Sitting of 1 February 1849

MINUTES.
NEW WRIT (during Recess).—For York County (West Riding), v. Viscount Morpeth, now Earl of Carlisle; For King's Ly nn, v. Lord George Bentinck, deceased; For Liskeard, v. Charles Buller, Esq., deceased; For Truro, v. Edmund Turner, Esq., deceased.
Now Ordered.—For Portsmouth, v. The Right Hon. Sir Francis Thornhill Baring, Bart., First Commismissioner of the Admiralty; For Kingston-upon-Hull, v. Matthew Talbot Baines, Esq., Commissioner for Relief of the Poor in England; For Devon (Southern Division), v. Lord Courtenay, Chiltern Hundreds; For Leominster, v. Henry Barkly, Esq., Governor of British Guiana; For Bolton, v. John Bowring, Esq., Chiltern Hundreds.
NEW MEMBERS SWORN. For Derby, Michael Thomas Bass, Esq.; For Liskeard, Richard Budden Crowder, Esq.; For Bolton, Stephen Blair, Esq.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1o Outlawries.
The House mot at Two o'clock.
Message to attend HER MAJESTY; House went; and being returned,
MR. SPEAKERacquainted the House that he bad issued Warrants for New Writs for several places (See Minutes).

ADDRESS IN ANSWER TO THE SPEECH.
MR. SPEAKERreported Her Majesty's Speech, and read it to the House (See LORDS).
LORD HARRY VANEsaid, that in moving an Address in answer to the gra-
74
cious Speech, of which the right hon. Gentleman in the chair had just read a copy, delivered that morning by our Sovereign Lady the Queen, he felt he was unable to avail himself of the plea often set forth by Gentlemen entrusted with the honourable task he had now to fulfil, of having but recently become a Member of the House, in order to solicit its indulgence. But though he was unable to advance that personal claim, he trusted some indulgence would be extended to him, in consideration of the remarkable incidents upon which he intended to touch, that had marked the annals of the year just gone by—of the impending uncertainties that still hung over the face of the world—and the important nature of those questions of domestic policy that were about to be submitted to the wisdom of the Legislature. The paragraphs of Her Majesty's Speech to which, in the first instance, he requested the attention of the House, were those having reference to the foreign relations of the country. It must be a subject for sincere congratulation to all parties, considering the marvellous events which had crowded themselves with such rapid succession within the year which had just gone by, that the forbearance, the prudence, and the deep sense of responsibility—perhaps he might say the mutual apprehensions—of those who had the administration of the public affairs of Europe, with the few exceptions to which be should presently refer, had prompted them to avert the great calamity of an European conflagration—in addition to the disasters which intestine discord and civil convulsion had unhappily inflicted. There were two exceptions to which he was about to allude. Happily in each of those cases armistices had been concluded. He was not about to enter into an historical dissertation upon the causes of those events. He alluded, first, to the war of Germany against Denmark upon the Schleswig-Holstein question; and next to the invasion of Lombardy by Sardinia. He was not about either to censure or to defend the acts of those Powers, or even to characterise them in any way. His only motive in alluding to them was their connexion with the political relations of this country, and with the policy pursued by Her Majesty's Government upon the general affairs of Europe. In each of these cases, it bad been the object and aim of the Government to act upon a policy of peace—to endeavour to

75
stay the contagion of war, and confine it within the narrowest area, as well as allay political heats and dissensions. In the case of Schleswig-Holstein, more especially, it had been their endeavour to reconcile, so far as they could be reconciled, conflicting opinions and pretensions. In each case, happily, Her Majesty's Government had been enabled, after a not long-continued state of warfare, to induce the parties to concur in a suspension of arms, and negotiate upon a basis, with a view to arrange a durable settlement, which might prevent at least an early disturbance of the peace of Europe. In the remaining case, there had been a suspension of arms of a different character. He alluded to the affairs of Sicily. A suspension of arms had been concluded between Naples and Sicily, and, as he had intimated, of a somewhat different character to the others he had referred to. In this instance, the British and French admirals, acting upon the influence of humane motives, and animated mainly by the sight of atrocities and barbarities, of which they had been spectators, interposed their offices for the conclusion of an armistice. An armistice was agreed to, and negotiations were still pending, in which conditions had been proposed, which he trusted would have the effect of conciliating the interests of the two kingdoms of Naples and Sicily. In other respects, Great Britain had happily remained a passive spectatress of the events passing around; and our position had enabled us, in the last extraordinary year, when men educated in widely different political schools, and, consequently, entertaining very different views, had been alternately raised to the highest offices of State, and driven from them, to afford hospitality and a peaceful asylum on our shores. It was also most satisfactory to be able to say, at least he expressed his own convictions upon it, that there never had been a period when there was he would not say less hostility felt towards this country by other nations, but greater good-will entertained towards England by the nations of Europe than at the present moment; that there never had been a period when there were fewer chances of quarrel, and less likelihood of embroilment with other Powers, than at this moment. It was also a matter for triumph and pride, that, in the midst of the fevers and contentions that had raged around us, the institutions of this country had stood the test of trial, whilst in
76
every other country, from the confines of Russia to the Pyrenees, through the Italian peninsula, to the Straits of Messina, there was not a single country whose institutions had not undergone change. In many, their constitutions had been entirely altered. The capitals of some of them had been stained by civil contests. It was therefore a matter of triumph to us, that, during such a period of change, when revolution was almost everywhere abroad, the peace of this country could hardly be said to have been disturbed. The Chartist disturbances had only the effect of eliciting a spirit of loyalty, an expression of public feeling towards the Sovereign of the realm, an intelligent, but not a servile attachment to the constitution of the country; and if these disturbances spread alarm, the alarm arose rather from the strangeness of events abroad, than from any well-defined cause of serious danger. However he might be of opinion that some earlier anticipation of the necessities of the period, some earlier concessions to the popular demands, might have tended to avert a portion of those calamities which had occurred in other countries; still he could perceive indications that when the memory of past disasters should have faded away there would remain the advantages of popular government, popular institutions, and popular control. We ourselves had derived tangible and substantial benefit from the quiet we had enjoyed. We had derived the advantages of the restoration of commerce and the improvement of our finances. He need only call to mind the disasters that occurred previously to the meeting of Parliament last year, the financial gloom which then existed, and the large deficit in the revenue. We were emerging, slowly but certainly, from a crisis which found a parallel alone in the year 1825, if it were a parallel, in the failure of the hanks at that period; certainly we had striking indications of the extent of the evil that befel the mercantile community in the returns of the income-tax, which proved that a great destruction of capital must have taken place. Yet, at a period when the country was slowly recovering from that disaster, there supervened a revolution in Prance, followed by successive revolutions in Germany and Italy, and a war between Germany and Scandinavia, which materially affected the trade of the north of England with the northern parts of Germany. That we should have continued in full receipt of re-

77
venue during the whole summer of 1848, under these circumstances, was, in his opinion, a most gratifying feature. In some parts of England, more especially in the southern counties, in 1848 we had the misfortune to have a very indifferent harvest. Trade, however, recovered, though slowly, notwithstanding. He was not unaware that great depression existed among the agriculturists. They had, he was aware, suffered much; but that suffering seemed to him to be incidental to the great change made in the corn laws; for it must have been expected that largo importations of corn would take place upon the abolition of those laws. Independently of that, circumstances had been peculiarly adverse. In France the harvest had been veryabundant, and prices necessarily low. This, to a certain degree, would account for distress among the agricultural interest; but with the revival of trade, of which there were indications, he could not but think that agricultural prosperity would revive also. Her Majesty, in Her most gracious Speech, recommended a revision of the navigation laws. The House would bear in mind that, from the great pressure of business last Session, it was impossible to find time to conclude their deliberations upon this question. He thought, however, that the paragraphs with regard to this subject, contained in Her Majesty's Speech, were such as could not provoke hostility. The question would be discussed hereafter; and it would be for Parliament to decide what modification should be adopted. After the divisions which took place last year, he could not doubt that the House would think it expedient to make an extensive alteration in those laws. He now approached a subject which presented a deplorable complication of evils. If he had occasion before to say that peace and order could hardly be said to have been seriously disturbed in this country, he feared he could not say the same with regard to Ireland. The lawless state of agitation which characterised that country, afforded too ready materials for the designs and schemes of men of weak intellect and morbid ambition. Happily the success of their efforts had not corresponded to their malicious intents. Still it could not be denied—the fact was incontrovertible—that disaffection to a considerable degree existed among the mass of the people. A very large force stationed in Ireland had fortunately restrained the disaffect-ed, and, together with that meritorious body of men, the police of Ireland,
78
who had refused to be debauched from their duty, put down insurrection with but a slight effusion of blood. But that the same spirit of disaffection still prevailed, there was too much reason to fear. The suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act in Ireland, which took place at the close of the last Session, exercised, he believed, a most beneficial influence in Ireland in the suppression of rebellion, the saving of the effusion of blood, and the restraining of insurrection. It was a question of confidence in the Lord Lieutenant; but every one knew that the temper with which he administered the great powers invested in him, and the wisdom with which he applied those powers, was above all praise. No one-had a higher value for the Habeas Corpus, Act than he possessed. This was the only country throughout Europe wherein such a law was in operation. He therefore attached the highest importance to it. But during a period of insurrection the Government was necessarily compelled to resort to extraordinary measures for the suppression of disaffection, and no better means of effecting this purpose presented themselves than was afforded by the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act. A firm, vigorous, and efficacious administration of the law was of the first necessity. For above all things, it was most necessary that the law should be supreme, as without it every other effort would be inoperative. There had been great complaint in different quarters, of the mode in which the poor-law was administered in Ireland. He believed it was the intention of Government that there should be an inquiry into the poor-law. That that law operated differently in different parts was obvious; but he trusted that such arrangements would be entered into as would protect the active and patriotic landlords, and prevent them from being swamped by the surrounding mendicancy. Care, however, must be taken to provide for the support of those persons who, in certain pauperised districts, could not be supported by the property within them. There was one more subject to which he would allude, which had prominently occupied public attention. He alluded to the question of economy. This question had certainly struck deep into the public mind. In former years there had been a great necessity for augmenting the estimates of the public burdens; there had been a growing uneasiness at these increasing augmentations; but, happily, this year a considerable reduction was announced; and he believed nothing

79
would conciliate the public more than a reduction of the national expenditure—a reduction consistent with the requirements of the public service, and the maintenance of that protective force on which the security of the country depended. He had now endeavoured briefly to deal with the questions referred to in the Address. In doing so, he trusted he had avoided any irritating topics, as he was desirous to preserve the unanimity which ever characterised debates of this nature. The Address, he was sure, had been framed in such a manner that its adoption would not compromise any hon. Gentleman who might take an adverse view as to the course which had been adopted by the Government; besides, hon. Gentlemen who differed with its sentiments, would have ample opportunities of enunciating their opinions, without, on the present occasion disturbing the unanimity which had so long prevailed in the discussion of Motions of this nature, and to which good rule, he trusted, no exception would be made on the present occasion. He would detain the House no longer than to express a hope that the last paragraph in Her Majesty's Speech would meet with unanimous approbation from all parts of the House, namely, that the destinies of this country must depend upon Almighty God. That they must depend upon his superintending mercy was evident; and he trusted that that protection which had so long been vouchsafed to their institutions would continue to be extended to them. The noble Lord concluded by reading the following Address:—
"MOST GRACIOUS SOVEREIGN,
"We Tour Majesty's most dutiful and loyal Subjects, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to express to Your Majesty our humble Thanks for Your Majesty's gracious Speech from the Throne.
"We beg humbly to assure Your Majesty that we participate in the satisfaction which Your Majesty has been pleased to express, that both in the North and in the South of Europe the contending parties have consented to a suspension of Arms for the purpose of negotiating terms of Peace.
"We thank Your Majesty for informing us, that the hostilities carried on in the Island of Sicily were attended with circumstances so revolting that the British and French Admirals were impelled, by motives of humanity, to interpose and to stop the effusion of blood; and we rejoice to learn that Your Majesty has availed Yourself of the interval thus obtained to propose, in conjunction
80
with Franco, to the King of Naples, an arrangement calculated to produce a permanent settlement of affairs in Sicily.
"We humbly thank Tour Majesty for the assurance of Your anxious endeavours, in offering Your good offices to the various contending Powers, to prevent the extension of the calamities of War, and to lay the foundation for lasting and honourable Peace; and we beg to acquaint Your Majesty that we derive much gratification from the expression of Your constant desire to maintain with all Foreign States the most friendly relations.
"We thank Your Majesty for informing us, that the Papers connected with these transactions will be laid before Parliament, by direction of Your Majesty, as soon as the interests of the public service will permit.
"We regret to learn that a Rebellion of a formidable character has broken out in the Punjaub, and that the Governor General of India has been compelled, for the preservation of the peace of the country, to assemble a considerable force, which is now engaged in military operations, and we cordially rejoice at the information which Your Majesty has imparted to us, that these unprovoked disturbances have not affected the peace of British India.
"We humbly assure Your Majesty, that the restrictions imposed upon Commerce by the Navigation Laws will engage our most earnest attention; and that it will be our duty to consider whether it be right to repeal or to modify their provisions if we shall find that these Laws are in whole or in part unnecessary for the maintenance of our Maritime Power, while they fetter Trade and Industry.
"We beg to express our Thanks to Your Majesty for having directed the Estimates for the Service of the year to be laid before this House, and for acquainting us that they will be framed with the most anxious attention to a wise economy.
"We rejoice to learn that Your Majesty has been enabled, on account of the present state of affairs, to make large reductions upon the Estimates of last year.
"We beg leave humbly to express the satisfaction which we participate with Your Majesty, that this portion of the United Kingdom has remained tranquil amidst the convulsions which have disturbed so many parts of Europe.
"Whilst rejoicing that the Insurrection in Ireland has not been renewed, we unite with Your Majesty in deploring the existence of a spirit of disaffection; and our serious consideration will be devoted to the intimation of Your Majesty, that Your Majesty is compelled, with regret, to ask for a continuance, for a limited time, of those

81
powers which, in the last Session, were deemed by Parliament to be necessary for the preservation of the public tranquillity.
"We most sincerely share with Your Majesty the satisfaction which Tour Majesty feels at the revival of commerce from those shocks which, at the commencement of last Session, were to be deplored: and we learn with gratification that the condition of the manufacturing districts is likewise more encouraging than it has been for a considerable period, and that the state of the Revenue is one of progressive improvement.
"We fully participate with Your Majesty, in the great concern which Your Majesty has been pleased to express on account of the very severe distress in some parts of Ireland, which has been caused by another failure of the Potato Crop.
"We can assure Your Majesty, that our best attention will be devoted to the subject of the operation of the Laws for the Relief of the Poor in Ireland, and we beg to convey to Your Majesty the expression of our thanks for Your gracious intimation, that any measure by which those Laws may be beneficially amended, and the condition of the people may be improved, will receive Your Majesty's cordial assent.
"We humbly thank Your Majesty for the gracious manner with which Your Majesty has been pleased to advert to the loyal spirit of Your people, and to that attachment to the institutions of their country, which has animated them during a period of commercial difficulty, deficient production of food, and political revolution.
"We join with Your Majesty, in humbly looking to the protection of Almighty God, for favour in our continued progress; and we beg to convey to Your Majesty the assurance that we will faith-fully assist Your Majesty in upholding the fabric of the Constitution, founded, as it is, upon the principles of freedom and of justice."
MR. E. H. BUNBURYsaid, that in rising to second the Motion of the noble Lord, he must assure the House, that if he began with entreating their indulgence to so inexperienced a speaker as himself, this was no mere matter of form, or idle compliance with established custom. It was impossible for him to find himself placed in a situation which led him almost necessarily to look back upon the events of the year just past, and to look around him on the events which were still passing on the continent of Europe, without feeling that the circumstances of the times were such as to lend no ordinary degree of significance to matters which on other occasions would be scarcely worthy of a passing mention. The very fact that they were now again assembled in the ordinary course
82
of things to resume their ordinary deliberations, free alike from the control of an imposing military force, and from the intimidation of popular tumult, was in itself no trifling subject of congratulation. Again, Her Majesty had been pleased to advert, in terms that could not but be most grateful to all her loyal subjects, to the peace and tranquillity which had reigned in this country, notwithstanding all the agitation that prevailed elsewhere. On ordinary occasions, such an allusion would have been deemed unnecessary, because the tranquillity of the country would have been taken for granted. But what varied emotions of pride and gratitude was it not calculated to call forth upon the present occasion! He trusted that it was in no spirit of vain presumption that he ventured to assert, that for this great blessing of internal peace and tranquillity, their gratitude was due, not only to that Supreme Dispenser of all blessings, to whom their thanks should ever first be tendered—not only to that Government which had displayed, under trying circumstances, an energy and firmness without which no Government would ever long command the confidence of the British people, but still more to that people itself, whoso best qualities had never been more prominently displayed than during the trying events of the past year. That people had proclaimed, in a manner not to be mistaken, to all the world, what were the real fruits of a long period of free institutions, and long habits of self-government. He felt that he might be thought to be wandering from the subjects immediately before them if he thus referred to what took place nearly a year back, to that great manifestation of the will of the English people, when they crushed into insignificance a threatened exhibition of physical force by a display of power tenfold greater, and an array of numbers ten times more numerous. But he felt that it was to the noble attitude assumed on that occasion by the English people, that they were indebted for the perfect tranquillity which had prevailed since they were last assembled—a tranquillity so profound, that all the storms which had rolled over the continent of Europe had failed to awaken even the faintest echo from the British shores. He looked forward with confidence to the continuance of that tranquillity. It was not only on the existence of internal peace and tranquillity that they had to congratulate themselves; he rejoiced also in the preservation of peace abroad, and the maintenance of those

83
friendly relations with foreign Powers which it ought to be the great object of our rulers to preserve unbroken. He could not but refer to a period of the past year when the revolution which had occurred in France, and had shaken the social fabric in that country to its very foundations, was followed with unexampled rapidity by similar revolutions in almost overy other Continental State. At that time, the most sanguine would scarcely have ventured to hope that when they should again assemble, they would be able to rejoice in an assurance such as that which they had just heard. Without entering on the numerous questions connected with our foreign policy, on which the noble Lord who preceded him had touched so ably, he would only add his humble testimony to that of the noble Lord, so far as a recent visit to France enabled him to judge, that in that country which, as it was our nearest neighbour, might be our most valuable friend or our only formidable foe—there existed at this time a greater security for the maintenance of peace than at any former period. He derived this assurance, not from the sentiments of this or that Minister—not from the disposition of any party who found itself at the head of affairs in that country to-day, and who might be driven from it to-morrow—but from the disposition of that numerous class of the French people whose sentiments had now for the first time been called into operation. He believed that the great number of small landed proprietors, who would naturally and necessarily be the first to feel the effects of war, in the form of increased conscription and increased taxation, were altogether opposed to any renewal of hostilities, and that it would be difficult to involve France in any hasty or inconsiderate war, in opposition to the wishes of a class which formed such a great majority of its population. But not only had the House to rejoice in the maintenance of tranquillity at home and peace abroad; they had also to congratulate themselves on the fact that trade was reviving and manufactures on the increase. This result was doubly grateful when he referred back to the present period of last year, which offered an unexampled crisis, such, indeed, as few nations could have survived, and which was followed just as they were beginning to revive from its effects, by convulsions on the Continent, which threatened for a time to destroy all credit, and annihilate all commerce. They had felt the effect of those convulsions, but
84
now they were fast recovering, and this fact alone would show the firm foundation on which British commerce rested, and the strength and elasticity of our resources. He would take that opportunity of mentioning a few of the leading facts. In January and February, 1848, there was a fast growing increase in the export trade. The three succeeding months felt the effects of the events on the Continent. After the expiration of those three months the receding condition of the exports was stopped. In October last, the exports again exceeded those of October, 1847, and in December, the increase was not only continued, but was extended. In the month ending the 5th of November, the first in which there was any return to an increase (if he might be allowed such an expression), the increase was a little more than 30,000 l. In the month ending the 5th of December, it had risen to 132,000 l., whilst in that ending the 5th of January, it had reached 589,000 l. This great increase of the exports of British manufactures had been accompanied by a decided revival in the manufacturing districts. It was gratifying also to reflect that concurrently with this increase in the exports, the amount of imports cleared for home consumption, and of such imports especially as entered most generally into the consumption of the poor man, which constituted his comforts, or even his luxuries—that in such imports as coffee, tea, sugar, and tobacco, there had been either a considerable increase, or at all events they had maintained their former position, notwithstanding the numerous causes which might have combined to depress them. That such a flourishing state of our foreign trade and internal consumption should be accompanied by an improvement in the revenue, was to be expected; and they had already heard from the noble Lord that such was in effect the case. He believed, indeed, that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he brought forward his financial statement at the commencement of last year, could little have looked forward to such an increase in the revenue as had marked the last quarter. This state of the finances would have been most satisfactory even if there had been no prospect that that increase of revenue would be accompanied by a reduction of expenditure; but he was sure he expressed the sentiment of every hon. Gentleman in that House, when he stated that there was no passage in Her Majesty's most gracious Speech which he had heard with greater satisfaction,

85
than that in which Her Majesty announced her intention of making a great reduction in the expenditure of the country, and that the estimates of the current year would fall far short of the preceding one. He believed there had been for some time past a great and increasing feeling that the burdens of the country were excessive, that the taxation was too heavy, that some measures must be adopted to put a stop to the expenditure, and that the estimates of succeeding years should be reduced. He did not believe that the taxation had been really excessive, if compared with the resources of the British people. He believed, indeed, that it would be very difficult to put a limit to those resources; that it would be very difficult to say what amount of taxation the British people would not be able to bear—nay, what amount they would not willingly and cheerfully boar, if they believed it to be absolutely necessary to maintain the prosperity or uphold the credit of the country. But he believed that the feeling as to the amount of the expenditure being excessive, had arisen not so much from the actual amount, as because it was believed to be greater than was necessary. He thought it would be most unjust to reflect cither upon the present Government or that which preceded it upon this account, or to charge them with any disposition unnecessarily to aggravate the burdens of the nation, or with any wanton or lavish expenditure of the public money; but he believed that it was I in the nature of all Governments that every Minister in his own department should attend more especially to the efficiency of that department, and that Governments were apt to overlook an increasing expenditure because they believed it to be necessary to the efficiency of the public service. It fell within the province of that House to check a Minister in such a course, and recall to his recollection the necessity of moderating expenditure. He considered that that House was never more properly discharging its constitutional functions than when so employed; and he believed that there was no one more willing to admit than were Her Majesty's Ministers them-selves that the discussions which took place in the course of last Session, and the Committee which was then appointed upon the Navy Estimates—which he believed would be followed by similar investigation into other branches this Session—had been attended with very great advan-
86
tage to the country. Upon this subject he would only, in addition, advert to a circular which had lately been issued by Her Majesty's Naval Department, and which, no doubt, every hon. Gentleman had seen, in order to show what had been the effect of those discussions, and how much might be accomplished when the subject was seriously met and considered. He had no means of knowing what would be the precise amount or nature of the retrenchments which the estimates, when presented to the House, would exhibit; but he trusted those estimates would be such as to show to the people that the Government were really disposed to carry out to the utmost that retrenchment which they had professed themselves ready to adopt, in so far as might be compatible with the real exigencies of the public service; and he believed that the people of England would be perfectly willing to admit the sufficiency of those retrenchments, if it were proved to their satisfaction that they could not be carried further without endangering the public credit or the national honour. One subject had been alluded to in Her Majesty's gracious Speech in so pointed a manner that he could not refrain from briefly touching upon it—he alluded to the Navigation Laws. Whatever diversity of opinion might be entertained upon the subject of the policy and operation of those laws—whatever divergence of opinion might be seen when they should come to the consideration of those laws, he trusted he was not mistaken in believing that the House would unanimously concur in expressing their willingness to take them again into their consideration, and to subject them to a searching examination. Without at all forestalling the discussion upon this subject, for which there would be many more fitting opportunities, he would mention one circumstance which weighed strongly with himself as an argument for reconsidering them. It was this: he thought that every one would admit, who had examined the legislation upon this subject, that that legislation during some past years had consisted almost entirely of a series of concessions of particular points affecting those laws; at the same time that they had upheld the system as a whole, they had agreed to concessions, which, if they were not opposed to the letter, were certainly contrary to the spirit, of the navigation Jaws; and he believed that whenever the legislation of a country presented this aspect, it afforded, if not a strong pre-

87
sumption, at least a strong probability that there might be something radically and fundamentally wrong in the principle itself. He thought, at all events, that it afforded just grounds upon which a reasonable Legislature might resume the consideration of the subject in all its bearings, in order that it might be seen whether those concessions had been extorted in each case by the force of particular circumstances, or whether they had resulted from something inherently wrong in the broad basis of the system. He turned now to that subject upon which the noble Lord had already touched, and it was a subject so painful that it was with unwillingness he now alluded to it. But it was impossible to conceal the fact, that the condition of that sister country, which was so indissolubly linked with us that her prosperity must ever be a matter of rejoicing to this country, and that her adversity could never be looked upon with indifference, was very much to be regretted. He might look indeed with triumph at the success of our efforts in suppressing anarchy, and putting down open rebellion; but it was with pain and regret he had heard the announcement that the disaffection in that country still continued to be such as to call for a renewal of those extraordinary powers for which Her Majesty's Government were obliged to apply to Parliament in the course of the last Session. That those extraordinary powers would again be granted if it should be found that a necessity for them still existed, he could not doubt; and he believed that he placed no overweening confidence in the disposition of the present Parliament, or in the disposition of any Parliament that ever sat within these walls, when he stated that no effort would be wanting on their parts to uphold the Executive Government in the preservation of order and peace. At the same time he could not disguise from himself that there was the very onerous duty incumbent upon Her Majesty's Ministers of proving that that necessity did exist, and that reasons as cogent for the renewal of the power would be required as those which had induced them upon a former occasion, with an unanimity rarely seen, to arm the Government with extraordinary and unusual powers. There was one other subject, and only one, upon which he should presume further to trouble the House, and that one was fraught with so many difficulties that he scarcely
88
knew how to allude to it—he meant the subject of the Irish Poor Law. It was impossible to disguise from themselves that in undertaking to introduce a poor-law into that country they were trying a very difficult experiment. The introduction of a poor-law into any country was always a delicate and difficult task; but under the circumstances which unhappily existed in Ireland when the poor-law was introduced, considering that that country was then recovering, and only just recovering, from the effects of a calamity almost unprecedented in the history of nations, it was impossible not to feel that the difficulties which beset the introduction of a law of that nature were so great and so various, that they could scarcely wonder that its working had not been so satisfactory as might have been desired. Such a result might perhaps be ascribed to errors or defects in the law itself; but he would not advert to them further than to express an earnest hope that in approaching that difficult problem, they should avoid encumbering it with any increased difficulties, by mixing up with it party questions, or political animosities. He trusted that they should all approach it with an humble hope and earnest desire satisfactorily to grapple with all its difficulties, and that they would avoid above all things increasing those difficulties by embarrassing the subject with matters which did not belong to it. He trusted that those Irish Members who bad now returned to that House with naturally strong sentiments upon this subject, would believe that English Members were actuated like themselves by the strongest desire to do justice to that unhappy country. He trusted that they would believe him when he asserted, what he knew to be a fact, that there were many Members of that House, personally unconnected with Ireland, as was he himself, who yet entertained, in common with himself, no other sentiments towards that unhappy country but those of deep regret for her past wrongs, and deep sympathy with her present condition; and he knew that many were prepared to join heart and hand with any party, no matter on which side of the House they sat, who could show them any practical means of repairing those wrongs and alleviating those sufferings. But he must entreat them to bear in mind that it was not possible for any body of men in one Session, or even in a few consecutive Sessions, to undo that which had been the work of years. He entreated them to

89
remember that all the social evils of Ireland could not be remedied in an hour or a day; but that of necessity it must be a work of time to remedy all those evils, to eradicate all those prejudices, to allay all those animosities, which differences of race, differences of religion, and differences of social condition, had combined through a long period of time to create and to aggravate. He trusted most sincerely that they should all unite in the same earnest desire to bring to a happy conclusion that great work upon which they now proposed to enter. He believed that he had now touched upon all the questions alluded to in Her Majesty's most gracious Speech—touched upon them feebly he was aware, but still with a deep sense of their interest and importance, and it only remained for him to thank the House for the kind indulgence which they had granted him.
MR. SPEAKERthen read the Speech and the Address. On the question being put that the Address be agreed to,
MR. GRATTAN and Mr. DISRAELIrose together. The former Gentleman, however, gave way, when—
MR. DISRAELIrose and said: I am sure, Sir, that Her Majesty, since Her accession, has never yet delivered a gracious Speech to Her Parliament in which She has felt it Her duty to allude to subjects of such great importance as in that Speech to which we have listened to-day; but I am bound to say, that both in that Speech, which Her Majesty has been advised to address to Her Parliament, and in that answer which has now been proposed for us to offer at the foot of the Throne, I do not find that a fair and candid statement is conveyed as to the condition of this country—not a candid statement either as regards the internal condition of this country or its external relations. At this moment, important and numerous as are the subjects for our consideration, doubtless the most exigent would seem to be the state of Ireland. The language which I find in the note that I have made of the Speech, does not convey to me the impression that Her Majesty's Ministers are of opinion that the state of Ireland requires any immediate remedy. The language is obscure; and if it can be satisfactorily explained, it will show the advantage of discussion in the present instance. I find it stated that "the operation of the laws for the relief of the poor in Ireland will properly be a subject of early inquiry;"
90
"and any measures by which those laws may be beneficially amended, and the condition of the people may be improved, will receive my cordial assent." Now, I think it is of very great importance to know what Her Majesty's Ministers mean to convey by the phrase "early inquiry." Is it an inquiry, for example, by a Committee of the House of Commons? In that case the" inquiry," no doubt, might be early, but the conclusion most probably would be late. And why an inquiry by a Committee of the House of Commons? We have had sufficient experience, I think, of what inquiries by Committees of the House of Commons may accomplish upon subjects upon which an Administration, duly informed, ought to have initiated measures. I do not sec why, in the present instance, for example, the case of the poor-law in Ireland should be an exception to that experience. You have a Poor Law Commission in Ireland—you have a Government Board in Ireland; and I want to know from what sources can the Administration obtain more ample and satisfactory information than from such quarters? They ought to be in possession of the information; if they think there ought to be an alteration in the laws, they ought to be prepared to legislate upon that well-digested information. They have had sufficient time well to consider the authentic information that has reached them; and certainly, in the present state of Ireland, if the only measure that Her Majesty's Ministers are about to bring forward with respect to that country is the proposition of an inquiry into the operation of the poor-law by a Parliamentary Committee, I think that is a course neither satisfactory nor statesmanlike. I do not doubt for a moment—no one can—the urgency of the state of Ireland. Hon. Gentlemen who represent that country have much to answer for, in my opinion, to their constituents. They have to consider whether the state of Ireland is merely brought about by the present operation of the poor-laws—whether it may not have been in a great degree occasioned and aggravated by other measures which they supported, and by the non-adoption of other measures which they opposed—measures to which, by the by, they gave their private encouragement, and offered their public opposition. Therefore, when Gentlemen representing Ireland come forward and complain of the condition of Ireland, it is well that they should recollect how far they individually may be

91
responsible for the present state of Ireland. I believe I see a Gentleman opposite who represents a county in Ireland. I road a speech of his at a county meeting the other day; I read the reasons he alleged for the present condition of Ireland; and one of the weightiest was the repeal of the corn law in the year of our Lord 1846. But when I referred to the list of those who voted for that repeal, I found in it the name of that worthy knight of the shire. I think it is well for us to consider whether these circumstances—Irish Members complaining so much who supported that repeal, and who opposed measures that were brought forward on this side of the House, privately encouraged at meetings holden by those very same Members—are to be forgotten at this moment. I confess it is a subject upon which I have little inclination or heart to dwell upon the present occasion. There was a policy once proposed in this House with respect to Ireland, which by the Irish Members was defeated, but which, if it had been pursued, would have produced a very different effect from what we now see in that country—a policy which subsequently was partially pursued, even by the Government who then opposed it. The proposer of that policy is no longer among us. At a time when everything that is occurring vindicates his prescience and demands his energy, we have no longer his sagacity to guide or his courage to sustain us. In the midst of the Parliamentary strife, that plume can soar no more round which we loved to rally. But he has left us the legacy of heroes—the memory of his great name, and the inspiration of his great example. Sir, there is one subject, I confess, with regard to Ireland, which I am glad to see Las been omitted from Her Majesty's Speech. I think I may congratulate the House, the country, and the Government, that they have not brought forward a measure with respect to Ireland, the only recommendation of which was the traditionary approbation of statesmen who existed half a century ago, and who, if they were not mistaken in the opinion that they then adopted, at least formed that opinion under circumstances very different to those under which we unhappily now live; a measure which it was rumoured was to be introduced the moment Parliament assembled, the rumour assuming at one time all the colour of authenticity. I think it is a matter of congratulation, with all the difficulties which we have to encounter, that
92
we have not that measure introduced—a measure which, while it would violate principle, could not accomplish, as it appears to me, any of the objects of policy—which must, under all circumstances, be a great blow to the Church, from sanctioning a too prevalent misconception as to the tenure under which the ecclesiastical estates is holden—a measure which would not conciliate those whom it was projected to please, and which would at the same time have outraged the sentiments and convictions of the great majority of the population of the three kingdoms. I think that omission from Her Majesty's Speech is a significant subject for congratulation. It argues, I think, rather a want of resource in the statesmen of the present age, that their only expedient for the cure of Irish evils should be the revival of an antiquated project, which really is not suited to the spirit of the age in which we live, or to the present condition of these kingdoms. I trust we shall hear no more of that project. Of this I am certain, that it will never bear discussion in this House, and that no Parliament will pass it that fairly represents the opinion of the people of these realms. Sir, there are three paragraphs in Her Majesty's Speech which I must describe as congratulatory paragraphs; they refer to the state of commerce, to the state of manufactures, and to the state of the revenue. There can be but one feeling of satisfaction among Gentlemen on either side of the House, at hearing that there is an increase of employment in the manufacturing districts, especially among those Gentlemen who come from rural regions, because certainly they cannot assure the House that there is any increase of employment in that quarter. But I am bound to say that when I am called upon to express great satisfaction that commerce is reviving from those checks which during the last Session we had to deplore, I am required to assent to a statement which appears to me contrary to fact, and which, under the authority of Parliament, is calculated to convey to the people a very deceptive conclusion. Taking a general view of the commercial position of this country at the present moment, it appears to me that the country is greatly suffering. It cannot be denied that the exports have fallen off by millions; that that decay has been, though rapid, in a certain sense gradual, and that it has taken place under a new commer-

