ADDRESS IN ANSWER TO HER MAJESTY'S SPEECH.

HL Deb 05 February 1861 vol 161 cc6-43

HER MAJESTY'S SPEECH having been reported by the Lord Chancellor: —

THE EARL OF SEFTON

rose to move that an humble Address be presented by this House to Her Majesty in answer to Her Majesty's gracious Speech, and said: —My Lords, in rising to move that a humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, in reply to Her Majesty's most gracious Speech from the Throne, I trust your Lordships will extend to me that indulgence which you have always shown to those who address your Lordships' House for the first time. I can assure your Lordships that it is my intention to trespass on your time as briefly as possible; I trust, therefore, any error I may commit in the performance of the duty I have undertaken will be attributed to my inexperience of public affairs, rather than to any wish on my part to obtrude my opinions unnecessarily on your Lordships' notice. Under other circumstances, my Lords, I should have expressed a hope that the Motion I have the honour to submit would meet with your Lordships' unanimous approval. But I confess, for my own part—and I think I may add on the part of all my noble Friends on this side of the House —that the pleasure of seeing present the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Derby) restored to health, and able to deal with any question that may be brought before the House, tempts me to omit the usual form of deprecating any hostile criticism on the present occasion.

My Lords, Her Majesty has informed us that Her relations with foreign Powers continue to be friendly and satisfactory. I will not enter into any lengthened disquisition on foreign politics — I will content myself with observing that the present crisis requires the greatest care in conducting our relations with foreign Powers; to guide this country safely and honourably through the existing perils will require the greatest prudence and sagacity, and if I could lay claim to either I think I should show it best by abstaining from allusion to those exciting but delicate questions which are agitating all Europe at the present moment. I think, however, I may be allowed to say this, that as long as it is the opinion of this House that the honour and interests of this country are duly cared for by the Executive Government, no party feeling will be allowed to intervene in our deliberations, but that Her Majesty's Government will receive your Lordships' hearty support. I may be here permitted to observe, that however desirable we may deem it that the present territorial arrangements of Europe should be preserved, yet we cannot help feeling the greatest sympathy with those Italian peoples in the ardent struggle which they have maintained for the purpose of raising out of the ruins of governments that have hitherto existed, one strong, free, and united kingdom; but still all will agree that that end is most likely to be attained by the non-intervention of the other Powers of Europe; and I trust that the energies of Her Majesty's Government will be directed to the maintenance of such a policy.

My Lords, Her Majesty then informs us that the operations of the allied forces in China have been attended with complete success. These operations in China, now so happily terminated, have so recently been a subject of deep interest to us all that it is needless for me to attempt to recall them to your Lordships' recollection, but I think I shall be justified in alluding to the completeness of the expedition in all its parts. The people of this country are accustomed to hear on all occasions of the bravery and self-denial of our soldiers and sailors; but when we come to consider the small amount of the loss that has been sustained by our forces in China, either from the efforts of the enemy or the effects of sickness, we cannot help feeling some pride at the intelligence with which the whole of the movements were directed, and the foresight with which the original organization was made. My Lords, we must not, however, forget the danger and loss incurred by another profession—the diplomatic service. Officers relying upon the protection that has been afforded in all ages to members of that profession, together with military officers under the protection of a flag of truce, have undergone cruelties, indignities, and even death, under the very eyes of the Emperor himself. That potentate, however, has been punished in a manner which he cannot easily forget, and it is to be hoped that the crafty and bigoted advisers who led him into the scrape have now learnt a lesson which will be impressed upon their minds for some time to come. I trust that it may not be considered impertinent if, while upon this subject, I venture to express a hope that the English community in those distant lands have also learnt a lesson as to the necessity of prudence in their dealings with those amongst whom they dwell.

My Lords, Her Majesty further informs us that the state of Her Indian territories is progressively improving. Great doubts seem to be entertained in some quarters whether India can continue to bear the burden of her present debt and expenditure; but when we come to consider the great capabilities of that vast empire, and the great increase in her productions which may be expected when the communications shall have been more opened out, I think we cannot doubt the power of that country to meet the burdens now cast upon her. But the one great condition which is required is peace; and those who have watched the proceedings of that nobleman who now governs India must have seen that the leading principle in his mind is to carry out the conciliatory policy announced in Her Majesty's most gracious Proclamation to the princes and people of India. He has granted to the Native Princes some of the privileges which were most dear to them, he has watched over the rights of the peasantry, and has done all in his power to reconcile all classes to that Government which they are bound to obey.

My Lords, Her Majesty proceeds to express Her great concern at the serious differences that have arisen among the States of the North American Union. While we regret to see so important and flourishing a community, closely bound to ourselves by every tie, almost on the verge of civil war, we cannot help feeling some alarm as to the effects which those events may have upon the importation of cotton into the principal districts of the North of England. But at the same time, my Lords, we should remember that cotton can be obtained from other countries be- sides America, and I am happy to say that this subject is exciting the deepest interest in Manchester, and I trust in Liverpool also. Increased facility of communication in India, and better modes of preparing the cotton and bringing it to market will, I hope, shortly place us in possession of a large supply from that portion of the Empire. There are also hardy and adventurous pioneers labouring on the coast of Africa, in the hope of creating a wide field for commercial operations in that quarter of the globe.

My Lords, Her Majesty next informs us that She has concluded conventions with the Emperor of the French, supplementary to the Treaty of Commerce with that country, and in furtherance of the object of that treaty. My Lords, whatever might have been the opinions upon the subject of that treaty when the negotiations were first set on foot, I feel assured that the fact of expectations being currently entertained that some of the stipulations of that treaty will be carried into effect by the Emperor of the French at an earlier date than was originally intended will be heard with satisfaction by all parties in the country. It has been said that the present troubles at Coventry are one of the results of that treaty; but the importation of French ribands into this country has not increased, and those who have considered the subject with larger information know that similar distress prevails among the riband makers of France. The disastrous state of affairs in Coventry must, therefore, be attributed to some other cause than the French Treaty.

Her Majesty then informs us that She has directed the Estimates for the ensuing year to be laid before the other House, and that they have been framed with due regard to economy and to the efficiency of the public service. My Lords, the position which England now holds among nations is due to the fact that we are prepared for any emergency, that our Army and Navy are in the highest state of efficiency, and that we have considerable defensive power in our Militia and Volunteers. It has often been imputed to us that we are a nation of shopkeepers, and as I am connected with that portion of the kingdom where manufacturing and commercial industry is most largely developed, it is a source of pride to me, as it must be of gratification to all, to know that that very district has been conspicuous above most others for the energy and liberality with which the Volunteer movement has been created and supported. I hope, my Lords, it will not be considered out of place if I take this opportunity of bearing my testimony—which will be corroborated by all who like myself have been engaged in the organization of Volunteer corps—to the hearty support which they had received from the noble Lord the late Under Secretary of State for War (Earl de Grey and Ripon). It is to be hoped that the efficiency of the services will be in no way diminished in the present year, and that only such economy will be practised as is compatible with a due regard to the danger of the present state of Europe.

My Lords, Her Majesty has also recommended to Parliament the consideration of various legal reforms which will be laid before us, and I think there can be no doubt as to the necessity of completing those measures at the earliest possible time.

