, read in the public journals, in common with all their Lordships, the statement that some unholy compact existed between himself, the members of the Executive Government in Ireland, and Cardinal Wiseman and the Roman Catholic party generally. It gave him great pleasure to hear that repeated in their Lordships' House in a tangible form, inasmuch as he was thereby afforded an opportunity of giving to it at once, in the most emphatic terms in which he could express himself, a distinct denial. He had then no hesitation in asserting that there had not been on his own part, or on the part of any Member of the Executive Government in Ireland, the slightest compact, arrangement, or understanding expressed or implied, or of any sort or any kind whatsoever. Nay, more, he had never had the slightest communication, either directly or indirectly, with any Roman Catholic either before, during, or after the general elections, on the subject of the noble Earl's remarks. He had, indeed, heard it stated as a proof that a compact had been entered into between himself and Cardinal Wiseman, that he had attended a Roman Catholic bazaar, and had spent a few pounds in aid of the funds of the charity which it had been set on foot to promote. Now, he would appeal to his noble Friend the late Foreign Secretary, to the noble Earl who had just spoken, and to another noble Lord whom he did not see in his place at that moment, to say, whether during the period of their stay in Ireland they had not all attended the bazaar to which he referred in aid of the funds of the Society of St. Vincent de Paul? When he went to Ireland in 1852 he was informed that that society was one of a dangerous and proselytizing description, and was pressed not to attend it. He, however, investigated the matter, and found that the society was not one which had been set on foot for proselytizing purposes, but was devoted to the indiscriminate relief of both Protestants and Roman Catholics, and he, therefore, attended the bazaar in 1852 and in 1858, as well as in the course of the present year. If such attendance were proof of a compact between him and Cardinal Wiseman that proof existed in 1852 as well as in 1859. The subject, however, was one on which it would be ridiculous any longer to waste their Lordships' time. He went to Ireland to govern not a party, but a country, and while he was determined to uphold the Protestant religion in all its integrity, he should not, at the same time, be deterred from the performance of acts of social courtesy or charity, either by the bigotry of one religious sect or the taunts of another.

LORD BROUGHAM

said, it appeared to him that the Speech from the Throne had been framed in strict accordance with the maxim which said, "Look at everything and touch nothing." Nor was there anything in the speech of the noble Seconder of the Address, able and distinguished as it was, which tended to throw much light upon the topics with which the Royal Message dealt. The speech of his noble Friend was, it was true, not a little marked by pugnacity towards his (Lord Brougham's) noble Friends near him; but he should re-mind the noble Lord that those who lived in glass houses or conservatories should not throw stones. But passing over the speech of his noble Friend, he should invite their Lordships' attention to the most serious subject by which it could be occupied—he alluded to the war which was now unhappily raging on the Continent, and the cruel slaughter which was there being perpetrated, without the shadow of a pretence—he ought not, perhaps, to say without the shadow of a pretence, for the contest had been entered into under the false pretence—a fact which rendered it still more odious—of favouring the cause of Italian liberty. He knew he might be child by those who called themselves the champions of national independence; but for his own part, he did not wish to see national independence and the cause of liberty thus prostituted. And how was this war viewed by our neighbours on the other side of the Channel? At the outset they complained, and justly complained, of being plunged into this war; but when it was actually begun, the high spirit of Frenchmen, the gratification of their national pride, and (though this might seem a small matter) of their curiosity, induced the multitude to favour it for the present, though the best informed remained as much opposed to it as ever. They complained of the manner in which they had been drawn into this war, and traced it to the abandonment of free institutions and the adoption of an arbitrary form of government. They supposed it to have been engaged in partly from personal motives, partly from family speculation, partly from alliances gratifying to family pride, Scilicet, ut Turno contingat regia conjux, Nos, animæ viles, inhumata infletaque turba, Sternamur campis. And they thought that if they had retained their free constitution and liberty of discussion they would not have been exposed to the sufferings in store for them. It might be that a free constitution would have restrained the French rulers from such rash proceedings; but in Piedmont we saw a country which, to the great glory of its statesmen and princes, had established a constitutional Government, shaking off the trammels of Rome as well as absolute Government at home, and yet it was to that country we must look for the origin of the war. The original domicil of the war was not France but Sardinia. It was the maxim of a great Roman lawyer and judge that when he saw any great crime committed the test he applied in order to discover the offender was, cui bono?—who profited by it? Now, to this greatest of all crimes—war—he applied the test of Cassius, and asked who was to profit by it? Sardinia. France would be no gainer; at least, he thought not. He well knew that promises and professions from high quarters cost little, so that men were apt to take them at what they cost. It was not, therefore, because he really trusted these professions and promises, but because he thought there were so many overruling reasons why France could get nothing by the war, that he believed France would not attempt to take anything by it. With regard to the rulers of France he disapproved the bandying about of such epithets as "false, fraudulent, tyrannical," which were sometimes used in this country; because, in the first place they might be quite unjust, and also because be was sure they were very impolitic. It was commonly said of a woman who kept in the right path rather from regard to public estimation than from any high principle, that if you gave her a bad name it was odds but she earned it. Now, he could not help saying the same of the personages to whom he was alluding, who, if called by such epithets, might very likely so conduct themselves as to deserve them. But a word as to the object of the war, which was said to be the liberation of Italy and the establishment of Italian nationalty. Did anybody believe for one moment that it was really undertaken for the purpose of driving out Austria because Austria had maltreated her Italian subjects? For himself no man was more desirous of seeing Austria removed from Italy, and the Italian States working out their own independence; but he did not want to see them transferred from one master to another. He did not wish to see them transferred to Piedmont under the pretence that Piedmont was Italian, and that by giving Lombardy and Venice to Piedmont you would be freeing a great portion of Italy. As well might it be said that if you gave certain of the small German Principalities to Prussia or Austria you would aid the cause of German freedom or nationality. In point of fact it would be simply pillage, it would be taking the property of one Power to give to another, and more hateful even than the act itself would be the false pretence that you were doing this in the name of Liberty. For ages past Lombardy had been in the possession of Austria, and since 1815 it had, together with Venice, been guaranteed to her by treaty. He had been reminded of the part which he had taken in this question in 1815. But in 1817, too, he had attacked Lord Castlereagh, and the front of his attack was that that Minister had abandoned the principle, the policy, and the pledges of this country by giving up the free Republic of Genoa to the Monarch of Sardinia. Sardinia had now the same right to Genoa that Austria had to the Venetian part of her Italian possessions, and both dated from the same period. Had he ever dreamed of attacking that title at a later time? He made the charge two years after the event, but now the circumstances were materially different. Forty years had elapsed, and when there had been such long possession, the soundest principle of foreign policy and of international law was not to scrutinize too nicely the question of title. He would take an instance. There was no crime in the history of nations more outrageous than the partition of Poland, and yet nobody thought of interfering with that arrangement, although its prescription was only twenty years longer than that by which the Venetian territory was held by Austria and Genoa by Sardinia. Austria, he admitted, was greatly to blame in many respects, but principally for the encroachments she had made since 1815. She had made treaties with small independent States, by which they had allowed themselves to be absorbed in their more powerful neighbour; and the other Powers had a right to object to those treaties notwithstanding the assent by which the absorption took place. If there had been a Congress he believed that Austria might have been persuaded to abandon the undue influence which she had thus acquired since 1815; and he could not help hoping that in the course of the negotiations which might arise at any moment a recurrence might be had to the proposition made by Prince Metternich many years ago, to give up Lombardy, not to Piedmont, but to an Austrian prince, converting it into a separate State. If that were done, a great good would be accomplished, and he thought that Austria herself would be relieved from a grievous burden. There was one point which filled him with considerable alarm. A succession of brilliant victories might encourage the French army—for he had much less apprehension of the Emperor than of his soldiers—to undertake expeditions of a still more reprehensible character than the present. He believed that the army would force him onwards much further than he was disposed to go, and therefore he must confess he viewed its progress with considerable alarm. He did not counsel any distrust, for the Emperor had been throughout our faithful ally, and we had no reason to expect him to be otherwise now. Considering, however, his position, with a vast army eager to distinguish itself, and without the check of a free Parliament or a free press, and a free expression of public opinion, while we ought not to be mistrustful or suspicious we ought to be upon our guard. Nothing could be more clear than the absolute necessity of largely increasing our navy, and he earnestly trusted that the measures which had been taken to increase the number of our seamen and to improve their quality might be completely successful. We should then be safe in all possible contingencies. He hoped also that facilities might be given—stimulus was not required—to the formation of volunteer corps. He did not advocate a general arming of the people, nor had he any desire to do away with the distinction which existed between an English mob and a French mob, between a mob of simple citizens and a mob one-half of whom had served in the army; but he thought that if the proper arrangements were made and proper qualifications secured, a vast number of rifle corps might be established throughout the country, and he believed that very great advantage would accrue from them. But there was another thing wanted. We wanted a strong Govern- ment—a Government capable of inspiring awe and wielding the influence of England with vigour and effect. Any supporter of the present Government who reckoned upon the division of their adversaries might say as the Roman patriot did on the decline of the empire—"Maneat quæso duretque gentibus, si non amor nostri, at certe odium sui; quando lubentibus tandem imperii fatis non nisi hostium discordia servabimur." But he wished Ministers to be strong from their own intrinsic strength. If he turned to his noble friends behind him exactly the same difficulty occurred. Suppose anything were to cause a change of Government, and they were in office, then the discord would be intramural; at all events, the Government would be feeble, however it might be formed, if composed of one party, or of a combination of small parties. Was it wholly impossible, in the greatest peril perhaps that England had ever encountered, and in the greatest opportunity that a strong and united Government could have for giving peace to the world, that there should be a general combination of the heads of all parties to form a stable and powerful Administration? He recollected the magnanimity which was shown by the statesmen of 1804, when danger arose from the successes of the French armies and the Continent. Fox, Pitt, Wyndham, Grenville, and Grey, were all ready to sacrifice their personal, private, and party feelings, and to co-operate in forming a real, solid, and substantial Government. In 1792, Mr. Fox was most anxious for a coalition with Mr. Pitt on account of the dangers of the then threatening war. But in 1804 the clouds had thickened, the danger was nearer, the urgency of the case greater, and he was still more determined and more anxious to make sacrifices. When the objection of the King to Mr. Fox put an end to the hopes of a coalition, and Mr. Pitt came into power, the expression of the latter to his friends was, "Fox has behaved like an angel." He had magnanimously offered even to undertake an embassy at a foreign Court until the King's prejudices were removed, so deep was his sense of the gravity of the crisis. We might not aspire to imitate the genius of those great men of past times, but we could at least look to the example they had set us of virtue—of that political selfdenial which the present conjuncture imperiously demanded. There was this difference between the crisis of 1792 and the present, that at this time no question had arisen of conducting a war. The question was as to conducting a negotiation; and for this purpose a Government such as he had described, combining in its ranks the greatest statesmen of the day, would frown down all resistance, and carry with it the support of all parties in both Houses of Parliament.

THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGH

My Lords, I so entirely agree with what has fallen from my noble and learned Friend, that I cannot refrain from expressing the concurrence of my sentiments with his. I had wished at an early period in this debate to say what has just been said by him with so much more weight. It is a matter of general agreement, that during the dangers which may result to this country from the continuance of this war, we should take the very first opportunity of interposing with our friendly offices for the restoration of peace. My Lords, I hold that our intervention with any prospect of success is utterly without hope, unless we first make ourselves unattackable here at home, and also have such a naval and military force at our disposal as may enable us, in case of necessity, to interfere with effect. What we want besides that is a strong Government; and unless we first have a strong Government, I see not how we can prepare a naval and military force sufficient for our requirements. My Lords, Parliament was dissolved to give us a strong Government. I look to the Reports in the newspapers, and I find that the result is not that which was expected by Her Majesty's Ministers, and that they have not a majority in Parliament. The issue of the dissolution has been this:—it has to a great extent equalized the strength of parties, and by doing so it has thrown back the hopes of a strong Government. But, further, that Motion to be made in the House of Commons which was sketched by the noble Earl opposite who spoke early in this debate, and which I am informed has since been made, is of all measures the one most calculated to put an end to the chance of a strong Government, for it exasperates animosities. In what position then, my Lords, are we? On whichever side the victory falls, how is a strong Government to be formed? If Her Majesty's Ministers have a small majority, it may preserve them as a Ministry—not as a Government—for a short period; but what they require is a majority such as will give them the means of carrying on Government. The bringing together on one occasion of a sufficient number of Members to place them in a majority on a vote of confidence is of little or no effect for that purpose. On the other hand, if the Gentlemen on the Opposition side succeed in the division, how are they to form a strong Government? The present Ministry have depended hitherto, and no doubt justly, on the dissensions among their opponents. Their opponents, if they got into power, will have to do as they have done before—namely, rely upon the patriotism of those whom they have displaced to defend them against the attacks of those of their own friends of extreme opinions, whose principles they detest as much as any man on this side of the House, and yet of whose services they are compelled to avail themselves to effect their present object. But I must tell noble Lords on the other side that it will not always happen that there will be found in the House of Commons a Sir Robert Peel sufficiently generous to throw his shield over those who have ejected him from office; and it is almost too much for them to expect that if Mr. Disraeli is ejected from office with his 300 friends behind him, he will throw his ægis over them and enable them to conduct the Government. How, then, can we obtain a strong Government? I agree entirely with what the noble Earl on the other side said at the commencement of this discussion as to the evils of an attempt to govern with a minority. I know what those evils are, because I had once the misfortune of serving in a Ministry which had imposed upon it the duty of endeavouring to conduct the Government with a minority. The Administration of Sir Robert Peel met the House of Commons with a minority after the dissolution in 1834. If any man could have carried on the government with a minority it was Sir Robert Peel. I recollect well when he had to content himself with occasional majorities in his favour with a general majority against him; and he told us that from the first he had foreseen the impossibility of conducting the government of the country with a minority, and that he felt the mischief of continuing a struggle which was impairing the authority of the Crown. My Lords, I go further and say that even if a Government have a majority, but not a considerable majority, that, too, is productive of great disservice to the State. What would be its effect? The people look to their Ministers as gentle- men in whom they desire to place confidence, and whose duty it is to lay before Parliament the measures which they conscientiously approve. It is impossible that a weak Government can lay before Parliament the measures which they conscientiously approve. They are compelled to consider what measures nearest resembling those which they approve they can submit to Parliament with the hope of their acceptance by a majority. It is a continuance of something which approaches deception upon the people. The people believe them to be the measures of the Government. They cannot be their measures; they must bear at least as much of the impress of the mind of the Opposition as of the mind of the Government. This, my Lords, is a very great public misfortune. Before Sir Robert Peel decided on the dissolution to which I have referred, although he had the entire confidence of a great party, although he was supported by a very large body of persons throughout the country, although he had very good reasons for supposing that he might obtain a, majority in the new Parliament, yet he thought it consistent with his duty, he thought it imperatively required from him, to endeavour to strengthen his Government by seeking the aid of gentlemen who had the confidence of other sections of the House of Commons. My noble Friend at the head of the Ministry knows that Sir Robert Peel was not successful in the appeal which he made; but the result of it, though it failed, was that he stood much better with the country than he would have done if he had not taken that course. I wish noble Lords, and hon. Gentlemen in the other House, would look back, as I have done, to the debates of the House of Commons in 1784 and to the history of that period. They will find that at that time a large body of gentlemen, nearly seventy in number, including most respectable and influential Members of the House of Commons, met at the St. Alban's Tavern, and there framed resolutions urging upon the leaders of both parties that they should abandon all personal and party feelings, and should combine for the general support of a strong Government of the country. A resolution to this effect, moved by the chairman of that meeting, was, though opposed by Mr. Pitt, adopted unanimously by the House of Commons, and ultimately both parties came to this conclusion—that the King should be advised to express an earnest desire that the Duke of Portland, who possessed the confidence of the Opposition, should have a personal interview with Mr. Pitt, with the object of forming an Administration on a wide basis upon fair and equal terms. Unfortunately upon that one word "equal" the whole negotiation fell through, and Mr. Pox did not return to office until Mr. Pitt had ceased to exist, twenty-two years after. But observe further—and I believe my noble and learned Friend (Lord Brougham) will bear me out in the statement—that at no period of their lives did either of these two great men think it inconsistent with his public duty or his private honour to unite for the support of the public interests. [Lord BROUGHAM: Hear, hear!] And I have reason to know that, in 1804, when Mr. Pitt succeeded to the Government, having, I have no doubt, without any personal communication cooperated with Mr. Fox in throwing out Mr. Addington, Mr. Fox was perfectly satisfied with the conduct of Mr. Pitt, and said that he had behaved honourably towards him. [Lord BROUGHAM: Hear, hear!] The difficulty was not with Mr. Pitt, but with the King. I hope, therefore, that noble Lords here, and hon. Gentlemen in the other House, will read the history of that period, and will derive instruction from it; and I do trust that in the midst of the dangers we are about to encounter—dangers I would not exaggerate, but which I feel deeply—no personal feeling whatever will deter any man from taking the position which his public duty points out to him.