93
cial system. That commercial system was introduced to our notice and adopted by our votes, on the observation of three years; and now we bring to the consideration of its results also the observation of a period of equal duration. I am willing to admit—more than willing to admit, I am anxious to enforce—the expediency of the most unimpassioned spirit in discussing now our commercial system. When these alterations were proposed, they were theoretical projects, and our apprehensions were equally theoretical; it is not at all surprising that under such circumstances there should have been in our discussion some heat and passion; but when we have results before us, when we have facts to deal with that are official, conclusions that cannot be contradicted, all that we have got to do is to exercise the common sense which I trust we all possess, and draw those deductions which no one can deny, if they are founded upon data the authenticity of which no one disputes. In my opinion the new commercial system, the results of which are referred to in the Speech, has had a trial, a fair trial, and has failed. ["Hear, hear! "and some murmurs.] I am aware of what may be urged on the other hand; I hear murmurs that are repeating the arguments which are daily produced; it will be said, "True it is, the new commercial system has been on trial for some three years, but it has had to encounter exceptional circumstances which no one could have anticipated." [" Hear, hear! "] "Hoar, hear! "Exactly; you agree to my statement of your, own case. "The new commercial system has had to encounter a famine of corn in Europe, a famine of cotton in America; it has had to encounter more than these two great disadvantages—it has had to encounter convulsion throughout the Continent; you cannot, therefore, be surprised that the system under such circumstances should have failed." Now let us look at the facts of the case. I am anxious to test the results of our commercial system in a manner most advantageous to the opinions of Gentlemen opposite; I will test the effect of your measures upon the markets which you have most lauded—your chosen markets, and with reference to their effect upon that branch of industry whose interest you most advocate, and which all must acknowledge to be the most important in the country, because all interests in the country in turn are obliged to bow to it. I will sec, for example,
94
how your new commercial system has worked between England and the United States; and I will select your favourite instance of the cotton manufacture. I will not weary you now by referring in detail to elaborate statistics; I have them here. I will give you the conclusions at which I have arrived upon official statements to which you can appeal; and if you doubt those conclusions, in the course of the Session there will be plenty of opportunities of refuting them. In the year 1847 the importations from the United States into this country were the greatest in amount upon record; there was an importation of what in the American language is called" breadstuffs" to so great an amount that the extra profit of the Americans upon breadstuffs, as compared with the prices in 1848, amounted to 5,300,000 l. sterling; so that besides the ample and sufficient profit the Americans would have obtained, under any circumstances, by the prices of 1848 for example, the excess of price in 1847, in consequence of the famine of corn in Europe, gave them an extra profit of 5,300,000 l.; while, in consequence of the famine of cotton in the United States, although they sent a much less quantity than in the preceding years, the extra profits upon cotton, compared with the prices of 1846, amounted to 3,200,000 l.; therefore the Americans received from us an extra profit that year of 8,500,000 l. Surely, then, 1847, by the magnitude of its transactions, was a year extremely favourable to commercial interchange, and therefore your two great evils of corn famine in Europe and cotton famine in America combined together to test the principles of your new commercial system with every possible advantage. The natural question is, what did the Americans take from us in exchange under these circumstances? Now, we have the complete returns upon this point before us; and I find that they took of our cotton manufactures, in round numbers, 60,000,000 of yards extra. Instead of 25,000,000 which they took from us before the change of the law, they took in 1847, under the remarkable circumstances I have stated, 85,000,000 of yards; an amount, by the by, not equal to that which the old Levantine market takes at the present moment. One might pause to consider, whether taking 60,000,000 yards more of your manufactures is an equivalent exchange for the immense importations you received from, and

95
the immense price you paid to, the United States. But it so happens that the returns before us prove that even these 60,000,000 of yards were not an exchange at all in reference to the operation of the new law, because it appears by the official returns of the United States, that their home manufactures were increasing at the rate of 30,000 bales per annum; but in the year 1847, in consequence of the high price of cotton, and the commercial circumstances that allowed her to import our manufactures much cheaper than she could manufacture them herself, her domestic manufactures only increased by the consumption of 5,000 bales. Now, 25,000 bales, the decreased amount of the American home consumption, would produce about 60,000,000 of yards, the increased amount of British exportation to the United States; and so, if you had not taken her breadstuffs, she would equally in that year have imported from you a much larger amount of your goods. This is proved from the circumstance, that in 1848, the consumption of cotton in her own manufactures increased 100,000 bales; and the amount of your manufactures imported into the United States has fallen off in that year more than 30,000,000 of yards. The two famines of corn and cotton, which you say have prevented your system from having a fair chance, combined, in fact, to give you a chance with the United States which probably you will never enjoy again. Now, with respect to the third alleged cause of failure. Have we not every day since Parliament was prorogued—in morning journal and in evening paper, and in weekly oracles—have we not, while all of us deplored the state of our manufactures, been told that with the convulsions on the Continent it was only what was to be expected—that, in the present state of the Continent, it was no wonder the manufactures of Manchester could not be disposed of? But from the official returns we now possess, it appears that to the continent of Europe you have exported more cotton goods than you did the year before; so that the third great cause which has been so widely circulated to account for your failure turns out to be a highly favourable though an exceptional cause, no doubt, to the development of your system. There are also other circumstances never referred to by Gentlemen opposite, also exceptional causes, but still highly favourable to the experiment of your now system, and on which
96
you cannot count any longer. In the first place, this very famine of corn in Europe prevented that agricultural distress which we knew to be inevitable, and which we are now beginning to feel. You have thus hitherto been sustained by that home market which your policy was calculated to injure; and therefore that is a fourth exceptional circumstance on which you cannot again count. But there is another view of this question. Men who have deeply considered the subject of commercial interchange without any of our passions, men not connected with the parties of the State, men who wrote before this experiment was even thought of, have always taught us that if you attempt to fight hostile tariffs with free imports, independently of many evils that all are familiar with, such a policy would have a dangerous effect on the distribution of the precious metals—an effect dangerous to all countries, but more particularly to a country like England, with her fixed debt and great fixed payments. Well, what has happened? Why, that the very convulsion of Europe which you assign as one of the reasons of the failure of your commercial system, has saved you from that great evil; has saved you from the inevitable consequences of your rash legislation; it has brought the precious metals into this country, and that through the medium, not of commercial transactions, but of political circumstances. Thus, in fact, there are five important circumstances which have acted in favour of your system, and which have tended to diminish and soften those inevitable evils which have been experienced, while you have been running about the country telling us they were the causes of the failure of your system. The question then arises, why has your system failed? It has failed, because the countries whose productions you so humbly take without conditions, will not take your productions in exchange. I have shown you the operation of the system in the instance of the United States under the greatest stimulus that ever acted favourably to commercial intercourse between two countries, namely, with a corn famine in Europe, and a cotton famine in America. Receiving from you an extra profit of 8,500,000 l. in 1848, you could only get 60,000,000 yards extra taken from you, and then the next year these imports to the United States fall down one half. Look at your position with the Brazils. Every one re-

97
collects the glowing accounts of the late Vice-President of the Board of Trade with respect to the Brazilian trade—that trade for which you sacrificed your own colonies. There is an increase in the trade with the Brazils of 26,500,000 of yards in 1846 over 1845; and 18,500,000 yards in 1847 over 1845; and this increase has so completely glutted that market, that goods are selling at Rio and Bahia at cost price. It is stated in the Mercantile Journal, that—
"It is truly alarming to think what may be the result of a continuance of imports, not only in the face of a very limited inquiry, but at a period of the year when trade is almost always at a stand. Why cargo after cargo of goods he sent hither is an enigma we cannot solve. Some few vessels have yet to arrive; and, although trade may probably revive in the beginning of 1849, what will become of the goods received and to be received? This market cannot consume them. Stores, warehouses, and the custom-house, are full to repletion; and if imports continue upon the same scale as heretofore, and sales have to be forced, we may yet have to witness the phenomenon of all descriptions of piece goods being purchased here below the prime cost in the country of production."
Such is the state of matters in these two markets; the importance of which you have so much vaunted, and to obtain which for your cotton goods you have undergone such vast sacrifices. I do not see that your position in Europe is better. Russia is still hermetically sealed, and Prussia is not yet shaken. I know that there are some who hold that it is a matter of no consequence how much we may export, who say that foreigners will not give us their productions for nothing, and that therefore we have no occasion to concern ourselves as to the means and modes of repayment. There is no doubt that foreigners will not give us their goods without some exchange for them; but the question which the people of this country are considering is, what are the terms of exchange most beneficial for us to adopt? That is the whole question. You may glut markets, as I have shown you have succeeded in doing; but the only effect of your system—of your attempting to struggle against these hostile tariffs by opening your ports, is, that you exchange more of your own labour every year and every month for a less quantity of foreign labour, that you render British labour or native industry less efficient, that you degrade British labour, necessarily diminish profits, and therefore must lower wages; while philosophical inquirers have shown that you will finally effect a change in the
98
distribution of the precious metals that must be pernicious, and may be fatal, to this country. It is for these reasons that all practical men are impressed with the conviction that you should adopt reciprocity as the principle of your tariff—not merely from practical experience, but as an abstract truth. This was the principle of the commercial negotiations at Utrecht—which were followed by Mr. Pitt in his commercial negotiations at Paris—which formed the groundwork of the instructions to Mr. Eden, most ably pursued by that distinguished man—and which was wisely adopted and applied by the Cabinet of Lord Liverpool; but which was deserted, flagrantly and unwisely, in 1846. There is another reason why you can no longer delay the consideration of your commercial system. You can no longer delay considering the state of your colonies. This is an age of principles, and no longer of political expedients: you yourselves are the disciples of economy; and you have on every occasion enunciated the principle that the colonies of England are an integral part of this country. You ought, then, to act towards your colonies upon the principle you have adopted, but which you have never practised. But observe how the principle of reciprocity would enable you to reconstruct your commercial system in a manner beneficial to the mother country, and advantageous to the colonies. By extending the tariff of the metropolis to the colonies, you would either secure to them a legitimate advantage in the home market; or, on the other hand, their participation in an interchange of mutual benefit with foreign countries. Reciprocity, indeed, is the only principle on which a large and expansive system of commerce can be founded. Reciprocity is indeed a great principle. It is at once cosmopolitan and national. The system you are pursuing is one quite contrary: you go on fighting hostile tariffs with free imports, and the consequence is, that you are following a course most injurious to the commerce of the country. And every year, at the commencement of the Session, you come down not to congratulate the House and the country on the state of our commerce, but to explain why it suffers, why it is prostrate; and you seem yourselves happy on this occasion to be able to say, that it is recovering—from what? From unparalleled distress. I will not trouble the House on this occasion with details. There is no mystery about these statis-

99
tics. They are drawn up from the offcial returns in the library upstairs, and have no advantage beyond being comprehensive and accurate. But there is one result which I wish fairly to put before the country. I wish to show the effect of our colonial trade on that very industry which is the great advocate in this country for sacrificing that colonial trade—I mean the industry of Lancashire. I shall be mistaken if hon. Gentlemen are not somewhat surprised at the result I shall place before them. I am going to take a general view of the exports of cotton goods for the space of the last sixteen years. The exports of calicoes plain and printed for the last sixteen years, namely, from 1831 to 1846, both to British and foreign possessions, are:—to all foreign parts, 5,913,506,603 yards; to British colonies, 3,269,754,578 yards; so that the colonies have taken 313,000,277 yards more than half the rest of the world. In the same period Canada has taken 261,291,482 yards, and the British West Indies 418,991,491 yards, while the United States have taken 514,889,624 yards, so that the American colonies have taken 165,000,000 more than the whole of the United States. In the same period the British West Indies have taken more than the foreign West Indies by the amount of 86,475,524 yards; while India and China, as compared with the Brazils, have exceeded the latter by 903,410,444 yards. Perhaps it may be said, that in taking so large a period as sixteen years, I may have obtained a deceptive average as to the latter and more important years of that term. Well, I have divided the sixteen years into two portions of eight years each, and I find that in the last eight years, compared with the first eight, there has been an increase to British possessions, compared with foreign parts, of 1,566,792,086 against 1,000,645,008, giving an increase to our own possessions of upwards of 516,000,000. In the same period, the proportionate increase to British colonies, compared with foreign Europe, is 738,000,000 of yards. In the same period, the increase to British North America, compared with the United States, has been 69,341,000 yards. The increase to the British colonies, compared with the whole of foreign America, is as follows:—increase to the colonies, 1,430,217,920 yards; foreign America, 310,212,971 yards; greater increase to the colonies, 1,120,000,949 yards. The decrease to the United States in the last eight
100
years is 105,932,279 yards. In the total exports of cotton manufactures to all parts there has been in 1847–48 a decrease as compared with 1844–45 of 174,633,675 yards; the decrease in the British possessions has been 232,569,836 yards; the increase to foreign parts is 57,940,151 yards. As to sugar-growing countries, the total decrease to British sugar-growing colonies, since the Act of 1846, is 143,779,144 yards; while the increase to foreign sugar-growing countries is only 13,792,885 yards. These are instructive data, taken from our own official documents, and this is the result of your new commercial system. These documents are drawn up by your own officers, sometimes doctored by your own officers; and yet, in the face of these, you are calling upon the House of Commons to express an opinion that we are enjoying a wholesale and satisfactory revival of trade. I will not dwell on the revenue. It seems that the voice of the Government, so far as the Speech is concerned, is not exceedingly strong on that point; and when I recollect what has been the principal source of the increase of which we have heard, and that on the very day on which Parliament meets, that source has expired, I am not surprised at the low-ness of their tone; but I do not feel justified in congratulating the country upon it. I should have thought, rather, that the state of the revenue, and the state of the laws affecting the revenue, might have forced Ministers to well consider the principles on which the commercial code of the country should be established; that, in consequence of their old opinions, they would have held that reciprocity ought to be the acknowledged principle of our trade, and that it was the only principle that, wisely managed, could have reconstructed with any satisfaction our colonial system. I now approach a more interesting portion of Her Majesty's Speech than any of the others to which our attention has been called; but I have felt it my duty, in vindication of those opinions which, though outnumbered on them, we are still prepared to support, to place those views before the country—confident, and never more confident, that ultimately they will be adopted by that public opinion which is now rising to uphold the principle I have advocated. I will now endeavour to call attention to those more lively and stimulating subjects which formed the principal part of the address of the noble Lord (Lord H. Vane). I confess that

101
when I listened to Her Majesty's most gracious Speech, and still more to the well-trained echo it called forth, I was surprised at the moral courage of Her Majesty's Ministers. It is the first time since I have had the honour of a seat in this House that the Sovereign has mot Parliament and not been able to congratulate the House of Commons that she has received from all Her Allies expressions of their continued amity. That most significant omission, however, got over, Her Majesty has been advised to feel "it satisfactory to be able to state that both in the north and in the south of Europe the contending parties have consented to a suspension of arms for the purpose of negotiating terms of peace." Now, that expression is to me very obscure, and rather diplomatic than Parliamentary. Who are the contending Powers? Are they Her Majesty's Allies? Where are they? I have heard indeed that in the north of Europe there was a suspension of arms. It turns out that this is the case with regard to a State to whose position I had the honour of calling the attention of the House in May last—the valiant and indomitable kingdom of Don-mark; and I believe that if the course I then recommended had been followed, there would have been not only a suspension of arms, but an established peace. But what suspension of arms has taken place in the south of Europe, is to me a mystery; and probably we shall be enlightened on the subject by some Member of the Government. Has there been a suspension of arms between Austria and Sardinia? Or is it a suspension of arms between his Holiness the Pope and the Prince of Canino. I should have thought at first that a suspension of arms might have taken place in the case of another Power in the south of Europe, had I not encountered some paragraphs conceived in a spirit of such impenetrable obscurity that I am really at a loss to annex any very definite idea to them. We are told that the "hostilities carried on in the island of Sicily were attended with circumstances so revolting, that the British and French admirals were impelled by motives of humanity to interpose, and to stop the further effusion of blood." Now, are we to understand that the further effusion of blood was stayed by the French and British admirals without any instructions from Her Majesty's Ministers? Or is the policy of England dictated by a French admiral? I can conceive nothing more preposterous—I should say nothing
102
more improbable—did I not recollect a remarkable debate in another place at the end of the last Session, in which direct inquiries were made of Her Majesty's Ministers on this very point, and on the probable conduct of the British admiral. I remember the mysterious answer to the person who made that inquiry; but I could not have imagined that after that inquiry and reply the British and French admirals riding at anchor in those waters would, acting only on their own haphazard views of things, take proceedings of the gravest character between a Sovereign and his subjects. If this be the suspension of arms in the south of Europe on which we are now congratulated, and, in return, asked to congratulate the Crown, I, for one, must desire to be excused from such a course. Then follows the following illustrative paragraph:—
"I have availed myself of the interval thus obtained, to propose, in conjunction with France, to the King of Naples, an arrangement calculated to produce a permanent settlement of affairs in Sicily. The negotiation on these matters is still pending."
Now, in the first place, I have no idea who the King of Naples is. I never heard of the King of Naples. Probably some Member of Her Majesty's Government will tell us who he is. These are days of great diplomatic confusion and rapid political change; and, for aught I know, some such Power may have arisen; but I do not think it is as yet recognised. Why, I should have as soon thought of hearing a speech from the Queen of London as to hear of such a Power as the King of Naples. It appears that the Two Sicilies is no longer to be mentioned, but we are to be treated with a perfectly new title, in order, I suppose, to prepare us for the change that is intended." Negotiation," we are told, "on these matters is still pending." What negotiation? Has His Majesty the King of the Two Sicilies agreed to any negotiation, or to any suspension of arms? Has he given in his adhesion to any mediation on the part of the British and French admirals? These are points requiring explanation; for to me it does not appear that anybody is negotiating except ourselves. Then we are told that—
"It is my constant desire to maintain with all foreign States the most friendly relations."
But we are not told, as generally we are told, that all foreign States are also anxious to maintain the most friendly relations with us. It would be highly satis-

103
factory to know if Her Majesty has any allies left: if the progress of diplomacy has at least left her with some well-wishers. I am not surprised that Her Majesty's Government have found it neessary to address Parliament in terms so vague and so obscure about the foreign relations of this country. Since we met this time last year, there has been a considerable change on the continent of Europe. The result has not been extremely satisfactory. Look at the state of France—look at the state of the whole centre of Europe, the fairest and most favoured, the most civilised countries. I find in France a republic without republicans, and in Germany an empire without an emperor; and this is progress! This is the brilliant achievement of universal suffrage—the high politic consummation of the sovereignty of the people! Yes! those are the constitutional models and the political exemplars that are to fashion the future of our free and famous England. It would be a scene of unrivalled absurdity were not the circumstances connected with it calculated to create terror. There wanted but one ingredient in the mess to make the incantation perfectly infernal. A republic without republicans, an empire without an emperor, required only mediations without an object to mediate about: and the saturnalia of diplomacy would mix with the orgies of politics! Well, you have got them at length. I had the honour last year to warn the House against mock mediations; and I think the result has proved that a Member of Parliament had a right to inquire the object of a mediation, the means by which it was to be carried into effect, and particularly the parties between whom the mediation was to take place. There is a mediation in the case of Denmark, commenced last May; but nothing is yet concluded. You were called upon by Denmark to fulfil an unequivocal engagement in a treaty; and if, at the moment, you had acted with justice and firmness, you would, probably, have terminated a disgraceful proceeding. An ancient and independent kingdom is attacked by an assembly sitting in a German town. I look upon the Assembly at Frankfort as a German romance; but a German romance, we all know, may be a very pernicious thing. Nothing could be more unjust, and more violent, than the conduct of the Frankfort Assembly. The French Government, equally bound with ourselves to guarantee the rights of Denmark, offered to co-
104
operate with us in their vindication. Now, I should not have been surprised that our Government had felt it its duty to have refused acting with France at that moment. The French Government was a Provisional Government; and it had hitherto been a rule with us, and, I think, a wise rule, not to recognise a Provisional Government. But the Provisional Government of General Cavaignac commanded the admiration of Her Majesty's Government—and they recognised it; and immediately they recognised it, it immediately fell. I expressed my opinion of that Government in this House before it fell—I formed that opinion because I was convinced it had no root in the country. Her Majesty's Ministers, however, thought otherwise. Why the Provisional Government of Louis Blanc and Lamartine was not equally recognised, I never could understand; but whenever a government composed of the editors of the National, and the soldier they engaged to support them, was formed, it was recognised at once; and I believe it had an ambassador in this country for about a fortnight. Yet, during its brief existence, the Danish question might have been settled; which remains now, after an interval of nearly a year, in the same unsatisfactory state as heretofore. I hope Her Majesty's Ministers mean to tell us what is the point on which the Government is mediating, and who are the parties between whom the mediation is taking place. What is your next mediation? The most preposterous of all! You imagined that the empire of Austria was in a state of dissolution. From the first squabble between the monarch and some of his subjects, you immediately assumed that Austria was to be blotted out of the map of nations; and accordingly you interfered—that is to say, you mediated; the Emperor of Austria shrinking from your mediation. And what has occurred? That empire has shown, as all those acquainted with its resources were well assured it would show, on the present occasion, as in the most memorable periods of its history, so profound a sagacity, and has availed itself of its resources in a manner so distinguished, that it stands in the eyes of Europe in a much more exalted position than before the struggle. It has settled Bohemia, one of its rebel kingdoms; it has resumed its authority in its ancient capital in a manner which cannot be too much commended for its wisdom and its firmness; and it has also entirely,

105
and in a manner which has shown how completely the great body of the people must be with it, asserted its sovereignty in Hungary—another portion of the Austrian empire, where, I suppose, the "contending parties" have consented to a suspension of arms. Before you had established this mock mediation, recollect, also, that Lombardy was entirely reconquered, and in a manner the most complete and brilliant, by the arms of Austria. Look to your third mediation—the instance of Naples. Why, at this very moment, we have not any evidence that there exist two parties to that mediation, or the slightest evidence that any authority has established such a mediation, except a couple of Admirals. The King of the Two Sicilies was placed in a position to a portion of his subjects similar to that in which our Sovereign was placed with regard to her rebel subjects in Ireland, and was prepared to vindicate his authority over that rebellious portion of his kingdom. It would, I think, have been most blamcable policy, if you had proposed to mediate between two parties standing in such a peculiar relation to each other, and had said to the King of Naples, "You shall not vindicate your authority." But you did not adopt that course; you allowed him to proceed; and he did vindicate his authority. One city alone stood out against him; and just as that city was upon the point of surrendering to its lawful sovereign, you advanced, and said to the King, "Here you must stop, we must now mediate." What, I ask, has been the consequence of these mediations? There have been two consequences, and both of a most injurious character. The first is, that in consequence of these mock mediations nothing has been settled. If Austria had been let alone, if the rights of the King of Denmark had been acknowledged, if the King of the Two Sicilies had been permitted to vindicate his authority, all would now have been tranquil; but all is now unsettled, or disturbed, because we pretend to be mediators. But suppose a war occurs—and by your present policy you are not fostering peace—how will you find yourselves circumstanced in consequence of these mediations? Why, you will not have a friend in any party in any country; but you will have offended all parties by one and the same mode. Take Naples—take the case of the Two Sicilies. You, by your language in Parliament, and by the hostile demonstrations of your fleet in the Bay of
106
Naples, made the Sicilians assured that you were about to uphold their cause. Yet, standing aside, you permitted them to be beaten; therefore, for your deception, they mistrust you; while, on the other hand, because just at the moment when the King of Naples was about to become victorious over his rebel subjects, you interfered and deprived him of his victory, he also is alienated from you. In making these remarks, I am far from wishing to enforce a pedantic adherence to that passive policy which, in the barbarous dialect of the day, is called "non-intervention." On the contrary, I am persuaded that in the settlement of the great affairs of Europe, the presence of England is the best guarantee of peace. But it should be the presence of England in accordance with the law of nations, and with the stipulations of treaties. That we may be the champions of right, of law, and of justice, our interference must be in accordance with right, law, and justice. But what you are doing now is contrary to law, justice, and the stipulations of treaties; contrary, I believe, to the traditional policy of England. Last year, when you first began this eccentric course of policy, and when we first heard of our interference between the Emperor of Austria and the King of Sardinia, I ventured to ask what were the grounds of our interference? Were they political or sentimental? If political, I then said our course was simple, because we had only to look to our obligations under treaties. But if, on the contrary, Her Majesty's Government intended to adopt, with reference to our relations with other countries, the sentimental doctrine of nationality, then I contended they were entirely changing the policy of this country, and were consequently bound to come to Parliament and avow that they were about to change the whole foreign policy of England, in order that Parliament might discuss the wisdom of that change. Before I make a few observations on the interesting subject which is the topic of the day, I feel bound to those who, though not immediately my constituents, are persons whose interests I have often advocated in this House, to advert to one more mediation, and one of an unexampled character; I mean our interference in the waters of La Plata. I maybriefly remind the House of the circumstances of that extraordinary case. Six confidential agents have been employed by Her Majesty's Government in connexion with La Plata, and some of them Ministers

107
of the highest class. All have failed; the last, I believe, if not actually expelled, has been treated almost with Personal indignity; a second-rate rebel colony of Spain imitating the mother country, and sending away our Minister. Is it possible to conceive that a negotiation has been going on for years in which important commercial interests are concerned, and that there should have been six missions fruitlessly undertaken, and yet that the House of Commons has never instituted any inquiry into the matter? I asked for the instructions sent to Lord Howden, but I was told it would be inconvenient to produce them, because another envoy was on his passage to succeed that noble Lord. But that other envoy has failed, and another since; therefore, I think, I may now venture to hope to have a copy of those instructions. Speaking of these Gentlemen, one is reminded of the mystic dynasties in Macbeth, "another and another still succeeds," though, to be sure, that is the only thing they don't do. I suspect there may be a reason why we don't hear so much of La Plata as we might have done. The Liverpool Reform Association, who have proved that diplomacy is a profession merely kept up to maintain the aristocracy, and that the wooden walls of Old England are only required to afford employment for younger sons might, one would have thought, have written a tract upon this subject; but, unhappily, it turns out that the merchants of Liverpool are the very persons who are responsible for all this interference. Faithful to their principles, the Liverpool Financial Reform Association—the advocates of retrenchment—are the very men to whom we are indebted for the expense of six missions, all of which have failed, to the great injury of our commercial interests in that part of the world. Great changes have occurred since I last had the honour of addressing this House. Empires have fallen; the Pope no longer reigns in Rome. Her Majesty's chief Secretary admits that she has no allies; but strange as these changes are, nothing is so marvellous as the fact upon which I have to congratulate Her Majesty's Ministers—and that is their conversion to the principles of financial reform. The age of miracles has not passed! But it would have been extremely satisfactory when that portion of the Speech which is addressed more particularly to the House of Commons was alluded to by the noble Lord (Lord Harry Vane),
108
in which Her Majesty says, "I have directed the estimates for the service of the year to be laid before you; they will be framed with the most anxious attention to a wise economy:" it would, I say, have been satisfactory if some one of Her Majesty's Ministers had risen and explained the other portion of that part of the Speech which makes Her Majesty say, "The present aspect of affairs has enabled me to make large reductions on the estimates of last year. "Why, Sir, the estimates prepared last year were also made with every possible attention to a wise economy. But it is somewhat strange that we should be told that the present aspect of affairs has enabled us to make large reductions. When we are so told this, the question naturally arises—What aspect? What is the impelling cause? What is this fresh discovery in the aspect of affairs which enables us to make large reductions? Is it what I read of in the Speech itself—the spirit of disaffection in Ireland? Is that the pressing cause? Is it—what I also read of in the Speech—the rebellion of a formidable character in the Punjaub? A possible insurrection in Ireland, or an actual rebellion in India? Is that the aspect of affairs that impels this great reduction? Or is it the circumstance that at this moment 2,000,000 armed and disciplined men are moving over the face of Europe in hostile array? Is that the aspect of affairs which enables Her Majesty's Ministers to make large reductions in the estimates of last year? Why, Sir, when we me tlast year, the Sovereigns of the world were not only Her Majesty's allies, but even her guests. The foreign affairs of this country were at that period so tranquil that it was difficult for the noble Lord who presided over that department to furnish a single paragraph to the Royal Speech. There was, indeed, a short notice of a treaty on the slave trade with some South American Republic of which not six Gentlemen in the House had over before heard; but while that was the tranquil state of our foreign relations, our revenue was allowed, I believe, by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to be not in a more prosperous condition than at present. No one pretends that trade was more brisk last year than at present. But, in the face of all these circumstances—with India, too, as we were then informed, settled for ever—Ministers came forward, not to propose reductions, but increased expenditure—not a relief from burdens, but a proposition for in-

109
creased taxation. How am I to reconcile this conduct on these two occasions? Then we were to have an increase of the forces. The militia were to be called out. What has happened since in our external relations to make an opposite policy advisable? I cannot, in any change which has occurred in Europe, find what is "the present aspect of affairs" which has impelled Her Majesty's Ministers to become financial reformers. One of my objects in rising is if possible to extract that instructive information from them. That there should be a necessity for making retrenchments is not at all surprising to any Gentleman sitting on this (the Opposition) side of the House, for we have been tampering with the resources of the country for years past. But independently of these considerations, it is not from Gentlemen on these benches that any opposition would probably be encountered to any well-considered measure for retrenchment. Firstly, because I believe there is no instance of a well-considered measure of retrenchment which has not been carried into effect by the Tory party; and, secondly, because, faithful to the great traditions of their political connexion, the Tory party will never forget that it is they who were the original opponents of any extravagantly conceived military establishments of this country. But saying this, Sir, I am sure that no Gentleman on these benches will approach in a light spirit, or touch with a careless hand, the military system of this country as at present established. They will respect that English fleet which is a name more influential with foreign Cabinets, than all the resources of our diplomacy: they will not tamper with the English regiment, which has become a name as famous as the Roman legion. Yet large reductions are to be made in the estimates of last year; and it is the "present aspect" of affairs that justifies the measure. Sir, it cannot be that Her Majesty's Ministers are converts to the perpetual peace theory. Because, if that be the case, and they continue Ministers, I shall not be satisfied with large reductions. We must, to use the language of the day, demand that they carry out their principle to the utmost. There have been, indeed, budgets upon that principle widely circulated. They have produced great effect. "It is my business to discover whether they have inspired any portion of the paragraph in Her Majesty's Speech. The first of those budgets was that celebrated one which
110
was received with acclamations, and proposed some little time ago. No sooner had that flagrant luminary overtopped the horizon, than in a more northern atmosphere a parhelion appeared, which exposed its modest disc in mitigated splendour, but which figured as an almost equal portent in the economical atmosphere. In respect to these two propositions—without reference to any opinions which I may hereafter express concerning them—I will say that I have little objection: I have no objection to the people being relieved from taxation to the amount of 5,000,000 l. or 10,000,000 l, whether by the hon. Members for the West Riding or Glasgow; all I wish to ascertain, is the source from which these sums are to accrue.
"Quibus divitias pollicentur ab illis drachmam petunt
De divitiis deducant drachmam."
So I say deduct your 10,000,000 l. or your 5,000,000 l from that inexhaustible treasury—that more than Californian gold—the 100,000,000 l per annum, or 2,000,000 l sterling per week, which was to be realised by the repeal of the corn laws. I take it for granted it is not possible that Her Majesty's Ministers are about arbitrarily to assume a particular period for the expenditure of this country, and not to regulate that expenditure by the necessities of the kingdom. This, I know, that whenever a Government in this country has advocated retrenchment, not from circumstances justified by our external or domestic position, but with reference to "the present aspect of affairs," the consequence which has always followed such rash and unadvised retrenchment has been an increased expenditure. There was, it is true, a considerable saving in the year 1835; but we had at that time a very weak Government, though composed of very able men, and I regret their fall; but I have always felt that the retrenchments effected in 1835 were too much the consequence of the Parliamentary position of the party then in power; and what followed? The moment they made those retrenchments—from causes not arising from the external condition of the country, but rather from a rash domestic cry—foreign Powers (this was in 1835–6) observing that this country was reducing its establishments without any reference to their policy, but to their Parliamentary position, immediately increased their force, and commenced a policy which we were ultimately obliged to check. And thus a very short time after

