Sitting of 5 April 1852

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Proclamation for Assembling Parliament.
2° Exchequer Bills (17,742,800 l.); Law of Wills Amendment; Commons Inclosure Acts Extension; Linen, &c. Manufactures (Ireland); Differential Dues; Ecclesiastical Courts (Criminal Jurisdiction); Poor Relief Act Continuance.
3° Protection of Inventions Act, 1851 (Extension of Term); Common Law Fees Regulation.

THE MILITIA.
COLONEL ROMILLYsaid, he wished to put a question to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Home Department. The right hon. Gentleman had given notice on Friday night, that if the House should agree to the second reading of the Militia Bill, he would move in Committee the insertion of a clause providing that any person who should have served in the militia for two years should be entitled to be registered, and to vote for the county in which he resided. The question he had to ask of the right hon. Gentleman was, whether he contemplated the extension of a similar privilege to any other branch of Her Majesty's military service?
MR. WALPOLE: Sir, with reference to the notice I gave the other night I have to observe that I intended to take the earliest opportunity to-day, even although the hon. and gallant Colonel had not put his question, of stating that I thought that notice had been given too hastily. The proposition originated with myself, and I thought it would have been a good proposition for three purposes, namely, first, that it might induce respectable persons to volunteer for the militia; secondly, that it might ensure a continuous residence on the part of the volunteers, so that they might be ascertained from year to year; and, thirdly, that it might hold out a reward for public services rendered by them in volunteering to enter the militia. But since I gave that notice, I have had an opportunity of consulting more fully with all my Colleagues; and they think there are so many difficulties, and so many objections to the plan which I proposed, that, as I said before, I had intended to take the earliest opportunity of stating to the House, as I now state, that I do not intend to press that notice if the Militia Bill should go into Committee. Perhaps I may add, in answer to the particular question
684
put by the hon. and gallant Member, that even if I thought it right to press that Motion, I should have contended—as I certainly do contend—that there is very little, if any, analogy between a force raised in the shape of a militia, consisting chiefly of civilians, and soldiers or sailors in the Army or Navy, who continue permanently under the control of their officers.

MINISTERIAL POLICY.
On Motion for going into Committee of Supply,
MR. BERNAL OSBORNEsaid, that before Mr. Speaker left the Chair he wished to draw the attention of the Government to the present anomalous state of affairs in that House. He could assure them, with the most unaffected sincerity, that in alluding to this most important subject, he was actuated by no idle motive, nor by any feeling of hostility towards Her Majesty's Government. But, really, the state of affairs in that House was so anomalous—so unheard of—that there was no Member who felt himself under responsibility to his constituents who would not be justified in directing the attention of the House to the subject, not only for the sake of those whom he represented, but out of regard for the interests of the community at large. He did not mean to enter into any minute or elaborate criticism of the surprising Ministerial statements which bad been made in another place on the 15th, the 19th, and the 31st of March; nor had he any intention to undertake the very easy and obvious task of pointing out the various discrepancies in those declarations. But, setting aside the statements in question, as though they had never been made, he put it to the House to say whether—this being the last supply day before the commencement of the Easter recess—it was not incumbent on Her Majesty's Government to offer some more distinct and more detailed exposition of their future plans and policy than had heretofore been presented to the House or to the country? Whatever diversity of opinion might exist as to the explanations which had been already made in that House, and in another place, he was sure that men of all parties must be now of one accord in thinking that it was in the highest degree inconvenient, in the present state of political affairs in this country, that the First Minister of the Crown should be a Member of another place. They had had explana-

685
tion after explanation, commentary after commentary; and nobody seemed as yet to be aware of the true signification of the explanation that had been made in that House on the 31st of last month. If he were now to be met by the objection that the present was not the proper time for calling on the Government to explain their policy in a clear straightforward manner, he knew not how he could better dispose of such an argument than by referring to a sentiment in one of the despatches—he ought rather to call them the Arcadian love-letters—which had recently passed between the Earl of Malmesbury, Her Majesty's Foreign Secretary, and the Austrian Ambassador. In one of those delectable compositions the Earl of Malmesbury said—
"Her Majesty's Government rejoice to find in your communication a full confirmation of the confident hope entertained by Lord Derby that the surest mode of arriving at a good understanding with the nations of the civilised world, was a frank and honest exposition of principles, to be frankly and honestly acted upon; and it is with the most unfeigned pleasure, though with no surprise, that Her Majesty's Government received the assurance that the Court of Vienna subscribes without reserve to the principles and intentions developed by the First Minister of the Crown."
If it was incumbent on a Foreign Minister to write in that manner to a foreign Power, how much more incumbent was it on the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer to give a frank and honest exposition of his principles to the people of this country? Why try the long range at Vienna when there was so much practice ground in this country? The truth of this proposition was self-evident, and he felt, therefore, that he was doing nothing more than his duty in calling on Her Majesty's Government, as he now did, to make an exposition, clear, frank, explicit, and distinct, of the principles by which they intended that their policy should be governed. Explanation No. 4 in that House had been looked forward to with much interest, but it left things in pretty much the same state as they were on the 15th of March. The right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer gave the House to understand that the Government were sensible of the necessity for a dissolution, and that they did not intend to call upon the House to pass any other measures than such as might appear to be indispensable for the service of the Queen, and the good government of Her Majesty's realm. Now, surely it was due to that House and to the country that some Minister should rise in his place, and
686
state, on behalf of the Government, the number and character of those measures for the enactment of which the present Parliament was to continue in existence. On Friday evening one distinguished statesman on the Treasury bench had shadowed forth the magnificent outline of a measure which he deemed essential to the good government of the realm, but which his Colleagues, regarding in a totally different light, he had been obliged to withdraw the very next day that the House met. How many similar things were to occur? and on the caprices of how many of the Ministers was the existence of the present Parliament to depend? Notwithstanding all the so-called explanations that had been made in that House and in another place, he did not hesitate to assert that to this hour the House and the country had been left completely in the dark as to what those measures were which the Government might deem to be indispensable to the good government of the nation. It was only the other day that a Committee on East Indian affairs had been appointed. There was no knowing how long their deliberations might be protracted; and was it to be understood that the present Parliament was to continue sitting until that Committee had reported? Then, again, there was a new Militia Bill. It would transcend all conjecture to imagine how many clauses might be introduced into the measure, or how many amendments might be proposed at each successive stage; and were they to be told that the present Parliament was to be prolonged until both these questions had been satisfactorily disposed of? He entreated the Government, as they valued their own reputation and the welfare of the community, to state at once what it was they meant by measures indispensable to the good government of the realm. Nothing could be more unfortunate or more distressing than the condition of perplexity into which all the great interests of the country had been thrown by these miserable evasions of the Government. Trade and commerce were alarmingly impeded—the tenant farmers were in a state of the most pitiable trepidation—and the shopkeepers and tradesmen were so bewildered that they knew not what to think; and yet it was at such a moment as this that Her Majesty's Ministers played fast and loose with the country, and when they were asked to explain what they meant by "indispensable measures," only taxed their ingenuity to think how they might most skilfully evade

687
the question. A noble Lord in that House (the Earl of March) had told them of a new sect that had sprung up in this country called the Derbyites, and according to that noble Lord's definition, a Protectionist was a Derbyite, and a Derbyite was a man who believed in the Earl of Derby. Such statements as these were in the style and spirit of the "definitions" and "explanations" which usually came from the Treasury bench. They were not more definite nor more satisfactory. These definitions might do very well for the supporters of the noble Earl in that House; but what would the people out of doors say? The policy which the First Minister of the Crown seemed resolved to adopt, in his treatment of his adherents, was that indicated by the great dramatist:—
"I as I may (that which I would I cannot)
With best advantage will deceive the time,
And aid the in this doubtful shock of arms,
But on thy side I may not be too forward."
Such policy as this had been characterised as the "very soul of chivalry," but he (Mr. B. Osborne) could not so regard it. In his estimation it savoured of the sly practices of the cockpit, rather than of the bold defiance of the "tilt yard," and partook more largely of the trickery of Newmarket Heath, than of the chivalry of Cressy or of Flodden Field. He denied that it lay in the mouth of the Government to say that they had encountered a factious opposition. The very reverse was the fact. 14,000,000 l. of public money had been voted sub silentio. The hon. Member for Lambeth (Mr. W. Williams) had not offered a single objection, and the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume) rose in his place only to intreat that the Government would be pleased to accept the money with all possible celerity; and yet the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer could find it in his conscience to cry "Faction," and to accuse the Opposition of frivolous and vexatious resistance to the proceedings of the Government. He (Mr. B. Osborne) flung back the charge, and took leave to remind the right hon. Gentleman that there might be such a thing as a factious Government. The present Government, as a Government, had climbed into office on false pretences—had pocketed the supplies on false pretences. [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] Yes, on false pretences; for what was it but false pretence to turn round and give such explanations of their policy as had been offered' in that House on the 31st of March? Purely, it was not too much to say that the
688
time had at last arrived when a candid and straightforward explanation of the policy of the Government should be offered to the country. What did the Ministers purpose to do on the subject of the Maynooth grant? The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated the other evening that there was no intention on the part of Government to disturb that grant in the course of the present Session; but he declined to give any reply to the question of the hon. and learned Member for Athlone (Mr. Keogh) as to whether they would tamper with the grant in the course of the ensuing Session. The noble Lord the First Minister of the Crown had been pressed to state his views on the subject in another place; but he managed to elude the pursuit, and gave an answer the exact meaning of which no one could undertake to interpret. The fact was that they left the question in a state of uncertainty, which they hoped might be turned to some advantage on the hustings at the next elections. The Tapers and the Tadpoles wanted a cry, and it was thought that "No Popery" was as good a cry as any to go to the country with. The hon. Under Secretary for the Treasury (Mr. F. Mackenzie) had harangued the electors of Liverpool, whom he was ambitious of the honour of representing, and he told them that he regretted having voted for the Maynooth grant, and that he would not vote for giving any more money to that institution. But surely the hon. Gentleman did not suppose that he would succeed in deceiving the people of Liverpool. Surely he did not imagine that he would find favour with that class of the electors on whom he depended for support by endeavouring to mystify them on this subject by telling them that he would vote for the present grant, because it was an endowment, but would not support any further advances of public money for the same purpose. The Government would find that they were ruining their own cause by not pursuing a candid and manly course on questions of such national importance. Already many of their supporters had committed themselves irretrievably on this question, and they ought to be treated with more confidence by the Government. Why should the respectable Queen's Counsel who was now soliciting the suffrages of the people of Bath, and who might one day live to be Attorney General—why should that estimable Gentleman be left in darkness as to the true intentions of the Government upon

689
this question, and why should he be left to plunge head over heels into promises and engagements, with respect to it, which hereafter it might be most inconvenient to adhere to. And then, with regard to the Irish distillers and millers, what treatment were they to receive at the hands of the Government? This was once a favourite question with the noble Lord the Chief Secretary for Ireland. He was eloquent upon it in opposition, and enthusiastically so when addressing the electors of Coleraine; but now that he was seated upon the Treasury bench, his tongue was tied, and he found it impossible to utter one syllable on the subject. He was sorry to say, the noble Lord appeared to have lost the candour and ingenuousness which at one time so agreeably distinguished him, and to have acquired in their place something of the "chivalric" spirit of the noble Lord the First Minister of the Crown. He (Mr. B. Osborne) confessed he was at a loss to account for the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, it was so unlike what he had always advocated, and so inconsistent with all his antecedents. On the 20th of February, 1846, still ringing the changes on the Corn Laws, he exclaimed—"How anomalous is the state of affairs in this House, where we have a Protection Cabinet and a Free-trade Ministry." [3 Hansard, lxxxiii. 1321–22.] Nothing could be more opposite to the state of things in 1852 than that exclamation. Had they not now a Protectionist Cabinet and Free-trade supporters? Were there not hybrid animals wandering through the boroughs and counties called "Free-trade Protectionists?" They came to the counties on different principles, demanding Protection, unmitigated Protection, for they had not come to the modification principle as yet, but were agreed only in one thing, namely, that they were to support the Earl of Derby's Government. And this was what was called "the country party," celebrated for its chivalry and candour. Last year he remembered to have seen a paper bearing the signatures of several hon. Gentlemen from Ireland, who were now Members of the Government, but who then and there declared that nothing short of protection could bring back the people of Ireland—not to their former prosperity, for they never had any, but to such a state of things as would prevent them from being engulphed in the slough of despond; but now these hon. Gentlemen had completely changed their tone, and declared that what was re-
690
quired for the people of Ireland was not a reversal of the free-trade policy, but a revision of it. Such was the treatment awarded to the Irish—nor did the English fare better. The English farmer was by nature of the most confiding disposition; but even the English farmer, and his brother in affliction and credulity, the British shipowner, must have some suspicion that they were not fairly treated, when they read the address of that gallant squire, the last Widdrington of protection, the hon. Member for Scarborough (Mr. G. F. Young), who could talk by hours in favour of that ruined cause when not one shred of argument remained to it, and of whom it might, with perfect truth, be said that—
"When his legs were shotten off
He fought upon his stumps."
Such was the devotion, and such the fidelity, which distinguished the hon. Member. But the other day the hon. Gentleman did not hesitate to assure his constituents that he did not want to go back to any of his Utopian theories—that he wanted no restoration of the Navigation Laws, but only a modification. He put it seriously to the Members of Her Majesty's Government, whether they did not believe that it was of the highest importance that the character of that House should stand as high as possible for honour, chivalry, and truth; and, if so, on what plea of honour, chivalry, or truth, could they reconcile it to themselves, that a Government should acquire office by calling for protection, and retain it by advocating modification? For his own part, he did not hesitate to say that there was no Member of the Government for whom he had so high a respect as the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. That right hon. Gentleman was at all events outspoken and sincere. He told his constituents at Lincoln that he would not be gulled with modification, and that nothing should ever satisfy him but a total reversal of the ruinous free-trade policy. He (Mr. B. Osborne) respected the right hon. Gentleman, and congratulated the farmers on having at least one friend left. It was a melancholy fact, that the Protectionist cause had been betrayed. It might be said to have been a "book-horse." They had heard of many Derby favourites which the people had backed very spiritedly, especially the poor people in the country; but, when the day of the race arrived, they had seen people in high places "scratch their nomination," and leave the public in the lurch. Just so

691
was it with protection. The right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury benches made the poor people in the country clamour for what they had no notion of giving them, and when the day for the race arrived, they withdrew the favourite horse, and coolly substituted another. So was it with the cry of protection.
"Who would not praise Patricio's high desert,
His hand unstain'd, his uncorrupted heart!
His comprehensive head, all interests weighed,
All Europe saved, yet Britain not betrayed?
He heeds them not, his pride is in piquet,
Newmarket fame, and judgment at a bet!"
They had heard a great deal of comprehensive measures for England and for Ireland, but for his part he confessed he had a horror of that phrase. He never heard a Ministry talk about large and comprehensive measures that he didn't feel that the country was going to be sacrificed to a high-sounding word. But he forewarned the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer that his tenure of office would not be of long duration, if it only lasted as long as he could succeed in imposing on the British public by specious phrases and sonorous words. He would tell the right hon. Gentleman that the course he was pursuing was not one that the people of this country would consider worthy of the candid character and position of a British Minister. There was nothing in his policy, as far as that policy had as yet been developed, that could command respect, much less challenge admiration. Even the blank cartridge Reform Bill—the right to vote, wrapped up in a bullet, which was So rashly promised and ignominiously withdrawn, had not the merit of originality. It was copied from two suggestions, one of which originated with a Mr. F. Hill, and the other with no less a personage than Mr. Orator Hunt, who, in 1830, laid upon the table of the House of Commons a Motion in the precise words of the Motion so quickly proposed and so quickly withdrawn by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department. He would not trespass further upon the attention of the House; but, in conclusion, would take leave to assure the right hon. Gentleman (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) that if he were not prepared to give some distinct and intelligible exposition of his future policy, there was but little prospect that either he or his colleagues would stand high in the opinion of the people of this country. It had not escaped the memory
692
of the British public, how unsparingly the right hon. Gentleman had thrown out his taunts and sarcasms on a late distinguished Minister for his change of opinion, and that the right hon. Gentleman was indebted for his reputation, and, indeed, for his present position, to the unwearying assiduity of his attempts to ruin the reputation of that great and lamented statesman. If the right hon. Gentleman hoped to retain one shred of reputation—if he had the smallest particle of regard for his estimation with the nation whose political destinies he sought to control, he would now stand up in his place and declare what those measures were which he believed to be indispensable for the service of the Queen, and the security and good government of her realm.
LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, that however strong might be the objection which the hon. Gentleman entertained to large and comprehensive schemes of legislation, it was at least certain that he had but little aversion to large and comprehensive criticisms on whatever was said in that House and in another place. He (Lord J. Manners) felt himself under no obligation to follow the hon. Gentleman into all the minute details of his long and elaborate speech. His reason for refraining from doing so was, that Her Majesty's Ministers had nothing new to say on the topics to which the hon. and gallant Gentleman had referred. The intentions of the Government had been repeatedly and distinctly declared by his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he defied the hon. Member to point out the slightest discrepancy between the statements made in that House and those that had been made elsewhere. The Government were prepared to take their stand, not upon any particular expression, nor on any one specific statement, but upon all and every one of the declarations which had been made on their behalf in that House and in the House of Lords; and when the hon. Gentleman undertook to assert that the country would have no confidence in men who used such language as that which had fallen from his (Lord J. Manners') right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the noble Lord the First Minister of the Crown, all he would tell him in return was, that they (the Government) would not shrink from that issue, but courted it, and were prepared to abide by it to the last. It was not very easy to understand at what the hon. Gentleman was