THE DUKE OF ARGYLL

I am glad, my Lords, that the speech of the noble Earl, who has just sat down, has recalled our attention to Home affairs; for, when I rose a few minutes ago along with the noble Earl, it was for the purpose of respectfully expressing to the House a doubt whether the direction which the debate had been taking on foreign affairs was precisely such as was most conducive to the neutrality of England or the peace of Europe. The noble Earl has said that if we desire to preserve our neutrality, and to render it useful or effective, we must be armed. My Lords there is another condition equally necessary, and that is that we should preserve at least some appearance of impartiality of opinion. How is it possible that the position of England can really be accepted as neutral, or her influence in that capacity be exerted with success, if all those who speak in Parliament take so entirely, as noble Lords have done to-night, the side of one of the belligerents, to the prejudice of all that may justly and truly be said on the other side. I do not wish to prolong the discussion which has arisen on foreign affairs, but I am bound to say, since so much has been already said, that I think the noble Marquess near me (Marquess of Normanby) took, to say the least of it, a most exaggerated view of the fears and suspicious which ought to be entertained by any reasonable man as regards the intentions and designs of the French Emperor. I do not deny that there are circumstances connected with this war which may justly give rise to watchfulness, and may justify some anxiety as to its results. But as regards the personal designs imputed so freely to the French Emperor, I know of nothing to justify them, unless it is such knowledge as we have of his character and conduct. True it is that the French Emperor, in respect to his assumption of power, did commit acts of which no Englishman can approve. But the noble Marquess has declared to-night, that as regards the coup d'état, he is willing to forget it, nor would he found upon it any imputation against the Emperor. Well, then, my Lords, I venture to affirm that since the coup d'état there has been nothing to justify the violent suspicions to which the noble Marquess has given expression. In all his conduct towards us in the late war, so far as that conduct is publicly known, and I am bound to add, so far as it is known to to me as a member of former Governments, the Emperor of the French has behaved with perfect loyalty and good faith. Yet that good faith was not untested by suspicion. I very well recollect hearing suspicions very much of the same character expressed during the Crimean war. It was said that the French army, once in possession of Constantinople, would not easily be persuaded to remove from it; and I will venture to add that if such suspicions had been uttered then as freely as they have been uttered to-night by distinguished men in Parliament, the most serious results might have arisen affecting the good understanding between the allies. If such language goes forth as expressing the feeling of the English Parliament or of the English Government, I do not see how we can hope to retain that influence which surely it is most desirable we should be in a position to exercise in mediation and the re-establishment of peace. It is, of course, impossible that there should not be among us some differences of individual feeling and of sympathy. But I do trust that noble Lords will see the necessity and the public duty of exercising, in respect to the expression of strong partisan opinions, some reasonable reserve.

And, my Lords, before I pass from this subject, I think I have a right to complain of the terms in which the noble Marquess near me has thought proper to refer to Lord Palmerston. He has spoken as if it would be the effect of Lord Palmerston's advent to power to involve this country in the war on the side of France; and he has quoted in this sense some foolish address of a French Prefet at Marseilles to the people or the army. What is the authority of a French Prefet on the opinions of Lord Palmerston? or what right has the noble Marquess to accuse Lord Palmerston of favouring a policy which he must know Lord Palmerston would himself utterly repudiate. So far as I know the opinions of Lord Palmerston they are in favour of this country maintaining a strict neutrality, a policy which cannot, I venture to say, be maintained with success if language such as the noble Marquess has used to-night is to characterize our Parliamentary debates.