111
the fall of the Government of 1835, there was a great increase of expenditure. So again, in 1830, we also, unfortunately, had a weak Government, though formed of able men, who made retrenchments merely to please the public; and what happened? No sooner had that Government—led by a man no less eminent and illustrious than the Duke of Wellington—adopted this course, than the system of foreign Powers immediately changed; and had it not been for the revolution of 1830, an alliance would have taken place between Russia and France to obtain those objects which our policy has always resisted. But I cannot believe that the Government will regulate the expenditure with an arbitrary reference to a particular year, and not by the exigency of the case. But if by the exigency of the case, what difference is there between the circum-stances of this year and the last? Here is a choice opportunity for every chief of an important department to advance tonight, and inform us of the favourable change of circumstances in India or in Ireland, on the Continent or in the Treasury, which renders retrenchment so much more practicable this year than during the last. The task would not be too easy. And when the noble Lord the Premier may sum up the case, it will tax the artifice of that rhetoric of which he is a master to explain their present situation satisfactorily to the country. What I contend is, that your Address to the Throne does not contain a candid exposition of the state of the country. I must ascertain, if possible, what the present aspect of affairs is. I must follow the strategy of a great master of rhetoric, and exhaust the possible causes. I must endeavour to ascertain if Her Majesty's Government are votaries of the oracles of Manchester. There have been of late several potent reasons enunciated why it is totally impossible that this or any other country can ever again go to war, and therefore, why the expenditure may be cut down at least 10,000,000 l. But is this the opinion of the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs? Is it the opinion of his Colleagues? It is said, for example, that the French nation certainly can never go to war again in consequence of the tenure of land in that country—the subdivision of land has produced seven millions of proprietors, who bear the burden of taxation, and who will no longer submit to its increase for warlike adventures. But when I remember that the
112
same tenure of land existed in that country forty and fifty years ago—during the Consulate and the Empire—that the number of proprietors holding under that tenure was, in comparison with the population, equally great to what it is at present, and that with that tenure of land we had wars between the whole Continent and the French Empire, I doubt the validity of the reason thus assigned why France cannot go to war. But this is one of the Manchester oracles, and I want to know whether it is accepted as doctrine by Her Majesty's Government? Again, I would venture to inquire whether Her Majesty's Government are of opinion that the present state of Europe is a state not of war but of revolution, and that consequently no danger of hostilities is to be apprehended, since the tendencies of revolutions are adverse to warfare? I should like to know the noble Lord's opinion upon that. First, as an abstract proposition, I doubt it; I think the tendencies of revolutions are not friendly to peace civil or foreign. They render the fruits of industry uncertain; they disturb the markets of patient labour; they depreciate and endanger capital; they inflame the passions, and develop the military spirit. But let us look to facts. We had a revolution in this country in 1688—a complete revolution—the dynasty was changed, and certainly the new Sovereign did not reign in the hearts of his people. It took sixty years before the new system could be firmly established in this country; and yet immediately after that revolution we entered into a war which was certainly not the least glorious, and perhaps the longest or most comprehensive in which we ever embarked. But it may be said that this is an aristocratic country, and that that was an aristocratic war, incurred to promote the fortunes of the younger sons of the nobility. But France was not an aristocratic State. France had its revolution at the end of the last century—a revolution undertaken under the inspiration of the perpetual peace principle. I have read a speech delivered by Robespierre in the Convention that was worthy of the Free Trade Hall itself; and I have no doubt, had he lived in the present day, he would have been a member of the League. Well, did the revolution in France prevent the people of France from going to war? On the contrary, it made them conquer Europe. Constitutional Governments are now established in Europe, and peace is therefore

113
certain, because constitutional Governments never go to war. Well, there is a third oracle which I am curious to ascertain, whether it have changed the policy of the Cabinet. The noble Secretary will, perhaps, inform us whether constitutional Governments are established in Europe. As far as I have been able to form any opinion of the tendency of the popular schemes that have prevailed during the past year, they are of invasion, of annexation, of violent and unjust courses against the neighbour that may be not as strong as themselves. The reason of this change in the policy of the Government, then, must be, that they hold that conquest is now out of the question, because no conquest that has taken place during the last century has not proved a source of weakness and embarrassment to the conqueror. But is this so? What do the promulgators of this dogma say to the conquest of Malta? Is that a source of weakness to England? Or of Gibraltar? What do you think of the conquest of Silesia by Prussia, which converted Prussia from a second-rate Power, not only to a first-rate, but to a Power whose possible height at this moment we are not capable of estimating? What of the acquisitions of Servia and of Trausylvania by Austria, which laid the foundation of her military colonies which have twice saved the empire? What think you also of the conquests of Russia? I speak not of her Asian conquests, any more than of our own during this period, nor of the conquest of Poland, though I believe it to be one of the great sources of her strength; but what is thought of her acquisitions in the south, the whole of Southern Russia, the Cherson, Taurida, Bessarabia—regions of immense wealth and unquestionable sources of vast power, and all conquered in the memory of our fathers? There is a fifth and final and overwhelming reason given by the illuminati of Manchester why war is no longer possible. A great discovery has been made by these Gentlemen. It seems that a new principle has entered into politics, which entirely changes the aspect of affairs, and all the motives and conclusions of human conduct—and that is the principle of race. It has been discovered that it is quite impossible for the Emperor of Austria to retain Lombardy, because Lombardy is peopled by a race different from the Germans—the Latin race, who will not endure to be governed by a foreign master. Is this principle adopted by the noble Secretary? It will facilitate
114
his mediations. Have these Gentlemen ever read Dante? If not, they may perhaps rise from the perusal of the great Florentine with juster notions of Italian polities, than they seem at present to have imbibed. Why, this difference of race in Lombardy has existed for almost countless centuries. But this principle of race is unfortunately one of the reasons why I fear war may always exist; because race implies difference, difference implies superiority, and superiority leads to predominance. The Gentlemen who have set up this theory of race have, in fact, adopted a principle totally opposed to the very foundation of that system which they vaunted last year, because the principle of race is quite opposed to the principles of equality and fraternity, which are the very basis of all their economics. Sir, it is said that this country must be content with a less demonstration of brute force. I am not prepared to impugn that position; but perhaps I may not associate with the phrase "brute force," the same meaning as those who are apt to use it. An army, a highly disciplined army, impelled by the sense of a great duty, the maintenance of order, the defence of their country, the vindication of the national honour, or the consolidation of the national strength; a body of men thus organised and influenced, and led by some of the choicest spirits of our species, an Alexander or a Cæsar, a Turenne, or our own Wellesley, I say that in a body of men thus disciplined, animated, and guided, it appears to me that moral power is as necessary, as essential, an element as physical energy. But, if on the other hand, I find a man with a certain facility of speech, and in a position happily adapted to his purpose, using those means and qualities to inflame the passions of large bodies of his fellow countrymen and stir them up against the institutions of his country, that is what I hold to be a demonstration of brute force, which I believe this country would be very well content to do without; and which, if there be any sense and spirit left in the men of light and leading in this country, they will resolve to quell as an intolerable and ignominious tyranny. I have often observed that the hangers-on of the new system are fond of quoting the trite apothegm of the great Swedish Minister, who said, "With how little wisdom a nation may be governed." My observations for the last few years have led me to a conclusion, not exactly similar, but analogous with that thought. Were I

115
blessed with offspring, like Oxenstiern, I would rather address the being for whose existence I was responsible in this way. I would say, "My son, you see with how much ignorance you can agitate a nation." Yes! but the Queen's Ministers are truckling to these men. That is the position of affairs. Her Majesty's Ministers have yielded to public opinion. Public opinion on the Continent has turned out to be the voice of secret societies; and public opinion in England is the clamour of organised clubs. Her Majesty's Ministers have yielded to public opinion as a tradesman does who has failed in an attempt at extortion—he yields to public opinion when he takes a less sum. So the financial affairs of this country are to be arranged, not upon principles of high policy or from any imperial considerations, but because there is an unholy pressure from an arrogant minority, and who are confident of success because they think that they have beaten two Prime Ministers. Opinion is stronger than truth, according to Sophocles; I prefer truth, particularly in Her Majesty's Government, and therefore I shall move an Amendment. I honestly believe that the Address we are called upon to vote does not give a candid and ingenuous opinion to the Throne, as to the present condition of the country. I have drawn up an Amendment couched in no partisan or inflammatory spirit, but which I do believe does give an honest and fair representation of the present aspect of affairs to the Throne. The hon. Member here read the words of his proposed Amendment, to the effect—
"We regret, however, to be compelled humbly to represent to Your Majesty, that neither Your Majesty's relations with Foreign powers, nor the state of the Revenue, nor the condition of the Commercial or Manufacturing Interests, are such as, in our opinion, to justify us in addressing Your Majesty in the language of congratulation; and that large portions of the Agricultural and Colonial Interests of the Empire are labouring under a state of progressive depression, calculated to excite serious apprehension and anxiety."
That is the Amendment which I beg to propose. I have thought it my duty to notice the crude and pestilent speculations now afloat respecting financial reform, not only because I consider them to be very dangerous to the country, not only because, according to rumour, they have converted a Government, but because avowedly on the part of their promulgators they only tend to ulterior purposes. This I must
116
say of the new revolution, that its proceedings are characterised by frank audacity. They have already menaced the Church; they have scarcely spared the Throne. They have denounced the constitutional estates of the realm as antiquated and cumbrous machinery, not adapted to the necessities of the present age. No doubt, for the expedition of business, a Financial Reform Association presents greater facilities than the House of Commons. Little fear there of those collisions of argument and intellect which we here experience; they have no discussions and no doubts; but I have little fear that this go-a-head system will supersede the sagacity and matured wisdom of an English Parliament; and so long as this House remains the chosen temple of free discussion, I have no apprehension, whatever party may be in power, that the people of England will be in favour of the new societies. I am perfectly aware of the difficulties which the Gentlemen on this side have to encounter in this struggle. If I were to listen to the traditionary, petty, and prudential reasons which regulate Parliamentary proceedings in ordinary times, I should probably be led to believe that in moving an Amendment to the Address I was acting an unwise part. But I believe the Amendment to be justified by facts; and it is to the country I address myself in doing, in this instance, what I conceive to be my duty. I say that I know the difficulties which we have to encounter—the dangers which are looming in the distance. The hon. Gentleman who is the chief originator of the movement, made a just observation when he frankly admitted that the best chance for the new revolution lay in the dislocation of parties in this House. I told you that when I ventured to address some observations to the House almost in the last hour of the last Session. I saw the difficulty which such a state of things would inevitably produce. But let us not despair—we have, notwithstanding all that has occurred, we have still the inspiration of a great cause. We stand here to uphold not only the Throne, but the empire; to vindicate the industrial privileges of the working classes, and the reconstruction of our colonial system; to uphold the Church, no longer assailed by the masked batteries of appropriation clauses, but by unvizored foes; we stand here to maintain freedom of election and the majesty of Parliament, against the Jacobin manœuvres

117
of the Lancashire clubs. These are stakes not lightly to be lost. At any rate, I would sooner my tongue were palsied before I counselled the people of England to lower their tone. Yes, I would sooner quit this House for ever than say to the people of England that they overrated their position. I leave these delicate intimations to the fervent patriotism of the Gentlemen of the new school. For my part, I denounce their politics, and I defy their predictions; but I do so because I have faith in the people of England, their genius, and their destiny.
The Amendment having been read by Mr. SPEAKER,
MR. H. GRATTANrose and said, that he had an Amendment, to propose which, as it related to a paragraph preceding that upon which the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli) had just moved an Amendment, would require to be put first. The Amendment he intended to propose referred to the paragraph relating to Ireland—which he regarded as an insult to the people of that country. The hon. Gentleman who had just spoken had talked of mock mediations abroad; but he forgot to allude to the mock insurrections at home. The insurrection in Ireland—which was alluded to so gravely in Her Majesty's Speech—was a mere mock insurrection. There was no evidence laid before them against the persons who had been apprehended under the Act suspending the Habeas Corpus; and he objected to the proposed continuance of that suspension. With respect to that passage in the Speech relating to the Irish Poor 'Law, it could not be acceded to by any Irish Member who wished well to his country. There was no use in appointing a Committee to inquire into the law—it ought to be entirely altered. Those laws had been condemned by resolutions passed at county meetings summoned by the high sheriffs of those counties, as having signally failed in their operation. Where was the use of further Parliamentary inquiring respecting thorn? Action, not inquiry, was wanted. Already they had had numerous Committees and reports, but all ended in nothing. The Devon Commission had received abundance of evidence on the subject, but the Government had not proceeded on it. It was not therefore the means, but the will that was wanting to change the character of those laws and render them more efficient. This country, he admitted, stood in a proud position, but it was because under a free constitution she
118
upheld and enjoyed popular institutions; but the constitution in Ireland was violated, and her institutions were neglected or inoperative. Surely the Government ought not to be so inert on the subject of that now vital question, the poor-law, as to wait until every landed proprietor in Ireland was ruined, or until half the population emigrated. Under the present system, the man who cleared his estate and gave no employment obtained the reward, while those landlords who did their duty suffered the penalty. The law which applied to England might not apply to Ireland, and the law which applied to the east of Ireland might not apply to the west. There were many important facts connected with its operation which a Committee would not inform them of. It might elicit details already known, but would not tell them of the ruin which the poor-laws had caused to several deserving landed proprietors. The poor-law, he maintained, was demoralising the people. There was not a virtuous woman or an honest man would enter the workhouses if they could help it, because they were destroying the character and conduct of those who entered there. In those unions where the gentry and guardians undertook to support their own poor, and sent the Government officer away, the people got employment and relief, by voluntary though severe taxation. The evil did not stop there, for the people were dying in the ditches at the rate of twenty, and thirty, and fifty a week, and buried without coffin or shroud; and this not merely in the west and south, but in other parts of Ireland. Their evil effects were even beginning to be felt in the north. Not only were the rents vanishing, but with the rents the best of the tenantry. They were going to America, not only in grief at being forced from their own country, but with the seeds of revenge in their bosoms, which had been already displayed in the hope, openly expressed by some of them, that their sons might return at a future day with rifles on their shoulders. It was the duty of the Government to allay that feeling and prevent the danger it might hereafter create, by a timely alteration of those laws which were the immediate cause of the evil. England was never so popular on the Continent as at this moment; but her conduct to Ireland would certainly not make her more so. Her suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act would neither make her more popular abroad, nor add strength or honour to her Throne at home. They might talk of insurrection;

119
but where was it? Was there a single paper before the House to prove its existence? It was notorious that men cried aloud in the streets for insurrection, but could not succeed. The very day that cannons were loaded, gates barricadoed, and the Bank secured with sand bags, in expectation of an insurrection, the city of Dublin was never more tranquil, nor its inhabitants less disposed to revolt. The Government, unfortunately, followed the advice of men who knew nothing of the case or real condition of Ireland. Men were arrested, not because they were traitors to the Queen, but because they were hostile to the policy of the Government. Men in America now complained of that. They complained of not being treated as freemen, and demanded the restoration of Irish nationality, and because they did so they were followed by spies, and in self-defence obliged to fly their country. It was only to be compared to the scenes described in the Castlereagh correspondence, from which it appeared that in 1798 men were taken up upon the particular knowledge of the Lord Lieutenant through his agents. So in Ireland lately men were arrested under the Habeas Corpus Act, without a particle of evidence against them; for some were discharged, and some let out on bail. The Lord Lieutenant was forced to do what he was unwilling to do; and the errors committed were not those of his head or heart, but of bad Downing-street advisers. The landed proprietors of Ireland were being deprived of their properties, and now it appeared they must lose their reputation. He, for one, would never tolerate the charge that Irishmen were disaffected; and he hoped those Roman Catholic Members who had been termed the "baptised spaniels of the Treasury bench," would not submit to the imputation. The hon. Member who had just sat down said, he wished Englishmen not to lower their tone. He, too (Mr. Grattan), wished Irishmen not to lower their tone, but to demand their liberty. The Lord Lieutenant was now allowed to do as the autocrat of Russia, and to commit to prison, without a particle of evidence of guilt. They would be a miserable set of men indeed if they submitted to that. He would therefore move the omission of the thirteenth paragraph of the Speech, because liberty not license should prevail, and, above all, in a country that been so long wronged. The hon. Gentleman, recurring again to the
120
poor-laws, pointed out the parts of it which particularly required change. He wished for smaller areas of taxation, but not town lands: he wished for the repeal of the quarter-acre clause; for the inhumanity of compelling a man to walk twenty miles for relief, or refusing it because he had a quarter of an acre of land, was most to be condemned. It was painful to be obliged to blame men who, he believed, had at heart the interests of their country; but the effect of these laws was such that he felt compelled to throw the blame on those who had the power to alter them. The want of classification of the paupers in workhouses was absolutely demoralising the women, and the food was such as to destroy the character for strength of the ablebodied men. Those who could were leaving the country without paying a shilling of rent; and to suck an extent was this taking place, that, between emigration and the poor-laws, Mayo, Kerry, and part of Cork, might shortly be struck out of the map of Ireland. In some parts of Ireland a few occupiers only were left, and they were made to pay the penalty for the absentee proprietors. What he complained of was, that the ministerial intentions as to the Irish Poor Law had not been clearly stated. Surely they did not mean to exterminate the people; and yet such was the effect of their measures, and such it must be, without an absentee tax. It was said all the people wanted was employment; but if the lands were cleared there would neither be employment nor persons to be employed. He denied that there was, or could be, or ought to be, amity between England and Ireland so long as the Habeas Corpus Act was suspended, and an army of spies and informers was let loose on the country. Still he doubted not that if the Queen visited Ireland, the loyalty and gallantry of the people would give Her a hearty welcome. They wanted not separation, but justice; they wanted resident proprietors, and not whole estates left destitute. If things were allowed to continue in their present state, they would not be able to enlist a thousand soldiers in the west of Ireland. Any man's loyalty would be destroyed by such treatment as that to which the Irish bad been subjected. He appealed to Ministers' sense of justice, and their humanity, to omit the paragraph he had alluded to. He contended that Mr. O'Brien, when in a state of excitement, had committed many imprudent, but

121
not disloyal acts. When he found himself, liable to be arrested as a felon, he had fled; but there was no insurrection; he, could not prevent the people following and protecting him. The moment an officer said he had not a warrant against Mr. O'Brien, he was allowed to go on in the, performance of his duty. He wished to know why he (Mr. O'Brien) was prosecuted, when Mr. O'Connell was allowed to assemble 500,000 men on the, hill of Tara? He meant to move for a return of the expense incurred in sending over soldiers to put down that quasi rebellion: or he would advise the hon. Member for the West Riding to move it along with his financial resolutions. The publication of such a return would make the country laugh. If things went on the way they were progressing, the difficulty of one Minister would become the impossibility of another. Not a ray of hope had been held out to Ireland in the speeches of the Ministerial supporters. Though he stood there a free man, yet he felt that he spoke like the ancient Greek, placed, when captive, with a rope about his neck, to be drawn tight when he ended his discourse—so with him, the moment he returned to his country, he was liable to be thrown into prison as a suspected person. He entreated the Government not to sully their glory by oppressing Ireland, as they had done on former occasions. They might ask France or America if this country was safe in pursuing such a course; and let them beware of sowing the seeds of sedition in Ireland by expatriating her inhabitants, and thus raising the cry of separation. The Irish emigrants to America would all be advocates of separation. Let them recollect how the former Irish rebellion had commenced. By aid of the speeches of Lord Glare, and the efforts of Wolfe Tone, the French Directory had been induced to send their expedition to Ireland; and who could say that the same might not take place from America? Allusion had been made to the system of pensioning the Roman Catholic clergy. Let not the Government suppose that the clergy were to be gained by such means. He (Mr. Grattan) would oppose such a plan. Having bullied the Protestants and beggared the Catholics, they were about to buy the clergy. They might depend upon it they would never succeed. With these views, he should move the omission from the paragraph relating to Ireland of all the words after
122
"insurrection in Ireland," and the substitution of the following words:—
"That the disturbances in Ireland have not been renewed, but a feeling of discontent, augmented by the distresses of the people, still exists, which it will be our duty to watch, and as speedily as possible to remedy."
MR. JOHN O'CONNELLsaid, he rose to second the Amendment of his hon. Friend. When Irish Members addressed themselves exclusively to Irish questions, they were often met with the taunting assurance that they were interested in the external as well as in the internal affairs of this great empire. But he had never received any consolation from such assurance; for he found that their representations as to their own country were without any weight or authority in that House. He would leave the foreign policy of Ministers to be settled between them and the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire; it was a pretty quarrel as it stood; he would only observe that the Government seemed to have adopted doctrines and principles in some part of their foreign policy which it would be well for them to inculcate in their policy towards Ireland. In dealing with the affairs of Sicily they had put forward the doctrine, in which he most entirely concurred, that a country, while continuing bound to a superior country by the golden link of the Crown, had the right to manage its own affairs by its own Parliament. Why had they not applied that principle to the case of Ireland, and why did they now make a pretext of the wretched, partial, and miserable outbreak of July last for obtaining powers to be directed, not against an insurrection, which they themselves confessed did not exist, but against legitimate and constitutional liberty in Ireland—against that principle which they had themselves asserted in the case of the Sicilians as against the Parliament of Naples? It would appear that they had put I forward., in other countries, principles in-consistent with their love of order and their support of constitutional authority in this country. The secret mission of Lord Minto was not yet forgotten. If the tree might be judged by its fruits, it yet remained to be proved that the sad occurrences in Rome, the assassinations, outrages, and violence that reigned there now, had not been encouraged by the coquetting which the secret envoy of Great Britain had had with the parties foremost in that insurrection. Lord Minto in Rome had encouraged the rioters there—those who

123
had shown the first symptoms of setting the Pope's authority at nought. Lord Minto had entertained at his own table Sterbini and the men now connected with the hideous outrages of that unfortunate insurrection. It would be for Ministers to clear themselves, and prove that they were not responsible for those outrages, by the kind of authority and encouragement which the secret envoy of this country had given to those parties in Rome. And yet not one word was there in the Royal Speech to express the slightest sympathy for the Pope, who had been driven from his throne by a hand of assassins, the vilest and meanest of mankind; and this while the rest of Europe was nearly unanimous in reprobating the crime and the criminals, and proffering their aid to reseat him on that throne, and replace him again over that ungrateful people upon whom he had showered so many and such signal benefits. He had no fault to find with the tone and temper of the speeches of the Mover and Seconder of the Address; in fact, the noble Mover had made out a case against the Ministry whom he had risen to support. He had confessed that there was a most entire and perfect lull in Ireland; notwithstanding that, he advocated the continuance of those extraordinary powers which found their precedent under the most tyrannical governments of former times, because they happened to have confidence in the present Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. That was a most unconstitutional doctrine, to deprive a people of their rights because they had confidence in a single individual, and thus to place the liberties of a whole nation in the keeping of one man. A dictator was a monster unknown to the British constitution; and there was no pretext in the Royal Speech for thus outraging the feelings of the Irish people. He trusted, therefore, that Ministers would pay this much respect to the House, if not to the people of Ireland, of showing the grounds of the statement put forth that the spirit of disaffection still existed in that country, and that there was a necessity for renewing that unconstitutional measure, the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act. To this measure, whenever it should be introduced, and to every stage of it he, for one, should offer his most determined and unabated opposition. He cared not though he should be termed factious; he should never consider that to be factious which he did in defence of his country when she was unjustly assailed. As to the poorlaw,
124
it was a measure that ought never to have been forced upon Ireland. It tended entirely to destroy that feeling of independence and self-reliance which was essential to the regeneration of the country. Even in this country the law had totally failed, as had been confessed by the preamble of every succeeding measure on the subject. He complained that the Government had brought forward no proposal of relief. No modification of the poor-laws would afford that relief. He objected entirely to the imposition of a poor-law in Ireland; but if it was to be imposed, let it bear rather upon the absentee than upon the resident landlord. The Government preached much about the necessity of self-dependence and exertion in the people of Ireland; but they forgot that the only stimulus to those virtues—a feeling of security in the fruits of labour—was wanting in that country. So long as there was that absence of security, so long would the people be idle. The Government seemed alive to the fact, that a feeling of security must form the basis of all industrial operations in Ireland. By the introduction of the Landlord and Tenant Bills, Ireland might yet be saved; although, certainly, not by the introduction of any system of poor-laws; for all the modifications introduced into them had failed to arrest the influx of pauperism into this country. Since the Union, Ireland's fortunes had been gradually declining; but still peace and prosperity might be secured to her. He repudiated the idea of endowing the Catholic clergy. The Catholic clergy would not accept any endowment. They well knew that their effliciency depended upon that affectionate intercourse between them and their flocks, that feeling of mutual co-operation and aid, which had hitherto prevailed. The revenue of the Protestant Church, saving, of course, existing interests, ought to be applied to the support of the poor; and, moreover, he was satisfied that this would be ultimately the application of this property. Ireland was without manufactures, and for that reason her people were wholly dependent on the land for their means of subsistence. Hence arose the life-and-death competition for land, a struggle which compelled the landlord to let his land at a rack rent. They had asked to be made secure in the results of their toil, and they were refused. They were told that they were an idle race; whereas nothing could exceed the industry of the people of Ireland, provided they

125
were allowed to gather what they planted. The Irish people were forced to emigrate from their native shores. England drove them to America, where they were welcomed, and where they became incorporated in that hostile force which was destined probably to be arrayed at some future day against her. Let the House arrest its progress. Forty-eight years had Ireland been subject to the Legislative Union, and every year had witnessed a further degree of degradation and misery. If she were left to her own resources, she might yet recover and enable the Government to disband those armies by which alone she was now subdued. Before he concluded he begged to thank the hon. Seconder of the Address for the kind words he had uttered towards his country: they were grateful to his bettor feelings. He entreated that hon. Member and others, who were as independent of party ties as he was, to give their assistance against the wanton infliction and injury the Government was about to offer to his unhappy country by the adoption of measures of coercion.
The Question and Amendment having been put from the chair,
MR. W. FAGANrequested the attention of the House for a few minutes whilst he touched upon three points in the Speech from the Throne relative to Ireland. The Speech declared, that in certain parts of that country great distress prevailed, in consequence of the failure of the potato crop. If he were to form any judgment of the intentions of the Government from that paragraph, he should premise that Ministers were about to come down to Parliament and to ask for some relief for the suffering people; and though he was one who preferred that Ireland should struggle through her difficulties by herself—yet knowing as he did the state of penury that existed throughout the poor-law unions there, and that even 20 s. in the pound did not suffice for the relief of the distress, he would not refuse such assistance if it were offered. But the distress was not partial in Ireland—it existed throughout the length and breadth of the whole land. And as a proof of it, the circulation there had decreased from 6,000,000 l. to 4,000,000 l. The distress was also increased by the practice of hoarding, which was very prevalent. The next topic in the Speech to which he should advert, was that which referred to the operation of the poor-laws in Ireland.
126
He differed on this subject from his hon. Friend the Member for Limerick. He did think an inquiry into the working of the poor-laws in Ireland was requisite; and it would be inconsistent in those who last year called for this inquiry, to say it was not now wanted. The very fact that a difference of opinion existed on the subject was ground sufficient for an inquiry; and he could vouch for this fact, for he was at a meeting of Members in Dublin on the subject, when there were five different opinions expressed on the subject of the poor-laws. The hon. Member for Limerick was opposed to all poor-laws in Ireland. He (Mr. Fagan) was for still continuing the system, for making it more efficient for the protection of the poor, and also for making all the landlords of Ireland bear their fair share of the burden. The third topie to which he had to allude, bore special reference to the Amendment before the House. If he had been asked what ought to be said in the Royal Speech about Ireland, he should have replied, that some congratulation ought to have been expressed on the tranquil state of the country, and a recommendation added, that the people should be immediately restored to the possession of all their civil rights. The nation had always been told that agitation was the bane of Ireland, and that as soon as it ceased, the people should have justice done them. Now, he assumed that agitation had ceased In Ireland, and in order to do them justice, the Ministers of the Crown, instead of coming down to Parliament to ask for a fresh Coercion Bill against them, ought to propose some soothing measures. When it was proposed to take away the Habeas Corpus Act—a statute of which the English people were so justly proud—the Government ought at least to show the reasons for so doing. He again asserted that Ireland was tranquil in those parts he was acquainted with—so much so, that the people were disgusted with political feeling and agitation. He was at the same time free to admit that the noble Lord at the head of the Irish Government had used the powers entrusted to him with great moderation, But he could never give that nobleman his confidence so long as he upheld the jury packing system in Ireland. Irish Members had often been told by the Government that the agitation which prevailed in Ireland had prevented the introduction of remedial measures: that agitation had now ceased, and

127
the Government had an opportunity of introducing any remedial measures with which they might be prepared. If the Government would handle the social evils of Ireland in a bold and masterly spirit, he could promise them the hearty support and assistance of the people of that country.
LORD J. RUSSELL: The hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli), who spoke first in this debate after my noble Friend the Mover of the Address, and the Seconder, paid a tribute, which I think natural, to the noble Lord who long led that party with which he was connected, and whose loss he most justly deplored. Sir, I could not hear that tribute without remembering I, too, since the last Session of Parliament, have lost Friends with whom I was politically connected; and I must say that I think it is not only natural, but right, that such losses should not be passed over in silence in this House, because the loss of men of undoubted integrity, of high spirit, of great talent, and of indefatigable industry in the transaction of public business, are not private but national losses. Sir, in referring to the various topics which have been raised in this debate, I will state but briefly the remarks that I have to make with regard to Ireland, because there is no subject connected with that country which is not likely, in a short time, to form the subject of a separate discussion. With regard to the particular Amendment which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Meath has moved, relating to the powers of which the Government propose to ask the renewal, I will only call upon the House to defer its judgment until they hear the statement which my right hon. Friend shall make, founded upon the opinion, certainly, of the Lord Lieutenant; but that opinion, formed not only upon his own judgment and his own strict and sagacious observation of passing events, but likewise upon the testimony of those from whom he is accustomed to obtain information with regard to the state of the country. I will only say, further, that I hope this House will bear in mind, when they come to that discussion, how long a Government must pause, supposing no such power to exist, before it comes down to ask Parliament for such powers—what menaces, what agitation, what interruption of trade and commerce, what disturbance of the public peace, must occur; and that if the Suspension Act should expire, and agitation
128
were again to begin, it would not be at the first moment of that agitation that Government could, with any hope of success, ask for a grant of such powers, but that they must wait until a course of events somewhat similar to that which took place before had again occurred in Ireland, to the great misfortune of that country. For these powers which we propose to ask are not powers against Ireland; on the contrary, they are powers for the protection of all the well-disposed—for the protection of the great majority of the country against those who would turn its present condition to purposes of disaffection and rebellion. Sir, with respect to another topic, I own I was somewhat surprised to hear from the hon. Gentlemen who moved and seconded this Amendment, that the Government ought to have come down and proposed at once its Bill for the amendment of the poor-law. I have been accustomed to hear continual reproaches that in our legislation for Ireland we do not consult those who represent that country, and who know the feelings, the wants, and the condition of that country; that we rely upon our own notions and English feelings, and do not listen to the opinions of those who are natives of Ireland, and so much better acquainted with the nature of the measures suited to that country. Now, that we propose that there should be a Committee in which we should be able to ascertain what Irish Members think of the operation of the poor-law, and to consult their experience before we bring a Bill into the House, we are told that we ought to have framed our Bill entirely upon our own notions; that we should not have listened to Irish Members, but acted independently of any such advice or information. It is obvious that if we had taken that course, we should have been liable to reproach, and I have no doubt we should have come under the censure of those who now blame us for taking the opposite course. We cannot say, either, that there is that unanimous opinion in Ireland as to the amendment of the poor-law that upon that opinion we could frame a Bill for the amendment of that law; because, according to the statement of the hon. Member for Cork, when a small portion of the representatives of Ireland met—I think only nine—as the hon. Gentleman says, there were among them five different opinions as to the amendment that ought to be made in the poor-law, so that if we had taken the opinion of one of those five, we should