693
driving, but if his object meant anything, it seemed to mean this, that the policy to which he and his friends were so enthusiastically attached should be submitted to the decision of the present Parliament. The hon. Member wanted to have the opinion of that moribund House of Commons upon the great questions at issue between him and the Government. The hon. Gentleman boasted that he and his party had a majority in that House; and to that majority it was competent for the hon. Member to appeal if he chose, for even on that issue the Government would not flinch from the contest. If such was not the meaning of the hon. Member, what meant those nightly, those hourly, interruptions of the public business of the country? This was not the first time that a speech such as that of the hon. Member had been delivered in that House. They could not forget the long and elaborate essays on constitutional law and the first principles of government with which they had been edified from the lips of the noble Lord the Member for London. It was not to be expected that he should recapitulate these arguments, or enter into an examination of all the minute details of theory and calculation which emanated from the leaders of the heterogeneous Opposition. But let them bring their interruption to a head, and from the issue thus created the Government would not depart; but they must be pardoned if they refused to confide the vindication of their honour to such hands as those of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Middlesex. It was the country that would have to decide upon their policy, and by the decision of the country they would stand or fall. They would make that appeal as soon as the necessary business of the nation was transacted. They were as anxious as the hon. Gentleman could be to go to their constituents, and to solve the great questions at issue by the constitutional process of an appeal to the country; but they were not to be deterred by taunts, menaces, or denunciations, such as those of the hon. Member, from proceeding with the measures which a sense of public duty urged them to undertake. This they would say to the Opposition—"If it be your pleasure to appeal to the great majority which you believe you possess in this House, do so. Even from that issue we will not recede. But as long as you are not willing to pursue that course, we must ask you, in justice, not to the Government, but to the country, to
694
permit us to conduct for the remainder of the Session, the necessary business of the country, for, be assured, we will have no reluctance to make the necessary appeal to the opinion and judgment of the people, as soon as the necessary business is transacted."
Mr. ROEBUCKsaid, that, although there was a great deal of good sense and plain straightforward honesty in the words used by the noble Lord who had just spoken, there could be no doubt in the minds of men accustomed to constitutional forms, that the proceedings of right hon. Gentlemen opposite, so far as they could be judged of, were not in consonance with constitutional government. He had no feeling of hostility towards right hon. Gentlemen opposite, and up to that time he had said nothing in opposition to them. But now he felt called upon to express his opinion as regarded their position before the world, and be would at the same time express his opinion with respect to those who opposed them. He would ask why it was that this question was not brought to an issue, and why were right hon. Gentlemen opposite permitted to continue a policy and conduct wholly unworthy of the Government of this country? Why did they not by a direct vote in that House now bring the matter to an issue? It appeared to him that the Government opposite had come into office under the appearance of maintaining one set of opinions, and that being in office they were endeavouring to shirk and shrink from those opinions. He would ask the House to take a very short review of the facts preceding the advent of the Government to office. He would take them as typified by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He was the man who had made them—he had breathed into their body something like life. They had traded on his ability, and he was in office upon their support. Now the right hon. Gentleman acquired the whole of his renown, acquired the whole of his force with his party, by reiterated attacks made upon the late Sir Robert Peel. And on what ground? Why, the late Sir Robert Peel had long supported the views of the country party, but a time came of great difficulty and danger to the neighbouring nation of Ireland. Famine stared them in the face, and he, foreseeing the difficulty—putting by all considerations of personal interest and personal renown, and casting himself upon the candour and honesty of the people of

695
England—said to them, "The policy which I have supported I can no longer support. There is a difficulty which threatens this country in the maintenance of the labouring population which I cannot face, and I am prepared to give up that policy which I have so long maintained, and to support an opposite course." Now he could not conceive a position more trying than that of Sir Robert Peel under those circumstances. He had been brought into office, with great power, by the maintenance of certain opinions, and, foregoing all considerations of personal renown, he made that great personal sacrifice. And who was the man that fastened upon him with envenomed and most prepared irony? The right hon. Gentleman opposite. He hounded him night after night, backed by the cheers of those who were now at his back. The right hon. Gentleman fastened upon him with tenacity; he never let him have one moment's rest. That was the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman. Mark the circumstances. The whole of England, Ireland, and Scotland were endangered, and a great sacrifice was made by a great man. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer could not then feel for the difficulty, and could not bear for a moment with the change of opinion manifested by Sir Robert Peel, and declared that if the right hon. Baronet had changed his opinion he was not the man to carry his new principles into effect. From night to night the right hon. Gentleman pursued the late statesman with that sarcasm of which he was so great a master. Well, the right hon. Gentleman stepped into power with hon. Gentlemen opposite upon the maintenance of the great protectionist doctrine. He had gone on most steadily in that course. He came into office never having retracted one statement of his former declarations—never being pressed by any difficulty. He had steadily opposed the late Administration, and had taken advantage of every difficulty to render any Government impossible. Now, if the right hon. Gentleman had done that, and steadily continued his policy, he should have understood him. He should have then said—"Here is a man who will not stand at trifles, it is true, in his opposition; but he had a great object in view—he wanted to overturn a policy. He thought England misgoverned, and it was his object and his duty to get rid of the Government, and therefore he took possession of everybody, and advan-
696
tage of everything, for the purpose of creating a difficulty to the Government—not that he agreed in the opposition; not at all; but he used those who were in opposition." Well, the late Government dropped out of office, and the right hon. Gentleman dropped in. Well, now, where was the pressure upon the right hon. Gentleman? He had never forborne his opinions: he had never changed his principles. Up to the moment that he had obtained his appointment as Chancellor of the Exchequer he was the great protectionist chief. But he would appeal to hon. Gentlemen about him, and to hon. Gentlemen opposite, if there was ever so remarkable a change as that which took place in the language of the right hon. Gentleman? He came in as the great protectionist chief. He knew full well that protection was gone, but office might still be his. Let them tear aside the veil. The game the right hon. Gentleman was playing towards his country supporters was, that he really had at heart protectionist principles, and then he sought to get the confidence of other supporters who were no protectionists at all. A question was put to him on him on his conduct, and he said, "We intend to go to the country, and the comb-try shall decide." Now, what should the country decide? He (Mr. Roebuck) told the right hon. Gentleman—and he was quite sure there was not a right-thinking man in that House who would not say he was right—he told him that he and his supporters had shrunk from the answer, what was it they were going to the country upon? Was it protection? Oh no! they replied, they did not say so. But what did they say? Oh, they said, so soon as we have got over the necessary proceedings of the government of the country, we shall go to the country to decide upon our policy. Our policy! He wanted to know what our policy meant? The noble Earl at the head of the Government said, "I do not mean to go upon the question of protection or free trade, I mean to go upon the question of my conservative policy." Now, was it on that ground that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer took office? Was he so vague when he was in opposition? Not at all; he was plain enough then, and accused the late Government of ruining the great interests of the country by the policy they were pursuing. It was evident to every honest man's mind that the cry they came in upon was pro-

697
tection, and now the cry was, "our conservative policy." Now his objections to this proceeding were these: He had three great reasons for believing that the present hesitating, evasive, and, let him add, shuffling policy was mischievous. It was mischievous, first, because everybody believed out of doors that the Government was about to take the advantage of this uncertainty of protection or non-protection, and going where they could upon protectionist principles. The country believed that, inasmuch as the right hon. Gentleman had so long been a supporter of protectionist doctrines, they would go to the country in reality upon protection or free trade; and therefore the great mercantile interests in this country were once again put in jeopardy on that issue. The right hon. Gentleman ought at once to say he intended to go on that question, or that he did not. But he did neither the one thing ner the other; he avoided every inquiry, and would not tell them either when he would go to the country, or on what he would go to the country. Again, there was another evil. They might say what they liked, but this holding over the country a continuous struggle of electioneering was mischievous, not only to the material but to the moral interests of the country. Men's minds were kept in doubt, their passions were kept alive, and from hour to hoop, in the whole country, from one end to another, these great disputes arose, and material interests were disregarded, and moral interests were endangered. But there was a greater and more mischievous evil still, and that was, the feeling that had arisen in the minds of men out of doors respecting the morality of that House. What, they said, is this public morality—is this the great body that leads the landed interest in this country, who, for mere place, evade all public declaration, who evade all statement of their opinions now that they are in power, and endeavour to shuffle from that which they maintained before? Is this the morality of public men? This was a spectacle he witnessed, not for the first time in his life he would allow; but he must say that right hon. Gentlemen opposite, evincing such a wonderful tenacity to office did create in his mind, and he believed in the minds of most people out of doors, a very low opinion of public morality. People said that for mere purposes of personal interest public interests were given up, and that for the maintenance of interest principle
698
would be forgotten. He had heard the right hon. Gentleman opposite frequently in his diatribes against those who were pursuing this course; and the very bitterness of his sarcasms, and the vehemence of his declaration, rebounded against himself, now that he was in that position. The right hon. Gentleman did that which he knew to be wrong, and which he had branded with all the vehemence of his sarcasm when others committed it, and now, having got into office, and felt the temptation, he did it himself. On these grounds, the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman and his friends was greatly mischievous to the interests of this country. Certain expressions had fallen from his (Mr. Roebuck's) side of the House, from which he should feel inclined to say there was great sympathy with his own estimates of their proceedings. He (Mr. Roebuck) was not, and could not, pretend to be the leader of any opposition; but, were he the leader of the Opposition, he would bring that policy to the test directly. He agreed with the noble Lord opposite that there was mischief in thus constantly assailing the right hon. Gentleman with mere words. But he asked hon. Gentlemen on that (the Opposition) side of the House, of what they were afraid? Did they, or did they not, believe that they were in a majority in that House? If they were, let the right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House feel it. If not, let the country know its own danger. But, by the present course, hon. Gentlemen opposite had all the benefit of a majority and a minority. They had the benefit of a minority, because they did not dare to introduce anything, and they had the benefit of a majority because they (the Opposition) did not dare to propose anything against them. And so between the two all the interests of Great Britain and Ireland were forgotten in this miserable play of party. Sure he was that the country would justify neither one party nor the other. He appealed to the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell), if he was to represent the Opposition, to bring this matter to the test, to do it for his own character as well as for the interests of the country. Let them know if the right hon. Gentlemen opposite had a majority in that House, and if they had not, they would be forced instantly to go to the country. If they had, it would be their (the Opposition's) duty to continue simply as a minority in opposition, and Govern-

699
ment, taking advantage of their position, could propound their great doctrines, and the country would know what to do. Therefore, he said, have no more of this shilly-shallying either on one side or the other, for he did not see any difference. Let the noble Lord bring this question to the test, and let him be sure that he would have both the House and the country for his support.
MR. ADDERLEYsaid, he wished to point out in a few words, as a Member of that House unconnected with the Government, the glaring and palpable fallacy contained in the attack of the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down. He had in the same breath accused the Government of putting forth vague and unintelligible pretences, and of putting forth false pretences. The two charges were manifestly self-contradictory; and the hon. and learned Gentleman must stand upon either the one or the other charge, but he could not stand upon both. If the propositions of the Government were unintelligible to the learned Gentleman, their falsehood must be a gratuitous and uncharitable assumption on his part. If he knew them to be false, they were patent to his understanding. The one half of the hon. and learned Gentleman's attack was an answer to the other. But take the first charge—that the policy of the Government was vague and unintelligible. Well, if that was the hon. and learned Member's attack, and the attack of the hon. Member for Middlesex (Mr. B. Osborne)—if that was what they honestly meant, let them come to the test as soon as possible. It appeared to him (Mr. Adderley) that the Earl of Derby's declarations had been as plain and distinct as words could make them, namely, that if Parliament only allowed him to pass the measures which were urgent and necessary, he would then take the sense of the country. Now, if hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition benches were honest in their complaint against this course of policy, let them wait till the first measure was brought forward which they did not think necessary, and then let them oppose that measure. That would be a fair and straightforward proceeding, and it was within their power at any time, as they professed to command the majority. But no; instead of that, they came forward to obstruct the necessary measures, and to waste time by useless and pointless speeches, which prevented the Government from coming to the very test which the Opposition ap-
700
peared to be so anxious for. But with regard to the second and wholly different part of the attack of the hon. and learned Gentleman, how was it attempted to be proved that the policy of the Government was false? It was alleged that as soon as they became a Protectionist Ministry they made up their minds to abandon Protection; and the hon. and learned Gentleman sought to prove that the Government were in a false position, by referring to the attacks which the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer used to make upon the late Sir Robert Peel when he abandoned protection. But surely it was one thing to abandon former principles and adopt opposite principles, and a very different thing to acknowledge that you were not able to carry out your own principles. It was one thing for a great and prominent Minister, whose judgment could not be impugned, and who would hardly accept the excuse that he had made an error in his policy, in a moment, and without consulting his party, not only to reverse his policy, but to take up the very arguments which with all his power and position he used to controvert, and to exult in his new views, as if he had an equal right to lead on either side. It was another thing to suppress opinions which, though still entertained, were no longer tenable. He (Mr. Adderley) did not question Sir Robert Peel's right to alter his opinions; but to contend that those who had condemned his course were now adopting it themselves, was wholly gratuitous and unfounded. It was one thing to acknowledge that your views were wrong, and another to say the national feeling was so strong against them that you would not attempt to carry them. He was in no man's confidence; but, for his own part, the sense of this necessity of abandoning protective duties on articles of food he had expressed publicly many months ago. He had studiously disclaimed any connexion with the Government when he rose, because he was not in their confidence, and he did not know what their feelings were; but he knew what his own feelings were. When a free country like this had shown itself favourable to a particular policy, it was not for one class of legislators, nor for the whole Legislature combined, to pit itself against the national feeling. That was a point which the country at the next election should determine. And when the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield asked what it was that the country must determine, it was simply this, whether the

701
maintenance of a Protectionist policy was any longer possible? If the country should declare that it was no longer possible, then the Government would come forward as the great Conservative party of this country. It was a gross exaggeration to suppose that free trade was a fundamental question, below which nothing else could lie; and, at all events, it could not be said that "Conservatism" was "unintelligible in that House. If protection must be given up, the Conservative party would not have changed its opinions; it would only have been defeated on one question, and would be ready to maintain its principles on others.
MR. C. VILLIERSsaid, he did not rise to occupy the time of the House, nor to attack the hon. Gentleman opposite, but rather to set himself right, in consequence of something that had fallen from the noble Lord the Member for Colchester (Lord J. Manners), as well as the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck). There had been some allusions made to a Motion that was to have brought the protective policy to a test in that House, and some taunts had been thrown out from the other side of the House, inquiring why the question had not been brought to an issue. He gave a notice to that effect in that House, as soon as it was possible for him to do so, on the occasion of the present Ministers taking office. He did so from the conviction he had that those hon. Gentlemen, having for five years been labouring assiduously for one purpose, and one purpose only, that upon taking office they would attempt to reverse the policy of free trade. He gave that notice to exhibit to the country that the majority of that House was unchanged on that question, and that they had been only fortified in their opinion by the experience they had acquired of the results of that policy. But at the time he was giving that notice there was an important speech being made elsewhere by the First Minister of the Crown; for that speech contained an unqualified admission by him, that, upon the subject of a Free-trade or the Protectionist policy, the Government was in an unquestionable minority in the House of Commons. The noble Earl said something further: he said he would in consequence take the opinion of the country without any delay on that question. These admissions made him (Mr. C. Villiers) assent to the policy of postponing that Motion, and he lis-
702
tened to what he considered a wise suggestion by Gentlemen on that side of the House, that the question to urge upon the Government to answer was, in what form and at what time they should submit their policy to the country? It was on that ground that he did propose a question to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and he begged to remind the House of the right hon. Gentleman's reply; he begged to call the attention also of the noble Lord the Member for Colchester to it; for the noble Lord had risen to-night to vindicate, he supposed, the chivalry of the Government, which seems to have got much impugned lately. They had not before had the benefit of the noble Lord's oratory; but, he presumed, under an impulse of chivalry, or honour, or something of the kind, he had just told them that the Ministers were wholly unchanged, that their principles and views were the same, and that they wished and were ready to take issue upon the question of protection, either in this House or in the country. Now, he had not looked at the report of what fell from the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer; but he had a clear recollection that when he asked the right hon. Gentleman if he had any intention to propose a duty on the importation of foreign grain, he distinctly replied to him that he had not any such intention. That reply of the right hon. Gentleman satisfied him that he was willing to abandon his former policy, and that he did not intend to do that which his Colleagues assured their constituents when they went to their elections they intended to do. He (Mr. C. Villiers) said before, and he repeated, that he had no party object in questioning them on the matter, but he had a deep interest in that question; and if hon. Gentlemen opposite would abandon their policy, he should be as satisfied with them as he had been with two other Governments that had preceded them. Lord Melbourne was originally opposed to free trade, and he (Mr. C. Villiers) had the satisfaction to see him abandon protection; and Sir Robert Peel supported protection, and he (Mr. C. Villiers) had the satisfaction to see him propose the free-trade policy; and he should be glad to hear the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer say as clearly and boldly as his predecessors that he had abandoned his old opinions on this subject. However, what he had stated was to justify himself in not having immediately brought the subject before the House.