But I pass from these matters to questions more legitimately before us. I admit that Her Majesty's Government have faith-fully adhered to the practice which has of late years generally prevailed, namely, that of excluding- from the Royal Speech and from the Address everything which should necessarily challenge the expression of an adverse opinion. This address is perfectly harmless. We might, almost as well as not, vote it in perfect silence, or only with such criticisms on language and construction as the noble Earl opposite (Earl of Derby) used to delight in, and which even the noble Earl at the head of the Foreign Office (Earl of Malmesbury) would admit to be a legitimate exercise in those arts and sciences which he considers so superfluous in his own department. But we must remember that this is not the opening of an ordinary Session. Why at this season of the year are we called on to answer a Royal Speech at all? Why was our late Session interrupted? Why are we now precluded from even considering that great question of domestic policy in which we might by this time have made material progress? These are questions which force themselves on our attention, and remind us that a serious difference arose between Her Majesty's Government and the late Parliament on which the present Parliament will be called on to decide; and although that decision can only be given decisively in "another place" it is legitimate for us to take our part in the discussion, and to canvass the conduct and policy of the Government. We are the more called upon to do so from the extraordinary version of that difference which has been given in a speech from the Throne at the close of the late Parliament. That speech, which I of course assume to be the speech of the Ministers, contained in no ambiguous language a distinct accusation against the late Parliament, that it had factiously impeded the due exercise of the royal functions in carrying on the government of the country. No more unjust accusation was ever made by any Government against any Parliament. I doubt whether, since the beginning of our Parliamentary history any Government has ever been treated so gently, so tenderly, as were the present Government by the Parliament which they dissolved. All their abortive measures were treated with forbearance; they were encouraged in the production of new and amended Bills, and their retreat was invariably covered from the victorious Opposition by the friendly feeling of a majority of the House of Commons. What is the proof the Government adduces in support of their charge against that Parliament. It is said that within little more than a year two successive Governments had failed to secure its confidence. It is not my business to defend the vote which overthrew the Government of Lord Palmerston, but the noble Lords opposite are the last men who are justified in referring to that vote as the result of a factious spirit. If that vote was factious, the factiousness was all their own. They joined in it, although they knew it would be fatal to a measure which the noble Earl opposite had himself—I will not say suggested—but thoroughly approved, but which when he succeeded to office immediately abandoned. Then, as regards the vote which immediately caused the late dissolution, instead of its affording any proof of a factious disposition, it was a signal proof of the large amount of support which that Parliament was willing to give to the Government almost irrespective of the merits of their measure. For it is notorious that if that vote had been taken strictly and alone on the merits of the Reform Bill, the majority against the Government would have been vastly greater than it was. Not a tittle of those who voted with the Government even professed to approve of their Bill. The real truth is, that the vote I refer to was carried in the House of Commons, because in spite of the friendly and tolerant spirit of the House towards the Government and in spite of the desire to sec the question of reform settled if possible, the Government brought in a Bill marked by such objectionable features that its condemnation could not be evaded or avoided. And it is this which they have been so anxious to conceal from the country by raising a false issue and charging most unjustly the late Parliament with a factions spirit. To a. great extent the Government has succeeded in evading the question on which they were condemned by the late Parliament. I have observed even in this debate some reluctance on the part of this House to entertain or discuss the question of reform. I have no wish to involve the House in a reform debate, but I trust the position of this House upon the question will be very different from that in which it was placed with reference to the last Reform Bill. Then resistance, mere resistance, was carried so far, that the only ultimate alternative was an abandonment of all opinion. But, my Lords, if we are to maintain our influence in the question, we must discuss its principles betimes, and the sooner we begin to consider them the better. The great complaint against Her Majesty's Government seems to me to be, not merely that they adopted as the basis of their Bill an erroneous principle, but far more that they have done all in their power to con-coal that it was based upon, or involved any principle at all—nay, it has ever been a boast with them that they are committed to nothing, and have therefore contributed nothing to the settlement of the question.

The noble Lord who seconded the Address to-night, complained that the Bill of the Government had been opposed out of a jealousy on the Liberal side of the House that the Conservative party should deal with the subject at all. Now, my Lords, I am anxious to disclaim all sympathy with the language of those who have spoken as if the present Government had no right to deal with reform. It would be a great public evil if any question were considered the monopoly of any party. I deeply regretted the circumstances which seemed to render it imperative on the Government of Lord Palmerston to deal in the first instance with the Government of India. I do not say—for it would be ridiculous to do so—that if we had proceeded to the introduction of our Bill, we should have succeeded. But I do say that the Government of Lord Palmerston were in a better position for dealing successfully with the subject than any other Government had been. I admit, however, that the noble Earl opposite had also some advantages though of a different kind. Any measure he proposed was likely to receive the support of the Conservative party, and whether successful or not would indicate the principles on which they were prepared to act. The noble Lord who spoke second to-night, gave a very erroneous account of the distinctive principles of the Government Bill. Those which really distinguished it were simply these:—1st, a refusal to lower the borough franchise; and 2nd, a determination to neutralize the popular effect of a reduction in the county franchise by these most ingenious expedients. I have reason to know that intimations were made to the noble Earl at the head of the Government in a not unfriendly spirit, that if these were abandoned there would not be any opposition to the second reading of their Bill. But these were considered by the noble Earl so essential that at the risk, indeed in spite of the certainty of defeat, he resolved to adhere to them. These, therefore, were the features of the Bill by which it was distinguished essentially from others, and gave it its party character. Every effort has been made by the Government to conceal from the country those principles of the Bill, and that upon these, and these alone, it was condemned in the late Parliament. The noble Earl in his last speech in the late Parliament, boasted that the vote which had been come to would not tend in the slightest degree to establish any principle on the question of reform. With great deference to the noble Earl I must dispute that assertion, for I feel sure that those distinctive features of his Bill to which I have referred will never again figure in another.

My Lords, I always hear with regret the language now so commonly held on the subject of reform. "Who cares," it is said, "for reform? It is a question used by opposite parties to damage each other, or advance themselves—but it excites no popular feeling." I do not deny that this language is founded, to a certain extent, on facts. I admit there is no excitement on the subject in the country—nay, more, it is true that a very able man, doing his utmost to raise some excitement, has entirely failed. But what does all this amount to? Why, to this—that all par- ties having now admitted the propriety of a large addition to the constituent body, the people are contented to leave the practical adjustment of the question, and the precise form which it may take, to the wisdom of Parliament and the discretion of their public men. Could there be conditions more favourable to action on this great question, beset as it is with many difficulties? Surely these are conditions which ought to stimulate us to immediate action, rather than encourage us in unnecessary delay. I fear there is too great confidence in many minds in the permanence of such conditions. I entreat those who feel such confidence to consider how precarious they are, and how soon and suddenly they may be changed. A few weeks' rain, or a few weeks' drought at a critical season of the year, the failure of a great staple in a distant country, a commercial panic, or one of those great popular convulsions abroad which have never failed to act powerfully on the temper and opinions of the people here—any of these may at any time alter the conditions now so favourable and on which we are now placing so light a value. The course which the Government has taken has in no degree tended to advance the question. It is their boast that they are bound to nothing either in principle or detail. The constitution was thrown as it were upon the hustings to be scrambled for without guidance or direction. My Lords, if the present favourable condition of the country is to be taken advantage of, some definite opinions must be expressed and maintained by our public men. I can hardly believe that after the course they have taken, this question will be left for decision in the hands of the present Government; but if they should continue in office I can only express, a sincere hope that the noble Earl may be able to mature another Bill, by which the Conservative party may be willing to abide. I do not feel sure that by doing so he will be able to save his Government, but he will at least do that, which I am sure he values more, he will have rendered an important service to his country.

THE MARQUESS OF NORMANBY

rose to explain. The noble Duke who had just sat down had accused him of speaking with too much freedom on what he considered to be a most important subject; but the noble Duke must recollect that he did so a as private peer, who committed no one by what be said. The noble Duke had been been a Cabinet Minister, and might be a Cabinet Minister again. What he (the Marquess of Norman by) had stated had reference to a noble Lord who was at present endeavouring to storm the Government; and he said that he did consider the language of that noble Lord at Tiverton, when he expressed his desire that the result of the present operations in Italy would be the expulsion of Austria from that country, contrary to a treaty which had existed now nearly 50 years—he considered such language to be a disqualification at this moment in any one who sought to be Prime Minister. It was necessary, as had been said, not only that we should be impartial, but should appear so. He did not say that Lord Palmerston was prepared to go to war, he only referred to the impression which his appointment was likely to produce on the Continent; and in illustration of that he referred to a statement made by a French Government official within the last few days, to the effect that if that noble Lord became Prime Minister the troops of England would join those of France.