129
have had four to one of Irish opinions against the measure we should have proposed. With regard to what has been said as to other Irish measures, there were several Bills introduced last year, and which we mean again to submit to the consideration of the House; there is one with regard to that long-vexed question of landlord and tenant, which last year was before a Committee, and which we propose again to lay before the House; there is the question with regard to the franchise, with respect to which my right hon. Friend has a Bill already prepared; and there is the grand-jury system also; so that we are not liable, in fact, to the reproach of not having attended to any other subject with respect to Ireland but that of restraining the liberties of that country. I come now, Sir, to some of the questions raised by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli), and I think it will be as well that I should enter into them now, taking this Address as a whole, as speak merely to the question of the Amendment which has been moved. Now let me say, with regard to the hon. Gentleman, that I think he displayed very great ingenuity in the objections that he made to the Address proposed; he cavilled at one phrase, carped at another term, found fault with the title that had been given to a foreign sovereign, and in that way with very great ability kept the House from the consideration of the questions that were really before it; and he proceeded upon that to move an Amendment, which as I shall presently show is of a most extraordinary character. But the hon. Gentleman thought fit first of all to state to us what was the present state of our commercial legislation and policy, and how much we had gone astray in respect to it. In support of this opinion, he made some statistical observations, which I confess were unintelligible to me; he told us, that when a very large import of food was introduced from America, the American growers and importers had 5,000,000 l. of profit in the transaction; and what does he wish to infer from that? I should have thought, upon that question, that even all protectionists as well as all free-traders would acknowledge, that when there is a great deficiency of food in this country, whether you have sliding-scale, fixed duty, or no duty at all, it should be your object in that emergency to collect as much food as possible; and that if there is a good price in this country, while the price in the country of production
130
is low, the temptation of that profit is a reason why your wants should be supplied, and that you should rejoice that those wants should be supplied by so large an importation. That American growers and merchants should gain 5,000,000 l. of profit in that transaction, provided we had the benefit of the food for the consumers in this country, is not a subject of lamentation with me. I only think that it is the natural result of commerce, and one which we are not by any means to deplore, but to take as the effect of all commercial transactions. For my part I never can enter into that notion which the hon. Gentleman seems to entertain, that every gain of the foreigner is the loss—a robbery—of the British people; that every time there is a large profit made by some foreign producer or merchant, we should deplore it as a national plunder. Upon the contrary, if commerce is carried on in a healthy state, there ought to be gain on both sides. We gain by the merchandise we send to America; America gains by furnishing us with the articles we want; and there is gain, again, by all those who are concerned in carrying the goods from one country to the other. So far from thinking this a subject upon which we should pour our lamentations, I should be glad to see that commerce still farther extended. I believe that the laws we have passed in the course of the last few years, so far from tending to impoverish the country, will tend to enrich it. I do not think that we have any reason to complain if those commercial transactions become more extended; but I do believe, with respect to the importation of corn, for instance, which is the great necessary of life for the people, that the people of England will be great gainers by not having the recurrence of those times of very high prices to which they were formerly subjected. The hon. Gentleman says that the law of 1842 was changed after an experience of three years; but in my opinion the laws were changed after an experience of thirty years. The corn law was enacted by Parliament in 1815; it was changed and modified into various shapes, but at last statesmen of different parties, and the majority of this House, came to the opinion that in no shape whatever would it be expedient to continue this law, and that it would be far bettor that the trade in food should be made entirely free. I was an advocate, for one, of the modifications of that law—for a fixed duty; and I believe that if that

131
fixed duty had been enacted many years ago, it would have acted most beneficially for the country, and, at last, have gradually given way to the complete free trade that we now have. But Parliament having not chosen to adopt that mode, having chosen to set corn entirely free, I hope that no one will attempt—above all, I hope that no one will be successful—in renewing any duty upon that indispensable article of subsistence. The hon. Gentleman having stated his opinion upon this subject, which, if it meant anything, meant, as I conceive, a restoration of protective duties, then proceeded to enter into the question of our foreign relations. Now, all that is stated in the Queen's Speech, with regard to the foreign relations of this country, has been put in that Speech by the advice given to Her Majesty according to what is strictly the fact with regard to the transactions that had taken place; and all that my noble Friend (Lord H. Vane) calls upon this House to do, is to thank Her Majesty for informing them of those various transactions. There is throughout the Address no word of congratulation or of approbation of the transactions or of the policy pursued; on the contrary, those questions are entirely reserved, because Her Majesty is pleased to say in Her Speech, that when the public service will permit, the papers relating to these various transactions will be laid before Parliament. Now, it has been usual for the House of Commons, which does not take upon itself generally the initiative in those matters, at all events to wait for such communications; to press for such papers if they should think it necessary, or, having waited till these papers are produced, to found, if any Member should think it necessary to found upon them, some charge or some resolution with respect to the opinion of the House; and such appears to me to be the reasonable course with regard to these transactions. With respect to the state of manufactures, with respect to the state of the colonies or of agriculture, the hon. Gentleman may fairly call upon this House to express an opinion; but these foreign negotiations, as we know, are generally matters of a somewhat complicated character, leading to the exchange of notes, and assuming different phases in the course of the transactions; and it is unexampled for a Member to come forward on the first night of a Session, without the information, and without even asking for it, and to call upon the House to vote that Her Majesty's relations
132
with foreign Powers are not such as to justify us in addressing Her Majesty in the language of congratulation. No congratulation is proposed, no congratulation has been asked; and this is merely saying that the House of Commons thinks proper to form its opinion without a knowledge of the negotiations that have taken place, without any insight into the transactions, and to say at once that they do not form matter of congratulation, which means saying at once that they form matter of condemnation. But when I heard the hon. Gentleman make his observations upon our foreign relations, it convinced me the more that he was wrong in asking the House to come to any such conclusions, because his observations convinced me that he was totally misinformed with regard to them. He seemed to suppose, for instance, that with regard to the war carried on between the King of Sardinia and the Emperor of Austria, we had proposed to impose our mediation without ever having been requested by the Emperor of Austria to mediate. Another statement I know has been made, and is current with the public, that mediation was proposed to us by Austria, and was refused by this country. Neither of those statements is at all correct. The real fact is, that the Emperor of Austria was pleased to send an Austrian statesman, a very distinguished man—a gentleman whom I have often had occasion to meet, and always had great pleasure in intercourse with him—he sent that statesman to this country with a proposal to this country to mediate between him and the King of Sardinia. We accepted that mediation; but with regard to the proposed basis of it we suggested that an alteration should be made by the Emperor. That statesman considered that we had accepted the mediation, but he demurred to the terms of our basis, and insisted that the terms proposed by the Emperor were those which ought to be the terms, and he returned to his own country. At a subsequent period a mediation was proposed to the Emperor of Austria, and under these circumstances: the King of Sardinia being much pressed in the field, determined to ask for the assistance of France; a correspondence took place between this country and the French Government, and the French Government at our request consented to put aside the question of beginning hostilities against Austria in Italy, and conjointly with us to propose terms of mediation to the two

133
Powers. The hon. Gentleman said, in another part of his speech, that he doubted whether this country ought to have acted with France—with the Governments which she has had since the Revolution of February. Sir, I feel no such doubts. I feel convinced that our acting in concert with France during the past year has been of great benefit to the peace of Europe. I feel convinced that if we had said at once "However moderate your propositions—however pacific the course that you propose to pursue, you have changed your monarchical Government into a republic, and therefore we will have nothing to say to your proposals,"—in the first place, such an answer would have excited a suspicion in France that, although we did not profess it, we meant to interfere with respect to her form of government; and I believe, in the next place, that being loft to take her own line without concert and without advice, she would have been driven by the violent party in that country into hostilities by which the whole peace of Europe would have been compromised. I therefore differ entirely from the hon. Gentleman in thinking that we ought not to have had any concert with France upon these matters. Whether France has been wise in changing her form of government to a republic—whether it is true, as the hon. Gentleman says, that there are no republicans in France—that is a question upon which I do not choose to enter; it is a question for the French people alone. But what I know is, that although at the commencement of that revolution there were terms used in a circular of M. Lamartine's which certainly appeared to menace the peace of Europe, and though there was, as I thought, a great deal too much unintelligible jargon about "nationality," yet, with respect to M. Lamartine, with respect to General Cavaignac, and with respect to the present Government, I can say that we have had to deal with persons directing the foreign affairs of France since the revolution, who have listened fairly and candidly to all the representations we had to make to them, and who have stated fairly and honestly to us what they believed to be the interest and the policy of France; and we have had no reason whatever to complain, but, on the contrary, reason to rejoice that we had to deal with men of high honour and of consistent and unwavering integrity. But I am not sure that I am at all convincing the hon. Gentleman when I say that our concert with
134
Franco has tended to the preservation of the peace of Europe, because, as far as I collect from the tenor of his speech, his inclination seemed to be that our object ought to be war, and that the fault he found with us was that Ave had not let war take its course. That was his view more especially with respect to Holstein. He said, "Your mediation has put a stop to hostilities, and what would have gone on very well has been arrested by your mediation." Why, what would have gone on? The King of Denmark would have resisted the power of the Germans; the Germans would have insisted that they had rights with respect to Schleswig, which has been long a favourite opinion in Germany; and France and Prussia would have taken their view of the matter. Those views not being counteracted by any pacific mediation, war must have been the result; and the complaint the hon. Gentleman makes is, that we did interpose when both the King of Denmark and the King of Prussia, and the Central Power at Frankfort wished us to mediate, and that we did not allow that war to get up, and to take its course in Europe, as he showed very clearly it might otherwise have done. Then there was another question, naturally, so far as we are concerned, of more serious import, because we have more actively interfered; I mean with regard to Naples and Sicily. It will be recollected by those who heard the statements that were made last year, that Lord Minto, after a very considerable time was spent in conferences, was requested by the King of Naples to propose to the Sicilians terms upon which they might consent again to return to their allegiance; after a very considerable time spent in conferences. Lord Minto, at the request of the King of Naples, went to Sicily and conveyed those terms to the Sicilians. The terms were not accepted by them. Lord Minto was of opinion that they might have been in prudence accepted by them; but the ground upon which they declined to accept was one on which it was not very easy to shake their determination. They said that in ancient times Sicily was a free country; that in 1812 the constitution had been reformed, and under the auspices of the British generally and with every proof of British sympathy, and that it was part of the terms of the constitution then agreed upon, that the Parliament was to decide with respect to the whole internal administration and with regard to the number of troops to be kept up in Sicily;

135
that no foreign troops of any kind, being other than Sicilians, except those admitted by treaty, should be allowed to come into Sicily. Moreover, there was an article in that constitution, that if the King of Sicily should ever reside in Naples he should name one of his sons, or one of his family at all events, to reign in Sicily, That constitution, after various changes, was put an end to the same year. In 1816 the British Government had declared, that though it gave no guarantee to the Sicilian constitution, it should take an interest in the welfare of Sicily, and consider it injurious to the British name if the welfare of Sicily should be less well provided for in future than it had been. The Sicilians insisted that that constitution should be in whole restored. When Lord Minto returned to Naples he found that the King would not consent to such terms; and there was an end of that negotiation. It was undertaken by a British Minister at the desire of the King of the Two Sicilies, as he would be called in a formal diplomatic instrument; the two parties could not agree, and the negotiation fell to the ground. Whatever might be the case as to the justification which the British Government might make for any further interference, their decision was not to interpose any further than to give any friendly advice to the Sicilians in cases in which they might ask it. Accordingly, when some time after an expedition was prepared at Naples for the purpose of conquering Sicily, no obstacle was interposed to the sailing of that expedition. It has been said that a large British fleet was assembled at Naples for the purpose of preventing that expedition from sailing: that is totally an error, Sir W. Parker having taken the British fleet there on account of other questions in respect of which he thought he was entitled to ask reparation. But when that expedition reached Messina, there took place at the close of the siege of Messina events which appeared so horrible and so inhuman in the eyes of the French Admiral, that he determined to interfere. I need not say now what those circumstances were. There were atrocities, as I think, on both sides; the destruction of houses, of villages, and of unoffending peasants on the one side, the bombardment against a town which had ceased to resist on the other. The tearing of the limbs of the Swiss soldiers in the service of the King of Naples, and parading those limbs with savage exultation about the streets! It appeared to the French
136
Admiral that it was impossible such a warfare could continue without an utter desolation of Sicily, and such alienation from the Neapolitan Government on the part of the Sicilians that no final terms of agreement could arise; he therefore determined to take upon himself to put a stop to the further progress of the Neapolitan armament. After he had so determined he communicated with Sir W. Parker. Sir W. Parker had a most difficult duty to perform; but taking all the circumstances into consideration, our former friendly relations with the Sicilians, the accounts he had received from the captain of one of Her Majesty's ships then at Messina, the atrocities he heard of, and that the French Admiral was about to act, and it was important at that juncture that the two nations should act in concert, his determination was to give orders similar to those which had been given by the French Admiral. I stated last Session that no orders had been given to stop the Neapolitan expedition, but that the Government reserved to itself to act in future as circumstances might dictate, and that I had perfect confidence in the discretion and judgment of Sir W. Parker. I remember the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stamford expressing apparently, though not in words, a concurrence with that sentiment; and I have the same opinion still. He was not a man likely to be led away by passion; he had none of that revolutionary mania by which some persons might be misled in those circumstances: he was anxious for the honour of the British flag, and anxious for the cause of humanity; and he took that proceeding upon his own responsibility. The question, then, for the British Government was, whether they should entirely disavow Sir W. Parker, whether they should toll him that he had done wrong to interpose—or whether, on the other hand, an armistice having been established by the King of Naples, his general having de facto consented to an armistice—whether we should take advantage of existing circumstances to propose terms in which the Neapolitan Government and the Sicilian people could agree, and the Sicilian people again be induced to be the subjects of the King of Naples. The latter part was chosen, for which we are responsible. If it was right to allow the war to recommence, to separate the British fleet entirely from the course which was taken by the French Admiral, and to disavow Sir W. Parker, we have been

137
wrong, and we have taken a course for which we deserve censure; but if, as I believe, it was the duty of the Government, with respect to two countries in which they took a great interest; with respect to the King of Naples, an ally of this country; with respect to the Sicilian people, with whom we had been long connected—to endeavour to frame terms upon which both parties should agree, then, I say, we are justified in the course that we have adopted. The hon. Member for Buckinghamshire seems to say that there is no negotiation, so well is he informed upon all these subjects on which he proposes to address the Crown: that it is a negotiation confined to England and France. Now, he is entirely mistaken in that. There have been terms stated by the Sicilians, and an answer received from Naples with respect to them, stating some of those terms as reasonable in themselves, and such as the King would be ready to consent to, and objecting to others, and leaving the matter as one to be treated in further negotiation. That further negotiation still continues. If it should end in our establishing permanent peace there, I think we shall have performed a duty, both to the Sovereign of Naples and the people of Sicily, and shall have rendered a service likewise to the cause of peace in Europe. If we are unable to procure such a result, all that we can do at present is to require that due notice be given when the armistice is to cease and war to be renewed. But my belief is that, after what has taken place, even if that war were to be renewed, it would not be renewed in the same spirit in which it was begun. My opinion is, that there would be in the first place such terms offered by the King of Naples and such orders given, that it is probable that war would not be conducted in so destructive, so savage, and so desolating a manner. But with regard to all these matters, although we do not ask for congratulation or for approbation, yet I must say that I am glad to find that during a year of great peril to the peace of Europe, the services of England have been of use to stay the ravages of war and to mitigate hostilities. If the hon. Gentleman would have had but the patience to wait, he would have had the papers which will be, in no very long time, laid before Parliament, and it would then have been open to him to say that there was no reason to congratulate the country. But I believe that, standing secure ourselves, having no
138
such convulsions as other nations have been exposed to, I believe it was befitting this country, when she was asked, and in other cases, to offer her good offices for the purpose of removing quarrels, of which very often the ground is not very considerable, but which if once loft to the arbitrament of war may tend to as long and as bloody contests as if the grounds of difference had been wider and more serious. With respect to the next question to which the hon. Gentleman referred, namely, the expense of our military establishments, I think he seemed naturally enough to be hardly better informed on it than he is as to the state of our foreign affairs, He seemed to suppose that we had yielded to representations which had appeared in a public letter addressed to the Financial Association of Liverpool by the hon. Member for the West Hiding. Now, Sir, my opinion is entirely contrary to that. I think whatever reductions or augmentations you might make, to take the year 1835, or any other fixed year for some time past, and to say yon will square your estimates and fix your establishments according to the expenditure of that year, would be, with great deference to the hon. Gentleman, an extremely irrational course for any Government to pursue. In the first place, it is obvious that your requirements might be very different. In the next place, any one who will look at the finance accounts, or the votes of the year, will see that there have been some 4,000,000 l. or 5,000,000 l added to our expenditure on grounds which have nothing to do with any increase to our armaments. Therefore, if you take off 10,000,000 l, instead of having the same establishments you had in 1835, you would have smaller establishments than in that year. Then, if you take 1835 as the standard, you must be sure that the establishments were then fixed exactly according to the exigencies of the country; and that is a fact I am not so certain of. I need not touch upon that point, because I decline to debate the subject altogether; but it must be assumed by the hon. Gentleman, that in 1835 there was proposed the precise estimate which ought to have been made. In the next place, our position, and what we have to furnish, is very much altered and increased since 1835. In one colony we have acquired since 1835, there were last year 1,800 of the infantry of the line. So that if you were to take your rule from 1835 you would have certain garrisons diminished

139
below that year, in order to supply others which have since been acquired. Persons engaged in manufactures, commerce, or farming never would adopt such a principle. Suppose a man should say, "I find that while my expenditure in factories is 30,000 l. a year now, I never paid more in 1835 than 20,000 l.;" yet he might find that he had two or three new factories since that time; or that he had conducted the business of two or three additional farms to what he did in 1835. Obviously, he would say, "That is the cause of my increased expenditure. This accounts at least for part of it. I cannot conduct five or six establishments at the same rate I could three or four." That would be the course I am sure any man would pursue in private life; and I cannot think it wise for a Government, or Parliament, to pursue a different course, and say we shall have no reference to the service to be performed and the garrisons to be maintained; because we find in one particular year a certain number of millions sufficient for the public service, therefore exactly the same sum must be sufficient for the present year. But while I disagree with the hon. Gentleman, and though I think there is a phrase in his letter which rather shows the wrong-test he would apply to this matter, for he says that 10,000,000 l. is a good sum founded on the experience of former years for the purpose of agitation, he shows clearly that he has formed his estimate not upon what the public exigencies require, but what he thinks likely to raise the most popular cry. At the same time, when we had to consider the question of our establishments, I think it was obvious we could not persevere in the course we found ourselves bound to take last year. Last year there was a sudden and formidable convulsion in various parts of Europe, and no man could say what might be the issue of that convulsion. We did not think we should be justified, in those circumstances, in proposing to diminish our expenditure. We asked for the same number of men for the Navy and the Army we had asked at the commencement of the Session, although we had not the ways and means sufficient for that purpose. This House supported us in that course. They declared, by large majorities, that it was not expedient to reduce our military establishments. But when we had again to consider the question of estimates exceeding the amount of our revenue, it was our duty, I think, to come to one of two conclusions—either to
140
reduce those estimates to bring them within the amount of revenue, or, on the other hand, to attempt to raise the revenue to the amount of our expenditure. It was not fitting to go on another year increasing the public debt of the country without the prospect of equalising the expenditure. Now, the first course was evidently the best, supposing it was justifiable and practicable. We had to consider, first, whether there were not many reforms that might be made, many retrenchments that might be effected, without impairing the number or efficiency of our military establishments. The report of the Committee which sat last year upon our naval and military expenditure—which was no proposition of mine—the House is indebted for its appointment to the hon. Member for Montrose—the report of that Committee stated, that with regard to the Navy at least there might be many useful reforms without impairing its efficiency. This was one source of economy. But that would not enable us to bring the revenue within the limits I have stated. We had therefore to consider whether our effective force could be reduced. Now, in considering that subject we had to remember that since we had been in office we had added 3,000 men to the number voted for the Navy, and 5,000 to the number voted for the artillery. In considering these subjects, then, we come to the conclusion, that in the present state of Europe, and having made these additions to our naval and military force, we might now safely make some reductions—reductions which would give us a considerable amount of saving, without, in our opinion, impairing our force below that which was necessary for the efficiency of the public service, and necessary for the defence of our various colonies. Whether we have done wisely in that respect, whether the reductions we propose to make come within the principles I have stated—whether we have carried them too far, or have not gone far enough, will be proper questions for this House to consider when the estimates come before them, and when my right hon. Friends charged with the respective departments shall state their views of the exigency of the public service, and of the amount of force required. But these reductions have been considered on the principle of what is wanted and what can be spared from the service for the present year, and they have not been taken with reference to any particular past year, or on the plan of squaring the expenditure

141
with that year. Sir, when we say that the aspect of public affairs enables us to make these reductions, I should say that I consider, and I agree with the hon. Gentleman who has seconded the Address in thinking that France is the most valuable friend and the most formidable foe with whom we could have to deal. For many years past, and under different Governments, it has seemed to be the object of France to increase her military armaments, and more especially to increase the strength of her naval force—a navy not commensurate with her commerce—not required, be it observed, to protect the colonies or the trade of France, but obviously a navy to be used in case of war. Sir, my opinion was and is, and I so stated it last year, that if France is to have very great armaments at sea, and if we allow her to go on increasing her naval strength without any proportionate increase of our own, then that in the event of any trifling difference, which if the power of the two nations seemed equal would be easily adjusted, that difference might easily lead to war between the two countries, if the war party in Franco could point to England as a weaker Power, inferior in point of force. But, Sir, I am happy to find that the conduct of the Government of France is to curtail and restrict their naval and military strength, and not to continue the enlargement and increase of their armaments. This is one reason why we have considered it safe to recommend no greater estimates than we propose for the present year; and I trust that, in spite of the denunciations of the proposed Amendment, the various States of Europe, however they may settle their internal affairs, will, in the progress of negotiation and the process of time, come to the conclusion that war must be injurious to all the nations of Europe, and that there can be no sufficient cause why one State should be an aggressor against another. If such pacific sentiments should fortunately prevail, and if each Power should be left to make arrangements for its own internal constitution and good government, then I would say that the reductions of the present year may be followed in future years, and that while it would be exceedingly unwise and imprudent to make any sudden and great reductions at once, still that gradual reductions, made, in the language of the Speech from the Throne, with a "wise economy," may be a policy which we may be able to pursue, and which it will be the
142
interest of every country in the world to follow also. Now, Sir, I do not contend that there is not cause of anxiety in the present state of Europe. I am far from thinking that the revolutions which took place last year have run their course, and that every nation in which they occurred can now be said to be in a state of solid security. I rejoice as much as any man that the ancient empire of Austria, our old ally, is recovering her splendour, and is showing her strength in such a conspicuous manner. Still I cannot forget that there are many questions not yet settled with regard to the internal institutions of Prussia—that the question of the formation of what the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli) has called an empire without an emperor, is still in debate—and that we cannot be sure what the ultimate result of these events will be. It is also true that there may have been during last year an excess of apprehension, caused by the great events that were taking place, and by the rising up of some wild theories pretending to found the happiness of the State and of mankind on visionary and unsound speculations, on which the happiness of no country or people can ever be founded. We have seen these opinions prevail in many countries to a considerable extent, and no one can say that events may not at an unforeseen moment take an unfortunate turn for the peace and tranquillity of Europe. But still the time that has elapsed since the breaking out of the revolution of February has made men consider both what is the value of real liberty, and what is the value of peace and order, as set against political theories, and how much may and ought to be sacrificed of what may be considered theoretical perfection, in order to obtain the advantage of that internal peace in which all reforms can alone be deliberately discussed, and gradually take their place in the settled institutions of the country. No one can deny that amid many misfortunes and mistakes the foundations of the great principles which we revere have been prepared, and that those principles are likely to be permanent among the nations of Europe. I trust that the event may ultimately be equal to the expectations of the most sanguine. But in the mean time I do appeal against this proposed Amendment, not by any carping at any particular terms, or going through a minute defence of every act of the Government, but appealing generally to what has been happening around

143
us, and what is the present state of Europe, seeing that we have gone through a commercial convulsion, arising chiefly from a wild spirit of speculation. I ask is our commerce shaken to the dust, or is it true that it is again reviving, that it is assuming a healthful condition, and that it is taking its usual course, indicative of restored prosperity? We have gone through what, with every deference to the hon. Member for Meath, I must consider an insurrection in Ireland. That country has been restored to tranquillity—has it been by any sanguinary measures? Has it been by arraying one class against another? Has it been by fixing upon Ireland a permanent state of civil war, which would have been worse than a transitory insurrection? Sir, I reply that it has not; and a large share of the credit is due to my noble Friend the Viceroy of that country for his vigour and energy, and for those rarer qualities of judgment, temper, and forbearance. He has shown himself averse from the first to setting class against class, or inflicting sanguinary punishments upon the guilty. I say again that this country has been menaced by those who, like some in other countries, would for the sake of plunder have disturbed the whole order of society. Have they not been defeated in their machinations by the power of the law alone, and at the same time dealt with by as fair and as merciful a procedure as is consistent with the constitution of this country? Sir, during the past year Europe has been convulsed with revolution. Without going into the details of foreign commotion, I will ask whether this country has been involved in hostilities, or in danger of hostilities? Has not peace with Europe been preserved by this country; and with respect to other Powers, have we not shown a desire to take a course much more honourable to us than would have been a desire to mix in the fray, and excite other Powers to conflict and war? Sir, if I say these things with truth, and admitting, as I do, that with respect to the greater portion of them, the first honour, after Divine Providence, is to be given to the wisdom, the prudence, and energy of this mighty people; yet, if such has been the result, the Government which has been at the head of affairs during such a period at least deserve that they should not be condemned on the first night of the Session.
MR. ROCHEsaid, that in considering
144
the subject before the House, he would confine himself exclusively to the state of Ireland. He certainly had heard with great pain the three paragraphs in the Speech from the Throne, in which reference had been made to Ireland; and that pain was heightened by the manner in which the question of Ireland had been alluded to by the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) who had just sat down. The noble Lord, in arguing for the necessity of passing these Coercion Bills on the ground that without them the law in Ireland could not take its course, and that herein consisted the defence of the renewal of so invidious a measure, was for placing Ireland with regard to coercion in the same position as England had been placed with regard to the excise. That was introduced and sanctioned by Parliament as a temporary expedient, but resulted in a permanent Act, imposing a tax of 20,000,000 l. per annum on the country. Foremost among the questions connected with Ireland should be placed the poor-law; and with regard to that law he might say that there was, in his opinion, a great deal of delusion prevailing in reference to it, not only in this country but in Ireland. Much stress was laid on the importance of adopting a more limited area of taxation in this country; but he could not perceive how such a plan could be adopted without at the same time greatly facilitating the system now so prevalent, of exterminating the people. He would take the case of two adjoining townlands, A and B. The townland A had a great number of paupers upon it, while the entire population on townland B had been exterminated some ten or fifteen years ago, and it had been since cultivated by labourers hired from town-land A. In this case, the effect of a townland rating would be, that the paupers on townland A would eat up the whole property, and, in the end, town-land B would have to support them. He was convinced that if they adopted such an alteration, the extermination in Ireland would be trebled, until the whole of the pauper population would be got rid of and transported beyond the seas. He was also satisfied that they could not carry out a stringent law of settlement in Ireland. Even in this country it would be impracticable, but in Ireland the effect would be to create endless litigation between the different boards of guardians; and he had no doubt but that at least 6d. in the pound would be added to

145
every rate for legal expenses. As to the proposition of the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Poulett Scrope), he could not see what definition was intended to be assigned to the term "labour" in it; but of one thing he was sure, and that was, that the effect of such a measure, if carried out, would be to make every labourer a sort of white slave. It would also have the effect of counteracting the efforts that were now being made to improve the condition of the agricultural classes, as in place of every one idle workman at present, they would have five or six idle men, as soon as they became certain that if they were discharged from their employment the rates would be increased. What he wished to impress upon the House was, that they could not regenerate Ireland—that they could not make a poor country rich, or an idle country prosperous, by means of a poor-law. If they wanted to regenerate Ireland, they should develop her resources. He did not agree with those who thought that if the resources of the country were developed, there would be no surplus population in Ireland; and he was therefore an advocate for a proper system of colonisation. He would say, employ the people at home, if possible; but, if not, then let them emigrate. The hon. Member for Nottingham (Mr. Feargus O'Connor) and others, thought that by subdividing the land all the people could be employed. He believed the hon. Member for Nottingham was of opinion that a family could live on one acre of land; but even allowing eight acres to each family, in the first instance, were they prepared to subdivide that proportion again and again, according as the families increased? They should consider that Ireland was a purely agricultural country, and had suffered more than any other country by the free-trade measures that had been adopted. He had been long an advocate for free trade, and he did not now wish to say anything against the system; but this he would say, that if the injury to Ireland had been so much greater than the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth had anticipated, they had a right to more relief than they had as yet received. He believed, that before effecting any permanent good for Ireland, they should settle the question of tenure; and he could not but express his regret that in the small portion of the noble Lord's speech which he had devoted to Ireland, he had
146
made no allusion to that vital question. They should also reduce taxation. The House was perhaps not aware that the grand-jury tax alone amounted to a million and a quarter; and he believed there never was a tax in any country so misapplied, or for which so little value was given in proportion to the money spent. He did not believe that there was a system on the face of the earth under which so much jobbing was perpetrated as the Irish grand-jury system. The House would scarcely believe the fact, that, if properly applied, the Irish grand-jury tax would be sufficient to maintain the whole poor of the country in ordinary times, when no famine prevailed. Another great grievance was the Irish Church establishment. The fisheries and the mineral resources of the country ought also to be developed; and whatever the conduct of Irish Members might have been formerly with regard to a measure alluded to by the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, there could be no reason whatever, at the present period of distress for refusing to encourage railways in that country. He asked those who had enrolled themselves in Manchester, for what he might call the better observance of economy and retrenchment, to look at the state of Ireland, and say whether she was not now as ruinous to their pockets as she was disgraceful to their characters as men and as Christians? Let them treat Ireland with justice, and they would find that she would prove their strength in time of war, and their best customer in time of peace.
MR. HERBERTsaid, that after the speech of the noble Lord at the head of Her Majesty's Government, it would be impossible for him to do otherwise than vote for the Amendment of the hon. Member for Meath. The declaration of the noble Lord that evening, that Government were not prepared to apply any remedy to the abuses of the present Irish Poor Law, did materially aggravate the distress of all classes in that country. The reason which the noble Lord had given for this inaction was, he thought, of no weight whatever. If he waited till the Irish Members were agreed among themselves, that was tantamount to saying that there should be no legislation at all upon the subject. But that appeared to him to be only an additional reason why Her Majesty's Government should have come forward with a distinct proposition of their own upon the subject.
MR. HUMEsaid, he was anxious to express his feelings on the topics alluded to in Her Majesty's Speech; but at that hour of the night he thought it would be better to move the adjournment of the House. If a division was to take place, he would take that opportunity of stating his opinions, not so much on what was contained as on what was omitted in the Speech. He thought that at a time when the public were in expectation of the announcement of most important measures of relief, the Government should have been prepared to state how they were about to meet those expectations. On looking to the Speech, he could not find that any portion of the recommendations of the popular Members on that most important subject—the inequality and burdens of taxation—had been attended to. He proposed last year that the income-tax should only be continued for one year, in order that a revision of our taxation should be gone into; but he was then told that matters were not ripe for such a change, but that Her Majesty's Government would prepare some measure during the recess. And now, in the whole course of the noble Lord's address, there was not the slightest allusion to the subject. The noble Lord had indeed claimed credit for the reduction of the national establishments during the coming year, though he doubted if after all it would extend so far as his own proposal last year, to reduce the Army by 13,000 men. But had the noble Lord said one word as to the reduction of the burdens of the people. No hope was held out to the people that the subject should be taken into consideration at all. He complained of that as a great omission. The hon. Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli) never spoke but to interest and instruct the House; but the greatest portion of his speech was devoted to the foreign policy of the country, into which he (Mr. Hume) did not feel disposed to follow him. He would rather put in a claim on the part of the people of England; for he thought while the attention of Her Majesty's Ministers was directed to the affairs of other States, they were neglecting the interests of the country at home. He asked the Government whether they intended to meet the wishes of the people, and have an investigation into the state of the taxation of the country? The noble Lord had taken great credit to the Government for their proposed reductions. But what did they amount to? He proposed
148
to bring back the establishments for the coming year to what they had been during the year before last, but he had not said one word of reducing them so as to relieve the people from the great pressure of taxation. For his part, he did not think the House would be warranted any longer in passing estimates which exceeded the income of the country. The hon. Member for Buckinghamshire had launched out at large into the question of reciprocity. He (Mr. Hume) was glad to hear protection was dead, and that there would be no foolish attempts to revive it, and that henceforth reciprocity was to be the rule. But he would have preferred hearing the hon. Member say whether he was prepared to maintain the present amount of taxation at a time when the effect of the corn laws had lowered prices, and caused a reduction in the profits of the farmer. He wished those who were called the farmer's friends would tell him what relief they proposed to give the farmer, or in what way he was to be protected now that he was exposed to competition from the whole world. If some measures were not taken in that direction, they would soon have agricultural discontent along with the discontent of the commercial classes. [Cheers from the Opposition.] Then, why did not those Gentlemen who cheered, stand up and ask for relief to the farmer, for it was vain for them to think of restoring artificial protection? The hon. Member for Buckinghamshire protested against any further concessions to the popular power of the country. He (Mr. Hume), with reference to that protest, wished to ask Her Majesty's Ministers whether they intended to take their stand upon the present state of popular representation, and to refuse all concession on the subject? If they did so, they would continue that agitation which had made the name of Chartist odious to the country. Yes, and very properly so; but let the House recollect that though the conduct of the Chartists had deserved odium, the principles for which they contended were entitled to the support of every one who regarded the principles of the constitution. Could the Government suppose that Englishmen, who had been accustomed to stand at the head of popular representation, would rest contented with its present state at home, when they saw it extended almost universally in France, Belgium, Germany, and nearly the whole of Italy. The next question of importance on which he wished the Government to

149
State their views related to the management of their colonies. The proceedings which had taken place in some of our possessions lately had been disgraceful. He only wondered that the inhabitants had not been driven to desperation. Not one of the acts which had driven the Americans to rebellion, had been characterised by half the atrocity and tyranny of the arbitrary proceedings which had taken place in British Guiana, Ceylon, and the Mauritius. He considered that the noble Lord at the head of the colonies had forfeited every claim to support, and that Her Majesty's Government should at once remove him. It was impossible to maintain peace if they were to keep up such a system, and such a man. Would it be believed that in Ceylon the Government had hanged, quartered, and shot he did not know how many people? They had created a rebellion by the imposition of taxes, which every man who know anything of the colony foretold would lead to such results. If the Government wished to reduce taxation, and to lesson the number of troops abroad, they must give the colonics self-government, and allow them to manage their own affairs. On all these points he would wish to hear some statement from the Government before he voted the Address to Her Majesty.
MR. A. STAFFORD MR. A. STAFFORD moved that the House do now adjourn.
The question having been put,
LORD J. RUSSELLsaid, he did not oppose the adjournment, if the hon. Member wished for it; but he certainly had expected that before the House rose that night, the first Amendment would have been disposed of. He proposed, therefore, that the House should divide on the first Amendment then, and take the second tomorrow.
COLONEL SIBTHORPthought there should be ample opportunity given for discussing the Amendment.
SIR R. H. INGLISsupported the proposal of the noble Lord.
MR. DISRAELI: But perhaps the hon. Member for Meath docs not wish to divide.
MR. GRATTAN: Certainly, Sir, I will divide.
MR. A. STAFFORDwithdrew his Motion for the adjournment, and
The House divided: The numbers were for Mr. Grattan's Amendment 12; against it 200: Majority 188.