My Lords, having thus briefly touched upon some of the most important questions to which allusion is made in Her Majesty's Speech, I think I cannot better conclude than by expressing my fervent hope that we may in our deliberations in Parliament this year by our firmness and moderation offer such an example to other countries as may induce even those who are now most swayed by the desire of territorial aggrandizement, or other passions, to reenter those paths of legality and industry which alone can lead to happiness and prosperity, such as has been so long enjoyed by our own country. The noble Earl concluded by moving the following Address in answer to Her Majesty's most Gracious Speech:— 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 Your Majesty's most gracious Speech from the Throne. We humbly express to Your Majesty the Gratification with which we learn that your Relations with Foreign Powers continue to be friendly and satisfactory; and we assure Your Majesty that we trust with Your Majesty that the Moderation of the Powers of Europe will prevent any Interruption of the general Peace. We humbly thank Your Majesty for informing us, that, believing that the Italians ought to be left to settle their own Affairs, Your Majesty has not thought it right to exercise any active Interference in these Matters. We thank Tour Majesty for directing Papers on this Subject to be laid before us. We humbly thank Your Majesty for informing us, that, temporary Assistance has been afforded to The Sultan for the Purpose of establishing Order in Syria by the Body of French Troops who have been sent there to represent the Allied Powers, and we assure Your Majesty that we share in the Hope that Tranquillity will soon be reestablished in that Province, and the Objects of the Convention fully attained. We humbly thank Your Majesty for informing us, that the Operations of your Majesty's Forces in China, in conjunction with those of The Emperor of the French, have been attended with complete Success, and that the Allied Forces, after several Engagements, became Masters of the Imperial City of Pekin. We assure Your Majesty that we learn with Satisfaction that the Earl of Elgin and Baron Gros, the Ambassador of The Emperor of the French, were enabled to obtain an honourable and satisfactory Settlement of all the Matters in dispute, and that throughout these Operations the Commanders and Ambassadors of the Allied Powers acted with the most friendly Concert. We thank Your Majesty for commanding that Papers on this Subject should be laid before us. We beg leave humbly to express to Your Majesty our Pleasure in learning that the State of Your Indian Territories is progressively improving, and humbly to join in Your Majesty's Hope that the Financial Condition of India will gradually partake of that general Amendment. We humbly assure Your Majesty that we fully concur in the hope which Your Majesty has expressed that the Measures which have been taken will speedily suppress the Disturbances which have interrupted the Peace of a Part of New Zealand, and enable Your Majesty's Government to concert such Arrangements as may prevent their Recurrence. We humbly express our full Participation in the Concern with which Your Majesty looks upon the serious Differences which have arisen among the States of the North American Union, as affecting the Happiness and Welfare of a People nearly allied to Your Subjects by Descent, and closely connected with them by the most intimate and friendly Relations, and our hearty Concurrence in Your Majesty's wish that these Differences may be satisfactorily adjusted, and in the Sentiment which Your Majesty expresses, that the Interest which Your Majesty takes in the Well-being of the People of the United States cannot but be increased by the kind and cordial Reception given by them to The Prince of Wales during His recent Visit to the Continent of America. We humbly assure Your Majesty that we learn with deep Gratification Your Majesty's warm Sense of the Loyalty to Your Royal Person and Throne manifested by Your Canadian and other North American Subjects on the Occasion of the Residence of The Prince of Wales among them. We thank your Majesty for informing us of the Conventions supplementary to the Treaty of Commerce of the 23d of January, 1860, which Your Majesty has concluded with The Emperor of the French, and of the Convention concluded with the King of Sardinia for the reciprocal Protection of Copyright. We humbly thank your Majesty for informing us that Measures will be laid before us for the Consolidation of important Parts of the Criminal Law; for the Improvement of the Law of Bankruptcy and Insolvency; for rendering more easy the Transfer of Land; and for establishing a uniform System of Rating in England and Wales. We humbly assure Your Majesty that, in common with Your Majesty, we fervently pray that the Blessing of Almighty God may attend our Councils, and guide our Deliberations to the Attainment of the Welfare and Happiness of Your People.

VISCOUNT LISMORE,

in rising to recommend to their Lordships' notice the Address in answer to the Speech from the Throne, entreated them to extend to him that forbearance which was usually granted to those who had the honour to address them for the first time. He felt that, after the able manner in which the different subjects had been treated by the noble Lord who preceded him, his duties as Seconder must be more than usually subordinate, and he flattered himself that there was nothing contained in the Address which could cause that division of opinion which it had always been held desirable should be abstained from on an occasion like this. The year just concluded had been characterized by many and startling events. Italy, a great and populous country, guided by the most disinterested patriot who ever attempted the regeneration of a people, had emancipated itself from the misgovernment of an ancient dynasty. In the northern part of that peninsula, large provinces, throwing aside former associations, had been incorporated under the dominion of a neighbouring and constitutional Sovereign. During all these changes, both past and present, the policy of Her Majesty's Government had been strictly that of non-intervention; but at the same time their Lordships' House would be unmindful of its traditions, and the country forgetful of its past history, if they did not accord their warmest sympathy to that people in their struggle, and their heartfelt wishes for their ultimate success in procuring for themselves a rational and constitutional liberty. With the sanguinary disasters and disturbances which had taken place in Syria their Lordships were well acquainted; but he trusted there was every prospect that tranquility would be established on a firm basis, and the necessity for a temporary armed occupation cease. Much as contests were to be avoided, especially at so great a distance from home, yet in the case of China there was no alternative. That war had happily been concluded, affording during its brief but brilliant duration another occasion for Her Majesty's forces, in conjunction with our friendly Ally, to again emulate each other in deeds of daring and bravery. The efficiency of the most formidable weapon that modern science had as yet invented had been fully tested, and its adaptation to the casualties and accidents of active service fully placed beyond doubt. He trusted their Lordships would permit him to call their attention to the well-organized assistance of our Indian Government, and to the discipline and valour of the Native contingent. Their Lordships could not but hope that the peace which bad been the result of their operations might be permanent, and tend to the increase of great mercantile transactions with that country. The satisfactory state of our Indian empire could not fail to be a subject of the greatest congratulation to their Lordships. Notwithstanding the exhausting effects of the late mutiny, from which the country had only partially recovered, under the able administration of the Governor General, accompanied, as he trusted it might be, by an unbroken peace, wherein its almost countless resources might be developed, he saw no reason why they should not anticipate a great financial and commercial prosperity for India. To turn to the western hemisphere, the separation of one State from the great American Union could not but be deeply regretted. We, who in this country lived under a monarchical Government, hallowed by time, and endeared to us nut only by the great blessings we had derived from it and the greatness we had achieved under it, but by individual love and loyalty for the Sovereign herself, could not but allow that under a Republican and Federal form of Government the United States had attained in a short time to unparalelled prosperity and greatness. That anything should occur to diminish that prosperity would at all times be a matter of great sorrow to us. It was to be hoped that the calming and soothing influences of some friendly Power might shortly reconcile the conflicting interests of the northern and southern States, and, by preventing fraternal war, preserve in its integrity the great American Republic. At the same time, knowing the extent to which we were dependent on America for the raw material of our greatest manufacture, he would urge on their Lordships the necessity of taking such measures in our Colonial dependencies as would insure us a constant and ample supply of cotton. He would not trespass further on their Lordships' attention, but thanking them for the indulgence they had kindly extended to him, simply conclude by seconding the Address.

[See Page 10.]

THE EARL OF DERBY

My Lords, it is at all times a great gratification to me, upon whichever side of the House I may happen to sit, when the terms of the Address moved in answer to Her Majesty's gracious Speech from the Throne are such as do not render necessary any interruption of that general harmony and unanimity with which it is always desirable at the commencement of the Session that both this and the other House of Parliament should express their dutiful and loyal attachment to the Sovereign; and if my noble Friend who moved the Address, and who has spoken in terms for which I am most grateful of my returning health, imagines that my appearance here indicates any settled purpose of hostility to Her Majesty's Government, or any desire to offer an Amendment to the Address, I can assure him he has greatly mistaken the course which I am disposed to take on this occasion. My Lords, we must recollect that a Speech from the Throne is a very different thing from an ordinary Message delivered by the President of the United States of America to Congress. It does not assume to be an exposition of the general principles of the Government for the time being, still less does it assume to be an exposition in detail of the manner in which they intend to carry out those principles. No doubt, there are occasions upon which the general rule is departed from— when a Ministry finds it needful to give to Parliament a general indication of the leading principles of their policy, and when they may, therefore, think it necessary so to frame the Address as to compel an expression of opinion favourable or unfavourable to that policy from both branches of the Legislature. On the other hand, there have been times when the views of the Opposition on vital questions were so decidedly at variance with those of the Ministry, and when they were so strongly convinced that the Government of the country should be confided to other hands, that an Amendment to the Address has been proposed, and sometimes with success. But, my Lords, these are exceptions to the general rule; and I think it is wise on the part of the Government to confine the Address to that which is its most legitimate character—namely, a brief reference to the events which have occurred during the Parliamentary recess, accompanied by an intimation that papers explanatory of their details will in due time be presented to both Houses, and also by a general indication of the principal measures which it is the intention of the Government to bring in upon their responsibility in the course of the Session. My Lords, regarded in this point of view, the present Speech appears to me to be quite unexceptionable. And, although there are topics introduced into this Speech which are of deep importance and of the highest political interest, and topics, too, on some of which it is impossible for me to forbear from now offering a few observations, yet I conceive that neither in the Address itself, nor in the speeches of the Mover or Seconder, is there anything which calls upon your Lordships to depart from the unanimity usual on these occasions.