THE EARL OF DERBY

My Lords, I should have risen immediately after the speech of the noble Earl opposite (Earl Granville) who followed the Mover and Seconder of the Address had not a noble Earl from the other side of the House stated to me that it was his intention to move an Amendment to the Address, and I considered it more respectful to the noble Earl and more suitable to the convenience of your Lordships that I should postpone my observations until it became my duty, as it certainly would have been, to object to that Amendment. Subsequently the noble Earl, I suppose, has seen some reason to think that it would not be expedient to press for a division, or even to bring under consideration the Amendment of which he gave me notice, and I believe has left the House. I confess, my Lords, that it is with some satisfaction I feel that, in rising to address you, I shall not be under the necessity of trespassing on your attention for any long time; for, although the debate has been very lengthened, very able, and, in many respects, highly interesting and highly important, I must say it has been one of a singularly discursive character, and that (which is peculiar to these debates)—being a debate on the Speech and Address in answer to the Speech—I have now listened for a period of about five hours and I have not heard from any one speaker a single reference to any one paragraph in the Speech. I think I may make one exception—I believe the noble Earl opposite (Earl Granville) did make one reference—no, my Lords, now I remember, he referred to the Speech on the prorogation of Parliament;—so that not one speaker has referred to the Speech of to-day.

EARL GRANVILLE

The noble Earl is not quite right; I did make a reference to the Speech.

THE EARL OF DERBY

Which Speech?

EARL GRANVILLE

This Speech.