List of the AYES.

Acland, Sir T. D.

Gladstone, rt. hon. E. W.

Adair, H. E.

Glynn, G. C.

Adair, R. A. S.

Gordon, Adm.

Adderley, C. B.

Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.

Aglionby, H. A.

Granby, Marq. of

Anson, hon. Col.

Greene, T.

Anson, Visct.

Grenfell, C. P.

Armstrong, Sir A.

Grenfell, C. W.

Armstrong, R. B.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

Arundel and Surrey, Earl of

Grey, R. W.

Grosvenor, Earl

Bagot, hon. W.

Gwyn, H.

Bankes, G.

Hardcastle, J. A.

Baring, T.

Harris, hon. Capt.

Barrington, Visct.

Harris, R.

Bass, T.

Hastie, A.

Bateson, T.

Hastie, A.

Bellew, R. M.

Hawes, B.

Bonnet, P.

Hayter, W. G.

Bentinck, Lord H.

Headlam, T. E.

Berkeley, hon. Capt.

Herbert, rt. hon. S.

Berkeley, hon. H. F.

Herries, rt. hon. J. C.

Berkeley, C. L. G.

Hervey, Lord A.

Bernal, R.

Hildyard, T. B. T.

Blackall, S. W.

Hobhouse, rt. hon. Sir J.

Blair, S.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Bouverie, hon. E. P.

Hodges, T. L.

Bowles, Adm.

Hood, Sir A.

Boyle, hon. Col.

Hornby, J.

Bramston, T. W.

Horsman, E.

Bremridge, R.

Howard, Lord E.

Brooke, Lord

Howard, hon. C. W. G.

Brotherton, J.

Hume, J.

Bunbury, E. H.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Campbell, hon. W. F.

Jervis, Sir J.

Cardwell, E.

Keppel, hon. G. T.

Cavendish, hon. C. C.

Kershaw, J.

Cayley, E. S.

Labouchere, rt. hon. H.

Charteris, hon. F.

Langson, J. H.

Chichester, Lord J. L.

Lascelles, hon. W. S.

Childers, J. W.

Lennox, Lord H. G.

Christopher, R. A.

Lewis, G. C.

Clay, J.

Lincoln, Earl of

Clive, H. B.

Littleton, hon. E. R.

Cocks, T. S.

Locke, J.

Colebrooke, Sir T. E.

Lushington, C.

Corry, rt. hon. H. L.

Maitland, T.

Cowper, hon. W. F.

Mandeville, Visct.

Craig, W. G.

Mangles, R. D.

Crowder, R. B.

Manners, Lord G.

Dawson, hon. T. V.

March, Earl of

Disraeli, B.

Martin, J.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Martin, C. W.

Duke, Sir J.

Martin, S.

Dundas, Adm.

Maule, rt. hon. F.

Dundas, Sir D.

Milner, W. M. E.

Ebrington, Visct.

Milnes, R. M.

Egerton, Sir P.

Mitchell, T. A.

Ellis, J.

Moffatt, G.

Elliot, hon. J. E.

Mostyn, hon. E. M. L.

Evans, W.

Mulgrave, Earl of

Ewart, W.

Newdegate, C. N.

Fellowes, E.

Newport, Visct.

FitzPatrick, rt. hon. J.

Newry and Morne, Visct.

Floyer, J.

Norreys, Lord

Forbes, W.

Nugent, Lord

Fordyce, A. D.

Ogle, S. C. H.

Forester, hon. G. G. W.

Ossulston, Lord

Fox, W. J.

Owen, Sir J.

Fuller, A. E.

Paget, Lord A.

Gaskell, J. M.

Paget, Lord C.

151

Pakington, Sir J.

Stafford, A.

Palmer, R.

Stanton, W. H.

Palmerston, Visct.

Stuart, Lord D.

Parker, J.

Stuart, J.

Pigott, F.

Sturt, H. G.

Plowden, W. H. C.

Talfourd, Serj.

Price, Sir R.

Tennent, R. J.

Raphael, A.

Thompson, Col.

Rawdon, Col.

Thompson, Ald.

Reid, Col.

Thompson, G.

Ricardo, O.

Thornely, T.

Rice, E. R.

Towneley, J.

Rich, H.

Turner, G. J.

Richards, R.

Tynte, Col. C. J. K.

Romilly, Sir J.

Tyrell, Sir J. T.

Rumbold, C. E.

Vane, Lord H.

Russell, Lord J.

Villiers, Visct.

Russell, hon. E. S.

Waddington, H. S.

Sandars, G.

Ward, H. G.

Sandars, J.

Watkins, Col. L.

Scrope, G. P.

Willoughby, Sir H.

Seymour, Lord

Wilson, J.

Sheil, rt. hon. R. L.

Wilson, M.

Shelburne, Earl of

Wodehouse, E.

Simeon, J.

Wood, rt. hon. Sir C.

Smith, rt. hon. R. V.

Wood, W. P.

Smith, J. A.

Wyld, J.

Smythe, hon. G.

Wyvill, M.

Somerville, rt. hn. Sir W.

TELLERS.

Spearman, H. J.

Tufnell, H.

Spooner, R.

Hill, Lord M.

List of the NOES.

Anstey, T. C.

O'Flaherty, A.

Devereux, J. T.

Roche, E. B.

Fagan, W.

Scholefield, W.

Greene, J.

Sullivan, M.

Herbert, H. A.

Meagher, T.

TELLERS.

Moore, G. H.

Grattan, H.

Muntz, G. F.

O'Connell, J.

The debate on Mr. Disraeli's Amendment adjourned.
House adjourned at half-past Twelve.

MINUTES.
Took the Oaths.—Several Lords.
Sat first.—The Earl of Carlisle, after the Death of his Father; The Lord Auckland, after the Death of his Brother.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Select Vestries.

MEETING OF PARLIAMENT.
THE PARLIAMENT, which had been prorogued successively from the 5th September, to the 2nd November, to the 19th December, and to the 1st February, met this day for despatch of business.
The Session was opened by the QUEEN in Person. Being seated on the Throne, and the Commons being at the Bar, with their Speaker, HER MAJESTY was pleased to make a most gracious Speech to both Houses of Parliament, as follows:—
"My Lords, and Gentlemen,
"THE Period being arrived at which the business of Parliament is usually
2
resumed, I have called you together for the Discharge of your important Duties.
"IT is satisfactory to Me to be enabled to state, that both in the North and in the South of Europe the contending Parties have consented to a Suspension of Arms for the Purpose of negotiating Terms of Peace.
"THE Hostilities carried on in the Island of Sicily were attended with Circumstances so revolting that the British and French Admirals were impelled by Motives of Humanity to interpose, and to stop the further Effusion of Blood.
"I HAVE availed Myself of the Interval thus obtained to propose, in conjunction with France, to the King of Naples, an Arrangement calculated to produce a permanent Settlement of

3
Affairs in Sicily. The Negotiation on these Matters is still pending.
"IT has been My anxious Endeavour, in offering My good Offices to the various contending Powers, to prevent the Extension of the Calamities of War, and to lay the Foundations for lasting and honourable Peace. It is My constant Desire to maintain with all Foreign States the most friendly Relations.
"As soon as the Interests of the Public Service will permit, I shall direct the Papers connected with these Transactions to be laid before you.
"A REBELLION of a formidable Character has broken out in the Punjaub, and the Governor General of India has been compelled, for the Preservation of the Peace of the Country, to assemble a considerable Force, which is now engaged in Military Operations against the Insurgents; but the Tranquillity of British India has not been affected by these unprovoked Disturbances.
"I AGAIN commend to your Attention the Restrictions imposed on Commerce by the Navigation Laws.
"IF you shall find that these Laws are in whole or in part unnecessary for the Maintenance of our Maritime Power, while they fetter Trade and Industry, you will no doubt deem it right to repeal or modify their Provisions.
"Gentlemen of the House of Commons,
"I HAVE directed the Estimates for the Service of the Year to be laid before you; they will be framed with the most anxious Attention to a wise Economy.
"THE present Aspect of Affairs has
4
enabled Me to make large Reductions on the Estimates of last Year.
"My Lords, and Gentlemen,
"I OBSERVE with Satisfaction that this Portion of the United Kingdom has remained tranquil amidst the Convulsions which have disturbed so many Parts of Europe.
"THE Insurrection in Ireland has not been renewed, but a Spirit of Disaffection still exists; and I am compelled, to My great Regret, to ask for a Continuance, for a limited Time, of those Powers which in the last Session you deemed necessary for the Preservation of the Public Tranquillity.
"I HAVE great Satisfaction in stating that Commerce is reviving from those Shocks which at the Commencement of last Session I had to deplore.
"THE Condition of the Manufacturing Districts is likewise more encouraging than it has been for a considerable Period.
"IT is also gratifying to Me to observe that the State of the Revenue is one of progressive Improvement.
"I HAVE to lament, however, that another Failure in the Potato Crop has caused very severe Distress in some Parts of Ireland.
"THE Operation of the Laws for the Relief of the Poor in Ireland will properly be a Subject of your Inquiry; and any Measures by which those Laws may be beneficially amended, and the Condition of the People may be improved, will receive My cordial Assent.
"IT is with Pride and Thankfulness that I advert to the loyal Spirit of My People, and that Attachment to our Institutions which has ani-

5
mated them during a Period of Commercial Difficulty, deficient Production of Food, and Political Revolution.
"I LOOK to the Protection of Almighty God for Favour in our continued Progress; and I trust that you will assist Me in upholding the Fabric of the Constitution, founded as it is upon the Principles of Freedom and of Justice."
HER MAJESTY then retired.

ADDRESS IN ANSWER TO THE SPEECH.
The Queen's Speech having being reported by the Lord Chancellor,
EARL BRUCE, in rising to propose to their Lordships to adopt an humble Address in answer to the gracious Speech which had that day been delivered from thee Throne, said, he felt the necessity of soliciting at their Lordships' hands the utmost amount of their indulgence. He could assure their Lordships no one ever rose in that House under greater feelings of embarrassment. If noble Lords who had had experience in debate often felt themselves obliged to ask for such indulgence, when placed in the position he then occupied, how much more incumbent must it be upon him, who had never before had the honour of addressing their Lordships, and who, moreover, had never had the advantage of speaking in the other House of Parliament, to ask their Lordships to extend to him the greatest indulgence, patience, and forbearance, while he ventured to address to them a few remarks upon some of the topics contained in Her Majesty's Speech. He would, indeed, willingly have forborne any observation at all, and have proceeded at once to move the Address in answer, were it not that, pursuing so unusual a course, he might appear to be acting disrespectfully towards their Lordships, and perhaps in some degree towards Her Majesty, to whose gracious Speech the Address was intended as a reply. The foreign relations of the country formed the first topic adverted to in the Speech. It was scarcely needful for him to assure their Lordships that he fully shared in those feelings of gratification which had no doubt been excited in that House by the declaration of Her Ma-
6
jesty's constant desire to maintain the most friendly relations with every foreign State. Her Majesty was pleased to inform them that both in the north and south of Europe negotiations were going on having for their object a settlement of peace between countries and parties lately involved in war. Amongst these, the case of Sicily had been more particularly referred to. It was impossible that this country should not feel a deep interest in the affairs of that island, when the terms in which, during the period between 1806 and 1815, we stood towards it were considered; but although he, in common with every Englishman, must feel great sympathy with the inhabitants of that country, be confessed he could not feel sorry to be informed that it was not on that ground, but rather on the ground of humanity that the officer in command of Her Majesty's naval forces in that part of the world had been impelled, in conjunction with the French admiral, to interpose to prevent the further effusion of blood, and to prevent the continuance of those horrible atrocities which were known to have taken place in that Island. He believed that the deeds which had been perpetrated, and which had induced the admiral to move, were of such a nature, even in the estimation of those who were used to the scones which a state of warfare produced, that they could not witness them without feelings of the utmost horror and dismay; and the officers of both nations had felt constrained by a sense of duty to interfere to prevent a recurrence of them. It seemed very desirable that the inverval thus obtained for negotiation for peace should not be neglected. It would not, he considered, be right, while these negotiations were pending, to refer more at length to the subject, especially as he felt, in common with their Lordships, that he was but imperfectly informed upon the subject. It would be not more just than prudent to wait for the papers which Her Majesty had been graciously pleased to promise should be laid before their Lordships. Let them, meanwhile, rather content themselves with the satisfaction they must all experience, that notwithstanding the extraordinary events which had occurred on the Continent during the last year, the peace of this country had not been disturbed. Lot them not forget, in their prosperity, that if any one had ventured to prophesy last spring to their Lordships that not only peace would have been maintained during the whole of 1848, but that Her Majesty would

7
be able at the commencement of the Session of 1849 to say that the present aspect of affairs enabled Her to propose great reductions in the estimates, every one of their Lordships would have answered, that if such should prove to be the case, it would be a source of congratulation not only to this country, but to the whole world. He (Earl Bruce) would do no more than allude to that attachment to the Throne, and that love of peace and order, which had been so eminently displayed in this country during the past year. That good feeling towards the institutions of the country had already borne good fruit. While almost every other country in Europe found its revenue diminishing, and its expenditure increasing, we were fortunate enough to see our revenue increasing and our estimates proposed to be diminished. In a financial point of view, this was very encouraging; and he trusted their Lordships would receive with as much satisfaction the announcement of some alleviation of the burdens of the people by a diminution of the expenditure, as that with which it would be assuredly received by the nation in general. At the same time be had no doubt their Lordships would desire to see any retrenchment, especially if it concerned the effective force of Her Majesty's service, carried out with the greatest possible caution. He fully concurred in this desire, and felt perfect confidence that Her Majesty's Government would not propose any reductions which the state of the country and of Europe would not fully justify. No doubt it was a very difficult thing to make any great reduction in the Army of this country. It must not be forgotten that the Army of this country, with the exception of the portion of it employed in Ireland, were almost entirely kept up for the protection of the colonies; but until some other means were devised for the defence of our vast colonial empire, a large number of troops were necessary for that purpose. The position of the British Array was different to the armies in other countries, where, whatever the force kept up, it could in cases of emergency be readily concentrated upon a given point; but the peculiarity in the case of our Army was, that if we had 50,000, or even 100,000 men, in fifty different parts of the world, thousands of miles apart, they could not be concentrated: no one colony, generally speaking, could expect aid from another colony, but each colony must be provided with-
8
in itself with a force sufficient for its own defence. Unless, therefore, we were provided with other means of defending the colonies, and we wished to preserve them, an efficient force must be maintained at each station. Whether or not the colonies ought to be kept by the mother country might be a fair subject for discussion; but it must be decided upon its own merits; and so long as it was proposed to maintain them, every Government of this country would think it their duty to provide them with the necessary troops. He had full confidence that such was the intention of the present Government. But if economy and retrenchment could be introduced into the Army, be was confident that their Lordships would hail it with joy. If he ventured a remark upon this subject in the presence of the noble and gallant Duke, and the other high military authorities around him, it would be that under no circumstances should any reduction be made in the artillery of this country; it was the only kind of force which could with any certainty contend against superior force of numbers; and he confessed that for every 1,000 men reduced in the line he should like to see 300 or 400 added to the artillery. He thought that such a force might be made capable of fulfilling many of the duties of the line in garrison and guard duties, and might be made available in aid of the civil power. Moreover, the artillery was the kind of force with which, as it required a long time to render it efficient, we should be always amply provided. Reduction of expenditure was unquestionably desirable. It would show to the people of this country that the Government did not neglect economy in making reductions whenever practicable, and it would inspire confidence in the maintenance of peace, a confidence which would be useful both in this country and abroad. In France, he was happy to believe, there was a great disposition at this moment to reduce their army, and to cultivate peaceable relations with this country. Let them show confidence in those peaceable professions, which he believed to be sincere. A small reduction in the Army of this country would greatly contribute to confirm that disposition. In a financial point of view, the increase in the revenue was satisfactory; but more, if possible, as an index of gradually returning prosperity. He need scarcely remind their Lordships of the deplorable state of trade at the close of the year 1847, or of

9
the unusual assistance it was thought it might require during the year 1848. After the meeting of Parliament, last year, there was some return to a better state of things, an improvement which might have been more rapid and apparent in the course of that year, had it not been for the extraordinary events on the Continent. No doubt those events, and the state of Ireland at the time, had a considerable effect on the ordinary revenue, already crippled by the famine of the preceding year; but by the returns of the revenue made up in October, it was apparent that there was a great improvement; the increase in the ordinary revenue in the quarter ending the 13th of that month, as compared with the corresponding quarter of the preceding year, being no less than 722,000 l. or thereabouts; and on the 5th January last there was an increase of 442,615 l., as compared with the corresponding quarter of the preceding year—on the whole year there was in ordinary revenue an increase of 875,705 l. He trusted that a continued improvement might be anticipated as the year 1848 receded from view, and that he might claim their Lordships' concurrence in congratulating Her Majesty on the improved circumstances of the country, the revival of manufacturing industry, and the progressive improvement of the revenue. On the subject of Ireland—though a separate paragraph was as usual necessary—would that the same expressions of congratulation as to the loyalty of this country and its improving commercial prosperity, should be equally applicable to every part of the united kingdom! But though a separate allusion was still necessary, he was happy to say it was not quite so unfavourable as at some foomer periods. Compared with the noble Lord who had moved the Address last year (the Earl of Yarborough), he (Earl Bruce) had some advantages, for it had been the duty of the former to forewarn their Lordships of the storm that was coming, and to point out the necessity for the Government asking them for new and more extended powers. In this respect he (Earl Bruce) was more fortunate, in being-able to remind them that the storm was past, that the rebellion which was looked forward to by many with great alarm—by all with anxiety—was crushed, and that at a time when revolutions in almost every country had been, for a time at least, successful. Thanks to the prudence and foresight of the Government last year in asking for those increased powers; thanks to the ala-
10
crity and cordiality with which they were granted by their Lordships and the other House of Parliament; and thanks also, it was no more than justice to add, to the energy, discretion, and firmness with which those powers were exercised by the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland—that rebellion, or rather attempt at rebellion, was effectually put down without the loss of a single man on the side of order and the law. When it was considered that that success was achieved not in ordinary times, not at a period cither when popular outbreaks, as now, were on the decline, but at a time when almost every country in Europe had succumbed to the effect of insurrectionary movements, he thought it a subject for great satisfaction; and in that opinion he hoped their Lordships would concur. It had, however, seemed necessary to the Government to ask for a continuation for a limited period, of those extraordinary powers which had been so promptly granted to them last year; and he was sure from the discreet and moderate manner in which they had been used, and the salutary effects which they had produced, their Lordships would not hesitate in renewing the Act of last Session. Not only was this desirable for the sake of present peace and quiet, but as giving, under Providence, the fairest opportunity for the introduction of salutary measures for the improvement of Ireland in future. When outbreak was impossible, the Irish people of themselves might turn to more profitable employment; but at all events, peace was the only chance for those well-disposed and energetic men really anxious to benefit their country, to carry out improvements which they were willing and anxious to introduce. Without tranquillity no confidence could exist, and consequently no capital be employed. It had been the good fortune of this country to have in Ireland at a most anxious time a Lord Lieutenant who had proved himself competent to all the difficulties of his situation. That noble Lord was not likely to ask unnecessarily for a continuance of increased powers: it would be contrary to his nature and to his political inclinations to govern otherwise than with a light hand, whenever practicable so to do; and if the noble Lord, with his experience of Ireland, asked for these powers, it was certain that he felt them necessary, and that it would not be safe to refuse them. Having now al-

11
luded to the principal topics in Her Majesty's Speech, he trusted it would not be deemed improper in him, who was the first to address their Lordships this Session, to say a few words as a tribute of respect to the sad losses which the country had sustained since the last Session, in those public men who had been taken from the world in a manner so sudden and unexpected. In the presence of noble Lords opposite, who were so much more competent than he was to describe the talents of a noble Lord, a Member of the other House of Parliament (Lord George Bentinck), whose loss must be deeply deplored, he (Earl Bruce) would only venture to say, that having had the honour and good fortune of living on terms of intimacy with that noble Lord, though differing with him generally in political opinions, no one could more highly appreciate his abilities, his perseverance, and the manly sincerity of purpose apparent in all he undertook. In the other House of Parliament, also, the Government and the country had to regret the loss of a most able and talented Member of the Administration who had recently been appointed to fill a high office (Mr. Charles Buller), at a time when his abilities were peculiarly useful. In their Lordships' House, likewise, the country had sustained a great loss, and the Members of the Government had most unexpectedly been deprived by death of an able Colleague and amiable Friend; and he was only speaking, he felt sure, the sentiments of all their Lordships, without distinction of party, when he said that the late Lord Auckland had possessed the universal respect and esteem of every one in that House. He would not omit alluding to another noble Lord, though he had lately taken but little part in public affairs; but his (Earl Bruce's) side of the House could not forget that that noble Viscount had been for many years their distinguished leader in that House, and he felt certain that every one must have been deeply grieved to learn that Lord Melbourne had ceased to live. The noble Lord then expressed the hope that the House would agree to the Address cordially and unanimously, for never had there been an occasion on which cordiality and unanimity were more desirable than at the commencement of the Session of 1849, as showing to the world, notwithstanding the extraordinary events of last year, on the one hand a Sovereigntouchingly alluding to the loyalty of every class of the people, and on the other a Parliament
12
anxious to give new proofs of its loyal attachment to the Sovereign. Europe would then better believe in and understand the solidity of the British Monarchy, which, while showing its own strength, demonstrated to the world that a constitutional monarchy, on a really liberal basis, was unquestionably the best form of government to withstand those revolutionary storms which had nearly torn to pieces every other form of government around it. The noble Lord concluded by expressing his grateful thanks for the kind attention and patience with which their Lordships had heard him, and then read the following humble Address, the adoption of which he moved:—
"MOST GRACIOUS SOVEREIGN,
"WE, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal Subjects, the Lords, Spiritual and Temporal, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to return Your Majesty our humble Thanks for Your Majesty's most gracious Speech from the Throne.
"WE beg leave humbly to assure Your Majesty that we participate in the Satisfaction which Your Majesty has been pleased to express, that both in the North and in the South of Europe the contending Parties have consented to a Suspension of Arms for the Purpose of negotiating Terms of Peace.
"WE thank Your Majesty for informing us that the Hostilities carried on in the Island of Sicily were attended with Circumstances so revolting that the British and French Admirals were impelled by Motives of Humanity to interpose, and to stop the Effusion of Blood, and that Your Majesty has availed Yourself of the Interval thus obtained to propose, in conjunction with France, to the King of Naples an Arrangement calculated to produce a permanent Settlement of Affairs in Sicily.
"WE beg leave to thank Your Majesty for the Assurance of Your anxious Endeavour, in offering Your good Offices to the various contending Powers, to prevent the Extension of the Calamities of War, and to lay the Foundation for lasting and honourable Peace. And we beg leave to acquaint Your Majesty of the Gratification which we derive from the Expression of Your constant Desire to maintain with all Foreign States the most friendly Relations.
"WE thank Your Majesty for informing us that the Papers connected with these Transactions will be laid before Parliament by Direction of Your Majesty, as soon as the Interests of the Public Service will permit.
"WE beg to state to Your Majesty, that we regret to learn that a Rebellion of a formidable

13
Character has broken out in the Punjaub, and that the Governor General of India has been compelled, for the Preservation of the Peace of the Country, to assemble a considerable Force, which is now engaged in Military Operations, and we cordially rejoice at the Information which Your Majesty has imparted to us, that these unprovoked Disturbances have not affected the Peace of British India.
"WE beg leave humbly to assure Your Majesty that the Restrictions imposed upon Commerce by the Navigation Laws will engage our most earnest Attention, and that it will be our Duty to consider whether it be right to repeal or to modify their Provisions, if we shall find that these Laws are in whole or in part unnecessary for the Maintenance of our Maritime Power, while they fetter Trade and Industry.
"WE beg leave humbly to express the Satisfaction in which we participate with Your Majesty that this Portion of the United Kingdom has remained tranquil amid the Convulsions which have disturbed so many Parts of Europe.
"WHILST rejoicing that the Insurrection in Ireland has not been renewed, we unite with Your Majesty in deploring the Existence of a Spirit of Disaffection, and we assure Your Majesty that our serious Consideration will be devoted to the Intimation of Your Majesty that Your Majesty is compelled, with Regret, to ask for a Continuance, for a limited Time, of those Powers which in the last Session were deemed by Parliament to be necessary for the Preservation of the Public Tranquillity.
"WE most sincerely share with Your Majesty the Satisfaction which Your Majesty feels at the Revival of Commerce from those Shocks which at the Commencement of last Session were to be deplored; and we learn with Gratification that the Condition of the Manufacturing Districts is likewise more encouraging than it has been for a considerable Period, and that the State of the Revenue is one of progressive Improvement.
"WE assure Your Majesty that we participate in the great Concern which Your Majesty has been pleased to express on account of the very severe Distress in some Parts of Ireland which has been caused by another Failure of the Potato Crop.
"WE humbly assure Your Majesty that our best attention will be devoted to the Subject of the Operation of the Laws for the Relief of the Poor in Ireland; and we beg leave humbly to convey to Your Majesty the Expression of our Thanks for Your gracious Intimation, that any Measure by which those Laws may be beneficially amended, and the Condition of the People may be improved, will receive Your Majesty's cordial Assent.
14
"WE beg leave humbly to thank Your Majesty for the gracious Manner with which Your Majesty has been pleased to advert to the loyal Spirit of Your People, and to that Attachment to the Institutions of their Country which has animated them during a Period of Commercial Difficulty, deficient Production of Food, and Political Revolution.
"WE join with Your Majesty in humbly looking to the Protection of Almighty God for Favour in our continued Progress; and We beg leave to convoy to Your Majesty the Assurance that we will faithfully assist Your Majesty in upholding the Fabric of the Constitution, founded as it is upon the Principles of Freedom and of Justice."
LORD BATEMAN: My Lords, in rising to second the Motion made by the noble Earl, I feel that I need not ask for that indulgence at your hands which I am sure will be cheerfully and voluntarily given to one who for the first time addresses your Lordships' House. My Lords, Her Majesty has with satisfaction alluded to the state of tranquillity which at present reigns throughout Her kingdom, and at the same time has given us assurances that it is Her earnest desire to maintain friendly relations with all foreign Powers. However accustomed we may have been to the same assurance, yet, my Lords, at a period like the present, this announcement from the Throne ought to fill us with more than usual gratitude and satisfaction. We may, indeed, esteem ourselves fortunate, inasmuch as that while we have deplored the state of anarchy and revolution by which other neighbouring empires have been so lately convulsed, we have the blessings of peace preserved to us intact. I need scarcely remind your Lordships of the changes, both social and political, which have rendered startling the history of 1848. It were well indeed for all could a veil be thrown over scones almost unequalled in their astounding consequences. But were I to ask you to take with me an impartial, unprejudiced, retrospective glance at the events which have been felt by their terrible results throughout the whole continent of Europe—events of the most unprecedented character—events which have followed each other in such dread and such rapid succession as to baffle the energies and to outstrip the calculations of the keenest politicians—I think, my Lords, that, with me, you will be induced to value, even at a higher rate, the advantages we possess in our own country—to admire the firm basis of our own long-established constitution, and at the same time cordially

15
and impartially to appreciate and to praise the honest direction, the prompt energy, and the wise ability of those advisers of Her Majesty, who have upheld—and with safety upheld—that constitution, through such difficult and perilous times. It has been their desire and their aim throughout, not only to preserve undisturbed our own tranquillity at home, but by acting the part of mediators to prevent as much as possible other nations from going to war. Whilst your Lordships will hear with delight the intelligence conveyed by Her Majesty that an armistice has been concluded in the north and south of Europe, you will also cordially join in the regret expressed that differences have existed amongst more southern Powers. It is, however, satisfactory to be informed that negotiations are now pending, and conditions are now being offered, which, if accepted, will, I trust, prove the wisdom of our mediation, and by the adjustment of existing differences tend to produce a permanent settlement of affairs in Sicily. I now come to that part of Her Majesty's Speech in which allusion is made to the success of those measures which have been adopted for the suppression of tumult and outbreak in Ireland. I think, my Lords, that you will not refuse to award that praise which is so justly due to those who have so ably carried out those measures, and that you will, in common with myself, confidently hope that the noble Earl who, with the support of Her Majesty's Ministers in England, has been instrumental in preserving a state of pacification in Ireland very different from that which existed at the commencement of last year, will, with the same co-operation, and with the assistance of your Lordships' advice and deliberation, endeavour to give increased protection to life, security to property, and eventually a more healthy prospect to our Irish fellow-subjects. Her Majesty has been pleased to recommend to your Lordships' consideration a modification of the Irish Poor Law; such a modification as will tend to alleviate the pressure upon landed property which in certain districts has been so severely felt. My Lords, our thanks are duo to Her Majesty for Her forethought, and the usual care which has been evinced, and the measure which has been suggested for lessening the sufferings of that portion of Her people. The wish that Her Majesty has graciously expressed to alleviate as much as possible the burdens of the people, by a reduction of the national expenditure, cannot fail to be as satisfactory to your Lordships as to the
16
people of this country. The investigation which has been made, and is still continuing, under the sanction of Her Majesty's Ministers into the expenditure of public offices; the recent appointment to the Admiralty of one so well experienced in financial detail—are sufficient guarantees that, in obedience to Her Majesty's wishes, every reduction in the expenditure shall be promoted. I do not mean, my Lords, any reduction which might be viewed through the false medium of a democratic and shortsighted policy; but such a reduction, and such a reduction only, as is consistent with the proper maintenance and efficient regulation of the different branches of the public service, and, at the same time, a due regard to the welfare and adequate defence of our various colonies, that so justly expect from the mother country the protection they are entitled to receive. There are other topics to which Her Majesty has alluded, which will, ere long, come before your Lordships' House in Committee, and will receive that attention and patient consideration which their importance to the welfare of our navigation, and to the prosperity of our agricultural interest, so justly entitle them to claim at your hands. Upon these matters it would be presumptuous in me to offer an opinion, from my inexperience in public affairs, and my short acquaintance with your Lordships' House. Indeed, I should be sorry, if in the little I have said, I should inadvertently have given utterance to any expression which might provoke discussion, and thereby prevent that cordiality, that unanimity, with which I am most anxious you should vote for the Address which I have the honour to second.
LORD BROUGHAMrose to address their Lordships under a deep sense of the responsibility of one who, in the present condition of this country, but still more in the present complicated condition of the world at large, ventured to deliver any opinion, however maturely he might have formed it, or whatever rare opportunities of obtaining information he might have enjoyed, upon the important events which had occurred during the past year. It gave him most unfeigned satisfaction to agree with his noble Friends opposite (the authors of the Speech, and the two noble Lords who moved and seconded the Address) in believing—although he was much afraid that his noble Friend the mover had expressed too strong an opinion upon the subject—that there was a considerable improvement in the commercial and