My Lords, it may perhaps be more convenient, in commenting on the Speech, if I deal with its paragraphs rather in the reverse order to that in which they are submitted to us. I shall refer, in the first place, to the paragraph in which Her Majesty's Ministers put forward the principal and most important measures which they intend to propose to Parliament in the present Session. And here I cannot help congratulating Her Majesty's Ministers, the two Houses of Parliament, and the country at large, that the programme appears to be of a much more practical, if of a somewhat less ambitious character than that which was presented to us in the corresponding paragraph of the Speech of last year. My Lords, if the measures indicated are as wisely and skilfully prepared as they are judiciously chosen, they will, when passed, constitute a valuable addition to our legislation. In the present absence of party bitterness and party acrimony, it is to be hoped that these measures will receive from both Houses of Parliament that calm and impartial consideration which they might not under other circumstances be so likely to command. My Lords, although the present scheme of the Government promises much less than their scheme of last year, I must be permitted to say, that I think it a much more promising one. The measures they intend to propose are— For the consolidation of important parts of the criminal law; for the improvement of the law of bankruptcy and insolvency; for rendering more easy the transfer of land; for establishing a uniform system of rating in England and Wales; and for several other purposes of public usefulness. My Lords, I hope I shall not be thought hypercritical if, in passing, I say I think one of those measures is not quite accurately described in the Speech. The phrase "uniform system of rating" should be "uniform system of assessment." A uniform system of rating exists at present. What is complained of is the want of uniformity in the assessment for the purpose of imposing the rates; and if you can make the law and practice of the country correspond you will certainly obtain a great advantage. There is a little supplementary clause added with reference to the introduction of measures that will be convenient for several other purposes of public usefulness. The style of the Speech is somewhat colloquial — perhaps too colloquial for a Queen's Speech; but I imagine that the measures thus referred to are of the same nature, just a kind of "et cetera." And yet I may be told by a noble and learned Lord that there is a great deal involved in "et cetera." I think Lord Coke upon Littleton says it comprehends almost every diverse question, diverse points of commercial law, diverse diversities; and in one case "et cetera" stands for six subjects, which occupy five pages. Such was the et cetera of Lord Coke, and it may be the Royal et cetera introduced in the Queen's Speech may be equally comprehensive. Still, I conjecture the measures referred to are of a more humble class, and of the same denomination with those which are specially mentioned. I must confess there is one point on which I feel some surprise that no notice is taken in Her Majesty's Speech. Without adverting to the causes which may have produced it, I think it would not have been injudicious if some expression had been allowed to proceed from the Royal lips of sympathy for the deep distress which has existed in some parts of England; nor would it have been ungracious to indicate something like a Royal approval of the extensive beneficence by which that distress has been in some degree alleviated. That distress may not be> referable to any special cause, but it certainly suggests matter for serious consideration, whether the ordinary machinery of the Poor Laws is insufficient to meet such cases. No doubt it was an exceptional case, but the operation of the Poor Laws was found totally inadequate to deal with it. I may be permitted to take this opportunity of saying that I hope the working classes will take a useful lesson with regard to provident habits from the distress which some of them have been called on to endure. No doubt many of them are utterly unable to do more than provide for their wants from week to week, and if an immediate failure of employment takes place they are unavoidably reduced to a state of great privation and suffering; but, on the other hand, it is a matter of notoriety that a large body, not merely of skilled artisans, but of the working classes generally, earn on an average 24s. to 28s. for four days' work, and could very much increase their means by working steadily the whole of the week; they might he in the receipt of 30s. a week—an income equal to that of many who occupy a higher station, and have to keep up a better appearance; yet these persons waste a great part of their earnings in drink and idleness, and a week or a fortnight's want of work throws them and their families into destitution, for which they have themselves only to blame. However grievous this may be, I cannot but hope that the recent occurrences may be a warning to those men who have hitherto been improvident.

My Lords, I also observe, with some surprise, that no notice is taken in Her Majesty's Speech of the financial condition of the country. I should certainly have expected that we should be informed that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had succeeded to his most sanguine expectations in those sources of increased revenue which he anticipated from the operation of the Com- mercial Treaty with France, and particularly in the increase of revenue he calculated on from the reductions effected last year. We may be told that questions of finance are not questions with which this House ought to deal or on which we should make any observations, although I do not know that there are any financial operations proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer by which the Members of this House are unaffected. But we have this year an opportunity which rarely occurs for considering and examining two Royal Speeches, and comparing the results of the policy followed in either case. I do find in the Speech addressed on Monday by the Emperor of the French to the Legislative Body, what has been the result of the Commercial Treaty to France, and I cannot do better than draw your Lordships' attention to this paragraph. He says, "At the least we ought to endeavour to make objects of the first necessity as cheap as possible. It is with this view that we have lowered the duties on raw materials and signed a treaty with England." And accordingly in his Commercial Treaty he proceeded on the principle not of abolishing but of reducing as far as possible all taxes on the raw material of manufacture, the greater use of which might make up for the deficiency in the revenue. He proceeded on the principle laid down by Sir Robert Peel in 1841 of making the greatest reduction on articles of prime necessity, and secondly, on articles of raw material, to promote the industry of the country. Now see the result. The Emperor of the French informs us that "to realize these economical reforms we have had to renounce ninety millions of annual receipts" — between £3,000,000 and £4.000.000 sterling— "but, nevertheless, the Budget will be presented to you in equilibrium, without its having been necessary to have recourse either to the creation of new imposts or by trenching on the public credit, as I had to announce to you last year." My Lords, I can imagine the Chancellor of the Exchequer reading this paragraph with very peculiar feelings. How he must envy the state of things described. But I will draw a veil—which must however be withdrawn before very long—over the financial sorrows of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I express my sincere satisfaction at this result in France. I wish I could express my satisfaction that the different policy pursued on the part of England had pro- duced on the revenue such favourable results as those which the Emperor of the French says have been produced on the French revenue.

The next paragraph of Her Majesty's Speech to which I will address myself is that which is addressed to the House of Commons, which speaks of the Estimates, and says they have been framed with a due regard to economy and to the efficiency of the several branches of the public service. I hope it will satisfy the Members of the House of Commons, and more especially those sixty gentlemen who addressed a memorial to the Prime Minister on this subject, and who received a reply conceived in the most delicate and conciliatory language combined with the strongest expressions of friendship. As I read the answer of the Prime Minister, it amounts to this, —"Gentlemen, economy is a good thing, but efficiency is a better thing still; and as Her Majesty's Ministers are much better judges than you are how far economy and efficiency can be combined, I recommend you not to trouble us with your crude speculations, but be satisfied with the Estimates we propound."