703
But there had been a most extraordinary admission made just now, and that by a Gentleman who was well qualified to express the opinion. It had been admitted just now by a warm supporter of the Government that the national feeling was against Protection. So they had it now admitted that the House was unchanged, and that the national feeling was against protection and for free-trade. Then he wanted to know why they were to have a dissolution. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer justified their taking office on the simple ground that there might be an opinion out of doors in their favour. They were all identified with the Protectionist policy, and when they came into office, at least their Chief said, Parliament was against them, but that he expected that public opinion was with them, though they had heard it stated to-night that the public feeling was against them. The noble Earl at the head of the Government proposed to submit the question to them, and to hear their reply in the autumn, and to decide thereby who should be the future Ministers of the country. ["No.no!"] He (Mr. C. Villiers) certainly heard with his own ears the noble Earl say, that the autumnal Session would be to decide the controverted question of free trade, and then what men should be entrusted with the administration of the Government. Now, if their own Friend the Member for North Staffordshire (Mr. Adderley) was right, and that the national opinion was against meddling with the free-trade policy, he hardly could understand their justification, in possessing themselves of the Government as they had done. They were only known as Protectionists—they knew they had the House of Commons against them on that question, and it was cow said that public feeling was against them—yet they were going to disturb the country with a dissolution, and to resign their offices, when opinion in favour of free trade was expressed in the New Parliament. The noble Lord the Member for Colchester said to-night that their own opinions were unchanged. What a wanton disturbance of the country, then, is their taking office, and causing the turmoil of a general election for no public purpose! Why did they not consult their Friend the hon. Member for North Staffordshire if they had a doubt about the state of feeling on the subjects which doubtless he has stated most correctly; and why had they not patriotism enough to leave the country quiet? He saw
704
the noble Lord the Member for Tyrone (Lord C. Hamilton) laughing at the idea of an election interrupting the business of the country. He could assure the noble Lord that there was a very general feeling in the country that this attempt to get power against the will of the people, was a most wanton proceeding, to say the least of it. The business of this great country should not be lightly disturbed. They had nothing to justify the experiment they were going to make in meddling with the commercial policy; opinion as well as the results were entirely against them; but having the patronage of Government at command, and knowing the practices at elections, they were in hopes to obtain a majority in this House, by the means that are too familiar to the country. If they had an excuse for saying that the opinion of the country was not decided against those views which the noble Lord (Lord J. Manners) says are unchanged, their taking the Government and dissolving the Parliament might be justified; but as it was, he doubted if there was on record a more unprincipled proceeding. Surrendering their opinions, and appealing to the country as a new Government, is one thing; but retaining their opinions, and attempting to get a majority against the opinions of the country, could not be justified. But the other novelty to-night is, according to the hon. Member for North Staffordshire, to get rid of protection, by which they are only known, and then set up as real Conservatives, qualified to govern the country on that principle. He much doubted whether they would receive more favour at the hands of the country in the one character than in the other. There had been observed in them of late many things exceedingly unlike the old Conservative party. So far as he knew the old Tory party that used to prevail in that House, they had been wrong in all their political views—their political proceedings were wrong; but this was ever known to their honour, that they were bold—that they were straightforward—that they were chivalrous—that you could rely upon them. The proceedings of the party now in power, during the last six weeks, could scarcely be deemed as ranking them within any such category. Everything appears tortuous, crooked, and mystified; they could not get plain answers to plain questions; they could learn nothing they ought to know, from them, and when they talked of Gentlemen on this side interrupting the business of the coun-

705
try, it never had been made clear what that was. The inquiries on that side were to learn what that business was, and when they were going to do it? As matters now stood, there was no knowing from day to day what the Government would do, or would not do. They all went to bed on Saturday in the belief that a new Reform Bill had been announced the night before—an extension of the suffrage, on an entirely new principle. Not education, that was old-fashioned—not property, that was useless—but the very original one of two years' drill in the militia. Now, the great Conservative party came down and said they were not going to have anything of the sort: that had merely been a joke of the Earl of Derby's. The other night the great cause of Protection was abandoned: that evening it was again attempted to be set up. One night it appeared that the Militia Bill was the only business to be done: another night it was said the Chancery Bill must be disposed of; and again other measures were indistinctly referred to as indispensable, but not in a state to be yet disclosed. No doubt there was in the country a considerable number of gentlemen Conservatives, and honourably entitled to the designation; but did the Government, acting as they had been acting, imagine they would be accepted by those gentlemen as their representatives? It might be equally true that the country was not indisposed for the late change of Government: the people grew tired of old faces, and liked change from time to time; but the country would not tolerate a set of Ministers who refused to come forward like men, and state what they meant to do, any more than Members of that House would in silence permit themselves to be called factious for asking a legitimate and necessary question, or be charged with interrupting the business of the country, before they were enabled to know what that business of the country was. It might well be that the Government themselves did not know what they meant to do, but meantime the country was altogether dissatisfied with their chopping and changing about in this fashion. The House must hear from the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer another of those clear, frank, open, and lucid statements by which he had lately distinguished himself, so that no one might any longer remain in the dark on the subject: and he must say that they ought not to scold the Opposition for simply making inquiry on the subject; they sat
706
there as the representatives of the people, and he could assure them that from one end of the country to the other, the greatest curiosity as to the intentions and proceedings of this Government existed, and it was expected that through the medium of this House some information would be procured.
MR. HENLEYsaid, the hon. Gentleman who had spoken last, and the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck), had asked what the Government was going to do. He might answer them in Quaker fashion—what did hon. Gentleman want? Because some of those hon. Gentlemen wanted to press a dissolution, and the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had asked, what need was there to go to the country; that the whole business of the country would be interrupted by a dissolution. That was rather odd language, in the fifth year of the present Parliament, in the mouth of the hon. Gentleman, who, if he mistook not, had the other night walked into the lobby in favour of triennial Parliaments. One portion of the Opposition found fault with them for dissolving, while, on the other hand, the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield quarrelled with them because they did not at once go to the country, and subject it to all the inconvenience and excitement of a general election. But the real fact was, that hon. Gentlemen opposite found that the country was very well satisfied with what the Government intended, and the country was under no mistake as to what they meant. They had been told that in another place, in language which they could not misunderstand, and which, he begged to say, they did not misunderstand—they had been told that that great question which hon. Members, for their own particular purposes, wanted to make the only question, but which the Government would take care would not be the only question—tbey were told that that great question would not be raised or mooted until another Parliament had met. But that did not suit hon. Gentlemen opposite—that was not convenient to the party who had sacrificed the last Government; for it was evident that but for their laches, idleness, or indifference, that mishap would not have been brought about. If they thought that the colonial interests of the country had been so particularly well managed, or that the foreign affairs and policy of the country had been so judiciously conducted, why had they suffered

707
the late Government to be put in a minority, and made them feel that no alternative was left them but to resign? Who was to blame for that? Certainly not hon. Gentlemen on his (Mr. Henley's) side of the House. They stated that they were in a majority—why were they not down, then, to support the late Government? No, that did not suit their purpose, which appeared to be to drop the late Government, and set up another, and then, by all sorts of interruptions, prevent the business of the country from being carried on. Her Majesty's Ministers were endeavouring to go on with the necessary and indispensable business of the country. They were to-night about to propose a Vote for the Kafir war; and he asked hon. Members opposite was that necessary, or was it not? It was said that the present Government had exhibited a great tenacity of office, but they had not yet been more than six weeks in power, and they not had a single division against them. It was a very odd reproach, therefore, to cast upon them. The question had been asked—what were the principles of the Government? and it admitted of a very simple answer. Their principles were what they always had been—they had changed no principles, and their opinions remained the same as before. Whether a party could carry out the principles they professed, did not depend on themselves. As soon as the necessary measures were carried—and the Government cared not how soon that would be—a dissolution must take place; Parliament must meet again in the course of the present autumn; and when they met again, the question which the Opposition wanted to make the only one, but which they would not be permitted to make the only one, would then be submitted to Parliament. That had been announced the first night the Government had had an opportunity of doing so, and it had been repeated over and over again. That answer had been twisted and turned in all sorts of ways with the view of getting another and a different answer. He could tell them that they would get no other answer—for this reason, that the Government was of one mind, and the country was perfectly satisfied with the answer that had been given.
MR. SIDNEY HERBERTsaid: In the speech that has just been delivered there was one expression which I feel myself called upon to notice. It was a repetition of a similar expression which was used by the noble Lord the Member for Colchester
708
(Lord J, Manners), who says that the Government have been impeded in the progress of the necessary business by the interruptions from this (the Opposition) side of the House. The noble Lord said, "You have taken up the time of the House by reading to it lengthened disquisitions upon constitutional principles. Now, as regards the question of constitutional principle, it has been amply debated in this House. But this I will say to the noble Lord who thinks that Gentlemen were not justified in making these disquisitions, that at any rate they had this justification, that the Government yielded to the force of the arguments they brought forward. They yielded, and rightly yielded, to the force of a sound constitutional principle; and, if they will allow me to say so, it was politic for them so to yield, and not to allow themselves to have the appearance of being dragged as unwilling culprits before the bar of a general election. But the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, before he finished his speech settled the subject of the interruption of public business by an observation he made, namely, that there had not been one division taken against the Government. I doubt whether in the memory of any man in the House—I am sure, never in my own recollection—has so much necessary business been transacted with so little opposition—I do not say with so little cavil—I do not say with so little criticism—but even to the suppression of those observations which are always infallibly brought on by the discussion of the Estimates, especially at a moment when public interest has been so much excited as it has been upon questions of national defence. Well, then, I think this accusation falls to the ground utterly—that there has been any attempt to interrupt public business, or to interpose any unjust or unnecessary delays in the transaction of public business. But my hon. Friend the Member for North Staffordshire (Mr. Adderley) entered upon the subject of the course that we took in 1846 upon the question of free trade. Now, I am not going to revert to that period, or to the circumstances which preceded it. This only will I say, that to the latest day of my life I shall feel a pride in the course that I then took. It is true that we were exposed to much obloquy; it is true that we were exposed to much misrepresentation; and that we had to make a choice—a difficult one at any time, and a bitter option to make—a choice between party ties, and

709
the feeling of personal honour as wrapped up in party ties, on the one hand, and the welfare of the country on the other; and if those principles for which we then sacrificed office, and have undergone since what I admit to have been a necessary political ostracism—I say, Sir, that if those principles are to be attacked, no effort shall be wanting on my part to do my utmost to maintain those principles, and to preserve unimpaired, unreversed, unrevised, and unmodified, the blessings which I believe to have been given by those measures to the great body of my fellow-countrymen. But now it is said that the present Government have made no explicit declaration as to their intentions upon the subject. Sir, I do not wish to hark back on this question. I could wish, that instead of deferring this question to be settled by the constituency at a general election, and allowing, therefore, for some months great doubt to hang over the question, the Government had frankly said, "That policy is impossible; we agree with the hon. Member for North Staffordshire (Mr. Adderley) that the national feeling is against it, and will at once say that we have no intention, under any circumstances, to attempt the reversal or modification of the present policy." I have no interest, I am sure, and a great number of hon. Gentlemen sitting on this side of the House could say the same, in doing what the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer called "pinning them to a 5s. fixed duty." My object is to see the country well governed, and to see sound principles prevail. If there is a bridge to be built, and I could contribute an arch to it, to enable you to escape by a frank avowal of free-trade principles from the dilemma in which you are placed, I would cheerfully add that arch. There is joy over every sinner that repenteth; still more should I rejoice inasmuch as other great principles which I value are at stake, and are endangered by the course which you are now taking. You value Conservative principles highly—so do I; and I say it is impolitic, I say it is dangerous, to have those principles allied to a policy which I believe to be odious to the great body of the people. I say that, wishing to see sound progressive Conservatism prevail in the Government of this country, I do look upon it as a great misfortune that a large party, comprising many men of public as well as private virtues, should identify itself with a cause which is hateful to the peo-
710
ple, because in their opinion it is founded upon injustice. Why, what after all was this Corn Law which you wish in some degree, however small, to see back, but a system of outdoor relief to landowners?—but with this difference, I admit, from a poor-law—that instead of being a rate fixed upon property for the sustentation of poverty, it was a tax levied upon poverty for the augmentation of wealth. Now, I am not accusing hon. Gentlemen opposite of concurring with me in this view of the subject; they would be the first to repudiate it if they saw it in the same aspect that I do. But I look upon it as most important that Gentlemen opposite, a great number of whom do not hold these opinions, should as soon as possible have an opportunity of entirely freeing themselves from the odium which attaches to them. Now, under these circumstances, I must say that I am satisfied with the arrangement that has been come to during my absence between the two sides of the House. I do not think it necessary in this moribund Parliament to re-discuss these questions, which are necessarily going to be settled by another, and therefore I have risen rather to say this, that having been prevented from taking any part in the debates within the last few days, I feel entirely satisfied with the course that has been taken, and the arrangement that has been concluded. I think that, now the Government having taken the course which it has on the subject of protection, the only way in which this question can be permanently or satisfactorily settled is by an appeal to the country, and I wish to see that appeal come to as soon as the public business will admit. I have, therefore, no wish to reopen these questions. I think that the assurance which has been given is satisfactory, and I am prepared myself to abide by it. I look forward to that election with the utmost confidence, a confidence which is gaining ground daily, as I see the working of public opinion. I am convinced that under no pretence, under no name, and by no artifice whatever, will the country be persuaded to give up that which they look upon as the charter of the comfort and well-being of the labouring classes.
MR. MOOREsaid, that it appeared to him that the question which had so uselessly vexed the country during the last month might be summed up in one remarkably short sentence: The Protectionists are ready, it is said, to abandon protection, and the Free-traders will not let them.

711
The issue which the Ministers wished to have put to the country, was, whether the people of England wished to have the Whigs or themselves; and he did not think that they were very unreasonably sanguine as to the result. The Whigs, on the other hand, feeling a lurking and sensitive consciousness that perhaps that would not he a very safe issue on which to go to the country, insisted on making an appeal of their own, whether the people would rather have the Whigs or a return to protective duties, conscious that if there was a single alternative in the world to which the people would refer the Whigs, that was the one. He was himself never a free-trader, and he believed that the repeal of the Corn Laws had inflicted great injury upon the country to which he belonged; but he did not expect, and he believed that his countrymen did not expect, to return to protective duties. Protection, in his opinion, had been too long the humbug of that (the Ministerial) side of the House, and the bugbear of this (the Opposition), and he thought that it would greatly facilitate the transaction of public business if hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House would mutually consent not to chase the phantom, or to start at the spectre. He believed that the people of England would never consent that the Whigs, as lately constituted, should return to power; that the whole Government of the country should be centered in one rapacious cabal, or that the great-grandmother of any noble Lord should be considered as the fountain of honour in this country. And as to the noble Lord the Member for the city of London (Lord J. Russell), the people of Ireland had unanimously, irrevocably, and irreversibly decreed that he at all events should never again sit on the Treasury bench as Prime Minister. [Laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen laughed; but they were laughing on the wrong side of the House. When Sir Robert Peel was turned out in 1846, Mr. Sheil said that he had been driven out of office because 7,000,000 of men had gone into opposition—because he had enlisted against him every man in Ireland belonging to every party—because he had enlisted against him the liberal press—and because the Catholic priesthood and the Catholic hierarchy had to a man gone into opposition; and that it was impossible, under such circumstances, he should not have succumbed. Hon. Members did not laugh then; but, on the contrary, these words were loudly cheered by the Whigs, because
712
that was their war note in 1846 which was their death knell in 1852. The Irish Members were perfectly satisfied with the arrangement which had been come to on this matter, because they had no expectation of office, and would not miss quarter day. They had listened with perfect calmness to expressions of the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Colonies (Sir J. Packington) at his unopposed return for Droitwich, at which, considering his official position, they might have revolted; and also to the Cato like determination of the noble Lord the Member for Colchester (Lord J. Manners); and they would listen to the arguments on both sides, and decide inflexibly, as the weight might lay on the one side or the other. They were satisfied to wait the issue and to abide by the appeal to the country, because they had no motive but good to the country which they served, and were quite confident as to what the result of the appeal would be; and if hon. Gentlemen behind him had no fear of an appeal to the people, let them manfully, and patiently because manfully, trust their cause to the decision of the people.
SIR JOHN TYRELLsaid, that he could quite understand that the position of hon. Gentlemen opposite was painfully embarrassed, because he felt that Her Majesty's Government had committed an offence already in that House, and in the country, which was not to be forgiven. They had shown that they had the power, the capacity, and the ability to bring forward measures of a well-considered character, that were likely to give satisfaction to the country; while hon. Gentlemen opposite were so divided in opinion when in opposition, that if they were to change to the opposite side of the House to-morrow, they would be split into infinitesimals, and would be perfectly unintelligible as to any consecutive course of conduct or measures that they were likely to pursue. It was his firm opinion that if Her Majesty's Government had a fair opportunity they would bring forward measures of a better character, and more suited to the feelings of the country, than hon. Gentlemen opposite. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Wiltshire (Mr. S. Herbert) had drawn a great draft upon the credulity of the House and the country with respect to the opinions upon protection to agriculture, upon which he plumed himself, and upon which he seemed ready to stake his existence. But if he (Sir J. Tyrell) was mi greatly mistaken, that right hon. Gentle-

713
man had founded ten or fifteen Protection Societies in Wiltshire only three months before the new light made its appearance in his mind. Under these circumstances, he thought he was hardly entitled to read a lecture to those on that side of the House. He (Sir J. Tyrell) supported the present Ministry, because he believed that they were the only Government which the country was likely to have which would redress the grievances of agriculture. That was his definition of protection. The present was the third attempt which hon. Gentlemen opposite had made to misunderstand what had been said in that and in the other House of Parliament. But what was his (Sir J. Tyrell's) definition of these things? Why did he support Her Majesty's Government? Because he believed it was the only Government the country was likely to have that would redress the evils of the nation. As for the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer, he deserved a crown of glory, for showing them that they had a better cause, perhaps, on the ground of justice than they had on that of protection. But, surely, those being their opinions, they were not liable to be taunted because, being in a minority in that House, they declined to take a direct vote on the question of protection. Yet that was the battering ram which the Opposition were directing against the Government. He had on a former evening remarked upon the factious character of that opposition led by the noble Lord the head of the late Government, who did not appear very forward on that occasion, but left the matter to Gentlemen outside the ring, while those who expected to be future "right honourables," and to figure away as men of great power and capacity for business, had hitherto maintained great silence. He must say that the remarks of the Opposition were not very flattering to the Government of the noble Lord, who, he thought, had deserved better at their hands than they seemed inclined to deal out to him. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. C. Villiers) said free trade was in danger, and taunted the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Staffordshire (Mr. Adderley) for the position he had taken; but he (Sir J. Tyrell) considered it was very flattering to those on his own side of the House to see a Gentleman who had generally been a supporter of Sir Robert Peel take his seat where he had. They were told the other night that those on that side of the House were afraid of Parliamentary re-
714
form, and of an extension of the suffrage. They were no doubt afraid of a radical reform, from which they feared that the agricultural interest would again be severe sufferers, as they had been from the last. It was not a worthy course for the Opposition to waste the time of the House in debates of this kind. If their principles were so clearly true, and they had so much confidence in the success of the appeal to the country, they might at least allow the business of the House and the country to proceed in peace. He believed that if time was given to the Government, the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer would be prepared to bring forward a measure for the extension of the suffrage which would do honour to his talents. It would not at all surprise him if the right hon. Gentleman had a measure of that kind. That, no doubt, did not suit the book of the Opposition. On the ballot question he completely scarified them, and polished their bones. The right hon. Gentleman having brought forward Motions for the relief of the agriculturists, and having been defeated first by a majority of 100, then of 50, and at last by only 14, hon. Gentlemen then said, "Oh dear! we don't understand him;" and that was what they said now; but both they and the country could make a shrewd guess at what he intended to do. Perhaps it was not quite in order for him to say that hon. Gentlemen opposite pretended not to understand what was said in the other House; but they might recollect that when the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer made his first speech in that House, he said that a time would come when they would hear him; and his (Sir J. Tyrell's) opinion was, that if they waited a little, there would come a time when they would understand him too.
MR. P. HOWARDsaid, the only measure proposed by the Government, which they could call their own was, that by which it was intended to give the franchise to any person who had served two years in the militia. It had always been usual, on a change of Government, that a sketch should be given by the Ministry coming into office of the policy it intended to pursue. When Sir Robert Peel acceded to office he wrote a letter to his constituents at Tamworth, in which he entered minutely into the policy he intended to pursue; and when Earl Grey came into power, he was equally distinct in the exposition of his policy. The present Government, how-