THE EARL OF DERBY

I listened with very great attention, and did not not notice it—it must have been a very distant allusion. But there was a paragraph in the Speech on the prorogation to which the noble Earl thought it necessary to call your Lordships' attention. he appeared to consider it a matter of impropriety, and almost profaneness, that the Minister, in the name of the Sovereign, should have addressed Parliament in such terms. The noble Earl said that Her Majesty was made to express what almost amounted to a prayer that the result of the dissolution might be to give the Ministry a majority; and he added that the Members of the Government had not relied altogether on the efficacy of prayer, because, like the waggoner in the fable, they had put their Governmental shoulder to the wheel most energetically. There has been a great deal of nonsense talked about influencing the elections. My noble Friend the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland has very satisfactorily disposed of these alleged compacts of Government, at all events with regard to what took place in Ireland; and I can only say that I am as free with regard to the Government on this side of the water as my noble Friend is with regard to the Government on the other side of the water, from any compact, agreement, or negotiation, either directly or indirectly, with Cardinal Wiseman. This I do know—that before the late dissolution I was told by Conservative Roman Catholics, that they were glad to find that, without violating their religious principles, and in accordance with their political principles, they could give a support to the present Government which they had never been able to give to former Conservative Governments. But that was not based on any promise or expressed intention of what the Government might do, but upon what the Government had openly, publicly done in the pursuit of their conscientious duty, and on no political grounds, unless the' obligation which we felt of doing that which we conscientiously believed to her light be called a political ground. We found, and it was subsequently published in a letter from Cardinal Wiseman to an Irish Member, that the Roman Catholics were disposed to give, and did give, their support to the Government, because, without any professions or pledges, the Roman Catholics found they were treated with more courtesy, more fairness, and more straightforward dealing in matters affecting their religious feelings by the present Government than they had ever been by any former Government. I do not believe that the reason for the support which was given on the one side by the Roman Catholics, and obtained by the Government on the other was a reason of which either need be ashamed. We have done for them what they were fairly entitled to from us in the discharge of our public duty; we have done for them only that to which we thought they were fully entitled; and we shall continue to pursue the same course. We shall give them whatever indulgence, or I would rather say, whatever fair dealing they are entitled to; and we shall not give them one single thing which would prejudice or impair the interests of the Church to which we belong, and whose interests we feel hound to support. But if the Roman Catholics are satisfied with a Government which makes no fair promises, holds out no large expectations, but which they find deals out real and substantial justice, I say again neither they nor we ought to be ashamed of the support which they have accorded to us. But, again, with regard to the fact, and more especially with regard to Ireland, that support has been of a most divided character, and at some Irish elections the Roman Catholic priests have been more violent than on any former occasion against the Government candidates. Among' other things said of the Government, I have heard of fabulous sums—and the mention of fabulous sums naturally calls to my remembrance a right hon. Baronet on a Northern hustings. That right hon. Baronet has already been subjected to correspondence upon two points, with regard to both of which he was unfortunately led into making erroneous statements, and statements entirely contrary to fact. One of them—the most signal one—was that the Government was about to bribe the Roman Catholics with I don't know what promises and magnificent expectations; and the other that the Government did a very popular act on the eve of the elections in raising the billet money for the purpose of obtaining the support of all the licensed victuallers. It turned out very unfortunately for the right hon. Baronet that the recommendation to raise the billet money did not emanate from the Government. It may perhaps be considered one of those weak and culpable yieldings to public opinion under the dictation of a Committee of the House of Commons which the noble Earl has condemned; but it so happens that it was the recommendation of a Committee which sat in the Session of last year, that at the commencement of last Session it was announced by the Secretary of War as intended to be done, that it was introduced into the Mutiny Act, that it was discussed in Parliament on the Mutiny Act, and that the Mutiny Act was passed before there was any thought of a general election. So far as to the motive for increasing the billet money. We have been told that fabulous sums of money were subscribed, as one hon. Gentleman expressed it, "foully to pack the new Parliament;" and the right hon. Baronet to whom I have adverted—to borrow a phrase from his Scotch neighbours,—"condescended to particulars." Not satisfied with the general rumour of the hundreds of thousands of pounds which were to come from the Carlton Club, he specified the precise sum which I myself had given. I am quite satisfied of one thing—that the right hon. Baronet has not had access to my banker's cheque-book. The right hon. Baronet took upon himself—I do not know whence he got the information—to state that I had boasted of having subscribed £20,000 for the purposes of corruption. I conclude the right hon. Baronet did not invent the statement, but he was the first to put it in circulation, and I am indebted to him for having it repeated upon many hustings in the country. What effect it produced there I don't know; no doubt, on some of them, an effect very different from that which the right hon. Baronet expected. But, at all events, with regard to this fact, as with regard to the others, the fact is that it is no fact at all. I not only did not subscribe £20,000, nor £10,000, nor £5,000 to the expenses of the general election, nor to any election at all in the country, although there was in my own county a contested election, which was carried in a way most satisfactory to the Go- vernment, and I believe with the smallest expenditure that was ever known at such an election. I was surprised to hear it made a charge that large sums had been subscribed by the Conservatives for the purposes of the election. I believe no general election occurs at which gentlemen of both parties do not subscribe certain sums of money for the purpose of meeting the legitimate expenses of those gentlemen of their own party who are not able to defray them themselves. The noble Earl (the Earl of Clarendon) opposite I see holds up his hands in horror and astonishment; but my noble Friend must either he a very good hand at dissimulation or he is remarkably innocent with regard to the proceedings which have taken place with both political parties, either in my memory or during the noble Earl's lifetime. But beyond the ordinary subscriptions which are entered into at every election I do not believe that in any quarter there has been any unusual or extraordinary outlay on the present occasion. I did not think it necessary to trouble the right hon. Baronet with a third correspondence; but the present occasion appeared to be a very fair one for setting him right in the mistakes he made which have not been previously corrected. The paragraph in the prorogation Speech, which appears to have given greatest offence to my noble Friend opposite, is this:— Her Majesty prays that, under the blessing of Divine Providence, the step which she is about to take may have the effect of facilitating the discharge of her high functions, and enable her to conduct the Government of the country under the advice of Ministers possessing the confidence of Parliament. The gloss which my noble Friend puts on that is, that Her Majesty prays that the effect of the dissolution may be to give the Government a majority. Now, I happen to recollect that in 1857 there was a somewhat similar dissolution, at a time of year not very different from the recent dissolution, in consequence of the Government having been put into a minority. The language then put into Her Majesty's mouth by the Government of Lord Palmerston I find is much more profane than anything which the noble Lord has quoted from the Speech for which we are responsible. In 1857, Lord Palmerston being at the head of the Government thus advised Her Majesty:— Her Majesty commands us to assure you that it is Her fervent prayer that the several constituencies of the United Kingdom, upon whom will devolve the exercise of those high functions which by the constitution belong to them, may be guided by an all-wise Providence to the selection of representatives whose wisdom and patriotism may aid Her Majesty in Her constant endeavours to maintain the honour and dignity of Her Crown. Let us contrast the two Speeches and see to which of them the charge of profaneness applies. Lord Palmerston makes Her Majesty pray that the people may be guided to the selection of representatives who will aid her in upholding the honour and dignity of the Crown. But recollect, the appeal to the country was based on the ground that Parliament had not assisted Her Majesty in her endeavours to maintain the dignity of the Crown. But in the prorogation Speech to which my noble Friend has alluded, what Her Majesty prays is that the step which she is about to take may "enable Her to conduct the government of the country under the advice of a Ministry possessed of the confidence of Her Parliament and Her people." I say distinctly that it was the main object of the dissolution to obtain, if possible, that which all your Lordships have declared to be the great want of the country at this moment—a Government strong enough to carry on the business of the country without embarrassment—a Government which may be able to facilitate the discharge of the high functions of Her Majesty, in the discharge of which She is exposed to the greatest embarrassment from the frequent changes of Government. I say sincerely—I said it when announcing the intention to dissolve, and I repeat it now—that it was my anxious wish that there might be such a clear and explicit declaration of the opinions and feelings of the people that the Government, whether ourselves or any other which might succeed us—for I spoke without reference to any party considerations or any wish of my own—might possess the confidence of the great majority of the people, and that the serious detriment to the public interest, which has been caused by the absence of such a state of things, might be put an end to. I stated then, and I hold it now, to be of the utmost importance to the country that such a state of things as then existed should not continue. For the continuance of such a state of things I am not responsible. I feel the inconvenience of being the head of a Government which does not command an absolute majority in the House of Commons, and if I could see my way to a Government bound together by common ties, capable of acting together harmoniously, and possessing the confidence of a majority of the country, however much their opinions on certain subjects might differ from mine, I would cheerfully, willingly—nay, more, gladly surrender the responsible post which I occupy for the purpose of facilitating the formation of such a Government. But it is because I see no possibility of such a union among those boasting to be the Liberal majority, that under all the difficulties of this position at home—and I do not disguise that they are great—and under all the difficulties which surround our foreign policy abroad, I hold it to be my duty to my Sovereign, and it is a duty which I shall perform to the utmost of my ability, however painful the