Following the inverse order I have already indicated, the next paragraph of the Speech refers to the serious differences which have arisen among the States of the North American Union. My Lords, it is impossible not to feel the deepest concern at the threatening disruption of that great Union, as it must affect the happiness and welfare of that country. But apart from the relations of interest between the two countries, there is no man in this country who would not view with the deepest anxiety and regret the disruption of a community which, without claiming perfection for its institutions, and certainly under various disadvantages, has yet procured for its people an amount of prosperity almost unparalelled in the world, and an amount of personal freedom only inferior— and I think it is inferior—to that enjoyed by the people of this country. But it is impossible to look at that threatened disruption—only possibly to be effected at the cost of the horrors of civil war—without looking also at the effects it would produce on the manufactures of this country. Its first effects, at all events, would be most disastrous to one great branch of our industry. Unfortunately, it does so happen —I trust it will not be long so—that we have been almost exclusively dependent on the cotton of America. It will be of the highest advantage, if the threatened disruption should lead those who are most deeply interested—I do not think it is a question on which the Government can or ought to interfere—to turn their serious consideration to the best means of averting the danger involved in a failure of the supply of cotton from the United States by promoting an increased 3upply from other sources. Such a supply can be had, and in great abundance, in many parts of the world, provided means be taken for encouraging its growth and import. My Lords, it is impossible also not to feel the greatest interest in the people of the United States, connected as we are with them by identity of language and laws. But that interest is increased by the pleasing circumstance to which Her Majesty next refers. Her Majesty says that the interest She takes in the well-being of the people of the United States cannot but be increased by the kind and cordial reception given by them to the Prince of Wales during his recent visit to the continent of America. With the exception, perhaps, of one little unpleasantness we may congratulate Her Majesty upon the loyalty and good feeling which were displayed towards the Prince of Wales by our fellow subjects in Canada, as well as by the people of the neighbouring Republic. But there is one point which, although it must have afforded the utmost satisfaction to the country, could not, perhaps have been introduced by Her Majesty into her gracious Speech. I allude, of course, to the perfect manner in which the Prince of Wales himself, by his personal conduct, justified the respect and good feeling which were manifested towards him in Canada and the United States. There is not one young man in ten thousand who would be able in so difficult a position, and on the spur of the moment, to show the same amount of self-possession, the same tact, the same freedom of action, and at the same time maintain as he did effectually the dignity of the country. That, of course, is not a subject upon which any formal Address can be presented to Her Majesty, but I am sure your Lordships will agree with me that our congratulations, instead of being limited to the reception given to the Prince of Wales, should include, in addition, the perfect manner in which His Royal Highness justified all the enthusiasm and good feeling which his visit called forth.

It is not my intention, my Lords, to comment upon the next two topics dealt with in the Speech from the Throne. One is the insurrection of a portion of the Natives of New Zealand; the other and more important is the state of our Indian territories. With regard to the first, we are not called upon for any expression of opinion with respect to it, and, even if we were, we are not in a position to form a correct judgment in regard to it. I hope it may turn out not only that we have acted according to the strict letter of the law, but that in our treatment of Native rights and usages—which are most complicated in their character, which are difficult to be understood by Europeans, which, indeed, are hardly understood by the Natives themselves, but to which they are earnestly attached—we have not afforded any pretext for the armed rebellion which has occurred. I hope we have not given by one single act of injustice a pretext for this insurrection, which must be put down, because under no circumstances can an armed insurrection be permitted to continue. The state of India is, of course, too large and important a question to be dealt with incidentally upon such an occasion as the present. I rejoice to hear that the Government are able to express the hope that the finances of India will gradually partake of the general amendment, for I confess that, in my opinion, the prospect at the present moment is not of the most favourable character. Nor, my Lords, am I about to enter into any discussion of the origin of our recent dispute with China. The disaster at the mouth of the Peiho, which led to the late expedition, might, perhaps, have been avoided; but when that disaster occurred there was obviously only one course which could be taken. We were bound by a display of energy to enforce compliance with our terms, and at the same time to show to the world, by the moderation of those terms, that we were not using our military and naval power to an undue advantage. I am glad to be able fairly and honestly to congratulate the Government upon the manner in which their intentions have been carried out, upon the admirable arrangements made by the naval and military authorities, and upon the intelligence and activity displayed by the naval, military and civil administrations in the accomplishment of a most difficult and arduous service.