715
ever, had left both their home and colonial policy a complete riddle, while on ecclesiastical polity they had expressed no opinion, but by the indirect answers which they had given, they had opened up a most fertile ground for religious strife. No Ministry could ever follow the course adopted by the present Government without causing a political discord which it was fearful to contemplate.
MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Wiltshire (Mr. S. Herbert) had stated his firm adherence to the principles he had adopted in 1846, and had dwelt on the sacrifice he then made in not only changing his opinions, but in forcing those opinions on the country. Now, every one must feel that when a man had made great sacrifices, it was natural he should entertain an attachment to the object for which he had made them; but such attachments often became exaggerated by the sense of the sacrifices made by those who entertained them; and the right hon. Gentleman now intimated that if a bridge could be constructed to reunite him to those from whom he had been separated by his change of opinions in 1846, he would gladly add an arch to such a bridge. He begged, however, to tell the right hon. Gentleman, that his subsequent observations did not tend to any such object, when he said that those who had supported the Corn Laws had supported them as a system of outdoor relief to the country gentlemen of England—an expression which he trusted he would see the propriety of retracting.
MR. SIDNEY HERBERT: What I said was, that the Corn Laws might be characterised as a system of outdoor relief to the country gentlemen; but I said also, I was persuaded that if Gentlemen opposite held the same opinion, they would not have supported those laws.
MR. NEWDEGATEwas glad the right hon. Gentleman had acquitted the country gentlemen of England of being actuated by such base motives in their opposition to the policy of 1846—a policy against which, he (Mr. S. Herbert) had, previous to 1846, co-operated with the Protection Societies in his own county. He (Mr. Newdegate) as vice-chairman of the acting Committee of the National Association for Protection, had, owing to the illness of his hon. Friend near him (Mr. G. F. Young), had the honour of occupying the chair of that Committee, and he could assure the
716
House that the Protection Societies throughout the United Kingdom had placed their confidence in the Earl of Derby, and, for this reason, that they, adhering to their opinions, believed also that the noble Earl was sincere in the opinions which he had ever entertained, expressed, and acted upon. The members of the Protection Societies believed that the Earl of Derby was the Minister most likely to bring about a happy understanding between those who entertained the same opinions with themselves, and those sections of the community which entertained opposite opinions. For that reason they had—so far as information had reached the central society—unanimously decided on supporting the Earl of Derby as a consistent statesman, and the Minister most able and likely to bring about a happy understanding between themselves and those with whom they differed. They had not abated one jot of their opinions as to the question of protection; and when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Wiltshire said that the Corn Laws were a mere system of outdoor relief to the landowners, he would ask him to allow him to interpose the opinion of an unprejudiced statesman on the adoption by this country of free trade. The speech of M. Thiers, in the late Assembly of France, had been adverted to in that House by the noble Lord the Member for London, who rightly characterised that speech as one of the ablest protection speeches that was ever delivered. M. Thiers ought to be unprejudiced, indeed favourable to the adoption of free-trade by England, since the French Minister of Agriculture had reported that 4,000,000 acres of waste land in France had been brought into cultivation since 1846. But what was the opinion of M. Thiers with respect to the maintenance of protection by France? Why, he defended it, and the Assembly by their vote confirmed his reasoning. What did M. Thiers say of the policy adopted by this country in 1846? He declared that Sir Robert Peel made a most unwise change in 1846—that it was made in deference to violent and ignorant agitation, not with the view to the real interests of the country, but to preserve the monarchy and the aristocracy of this country from the violence of a misguided population. And when the right hon. Member for South Wiltshire condemned the landowners of this country for receiving what he termed outdoor relief, what said M. Thiers of the landowners of France? Why,

717
said M. Thiers, did the Assembly of France give them protection? Because, he said, what may be borne in England cannot be suffered in France, owing to the subdivision of property; in consequence of which, if the corn laws were there to be repealed, to use his own words "everybody would he ruined;" but that Sir Robert Peel, in repealing the Corn Laws in England, had thought the large landed proprietors might afford to make a sacrifice from their surplus, and consider it advisable to agree to the measure: nevertheless that he (M. Thiers) thought that sudden and violent change most unwise and inconsistent with national prosperity. He appealed to this as the unbiassed opinion of one of the leading statesmen of France. He (Mr. Newdegate) did not wish to trespass upon the attention of the House at any length; but as doubt had been thrown upon the conduct and motives of the Earl of Derby, and as he (Mr. Newdegate) had been the chairman of the acting Committee of the Protection Society, he thought he was bound not to remain silent. It was said that the Earl of Derby would lose the confidence of the House and of the country by not dissolving at once, and stating at the same time the precise object of his future commercial policy, and the exact changes he would make. The Earl of Derby would lose nothing by not adopting this course. The hon. Gentleman opposite, the Member for the West Riding (Mr. Cobden), wanted the noble Earl to fix a 5s. duty, or some other precise amount of duty upon the importation of foreign corn, as a definite proposition, and also to fix the day for the dissolution of Parliament, because the success of the agitation which he intended to excite would depend upon two circumstances: one, that there should be a fixed and narrow point of attack, like a 5s. duty; and the other, that there should be a certainty as to the time of the dissolution. If the hon. Gentleman could arrive at a certainty on those two points, he had told the Anti-Corn-Law Leaguers that he would excite a violent and dangerous agitation throughout the country, which would culminate at the precise period of the general election. He (Mr. Newdegate) hoped the Earl of Derby would not conform to any such conditions. If he had any regard for the peace and well-being of the country, he would refuse to listen to the terms dictated by the hon. Member for the West Riding, and decline either to narrow to a point the future policy of his
718
Government, or to name precipitately the exact day for the dissolution of Parliament, because, if he acceded to such conditions, they would be turned to the worst possible purposes by the hon. Member.
SIR ROBERT H. INGLISsaid, that his right hon. Friend the Member for South Wiltshire (Mr. S. Herbert)—in proof that no unnecessary impediment had been thrown in the way of public business—had reminded the House that the Government, who had now been six weeks in office, had in no single instance met with a hostile division; but he was sure the right hon. Gentleman would not deny that public business had, to a great extent, been impeded by other means—in one instance by speeches for eight hours, and in another for six hours, on questions which might have been disposed of in half an hour. And who were those who brought forward those questions? They were the very Gentlemen who were so eager that the Members of that House should be sent to their constituents with the view to a new verdict on the question of free trade. Now, he (Sir R. Inglis) begged to say, with regard to the intentions of Government on the subject of a dissolution, he required nothing more than the original statement, in another place, of the Prime Minister. His belief was, that so soon as the measures which, in his judgment, were essential to the public service and the defence of the country were passed, the noble Earl meant, as an honest man, to appeal to the country. Now, that being the case, he asked the House whether, if the course were persisted in, of occupying eight hours on one evening, and six hours on another, and three hours, as on that occasion, with unnecessary discussions, the Government could be expected to advise the Crown to dissolve Parliament at an early period? On looking at the Orders for that day he found no less than three and twenty notices; amongst them were a Bill on the Salmon Fisheries, and the Sheep Contagion Bill. It was not asserted that those were measures of urgency; but he had full confidence in the Government not prolonging the Session beyond the time necessary to pass certain bonâ fide and necessary measures.
Subject dropped.

THE IONIAN ISLANDS.
MR. HUMEsaid, the House would recollect that he had announced his intention of bringing the condition of the Ionian

719
Islands under the consideration of the House. Some time since he had moved for certain papers for the purpose of bringing on a discussion with respect to the state of those islands. It had been impossible, as he understood, for the Government to produce those papers when he moved for them, and consequently it would be very unfair to proceed to the discussion without having documents which he deemed to be important. He did not, therefore, intend, as he had already intimated to the right hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Colonies, to bring on the Motion which appeared on the paper for the following evening; but it was his intention to bring on that Motion after the Easter recess. With regard to the Vote for the Kafir war, which was to be submitted to them on going into Committee, he must remark it was usual in such cases that the amount required should be specified. Without such information they could not accurately estimate the amount which that colony would cost them. But of this they might be confident, that the expense incurred in the last year, and the amount that was about to be called for in the present year, had been caused by gross mismanagement at the Cape of Good Hope. He thought the late Government were responsible for that, because the noble Earl lately at the head of the Colonial Department did not pay attention to the suggestions that had been offered to him, and give to the people of that colony the power of carrying on the Government there. On the contrary, he had pursued a system that had led to the greatest possible injury in that colony. He (Mr. Hume) had last year and the year before vainly advised them to avoid the evils which he foresaw, and the expense that must necessarily be incurred, unless his advice was adopted. He did not know what further expenses were to be incurred; but seeing the mistakes and expense into which the late Government had been led, in consequence of the course adopted by them at the Cape, he was induced to express a hope that the present Government would take into consideration the state of the Ionian Islands, and not incur additional expense by persevering in the system of misgovernment that was carried on there. In the year 1850 he had called the attention of the House to the subject, and to the number of individuals who had been tried by court-martial, as appeared by papers that were laid on the table. He had also directed attention
720
to the number of executions and military floggings, and all the consequences arising from misgovernment and oppression on the part of the Government there. The House, however, was satisfied by the statement of the noble Lord then at the head of the Government, that he took upon himself the responsibility, and would promise that all should be right. The division in the House on the occasion was thirteen to eighty-four, and they were called upon to give Sir Henry Ward a fair trial. The first Session of the House of Assembly had been dissolved after a very short time in consequence of their refusing to allow an inquiry into the proceedings at Cephalonia. Again, the Parliament was dissolved by proclamation, even without meeting, and thus the people of the Ionian Islands, with a Representative Government, and having avowedly the right to possess a voice in the management of their own affairs, were deprived by Sir Henry Ward of the opportunity of assembling to discuss those questions which affected them, thereby causing the greatest possible dissatisfaction amongst them. The people had a right to think that the elections should take place in a proper manner, and that there should be full opportunity for discussion of their affairs by men fairly and fearlessly elected; but it would be seen that the late elections had taken place at Zante and Cephalonia under the bayonets of the 30th and 41st Regiments. The greatest consternation was caused by the course which had been adopted to carry that election. They might talk of the mode which had been adopted by Louis Napoleon to carry the elections in France; but they were not half so bad as those which had been adopted in the Ionian Islands, where the Lord High Commissioner had sent down to the Regent a list of candidates to be elected. Directions were issued that every individual connected with the Government should, at the peril of losing his office, vote for certain candidates. He (Mr. Hume) would beg of the right hon. Baronet the Colonial Secretary to look to those matters, and by a timely interference prevent the renewal of such proceedings. The liberty of the press had been suppressed, and the editors of the newspapers had been banished to every rock around the island over which the Government possessed power. No person could express an opinion through fear of the vengeance of the Government, but he thought the time was come when those unfortunate islanders should receive some-

721
thing like justice. An end should be put to those tyrannical proceedings, and the inhabitants of the Ionian Islands should have some of the benefits of the constitution which, when they were transferred to this country, it was stipulated they should enjoy. The Parliament met on the 3rd of March; but such was the disgust of the Members at the proceedings which had taken place at the elections, that the Government were not able to assemble the quorum of twenty-two, which was necessary for the transaction of business. The Members refused to attend, and the Parliament having been previously prorogued for eighteen months out of two years, was again prorogued for six months. And why? Because some of the Members complained that other Members had been illegally elected, that Sir Henry Ward had taken upon himself to alter the election laws, and that the Assembly had never met to sanction those laws. Consequently the laws were illegal, and every one elected under them were illegally elected. That was the reason assigned by them for not attending to do their duty. Two years ago, the noble Lord lately at the head of the Government said he had no doubt that Sir Henry Ward would conduct the affairs of the islands in a manner that would create contentment and peace; but on considering their present state it would appear that the noble Lord's assurance had not been realised. It appeared that the Senate named by Sir Henry Ward had made an alteration affecting the representative system. In Cephalonia the electors by this illegal interference were reduced from 6,000 to 1,500. He had received two letters—one from a representative and another from an inhabitant of Cephalonia detailing such atrocities on the part of the authorities, that he was almost afraid to mention them, because he could not expect such conduct from any British officer. The Government at home must know that the Governor had prorogued the Parliament because he could not obtain a quorum; and he trusted the right hon. Baronet the Colonial Secretary would not be led away by any representations on the part of those who took upon themselves formerly to patronise the acts of Sir Henry Ward. They had not heard any complaints of this kind during the time of the previous Governor; but since Sir Henry Ward was appointed, everything had been changed. He trusted the right hon. Gentleman would take care that the documents moved for,
722
and such other documents as were necessary, should be laid upon the table. It appeared that twenty-two men—part of whom were tried for their lives—had been brought before military courts martial, and these, strictly speaking, were not properly conducted. Twenty-three persons were confined in one of the fortresses in Cephalonia, and every rock around it was occupied. No man could regret more than he (Mr. Hume) did the conduct of Sir Henry Ward, who had, in that House, been the advocate of freedom, and the anxious supporter of the rights of the people, and he scarcely could believe that any such conduct as he had referred to could be sanctioned by him. He must say that it would be unwise policy to allow Sir Henry Ward to remain; and it was the duty of Government to withdraw an individual who had become so obnoxious to the people. He did not understand how the Government could refuse to comply with the wishes of the inhabitants by sending out a Commissioner to make inquiry on the spot and report the truth. They could not get the truth from the authorities—the press was suppressed—and every person who wished to state the facts was instantly transported. It would be discreditable to the right hon. Baronet and to the Government if they allowed such charges to pass without inquiry, and they should endeavour to ascertain why these military executions had taken place—why there was so much discontent amongst the people—and why the island should have been placed under embargo at one time for three months, with the whole British fleet from Malta surrounding it. He begged the right hon. Baronet would seek information from the officers of the 30th and 41st Regiments, who seemed to have been engaged in preventing the people from voting. It was not his intention to oppose the Vote which was about coming on, because the present Government was not responsible for the acts that rendered it necessary; but it should prove to them that such expenses must be incurred where discontent was allowed to exist. He had never known that discontent existed in any country, ending in military execution, except there were some grounds for it. They should ascertain the cause of that discontent, and remove it at once. He believed the inhabitants of the Ionian Islands were now as capable of being good citizens as they were some years ago. He (Mr. Hume) had been there forty years

723
since. They were then very good citizens, and he did not think they were much altered at present. If they went to any part of the Levant or Asia Minor, they would find that the Ionians were sharp, clever men, and were much superior to any other class of Italians he had ever met.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, that he thought he had some reason to complain of the course which the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume) had taken upon this subject. The hon. Gentleman moved, a short time ago, for the production of numerous papers relating to the affairs of the Ionian Islands. He (Sir J. Pakington) consented to the production of those papers, but, at the same time, he told the hon. Gentleman, that as it would be necessary to obtain a large portion of them from the Ionian Islands, a considerable time must of necessity elapse before they could be laid upon the table. The hon. Gentleman, however, told him on Thursday, that as the House was to be asked to-night to sanction a Vote for the Kafir war, he thought that would be an appropriate opportunity for discussing the affairs of the Ionian Islands. The hon. Gentleman had placed him in this difficulty—that he had made no Motion; and had it not been for his concluding observations, indicating his opinion that, from the conduct of Sir Henry Ward, it was the duty of the Government to recall him, he (Sir J. Pakington) would not have been able entirely to make out to what points he had to reply, or what was the object of the hon. Gentleman. But as the hon. Gentleman had touched upon this subject, he (Sir J. Pakington) considered that he would be shrinking from his duty if he did not tell the House what the views of the Government were. The House would recollect that the present Government had had no past political connexion, and no political sympathies, with Sir Henry Ward; and that the conduct of Sir Henry Ward in the Ionian Islands, whatever it might have been, had not been under the direction of the present Ministry. On the other hand, he had no hesitation in saying that no party distinctions or party feelings should for a moment deter the present Government from doing justice in a generous spirit to any absent servant of the Crown, who they believed had, under difficulties and embarrassments of no ordinary nature, exerted himself to support the authority of the Queen, and to put down rebellion against Her Majesty, as the Protectress of
724
the Ionian Islands. He was not called upon to be the champion of Sir Henry Ward; he was not now disposed to weigh in a nice balance every word Sir Henry Ward might have uttered, or every act he might have done; he was not prepared to say that, under the extraordinary difficulties with which Sir Henry Ward had had to contend, he might not have here and there been led into indiscretions. He (Sir J. Pakington) gave no opinion one way or the other; but he had no hesitation in expressing his opinion that Sir Henry Ward had done his best to preserve the just authority of the Crown under circumstances of very great difficulty, and that he was therefore entitled to the generous and fair support of the Government. He believed the House would feel that he was not called upon to reply to the greater part of the observations of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hume), which referred to matters conducted under his predecessor in the Colonial Office, and which had received the sanction of the late Government. He might, however, remind the House that these charges against Sir Henry Ward had previously formed the subject of Parliamentary discussion. In 1850 the hon. Member for Montrose brought forward all the circumstances connected with the rebellion of 1849, and attacked Sir Henry Ward in much the same strain in which he had now indulged; but the result was, that he could only find thirteen hon. Gentlemen to vote in support of the Motion he then submitted to the House. Although, however, under these circumstances, he (Sir J. Pakington) did not feel it his duty to re-enter upon these subjects, one or two points had been adverted to by the hon. Gentleman which, in justice to Sir Henry Ward, and that there might be no misunderstanding in the House or in the country, he thought he was bound not to pass over altogether without comment. One of these points was the reference which had been made by the hon. Member for Montrose to the execution of twenty-one men in Cephalonia in 1849; but the hon. Gentleman had failed to remind the House that not only were those twenty-one men taken with arms in their hands, in rebellion against the Sovereign Protectress of the Ionian Islands, and therefore guilty of high treason, but that every one of them, he believed, had been, in addition, convicted of murder, rape, and the gravest possible crimes. He believed that if ever men were justly dealt with, these men