course may be—not to abandon the post confided to me, not to give up the trust placed in my hands, so long as I see that there is any possibility of discharging that duty with honour, and so long especially as there appear to he no means by which the present Government can be effectually replaced. Those who condemn the late dissolution of Parliament must do it on the ground that no dissolution is legitimate which does not promise to secure an absolute majority to the Government of the day. My Lords, when I accepted office it was because there was no possibility of forming any other Government at the time—a fact which was recognized by Parliament—that impossibility was known to my Sovereign, and notwithstanding all the disadvantages of the position. I felt bound to assume the difficult task of forming a Government; but I should have been a mad man if I had assumed that charge, with a majority of 120 or 130 Members against me, bound to quit office upon the first occasion on which that adverse majority might think fit to display its strength against me. The very fact of my accepting office under such circumstances was a certain proof that in the event of defeat it would be my duty, my imperative duty, to appeal to the country. The noble Marquess near me (the Marquess of Normanby)—whom we all rejoice to see among us again—has compared the circumstances of this dissolution of 1859 to that of 1841, to which he says he objected at the time. But let me compare the circumstances of the two dissolutions. The Government at that time had been in a permanent minority for two years in a Parliament of their own choosing. In 1839 the Government tendered their resignations, and the substitution of a Conservative Government was only prevented in consequence of some trifling misunderstanding with regard to the Royal household, They were exposed to constant defeats from a party—the union in whose ranks was more complete and more sound than the union in any party which I can recollect. At the close of the Session of 1841 a vote of want of confidence was passed against the Government, by the majority, however, of one only. The Government then had to consider what would be the effect of a dissolution. On the one hand there was a compact united party ready to take its place and succeed to the administration of the affairs of the country. That being so, the Cabinet had, upon the other hand, to consider whether there was any chance of so far recruiting the number of its supporters by a dissolution as to enable it to weaken the forces of its opponents. Now, I do not think any member of Lord Melbourne's Government believed for a single moment that it could obtain a working majority, or anticipated that by a dissolution it should, even in the slightest degree, improve its position. But what was the result? Why, that on the first day of the meeting of Parliament after the new elections a vote of want of confidence, which had previously been carried by one vote in the previous Parliament, was then carried by no less a majority than ninety one. Compare the dissolution of 1841 with that of 1859. What was the position of Her Majesty's Government after the late vote? We succeeded to office, as I before stated, in a minority. That was well known. It was equally well known that at the period of the dissolution there was no party in the House of Commons sufficiently united to take our places if we had resigned. Under those circumstances, we deemed it to be our duty to dissolve; and the consequence has been that although the Government have not succeeded in obtaining an absolute majority, yet that we, having been defeated by a majority of thirty-nine on the second reading of the Reform Bill, have secured, according to the nearest calculation which I can make, an addition of thirty Members to the number of our supporters, thus making on a division a difference of sixty votes. Now while I admit that we are not in an absolute majority in the House of Commons, I contend that, there is no party, nor even any two parties combined, which of themselves possess sufficient strength to form a Government as numerically powerful and as compact as that which now holds the reins of office. We have been told by my noble Friend below me (the Earl of Ellenborough) who spoke this evening with that great ability which he always displays, that it is the duty of public men at such a crisis as the present to combine together for the public good and to endeavour to form a strong Government. My noble and learned Friend opposite (Lord Brougham) also, I think, referred to the subject in alluding to the memorable attempt to effect a combination between Pitt and Fox. I was, I must say, somewhat struck by a singular coincidence suggested by the remarks of my noble and learned Friend, which tends to prove that the sacrifices which were made by the statesmen of former times are not without parallel at the present day. In 1804, Pitt said Fox behaved like an angel. Now, what was the angelic virtue which called forth this expression of approbation? It was the acceptance on the part of Fox of a mission to Vienna. These great men were two rival statesmen. They could not both have held the foremost part in the Government. It was therefore agreed that one should accept the inferior post of Minister at Vienna, and the acceptance of that post was held to be the act of an angel. If I remember rightly, the noble Lord the Member for London is equally entitled with Fox to the praise of having done an angelic act; but I never heard that the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton had the generosity to say that in his opinion his noble colleague had behaved like an angel. Indeed, I believe the noble Viscount seriously and sincerely rejoiced at the self-sacrifice of his noble Friend; nor can I help thinking that he rejoiced quite as sincerely when he found that the result of his negotiations in Vienna did not tend very materially to increase his noble Friend's political reputation. But I understand that a meeting of reconciliation has taken place, at which those two noble Lords were present; and perhaps my noble and learned Friend would still further assist the work of peace by suggesting which of them should upon a second occasion undertake the angelic mission. For my own part, I say seriously, I do not think any public advantage can be secured by men for the purpose of merely forming an Administration, sacrificing their own political principles; I cannot, undoubtedly, charge myself with having neglected to obtain, so far as was in my power, extraneous aid from quarters not immediately connected with the Government. I have unfortunately not been successful in my efforts in that direction, but I cannot accuse myself of having omitted any opportunity to strengthen by fair and honourable combination—not involving any sacrifice of principle—the Government which has been entrusted to me by my Sovereign. I am not now going to follow my noble Friend opposite (Earl Granville) into a discussion of the various shortcomings of which he seems to think Her Majesty's Ministers were guilty in the course of last year. There were some charges which he has made against us, which I little anticipated would be pressed upon the notice of the House on an important occasion like the present. My noble Friend, having no fault to find with the Speech or the Address, was obliged—as it was necessary to find fault—to go back to the old story of the Conspiracy Bill and the India Bill. It certainly is very satisfactory to me to find that my noble Friend is so badly off for a subject of attack—it is of course the duty of his position to find fault—that he finds it necessary to revert to the proceedings of a year and a half ago. Having disposed of the Conspiracy Bill and the India Bill, the noble Earl dwelt upon the subject of foreign affairs, with respect to which he accuses us of gross neglect. He says we have acted most improperly in not laying the papers connected with this important subject upon the table of the House. I should, however, like to learn from my noble Friend what papers of any kind or description which we could produce, and which your Lordships have expressed the slightest desire to see, have not been presented to Parliament?—what papers have been withheld, or in the slightest degree garbled? In the case of the Cagliari and of the Charles et Georges the fullest details were laid before the House, and the result was, that the course pursued by the Government in reference to the former met with general approval; while in the case of the latter, which, it was said, was to affect the very existence of the Government, not only did the production of the papers establish a triumphant defence for Her Majesty's Ministers, but no attempt to raise a discussion as to the wisdom of the policy which they adopted was raised either in this or in the other House of Parliament. [Earl GRANVILLE intimated dissent.] I beg the noble Earl's pardon. A Motion was made in your Lordships' House with respect to it, but that Motion was very wisely and discreetly and constitutionally withdrawn. Now, my Lords, I do not wish to speak in disparagement of the general tone of fairness and moderation with which the efforts of the Government have been met by noble Lords opposite, and their party, more especially when dealing with the delicate and difficult negotiations which have taken place in reference to foreign affairs. I do, however, think it too much to say that, from the period of the formation of the Government up to the present, it has invariably met with nothing but singular forbearance and good humour on the part of the House of Commons. Has no attempt been made to interfere with our possession of office? If I am not very much mistaken, a Motion was, very shortly after we succeeded to power, introduced simultaneously into both Houses, which assumed the form of an absolute vote of censure, and which was heralded by strong declarations of what must be the effect of the culpability of Her Majesty's Ministers. The debate on that Motion lasted in the other House for a considerable number of days, and the result was to prove that, even in that House, if the Government did not possess an absolute majority, it had a sufficient number of supporters to enable it, with the assistance of fair dealing on the part of the House at large, to resist any factious attempt to overthrow it. In the face of the defeat which the party to which the noble Earl opposite belongs experienced upon that occasion, no serious attack was subsequently made upon the Government during the progress of the Session. But while I admit the forbearance which has been exercised in respect of foreign affairs, I cannot help thinking that this circumstance is due as much to their discretion as to their forbearance. But to show how hard pressed my noble Friend must have been for a subject on which to found an attack upon the Government, he actually, when the question of peace or war, so far as this country is supposed by some—although I hope without sufficient reason—to be trembling in the balance, and on the very first night of the Session, deems it his duty to find fault with us for having expended a certain sum of money, or in renewing the contract with the Canard Steampacket Company, which had been carried out for some years with great success. It so happens, however, that the step which we took in reference to that subject was one in adopting which we were merely carrying out the strongest recommendations of the Board of Admiralty which preceded us in office, and which recommendations had not previously been carried into effect by the Treasury, simply because they thought it expedient to postpone entering into a fresh contract until the existing one was nearer its completion. In the meantime, however, the person who held the contract came to the Government, saying that he wished to extend its terms and to give us adequate consideration. He stated that it would be necessary to build for the purpose a considerable number of vessels, and that two years and a-half, the period which the contract had to run, would barely suffice for their construction. Under these circumstances he asked for the renewal of the contract for a period of five years, and these facts the noble Earl has thought proper to make the ground of a solemn charge against the Government. I shall now pass