I need not say, my Lords, that what is called the Italian question is the most important subject dealt with in the Speech from the Throne. Even upon the present occasion I cannot refrain from offering a few observations upon the general state of our foreign relations. But the point upon which I desire more especially to have a full and unreserved explanation from the Government is the state of our relations — I do not mean our ostensible and avowed relations, but our real, true, and genuine relations — with our great and powerful neighbour on the other side of the Channel. Two important questions are referred to in the Speech from the Throne. One is the presence of a French force in Syria; the other is the state of Italy. We are told that the French expedition to Syria was sent by the Emperor of the French in pursuance of an arrangement of several Powers for a specific and temporary purpose, and we know that the troops were to be withdrawn at the expiration of a certain period of time. The moment for their withdrawal, according to the terms of the convention, is now drawing near. If I am not mistaken the six months assigned for the occupation will expire on the 5th of March, and I should be glad to hear from Her Majesty's Government that they have reason to believe and expect that the French Government are determined to withdraw their troops at the appointed time, and not to seek to obtain the renewal of an occupation which is certainly of an anomalous character, calculated to create uneasiness and anxiety. But, my Lords, however important may be the affairs of Syria, those of Italy are of more importance still. I think it will be necessary, in expressing any opinion upon the affairs of Italy, to distinguish between the results which may have been attained, and the means and agencies employed for that purpose. For my own part, I have nothing to say in vindication of the system of government which was carried on in the kingdom of Naples, although I think Francis II. has had a hard measure dealt out to him, inasmuch as he has been exposed to the long pent-up indignation of his people before he had an opportunity of showing what his principles and policy really were. However, my Lords, I say not a single word in vindication of the frequent violations of law, and of the cruel punishments which were undoubtedly practised in Naples; I say nothing of the right of the people to break out in open revolt, nor do I express an opinion whether the dream or vision of Italian unity can ever be realized—a matter upon which I con- fess I entertain very serious doubts; but I do say that if that dream can be realized I will look upon the establishment of a free and united Italy without any feeling of jealousy whatever, provided it is not only free and united, but really and truly independent of any foreign Power. I have no fear of a free and united Italy provided it is true to itself, and carefully excludes from its affairs the intervention and influence of other States. But, my Lords, when I pass from the question of the merits of the Neapolitan revolt to the manner in which that revolt has been encouraged and promoted, I must say I take a very different view. I am not going to say a single word in derogation of that brave, and, I believe, excellent man, General Garibaldi. He has displayed the highest qualities-of a soldier—great personal courage, great personal skill, great personal forethought. As a military man he is entitled to the highest praise; but, it may also be said to his honour, that he is an honest politician, with no arrière pensée; whatever, no personal interest to subserve, giving the whole energies of his mind and body to the accomplishment of what he believes to be for the good of his country. Therefore, my Lords, not a single word disrespectful of General Garibaldi shall pass my lips upon the present or any future occasion; but if I look to his expedition to Naples, and to the position in which he stood with regard to international law, I am compelled to say, however upright his motives, that if he had been unsuccessful, and if the King of Naples had taken him prisoner, he could not have claimed any of the rights of a belligerent Power, and even if he had been put summarily to death the King would not have violated any international law. All the efforts, however, of General Garibaldi would have had little effect if he had not been supported and upheld by a greater Power. That Power I need not say was the power of the King of Sardinia. I believe that the course pursued by the King of Sardinia, whatever excuses he may make to himself or to his countrymen, whatever palliations there may be, was a flagrant violation of international law. There could not, in fact, be a more flagrant violation of international law than that committed by the King of Sardinia when he invaded the Papal and Neapolitan States. Her Majesty has been advised to say, using a rather colloquial expression, Believing that the Italians ought to be left to settle their own affairs, I have not thought it right to exercise any active interference in those matters. There is a very palpable fallacy in the expression about the Italians having been left to settle their own affairs. If we admit the doctrine of the noble Lord at the head of the Foreign Office — and within certain limits I am not disposed to dispute it — that every country has a right to deal with its own Government according to its own disposition and judgment, free from the intervention of any foreign Power, it is impossible that the noble Lord can contend, as he must, in order to vindicate this paragraph, that Sardinia was justified in interfering with the inhabitants of the kingdom of Naples, without declaration of war, without cause of war, without any ground of complaint whatever for such intervention. It is impossible to justify that violation of international law on the ground of a general Italian feeling in favour of that violation. No man can doubt that it is the right of Frenchmen to deal with French affairs, but I apprehend that if the large body of Frenchmen who inhabit France were disposed to interfere with the affairs of the small body of Frenchmen who inhabit Lower Canada or the Mauritius, the noble Lord would find good reasons for objecting to such intervention on the part of that country. Shakspeare makes Macbeth, in reply to the two murderers, say:— Ay, in the catalogue ye go for men; As hounds, and greyhounds, mongrels, spaniels, curs, Shoughs, water rugs, and demi-wolves are cleped All by the name of dogs, and proceeds to describe the various qualities by which the various descriptions of dogs are distinguished. The same idea may with justice be applied to the difference which exists between the population occupying the several States of Italy. We know that the qualities are not more heterogeneous than the nature, the habits, and the dispositions of the different races of Italy. It may be that the feeling of Italian unity may be strong enough to bring the various Italian States into active cooperation with the King of Sardinia, and at such a consummation I, for one, should rejoice. There has hitherto, I rejoice to see, been exhibited among the various populations of Italy great moderation, and it would seem as if they were disposed rather to submit to the rule of a constitutional Sovereign than to indulge in any wild and excited notions of general democracy and unrestrained republicanism. But that which I desire to impress upon your Lordships' attention is not so much the merits or demerits of the King of Sardinia, of General Garibaldi, or of the Government of Naples; not so much, I may add, the prospect of the ultimate consolidation of the whole Italian territory under the one head of Italian unity; as the tone which Her Majesty's Government mean to assume with respect to the present state of Italy, and the views which they entertain as to her future position. We are, indeed, told that papers upon this subject will be laid before us; but my complaint is not that we have no papers, not that the oracle has not spoken, or that it has spoken in ambiguous terms. I am aware that certain papers have obtained publicity here even before they were published abroad in the quarters to which they were directed. I may add that I am, in speaking upon this subject, reminded of a somewhat extraordinary performance of the noble Lord the present Secretary for Foreign Affairs, who some years ago, when he was First Lord of the Treasury, took the unusual course of reading in the House of Commons a letter from the Sovereign, which had reference to the mode in which it was the duty of his noble Friend now at the head of the Government to conduct the foreign correspondence of the country, and which dwelt upon the necessity that existed to submit for the approval of Her Majesty previous to their being sent abroad all despatches which were about to emanate from the Foreign Department. I thought at the time that that was a strong step for one colleague to take towards another, and I cannot now help being of opinion that the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs appears to have been, in the course which he took in the case of his own despatch of the 27th of October, somewhat oblivious of the wise counsel which he gave on the occasion to which I am referring; for I cannot believe that that despatch was not sent out without having received that which in accordance with constitutional usage it was essential it should receive—the approval and sanction of the Sovereign. Now, as I have already said, I do not complain that the oracle has not spoken, or that it has spoken ambiguously—it has spoken on two occasions not at all ambiguously, but quite openly and very lucidly and distinctly. What I do complain of is that it has not enabled us to form any satisfactory opinion with respect to the policy of the Government, for its two distinct enunciations upon these two occasions are in distinct contradiction to one another. I make this charge against the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, because I find that he has written two despatches to Sir James Hudson—one dated the 31st of August, 1860, and one the 27th of October following, embodying two principles totally distinct. One of these was to be communicated, the other might be communicated, to Count Cavour. Now, I will call your attention to the two principles laid down in the two despatches, and then I will ask to which of those principles is it that Her Majesty's Ministers have obtained the assent of the Emperor of the French, and by which of them do they themselves mean to abide? I have here, of course, no right to ask the Government in what the policy of the French Emperor consists; but I have a right to know from them whether their own policy has been systematically connected with him, and whether they have been assenting parties to the various steps which he has taken or is taking with regard to the affairs of Italy. The first despatch of the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs to which I have alluded—that dated the 31st of August last—very strongly deprecates, not only upon the ground of prudence, but of principle, any interference upon the part of Sardinia with the territories of Naples or Venice. This it does in principle, and with reference to Naples as well as to Venice; for the noble Lord commences with a declaration that Her Majesty's Government do not think it necessary to continue the discussion, because they conceive that in substance the note of the Sardinian Government disavows any intention of attacking the territories of the King of Naples or those of Austria. An intention, therefore, to invade the territories of the King of Naples was an intention which, if it were not believed to have been abandoned by the King of Sardinia, must be condemned by Her Majesty's Government. But, on the 27th of October, when the invasion of Naples had taken place, the noble Lord changed his tone and his language. He did so on a very remarkable occasion, when every Government in Europe had found it necessary to signify their disapproval of the course pursued by the King of Sardinia. Prussia and France had withdrawn their Ambassadors, and Russia had signified her extreme disapproval. It was then—I suppose in order to exhibit to Europe how successful the noble Lord had been in obtaining those other allies with whom, in a moment of petulance last year, he threatened France, against the French alliance—that he seized the opportunity of all those allies having condemned the policy of Sardinia to say that he deemed it incumbent on him broadly and clearly to state that he altogether approved of that course. That declaration, made, with characteristic prudence and judgment, the noble Lord proceeded to enter into a discussion of the most difficult and delicate points of international law, and wholly without necessity to lay down principles which, if acted upon, must be acted upon with the utmost caution and reserve, but which he proceeds to apply in the broadest and most sweeping fashion. Now, I have known the noble Lord many years, and I am well aware how great the temptation is to him to rush into print on the subject of a great revolution; but, at the same time, I think he acted with even more than his usual want of caution, because he sought to go to such high authorities for the principles which he advocated. The noble Lord delighted to find a passage in Vattel which he thought would vindicate the course which the King of Sardinia had pursued. He quotes that passage where, referring to the assistance given by the United Provinces to the Prince of Orange, Vattel says, "That if a people for good reasons take up arms against an oppressor, it is but an act of justice and generosity to assist brave men in the defence of their liberties." Now, the noble Lord's reference to Vattel induced