725
were, who received capital punishment for the accumulated crimes they had confessed to their priests they were guilty of. These men had also been guilty of one of the most detestable outrages ever committed—the burning alive of Count Metaxa and his family. The hon. Gentleman next complained that the recent elections had been carried on under armed interference, and he particularly referred to the elections for Zante and Cephalonia. The hon. Gentleman seemed, however, to have forgotten that the elections there were unfavourable to the authority of the Government, so that, whatever the interference might have been, it had entirely failed. The hon. Member went on to complain of this interference with the civil rights of the Ionian people, and to lament that under what he termed the meddling and mischievous policy of the present Lord High Commissioner, they were not allowed to exercise self-government. He (Sir J. Pakington) would ask the hon. Gentleman's attention to some evidences of the fitness for self-government of the Ionian people in former years and at the present time. He would quote, not the opinions of Sir Henry Ward, or of any Englishman, but the opinions of some of the most distinguished among the Ionian people. From 1800 to 1807 the Ionian Islands had self-government; but they had not—he was going to say enjoyed, but he would rather say—suffered the miseries of that freedom for two years, before the state of things was such that it was thus described:—
"Fortunately, ample official materials were extant to prove that before two years had elapsed of this golden age, all the Seven Islands had been guilty of treason and rebellion against its local Government. Horrors resembling those of the old Corcyræan factions described by Thucydides were of frequent occurrence. In Zante alone assassinations have been so numerous as one for each day in the year—a fair average for a population of less than 40,000. Alarmed and disgusted by this situation of their affairs, the Ionian Senate sent, in 1802, a deputation to the Emperor of Russia, to implore his immediate interference, as the only means of putting an end to such scenes of bloodshed and anarchy, the sole result of that power which he had left in their hands."
The negotiation was carried on with the Emperor of Russia, its conduct being intrusted to an Ionian gentleman named Neranzi, and for his guidance in the negotiation instructions were drawn up by the Senate, one of which was in these terms:—
"Lastly, M. Neranzi was directed to impress on the mind of His Imperial Majesty that, 'in a word, the inhabitants of the Seven Islands, who
726
have thus attempted to establish a republican constitution, are neither born free nor are they instructed in any arts of government, nor are they possessed of moderation, so as to live peaceably under any political system framed by their own countrymen.'"
He would now request the hon. Gentleman's attention to the statement of a witness of the highest possible authority, a gentleman of large fortune, and bearing a name beloved by all Greeks—Count Salamos, who spoke of the fitness of the Ionian people for self-government now. Count Salamos, who had been Regent of Zante under Lord Seaton, having felt it his duty to resign the presidency of the Ionian Senate, wrote thus to Sir Henry Ward on the 25th of April, 1851:—
"My Lord—The present state of the Ionian Islands is, indeed, most lamentable. It was not the will of Heaven that the reforms effected in the constitution should be granted by such gradual steps as would have enabled the people to receive them in a proper spirit, and to make a wise use of them. Introduced too suddenly, and at a most inopportune time, the result was such as might have been anticipated. They awakened the most extravagant expectations, inflamed minds by nature too easily inflammable, offered to the British nation, by which they were conceded, instead of thanks, proofs of the most flagrant ingratitude, and plunged these islands into a state of the greatest confusion and disorder. Your Excellency's well-known abilities and paternal care were unable to provide a remedy for these evils: nor have the good intentions and the remonstrances of the executive power proved more successful. The present system takes from every man, however well-intentioned, the power of promoting in any way the good of his country, and consequently renders unavailing my labours as President of the Senate."
These statements, he thought, would show how far, in the opinion of their own countrymen, the Ionian people were fitted to possess those institutions of which the hon. Gentleman complained that they were deprived. He must express his surprise at what fell from the hon. Member for Montrose as to the conduct of Sir Henry Ward towards the editors and conductors of the public press, who, he said, had been imprisoned under the high police powers, and were now deprived of their liberty. He (Sir J. Pakington) would be doing the greatest injustice to Sir Henry Ward if he allowed these observations to go to the country without some explanation. He must remind the hon. Gentleman that the freedom of the press was one of the most ill-advised of those unhappy concessions which Lord Seaton made before he left the Ionian Islands, and which had been the real cause of all the distractions and difficulties which had taken place. Lord

727
Seaton passed a new law giving freedom to the press, and assured the Home Government that his precautions were amply sufficient—those precautions being, that any offences against propriety on the part of the press should be tried by juries. It so happened, that under the new system in the Ionian Islands offences against the criminal law of the country were not tried by jury, the only offences tried by jury being the offences of the press. The result was, that within three months after the law was passed, Lord Seaton himself, without any trial by jury, resorted to what was called "the high police power," and imprisoned two editors of newspapers for the scandalous manner in which their journals were conducted. What was the case under Sir Henry Ward? He (Sir J. Pakington) had no hesitation in saying that he shrank from reading to the House the gross, flagrant, disgusting libels, which disgraced the press of the Ionian Islands—libels, many of them directed against all that, in this country, men most revered, respected, and honoured; and he certainly thought that Sir Henry Ward would have been involved in gross culpability if he had allowed the conduct of the press with regard to these libels to have passed un-visited by any punishment which it might be fairly, legally, and justly in his power to inflict. He (Sir J. Pakington) must observe, however, that Sir Henry Ward did not at once resort to the high police powers. He first tried trial by jury, but he found it was vain to expect redress from an Ionian jury. In justice to Sir Henry Ward, he must also say that, entertaining as every Englishman must do, a sincere dislike to power in the nature of these high police powers, if it were possible to carry on the Government without their exercise, Sir Henry Ward, in the Session of the Ionian Assembly in 1850, offered to abandon the high police powers if the Assembly would only pass a fair and just law, which would enable the Government to deal with the libellers without resorting to those police powers. The Assembly refused to pass such a law, and an Ionian nobleman, who had recently sent home the strongest petitions against the conduct of Sir Henry Ward, was one of the very majority who would not allow him to abandon that high police power in exchange for a just and equitable law for the restraint of the press. One of the concessions which Sir Henry Ward had also announced his intention to make to
728
the Parliament which ought now to have been sitting, was the abandonment of this high police power, on condition of receiving as an equivalent a fair law for restraining the press. The hon. Member for Montrose censured Sir Henry Ward for the manner in which he had dissolved the late Parliament. The fact was, that the Ionian Parliament was not dissolved in the summer of 1850; it was prorogued. In December of the same year the House of Assembly again met, and was again prorogued; but the cause of that prorogation was, that the Assembly was proceeding to pass a vote for annexing the Ionian Islands to Greece, and repudiating altogether the authority of the Queen of this country; and he left the House and the country to judge whether blame attached to Sir Henry Ward for having prorogued the Assembly under such circumstances. The hon. Member for Montrose had said that Sir Henry Ward and the Ionian Senate had, previously to the last dissolution, made alterations in the electoral law which required confirmation at the next meeting of the Assembly, and that, not having received such confirmation, the elections were illegal, and the present Assembly was unduly constituted. It was true that Sir Henry Ward and the Senate did, in the course of the last autumn, make certain alterations in the electoral law; but those alterations were made under the authority of a special power which existed in the Ionian Islands, under which the Lord High Commissioner and the Senate, during the recess of the Assembly, could pass laws upon subjects of necessity, such laws requiring to be sanctioned or disallowed at the next meeting of the Assembly. It was, however, he believed, undenied and undeniable, that though the acts must be either confirmed or reversed at the next meeting of the Assembly, all things done pending the approval or disapproval of the Assembly were valid by the constitution. The alterations in the electoral law were consequently valid, and he believed the hon. Member for Montrose had not the slightest pretence for saying that on this ground the present Assembly was not properly constituted. He now came to the transactions which had recently taken place in the Ionian Islands. He thought one of the main defects of the present constitution of those islands was, that upon the assembling of a new Parliament the High Commissioner in constituting his Senate took five (he believed)

729
of the Members elected to the Assembly. The consequence had been, that on the first assembling of Parliament the best and most valuable members were taken away from it. Sir Henry Ward, on the first meeting of the Assembly, selected five members of that Assembly as senators. There were other members who, from disloyalty to the Queen, would not take the oaths, and from various causes a number of vacancies occurred. A difference arose upon the Address proposed to be voted to Her Majesty upon the opening of the Session; and, when he mentioned that the very gentleman who drew the draught of the loyal Address was one of the factious minority who would not afterwards allow the House of Assembly to carry it, declaring as the reason their objection to the supremacy of the British Crown, he thought the House would he able to form a good idea of the class of persons with whom Sir Henry Ward had to deal. The House being reduced in the manner just stated, it was in the power of a factious minority to prevent there being twenty-two members assembled; and accordingly on two, if not three, successive days, they prevented a quorum being made by refusing to attend, and thus prevented the voting the Address. Under these circumstances the Lord High Commissioner had to consider the course that he ought to take; and he determined, finding such factious proceedings resorted to, to prorogue the Assembly. The hon. Member (Mr. Hume) said that for this conduct it was the duty of Her Majesty's Government to recall Sir Henry Ward. He (Sir J. Pakington) had to state that such was not the opinion of Her Majesty's Government. Sir Henry Ward was no partisan of theirs: they were not called upon to defend his conduct in every particular; but it was their belief that, under circumstances of extraordinary difficulty, he had honestly and anxiously endeavoured to support the authority of the Crown, and at the same time had offered, almost, perhaps, too freely, to make every concession to popular feeling which he could possibly with prudence do. Under these circumstances, he (Sir J. Pakington) held that Sir Henry Ward was entitled to a fair and frank support from Her Majesty's Ministers. If the hon. Member for Montrose thought fit to persevere in his intended Motion after the recess, the Government would be prepared to meet it as they might think the justice of the case required. As at present advised, however,
730
their opinion was, that Sir Henry Ward had endeavoured honestly to do his duty, and was therefore entitled to their support.
MR. F. PEELsaid, that the observations which fell from the hon. Member for Montrose had been so fully, and to his mind so satisfactorily, answered by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir J. Pakington), that he (Mr. F. Peel) did not feel called upon, however much he might have wished it, to enter into any explanation of the general grounds on which the administration of Sir Henry Ward might be justified. He was very glad to collect from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary, that whenever the hon. Member for Montrose might bring forward a Motion of which he had given notice, Her Majesty's Government would not support that Motion, which was for the appointment of a Committee to inquire into the causes of the insurrection which took place in Cephalonia in 1849, and into the present condition of the Ionian Islands, He (Mr. F. Peel) did not believe that an investigation of that kind would be attended with any advantage, while, undoubtedly, it would convey a very grave censure on the conduct of Sir Henry Ward; and having given much of his attention to this subject, it was his opinion that, although, perhaps Sir Henry Ward might not have earned, he had entitled himself to the gratitude of the Ionian people, and to the approbation of that House; for he (Mr. F. Peel) was persuaded it was to the energy and ability which characterised the administration of Sir Henry Ward, that peace and order were restored in 1849. But there were several reasons which made him desirous to take some part in this debate, and to offer to the House some information bearing upon what had fallen from the hon. Member (Mr. Hume), which happened to lie within his reach. The hon. Member had adverted principally to two topics, one of which had reference to the constitution of the Ionian Islands, and the liberties and independence of that people. The hon. Member also referred to the personal administration of Sir Henry Ward, and considered that in the insurrection at Cephalonia Sir Henry Ward was guilty of great excesses—that he employed a military force for the suppression of that rebellion where the civil power would have sufficed—that he proclaimed martial law, and continued it long after the ordinary tribunals should have resumed the exercise of their functions—and that he al-

731
lowed courts-martial to sentence to death a number of individuals, and a considerable number of others to imprisonment. With regard to those transactions, he (Mr. F. Peel) thought a sufficient reply was made by the right hon. Gentleman the Colonial Secretary, that was, that at a time when that subject was still fresh in the recollection of that House, and when the attention of hon. Members had recently been paid to what had been passing in the Ionian Islands, the Motion of the hon. Member, on the first occasion on which he sought to bring it forward, was met, he would not say with the indifference of the House, but hon. Members were so convinced of the propriety of Sir Henry Ward's conduct, that they did not remain in sufficient numbers to constitute a House; and when the hon. Gentleman brought forward the game Motion a second time, and succeeded in raising a discussion upon it, and carrying it to a division, not more than twelve or thirteen Members were found to vote for the proposition of the hon. Member. That was the answer with regard to the case of Cephalonia. In reference to the imprisonments and executions which had taken place under sentence of court-martial, they had the authority of Sir Henry Ward for stating that not a single individual was executed or imprisoned, simply for having borne arms against Her Majesty's authority. Sir Henry Ward, on the contrary, had stated that all the individuals who had been punished by execution or imprisonment were so punished because they had taken part in the outrages and crimes which had marked the progress of the insurrection, and some of them in the atrocious murder of Count Metaxa and his four servants. With reference to the petition adverted to by the hon. Gentleman from twenty-three individuals in the Ionian Islands, under sentence of imprisonment for the part they took in the insurrection of Cephalonia, he (Mr. F. Peel) must say, after the statement he had made on the authority of Sir Henry Ward, with regard to the part which those parties who were punished had taken in the insurrection, and seeing that only two or three years had elapsed since those sentences of imprisonment were passed, it would not be a proper even if it were a constitutional course for that House to interfere to procure the liberation of those prisoners. But he wished to draw the attention of the House to a subject connected with this petition. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hume)
732
had brought very grave charges against Sir Henry Ward in that House; but he had not confined his charges to the House of Commons. On the contrary, he had made statements out of doors, where there was no opportunity of giving immediate contradiction to his allegations. The hon. Gentleman would recollect a letter he had addressed to the Daily News at the latter end of last year, enclosing a letter which he had received from two prisoners in Cephalonia, and the contents of which the hon. Gentleman adopted by sending them to that journal, and requesting their publication. [Mr. HUME: I sent a copy of the letter.] In that letter was a charge to the effect that Sir Henry Ward, on the occasion of a visit last autumn to Cephalonia, had induced some of those prisoners to withdraw their signatures from the petition referred to by the hon. Gentleman, by offering bribes of money to their wives, and by holding out hopes of pardon to the prisoners themselves. That was a charge of a very serious character, and reflected very gravely on the conduct of Sir Henry Ward. But Sir Henry Ward had written to him (Mr. F. Peel) on the subject of that charge, and he should take leave to read a paper he had received from him in reference to it. In the first place, what was the authority on which that charge was made? It was made on the authority of two persons, of the respective names of Steculli and Lambrinato, the latter of whom was concerned in the burning of Count Metaxa and his four servants. This person had written a paper, which Sir Henry Ward had forwarded to him (Mr. F. Peel). It was written in modern Greek, and dated from Corfu. He had a translation of it, which was as follows:—
"I, the undersigned, do declare that I have not signed any other petition respecting my present condition, in consequence of the events of Cephalonia, excepting one addressed last year to the Minister of the Colonies (Earl Grey), and another to the Lord High Commissioner, dated the 9th (21st) of September last. With respect to the letter dated the 18th of October last, bearing my signature and that of Fotino Steculli, and addressed from Cephalonia to a Member of Parliament in England, and inserted in Galignani's Messenger, No. 11,516, I declare that it was not written by me, nor could have been so, as I was then confined in the Penitentiary at Corfu, and I never knew anything about it until explained to me now. (Signed) "ANASTASIO LAMBRINATO, of Gerasimo."
Having taken the trouble to ascertain the real truth as to that particular charge against Sir Henry Ward, he (Mr. F. Peel)

733
would not be making an unreasonable request, if he asked the House to believe that the source from which the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hume) derived his information in regard to Ionian affairs was enough to vitiate every charge he advanced against Sir Henry Ward. He would now say one word upon the question of the high police powers. The hon. Gentleman had said that Sir Henry Ward had imprisoned the writers and editors of articles in newspapers, and in so doing had violated the freedom of the press. He (Mr. F. Peel) would undertake to say, that Sir Henry Ward was as stanch an advocate of the freedom of the press as the hon. Gentleman himself. He was quite sure that Sir Henry Ward would always correctly appreciate the services of a press which was content to discuss public questions within the limits of the law and constitution, and with a due respect for the personal rights of individuals. The columns of the press in the Ionian Islands, however, had from time to time been disgraced by articles of the most slanderous and seditious description; and he (Mr. F. Peel) thought Sir Henry Ward was entitled to credit for having had the courage to put down that vice, regardless, in doing so, of being exposed to the charge of restricting the freedom of the press. But Sir Henry Ward had not shown any desire to retain those powers of the high police, as had been stated by the hon. Gentleman. The only other course which Sir Henry Ward could have taken would have been to have prosecuted the parties in question under the law of the Press. A few years ago there was a complete censorship over the press in the Ionian Islands; and when that censorship was removed, Earl Grey advised that a law for punishing immorality, slander, and libel on the part of the press should be passed similar to that which existed in this country. Lord Seaton had procured the passing of such a law, which he fancied would have been amply sufficient for the end in view; but experience had since proved that the law was utterly futile and ineffectual. Sir Henry Ward had conducted prosecutions under that law, but he found it was quite impossible to obtain a verdict from an Ionian jury, and he had consequently no alternative but to exercise his constitutional power of "high police." He proposed, however, in the course of the last Ionian Parliament, to surrender that power, provided the Assembly would substitute for it a proper law in reference to the press.
734
That proposition was rejected by a majority of twenty-two to eighteen; but that majority, the House should know, was composed of the party who had always been opposed to the policy of Sir Henry Ward. With regard to the constitution, he (Mr. P. Peel) considered that from 1817 to 1848 the Ionian people did not enjoy that full measure of independence and constitutional government which were guaranteed to them by the Treaty of 1815. They had freedom in its appearance, but not in it reality. The electoral body was limited in numbers, and aristocratic in its composition; and its power of election was only nominal, as it was required to choose between two candidates submitted to it by a Board nominated by the Executive. But the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hume) must remember that in the course of 1849 various reforms were carried; among others, the electoral body was increased from 1,500 to 6,000, and, which was a more important right, they were empowered to choose directly the Members sent to the Assembly. The people, therefore, who were now possessed of a Constituent Assembly chosen by themselves, had an instrument of working out any reform—commercial, legal, or representative—provided only they showed themselves qualified to exercise and enjoy the liberties of constitutional government.
Motion agreed to.