17
manufacturing situation of the country. But with respect to the alleged improvement in our financial position, he could not help thinking that the noble Lord had unfortunately taken rather too much credit for an increase in the revenue over the preceding year to the extent of 800,000 l., omitting, as he did, the material consideration, that this was the exact amount of duty collected under a law which had now expired, and of the repeal of which he (Lord Brougham) most cordially approved. This revenue was the result of a system which was defended by his noble Friends behind him, but of which he could not approve. The consequence of the new measure, the repeal, coming into operation, would be to cut off the very sum of 800,000 l., and which, as it chanced, on that very day ceased to be receivable. His noble Friend should not have forgotten that 800,000 l. was paid for corn duties during the last year, and that that amount, which was received in the year ending the 1st of February, 1849, could not be received in the year ending the 1st of February, 1850; he thought, therefore, that his noble Friend had taken rather a rose-coloured view of the subject; but if the commerce of the country increased, and the manufactures increased, the result most probably would be a corresponding increase of the revenue in excise and in customs from other less questionable sources than corn duties. He was bound to say that there were one or two points in Her Majesty's Speech, which had been much adverted to, with respect to which he could not help feeling some apprehension. He knew that he took a very unpopular view of the matter when he stated that he could not agree in the expressions of congratulation of his noble Friend on the large reductions which they were told were to be made in the estimates. He could not help thinking that an agitation—to use the popular expression—an agitation commenced in this country under very unhappy auspices, in his opinion—an agitation influenced by very questionable motives, though for very unquestionable objects—for the most pernicious objects—commencing somewhere in the West Riding of Yorkshire, passing over into the county palatine of Lancaster, and installed in one metropolis of agitation, Liverpool, with branches in the subordinate capitals of agitation—of Manchester and elsewhere—aided and assisted by the Chartist. Radical, and pseudo-economical press of the metropolis, the centre of all agitation—he
18
could not help thinking that such a movement was one of a most dangerous character. There was now, he found, a crusade against the land. He had been from the beginning, he confessed, the avowed, and open, and though feeble, yet zealous and conscientious friend of free trade. He confessed that he had been one who, out of his great attachment to the principle of free trade, had been induced to tolerate the means, though they were most objectionable, by which the free-trade movement had been promoted, but certainly not carried; for it was not true to say, but false, that the corn laws were repealed by the eloquence of certain agitators out of doors or in Parliament. The corn laws were repealed by the Ministers of the Crown, backed by the Opposition of the day, of which he formed an humble portion. But for them those corn laws would never have been shaken, which were now by their help repealed. The love which he entertained for the principles of free trade, and the zeal which he felt to have those principles recognised by law, had induced him to bear with the unconstitutional and all but unlawful agitation out of doors by which the great measure of the repeal of the corn laws was supported, though not carried. Therefore, he felt it the more incumbent on him, from the part he bore in that controversy, to take now his stand in the outset against the present agitation that had commenced against the landed interest. They were told that it was the bounden duty of Parliament to alter the system of finance of the country in two material particulars. The Speech from the Throne, he grieved to say, appeared to partake of that opinion as to one of those particulars, for it indicated, as he understood it, an intention to make reductions in the Army and Navy. That undoubtedly was the intention of the allusion, although the estimates were referred to in general terms; but if he wanted a commentary on the meaning of the large reduction of those estimates which the Speech spoke of, he should have had it from the speech which had been made by the noble Mover of the Address. That noble Lord read that passage as meaning a large reduction of the military and naval forces of the country. The other particular to which he referred was one which formed the main object of the present agitation—namely, that not only should the Army and Navy he reduced, but that the expenditure of the country

19
should be contracted by somewhere about 10,000,000 l., so as to assimilate it to the expenditure of the year 1835; and this demand was made without making the slightest reference to the position of the country at those two periods, without the least knowledge probably of the actual state of the country in either the one period or the other—for he perceived a manifestation of the most profound ignorance of all the details connected with this important subject. But, say these persons, not only shall the expenditure be reduced by lopping off these ten millions, but the revenue shall be raised upon totally different principles from those on which it is at present raised. It seemed, according to these parties, that the aristocracy of the country—that was the popular doctrine—in both Houses of Parliament, had long resolved to case itself of all burdens by throwing them on the trading, manufacturing, and monied interests, and on the poorer classes; that there was, to take a favourite example, no tax imposed upon the succession to landed property, while, on the other hand, there was a heavy tax upon the succession to personal property. It was a common thing to hear it said by these agitators, that by this inequality of taxation the widow and the orphan were robbed, in order that the great lord's estate might be permitted to pass in succession free from all taxation. Now, anything so utterly absurd—so wildly wide of the truth as this doctrine, which was made the great stalking-horse on these occasions, during his whole experience he had never heard broached. They were told there were two millions a year received in the way of legacy duty, but they were not told that of this sum 300,000 l. was taken upon leasehold, that is, landed property; consequently it was only 1,700,000 l. in personal estates; but, at least, say they, I,700,000 l. is taken upon personal property, not upon land. They said, look at a man who died worth 20,000 l, 2,000 l. of this money was taken as legacy duty. But this was not the fact. The only case in which such a duty would be paid was, where the money was left to a stranger—that, however, was a case which very seldom happened. If it were left to the widow of the testator, nothing at all would be paid; if to the children, I per cent; or if to other relations, 3 or 4 or 5 per cent. He had the curiosity of looking into the returns lately upon this subject, and he found that just one-sixth of the whole amount of legacy duty paid out of personal
20
property was derived from the charge of 10 per cent. From the returns it appeared that the one per cent charge was paid on 4,000,000 l, while the higher duties were paid on 26,000,000 l Well, now suppose that a man leaves 20,000 l., the duty upon an average required to be paid is 400 l. once in twenty years. Suppose on the other hand that the 20,000 l. be vested in land, what docs he pay yearly in the way of tax on the 800 l. a year income? In the first place he pays land tax every year he lives, which alone amounted to a great deal more than the tax upon legacies of personal property. This tax also was paid, not once, namely, when a man died, but every year of the lives of the landed proprietors. Again, more than 500,000 l. was paid for church rates, all of which fell upon land, though traders went to church as well as squires; 1,150,000 l. a year was paid for highway rates, all of which fell upon land; and 8,150,000 l. for poor rates and county rates; and besides these, there were charges for road making and other local burdens of a similar character. These charges together amounted to nearly ten millions a year charged upon the landed interest of the country. Now, by one calculation of the Committee, this amounted to 15 per cent on the rental of the country, by another to 11 per cent; but take it at only 10, it was more yearly than all the legacy duty together. He knew that he might as well address himself to the walls as to those financial reformers, as they called themselves, for they would disregard his statements, as only fit for the House of Lords, and say it was safer to trust their round assertions. He had thought it to be his duty to give his opinion as to the proposal for throwing the burden of taxation on land, as well as on the propriety of the agitations which had been excited, which he not only should not join, but which he should resist to the uttermost. He would pass over the circumstances that the land tax, when it was enacted in the reign of William and Mary, was intended to apply to personal as well as to landed property, and the former in as great degree as the latter; but now personal property was not liable to be charged at all on this principle of taxation. But we, the aristocracy, pass every year an Act to exempt personal property from the poor rates, else it must pay. But then some of those Gentlemen denied that the land paid the great bulk of the poor rates, for they told the world that they, the traders, paid poor rates upon their factories. What

21
of that? They paid as landowners. Suppose the rent of a factory to be 1,000 l. a year, and the profits made in that factory to be 30,000 l. a year, which of the two sums formed the basis on which the poor rates were calculated? Most assuredly the 1,000 l. a year. What pretence, then, was there for saying that personal property contributed to the poor rates as largely as did the landed interest? Of course a man might have land as well as factories, and in that case he paid as a landowner. These manufacturers, perhaps, did not tell the world that they manufactured other things, besides cotton twist; but every one who knew anything of them well knew that they manufactured paupers; where the land produced one pauper, manufactures created half a dozen, and the land paid for the whole. He had said nothing of another burden, and a heavy one, on the land, and on the land alone—the stamps on conveyance or transfer of real property: not an acre can be sold, nor an acre mortgaged, without a heavy duty. When an attempt was made in 1830 or 1831 to subject the transfer of stock to a small tax, such a cry was raised in the City, that the plan was at once given up; but the meek agriculturist pays without any complaint at all. Such was the state of the argument as between the landed and the commercial and manufacturing interests. The objects, then, of the Gentlemen who were engaged in the present agitation were unquestionable. He must say that he doubted the good faith of these persons in the present agitation, for he could not conceive how it was possible for men to put forward such statements, when the truth was staring them in the face, unless they wilfully shut their eyes to it, as these persons found it convenient to do. Then they were told that there should be a reduction to a large amount in the naval and military establishments of the country. His noble and illustrious Friend who then sat at the table (the Duke of Wellington) always desired to reduce the Army till it came within the smallest possible limits that were necessary for the defence of our honour and our possessions. It was said, the French were reducing their army. But our case was not similar to that of France. The case of England with regard to her army was peculiar to herself; but, whether this country enjoyed unmingled prosperity or was reduced to the deepest poverty, it mattered not; in neither case ought a single shilling to be taken for the maintenance of cither the Army or the Navy beyond what the strict
22
necessity of the case demanded. Now, looking at the state of Europe, he saw no reason whatever for saying that any large reductions in the Army or the Navy could be safely effected. Since the last meeting of Parliament there was every reason to feel that the defences of the country ought to be strengthened. He could not conceive what the noble Mover meant by all Europe having been at peace; nor what the Speech meant by a suspension of hostilities everywhere. If he began by turning towards the north, and then carried his view southwards from Schleswig-Holstein to the foot of the boot of Italy, he saw nothing but grounds for apprehending war. Whether he looked at Hungary, Croatia, Vienna, Piedmont, Venice, or Sicily, he saw nothing calculated to relieve that apprehension. It was confessed by the Speech from the Throne that hostilities were only suspended in those places whore war had so recently raged; and there was no part of Europe which presented that unbroken tranquillity which would warrant this country entertaining a proposition for any extensive reduction in the military or naval establishments. It was said that there was a suspension of hostilities; but how did that suspension take place? After the battle of Waterloo, when the enemy sustained a complete defeat, there was no doubt a cessation of hostilities. So now Charles Albert, the King of Sardinia, having been completely routed with his army, and only saved from being driven from his capital by the tender mercy of the Austrian general and Austrian Government, was, undoubtedly, forced to suspend hostilities. A suspension of hostilities was an incident, and a necessary incident, of great success. If one party was completely victorious, and the other soundly beaten, there must necessarily he a suspension of hostilities. Hostilities implied two parties. To have fighting at all, there must be two to fight. Anything more complete than the victory of Prince Windischgratz in Austria there could not he. In honour of that gallant officer he could scarcely say too much; and, though he was charged with cruelty—with superfluous cruelty in the execution of an individual who was a deputy from Frankfort—though an example was here made of which he deplored the necessity—he yet believed that nothing was done in this respect by Prince Windischgratz but what necessity required. He (Lord Brougham) was satisfied that the parties who thus complained, bad forgotten that this person had taken an active part

23
in the revolt at Vienna, which had been attended with such atrocious assassinations. He had actually made a speech declaring that 200 of the aristocracy must be "Latourizeert," that is, murdered with torture, like General Latour. For such conduct had he been executed. He deplored the necessity for resorting to such a proceeding; but he heard not one word from those who so strongly censured it me commiseration for those who were killed by the mob in Vienna. In Hungary there had been very large talkers before the battle, but the great majority absented themselves on the day of fight as the Milanese had done, and as the Irish had done; and the few who did appear were as completely defeated by Jellachich as Carlo Alberto was in Italy by Radetzki; and in that case, as in the north of Italy, there was a suspension of hostilities from there being a want of combatants. With respect to Sicily, the two gallant officers, the English and French admirals, they were told in the Speech, had been moved by feelings of humanity to interfere to put a stop to sanguinary hostilities. After reading a description of what was said to have taken place there, he felt horror at those atrocities; but he also thought it was most perilous to allow military or naval officers to take upon themselves to enter upon proceedings out of the four corners of their instructions, and to take part in political proceedings from their feelings of compassion, and to judge as to the propriety or non-propriety of interference, instead of waiting until they had received instructions from their respective Governments. It was said, to be sure, that they interfered out of compassion, and that then our Government stept in and offered terms for reconciling the Neapolitan Government with its Sicilian subjects; but he doubted whether that rule would hold good if applied to ourselves. Let their Lordships suppose such a case as Ireland complaining of oppression and misgovernment, and that the Dutch, the Austrian, and the French squadrons were to present themselves in our harbours. What would they think of the Austrian Admiral saying "We interfere out of compassion? "or what would they think if the French Government were to come and say—"We take this opportunity of the suspension of hostilities to step in, and we beg to interpose with a proposition which we hope will accommodate all interests. We propose that there should be a Parliament in Ireland upon a certain footing, and for local, and not for Imperial purposes?" Why, our answer of course
24
would be, that we were much obliged by that kind offer of interference, but that we did not wish to have any earthly interference with our government of Ireland. We should request of the Dutch or the French to keep their wisdom for their own purposes—they might have occasion for it hereafter; and we should beg of France to leave us to govern Ireland in our own way. Suppose, as he (Lord Brougham) said in last July, this answer had been given by Naples to our offer of interference in Sicilian affairs, he confessed he knew not what reply could be given; and, therefore, he thought great caution should be observed as regarded any interference on our part with the affairs of other States. With respect to the state of things on the other side of the Channel, he must say that he felt the deepest desire, and the most sincere wish, that nothing might interfere to disturb the harmony that at present prevailed between the two countries. He must say, that with regard to France, he gave his noble Friend (Lord Palmerston) the greatest credit for the course he had pursued—for the judicious and skilful management of their relations with that country. The greatest praise was due to his noble Friend and former Colleague, for the address and good management he had displayed with respect to all his arrangements. These arrangements had had very great influence in his (Lord Brougham's) opinion in preventing France from taking prematurely steps to interfere in the affairs of Italy. He believed that that had been contemplated, and it was the greatest delusion that could enter into any man's imagination to suppose that all that had taken place was a matter of course, that it was all downhill work, even if there had been no interference on our part. "For, "said those persons who knew nothing whatever of the particulars—and he (Lord Brougham) happened to know something of them—" France has enough to do at home—she is crippled in her finances—she has a deficit of 22,000,000 l. sterling—she is torn by contending parties, and is in no mood for war." They did not know the state of France who said so. He (Lord Brougham) gave his opinion on that point advisedly, and he said that they were ignorant, profoundly ignorant, of the state of France who held that doctrine. The present position of France was, undoubtedly, a very peculiar one, and such as was never before witnessed; but when he looked to the probabilities of war, he must look to the actual government of the

25
country whose going to war was in question. A short time since the French Government were not perhaps going to war, but they were doing things that would render a war inevitable; and a new Government might any day do so again. France might, to-morrow, issue a proclamation, commencing, "Whereas it is fit and proper that we should go to war in order to establish a universal republic, we hereby proclaim a general war against all crowned heads." They might think it right to do so in order to promote republican and democratic institutions. This they had done in 1792. But had they never done so again? Why, ten months ago there was a pledge almost formally given that France would assist the people everywhere against their rulers. The question was, what security had we that the present tranquillity would remain unbroken, and that the existing peace would continue? The question was how long was that unbroken, secure tranquillity to endure? It was no longer ago than last Monday that it had been found necessary to call out 60,000 troops in Paris in order to prevent insurrection, and to plant cavalry and artillery at every post throughout the city, to prevent an outbreak. How long, then, was that unbroken peace to continue? Suppose a similar unhappy occurrence were to take place to-morrow as had happened in the month of June, were they quite sure that it would be as effectually resisted and put down? Could any man say how long the present French Government was likely to continue No man could tell how long the Republic itself would last. Why, not later than three weeks ago it was said by those best informed on the subject, that there was not a republican to be found except in Paris. If France decided upon returning to monarchical institutions, she might then count upon peace and prosperity; and instead of having the customs of the country coming down to one-half—instead of having the trade diminished to one-half in the course of a year—instead of Prance being in distress—instead of Strasburg being unemployed—instead of Marseilles being unoccupied, and almost all the other great towns of France in distress—instead of that, they would have France raising her head and putting forth her strength, and showing those elements of illimitable prosperity which no arithmetic could count: that would be the result of a restoration. If there should be a restoration, and there being no republicans in France, if, as was
26
very natural, France did not choose to have a republic—no doubt then prosperity to France, and peace to France, and peace to Europe, would be the inevitable and the happy consequence. It appeared to him that sooner or later that day would come. Although there might be some delay, it was not the loss certain; but the delay might be very considerable, because, when men committed themselves to a certain form of government, however much against their will, if it was effected by a great and overruling force to which they had once yielded, a feeling of self-conceit—of human pride—of obstinacy—prevented them from retracing their steps; and, therefore, it would be some time before they could take the step which he believed, from the bottom of their hearts, the rulers and leaders as well as the people of France desired. But, then, instead of the monarchy, they had another alternative proposed to them. Let them look at the late Presidential election. Why, one-third or one-fourth the number of the persons who voted for General Cavaignac voted for Ledru Rollin and Raspail. What did that mean? What did the vote for those two individuals mean? A republic. Ah, but not the republic of Cavaignac—it was the Republique Rouge—the republic of the Jacobins—the republic of '92, '93, '94; and to those 400,000 who had so voted we must add as many more who voted for Cavaignac under the influence of office, but who in their hearts were devoted to the Rouge Republique. Those men cared nothing about a deficit in the finances—they cared nothing about the huge, the appalling deficit of 22,000,000 l. sterling—they had nothing to do but to apply the sponge—they would at once issue assignats; and it should be remembered that Ledru Rollin, the leader of the Jacobins, had charged the Provisional Government with a dereliction of duty in not having before this time issued two milliards of assignats. Why, the advent of that party to power was inevitable war. Bankruptcy for Franco no doubt it was; but war for Europe—since nothing was more certain than that a warlike people, when bankrupt, nowise lost the power of engaging in hostilities. It appeared to him that in this state of things it would be very hazardous to reduce our establishments. With regard to the reduction of our military establishments, it must be observed that there was a great difference between ourselves and France in that respect. If the French reduced 50,000 men in the next year, and then found it necessary to

27
go to war, they would recruit those 50,000 men in a month much more easily than we could recruit 10,000 men in a year, the French system being entirely military. Why, 50,000 men left the French army every year, and were absorbed into civil occupations, and there would be little difficulty in rendering their services again available. He would not refer to the other topics that had been alluded to in the Speech, but he would once more impress upon the Government the necessity of cautiously avoiding all interference in the concerns of other nations, and of strictly adhering to the faith of treaties. There ought to be a determined resolution to reject the modern cant, the mere senseless jargon of nationality applied to the distribution of power among the States of Europe; for instance, the saying that Austria had no right to Lombardy, because there was no national community of interests or feelings between Italians and Germans. As well might it be said that England had no right to Ireland, because Ireland was not Saxon; and yet that was the observation made with regard to Austria, which had possessed Lombardy for three or four centuries, He trusted they would disregard all those baseless, fantastical theories which would lead to the distribution of power upon such principles; and to discountenance them he held to be the imperative duty of the advisers of the British Crown. There was another thing he held to be equally advisable—he meant an adherence to the ancient alliances of this country. If there was one country more than another which should be the cornerstone of our foreign policy—a country which was the national ally and had a common interest with ours, and which came into conflict with us in no possible point—he would say it was the great Austrian empire. They should on all occasions court that alliance, and her enemies should in all cases be ours. Next to Austria, he would name another great empire, the remoteness of whose position, and its having no point of conflict with France, would, in the ordinary state of Europe, make her an ally of the French. Happily, the accident of republican institutions had for the present alienated those two Powers, and thrown Russia, if not into our arms, yet into our counsels. Of this we should avail ourselves to ally ourselves with a mighty empire, which, impregnable in itself, and having resources that no other country possessed, even pecuniary as well as military resources,
28
was become a still more valuable bulwark against the assaults of the great central republican organisation. With regard to German policy, he must say that a more complicated subject did not exist. One thing he had certainly formed expectations of a short time since, namely, that there would be no objection on the part of the German States to form one great Western Germanic empire, placed under the jurisdiction of one of their own sovereigns; but those hopes were now at an end. The Diet of Frankfort had completely failed in its object, and he anticipated with much composure of mind, if not with joy, seeing it removed from the face of European polity, leaving matters in that part of the Continent to return to their pristine state before the mania of revolution and the itch of constitution-making had so unhappily disturbed and distracted the Continent. Before he closed, he could not avoid referring to what had been said in Her Majesty's Speech with regard to Ireland. He believed that there was not a shadow of doubt that their Lordships were disposed—and he hoped the other House of Parliament was disposed.—to assent to measures, strong measures if they should be required, for the maintenance of peace in that country. There was another thing-he wished to see. Whatever difference of opinion there might be as to the necessity of new laws for Ireland, no one would doubt the inestimable benefit of giving them new lawyers. Could any mortal man out of Ireland ever have thought of putting fifteen men upon their trial under a recent Act of Parliament for an offence under that Act, and not describing the offence out of that Act of Parliament? It was said that the Irish law officer of the Crown was only a Chancery lawyer; but no Chancery lawyer in this country would think of putting a man upon his trial, and omit to tell him what he was charged with, any more than of filing a bill in equity, without letting the defendant know the complaint against him. But if the law officers of the Crown in Ireland had shown too little law in one instance, they had shown too much in another of the State prosecutions; for on the failure of a demurrer in a recent case tried at Dublin, they had prayed for immediate judgment on the prisoner. Who ever heard of sending a man to execution without trial, because a special pleader made a mistake? No doubt in civil cases when a demurrer was put in to a plea or declaration, the

29
facts well pleaded were held to be admitted; and if the party demurring failed in his demurrer, he failed altogether; and the same rule in strictness applied theoretically in criminal cases. But what mortal being ever heard of taking a man at his pleader's word in actual practice, and hanging him because that pleader mistook the law? The court very properly overruled the attempt; but the attempt reflected no honour, no credit on the Government or the Crown lawyers, who had shown too little learning in the one case, and too much in the other. There was another reason why he must protest against the reduction of the national force below what necessity absolutely required—ho alluded to the position of our affairs in India; and he believed there were some who heard him, men of long experience and proverbial sagacity, who had a very good inkling of what had since happened, as far back as last March. He feared we had sacrificed the advantage which we had obtained, by not taking possession of the Punjaub when we ought. He thought Her Majesty's Ministers had shown a wise discretion in not singing any Io pœans upon what had happened in the Punjaub; and he could have wished that the general officer in command of our forces there had evinced the same forbearance. When an officer in high command, copying the example of Lord Nelson, began his despatch with "It has pleased Almighty God to bless Her Majesty's arms," it should be a success, like that of the Nile, so great and so indisputable that there could be no doubt about it. Undoubtedly they were told, that good Christians should be thankful for small mercies, and that reverses ought even to be received with thankfulness as chastenings from the Divine hand. Viewed in this light, the general in command of the British forces in the late engagement seems to have commenced his despatch in some such words as these—" It has pleased Almighty God to permit me to be out-manœuvred by the enemy," than which thankful resignation nothing can be more exemplary or more edifying, though somewhat novel in war. The despatch, however, concluded by expressing a most proper hope that it might please Divine Providence to improve the victory, and to turn to good account what had been done—a safe wish to breathe, and in which all must join. Nothing could certainly give him more sincere pleasure than to hear the noble Lord who had so ably moved the Address, and who certainly
30
had no reason to deprecate their Lordships' impatience, for no one had listened to the noble Lord with any impatience; nothing could give him greater satisfaction than to join the noble Lord in congratulating the country on the improved state of trade and commerce; and it was to be hoped that they might now enjoy a continuance and realisation of the cheering commercial prospect at present before them. He could only trust that when that prosperity came, our merchants and manufacturers might show more sober-mindedness than on former occasions of returning prosperity after distress. We were still ignorant of the laws which governed these reverses and alternations of commercial fortune. The Newton had not yet arisen, who could explain these mysterious cycles. But they know generally the tendency towards repletion, after the channels of trade had been drained; and he hoped, when the crisis should have passed, that it would be found that the wisdom of our fellow-countrymen in the commercial and speculative classes would be improved by such repeated experience as they had had of the miseries of over-trading.
LORD BEAUMONTsaid, there was so much in the speech of the noble and learned Lord who had just sat down in which he agreed, that he regretted there should have been anything at all from which he felt compelled to dissent. The very circumstance, however, of his agreeing with the noble Lord on some points, imposed upon him the necessity of disagreeing with him in others; for he could not, like the noble and learned Lord, reconcile things totally contrary to each other, and in the same breath commend or recommend two lines of policy diametrically opposed to each other in principle. For instance, while he with the noble Lord commended and admired the Government for maintaining friendly relations with, France, and keeping up the close intercourse between the two countries under all forms of government, he could not at the same moment, like the noble Lord, adopt the doctrine that it was the duty of the Minister of this country to attach himself exclusively to the absolute policy of Austria, and in every way to support her pretensions, because they were hostile and opposed to France. He also differed from the noble Lord on the question of Sicily, and could not refrain from expressing his surprise that the noble Lord should have so far overlooked the circumstances of the two countries as to compare the connexion

31
between Sicily and Naples with our connexion with Ireland. The noble and learned Lord, contrary to his wonted practice, had forgotten altogether the history of Sicily, and excluded from his consideration of the subject the many treaties and transactions which had passed between this country and that island. Was it possible that he could be ignorant that for many centuries Sicily was a separate kingdom in every respect, enjoying separate privileges, a separate constitution, a national legislature, and all the rights of an independent country? Did not the noble Lord know that again and again the kingdom of Sicily had been separated from Naples in the person of the Crown? Had we adhered to treaties solemnly entered into, and which were supposed to bind nations, we should have been obliged to not merely adopt the mild and moderate policy of friendly negotiation which Her Majesty's Ministers had pursued, but to have insisted on the total and complete separation of the two countries, and have assisted Sicily in recovering her ancient independence. Going as far back as the Treaty of Utrecht, which treaty we still quoted as part of the obligations of Europe, we find Sicily separated from Naples, and the crown given to the house of Savoy. This separation was the solemn act of a treaty at which we were present; and a short time subsequent to that, England makes a distinct and separate treaty with Sicily as an independent kingdom, acknowledging thereby that she was no way bound to Naples. But it was not so much to those more distant periods that he wished to draw the noble Lord's attention; it was to the year 1812 that he would fain recall his memory. At that period Sicily was occupied by our troops, and the Royal family maintained and protected in the sovereignty of the island by us. The King attempted to infringe the ancient constitution of Sicily; and what was the course adopted by England? England not only prevented any invasion of the rights of Sicilians, but aided and protected them while they were engaged in reforming their ancient constitution, and developing their civil institutions in accordance with the progress of liberal opinions. In the constitution thus remodelled and reformed, occurred an article respecting the crown of Sicily which ran thus:—
"Should the King of Sicily reconquer the kingdom of Naples, or acquire any other kingdom, he must send his eldest son to reign in the new dominions, or leave his son in Sicily, granting the kingdom of Sicily to him. Declaring
32
hereafter the kingdom of Sicily independent of Naples, or of any other kingdom or province."
Thus ran Article 17, Chapter of the Succession. To this the King answered—
"Placet, agreed for the independence, all other matters to be settled between the King and his son at the general peace, to know which of them ought to reign in Sicily."
Was it not, then, admitted in the very words of the constitution that the crowns should be for ever separated? And were not we present, if not parties to the constitution of 1812? Did not we look upon ourselves as bound to protect the Sicilians in their long-acquired liberties, and did we not put our honour in the fulfilment of the engagement between the King and his Sicilian subjects? He (Lord Beaumont) found this view of the question adopted in the subsequent despatches of Lord Castlereagh and Sir W. A'Court. In a letter addressed by the latter to the Sicilian Government, he found the following passage:—
"England could not be insensible to the appeal which was made to her, and whilst she charged herself with the protection of Sicily from any foreign invader, she at the same time lent herself to the invitation she had received, and became the protectress and supporter of alterations founded upon principles so just in themselves, and so creditable to those from whom they had originally emanated."
Did not this confirm the opinion that we were bound to protect the constitution of 1812, if called on by the Sicilians, and to see its enactments fulfilled? If, therefore, we were to be guided in our policy by treaties and similar obligations, we should be forced to insist on a total separation of Sicily from Naples. With such treaties in force, and such solemn engagements still in existence, he could not understand upon what principle the noble Lord could draw a comparison between the case of Sicily and that of Ireland; for the one had always enjoyed a separate existence, been always entitled to a separate Government, and had its constitutional rights guaranteed by powerful foreign countries; while Ireland had by its own act and deed united itself to England, and never been in the position Sicily was in 1812 with regard to any foreign Power. Ireland lost no constitutional privileges, but merely made a legislative union of its own accord; whereas in Sicily it was by brute force that the Neapolitan Government succeeded in destroying the constitutional rights of the Sicilians, and establishing that frightful system of tyranny

33
which had existed in the island over since. The Sicilians petitioned to have a Parliament called together, and the petitioners were imprisoned. Sir W. A'Court protested in the name of England against the infringement of the constitution; and now that they were called on to negotiate, they should act up to that protest. So far from blaming the English Government for insisting on too much in their proposals to the King of Naples, he found fault with them for not going far enough in supporting those principles to which they had declared themselves bound in 1812, and in maintaining that constitution which, according to his reading of various treaties, they were bound to see carried out. It was said that the Treaty of Vienna secured the absolute government of the Two Sicilies to the King of Naples. He disputed that point, and maintained that in no article of that treaty was it laid down that the independence of Sicily should be destroyed. Sicily was not mentioned in the treaty, except as Ferdinand's title. The Article ran thus—
"His Majesty, King Ferdinand IV., is re-established, for himself and his heirs, on the throne of Naples, and recognised by the Powers as King of the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies."
Now in this there was nothing of destroying the constitution of 1812—nothing of making Sicily a province of Naples—nothing of releasing Ferdinand from all the obligations he had entered into. In every case where there was a change in the frontiers of ancient kingdoms, or a consolidation of States, or a union of two countries in one—a special article was introduced in the treaty, setting the plan out, and regulating the future relations of the united countries. But in the case of Sicily, nothing was said, things were left as they were; and since no alteration was proposed or stated at Vienna, the engagements of 1812 must have been understood to have held good. The constitution of 1812 ought, therefore, to be the basis of our negotiations; namely, total separation. It was with pain and surprise that he heard the noble and learned Lord blame the Admirals for the part they had acted before Messina. What was the conduct of the Admirals, which the noble Lord disapproved of? They took no part in the contest—they did not interfere with the military operations of the belligerents—they did not assist the Italian forces—but when the battle was over, when the Sicilian troops were withdrawn, when the town had surrendered to the Neapolitans, when all
34
resistance had ceased, when the sick and the dying—the harmless portion of the population—the old men, women, and children were alone left in the place—they witnessed a scene which made them take on themselves a responsibility which it would have been an eternal disgrace to them to have declined to impose on themselves. For eight long hours they saw the Neapolitans bombard the helpless, defenceless, surrendered town; they saw the barbarian lot loose his savage hordes upon the hopeless, helpless beings who could not escape from the burning town; they saw women and children abused and murdered; the sick and the old tortured; and all this in a town which had for many hours surrendered, and in which the enemy had not a single soldier left. It was then, and then only, that the Admirals, moved by a sense of their duty to common humanity, and to God, insisted that the useless massacre in the surrendered town should cease, and declared that if the Neapolitan commander had not sufficient control over his own troops, that they would interfere to establish order in Messina. It was evident the Neapolitan commander could not maintain discipline in his army; and they therefore restrained him from advancing on to enact similar scenes in other towns of Sicily. He honoured the French and English Admirals for the part they had taken, and he rejoiced to think the Governments of both countries had adopted the measure of their naval officers. What would have been said in after times if they had disavowed the generous acts of the two Admirals, and rebuked them for having saved from the brutality of a lawless soldiery, some hundreds of helpless women and children? The character of the war is enough to justify the interference of Franco and England in the question. It is held to be a sufficient ground of interference, when the conduct of the war assumes so brutal a nature, that some powerful neutral Power can alone prevent the belligerent forces from converting their contests into a succession of massacres—and we have more than once interfered on no better ground than the bloody character of the struggle. Witness our interference in Greece; again in the Plate, where the only attempt at an excuse for our folly in commencing hostilities, was to prevent more dreadful cruelties. Our interference in Sicily has not only a better excuse, or rather a better grounded excuse, but is luckily of a very different nature. We