me also to look into the same authority, and I find that he lays down principles as different from those which the noble Lord has advanced as light is from darkness. Vattel, in the first place, says that it is no part of the duty or right of any Sovereign to constitute himself a judge of the merits of the internal government of any other Sovereign, though that other Sovereign may be as oppressive, his laws may be as bad, or as much violated as possible; and he says that no Sovereign has a right to deal with the internal administration of any other country, or to interfere between its people and their own Sovereign. When, however, once civil war has broken out in a country, and when there are two parties in arms, one opposed to another, then, according to Vattel, foreign nations are at liberty to take any course which may suit their interests or feelings, and may join without reproach with one or the other of the contending parties, who have become two separate and distinct powers. But he says that until insurrection has actually broken out, until civil war is actually flagrant, however much the oppression of the people, however much the people may complain or remonstrate, there is no justification by the law of nations for the interference of any foreign Power. If the principle of intervention in the domestic affairs of a country is to be allowed, it may take place on one side just as well as on the other. Now supposing that Austria had interfered for the protection of the King of Naples against this invasion, I apprehend we should have had a great deal of very virtuous indignation from the noble Lord, and we should have heard that it was perfectly legitimate to sanction an intervention in support of the efforts of a great people struggling for their freedom, but that it was an unheard-of outrage for a despotic Government to interfere to assist a Sovereign against his people. Yet the argument of Vattel is applicable as much to one case as to the other, and he lays down this further doctrine—a doctrine which I hope the noble Lord will bear in mind when he proceeds, with Vattel in his hand, to expound these matters—Vattel goes on to say that if any Power whatever, by its own agency, seeks to instigate revolt and discontent in a neighbouring country, that under any circumstances is an atrocious injury, which the other country has a right to complain of and contend against. I believe that is a doctrine which it will be well should be considered, and it will be for Europe to say whether there is any Government which, at this moment, is through its emissaries exciting discontent and provoking revolt in that way. The noble Lord, in his letter of the 31st August, goes into the question of Venice, and he contemplates the case of an attack being made on that territory: — It is obvious," he says, "that no such attack can be made by an army without the consent of the King of Sardinia. It is also clear that in point of right, the King of Sardinia has no excuse for violating the Treaty of Zurich, so recently signed by him. The noble Lord goes on to explain, and finishes by saying that "the only chance Sardinia would have in such a contest"— that is, a contest in which, as he supposes, the King of Sardinia would in the first instance be worsted by the power of Austiia— Would be the hope of bringing France into the field, and kindling a general war in Europe. But let not Count Cavour indulge in so pernicious an illusion. The great Powers of Europe are bent on maintaining peace, and Great Britain has interests in the Adriatic which Her Majesty's Government watch over with careful attention. Now, I should he glad to hear that the noble Lord and Her Majesty's Government entertained now the same confident hope and belief that no sanction would be given on the part either of France or of this country to any attack by Sardinia, now or hereafter, on the recognised and authorised dominions of Austria in Venice, and that, whatever may be meant by the intimation that we have interests to watch over in the Adriatic, we should not on such an occasion behold it with indifference. I hope the noble Lord will be able to say that they have not gone back from the confident declaration which he made, that any attack by Sardinia on the territory of Austria will not be viewed with indifference. I do not think it is too much for me to ask for an explanation on this subject—for a distinct and clear explanation of what is the view of Her Majesty's Government with regard to the future policy to be pursued in Italy—in presence of two documents which are absolutely and entirely contradictory as to the principles they lay down—because the very arguments which are introduced in favour of the right of Sardinia to interfere in the kingdom of Naples, in defence of a people groaning under oppression and wishing to throw off the yoke, are applicable to Venetia, where it is impossible to doubt that there is a great discontent against Austrian rule, but where such a state of things does exist that there is a people complaining of its government, but submitting to it, and not having broken out into open revolt. I ask for this explanation, the more because Her Majesty states in Her Speech that "She trusts the moderation of the Powers of Europe will prevent any interruption of the general peace." Now there is no use in blinking the question; it is right we should speak openly. The preservation of peace or the calamity of war depends wholly and entirely on the attitude taken by the Emperor of the French; and I must confess that I am not very favourably impressed with regard to the prospects of peace by the language used in the Speech delivered by the Emperor of the French. At this time last year I undertook to express my earnest hope that the Emperor of the French would not commit so great an error and so great a political fault as to persist in the annexation of Savoy and Nice, which was at that time strenuously desired by Her Majesty's Government; and I expressed that hope, not only on account of the effect which the actual transfer of those provinces would have on the relations of the countries in Europe, but more particularly so on account of the effect it would produce in shaking the confidence of Europe in the good faith and discretion of the Emperor of the French. In this country people are only too ready to state openly, clearly, and distinctly what their views and objects are. They go straightforward to their mark— sometimes indiscreetly perhaps—but they expect to sec in explanations of objects and intentions on the part of other Powers the same straightforwardness. They are, therefore, very easily duped by specious promises and declarations; but, once duped, they are not so easily duped a second time, and confidence once forfeited is not so easily restored to the same person. But even were I disposed to place in the good faith of the declarations of France, or rather of the Emperor of the French, the same confidence as I was prepared to repose in them fourteen or sixteen months ago, I do not think that the expressions in the Emperor's Speech are such as to assure us that he will use his great and powerful influence for the maintenance of the general peace. I take it that there could not be a greater calamity for this country and for Europe than the rupture or dissolution of the friendly alliance between this country and France. There are many reasons which ought to bring us closely together, and an amicable intimacy is as important to the one as to the other, and is equally important to the general peace of Europe. But if the alliance is to be anything real and satisfactory, it is obvious that there must exist mutual confidence between the Governments, and a clear understanding by each of the policy, the objects, and intentions of the other. It is impossible to overlook the fact that the present danger of disturbance in Europe arises only from the attitude assumed by France; and that at the present moment there prevails a degree of apprehension, anxiety, and uncertainty, with respect to the future course of that Power. It is by the sight of the armaments of France that these anxieties are caused. At the same time that the Emperor of the French makes use of peaceful professions, he is at the head of 400,000 men, and the amount could easily be raised to 600,000. That army, if I am rightly informed, being sick of idleness, is demanding occupation, and exhibits impatience at the inactivity to which it is condemned; and the nation to which it belongs would go through great suffering, and sustain a great weight of taxation, merely for the sake of what it deems military glory. Such being the army, and such the nation, with the Emperor of the French at their head, it is not satisfactory to see that potentate at present exerting himself to increase the powers of France, more especially in that particular department in which it is absolutely necessary that we should maintain a superiority if we mean to maintain our independence. When I see the efforts made to increase the navy of France, I cannot— though I do not suppose that the Emperor would do anything to bring himself in collision with this country, but, on the contrary, I believe that his earnest desire is to continue in good terms with England— yet I cannot, I repeat, disconnect those efforts from the great exertions also made in this country against possible aggression, or help saying that we seem to be running a race of military preparations—with this difference, however, that those in France must be for aggression, while those in England are only for those defences which are essential for the existence of the nation. But even supposing we give entire credit to the declarations of the Emperor of the French, what do we find in his Speech? He says— I certainly do not ignore the fact that this system has the inconvenience of appearing to authorise many annoying excesses, and extreme opinions would prefer, the one that France should take cause with all kinds of revolutions, the other that she should put herself at the head of a general reactionary movement. I shall not allow myself to be turned aside from my course by either of these opposing influences. It is enough for the grandeur of the country to maintain its right where it is indisputable, to defend its honour where it is attacked, to lend its assistance where it may be invoked in favour of a just cause. Now, I ask what possible contingency might not be included under these three exceptions to the general peaceful policy of France? To defend her rights and honour when attacked, there can be no doubt about that; but when you come to "ren- dering assistance in a just cause," who but himself is to be the judge of whether a cause is just or not? No man would ever avow that he intends entering into a contest for an unjust cause. With regard to maintaining the indisputable rights of France, the Emperor gives an instance of what he means by that expression, and what is it? The maintenance of the indisputable rights of France consists "in causing the acceptance of the cession of Savoy and Nice, which are now irrevocably united to France." If that be an explanation of what is meant by the maintenance of the indisputable rights of France, what possible limit to any direct increase of power or annexation can be discovered under those terms? How can there be any war of aggression entered on by France which will not come under one of these three cases — the vindication of the national honour, the maintenance of the indisputable rights of France, or rendering assistance to a just cause? Therefore, I am anxious to learn whether Her Majesty's Government have still the same confidence in the peaceful intentions of the French Emperor. I do not ask the noble Earl opposite to perform impossibilities—to reconcile the two despatches to which I have referred; but I ask by which of the two principles the Government are to be guided—whether we are to maintain and secure absolute non-intervention by one State in the affairs of another State, or whether it is perfectly just, lawful, and patriotic, for us to step in and assist any struggling people against oppression. This is not an unimportant question, either as respects the future or the present, for unquestionably it is a state of doubt, and apprehension, and uncertainty, that places on the people of this country an amount of taxation which is absolutely unprecedented in time of peace, which is perfectly intolerable, and which is only made more intolerable by the financial freaks of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. How long is this state of things to continue, and when is the country to be relieved from the pressure of this heavy taxation? We are, in point of fact, at a time of profound peace suffering from almost a war taxation, and we want to know how long the nation is to remain in this position, how long these excessive armaments are to continue necessary, and how long, under the guise of peace, and while apparently in cordial and friendly alliance with our neighbours across the Channel, we are to maintain these preparations for immediate war? We want to know, further, whether Her Majesty's Government are at this moment acting, with regard to European politics, in concert with the Emperor of the French, or whether we are with him merely on the footing upon which we stand towards Russia or any other country with whom we have no ground of quarrel? It is of great importance that we should know our real position on these points, and it is for the purpose of enabling the Government to give explanations—and I hope satisfactory explanations—of their views, their feelings, their intentions, and their principles, that I have trespassed upon your Lordships with some observations respecting a Speech upon which I am happy to say that I do not see any occasion to move an Amendment.