SUPPLY—KAFIR WAR.
House in Committee of Supply.
460,000 l. towards defraying the Expenses of the Kafir War, beyond the ordinary Naval and Military Estimates.
SIR WILLIAM MOLESWORTHsaid, he should not at present discuss the causes of the present state of South Africa, nor what should be the future policy of this country towards South Africa. He should merely confine his observations to the question now before the Committee, namely, our expenditure on account of South Africa, He wished more particularly to call the attention of the Committee to the great and increasing amount of that expenditure, as shown by returns which had been lately presented to Parliament. That expenditure had gone on steadily and rapidly increasing for the last twenty years. On the average of the three years ending 1850, it had amounted to 500,000 l. a year, or to about three times the average of the three years ending 1836, or to about 5l. a head a year for every European colonist in South Africa, or to about 20 s. in

735
the pound upon our exports to South Africa. Those exports rose and fell pretty much as our military expenditure increased or decreased, and were greatest immediately after a Kafir war. The reason was simple: our exports to South Africa consisted chiefly of merchandise for our troops, with some muskets and ammunition for the Kafirs; and during, or immediately after, a Kafir war, there was abundance of British gold in South Africa, and commerce flourished. Therefore, if we could withdraw our troops from South Africa, and, as a compensation for so doing, were to make the colonists a present of all our merchandise which they actually consumed, we should make a most excellent bargain. The great increase in our South African military expenditure had arisen chiefly from two causes, namely, from the great increase in the extent of our South African dominions, and from the abolition of the old and cheap system of self-protection by the colonists. In the course of the last ten years the British empire in South Africa had been more than doubled. In 1842 it covered an area of 110,000 square miles; in the course of the next six years, 120,000 square miles had been added to it, and it was extended to nearly the 27th degree of south latitude. If a line were drawn in about that latitude right across South Africa, from the Indian to the Atlantic Ocean, it would be about 1,000 miles long, and would constitute about the northern boundary of the British dominions in South Africa. The territory lying to the south of that line might be called British South Africa, because nine-tenths of it were British dominions; the remaining tenth was the territory inhabited by our Kafir enemies, and which was now surrounded on all sides but the seaside by British dominions. The area of British South Africa was 260,000 square miles—about the same as that of the Austrian empire. Its population amounted to about 700,000 persons; of these, one-seventh, or about 100,000, were of European origin, the greater portion of whom were discontented; about 150,000 were Hottentots and mongrel races, generally disaffected; about 350,000 were Kafirs and kindred tribes, most of whom were our avowed enemies; and the remaining 100,000 were Toolahs in Natal, of doubtful allegiance. In the midst of this discontented, traitorous, or hostile population, we had about 10,000 British troops, who, alone and unaided, were, according to Sir Harry Smith,
736
carrying on a war over an area of three times the size of the United Kingdom, with tribes as fierce as the Circassians or the Algerines. No fewer than 80,000 French troops were required in Algiers. He thought, therefore, the state of South Africa was critical, and it was no wonder that our military expenditure on account of it had increased of late years. The other cause of the great increase in bur military expenditure on account of South Africa had been the abolition, in 1833, of the old and cheap effectual system of self-protection by the colonists. With regard to that system, he must observe that it was similar to that which had been used by our colonists in North America in their conflicts with the Indians. In South Africa it had originated with the Dutch, when the Dutch and the Kafirs first met on the eastern frontier of the colony of the Cape. The superior cattle of the Dutch had irresistibly tempted the cupidity of the Kafir. A petty warfare had ensued, like that which had raged in former times on the borders between England and Scotland. The Boers, as the frontier Dutch were called, had combined for mutual assistance, and formed a regular system of irregular defence called the commando system. When the cattle of a boer was stolen, he seized his loaded musket, mounted his horse, and his friends together, went off in pursuit of his property, and righted himself with a strong hand: if he recovered his property, so much the better; if he did not, he had nobody to blame but himself. In these expeditions the boer classed the prowling and marauding savage with the beast of prey, and shot down with equal zest the cattle-stealing lion and the cattle-stealing Kafir. By these means the boers had defended themselves as effectually on the eastern frontier of the Cape of Good Hope, as their descendants had done on the Orange territory and Natal, and now did under the tropic of Capricorn, whence they had offered to come to our assistance. The commando system had continued in full vigour up to the year 1833, when it was abolished. He asserted that the system had worked well on the whole, in protecting the lives and property of the frontier farmers. He found that under that system our military force in South Africa had been steadily and gradually diminished since the war; and consequently our military expenditure had also been steadily and gradually diminished. He found that in 1816 our military

737
force in South Africa had amounted to 4,500 men; that in almost every subsequent year, down to 1833, it had been regularly diminished, till in 1833 it amounted only to 2,000 men, and in that year our effective military expenditure was 100,000 l. Since then it had gone on steadily and rapidly increasing, both in periods of peace and in periods of war. If each of these periods were compared separately, it would be found that our peace expenditure and our war expenditure had each of them increased very nearly in the same ratio since 1833. For instance, on the average of the two years of peace, ending with 1834, our effective military expenditure on account of South Africa had been 100,000 l. a year; on the average of the three years of peace, ending with 1846, that expenditure had increased to 280,000 l. a year, or to nearly three times what it had been in 1833; and, lastly, on the average of the two years of peace, ending with 1850, that expenditure had amounted to 380,000 l. a year, or to nearly four times what it had been in 1833. Next, with regard to periods of war. There had been no war of any importance in the interval between 1819 and 1833. Since 1833 there had been three Kafir wars: the first was said to have cost 500,000 l., the second had cost nearly 2,000,000 l., and we should be lucky if 3,000,000 l. covered the expense of the present one. For the year of war 1835 our effective military expenditure on account of South Africa bad been returned at 240,000 l. On the average of the two years of war, 1846 and 1847, that expenditure had amounted to 860,000 l. a year, or more than three times what it had been in 1885; and during last year that expenditure must have amounted to 1,000,000 l., or fully four times what it had been in 1835. Therefore, since 1833 our peace expenditure and our war expenditure on account of South Africa had each of them increased fourfold, and our last peace expenditure had exceeded by a large percentage our former war expenditure. Therefore the year 1833 constituted an epoch in the history of our South African expenditure. From the peace up to that year our expenditure had gone on gradually diminishing; in that year it reached its minimum. Since then it had gone on steadily and rapidly increasing, and would increase if the present system should be adhered to. In 1833 a great change had been made in our South African policy; the old cheap and effectual system of self-protection by the colonists
738
had been abolished, and the Colonial Office had substituted for it the system of protecting the frontier by treaties made with savages, and enforced by British troops. By those treaties we had theoretically transformed the South African savages into the citizens of a regularly-established State; we had vainly expected that their chiefs would recognise and observe the law of nations; we had entered into diplomatic relations with them; we had appointed agents to reside amongst them; we had stipulated that the chiefs should prevent depredations, should restore stolen property, or make compensation. Those stipulations bad been ill kept; for the Kafirs were, to use the words of their own great chief, Sandilli, a nation of irreclaimable thieves, and there was no difference between chiefs and followers. The chiefs had been utterly faithless. They had displayed the greatest skill and ingenuity in evading the provisions of the treaties. The frontier farmers had bitterly complained that the British Government, which had deprived them of the right of redressing their own wrongs, had not sufficiently protected them against the depredations of the Kafirs. Some of these complaints had, without doubt, been well founded. With regard to others, he (Sir W. Molesworth) must observe that when individuals had to redress their own wrongs, and when in so doing they had to incur considerable risk and trouble, they were apt to overlook minor wrongs, which were not worth the risk and trouble of redressing; and this had been the case under the commando system. But when, as under the treaty system, a Government undertook to redress the wrongs of individuals, then every wrong, however trifling, real or imaginary, became, if unredressed, the source of grievous complaint against the Government. Thus, whenever, under the treaty system, a sheep had been lost, or an ox had strayed on the eastern frontier of the colony of the Cape, the farmer had invariably assumed that the Kafirs had stolen it, and that the Government ought to recover it. Therefore, partly on account of real, partly on account of imaginary depredations, the Colonial Government had been contantly called upon to enforce the provisions of the treaties with the savages. But those treaties could only he strictly enforced by constant recourse to armed force, and that would lead to war. Some governors rashly engaged in war; others endeavoured to avoid war. For instance, Sir George Napier, who had

739
been Governor of the colony of the Cape of Good Hope, from 1837 to 1344, had stated in his despatches, and in his evidence before the Kafir Committee, that he had been repeatedly urged to make war upon the Kafirs, and that there were many persons in South Africa who profited largely by Kafir wars. Sir George Napier had stated that he thought it a great folly for a great country like England to be easily provoked into a Kafir war; that he had declined, for the sake of a few head of cattle, to incur the expense of a Kafir war; and he had proposed, instead of going to war, to pay, in certain special cases, compensation out of the public purse to persons who had suffered from Kafir depredations. With regard to this this policy, he (Sir W. Molesworth) must mention a fact well deserving of attention, namely, that the interest of one-fifth of the sum which a year of Kafir war would cost, would more than cover the average annual loss from Kafir depredations. For Sir George Napier had stated that during the six years of his Government the average annual loss from Kafir depredations had not exceeded 6,000 l. a year. The Committee knew that a Kafir war now cost about 1,000,000 l. a year. He (Sir W. Molesworth) found that the statements of Sir George Napier were confirmed by official returns: he found that on the average number of the six years from 1837 to 1843, the average number of horses lost were 220 a year, and of oxen about 900; their value, at about 10 l. each for horses, and about 3l. 18 s. a head for cattle, would be less than 6,000 l. a year. Therefore the cost of one year of Kafir war would more than cover the loss from a century and a half of Kafir depredations. This was a somewhat mercantile view of the question, but he (Sir W. Molesworth) thought it a sensible one. For the six years of Sir George Napier's Government, there had been no Kafir war. Sir George Napier was an old soldier. He knew the toils and cost of war. He would not rashly engage in it. He thought that neither the honour nor the dignity of Great Britain required it to treat savage tribes as civilised nations, nor to engage in regular war with Kafirs, as with an European community, for violation of treaties and for offences against the law of nations. The policy of Sir George Napier had not been followed by his successors. In 1846 Sir Peregrine Maitland had involved us in a Kafir war for the loss of one axe. In 1847 Sir Henry Pottinger had renewed
740
that war for the loss of two goats. Great Britain had about 2,000,000 l. to pay, and the consequence had been, that British money had abounded in Cape Town, and commerce had flourished. The present war would be more expensive than the last one, for we had now in South Africa half as many troops again as we had in the war of 1846. The present war had been produced, partly by causes similar to those which had produced former Kafir wars, partly by three special causes. Those causes had been—1st. The conduct of Sir Harry Smith in making himself, in 1847, the Mkori Mkalu, or Great Chief of British Kafraria. 2nd. The frontier policy of Sir Harry Smith, which had consisted in perpetual and vexatious interference with the affairs of the Kafirs, and in a continual and galling attempt to destroy the authority of their chiefs. 3rd. The ignorance of Sir Harry Smith of the feelings which the Kafirs entertained towards him and his frontier policy. He (Sir W. Molesworth) had proved these positions at length last year. He would not do so again, for they had not been contradicted, and in fact they had been admitted in the last despatches of Earl Grey. He thought that Sir Harry Smith ought to have been recalled long ago; in fact he ought never to have been appointed Governor of the Cape of Good Hope. He spoke only of the civil proceedings of Sir Harry Smith, He did not feel competent to pronounce a decided opinion upon the military proceedings of Sir Harry Smith; he must, however, say that he could not discover any essential difference between those tactics and those for which Sir Harry Smith had acquired great renown in the Kafir war of 1835. Those tactics had been to starve the Kafirs into submission by invading their fatnesses and sweeping off their cattle. For the success of these tactics it was indispensable to prevent the Kafirs from simultaneously invading our colony, and sweeping off the cattle of the colonist. For these purposes two armies were indispensable, namely, an invading army and a protecting army. Of one of these armies Sir Harry Smith had been deprived by the discontent of the Dutch, and the disaffection of the Hottentots. Therefore, when Sir Harry Smith invaded the fastnesses of the Kafirs, and swept off their cattle, the Kafirs turned our flank, invaded the colony, and carried off the cattle of the colonists; and when Sir Harry Smith returned from the fastnesses of the Kafirs,

741
bringing along with him, their cattle, the Kafirs returned to their fastnesses, taking along with them the cattle of the colonists. Therefore, for the ill success of Sir Harry Smith's tactics, those persons were chiefly to blame who had produced discontent amongst the Dutch, and disaffection amongst the Hottentots. Into the causes of that discontent and disaffection he would not inquire at present. He must say, however, that, when he considered the position of our gallant troops in South Africa, in the midst of a population one-half of whom were hostile, and the other half were, in about equal proportions, discontented, disaffected, and doubtful—when he considered that those troops had not suffered one positive defeat, had not lost one single convoy, but had accomplished many gallant feats of arms, he thought that they deserved great credit for themselves, and reflected credit upon their veteran commander, whose health had been well nigh worn out in the service of his country. A high military authority had expressed his opinion, in another place, that when the fastnesses of the Kafirs were stormed by our troops, they ought to be destroyed, and roads ought to be made into them. With the utmost deference to that high authority, he (Sir W. Molesworth) doubted whether those things could be done by any amount of military force which we could send to South Africa. The fastnesses of the Kafirs were of two kinds, either steep mountains, capped with sandstone, resembling vast fortifications, with huge masses of sandstone rising several feet from the surface of the ground; or deep, narrow, gloomy ravines called kloofs. Both mountains and ravines were covered with the peculiar bush of South Africa. In that bush, and behind the masses of sandstone, the Kafirs lurked and skirmished with impunity, retreating as our troops advanced, advancing as our troops retreated. Our troops had stormed some of these fastnesses three or four times over, with considerable loss to themselves, and with a loss to the Kafirs too frequently doubtful; for it was uncommonly difficult to kill the Kafirs. They were very tenacious of life, and their spare diet of milk, and healthy climate, enabled them to recover speedily from wounds which would be certainly fatal to Europeans. Now, our troops could not occupy these fastnesses, for they could not live in them. To open roads into them over the mountains and the kloofs would be a task of immense engi-
742
neering difficulty, and would cost an immense sum of money, both in making and keeping in repair. And when the roads had been made, unless the bush on both sides were destroyed, they would only be narrow defiles, and the Kafir lurking in the bush would shoot with impunity at our passing troops. But to destroy the bush would be a task of herculean labour, for the bush would not burn; it was composed of plants of so juicy a nature that flame would not communicate from one plant to another. The peculiar bush of South Africa was unlike anything in any other part of the globe. It was more difficult to destroy or penetrate than the densest thickets of the tropics. It consisted of various thorny succulent plants of genera which must be well known to many hon. Gentlemen; for instance, of plants of the Aloe, justly called ferox by botanists; of plants of the Zamia, most appropriately termed horrida; of plants of various kinds of Euphorbia, some with tall columnal stems, beset with formidable spines, others resembling prickly clubs, others like vegetating pincushions; others, when cut, pouring forth an acrid milky poison, which, coming in contact with the human skin, produced virulent ulcers. An European could not make one single step in this bush without cutting his way, except in the paths made by wild beasts. But the Kafirs, with wonderful dexterity and agility crept through the bottom of the hush like snakes and other reptiles, and none but Hottentots could follow them. To destroy this bush, it must be cut down by the hand of man; and it must be kept down, or it would soon spring up again. To cut it down an army of labourers would be required; whilst doing so, an army would be required to protect the labourers; and, when done, the ground would be so sterile and arid, that it could not be applied to any useful purposes. Therefore he thought it probable that the bush of South Africa never would nor never could be destroyed, and would continue to afford hiding-places for Kafirs as long as Kafirs should exist: consequently he deemed it impossible to put a stop to Kafir wars by destroying their fastnesses and making roads. He was afraid that the present Kafir war was not at an end. Pie believed, however, that the commencement of the termination had begun. It was a most important question, what should be done to prevent the recurrence of similar wars? He should not discuss that question at present, except to

743
repeat a warning which he had given to that House four years ago, namely, that if our present South African policy should be adhered to, there would be a Kafir war at the end of every four or five years, unless, indeed, we were to attempt to prevent a Kafir war by keeping a large military force permanently stationed in South Africa. He thought that under the present system at least 7,000 British troops would be required to be permanently stationed in South Africa to preserve peace and order within the British dominions; for instance, 4,000 men on the eastern frontier of the colony of the Cape, 1,000 in Natal, 1,000 in the Orange territory, and 1,000 for a garrison and reserved force at Cape Town. Those 7,000 men would cost in effective military expenditure probably 500,000 l. a year on the average of years. This was not an extravagant estimate. For the seven years ending 1850, our effective military expenditure on account of South Africa had amounted to 3,334,000 l., or about 480,000 l. a year; and the average number of British troops in South Africa during that period was 4,800. There could be little doubt that, under the present system, the military expenditure of this country on account of South Africa, for the next period of seven years—namely, that ending 1857—would be greater than that for the period ending 1850—because the present war was a more formidable one than that of 1846 and 1847; because Natal and the Orange sovereignty, which had been acquired in the former period, were beginning to become expensive, and because there could be no doubt that, immediately after the termination of the last war, Sir Harry Smith, with a view to economy, had made too large a reduction in the military force of South Africa. Under the present system there was this dilemma with regard to South Africa; if you made too large a reduction in your military force with a view to the saving of money, the savages were emboldened to disregard their treaties more than they usually did, and then, if war followed, more than your savings were soon spent; on the other hand, if you wish to enforce treaties and preserve peace, you must constantly maintain in South Africa a large military force, and incur almost a war expenditure. He thought, therefore, that under the present system no prudent Secretary of State for the Colonies should, after the termination of the present war, undertake to preserve peace and order in
744
British South Africa with less than 7,000 British troops. He might, perhaps, for a time do with less, and if he were lucky and the tenure of his office short, he might get some credit as an economist, but in all probability he would bequeath a costly Kafir war to his successor. For instance, had Earl Grey not returned to office at the beginning of last year, the finance accounts for the last years of his administration would have shown a considerable diminution in our military expenditure on account of South Africa, but he would have bequeathed to his successors the whole of the present Kafir war. Therefore, if we were determined to adhere to our present South African policy, we must make up our minds to pay annually about oil a head for the defence of every European colonist in South Africa, or about 500,000 l a year. In his opinion a great change ought to be made in our system of South African policy. We ought to give to the colonists of South Africa the freest institutions and the complete control over their local affairs. We ought as soon after the termination of the present war as circumstances would permit, to require those colonists to take upon themselves the defence of their frontier against the native races; and finally to reduce the military force in South Africa to be maintained at the expense of this country to a garrison at Cape Town, with a proportionate reduction in our military expenditure. He would choose another opportunity for discussing these questions.
MR. HUMEwished to know to what period this Vote extended; whether fox the whole of the year, or for a portion of the year; and he also wished for accounts to be produced from the colony, to enable the Committee to judge respecting the probability of a continuance of this expenditure.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the present Estimate for the expenditure of the Kafir war was up to the present time—that was to say, up to the 25th of March. With regard to the future prospects of the war, it was impossible for him to form an estimate, but he trusted that the next mail would bring them cheering prospects.
MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, in reference to what the right hon. Gentleman has just stated, I hope the Committee will not rashly infer from what he has stated I have no doubt with perfect good faith—that this Vote of 460,000 l. to-night to-