from the observations of the noble Earl to those which fell from the noble Duke who has just spoken (the Duke of Argyll). He has thrown quite a new light upon the reasons for the dissolution of Parliament. He says we had recourse to a dissolution not for the purpose of ascertaining whether the Government or the party to which he himself belongs enjoyed the confidence of the country—that he conceives to have been a mere blind; the real question, in his opinion, being whether or not the country approved the Reform Bill. Now, I take the liberty of saying that the question was not whether the country approved our Reform Bill, but whether it approved the course which the Opposition took for the purpose of preventing discussion upon the Reform Bill. The noble Duke says it is the misfortune of unsuccessful Reform Bills that not only are their bad provisions condemned, but their good provisions are disparaged and prejudiced. If that be so, the measures of 1852 and 1854 must have seriously damaged the cause of Parliamentary Reform throughout the country. The noble Duke adds that if the Bill of last Session had gone on, the majority against it would have been twice as great as that which carried the Resolution. Now, I believe nothing of the kind; for I am perfectly satisfied that if the Opposition, who were wise in their I generation, had been of opinion that by opposing the second reading they would have had a much larger majority than they actually obtained, they would have adopted the more ordinary and usual course of opposing the second reading, and therefore of getting the opinion of the House on the merits of the measure as a whole. My firm belief is that they were perfectly aware that the second reading would be carried; in which case, instead of vague generalities, they would have been called upon to deal with the provisions of the Bill one by one, not only condemning them, but stating what provisions they would propose instead. From that attempt they shrunk; knowing probably that it would, if made, have exposed the wide differences of opinion existing among those who please to call themselves the united Liberal party. I say, therefore, it is not the question of the Reform Bill which went to the country; and it is extraordinary on how small a number of hustings, reform was made a prominent subject of discussion. The question put to the country was, "Are you prepared in the present state of parties to give such a support to the present Ministry as will enable them to carry on satisfactorily the government of the country; or will you extend that support to any other Government?" My Lords, the result is before you. Undoubtedly, it is not entirely satisfactory, and still leaves the Ministry in a position of weakness which is not desirable for any Government. But, with regard to foreign policy and foreign affairs my experience in the past, my confidence in the character of my countrymen, leaves me no reason to doubt that in the course we have announced and are determined to pursue we shall have a general support quite sufficient to show to all the nations of the Continent that upon that subject, at all events, there is no difference of opinion which can give to the enemies of this country the slightest chance of success from our divisions. Undoubtedly, there have been expressions of individual opinion—expressions which individual Members may be perfectly justified in making use of in their private capacity—indicative of sympathy for one or the other of the contending parties in the present strife. But with personal sympathies a Government has nothing whatever to do; and upon that question I am sure you will expect and will require me to speak with the utmost reserve. I have never, however, concealed my opinions on the subject. I have always stated that if this were a question of an Italian or any other nation seeking to emancipate itself by its own efforts from the control of a foreign Power which had long been the object of its aversion, and seeking to establish instead of arbitrary government a system more approaching those liberal institutions with which we are blessed in this country, the private sympathy of every Englishman would be for the success of such an attempt. But, my Lords, is that in any sense the case in the present struggle in Italy? Is that the struggle of a nation seeking to emancipate itself by its own efforts from foreign control, and to substitute for arbitrary government liberal and free institutions? Even if it were so, whatever might be our sympathies, we are bound by treaties and by international obligations which would not enable us to give an active effect to those sympathies. But I must say, with almost all who have spoken on this subject, that, while we cannot view with approval the course of conduct which has been pursued by Austria—while I have no sympathy with Austrian rule or with the Austrian form of government—this is a war undertaken under false pretences; it is a war, not for the freedom and liberation of Italy; it is one in which unfortunately Sardinia has taken the lead in forcing upon Italy, thereby, as I hare stated on a former occasion, seriously damaging that cause of constitutional Government which we the friends of Sardinia earnestly desire to see tried and prosper there, and showing that a Government with free institutions may not be less aggressive, not less ambitious of aggrandizement, not less prone to disturb the peace and tranquillity of its neighbours than the most arbitrary despotism. I do not say that the blame rests on one side or the other in this unhappy contest; but neither on the one side nor the other was there any sufficient ground for incurring all the horrors of war, and had both been so disposed there existed no practical difficulties which might have not been solved by friendly negotiation. Independently, therefore, of any cause which may be involved in the struggle, this country cannot feel sympathy with either party; it cannot be anxious for the success or the defeat of one side or the other, except as that success or defeat may lead to future complications or to consequences which it is hard to foresee. As we are at present advised, and in the present state of the contest, I hold it to be the imperative duty of this country to maintain that which from the first I have announced to be the policy of the Government—namely, a strict and impartial neutrality between the two contending parties. But unhappily, my Lords, a position of neutrality is exposed to so much suspicion, it involves a country which fairly and impartially carries it out in so many possibilities of giving offence to one of the contending parties, the obligations arising from such a struggle as is now going on are so impossible to be fore seen, and may perhaps be so extensive, that the statesman would be mad who with this war raging around him, deter mined as he might be to maintain a strict neutrality, did not feel it his bounden duty by fitting preparations to place this country in a position of security. And I believe that as your Lordships, the other House of Parliament, and the country are unanimous in the opinion that neutrality is the only policy for the Government to pursue, they will be equally of opinion that the only species of neutrality which can hope to be respected and to give influence to our future counsels must be an armed neutrality—armed, not for purposes of aggression, but for purposes of protection to our shores and the vindication of our national honour. Do you ask me if I have any proximate fear of invasion? I say none whatever. I do not think there was ever a time when this country was more free from the threat or alarm of immediate invasion; but when I see the armaments and fleets which other countries are collecting and remember the power which they would have in their hands in case of any unexpected quarrel, when I remember that there is a possibility of this country being materially injured almost before it has time to make preparation, I do say it is the bounden duty of Parliament—a duty which I believe will be cheerfully performed—to place this country, and more especially its naval forces, upon a footing more commensurate with the great interests involved than has been the case for some years past. Without intending to cast any imputation upon those who preceded us, I must say that when we succeeded to office we found the navy in a state of weakness, decrepitude, and absolute impotence, which was by no means creditable to this country, and was not even safe for its interests and independence. From the gesture of the noble Earl opposite (Earl Granville), I infer that he believes me on a former occasion to have expressed a different opinion. He is quite mistaken. Upon that occasion I did not say a word as to the state of the navy; but, referring to the condition of the army in 1852 and 1858, I said that the efforts which had been made reflected great credit on that Department. About the navy I uttered not a word, thinking that the less said about it the better. But if noble Lords would only take the trouble to look into a paper which has been published in the: course of the present year, and which i emanated from a Secret Committee appointed by me at the commencement of this year to inquire into the comparative state of the British and foreign navies, I think they will see in the course of that inquiry, which went into the most minute details, matter for very serious consideration, and such as will show them that our efforts can hardly be too great to place the navy on a better footing. I will not go into detail, but any of your Lordships who will take the trouble to examine the Report of this Committee will find in it matter not, perhaps, for alarm, but for the most anxious consideration. I do not doubt that in the present state of affairs any demand which the Government may make upon the House of Commons will be met without a dissentient voice; and I rely, with the same confidence that Her Majesty has expressed in Her Royal Speech, upon the cordial concurrence of Parliament in those measures which we have already taken upon ourselves to adopt for the increase of the naval forces of this country beyond the means sanctioned by Parliament, as well as in the other credit for which it will be our duty at no distant period to call. My Lords, as no Amendment has been moved and no objection taken to any one paragraph of the Royal Speech, I ought per haps to apologise for having detained your Lordships at the length I have done. We are now entering possibly upon an important Session of Parliament. If in the course of the present week it should be proved, by the result of the discussions, which are now taking place, not only that we do not possess the confidence of the country, but that there is another party who have satisfied themselves that they are more able efficiently to discharge the duties of legislation and of the Executive Government, I can only say that I shall lay down with far more pleasure than I took it up the heavy responsibility which presses upon me, and, so far as my principles and sense of duty will enable me, shall give my cordial and earnest support to any Administration by which the present Government may be replaced. On the other hand, should, as I confidently anticipate, the vote of the House of Commons be to show that the present Government, as compared with any other that could be formed, possesses the confidence and is entitled to the support of Parliament, I must hail with satisfaction the assurance which we have received from the noble Earl opposite—an assurance which is in accordance with his general frank and honourable conduct—that there would be no attempt made by those who are politically opposed to us to offer us any factious opposition, or to cause us any unnecessary embarrassment. Above all, my Lords, I am sure, from one side of the House to the other will be re-echoed the sentiment that when the public interests are at stake, and when a formidable danger threatens, all sense of party will be lost in the determination effectively to support the Government of the day in maintaining the interests, securing, it may be, the peace, but if not, then in supporting by arms the influence and the power of England.

Address agreed to, Nemine Dissentiente; and Ordered to be presented to Her Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.