EARL GRANVILLE

said, that the noble Lords on his side the House had shewed by their cheers how fully they sympathised with the noble Mover of the Address, and how great was their satisfaction at seeing the noble Earl (the Earl of Derby) now restored to them in perfect health. He was sure the noble Earl did justice to his (Earl Granville's) own feelings on the subject; and, though it might appear somewhat magnanimous to welcome the noble Earl's re-appearance, no one entered more sincerely into the congratulations of the noble Mover than he did. A maxim was once laid down by the noble Earl himself, that it was the duty of a leader of the Opposition to find every fault he possibly could with the Government during a discussion upon an Address. And, therefore, when the noble Earl began his remarks by compliments upon the Royal Speech, and the practical character of the measures it promised, he (Earl Granville) had a moment's fear that his noble Friend behind him had been slightly misinformed with regard to the perfect restoration of the noble Earl's health; but from the caustic pleasantry in which the noble Earl indulged, and the severe censures he had just heaped upon others, he was thoroughly satisfied that the noble Earl was quite himself again. That part of the Speech from the Throne, on which the noble Earl dwelt at least length was, naturally enough, that which relates to the Colonies. Beginning with India, the noble Lord expressed not an opinion, but a fear lest the hope placed in Her Majesty's mouth as to a gradual improvement in the financial condition of India might prove to be unfounded. In this the noble Earl had placed his opinion in opposition to that of Her Majesty's advisers, and the noble Earl delivered himself so shortly on this point, and without giving any reason for his fears, that he did not think it necessary to go into so momentary a question before all the information procurable should have been laid upon the table. In the meanwhile he would only observe, that from all the information that reached him—although, of course, there could be no certainty on so complicated a subject, he (Earl Granville) was inclined to take a very favourable view of the resources of India when they should have been properly developed. With regard to New Zealand, his noble Friend the Secretary for the Colonies was not able at this time to give any additional information beyond what was already known. The last accounts showed an improved state of affairs. But it was quite clear that the first duty of a Government was to restore order, and then it would become their duty to deal with these extensive, and difficult, and complicated questions and disputes between the Natives and the English settlers. The noble Earl opposite had also spoken of the reception which had been given to the Prince of Wales on his late visit to America; and said that that reception of the Prince was a satisfactory proof of the loyalty of that important colony, Canada. He fully joined in the compliment the noble Earl had paid to the Prince; and he must be allowed further to say that, loyal as the people of this country have ever been to the Sovereign, it must be a further source of gratification and pride to feel that the care which Her Majesty had bestowed on the education of her children had, even before they arrived at manhood or womanhood, been attended by such successful results as to add something, not only to cement the tie between the Colonies and the mother country, but to bring more directly before the world a knowledge of the virtues of the Sovereign. I will not attempt to weaken the force of the just compliments paid by the noble Earl to the Prince of Wales for giving us so much promise for the future. But not only in Canada was a reception of a peculiar character given to the Prince of Wales going in his Royal character, with a Secretary of State and other officers of state accompanying him; but in South Africa, the mere casual visit of another son in his private capacity of midshipman on board one of Her Majesty's ships, the loyalty of that colony was fully shown in a similar way to the mother country as it had been evinced towards the elder son in Canada and elsewhere.