745
gether with the Vote of last year, amounting to 300,000 l. represents anything like the total expense of the war. Because the right hon. Gentleman is perfectly aware, and the Committee, I have no doubt, will bear in mind, that these votes, on the contrary, represent only the extra expenditure of the war, or rather only a part of the extra expenditure; because, if we want to get a full pecuniary view of the case, it is necessary that we should charge that war with the whole expenditure of the military force employed in it. But, Sir, the figures of the pecuniary expenditure are not the entire, and perhaps they are not the worst, part of the evil; but these figures are frightful, and in themselves almost incredible. The tales of our frontier policy at the Cape, and the losses which that policy has brought upon this country, when they are recounted to those who come after us, will appear all but fabulous. It will appear the height of extravagance that this country should have gone a hunting, as it were, to the uttermost ends of the earth to find means and opportunities of squandering its treasure and the lives of its subjects for no conceivable purpose of policy. It had not been done with a view to found colonies, or to extend them with a greater effect than might have been done under a different system, but to deprive them of the opportunity of learning the lessons of freedom, of self-reliance, and of independence, which can alone train them to social union, and ensure their permanent connexion with this country. The Committee are much indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark (Sir W. Molesworth) on this occasion, as on many former occasions, for having laid before us in a form the most luminous, and with a diligence the most praiseworthy, many of the facts which bear upon this interesting and most painful question. I think it is unnecessary for me to follow him over the ground which he has taken up, though there is abundant scope for that arithmetical calculation and computation which will bring vividly before the popular mind of this country the enormous absurdities which we are perpetrating in South Africa. When you are told that the government of South Africa, not in one or two isolated years, but constantly and permanently, costs more per head of the population than the government of Great Britain and Ireland, you will think that Strange, and begin to look grave. But look at it in another aspect—ask your-
746
selves what is the character of the province you are defending—what is the amount of its European population? Sir, there is a return laid upon the table of this House which gives the different population of the white and coloured inhabitants; and from that return it appears that 5,500 souls is the entire white population of the provinces of Albert and Victoria, in the district of Kafraria. If you were to buy up these 5,500 souls, men, women, and children, ten times over—if you were to transport them all in carriages and four from the provinces which they inhabit to districts where they would be in a condition of security, the expenditure would not amount to one-fourth of that which you are now expending on a Kafir war; and for what? What conceivable object have you in view? I would not urge this pecuniary view of the question were it to induce you to forego the object of conferring some permanent benefit, some great advantages, upon South Africa; but, on the contrary, the system which you are now pursuing confers upon South Africa no benefit whatever, but ensures the perpetual recurrence of wars with a regularity which is perfectly astounding. Now what is the course which the Parliament and the Government ought to pursue? It would be needless, on this occasion, to resume old quarrels. We are not here to discuss the conduct in particular of this or that Governor, or of this or that Minister, except that in justice to Sir Harry Smith I must say, with my hon. Friend who has just sat down, that I am not aware of any valid ground for censure on that gallant officer's military character. I set aside all retrospect of a controversial character, but I hope I may be permitted now to repeat words similar to those which I believe I used on a former occasion, when the last Kafir war was drawing to a close. On that occasion I followed the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton (Mr. V. Smith), in beseeching and entreating Parliament seriously to consider the question of our frontier and colonial policy, to take advantage of that golden opportunity when the public mind was smarting under the sufferings which had been entailed by our past course of proceeding, and when subjects, though connected with one of our most remote dependencies, no longer appeared dry and uninteresting, but when arguments thus addressed ad crumenam were felt to have weight, and to show that attention to a question which, not on economical grounds alone, but on public and

747
political grounds, was felt to be of the deepest interest. There is, however, one passage in the instructions which have been addressed by the late Colonial Secretary to the gallant Officer who has gone out to Assume the Government at the Cape, to which I cannot refrain from adverting, because it is a passage which may be characterised as eminently prospective. I will not answer for the verbal accuracy of my quotation, but I think that General Cathcart is instructed by the late Colonial Secretary, in the first instance to address himself to the conclusion of the war. He is instructed next td expedite the operation of the constitution; and he is instructed, lastly, to Consider fully the question of our frontier policy, and to make a report on that question, which is to be submitted to the Government, and to the British Parliament. Now, Sir, the prospect thus Opened is one, I confess, by no means satisfactory to me. I am perfectly convinced that the debates which have taken place in this country with regard to the difference between one system of colonial policy and another, are, ill the main, idle, futile, and mischievous debates. They are all based upon the false assumption that the regulation of the relations between the European settlers and the barbarous natives of South Africa, are matters to be settled by a gentleman sitting in Downing street. These schemes all proceed on the false assumption that the mainspring, the moving power, of tile operations of frontier policy, is here, and not in the colony—that the responsibility for every depredation committed rests on this country, and not on the inhabitants of South Africa. It is not in the present century that for the first time these things hive been considered, and we are not without the light of experience to guide us, but Unfortunately We have chosen to reject it. The colonists of North America had aborigines to deal with. Did they trouble this country for armaments, and for votes of 500,000 l. or 1,000,000 l., or ask for the lives and blood of bur gallant men in order to defend them against the attacks of barbarians on their borders? No. They knew well how to defend themselves; and in defending themselves they not only exempted us from the burdens, but they regulated their affairs infinitely better than if we had spent the Whole of our national resources to do it for them. I wish also to enter my most respectful protest against the fundamental fallacy which appears to me to be involved
748
in the instructions given to General Cathcart. It is not for any Government or Parliament of the country to devise any new system of frontier policy for the Cape of Good Hope; and I am certainly amazed that a nobleman, possessing such great experience as the late Secretary of State for the Colonies, should announce gravely his Conviction that the time has now arrived when it is necessary for this country to consider some change in the frontier policy of the South African Colonies. Sir, we have been considering little else for the past twenty-five years, and every change we have made has only left matters worse than before. We have been changing the frontier policy for years past, just as a suck man, When weary of lying upon one side, turns to the other, not because he has any hopes of deriving relief from the change, but because the excessive weariness and disgust of the position in which he lies makes him believe that no other position can be worse. Do not let us enter upon the consideration of such a subject with feelings like these. We have seen a large expenditure exhausted—we have 386ri all that the ingenuity of men can do—we have seen all that benevolence can do—all that courage can do has been done, and in vain; and the result of all this is that your position is worse; and worse prospects still ate before you, unless you change the fundamental policy Which has dictated all your past proceedings. Sir, if I am right fn My opinions, it is to the colonists themselves that we must look for the change in the frontier relations of the colony; We must not only look to then for the determination of their frontier policy, But we must leave the colonists to determine what that frontier is to be. It will not do to send gentlemen from this country to disport themselves in the Wilds of Kafraria by-adding once a week Or once a fortnight some space of country as large, or two or three times as large, As Great Britain, to the British dominions of the Cape. Whatever is done there must be done under the responsibility of the popular constitution you are about to accord to the colony. Rely upon it if you will give the boon of local liberty without stint, and having regard, of course, to Imperial unity? if you will give the colony this boon of local liberty without stint and without limitation, you will find no disposition on their part to grudge the sacrifice and efforts which will be necessary for the self-defence of the Colony. I am not so Visionary as to say

749
that we can expect at once to put an end to our military system upon the frontiers of the Colony. What I want to see done is the centre of responsibility and of motion which has been wrongly placed in this country by modern and vicious policy, in despite of ancient and better experience, carried back to that place from which it ought never to have been brought. I want to see the Colony of the Cape of Good Hope in full recognition of the principle that its first duty and first responsibility is its own self-defence. I am convinced that in urging that, I am urging what they themselves will be free to urge if you give them the freedom which the American colonists of old enjoyed. What, then, are our functions in regard to the colonists? It is our duty, undoubtedly, to protect them against enemies of their own, such as they could not be expected successfully to cope with. It is our duty, of course, to defend them against attacks of civilised or European Powers. I would go even further. I say that you must not grudge your money in the first instance, and you must continue to assist them till you have extricated them from the effects of the bad and vicious system which has so long existed. I am sure that even the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume), careful as he is, and justly so, of the public funds, will not dissent from that opinion. We cannot, in a moment free ourselves of the consequences of our past conduct. What I venture to suggest is, the formation of this central responsibility at the Cape, which should treat this frontier question as a Colonial one. This is no unreasonable demand. It is surely no question of British or Imperial interests whether the frontier of the Cape Colony should be the Fish River, the Orange River, or the Keiskamma. These are matters which none but colonists should be permitted to consider and decide for them. These are matters which, if you allow them to consider for themselves, they will gladly undertake. If given the freedom to which they are justly entitled, they are perfectly ready to discharge the duties which belong to the condition of freemen. Rely upon it that by doing everything you can to foster and support freedom and self-reliance, you will, upon the one hand, he giving a most powerful stimulus—far more powerful indeed than if you continue to pour forth your resources upon the sands of Africa—to the growth of the colony and the development of its power. You will, by so
750
doing, upon the other hand, I am well convinced, be contributing to rivet, with a force greater than any you can now apply, those bonds of attachment which connect that Colony with the mother country.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, he had listened very attentively to the right hon. Gentleman's address, in the hope of hearing a solution of the difficult question of the government of the colony of South Africa; but the right hon. Gentleman had left that question, at the conclusion of his eloquent speech, in the same position in which he found it. The question to be discussed in the middle of the nineteenth century was not the same as that which arose in North America in the seventeenth century. The first expeditions to North-America consisted sometimes of merchant vessels, adventurers under commissions from the Crown, and sometimes of buccaneers. These parties founded there a settlement upon some part of the coast, and if in two or three years that settlement was swept away,, and its inhabitants murdered by savages, no account of it reached this country for perhaps, two or three years, and then the rumour of the loss was perhaps confined to Plymouth or its neighbourhood, and spread little, if any further, into this country. Other adventurers followed; they grew in numbers, and, adopting a wise policy, they resisted the incursions and attacks of the Indians, and in process of time they not only succeeded in keeping their ground, but gradually drove them away and exterminated them; and the intelligence of the destruction of the natives Was regarded with as little interest as that of the slaughter of settlers had previously been. It was this indifference to the origin of our American colonies which gave rise to the remark that those colonies were the growth, not of our care, but our neglect. There was no resemblance between such a case and that presented by the Colony of South Africa, or even with the present state of the frontiers of that great country which is now called the Republic of the United States. When the right hon. Gentleman referred to the example of America with respect to frontier policy, he could not have been aware that the Secretary of War for the United States reported this year to Congress that the expense incurred by the Central Government in repelling the incursions of savage tribes in Mexico, was 700,000 l. more than that of the previous year. In South Africa we chose,

751
not as the United States had done, to acquire territory by a treaty of peace after a war with Mexico, but we chose in 1819 to plant a settlement there, far beyond the metropolis of the country. We established farmers in that settlement, and a grant was made by the House for that purpose. The question, then, was this—was the policy carried on with regard to South America, if policy it could be called, one that would be applicable to the frontiers of the Cape of Good Hope? It was true that there happened in South Africa such scenes as were described by the Secretary of the United States as occurring on the boundaries of that country. The houses of the farmers were burnt, and men and women butchered, and the people were obliged to fly to arms for their own protection. But, this being so, would it be satisfactory if that House, after establishing the settlement and sending out these people, were to say, "It is no business of ours; it is a matter for the colonists—if they have put themselves in the neighbourhood of the Kafirs, let them look to their own safety" He did not believe any Government of this country would maintain such a policy. He knew, at all events, that under different Governments and under different Secretaries of State, including Lord Stanley and Lord Glenelg, as well as Earl Grey, there had at no time been a determination to say that we should withhold our hands, and that we should be indifferent to the fate of our fellow-subjects in South Africa. But neither were the colonists permitted to defend themselves by committing injustice against the savage tribes, and destroying them when they were innocent. Id 1835, when it was thought that injustice had been shown to the aborigines, that House immediately interfered. Questions were asked with regard to the treatment of the savages; and the House declared that, while, on the one hand, they would not allow the British colonists to be murdered, so, on the other, they would not allow injustice to be done to the aborigines, and that at the same time they would take care that the savages did not go to war and murder one another. This system of interference arose from the wish of Parliament and of the country to do justice, to act with benevolence and philanthropy, and, while they maintained the British Government strong and powerful, resolved not to allow any tribe to be oppressed or injured. At all events, that was a very honourable feeling on the part
752
of this country, and it was certainly a very different one from that which, prevailed two centuries ago. Seeing, then that they had had wars in 1835, in 1846, and in the past year, the question no doubt arose when our military men had done their best, and our military forces had exerted that courage which they usually showed, what was to be done for the n future government and future policy of the colony? Upon that question the right hon. Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Gladstone) stated that it was a great fault in Earl Grey to instruct General Cathcart that he ought to make a report to the Government at home on the subject. In that advice he (Lord John Russell) cordially concurred; and before General Cathcart left the country, he had an interview with him, and pointed out the difficulties he was likely to encounter, at the same time telling him that much would depend on the judgment he might form when he reached his destination. As a proof that the right hon. Gentleman was not entirely in the right on the matter, he might state that on the report which was sent home by the Governor might depend a very important question, with regard to the amount of forces that should be sent out to support him. If he were to say that we should defend Cape Town, and a small territory round it, a small garrison would in that case suffice, and few troops would be sent out, so that in this view alone it was of importance to know what was the opinion; of the Governor. The right hon. Gentleman said this was a question for the colonists, and, under the influence of a free Government, they would soon be able to settle it. Now, the great difficulty of the white population placed in South Africa consisted in this, that their number was small compared with that of the native population; and in this respect their position was entirely different from that which our countrymen held for a very long while in North America, because in North America the white population had gradually increased, and, as it did so, and improved in. all the arts of civilised life, they were able to take advantage of the improvidence and want of care shown by the natives, and thus the tide of population by degrees rolled out the wandering tribes of North America. There had not been however, from 1835 to the present time—or rather he should say from 1819 to the presents time—that increase of population in South Africa which enabled them by means of

753
that population alone to make a strong frontier and drive out the savage tribes. The different Governors who had been sent out, Sir Benjamin D'Urban, Sir Peregrine Maitland, Sir Henry Pottinger, and Sir Harry Smith, had endeavoured, one after another, by military force to do so; and this had entailed upon the country an enormous expense, and added not a little to the difficulties of the case. With regard to our future policy, he believed that we had probably great difficulties to encounter. He did not think it would be satisfactory to this country to withdraw the troops, and that all the population sent out by the Government and by grants in 1819 should be left to the protection of the colonists, or, in other words, should receive an insufficient protection, and be overwhelmed by the incursions of the native tribes. He thought it would bring dishonour on the British name, and that it would afford a lament-able prospect for the future maintenance of the Colony. On the other hand, they could not continue the policy of maintaining an immense frontier that was, in fact, of no use to this country, from which we derived no advantage whatever. They would be obliged to adopt some policy which was between the two, a policy neither abandoning those who were planted there by our care, nor, on the other hand, keeping up an immense frontier entirely by military resources, and by means of votes from Parliament. He thought such a policy might be established; but upon that policy would depend the question whether they had to send a greater or less military force into South Africa. If they continued the present policy, they could not much diminish the forces. If they were to say that they would allow a general massacre to take place throughout the settlement, then they might with a very small force maintain Cape Town and its neighbourhood. If they took the policy of maintaining a sufficient protection, and not pushing their frontier too far, he should then say that a military force of no great amount would be sufficient to protect the Colony. Undoubtedly a system of self-government was a matter of great importance to the Colony. He did not, however, believe they could have any form of government to the Cape, of a Representative Assembly, that would consent to make the efforts we had made: he did not believe that, if they looked at the amount of their revenue, they would be able, even if they were willing, to do so. By the aid, how-
754
ever, of British troops, the colonists, strengthened and invigorated by the freedom which they would derive from representative institutions, would find themselves in a very improved position. There had been every wish of late years that the Cape should enjoy those institutions. He was sorry that a misunderstanding arose on that point. The late Government, no doubt, thought they were in the right, while, no doubt, the party acting with Sir Andrias Stockenstrom also thought they were in the right; but, at any rate, that misunderstanding prevented the establishment of free representative institutions in 1850 and 1851. Having now got them, however, he believed that they would conduct those institutions in a different spirit from that which had been spoken of tonight with regard to the Ionians. He believed the Dutch colonists, as well as our own countrymen, understood the working of representative institutions, and when the constitution was in operation they would to a great extent be guided by the opinion of the colonists themselves; and, in combination with British power, he believed those representative assemblies would be able to maintain the Colony of South Africa. He could not conclude his remarks without saying a word with regard to Sir Harry Smith. He was of opinion that with regard to Sir Harry Smith's military service, nothing had occurred that ought to impair his high reputation. He should be sorry indeed if that great reputation which Sir Harry Smith had gallantly won for himself in the battlefield of India, and which was confirmed by the opinion of his gallant fellow-soldiers, should be at all injured by what had taken place. He thought that, as Governor, unfortunately he was deceived by that which appeared to the late Government to be a merit in his appointment—his former knowledge of the character of the Hottentots and Kafirs, which he acquired in that country at different times. In that it appeared he was deceived. He should most deeply regret if anything which had passed, or any opinion expressed by Her Majesty's late Government, should be supposed to cast the slightest tarnish upon the military reputation of Sir Harry Smith.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid that, after having listened with attention to the able speeches of the hon. Baronet the Member for Southwark (Sir W. Molesworth), and of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford

755
(Mr. (Gladstone), in a great portion of which he fully concurred, he had heard nothing which tended to solve the question raised by the right hon. Member for the University of Oxford, as to what ought to be the future policy of the Government with respect to the boundaries and frontiers of the Cape Colony. With the settlement of this question great practical difficulties were connected, and these had been greatly complicated by the events of the past few years, which rendered those difficulties greater than they would otherwise have been. The question was one of great difficulty, and the difficulty was much increased by late events; and it was a question on which it was the first duty of the Government to exercise the greatest care and caution before committing themselves to pledges or principles of policy. He might observe that, when seeking a Vote of Supply on account of this Kafir war, nothing could be more natural than that a discussion of this kind should arise. Yet, at the same time, he should say he thought it was somewhat premature. Both the hon. Members to whom he had referred had pressed upon the attention of the Government the necessity of bestowing the bless-sings of free institutions upon the Cape Colony. One of these hon. Gentleman had said that we ought to bestow upon the colonists a greater degree of freedom, and leave them to settle their own boundary for themselves. With respect to their conferring upon the Colony the boon of freedom, it had been already done, though somewhat tardily he thought, by the late Secretary of State for the Colonies. A constitution had undoubtedly been sent out to the Cape of Good Hope, which was now Under the consideration of the legislature there; and since he (Sir J. Pakington) had been in office, he had done all in his power to facilitate its consideration, and to impress upon the Council there the desirableness that no time should be lost in discussing and deciding upon the subject. When, however, they came to consider the future policy which the Government ought to exercise, although he wished to draw no invidious comparison, he could not refrain from saying that the question had been complicated to a most unusual extent by the conduct which had within the last few years been pursued. It was impossible to deny that great dissatisfaction and discontent had been produced in the Colony by the acts of the British Government. First, the question of slavery; then the struggle
756
with respect to the admission of convicts; and, lastly, the great delay which had occurred in granting the constitution to the Colony. The first duty of the present Ministry will be to take care that, at all events, we shall not suffer the mistake of permitting that enormous extension of territory which has been carried oh of late years under the late Administration. He had no desire to speak with the slightest disrespect of Sir Harry Smith. He had listened with the most sincere pleasure id the language in which his military success had been spoken of by the noble Lord opposite (Lord J. Russell), and the hon. Member for Southwark. The last despatch which he (Sir J. Pakington) had received from the Cape, went far to show that that distinguished officer was still serving his country with the same vigour and ability which he had displayed in so eminent a degree on the plains of India; and if he (Sir J. Pakington) had one hope and one feeling more than another, it was, that before the House met again after the approaching holidays, the Government might have received accounts from South Africa, not only showing that this distressing war had been brought to an end, but that it should be completed before the painful recall of Sir Harry Smith should prevent him achieving the great object in which he had been engaged. Indeed he knew of no intelligence which to his feelings would be more gratifying, or which he felt certain would afford greater pleasure to the people of this country. But at the same time he could not fail to recollect that it had been under the administration of Sir Harry Smith, owing to the great and rapid acquisitions of territory, that the causes had arisen which had involved this country in its present war. Upon the arrival of Sir Harry Smith at the Cape in 1847, he had not been there more than a fortnight before he wrote home to Earl Grey to state that he added the neutral ground beyond the Fish River, a large extent of country of some 50,000 or 60,000 square miles, to the British territory. Within another fortnight he wrote home to say that he had made another great addition to the British territory of the tract of country known as British Kafraria; and a short time after that a large tract adjoining the Orange River was added. Allusion had been made to the comparatively small white population; but this fact was easily accounted for by the rapid accession of new territory. To this increase of territory Lord Glenelg,