35
have not taken part in the military operations of either party, nor prevented those military operations from being carried on, so long as they were conducted on the principles of regular warfare; but we have availed ourselves of an armistice to renew negotiations to which we were invited. What concessions the mediators may find it advisable to impose on either party, it would be unwise at that moment to surmise; but if ancient and still-existing treaties are appealed to, we cannot well stop short of a total separation of Sicily from Naples. With regard to the other subject touched on by the noble and learned Lord, namely, the late war in the north of Italy, he would say but a very few words. He agreed with his noble and learned Friend that her Majesty's Government had displayed great discretion and ability in preventing the interference of the French south of the Alps. He also believed with his noble and learned Friend that it was a mistaken idea to imagine that France was not burning, and had not for some time been burning, with a desire to send her troops across the Alps for the purpose of supporting the liberal party in that quarter of the world. He certainly gave the Government of France credit for having restrained that feeling; but he was convinced that they could not have restrained it, if the people of that country had thought that England, instead of supporting France in striving to obtain justice and fair terms for the inhabitants of Italy, and to establish something like Italian independence, had resolved to aid in the re-establishment of the cruel Government which had lately existed in Lombardy, which had been purely German in its policy, and which had sedulously endeavoured to remove every trace of Italian nationality. But we had been invited to mediate between the parties at an early period of the war; and that invitation we had willingly accepted. More than one proposal had been made as the basis of negotiation between the contending parties; but it appeared that Austria in her proposals wished to retain more than could with justice, or a prospect of permanent peace, be conceded her. A suggestion had been made on our part, which might settle the question; but negotiations were at present pending on that subject, and he felt that it would not therefore be discreet on his part to discuss it in detail. All he should then say was, that he trusted that in those negotiations the vain and extrava-
36
gant idea of establishing in Italy anything like an Austrian province, and an Austrian Government, under an Austrian archduke, would be altogether abandoned. They might rely on it, that if any attempt were made to force on the north of Italy the sway of Austria, that attempt would only lead to another of those outbreaks, which must he perpetually occurring until something like Italian independence was conceded once and for ever. Those were the only two subjects of foreign policy to which he meant to refer. There was one remark of his noble and learned Friend on a point of a different character, which he wished briefly to notice. His noble and learned Friend had said that the land tax was levied in different proportions on land, and on other property. But he believed his noble and learned Friend was mistaken in that matter. The amount had formerly been 24 s. in the 100 l., the current rate of interest having been 6 per cent, and when the interest had fallen to 5 per cent, an Act had been passed reducing that amount to 20 s. in the 100 l.; so that the same proportion had always been preserved; that is to say, four shillings in the pound, whether the pound represents the rent of land, or the interest of money. In fact no difference was formerly made between personalty and realty—rates and taxes affected both equally.
The EARL of WINCHILSEAsaid, he could not help taking that opportunity of protesting against that part of Her Majesty's Speech which announced the determination of the Government to propose a reduction in our naval and military forces. He believed most conscientiously that if that course were adopted, a fatal injury would be inflicted on the best interests of the country. It appeared to him that such a proceeding would argue nothing less than infatuation; and he felt convinced, from his confidence in the wisdom of Her Majesty, and in Her anxious desire to promote the best interests of Her empire, that if She had been left to the dictates of Her own heart and understanding, She would never have recommended so dangerous a policy. He also felt bound to express his surprise that the Speech from the Throne contained no reference to the present deplorable condition of two great national interests—he meant the colonial interest and the agricultural interest of this great country. Our colonies were certainly in a position in which we could feel no pride; and with regard to the agricultural interest,

37
it was his firm and honest conviction, from what had taken place within the last few months, that that interest was in a most perilous position, and that, if things were to go on as at present, before twelve months more fearful calamities would occur, involving the total overthrow of that great interest, on the prosperity of which that of the nation at large so much depended. But he should again warn their Lordships not to reduce the existing naval and military forces of the country. When he looked to the state of Europe, and saw the fearful convulsions which had already taken place, and which so far from having subsided, were only waiting for a more fitting opportunity to renew the conflict; when he saw the oldest established governments and monarchies overthrown—the revolutionary spirit which was abroad—and the dissemination of those principles which, if successful, as they were in 1791, must tend to overthrow all the social principles upon which society existed—he considered it nothing better than national insanity upon the part of this country, if at this moment she consented to a reduction of a single man either of the Army or Navy. The present state of Ireland was another reason why no such reduction should at present be made. A reduction of any part of our defences would lead only to the encouragement of that party which would never be satisfied until they had succeeded in breaking off the connexion with England, and establishing the independence of Ireland. He believed that any attempt to reduce the military or naval strength of the country would be fraught with the utmost danger to every interest in the united kingdom, and to England's peace and England's glory.
LORD STANLEY: My Lords, I certainly had hoped, and I must say I think your Lordships had expected, that after the able and powerful speech addressed to your Lordships immediately after the speeches of the Mover and Seconder of the Address by my noble and learned Friend who now sits near me (Lord Brougham), some one of Her Majesty's Ministers would have felt it to be his duty to offer some observations on those comments—those most important in substance and most eloquently expressed comments—which my noble and learned Friend made on various parts of the Speech which has been read from the Throne by Her Most Gracious Majesty. But, my Lords, I really believe that such is the simplicity of
38
mind of Her Majesty's Ministers, and such is the art—the consummate art—of my noble and learned Friend, that Her Majesty's Ministers are actually under the impression that the observations which my noble and learned Friend made on their foreign policy were really intended to be of a laudatory character, expressing entire approbation of what they have done, and perfect confidence in that which they intend to do, and may do hereafter. [The Marquess of LANSDOWNE: Hear, hear!] The noble Marquess assents to that view of the matter, and believes that the tendency of my noble and learned Friend's observations was to approve of the foreign policy of Her Majesty's Government, and that my noble and learned Friend entertains a most confident opinion that the anticipations he has expressed on the subject will be verified by the production of the papers relating to that policy. I am sorry to dissipate so happy a delusion on the part of Her Majesty's Ministers. There is nothing more painful—there is nothing more irksome—than, after a very good joke has been made, to find that there is some person of so obtuse an intellect that, for the life and soul of him, he cannot make out the joke, and that somebody must afterwards laboriously explain the matter to him, telling him—" Why, such a person meant so and so, and can you not see the joke? Do you not see that he was not in earnest?" A new light is thus made to break on the unfortunate innocent who was the object of the joke, and he finds that what he took en grand seigneur, as a high compliment, was, in reality, a jest made at his expense, as every one except himself had at once perceived. It certainly appears to me that such was very much the character of the observations addressed by my noble and learned Friend to Her Majesty's Government on their foreign policy. And I am much mistaken if, when my noble and learned Friend declares that he has no doubt that when these papers are produced we shall find that Her Majesty's Government had, in all things, sedulously respected the obligations of treaties, sedulously and cautiously and scrupulously abstained from interfering in the slightest degree with the internal and domestic affairs of other countries—above all, that they had repudiated the idea of nationality and independence of Italy—that they had given no countenance to those persons who, putting forward the most unfounded pretensions,

39
sought to get rid of the most well-founded claims to dominion on the part of other Powers—and especially that the had sedulously and carefully abstained from giving to our most ancient and most faithful ally, Austria, the slightest reason for supposing that by one hair's breadth we had deviated from the strict observance of those obligations to which the faith of treaties, policy, justice, and honour alike bound us—I am much mistaken if my noble and learned Friend, when he was stating this, had not already in his mind anticipated that surprise and dismay which I have no doubt he will most eloquently and powerfully express to yours Lordships on the production of those papers, when he finds that the course pursued by Her Majesty's Government has in reality been at variance with that which at the present moment he states that he presumes it impossible but that they must have adopted. My Lords, for my own part, I am at all times most unwilling to interfere by any observations of mine, and still more by any amendment, with that unanimity which I think, under ordinary circumstances, it is most desirable should prevail, in tendering to the Throne, in answer to the Speech delivered by Her Majesty, the expression of loyalty on our parts, and of a respectful reception of the recommendations and the observations which it may have pleased Her Majesty to make. I must also observe, that it has been generally the policy of all Governments—and I should have thought it would in an especial manner have been the policy of a Government which has been, as I think they must admit, treated with no ordinary forbearance during their tenure of office by their political opponents—to whom more than usual allowance has been made for the difficulties in which they were placed, the magnitude of which we did not disguise from ourselves or from the country, and with regard to which we were free to admit that the whole of those difficulties were not of their own creating—my Lords, I should have thought that a Government so situated would be careful to abstain in the Speech which they advised the Crown to deliver, from every statement which could provoke cavil, from every observation which could lead to controversy, and, above all, from every representation of the state of the country which could bear on the face of it the character of exaggeration, or of a tendency to mislead. My Lords, when I look to this Speech, unsatisfactory as I find it from
40
first to last, I can hardly discover one paragraph in it which is not open to hostile comment, or one statement which does not give, to my judgment, an incorrect view of the fact which it professes to represent, I confess I am at a loss, entirely at a loss, to arrive at the conclusion to which that Speech has come, with the premises which it has laid down, as well as with the facts, which from your experience must be within the knowledge of your Lordships. Above all, in my judgment, that Speech docs greatly exaggerate that which the Government is pleased to consider, and that which my noble and learned Friend has also described, the present prosperity of this country. I believe that, although there may be some trifling amendment, and it is but trifling, in the commercial prosperity of this country—I do believe that, although the state of the revenue is more promising than it was at the period of the commencement of the last Session of Parliament; yet, I confess, I am at a loss, to whatever quarter I look, to find what subject of congratulation there is in the state of our foreign relations, or of our domestic condition generally. My Lords, for the first time since I have had the honour of a seat in Parliament it has not been in the power of Her Most Gracious Majesty to introduce those words into Her Speech which are usually and ordinarily used on similar occasions—namely, that She continues to receive those assurances of friendly relations from foreign Powers which are the best guarantee for general peace. My Lords, I cordially concur in many paragraphs of that Speech, particularly in that with respect to the tranquillity and loyalty of the people of this country during the prevalence and continuance of the trials and vicissitudes to which other nations have been subjected. I rejoice that the Government—for, of course, the Speech is the sentiment of the Government—has thought proper to put such a paragraph therein, and that they should call upon your Lordships—a call to which I know you will respond, and that you will cordially aid Her Majesty to the utmost of your power, in "upholding the fabric of the constitution, founded as it is upon the principles of freedom and justice." I am grateful, deeply grateful, to Her Majesty for another announcement in the earlier portion of Her Speech, in which She declares, not that She has received assurances of friendly relations from foreign Powers, but that" it is Her constant de-

41
sire to maintain with all foreign States the most friendly relations." I am deeply grateful for that announcement, because it relieves my mind, as I hope it does the minds of your Lordships, from the apprehension that it was the desire of the Ministers of the Crown to maintain the most unfriendly relations with other Powers, in consequence of their constant, uncalled-for, and mischievous intermeddling in the affairs of every country in Europe. My Lords, I ask Her Majesty's Government to tell me of what country in Europe they could venture to insert in the Speech the declaration that they could rely with confidence upon the friendly feelings of the Sovereign of that country? I ask, my Lords, have we renewed our diplomatic relations with the Court of Spain? With regard to the Court of Spain, the state of your relations, or rather your nominal relations with that Court, is this—you have, I think most unwisely, through your Minister, interfered in the internal administration and affairs of that country. The offence, if it were an offence, on the part of our Minister towards that country, has been visited by the Government of that country upon that Minister and upon this country by an act in itself so offensive, that, great as was the provocation which was given on the part of the British Minister, yet, with the information we possess, I believe no one could stand up and say that the Government of Spain was justified in the course they pursued, or that the offence, however great it may have been, was sufficient to justify their conduct. The state of affairs in Spain is this—that your Minister has been ignominiously driven from Madrid, and that you have passively and quietly acquiesced in that insult which a foreign Government has put upon you. Will you venture to say that you are on friendly relations with the King of Naples? Will you say that you are on friendly relations with the Government of Austria? Have you given to the Government of Austria reason to entertain friendly relations towards you? Have you reason to believe that the Government of Austria does entertain friendly relations towards you? I ask, are you or are you not the only Power in Europe to whom the Government of Austria has not officially, by the mission of an Ambassador, signified the accession of the present Sovereign to the Throne? And, more than that, has that omission or has it not been accompanied by any intimation that
42
the cause of that omission, as respects you, and as respects you alone, was the unfriendly attitude which the Government of this country had assumed towards the Government of Austria? Are you on friendly relations with the Court of Rome, or with the Sovereign of the Roman States? You were in great haste last year to enter into diplomatic relations with the Court of Rome, and to enter into friendly relations with the Sovereign of the Roman States. But what is now the state of your relations with them? Have you not, with respect to the affairs of all the foreign countries I have named—have you not, with regard to the Italian provinces, Spain, Austria, Naples, and Sicily—taken precisely that very step which a most illustrious author, an able man and Minister, has declared to be that which, above all other things, a Government cannot safely undertake—have you not fomented underhand the spirit of disaffection, and have you not at last vainly attempted to struggle with the creature of your own creation? Have you not fostered a spirit of disaffection, and then vainly sought to quell it? I think, my Lords, that in the course of the last Session of Parliament, I ventured to express, with every respect for the motives and amiable disposition of the Sovereign Pontiff, my doubts as to whether he was wise or far-seeing in the march which he was then pursuing, or would be able to check the progress of that revolution to which, with the best and most praiseworthy feelings, he was then giving rise. Did I not tell you that with regard to Italy to Naples, to Rome, and Florence, the intervention of the noble Earl (the Lord Privy Seal) might be of very great importance in affording encouragement to liberal intitutions, yet that the Sovereigns of those States should be careful that they were able to stem any excess of public feeling, if they lent themselves to the advice of the noble Earl? Amongst them there was none whose moderation was spoken of in higher terms than the Sovereign Pontiff; and what has been the result of the encouragement he has given to liberal institutions? That encouragement was fostered and supported by the special mission of a Cabinet Minister of Her Britannic Majesty; and the consequences have been, that the head of the Roman Catholic Church—the undoubted sovereign of the Roman inheritance—has been wholly unable to stem the torrent, having broken down the dam in the first

43
instance by your assistance and support, and that at this moment he is an exile from his dominions, and that those dominions are under the control and management (if indeed any control there prevails) of no regular or systematic Government, but of a body, call it what you will, the avowed and open advocates of foul and atrocious murder. What has been the result of your intervention in Naples and Sicily? I am not about to follow the noble Lord who has just sat down (Lord Beaumont) through an historical statement of the relations between this country, Sicily, and Naples; but I cannot help saying that it would be more to the purpose if the noble Lord, in commenting upon the obligations which this country had assumed, had commenced his observations at a later period, and applied himself to the present state of things. We are not to deal cither with Naples or with Sicily, for, by any guarantee that has been given, they are not separate and independent States. We cannot deal with, Naples or with Sicily; but we have treaties of alliance with the King of the Two Sicilies, and with him, and with him alone, in that capacity, is it competent for the English Government to confer. I took the liberty of asking the Government, last year, for some intimation of the principles upon which it was their intention to tender their intervention in the affairs of Sicily, there being, at the time, some apprehensions entertained with regard to the proceedings of Her Majesty's Government. There was a very general belief that the British and French squadrons would, by the orders of their Governments, prevent the sailing of the expedition of the King of Naples to recover possession of Sicily, and I made an inquiry on the subject, but no answer was given to me. However, in point of fact, no interference did take place; the armament did sail from Naples, and was uninterrupted, though followed by a British squadron. But far better would it have been, in my judgment, if that humanity which is so prominently put forward in Her Majesty's Speech, not indeed as a vindication, but as a palliation, of the manifest infraction of the law of nations—far better, I say, would it have been, if the Government had so interfered, and prevented the sailing of the squadron, rather than interfere at the time and in the manner in which they did subsequently interfere. The like has been the case in every country in which we have interfered, alternately giving encouragement and support to each
44
of the contending parties, so that those who professed and fought for liberal opinions, and those who vindicated the views of the Government and the maintenance of its authority, have each in turn been led to believe that they might count upon the support, or at least count upon the neutrality of the British Government. The result has been, that each in turn has found itself deceived and betrayed by the Government which they have trusted. The horrors of civil war have been prolonged and aggravated to an incalculable degree by the policy of the British Government; and your reward, your just, equitable, unfailing, certain reward, must be, and has been, that you are distrusted and condemned by both parties. As regards the intervention of the French and British admirals, I have learned, with some astonishment, from the language of Her Majesty's Speech, that it is upon the unauthorised acts of the French and British admirals, the burden of the responsibility of that intervention is laid. At the period of that intervention, the Sicilian struggle was virtually over. The King of Naples had taken possession of Messina, the stronghold of the insurgents, and their cause was hopeless when the intervention of the British Government stopped the Neapolitan forces. They did not simply stop the effusion of blood; but if we believe the statements that are made, they took upon themselves to stop the Neapolitan army in the full tide of its success, and prevented that army from prosecuting its operations. But after that intervention had taken place, and that prohibition—that unwarrantable prohibition to continue the war had been announced—the strict neutrality professed by Her Majesty's Government, and which, at all events, it was their duty to maintain, I fear it will be found was not in point of fact observed by the British squadron. I fear it will appear, if all the papers connected with this transaction are laid before us, that all the moral influence of the British arms and power was thrown in Sicily into the scale of the insurgents, and against the monarch with whom we had treaties. I hope it is not true that any British officer should be so far forgetful of his duty as to appear in public holding a tri-coloured flag, and that he should have said the cause of Sicily was the cause of England and of France; and that they might rely on their support. I shall rejoice to hear that no officer has been so forgetful of his duty as to join in public clamour and in

45
vivas for the independence of Sicily. I confess I heard with some surprise from the noble Lord opposite (Lord Beaumont), and I hope I shall not hear from any other noble Lord, the cry raised in this House for the independence of Italy—that phantom which I thought had long since vanished into thin air—or such a sentiment as that the government of Austria in the Milanese was a brutal government that ought to be denounced. Setting aside all our connexions and the ties of friendship with Austria, placing the Government of Austria on the merits of its administration, I believe that the administration of that Government may challenge comparison with the administration of any Government in Europe, however free or liberal the institutions of that Government may be. The noble Earl, in moving the Address, referred to the paragraph of Her Majesty's Speech in which Her Majesty said—
"It was satisfactory to her to be enabled to state, that both in the north and in the south of Europe, the contending parties had consented to a suspension of arms for the purpose of negotiating terms of peace."
With regard to that paragraph, it is not very clear who are the contending parties who have agreed to a suspension of hostilities. No distinction is drawn between the consent to the suspension in the north, and the consent to the suspension in the south. With regard to Denmark suspending hostilities under your direction and control, this statement is not accurate. With regard to Austria it is undoubtedly false. It is false that there is any suspension of hostilities between Austria and Turin, except that which was so eloquently and humorously adverted to by my noble Friend—that the King of Sardinia has been foiled in his most unjust aggression. There is, as far as I know, no suspension of hostilities between the Sovereign Pontiff and his subjects at Rome. But now, with regard to this negotiation, by what principle, by what right, are you entering upon any negotiation whatever? What is the object of that negotiation? As regards Austria and Lombardy, what have you to negotiate for? From those provinces, to which Austria has an undoubted right, the King of Sardinia has been driven, and the war there is virtually at an end. Are you going to carry your love of liberal principles so far in the person of Charles Albert as that, having refused to mediate at a time when Austria was anxious for your mediation, now, when the success of
46
Austria is complete, without the consent of Austria you are about to negotiate and to propose terms of mediation, by which the King of Sardinia should derive some advantage from his most unprincipled aggression? The King of Naples has not asked for our assistance. All he desires is simply to be left alone. It was not an unreasonable request his Majesty made, that he should be allowed to manage his own dominions without our meddling interference. We have no more right to be interfering between Naples and Sicily than the King of Naples has to intermeddle in our affairs. But, in spite of the protest of the King of Naples, we are going, it appears, to effect what we conceive to be a just and equitable solution of the question, having already given a rather premature intimation of our views when we sanctioned the offer of the throne of Sicily to the son of the King of Sardinia. I will not ask whether, in the threatened negotiations, the King of Naples is to be insulted with, the proposition that Sicily is to be governed by a Sicilian assembly, and garrisoned by a Sicilian army—I will not believe that you can have the effrontery to offer such terms to an independent Sovereign as the solution of this question, until I actually see evidence of it in the black and white of official documents. But suppose for a moment that you have offered your terms, whatever they may be, will you enforce those terms upon unwilling parties? Do you mean to compel the King of Naples to accept the terms which you may dictate to him, whether he will or no; and on the other hand, if the Sicilian insurgents refuse your terms, will you enforce those terms upon them with the strong-hand? Why not in the first place leave them alone to settle their own affairs? Well, my Lords, in my judgment the whole of the foreign policy of the kingdom is in a most unsatisfactory state. No one foreign Government are you in relations of friendship with—if yon are not involved in quarrel with them, at all events an unfortunate feeling of distrust exists, and if it has not grown into a feeling of hostility, it is not due to your administration of the foreign affairs of the country, but to the wise forbearance and good souse of the foreign Governments. But true there is one Government, if Government it can be called—there is one country—one Power with which I believe you are on friendly terms. I believe at this moment you are on friendly terms with France—a country

47
which I shall again say, as I have often done before, I look upon the maintenance of a good understanding with—I mean my Lords, that in my opinion a good understanding between this country and France is at all times, and especially at the present moment, essential to the maintenance of the general peace of Europe; and whatever the Government may be—and, my Lords, I may have better hopes of a friendly alliance between the two countries under one Government than I may entertain under another, but I do not consider this the time to enter into that question; but I say, under whatever Government Prance may at the moment be placed, I hold that it is of the utmost importance that friendly relations should be maintained between that Government and the Government of this country. But, my Lords, how has this state of things been brought about? Why, by a cautious and prudent avoidance of any interference in the internal affairs of France—by leaving France to settle the form of her own government. We had not interfered with France either by negotiation or advice. But, my Lords, if we now have friendly relations with France, who, possessed of common sense, will dare to predict what may be the state of affairs in France in a month, in a week, nay, my Lords, in a day? Who will say we shall be able to maintain amicable relations with France for any given period? Well, my Lords, passing from that subject, what is the next statement which I find put into the Speech from the Throne by Her Majesty's Ministers. Her Majesty says, "That a rebellion of formidable character has broken out in the Punjaub, and the Governor General of India has been compelled to assemble a considerable force, which is now engaged in military operations against the insurgents;" and then, with strange inconsistency, while they announce the rebellion in the Punjaub, they declare that" the tranquillity of British India has not been affected by these unprovoked disturbances." Now, my Lords, if I understand the English language, a rebellion is a rising, an outbreak of a people against the government of their legitimate ruler. In terms you exclude the Punjaub from the Queen's dominions in British India. You have never claimed it. I do not venture to express an opinion as to whether policy may render it desirable, or necessity may make it unavoidable, to annex the Punjaub to our territories in India. But at the present
48
moment the Punjaub is no portion of the British dominions; and although it is true that there has been a rising in the Punjaub, it is not true that a rebellion has broken out in that country. I say, my Lords, that a war has broken out there—a war of a formidable character has broken out in the Punjaub, and one which is, at this moment, calling for not only the forces possessed by the East India Company, but for an augmentation—a large augmentation of that aid which is usually furnished to the India Company by Her Majesty's service in the shape of military assistance. Then, my Lords, I shall call your attention very shortly to that paragraph which relates to Ireland. With respect to Ireland, we are told in the Speech that the insurrection has not been renewed, but the disaffection still exists, and it compels Her Majesty with reluctance to call for a renewal of those large and stringent powers which the Legislature entrusted to the Government last Session. I know not where my noble Friend who moved the Address found his reasons for congratulation upon the state of Ireland. It is true, as he said, that last year the storm was gathering; the storm, not very formidable in its results, certainly did burst. The deluge has taken place, and it has been repressed by the strong arm of military force, and by nothing else; and I tell you, my Lords, that the moment you reduce that military strength—the moment you reduce your power to crush that spirit—the moment you take off the pressure—that storm is ready to burst out again, for the spirit of disaffection is still rife in that country. The Speech from the Throne authorises me to say so much, and my own knowledge tells me that although an unsuccessful, a premature, and an impotent attempt at a great rebellion has been put down, it has been done without producing in the minds of the great body of the people of Ireland any degree of hopelessness, still less any sense of the criminality and guilt, of the rebellion. With respect to our foreign relations, then, it appears that we are upon amicable terms only with France; with respect to India, we are engaged in a formidable war there, and in two or three of our colonies insurrection has already broken out, which it will require a considerable body of troops to quell. I regret to see that in some other of our colonial possessions the feeling of exasperation at the treatment which they have experienced from the Imperial Legislature has engen-

49
dered a spirit amounting now to discontent, but which is fast ripening into disaffection; and, as they despair of obtaining relief from the mother country, no one can be bold enough to predict the result. Lastly, we have Ireland almost universally disaffected—a country in which the ordinary process between man and man can be enforced by military power alone. In the face of all this Ministers have had the confidence to place in the mouth of their Sovereign the astounding declaration that the aspect of affairs is such as to enable them to effect large reductions in the estimates. My Lords, in my opinion, it is not the aspect of affairs abroad, nor the aspect of affairs in the colonies, nor the aspect of affairs in Ireland, which has caused the estimates to be reduced—no, my Lords, it is the aspect of affairs in another and a very different sense; I believe it is, that they have been ordered to be made by a power which the Government dare not withstand. I have no doubt, my Lords, that reductions may be effected in some of the civil departments of the Army—in the civil department of the Ordnance, and in the civil affairs of the Navy; and large reductions might be effected by a proper system of checking the payment of wages in the dockyards, and looking after the great abuses which exist in the administration and management of the dockyards. But the greatest security we could obtain for having the work well done in the dockyards would be the passing of an enactment to deprive all persons employed in those yards from voting for Members of Parliament. I have heard at least twenty naval officers express an opinion on that—until persons employed in the dockyards shall be prevented from voting for Members of Parliament, it will be impossible to exercise efficient control over the work performed in those establishments. If reductions can be effected, in God's name let them be made; and, although one may wonder why such a course has been so long delayed, I will applaud the Government which shall economise without prejudice to the permanent interests of the empire. But when the country is in such a state as to require to have all its resources and all its powers at hand and in readiness, I, for one, cannot concur with those who seem to think it is a wise economy largely to reduce our establishments, although probably it may be a politic economy. It is also announced by Her Majesty's Government that it is their intention to take some
50
steps with regard to the relief of the poor in Ireland. A more important or a more difficult question cannot engage the attention either of Her Majesty's Government or of the Legislature. If I understand the purpose of the Government, it is to make that subject a matter of further inquiry. If it be the intention of the Government to appoint a Committee of cither or both Houses—if they intend especially to appoint a Committee of this House, and lay before that Committee a clear and distinct statement of their views for the amendment of the law, and the details of the law to which they would invite the attention of all parties—I shall have no objection to such a course of proceeding, and I am sure there will be no lukewarmness—no partiality—shown in the investigation of the subject on either side of the House. But if the intention of the Government be to throw the consideration of the question loose upon Parliament—to make no statement of their intentions—if it be the object of the Government to throw the whole question before a Committee in order that they may inquire into that which has already been inquired into usque ad nauseam—I must enter my protest against such a proceeding. Considering the powers of a branch of the Government instituted expressly for the purpose of working the poor-law, and which is able from its position to obtain more accurate information than any Committee can—seeing that we have a Lord Lieutenant of Ireland who, I am glad to have the opportunity of saying, is always anxious properly to discharge the duty of his high station—one who is always accessible to men of all parties, and consequently enjoys peculiar advantages of obtaining knowledge and advice upon so important a subject from men of all parties—if such a question is to be thrown loose upon Parliament and the inquiry of a Committee, I shall say Her Majesty's Government shrink from the responsibility properly attaching to a Government, and do not properly perform the duty which they owe to their country and their Sovereign. The Speech from the Throne also calls your Lordships' attention to the "restrictions imposed upon commerce by the navigation laws," as they are pleased to phrase it. I do not feel it necessary upon the present occasion to enter at any length into the question of the navigation laws; not because I do not hold this subject to be one of the greatest importance, but because of the introduction into both the Speech and

51
the Address, with reference to this topic, of that happy peacemaker "if." As the Address says, "If it can he shown that these laws are in whole or in part unnecessary for the maintenance of our maritime power," or that they" fetter trade and industry," I, for one, shall he perfectly ready and willing to repeal or modify them. With the "if," I am quite prepared to agree to the Answer to the Speech which is proposed; but I cannot do so without declaring my fixed opinion, founded upon all the inquiries I have been able to make—and I have given the subject the patient attention which its importance demands—as being entirely contrary to the allegations of the Speech as put into the mouth of Her Majesty by the Government. My firm belief is, that the navigation laws are indispensable for the maintenance of your maritime prosperity, and that they do not impede commerce, or for a moment interfere with the mercantile supremacy of this country. I now come to the last portion of the Speech from the Throne. Though I dissent from many of the statements contained in the Address relative to the topics to which I have already adverted, I do not feel myself called upon to propose any Amendment to the Address; but the portion of the Royal Speech to which I am about to refer contains so exaggerated and erroneous a view of the actual condition of the country, that, reluctant as I am to disturb the unanimity which it is desirable should prevail upon such an occasion, I feel myself under the necessity of proposing an Amendment to the Address which refers to this part of the Speech from the Throne. Her Majesty said in Her most gracious Speech:—
"I have great satisfaction in stating that commerce is reviving from those shocks which at the commencement of last Session I had to deplore. The condition of the manufacturing districts is likewise more encouraging than it has been for a considerable period. It is also gratifying to me to observe that the state of the revenue is one of progressive improvement."
I cannot join in thanking Her Majesty for making a communication on the state of the country, as it appears to Her through the eyes of Her Ministers, because I do not think the statement conveys accurate information relative to the condition of commerce, manufactures, and the revenue of the country. True, the panic which prevailed in November, 1847, has passed by, but those are strangely mistaken who suppose that its results on the commerce of the country have ceased to be felt.
52
The few documents to which I am able to refer will show that the favourable view which Ministers take of the state of the country is erroneous. The noble Lord who opened this discussion spoke in sanguine terms of the progressive increase of the revenue. With deference to the noble Lord, I deny that there has been any progressive amendment of the revenue—it has not been progressive. I say, my Lords, it has been immediate, and within a limited period. I say that it has arisen from a single cause; and that you are now about to sweep that cause away. The improvement you boast of, you are about, with your eyes open, to check. I find that the revenue of the last year—I am speaking now of the ordinary revenue of the country—exceeded by 900,000 l. the revenue of the preceding year. There is an excess of revenue for customs to the amount of 900,000 l., but there is a falling-off in other branches. There is an apparent increase in the excise to the amount of 1,100,000 l., but I apprehend that is in consequence of the transfer to that department of the stamps and taxes. The precise increase in the revenue of last year was occasioned by the customs duties paid on the importation of foreign corn. This revenue was raised without suffering on the part of the people, for moderate prices have prevailed during the time it has been flowing in, and yet you are this very day about to cut off the source from which you obtained last year a surplus over the preceding one. My Lords, there is another matter, which, although the item it relates to is small, yet it is by no means unimportant. I allude to the article of property tax. I find that there has been a diminution in the property tax during the last year, to the amount of 103,000 l.—that quarter by quarter, in 1848, the property tax diminished, until it reached that amount. Now, my Lords, I think I am right in saying that every diminution under the head of property tax, is an indication of the loss of capital upon which that tax is levied; and consequently this diminution of 103,000 l. indicates a loss or destruction of British capital, in 1848, to the amount of nearly 3,500,000 l. My Lords, I cannot see that Her Majesty's Government have any greater reason to boast of the prosperous condition of our manufactures than of our revenue. I find by the papers on the table, which are periodically published by the Board of Trade, that the exports of our chief manufactures during

53
eleven months of the last year, as compared with eleven months of the year preceding, had considerably diminished. I will take six of the leading articles we manufacture—cottons, woollens, linens, silks, hardware, and earthenware—and I find that instead of there being an improvement in those branches of trade, there was a diminution in the value of the exports of the articles, as compared with 1847, to the extent of 4,000,000 l., and as compared with 1846, a diminution of 5,200,000 l. These exports had fallen from 37,000,000 l. in 1846, to 32,000,000 l. and a fraction in 1848. There is another important fact which is likewise an indication that our manufacturing and commercial conditions are not quite so prosperous as has been represented—I allude to the amount of deposits in the savings banks. I have conversed lately with several noble Lords and Gentlemen connected with different parts of the country, and from one and all I heard, without exception, that the withdrawal of deposits during the last year exceeded considerably the withdrawals of the year preceding; and I find that in the great manufacturing town of Manchester, the excess of withdrawals over deposits in 1848 amounted to between 40,000 l. and 50,000 l. Under these circumstances I think I am justified in saying that the Speech from the Throne gives a more favourable view of the commerce, manufactures, and revenue, than is warranted by the actual condition of the country. My Lords, I have entered into these details because I feel very strongly that the whole tone and general character of Her Majesty's Speech, especially those parts of it which refer to the manufacturing interests and financial position of the country, are not warranted by the facts of the case. But I have to allege sins of omission as well as of commission against the Royal Speech. My Lords, it certainly does appear to me rather strange, that Her Majesty's Ministers, who are usually considered responsible for any Speech delivered from the Throne, and who profess to have regard to the social condition of this country—it does appear to me rather strange—whether it arises from indifference, or that the subject is unworthy of their notice, I cannot pretend to say—that they should pass by interests which, to say the least of them, do not yield in magnitude or importance to commerce or manufactures—I mean our agricultural and colonial interests. Go where you will, go to what authority you please, and the fact
54
will not be denied—it will not be denied even by Her Majesty's Ministers—that those interests are at the present moment labouring under deep and serious depression. Why then, I ask, do you not take notice of those which are the great fundamental interests of every country, but especially of a great maritime country like England? Why do you not express that which you cannot but feel with regard to those interests, instead of passing them by with contemptuous and indifferent silence? My Lords, I fear that the recent measures of the Government are going far to perpetuate and to increase the distress which unhappily prevails amongst those connected with agriculture and the colonies. My belief is, that we have entered upon a mistaken course of policy; and although my noble and learned Friend (Lord Brougham) supported the unhappy corn law, I am rejoiced that the landed interest and the colonies are now about to receive his powerful aid in advocating their just cause. My noble and learned Friend very properly views with constitutional jealousy that combination which, having already proved its power, is, as I anticipated would be the case, not satisfied with the repeal of the corn laws, but has declared its intention to make an onslaught on the landed interest and the great colonial interests of the empire. I rejoice at the admission of my noble and learned Friend, that he had, on a former occasion, winked at the unconstitutional proceedings of the League; and I trust that, warned by experience, my noble and learned Friend, and your Lordships generally, will bear in mind that for the attainment of no object, however desirable in itself, is it wise, honourable, or safe to avail yourselves of unconstitutional means. My noble and learned Friend professes himself to be still the advocate of free trade; and with equal frankness I avow that, whilst I do not advocate any unnecessary restrictions on commerce, I am the uncompromising enemy of the miscalled, onesided, bastard free trade, which has been introduced by the Government for the benefit of foreigners, and to the detriment of British subjects; and I declare myself to be the uncompromising advocate of the old, just, and equitable principle which gave necessary protection, not monopoly, to the labourers and producers of this country, and to our fellow-countrymen, wherever they were to be found throughout the world. I am not favourable to