But the greater part of the noble Earl's speech, as might naturally have been expected—and indeed it is a topic of discussion everyday and everywhere—related to foreign affairs. The noble Earl, with regard to the war in China, expressed a feeling in which he (Earl Granville) entirely concurred; and he thought it must be satisfactory to know that, though the dangers and trials to which our troops were exposed were not of a formidable character, no doubt had ever been expressed, either there or elsewhere, as to the ability of our officers and soldiers to fight. From some circumstances which would be fresh in their Lordships' recollection, there had been a doubt whether our organization for military purposes was as good as it ought to be. The China war had entirely dissipated that illusion. The expedition was partly undertaken by the authorities at home—by his Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief, if he would permit the allusion, and by his noble Friend behind him, the Secretary for War—and partly also by the Governor General of India. The organization displayed in despatching this expedition — small, of course, in comparison with the forces sometimes required to be moved in Europe—was without a blot; and the force had been despatched without the slightest difficulty or delay. He remembered hearing the Duke of Wellington say that if any one would guarantee to feed his troops, he would, without the slightest difficulty, march 5,000 men across Asia; and what had recently occurred in China was an apt illustration of the remark. The operations were well and carefully planned, and he believed that the result would be to open to us an extent of trade hitherto perfectly unknown with China; and whilst they had given us a better knowledge of the resources of China than had ever before been obtained, it was, perhaps, more important that they had tended to force on the Government of that great empire a real knowledge of what England was, and what were her means for carrying out her reasonable and just demands. The noble Earl alluded to the unfortunate dissensions which were now raging in the United States. He thought that with regard to this country there was one very remarkable point in connection with that subject. For years after the separation— the unfortunate separation, he would say, were it not for the signal prosperity which had since attended both the mother country and the former Colonies—a spirit of rivalry was shown between the two nations, and many jealousies were exhibited at each other's success. But the visit of the Prince of Wales had shown most conclusively that notwithstanding this rivalry there existed at bottom in the United States a large amount of sympathy for the country from which they derived their descent; and he thought that the Prince's visit promised a most valuable influence on the future of the two countries. He thought a most remarkable feeling was shown on the part of England since those internal quarrels in the United States had taken place. The Mover and Seconder of the Address had both expressed their sympathy with regard to these unfortunate divisions in America; and the feeling evinced in England was a feeling of sympathy and concern throughout the land that such a misfortune should have arisen. Foreigner after foreigner had said to him, "You must rejoice at the disunion, this weakening of your great rival across the Atlantic." But no Englishman had ever made such a remark to him; and he believed that a feeling deeper than a mere commercial or manufacturing feeling pervaded all classes in England on that subject, and that there was that sort of sympathy between England and America, which, as the noble Earl had so well expressed— America being one of the greatest nations on the earth, and almost as free as ourselves—can only exist between free peoples. In that opinion he (Earl Granville) entirely concurred. We had some advantage over the United States. The minority in England had more opportunities of expressing themselves than the minority possessed in more democratic America. It was not for him to prophecy how the quarrel between the States would end, or to point out the probable effect of a disruption on the welfare of the States, or on their relations with this country. He was sure we all wished the dispute might terminate in that manner which was most likely to ensure the prosperity and welfare of that great and kindred nation. With regard to cotton, he entirely concurred with the conclusions of the noble Earl as to the desirability of extending the sources from which we derived our supplies of cotton. He thought the advice of the noble Earl was excellent. From political as well as other causes, it was not wise for us to depend for the supply of a great staple of trade on any one country. Cotton was a crop more dependent on the weather than any other; and there was no doubt that our own Colonies, as well as many other countries, were capable of furnishing us with an adequate supply. As far as they legitimately could, Government would give their encouragement and stimulus to an introduction or extension of the cotton cultivation in our Colonies; and they had already sent out circulars to our consuls in furtherance of a scheme with that object. But after all, it rested with the merchants and manufacturers particularly interested in the supply of cotton to take active and energetic steps in the same direction; for it was inexpedient that Government should actually engage in a work that could be better done by private enterprise. Coming back to Europe, the noble Earl opposite had alluded to that part of Europe which was exciting the greatest attention at the present moment—he meant Italy; and here he pronounced a most severe censure on certain acts of Her Majesty's Government, in reference to two particular despatches addressed by the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary to the Government of Sardinia, respecting the affairs of Italy. With regard to the latter of those despatches, the noble Earl made a statement which he (Earl Granville) had heard with great surprise. That statement was a most extraordinary one. It made an accusation, one affecting the constitutional character, or almost, he might say, the honour, of Lord John Russell, that he had disregarded constitutional usage in not laying a despatch before the Queen. He (Earl Granville) felt some difficulty in dealing with such a charge. He did not feel called on to state facts with regard to communications of such a character; but he thought he might say that, unless the noble Earl could bring some proof of his allegation—and he (Earl Granville) was at a loss to know what proof could be given —the noble Earl was not warranted in bringing so grave a charge against the Foreign Secretary of State, With regard to the despatches themselves, the noble Earl 6aid he required no further information than the papers already on the table. Now, he (Earl Granville) could not help thinking that if their Lordships were to enter into a discussion of the entire question when the whole of the papers should be produced—and that would be as soon as they could be printed and distributed, for he believed his noble Friend had produced them that evening in the other House—it would be much better than dealing with a separate and isolated part of the subject, with only two despatches in their possession. When that time came Her Majesty's Government would not shrink from a discussion of their Italian policy. He hoped that discussion, however, would not turn on particular portions of that policy only, but that it would be directed to a practical end. He hoped that there would be no misrepresentations; and that noble Lords would not misrepresent, as he thought the noble Earl had done, one of the despatches of Lord John Russell. When a great question like this was going on, affecting the whole of European policy, it was impossible to judge every single act and the minute and technical details of international law. They must embrace a larger view of the subject, and a larger amount of details. The noble Earl had asked if an attack on Naples was justifiable, why not an attack on Venetia? Well, the answer to that was that an attack on Venetia would lead to a complication of a more extensive and serious character than attached to an attack on Naples, and produce a war in different quarters, without, perhaps, any advantage to the Italians themselves. The noble Earl did not point out what it was he wished to establish in that peninsula, or what he thought was the object of the Italians themselves. It was not his (Earl Granville's) place to vindicate all that had been done by the King of Sardinia, any more than it was to defend the Imperial Speech delivered yesterday at Paris. The noble Earl opposite had asked what are the state of our relations with France? adding that he did not wish to ask anything it was impossible to answer: and then he wished Her Majesty's Government to say when the present unhappy state of affairs in Europe is to cease. He (Earl Granville) regretted to state that it was entirely beyond our power to answer this question—nor indeed was it the province of Her Majesty's Government to do so. With regard to the noble Earl's question as to our relations with France, he (Earl Granville) had no hesitation in saying that our relations with France were founded on those principles which ought to guide those who administer the affairs of a great country; that they were founded neither on "a blind distrust," nor on "a blind confidence;" their belief was that when France and England acted cordially together they must act for the general good of Europe; that it would be very difficult for them to act in concert, without acting for the good of Europe; and that if they did not act for the good of Europe, they would not be acting in concert, but would be taking one side or the other. The Government feel they cannot be too anxious to increase the friendly relations between the two countries. The noble Earl had adverted disparagingly to the Commercial Treaty concluded between the two countries last year. He (Earl Granville) believed, on the contrary, it had been, and would be, of great benefit to both countries. The noble Earl exulted in the beneficial effect it had produced on French finance, and the disadvantage resulting from it to England. Whatever might be the case with regard to any question of despatches and foreign policy, he (Earl Granville) was quite convinced that in discussing any matter of finance it would be of considerable advantage to have all the facts and figures before them; but he believed that, notwithstanding this exultation of the noble Earl opposite, and notwithstanding that the treaty did not come up to the sanguine wishes of Mr. Cobden himself, yet, on the whole, with the exception of one great staple of trade with which he himself was connected, and some complaints on small matters, the general anticipations of the commercial and manufacturing public had been more than realised, and the convention had been carried out in a very liberal spirit on the whole—much more so than had been stipulated by the treaty contracted in January last year. He believed it would lead to very great commercial relations between France and England; and he believed also that it would lead to a general revision of European tariffs. France was actually engaged in negotiating treaties with other countries, and if those countries reduced their tariffs in order to extend their commercial relations with France, the principle of self-interest as well as justice would induce them to extend the advantage to ourselves. Thus, in reality, the treaty which had been so much sneered at would be most beneficial to our interest. He did not pretend to say for a moment that commercial treaties would prevent war, or that commerce unfitted men for making war; but of this he was sure—that commerce disinclines nations from entering into war unnecessarily. In regard to our cooperation with France, he thought it had been attended with the most beneficial results. In China he might refer to the cordial understanding that has throughout existed between the English and French commanders of the expedition. In Syria there had been a much more difficult question to deal with; cruelties of the most atrocious kind had been committed; and to put a stop to the violence, by an agreement between the European Powers, the country was occupied for a certain period. The accounts now received by Her Majesty's Government were more favourable. The local authority was now in the hands of a distinguished Turkish officer; and from the communications received, not by the English Government alone, but by those of all the European States, there was reason to believe it will not be necessary to prolong the occupation. In referring to our relations with France, the noble Earl asked whether we were to be taught by the French the best way of adjusting our finances? Although he (Earl Granville) thought that the Emperor of the French was deserving of credit for having introduced the system of free trade into France, where it was singularly distasteful, and although M. Chevalier and those who worked with him were entitled to praise for having firmly resisted the efforts of the people in opposition to free trade, he was not quite prepared to admit that the French Government was able to give us lessons with regard to protection and free trade, and he was sorry to say that the noble Earl himself, as a professor of political economy, had quoted from Sir Robert Peel a modified notion on the question to satisfy prejudices, and uttered much in the same way that George Stephenson stated to a Committee of the House of Commons, that he felt certain that a railway train would be able to travel fifteen miles an hour. Looking to the state of the whole world there was no doubt that much apprehension, uneasiness, and distrust everywhere existed, and there was a difficulty in knowing where all would end. Among the Governments there seemed a disposition to make liberal concessions to the governed who required changes; but many of those concessions were too small, and were made too late. If we looked to our own internal condition, he thought we had reason to be proud. He was not going to boast of it, for the recent events in the United States as well as the Indian mutiny, arising suddenly, when the best informed minds were unprepared for such contingencies, should teach them not to speak in a boasting tone; but it was permitted to them to speak with grateful thankfulness of the state of this country in respect of political feeling. At no time was the general sentiment of loyalty so remarkable as at the present moment, and he believed the feeling of the country upon nearly all points to be of the soundest character. The noble Earl, in speaking of the financial state of the country, omitted, he (Earl Granville) thought, the consideration of certain circumstances which were calculated seriously to affect the finances, and over which the Government had no possible control. The noble Earl ought to have recollected that we had scarcely any summer last year—that we had a deficient harvest, and a winter of almost unparalelled severity so far as it had gone. The noble Earl lamented that there was not some stronger expression of sympathy in the Royal Speech for the suffering endured by a portion of our population. Now, with regard to those partial sufferings, it would be difficult to touch upon them without going into details which would be inconvenient to enter into in a Royal Speech. He agreed with the noble Earl in the admiration he had expressed of the noble spirit which had been shown by the more affluent classes towards their suffering fellow-creatures. Nothing could exceed the satisfaction which must be felt at the display of so noble a spirit, although he was afraid that in a great many instances that spirit had been shown in too great forgetfulness of the working of the old poor law, and from a want of due consideration of the extreme difficulty of dealing with questions of charity so as to secure the greatest permanent advantage to nil parties. At the same time the grand feature of sympathy between one class and another remained in its fullest extent. At former times, when we had deficient harvests, and when people were thrown out of employment, such state of things had led to great political disaffection. At the present moment, however, he believed there never was a country more free from this feeling, and he thought that that result might be traced to the legislation of past years in favour of the community at large, and the disposition that had been evinced on the part of the governing body to yield as far as possible to public opinion, when it has been continuously and clearly shown to be the national will. The noble Earl appeared to express dissatisfaction at the amount of legislation effected last year. He (Earl Granville) thought that the noble Earl had greatly underrated what had been done last year. He was of opinion that a great deal had been done. Much had been done for the simplification of the tariff, for the improvement of the national defences, and in passing some Bills intimately affecting the prosperity of Ireland. There was, however, no doubt of the fact that business had not proceeded in the other House so satisfactorily as it might have done. Now their Lordships' House had much less to do than the other House of Parliament, and, therefore, he did not think they were open to the same accusation. The noble Earl last year pointed out some remedy for this evil, which he thought might be applied with advantage to the general proceedings of Parliament—namely, the appointment of certain Committees. He (Earl Granville) thought it desirable that a Committee, as suggested, should be so established, in order to effect a greater simplification of their proceedings, and if the proposal should meet with the general concurrence of their Lordships he should feel it his duty upon an early day to move the appointment of a Committee to consider how legislation in Parliament could be more easily accelerated. He hardly liked, on this, the first night of the Session, to close his remarks without making some allusion to a particular loss which that House had recently sustained. It would ill become him who had served under the late Lord Aberdeen during his Administration, to remain silent as to the character and merits of that deceased nobleman. He never knew in public life a more just and honourable man than Lord Aberdeen. On foreign politics, in which the late noble Lord took an especial interest, it might be said that his views were somewhat of a Conservative character. But in regard to the question of peace, Lord Aberdeen had learned in some of the great battle-fields of this century to prize peace for its own sake, and to show a love of peace, which perhaps was sometimes exhibited rather too strongly. With regard to all internal legislation—to all measures affecting the interests of the country at home—he thought the degree of liberality displayed on those points by the noble Earl was quite peculiar, considering his early education. He remembered the late Lord Aberdeen, on the occasion of some frivolous charge being brought against him out of doors, saying he thanked God that character was something in this world. He (Earl Granville) believed now that all party and political feeling had gone that their Lordships would feel that no man in that House could appeal with greater force to his own character and his own example. His straightforward views and honesty of intention were, he (Earl Granville) thought, a lesson for them all. Leaving that subject, he must say, in reference to what fell from the noble Earl opposite in regard to a better manner of conducting the business of Parliament, whether in minor matters or in great and important national questions arising in that House, their Lordships should endeavour to show the example, which he was happy to say they had shown that night, of unanimity in all things affecting the honour of Parliament and the happiness of the nation.

Address agreed to, Nemine Dissentiente: and the same was ordered to be presented to Her Majesty by the Whole House; and the Lords with White Staves were ordered to wait on Her Majesty to know when She will please to appoint to be attended therewith.