55
prohibitory duties; but I maintain that it is necessary to give to our fellow-countrymen that amount of protection which is necessary to counterbalance any disadvantages which may arise from the admission of foreign produce. I hear it said, that free trade has been adopted, and that we must proceed in that course—vestigia nulla retrorsum. From that doctrine I dissent. It appears to me that the principle of protection to British industry is a sound and rational one. I will not consent to take it as a fait accompli that protection to British industry must be abandoned. Every day's experience convinces me more and more that this country will never prosper—that you will never be able to thwart the dangerous designs of mischievous men who think they have obtained a lever to upheave and uproot the old foundations of the constitution; that if you wish to see prosperity return to the interests of the country, agricultural as well as manufacturing—and when I speak of the agricultural interest, I mean not that of country gentlemen alone, but of the farmers and labourers of England—every day's experience convinces me that you must retrace the steps you have taken; you must make part of your revenue depend on a moderate import duty; you must return to the principle of protection. Such is my conviction; but my belief, moreover, is strong that to that conclusion within no distant period the full and deliberate opinion of the country will compel you to come. The price to which I ventured to predict that free trade would bring down your corn was 45 s.; and I further ventured to affirm that you would have introduced, one year with another, four millions of quarters of corn. It is a singular circumstance, that the price of grain is at the present moment 45 s. and a fraction; and there has been imported in the year about five millions of quarters of corn. If those prices are to be permanent, it is impossible that the agriculture of the country can be carried on with profit to the farmer; and if so, the loss will fall on the labourer, and on all who are connected with the agricultural interest. There is a significant fact obvious at this moment—I ask, whether it is not within your knowledge, more especially of the southern counties, that, in spite of those low prices which were to bring universal plenty and contentment, there is a larger amount of vagrancy, a greater prevalence of mendicancy, a larger number of ablebodied agricultural la-
56
bourers thrown on the poor-rates; and whether the poor-rates, pressing exclusively on the land, are not becoming a more intolerable burden than for many years? If such be the case, it is not honest to sink the fact; and, believing that in this Speech you have given an erroneous colouring to the state of matters, that you have omitted, not perhaps unaccountably, but most censurably, all mention of interests in a condition approaching even to ruin—I need not allude to the West Indian colonies—I think it proper to submit a Motion by which, as I think, a more correct picture will be afforded of the true state of things, namely, to insert at the conclusion of that paragraph of the Address, which says that "the state of the revenue is one of progressive improvement," the following words:—
"We regret, however, to be compelled humbly to represent to Your Majesty, that neither Your Majesty's Relations with Foreign Powers, nor the State of the Revenue, nor the Condition of the Commercial or Manufacturing Interests, are such as in our opinion to justify us in addressing Your Majesty in the language of congratulation; and that large Portions of the Agricultural and Colonial Interests of the Empire are labouring under a State of progressive Depression calculated to excite serious Apprehension and Anxiety."
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEsaid, that had it not been for the speech of the noble Lord who had just sat down, he would have been perfectly content to rest the grounds of his vote in favour of the Address that had been moved that night upon the speeches of the two noble Lords who had moved and seconded it. Those speeches were both remarkable for having been delivered by noble Lords who had never addressed their Lordships before, but who had shown themselves well qualified to take part in their deliberations; and he was sure that no person could have listened to either of those two speeches, without being convinced that the noble Lords who had delivered them were possessed of powers of eloquence and of argument such as were not always possessed by those who most frequently addressed the House. A more clear or more distinct statement, in favour of every topic contained in that Address, than that which had been brought forward by his noble Friend who had moved the Address on this occasion, he (the Marquess of Lansdowne) had never before had the pleasure of listening to in that House; and, as he had said before, he would have been perfectly willing to rest his vote in favour of the Motion upon the strength of the argu-

57
ments embodied in the speech to which he had referred, and would certainly not have, in so doing, intended to evince the slightest degree of discourtesy or disrespect towards any one of their Lordships who thought proper to differ with him in the manner in which he intended to vote. But after what had fallen from the noble Lord who had last addressed the House, he (the Marquess of Lansdowne) felt it necessary to make a few observations. The noble Lord who had just sat down, was pleased to conjecture that this silence had been occasioned by the supposition on his (the Marquess of Lansdowne's) part, that the speech of the noble and learned Lord (Lord Brougham) was favourable to the Address, and to the policy which it recommended. Such was the simplicity with which the noble Lord had been pleased to charge him. But he did certainly think the noble Lord had shown as much simplicity when he considered, as he (the Marquess of Lansdowne) well knew at the time, and expected he would consider, the speech of the noble and learned Lord, which went so much further in approbation, and therefore so much less far in disapprobation, of the Address, to be in favour of the sentiments he himself had just expressed. Yet, although he congratulated himself upon having secured the assistance and approbation of the noble and learned Lord in favour of what he was pleased to call the landed interest, that noble and learned Lord had taken the opportunity already of reminding him that he must not congratulate himself on having secured his assistance in going backwards to protection, which he had just announced to their Lordships to be the great object of his policy. In that respect, at least, he could not assure him of having found much encouragement or assistance from the learned Lord. With regard to the silence alluded to by the noble Lord, and his own reasons for abstaining for the while from offering himself to the attention of their Lordships, he would say, that the noble Lord had availed himself, as undoubtedly he was well competent to do, of that opportunity, and the terms of the Address, in order to state an opinion, and to found that opinion on assumed facts, at a moment when, in the very terms of the Speech, it had been announced that the whole of the papers would be very shortly laid upon the table. He must be permitted to say, that the noble Lord could not, for his purpose, have
58
ever adopted a more propitious time. If the noble Lord had waited for these papers, there was no one of the assertions which he had hazarded in his speech, and which he had made the foundation of that opinion which he invited their Lordships to adopt there, not one of these assertions which would not have been found falsified. And was it right, then, in him to avail himself of that occasion to pronounce an opinion which he sought to attach in the minds of their Lordships and of the pub-lie, by making those assertions and deriving those deductions? In proceeding to reply to the speech of the noble Lord, he would take it up in the order which the noble Lord himself had pursued. First, with respect to the noble Lord's remarks on the subject of foreign policy; he (the Marquess of Lansdowne) could not find where the noble Lord had discovered it to be stated, in the Speech from the Throne, that hostilities had, by means of the British Government, been suspended between Austria and Hungary. He assured them that, as regarded the internal affairs of Austria, they had never Interfered—never meant to interfere with them—and never were desired to Interfere. At the same time they could not but contemplate, in common with the rest of Europe, with deep interest a struggle carried on under circumstances of great difficulty, a contest which had led to the display of so much lofty character on the part of individuals. Had this been the place or the occasion, he should have been as ready as the noble Lord to pay his tribute of respect to Individuals who had appeared in that part of the world, and had been most successful in their efforts to restore the glories of the Austrian army in her own dominions. He assured the noble Lord that they had taken no part whatever in the negotiation between the Emperor of Austria and his subjects—a negotiation in which he deemed they had no right to take part. These negotiations, he hoped, would end in consolidating the Interests of that Power, and the general peace of Europe, which he, for one, would wish never to see disturbed. It had been said, that the noble Lord at the head of the Foreign Department had been in the habit, unassisted and uncalled for, of offering and forcing his mediation on others. When the papers were produced, it would be seen that no interference had taken place with the affairs of other Powers, but with the consent of those Powers, and in many

59
instances upon their express invitation. It was Austria that made the application to the British Government for mediation in the question between Austria and Sardinia. The British Government did not refuse; they had communicated to Austria the terms on which they proposed to mediate—terms which were favourable to the Austrian interests. At the moment Austria did not think fit to accede to those terms; but a time elapsed, new circumstances occurred, and the relations of parties were somewhat altered, when at length their mediation was accepted, and a congress would be called upon such terms as perfectly justified the course determined on by the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs. He did not, certainly, think that his noble Friend opposite (Lord Stanley) would go so far as to say, that, having undertaken a mediation at the request and in consequence of the application of another Power, they should offer only such advice as she herself might wish. Such, at least, were not the terms on which they had, or ever would, consent to interfere in any country; and when the noble Lord chose go to misrepresent the policy of his noble Friend at the head of the Foreign Department, he might remind that noble Lord of the time when he was in conjunction with the noble Lord at the head of the Foreign Department, and that it had fallen to the lot of no man, within the same time, to have to mediate so frequently among different parties, and to have brought that mediation to a successful termination, with the approval of all mankind, with that of the noble Lord, then given, though now withheld, and of all who valued the peace of the world, and desired to see it secured, not by giving to one party that advice which it wished to receive, but by giving both parties the best and wisest advice that could be given. He could enumerate no fewer than eight or nine successful mediations brought to an end by this "Minister of War," and without which war might have arisen between the most powerful kingdoms. If, however, it were conceded to the noble Lord that the policy of his noble Friend (Viscount Palmerston) had been of a disturbing and unpeaceful character, why, the noble Lord, by his own expressed opinion, had still the consolation that his noble Friend, during the past year, had been most unsuccessful in his endeavours. These endeavours had been made at a crisis the most exciting, and under
60
circumstances the most trying, which for many years had occurred in Europe—at a time when those evil passions alluded to by the noble Lord had been let loose, and hostilities existed between country and country, and even forgotten nationalities had been revived in a spirit of bitterness; but, thanks to the policy on which his noble Friend had proceeded, and thanks to that conjunction and co-operation of France with England, noticed in the Speech from the Throne, those evil passions—those hostilities between country and country—those nationalities—had been for the time successfully prevented from ending in a general war. There was, at that moment, no war; he hoped that there would be no war; he did not prophesy that there would be no war; that was no promise of his: but he would say that it was mainly owing to the policy of his noble Friend that there had not been a general outbreak, and he hoped that that policy would finally terminate for the interest of the Powers immediately concerned, and for the maintenance of the peace of Europe. He would now come to another topic on which the noble Lord had dwelt at some length. He now came to notice the comments of the noble Lord on their mediation in the affairs of Sicily. In the first place, the noble Lord would have their Lordships to believe that, as regarded any of the parties concerned, the interference of the Secretary for Foreign Affairs had been uninvited.
LORD STANLEYexplained that his remarks applied to the interference of the squadron.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEsaid, he would come to that afterwards; but he would first proceed to explain the occasion of the English Government having interfered at all in the affairs of Naples and Sicily. His noble Friend the Lord Privy Seal had never wished to interfere in those affairs, and he did not interfere until after the importunate solicitation of the King of Naples himself. They had been solicited for their advice in the affairs of Naples, and when once in Naples, they were urged and solicited to pass over into Sicily. If they had not gone to Sicily, or if they had not gone to Naples, what would now have been the language of the noble Lord opposite in animadverting upon the conduct of the Government? "Is that the way," he would have said, "in which you use the King of Naples, an ancient Power in friendly relations with the British Go-

61
vernment? You have neglected your obligations in so treating a friendly Power who has solicited, under important circumstances, your advice and mediation." We did go to Naples, with the approbation of the Neapolitan Government, but when there, we were solicited to send also into Sicily. "Would the Secretary of the Legation at all events not go? Or would they not send, if it were only an attaché? Would nobody go? "Somebody did go, therefore. As respected Naples, then, it was a Power with which they had been in a state of alliance, and a Power which had solicited their interference. Indeed, looking at Sicily, not as independent of Naples, not as a country which they wished to be independent of Naples, but as a country having certain rights, and in possession of these rights, as being practically independent, these rights were recognised as the ground of British interference in Sicily. He did not say that they had been invited, at the time, to effect for Sicily the recovery of the possession of these rights; but circumstances had occurred, which made it obligatory on the British Government to give the weight and assistance of their moral influence for the recovery of these rights to the nation. In their interference they had expressly limited themselves by the same principle which had ruled the negotiations of former Governments with the same kingdom. He might quote, from more than one document, a precedent in support of the course adopted by the Government in this case, but he would confine himself to the instructions given by Lord Castlereagh to Sir William A'Court, at that time the British Representative at the Court of Naples, in circumstances precisely similar. In that despatch, Lord Castlereagh said, that, "however reluctant the Government was to interfere in the affairs of Sicily, nevertheless, any attempt to reduce Sicily to such a state as should amount to a change of system which would in the end impair the freedom and happiness of the inhabitants, as compared with what they formerly enjoyed, must be resisted." What did the noble Lord think of that? It would be in the recollection of the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, that not more than a year had clapsed after the Congress of Vienna when it was thought necessary to make that representation. But it was very convenient for the noble Lord to despise any mention of moral obligation, as though the Government had had nothing to do with mediating between
62
the parties. As for consequences resulting to the British Government, the Neapolitans would not think England bound to go to war. The Government had warned them that they would not go to war, and could they do more? But at the same time they had not disclaimed a warm interest and a strong feeling on their behalf. The British and French squadrons, then, without any preparations for war, and without any instructions either to make war, or to be prepared for it, lay in the waters over against Messina, and observed the motions of both parties in that city. They were surprised to see, without notice or warning, a series of hostilities commenced; and even after the white flag had been hoisted, a terrible bombardment began, and continued throughout the whole of the day. Soldiers were landed from that expedition who destroyed the suburbs of the town, after the town itself had surrendered; and it was then that the Admirals, witnessing the wanton and barbarous atrocities which were perpetrated, felt it their duty to take all the means in their power to put a stop to such horrors. Those officers saw not merely soldiers killed, forts destroyed, houses demolished, but they saw the lame, the sick, and the infirm, taken from the hospitals, and butchered—women who had taken refuge in churches were in those churches violated and murdered, and people were dragged from cottages on which the white flag was flying, and were killed upon the road near the seashore, or were slain in their attempts to escape; and they were prompted by feelings of humanity to interfere in order to terminate such atrocities. Sir W. Parker and the French Admiral had a right to suppose that, having upon three occasions been on the point of bringing negotiations to a successful issue, they might eventually be able to accomplish that object; and that, at all events, if hostilities could be suspended for a short time some negotiation might be concluded which would spare other towns and villages from the horrors of which Messina had been the scene, and put a stop to such acts of inhumanity and wickedness as had never been witnessed in any civilised country. He (the Marquess of Lansdowne) was ready to hold himself responsible for the course taken by Sir W. Parker; for, had he been placed in similar circumstances, he would have acted in the same way. The noble Lord seemed to think, however, that all the interference had been on one side. But it so happened that a short time be-

63
fore the period to which he had alluded, the patriots or insurgents had been successful; they had captured Palermo, and the Neapolitan garrison of that city was in danger of being butchered. Where did they find refuge and protection? On board British ships of war, in which they were conveyed to Naples, and restored to the King's service. The officers of Her Majesty's fleet had, on this as on all other similar occasions, distinguished themselves by a spirit of humanity; and with respect to Sir W. Parker—who in almost every part of the world had performed diplomatic as well as military services, in a manner which had uniformly given the highest satisfaction to his Sovereign and Her Government—he could only say that he had in this case fully maintained his former reputation. Her Majesty's Ministers, he might say, were at that moment in negotiation for a happy termination of these painful contests; and, although he might not venture to express a definite opinion, he would express his sanguine hope that their negotiations would be brought to a prompt and acceptable issue. In regard to what the noble Lord opposite had said upon the subject of the duchies of Schleswig-Holstein, he could only assure the noble Lord that that negotiation was proceeding, if not speedily, yet satisfactorily, and that the difficulties had in a certain degree disappeared. By the assistance of Prussia, and by the partial intervention of Sweden, Russia, and other Powers, the conflicting and difficult pretensions in which this conflict originated had by degrees to a certain extent been withdrawn or disappeared, and there was every prospect that a satisfactory arrangement would be concluded. The noble Lord had also referred to Spain. There was, undoubtedly, a suspension of diplomatic intercourse between the Spanish and British Courts, that suspension having originated in an unpardonable act of violence on the part of the Spanish Government towards the English Ambassador. Upon false accusations the British Minister had been ordered to leave Madrid. The noble Lord had said that Her Majesty's Government left this insult unnoticed; but in this respect the noble Lord's memory deceived him. The consequence of this proceeding was, that the Spanish Minister was directed to leave the British Court. This was the mildest, but, at the same time, the fittest notice that could be taken of the conduct of the Spanish Government. He hoped, however, to
64
see the time when the Spanish Government would recognise the injustice of the charges which had been brought against Sir Henry Bulwer; and he took upon himself to say that there would be no slowness on the part of Her Majesty's Government to re-open diplomatic relations with Spain on such terms as were consistent with the honour of this country. The noble Lord had also referred to the Irish Poor Law. He (the Marquess of Lansdowne) was decidedly of opinion that that law required some revision, and he hoped that the inquiry which it was proposed to institute on the subject would be brought to as speedy a termination as possible. With regard to the request of Her Majesty's Government for an extension of the powers which had been granted them for maintaining tranquillity in Ireland, he would refrain on this occasion from going into any statement to show the necessity of that measure; but before the House adjourned to-night, he would lay upon the table a despatch from the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland containing a distinct statement of the grounds on which he recommended this step, and which had led the Government to acquiesce in his suggestions. It was the duty of the Government to devise and carry out every safe and practicable measure for ameliorating the condition of Ireland; but those remedial efforts could only be rendered successful by the maintenance of a continued state of tranquillity, which would give confidence and security to those individuals who might be induced to embark their capital, their exertions, and their fortunes in that country. The noble Lord had referred to those passages in the Speech which referred to the revival of commerce, and to the encouraging condition of the manufacturing districts. Did the noble Lord mean to reject the evidence which was afforded in proof of these statements, by the increased number of cotton mills in work, the increased number of hands employed, and the increased demand for our manufactures? With regard to the statement in the Speech, that the public revenue exhibited a progressive improvement, he (the Marquess of Lansdowne) would be enabled, at a future time, to lay before the House details which would satisfy them, and, he believed, the noble Lord also, that there was a solid improvement in the revenue, independently of the corn duties. He believed it would be found that, putting aside the corn duties altogether, there had been an increase

65
of 200,000 l. in the customs in the course of the last year. He had been informed yesterday that there had been a considerable increase of deposits in the Westminster Provident Institution; he believed the same would be found to be the case with the savings banks; and he sincerely trusted that the commencing prosperity, of which there were such evident signs, would be of a permanent character.
The DUKE of RICHMONDsaid, the noble Lord who had just sat down had admitted the existence of great agricultural distress. He asked his noble Friend, therefore, if he ought not to have asked Her Majesty to express her deep regret at the unfortunate condition of the agricultural class. For his own part he had known the sufferings of that class to be great on many former occasions, but never so great as at present. There was positively no sale for barley in the market, in consequence of the superior quality of the barley which came from Franco and other parts of the Continent, and the farmers were prohibited from malting it by a heavy tax. They had rightly maintained a protection of from 5 to 15 per cent on manufactured articles, while the landed interest had no protection at all. And why? Was not flour a manufactured article? The farmer could now get scarcely 45 s. a quarter for his wheat in any market in the country. Loaded as the English farmers were with tithes and local burdens, and subject to that obnoxious and unjust law the malt tax, it was impossible that they could continue to compete with the foreigner, who was almost entirely free from similar burdens. In the workhouses of the county in which he lived, there were more ablebodied men than had ever been known since the passing of the new poor-law; for when the farmers found they could no longer pay the same number of men, they retained those with large families, and were obliged to discharge the others. He had always been an advocate for the new poor-law, there and elsewhere; but he declared to Heaven, he never thought it possible that by Acts of Parliament, by men voting against their conscience, which he regretted to say many of their Lordships had done on the passing of the corn law—he never dreamt that by such a course they were driving into the workhouse the honest, independent, industrious labourer, who only sought to support himself by doing a good day's work for a good day's wages. This was the result of their Anti-Corn-
66
Law League mania, which now, forsooth, the noble and learned Lord had discovered to be an unconstitutional body. His noble and learned Friend declared that he knew it to be so from the first, and yet most extraordinarily consented to receive a boon at their hands. Now, his noble Friend, and, he suspected Her Majesty's Ministers also, appeared to think that the unadorned eloquence of the free-trade senator, and his colleague, Mr. Bright, by their speeches delivered at Liverpool and Manchester, were doing great mischief. He would not do the Government the injustice to believe that they were such cowards as to consent to a reduction of our naval and military forces from the threats of so despicable a body of men. Why, these men would have had no power if they had not worked on the cowardice of the then Minister, who truckled to popular clamour, and abandoned the opinions which he had always held. Large sums of money had been voted last year for the purpose of improving the defences of the country, and securing its soil from the pollution of foreign footsteps. Were they then prepared much to reduce the best of all their defences, the Navy, and the bayonets of the British infantry? He hoped Her Majesty's Government, when they came to propose the reductions which had been talked of, would state their reasons for making them. Was it always economical to make such large reductions? What happened one or two years ago to the East India Company? They thought to effect a saving by sending some regiments home; but they were very shortly after compelled to supply their place by sending out others, so that the economy in that case consisted in the expense of bringing the first home and sending the second out. What would be the result of reducing the Army and Navy? Some Brighton fishermen some day might probably go a little too near the French coast, and the result would be that they would get laid hold of, and perhaps receive a couple of dozen; and then you would hear from one end of the country to the other that our national honour had been insulted, and war would be the cry. These were things for which they ought to be prepared. He was an advocate of peace. It was said that men accustomed to warfare and bloodshed became hardened. He knew the contrary to be the fact; he knew that no men detested war so much as those who had witnessed scenes of the greatest slaughter. He

67
should like to know of what avail their Coercion Act for Ireland would be if they withdrew their forces. The most effective coercion was the knowledge that there was a large British force ready to come down upon them. They were always afraid of the red coats. They might depend upon it there was no economy in such reductions. The parish rates must be increased by such means, because it would not be the most effective young men, but the least effective who would be discharged. What, then, would become of these? They would be perfectly unfit for agricultural pursuits, and must go to add to the crowds already filling our workhouses. Still he felt that his noble Friends on the other side would not retrace their steps. When men were entirely wrong, and began to find out that they were so, they invariably persisted in obstinately following the same course. He had always contended that the home market was the best market for the manufactures of this country; and he looked forward to the time when the failure of this would cause such a pressure from without as would compel Ministers to do justice to the agricultural and colonial interest. There was now not the slightest argument to justify the present system of local taxation. There might have been some reason for it, when protection was extended to agriculture; but now that protection was withdrawn, the system was totally without justification. He still hoped to see protection the law of the land. People said this was impossible; but who would have believed that the Peelites would, in 1841, have voted for a total repeal of the corn laws? For his own part, he would always stand up to oppose free trade and defend protection; and to his latest dying day he should deeply regret that so many of their Lordships should have voted on the question of the corn laws in opposition to their own convictions. It was a great triumph to unconstitutional agitation, and would, he feared, be drawn into a most dangerous precedent.
EARL FITZWILLIAMsaid, no one could entertain the slightest doubt but that his noble Friend who had just sat down would redeem his pledge. But his noble Friend evidently failed to appreciate the effect of public opinion in producing the change which he so greatly deprecated; for the efforts of the Anti-Corn-Law League would have been powerless unless they had found a response in the feelings of the great mass of the people. His noble
68
Friend might, perhaps, find a willing audience in that House; but the great mass of the people of this country would listen far more willingly to the arguments of those who told them that every article of consumption must be cheapened, and that the last remnant of protection must be got rid of. It was a great mistake to imagine that local taxation fell exclusively on the agricultural interest; for all realised property contributed its share. The low price of agricultural produce, to which his noble Friend had alluded, was the result of the unfavourable season, which had spoiled the harvest in the south, although the northern part of this kingdom had suffered comparatively little, in consequence of the harvest occurring later in the year, when the weather was more favourable. He deprecated that war of class interests which speeches such as that of his noble Friend opposite tended to encourage. In that warfare he had never joined; and he warned his noble Friend, and those who acted with him, to beware lest by their conduct they put those in the right who raised an outcry against the landed interest. That interest in 1841 might, if they had chosen to do so, have made a much better bargain for themselves; and if they were now without protection they had only themselves to blame. He wished to say a few words on a subject of the greatest practical importance—he meant the condition of Ireland. They had been told by a noble Friend of his, that it was his intention to move for a Committee on the subject of the Irish Poor Law. Now, he believed that if that Committee were to adhere to the scheme which his noble Friend was disposed to lay down for its guidance, there would be no difficulty in conducting its inquiries. But he, nevertheless, rather agreed with his noble Friend opposite, that it would be better that the Government should at once introduce the measure which they meant to propose as an amendment of the existing law, rather than leave the matter to the inquiries of a Committee. At all events, he felt convinced that it would be advisable to do at once whatever was to be done on the subject. It was of great importance, in his opinion, that amendments in the law should be effected, and especially that the area of taxation should be diminished. It must be recollected that, in the view of Parliament, the Irish Poor Law had a double object—one was to maintain the people; the other (a less legitimate one, but one much

69
insisted on by the English portion of the Legislature) was to stimulate the Irish landowners to give employment to the population. This latter object would never be attained unless the area of taxation were diminished so as to give the employer of labour the full benefit of his outlay by the reduction of his rates. He believed that without such a change, the measure would entirely fail in stimulating the landlords of Ireland to employ the labourers of that country.
The EARL of YARBOROUGHsaid, he wished to express the grounds on which he felt it his duty to vote against the Amendment. He had been opposed to the repeal of the corn laws; but he could not vote for that Amendment unless he was prepared to endeavour to reverse that policy; and he confessed that he was not ready again to expose the agricultural interest to all the uncertainty, and all the agitation from which they had so much suffered of late years. He felt that although the adoption of the free-trade policy was a dangerous experiment, it was desirable that that policy should have a fair trial. He was not sorry to find that the Speech from the Throne contained no allusion to the agricultural interest, and he had hoped that no allusion would have been made to that interest in the debate. He felt certain that Her Majesty's Government had not meant to treat that interest with contempt. In conclusion, he had only to state that he was prepared to wait with patience the result of the experiment of free trade that had been made; and he was not then prepared to say that because that experiment had an unfortunate beginning, the agriculturists of England were to acknowledge that they could not compote with foreign countries.
The DUKE of ARGYLLsaid, he considered it would be nothing short of a great public calamity that the Amendment of the noble Lord (Lord Stanley) should be adopted. He would not then discuss the merits or demerits of those who had supported or opposed the abolition of the corn laws. He honoured the consistency and the chivalrous spirit which the noble Lord opposite (Lord Stanley) had employed in the course he had pursued upon that question; and he could not doubt but the noble Lord gave similar credit to those who had thought it their duty, contrary to their previous convictions, to pursue an opposite course. But the question of protection had then been disposed of; and he
70
felt that it was not right that they should reverse the decision to which they had then come, until it had been proved that the change had been a failure. Now, he could not admit that such proof had been given. He already perceive in this country symptoms of commercial improvement. At all events, he felt that that was not a time to come to the foot of the Throne with querulous complaints of the state of certain portions of the country. He said emphatically" of certain portions" of the country; for he had been in communication with some of the ablest and most enterprising farmers in Scotland, and he could state that they regarded the present crisis with no alarm. He believed they were prepared to take their chance under the altered commercial policy of the country. They believed the present prices of corn were due, in a great measure, to the operation of a period of transition. Under these circumstances, he should decidedly give his vote against the Amendment.
The DUKE of WELLINGTONsaid, that notwithstanding the lateness of the hour, he was anxious to avail himself of that opportunity of explaining to their Lordships, in a few words, his view of the question then under their consideration. He deprecated their adoption of the Amendment, and he should proceed to give his reasons for voting against it. He greatly admired the speech of his noble and learned Friend (Lord Brougham), who was the person in that House most capable of appreciating that state of affairs on the Continent, which rendered it exceedingly difficult for this country to give efficient aid in maintaining the peace of Europe. He certainly was not able to estimate those difficulties with the same local knowledge which his noble and learned Friend possessed; but he had always been sensible of the extreme delicacy and difficulty attending the situation of public affairs on the Continent of Europe, during the whole of the year 1848; and he had always been most anxious that nothing should be done to throw the smallest difficulty or impediment in the way of the Government in carrying on our foreign relations, or that any step should be taken which could give occasion for the smallest grounds for the belief that the Government was not supported by the public opinion of this country. For that reason he confessed that he had been relieved from the utmost anxiety, when he had heard Her Majesty read from the Throne that para-

71
graph in Her Speech in which She stated that She would, as soon as the interests of the public service might permit, direct that the papers relating to our recent policy on the Continent should be laid before Parliament. He had been gratified to hear that declaration from Her Majesty, and he had hoped it would have had the effect of preventing a discussion on those delicate and difficult affairs until the House should have been fully informed of what had occurred, and of the measures really adopted by Her Majesty's Government. Unfortunately, however, the House had already entered into a discussion of those questions, notwithstanding that Her Majesty had given grounds for the postponement of that discussion, until the papers relating to the subject should have been laid before the House, when their Lordships might have considered the matter with a full knowledge of the facts. He was certainly aware that there was a good deal to be explained with regard to these affairs before they could be properly discussed. The noble Lord who had spoken on that (the Ministerial) side of the House, had expressed a strong opinion respecting Naples and Sicily; and he (the Duke of "Wellington) was anxious to move in that House for the production of certain documents which he had not found among the Parliamentary papers connected with that question. He alluded to the declarations made by the King of Naples when he acceded to the Treaty of Vienna. He was at that time King of the Two Sicilies. It was true that he was not at first de facto King of Naples, because Bonaparte had military possession of Naples, and had made his brother King of Naples. But he was recognised by this country as King of the Two Sicilies, and it was in that quality he made his treaty with his late Majesty George III After his Majesty had obtained possession of his Throne of the Two Sicilies, he had accepted the Treaty of Vienna. Now his Majesty and this country were as much hound by that acceptance as by any other portion of the Treaty of Vienna. He (the Duke of Wellington) intended to move for the production of the document signed by his Majesty, which was at present out of print, and which was a document of considerable importance. He did not think it was desirable that the House should discuss such questions of foreign policy as those which had been introduced that evening, until their Lordships should have had all the necessary do-
72
cuments before them. It was true that his noble Friend's Amendment did not turn exactly on the foreign policy of the Government; but his noble Friend, and his noble and learned Friend, had addressed the House at great length upon that subject; and the noble Marquess had also entered into that question. He entreated their Lordships, however, not to let it go forth to the people of this country, and to the people of foreign countries, that an amendment and a division had taken place in the House of Lords on the subject of our foreign relations. Let the Government continue their negotiations until they should see from the papers to be laid he-fore them that they ought to withdraw their confidence from the Ministers of the Crown, under these circumstances he could not vote for the Amendment of his noble Friend, and he entreated their Lordships not to give it their support.
LORD STANLEY, in explanation, begged to say distinctly that he wished it to be understood that be did not consider the two subjects alluded to by the noble Duke as at all connected. He called upon them to give no opinion as to our foreign or colonial policy. All he asked by their vote was for the House to declare whether they thought that, in the description of the domestic circumstances of this country, the Speech from the Throne did or did not give a faithful and real account of its condition. I3y his Motion he gave them an opportunity of saying, whether or not they thought it right that no reference should be made to the agricultural and commercial interests of the country; and it was on that ground that he would, with all respect to the noble Duke opposite, press his Motion to a division.
Question was then put, "Whether the said Words shall be there inserted?" House divided:—Content 50; Not-Content 52: Majority 2.

List of the NOT-CONTENTS.

DUKES.

Carlisle

Argyll

Chichester

Norfolk

Ducie

St. Albans

Essex

Wellington

Fortescue

Fitzwilliam

MARQUESSES.

Granville

Anglesea

Grey

Breadalbane

Minto

Clanricarde

Strafford

Conyngham

St. Germans

Headfort

Yarborough

Lansdowne

Waldegrave

EARLS.

BARONS.

Besborough

Ashburton

Bruce

Bateman

73

Beaumont

Hastings

Byron

Littleton

Camoys

Lilford

Colborne

Lovat

Crewe

Milford

Cottenham

Monteagle

Campbell

Poltimore

Denman

Saye and Sele

Eddisbury

Suffield

Elphinstone

Sudely

Erskine

Teynham

Foley

Vaux

Godolphin

Vivian

Paired off.

FOR.

AGAINST.

Archb, of Canterbury

Lord Middleton

Duke of Roxburgh

Lord Exmouth

Bishop of Hereford

Lord Lyndhurst

Marquess of Donegal

Lord Munster

Lord Langdale

Earl Tankerville

Lord Holland

Lord Digby

Earl Fitzhardinge

Lord Ward

Earl Lovelace

Lord Boston

Resolved in the negative.
Then the original Motion was agreed to; and a Committee appointed to prepare the Address, which, being afterwards reported and agreed to, was ordered to be presented to HER MAJESTY by the Lords with White Staves.
House adjourned to Monday next.