757
in 1835, refused to give his assent; but Earl Grey, within the last four years, gave his consent in rapid succession to every one of those great additions to the dominion of the British Crown in South Africa. What was the language of Lord Glenelg on this subject? In an able despatch to Sir Benjamin D'Urban, dated December, 1835, Lord Glenelg said—
"Te claim of sovereignty over the new province, bounded by the Kieskamma and the Kei must be renounced."
That was the very province of British Kafraria the annexation of which Earl Grey most precipitately sanctioned. Lord Glenelg went on to say—
"The territory of the Kafirs, I am aware, is in itself a fertile and salubrious region, contrasting but too favourably with the prevailing sterility of our own possessions. But the great evil of the Gape Colony consists in its magnitude; in the vast space for which it encroaches on the continent, and the consequent extent of its boundary. We are thus brought into contact with tribes numerous and warlike, and a scale of establishment is required, both civil and military, extensive beyond all proportion to the number and wealth of the inhabitants."
That was a very different line of policy from that pursued by Earl Grey. The noble Lord further said, that "the restitution of invaded rights in that as in many other cases, would involve injuries more formidable than could be imagined." Having once taken possession of these parts in the name of the British Crown, it was a most difficult thing to retrace our steps, and retract or renounce the policy which led to them. But this country was now entangled not only by Earl Grey having consented to add those great districts to the British dominions, but by the fact that in September last Earl Grey wrote out to desire that the step with regard to the great kingdom of the Orange Sovereignty should be revoked; and now despatches were daily expected from the Cape with the report of the Assistant Commissioners, who had been directing their attention to the best mode of governing this district of the Orange Sovereignty. Sir Harry Smith, about the time of receiving that report, would receive also the despatch of Earl Grey, directing him to abandon that Sovereignty. It was under these circumstances that the Government had to address themselves to the difficult task of extricating this country from the embarrassments in which it had been involved. It would undoubtedly be most agreeable to the Government if they could take the more popular course of saying,
758
"We have resolved to throw this question to the colonists;" or, "We have at once resolved to adopt this line or that;" but he hoped that House would agree in the wisdom of the course which the Government were disposed to take. It behoved them to act with all possible caution. This he could promise, that their best attention should be given to the subject, and he thought they were bound to wait not only for the information which might be daily expected, but for the termination of this unhappy war. He hoped, by taking every pains in their power, the Government would be able, with due care and caution, to adopt a policy which should give the blessings of freedom and safety to the Cape without impairing the honour of the Crown.
MR. ROEBUCKsaid, the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, apparently did not understand the question at all. There was far more behind than he had touched upon. There was far more behind than the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) and the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) had touched upon; and that was the feeling of the people of the country. It was clear that if British colonists were allowed to take possession of a country, and import there into all the power. I which their arts of civilisation gave them, I they could resist the barbarous tribes around them. But for that purpose they must be left to act for themselves, and completely for themselves. But the Colony of South Africa had not been allowed to do so; and the difficulty of the whole question was this. There was a place in this City called Exeter Hall, and the people assembling there said, "You have no right to; go to South Africa." But the noble Lord (Lord John Russell), the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University Of Oxford, and the Colonial Secretary, did not say so. They were all prepared to go there. These people in Exeter Hall said, "Your going there is a breach of the rules of morality, and you are taking English civilisation and power there for a purpose contrary to morality." The people complained that the power of England had been employed for the purpose of maintaining conquests in that country. He would ask the right hon. Secretary for the Colonies this question—was he prepared, first of all, to maintain the colonists in that country? If so, he would ask the right hon. Gentleman how were they to be maintained? They must be maintained against

759
the aboriginal rights; and if they were to be thus maintained, they would be best maintained by giving the people themselves the right of governing themselves. But this would most assuredly be the consequence—if power should be given to the colonists of England to maintain their own dominion, they would exterminate the aborigines. This was one of those lamentable consequences in human nature over which there was no control. It was a fact from which there could be no escape, that the black man would disappear before the white man. Let him not be misunderstood. There was only this alternative—we must either withdraw our colonists, or maintain them. We could only maintain them by giving them power to maintain themselves, and that power would give them power over their frontier. That frontier they would extend whenever it might suit their interest, and whenever it suited their interest they would exterminate the aborigines. When Columbus approached America, some of the most fertile portions were possessed by a few tribes. England sent there the most religious of her sons. The Puritans exterminated the natives. There was nothing more horrible than the violence and ferocity exercised by them towards the native tribes. That system existed up to the planting of Pennsylvania, where a more mild and beneficial mode of establishing a colony was attempted; but even there it was found impossible to maintain the white population against the red man without the power of extermination. England was now about to people South Africa. The first steps might be painful. There might be much cruelty—there might in reality be great unfairness and immorality. But the result would be the planting of a population far more moral, far more capable of happiness, spreading science and Christianity over those regions. This, however, could be done by no means but by means of the population themselves. Every two or three years would bring about a Kafir war, and if the Kafirs were to be subdued by English arms, there would be no end of the expense. The English people would not bear it. They would not have this species of war. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Colonies would find himself totally unable to govern this country and the Colonies on the principle for which he contended, unless a fair and candid statement was made to the people of England of the great difficulties which exist. It was for them to decide whether
760
we should have Colonies in South Africa.. If they should so decide, let them under stand that it would be at the expense of the aborigines, and that no power of theirs could prevent the extermination of that unfortunate race.
MR. ADDERLEYsaid, that the right hon. Secretary of State for the Colonies had observed that we ought to deal with the subject at present under the consideration of the Committee with caution and deliberation. He (Mr. Adderley) should agree with him if delay were possible in such a matter, but he begged to point out to him that the course of our future policy with respect to the Cape must be to a great extent determined by the despatches that would be sent out by the next mail. The right hon. Gentleman might rely upon it that another chapter of accidents would fall upon this country through the omission to send out distinct and positive orders by the next mail; and those orders should be to close the war, and leave the colonists to take up their own future line of self-defence. No Kafir war had ever been really concluded, but peace was patched up flagrante bello. The colonists would form an effectual cordon of militia against its recurrence. With respect to the remarks which had fallen from the noble Lord the Member for London (Lord John Russell), he (Mr. Adderley) felt glad to hear the expressions which he had made use of regarding Sir Harry Smith. They were a noble and generous testimony to the merit of that gallant officer, and such as might be expected from the character of the noble Lord, and he believed that they had, elicited the sympathy of the whole House. Whatever the mistakes of that gallant office had been in his attempt to manage the savage tribes around him, he (Mr. Adderley) did not think there was one man in this kingdom who justified the despatch by which he had been recalled. The noble Lord also took credit to the late Government for conceding a constitution to the Cape. He agreed with the noble Lord that he had done his utmost to give that constitution; but he believed that the noble Lord had not taken sufficient precaution to prevent his object from being frustrated oil the spot. The noble Lord tile Member for London said that he did not wish to diminish the Empire, and that we must go on for the present with the existing frontier, but that he hoped that we should ultimately fal1 back upon a narrower frontier. But even if that were desirable, it would not be pos-

761
sihle; for the colony, when it had complete power. of self-government, would not give up any of Her Majesty's present possessions, though, it would maintain them at a much smaller expense of both blood and money than was possible for a Government at home. As to the Vote that was now proposed, the only fault he found with it was that was to small; for it no more paid up the expenses of this war than did the Vote of last year. We must, however, pay the whole, for the expense was incurred by our own Minister, and was a penalty we had to pay for one of Earl Grey's experiments: he feared it would not be the only very expensive one. But the matter for the Committee to consider that evening was as to the mode in which the recurrence of such an expense could best, most safely, and most honourably, be prevented. He did not wish to enter into a discussion of the policy that had been adopted by Earl Grey towards the Cape, because he understood that such a discussion would he raised after the holidays, and also because the noble Earl the author of that policy was now out of office, and therefore no practical end would be gained by it; but he would say he was convinced that the first despatch of the present Colonial Secretary to the Governor of the Cape would give satisfaction to the colonists, as it had given to those individuals in London who were interested in the Colony, and would lead them to hope for what they believed to be the panacea of all the evils of the colony, namely, an immediate and bonâ fide carrying out of the promised constitution. There was, however, one thing he wished to press upon the attention of the Committee—that by the next mail they might hope to hear that the war was over; first, because Sir Harry Smith had for the first time a sufficient force for the war, and would no doubt, when he knew that he would be superseded, act with the greatest vigour to secure a triumph before his successor arrived); secondly, because he (Mr. Adderley) had, a belief in that justice that overruled the, world, that Sir Harry Smith would not be allowed to suffer from the unjust censure that had been cast upon him, but that the man upon whose pressing instructions, he had acted would have the responsibility cast upon him, and that the success of the, war would still, in the eyes of the country, show that Sir Harry Smith had done his best with the scanty means put at his disposal, and that the conduct of the
762
Minister had been the cause of his temporary defeat; and, thirdly, they might hope to hear of the termination of the war because nothing was more easy than a Kafir victory, excepting, perhaps, the creating a Kafir war, for in a Kafir war there was no declaration, or any of the rules of regular warfare; and so, on the other hand, there was no necessity for a cessation of hostilities in order to arrive at a treaty of peace. The war being over, then would come the question how to rearrange the frontier. General Cathcart had instructions, after he had concluded the war, to offer suggestions for the protection of the frontier. If the suggestions of Her Majesty's agents in the Colony were to be followed, instead of leaving the colonists in their own Parliament assembled to make their own suggestions, wars would break out again, and, of course, still at the expense of England. He was afraid that the neglect of the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Pakington) to send out a despatch qualifying those instructions to General Cathcart, would mix him up with the policy of his predecessors, and endorse that policy which had been so fatal in our hands. The Cape was ready to take the matter into their own hands, and to carry on all the wars which they undertook. The rebel boers of the north had shown how readily they maintained their own territory. If they were drawn within our allegiance, we should have as strong a colony in South Africa as those which, in another hemisphere, had raised us to eminence as the greatest colonising nation on the earth.
COLONEL THOMPSONsaid, in most debates there was some point which seemed miraculously to escape notice. In the present case, the missing point was, "How did the war begin?" Could nobody tell? Was knowledge on this subject tabooed, or was there any rule of that House, when 400,000 l. had been expended for a certain purpose, no question should be asked how the necessity had arisen? Did this war begin about a bullock, or was it about two goats? No; this war arose from the depositary of British power in South Africa imitating one of the worst examples in all history—the example of a certain Gesler, who, hanging up his hat and demanding that obeisance should be made to it, lost the house of Austria the whole of Switzerland. Imitating this wretched example, the depositary of British power in

763
South Africa demanded to put his foot, net figuratively but literally, upon the neck of a Kafir chief with whom he was engaged in negotiation. Suppose the Kafir chief had demanded to put his foot upon the neck of an English officer, what sort of an outcry would there have been then? If a Roman general had ever done such a thing in his contests with our rude ancestors, would pot the Senate and people of Rome have sent him to Sicily, under surveillance, and fed him upon hellebore? [A laugh] The feeling created in the country on this subject was most perilous; it went to break up the bonds of civil union, and make men look upon the Government as their foe. It was not a little thing that would make Englishmen pray that the arms of their country might be unsuccessful. But he had heard a public assembly, led by their teachers of religion, and standing in the presence of that Deity whose eyes are upon all men, but particularly as was the ancient belief, upon assemblages of men met to consult upon their duties and their rights, pray solemnly that He would send defeat upon their country's arms; because they thought those arms were employed for felony. There might yet come a period when England would wish she had gained the affection of other countries. Who loved us at present? Who did not hate us? Was it the inhabitants of the Ionian islands? Was it the Ceylonese? Was it the people at the Cape? At the last of these, the governing power had chosen to raise the fearful question of the difference of colours. The Kafir chieftains well knew, that no Europeans ever asked to put their feet on one another's necks. They knew that it was only asked, because they were of African race. The Hottentot population knew the same; and therefore they joined the others. We called ourselves Anglo-Saxons, and by that name meant a claim to oppress all other nations. It had beep stated to-night that the war must cost three millions already. If every acre in South Africa were brought to the hammer and sold, what equivalent should we have for the loss of popularity, of fame, and of union at home? For his own part, he hoped that there would be a division against the vote; for he did not see how those who disapproved of this vote could mark their disapprobation and detestation of it in any other way than by the voting against it.
MR. F. PEELsaid, he owed it to Earl Grey, to make an observation with refer-
764
ence to one subject which, had been alluded to in the course pf the debate. It would be in the recollection of the Committee that the hon. Member for North Staffordshire (Mr. Adderley) had placed a notice upon the paper of the House reflecting very severely upon the conduct of Earl Grey, and alleging that he, waft desirous, of shifting from himself to the Governor whom he had recalled, the, responsibility of the affairs of the Cape—a state of affairs which it was, said resulted, from his own mismanagement and maladministration; and fn the public press, in, places where they had no opportunity of offering anything on behalf of Earl Grey, whenever the subject of the Cape bad, been introduced, Earl Grey's name had, always beep brought forward in connexion, with that; discussion, and no pains had been spared to place him and his conduct in the most unfavourable light before the country. All he (Mr. F. Peel) should say was this, that in that House, where they had liberty of voice, where they courted inquiry and challenged investigation, whenever the hon. Member for North, Stafford shire, or the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir W. Molesworth), might choose to bring forward a Motion calling in question the policy of Earl Grey with reference to that colony, he (Mr. F. Peel) should he prepared to enter into the fullest vindication of the course pursued by Earl Grey, and particularly to substantiate every statement contained in that despatch in which Sir Harry Smith was informed of his recall. The present discussion, however, had a different object. It was said that so long as the Parliament of England insists, upon regulating the affairs, and attempting to determine the relations of the colonists at the Cape to the tribes which are, continually pressing upon the frontier, so long would there be a recurrence of these devastating and harassing wars which are, sp costly and inglorious to this country. It was said that now was the time to transfer to the colonists the management of their own affairs. But he thought that with the imperfect materials we had upon which to form an opinion, if would he premature as yet to lay down any definite course, of policy. The course which the late Government intended to pursue was in every way the most desirable. They had sent out competent Assistant Commissioners to inquire into and report upon the state of affairs at the Cape, and upon the colonial frontier, and it was their inten-

765
tion to have submitted to the House the communications of those Commissioners, and not to have decided upon anything without first taking the sense of the House upon their Reports. It was said that their policy had been marked by a lust for territorial acquisition—a desire to aggrandise the sovereignty and dominion of the Queen. Certainly territorial acquisition had been made, large tracts of country had been added to the dominion of the Cape during the administration of Earl Grey, and especially during the period of it coincident in point of time with the governorship of Sir Harry Smith: but when a fitting opportunity was offered, he (Mr. F. Feel) should be able to prove that those acquisitions were simply and solely for the benefit of the Colony itself. And so with respect to their policy on the eastern frontier, that was adopted from a desire to provide protection for the lives and property of the colonists. As to the delays which were alleged to have taken place in the changes in the political constitution of the Cape, the Government, and more especially Earl Grey, were exceedingly desirous to expedite the establishment of representative institutions at the Cape. The delays arose from those very parties whom the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Adderley) appeared to have taken under his special protection; from those who claimed to be the foremost advocates of self-government, but who had used all their tactics in endeavouring to throw obstacles in the way of the accomplishment of that which they professed to be so desirous of seeing accomplished.
MR. HENRY DRUMMONDsaid, he greatly regretted that the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Adderley) had not brought forward the Motion upon this subject to which the hon. Member (Mr. F. Peel) referred. After what had been said by the hon. Member, he felt it his duty to do a simple act of justice toward Sir Harry Smith. If the noble Lord (Earl Grey) had pleased to censure him for having pursued a line of policy contrary to the instructions which he had received, it was for the noble Earl to do so, and to recall him from the Government, if he pleased. But when the noble Earl presumed to censure the military operations of Sir Harry Smith—[Cries of "No, no!"]—the noble Earl did censure his military operations, as would be seen from that despatch. Yet, what were Sir Harry Smith's qualifications and experience? what was his education,
766
that the noble Earl should so find fault with his military conduct? When he (Mr. H. Drummond) saw in opposition to that the express answer of the Duke of Wellington, who was competent to judge of these matters, who was not an ordinary man in Downing-street—when he saw the Duke of Wellington censuring that despatch, and giving his testimony, which was worth something, to the military character of Sir Harry Smith, he (Mr. Drummond) said this despatch was a shame. He haft never given a vote for a factious Motion in that House. He had often voted for the Government when he thought they were indefensible, because he thought the Motion made was not so much upon the merit of the case, as an attempt to overthrow a Government. But when he recollected having thus reluctantly voted during the whole of that dirty Ceylon business, be could not help thinking that if Sir Harry Smith had ever been, like Lord Torrington, a Lord of the Bedchamber, or a relation of a Cabinet Minister, that despatch never would have been written. And what was more unmanly still, the despatch was thrown down upon the table of the House before they had time to hear any answer to the charge, in order that the character of Sir Harry Smith might be blackened prior to any debate upon the merits of the case. It was a very dirty job.
MR. HUMEsaid, this question of the Cape was not one that could be settled in Downing-street. The only mode by which it could be settled was on the spot, by those who would, if they were allowed, manage their own affairs. If the hon. Gentleman (Mr. F. Peel) could defend Earl Grey in this matter, he believed he was the only man in England who could. In the House, and out of the House, he had heard but one universal expression of condemnation of Earl Grey's despatch to Sir Harry Smith. He trusted that Government would speedily give to the colonists at the Cape a free Government, and entrust them with the responsibility of managing their own affairs.
LORD JOHN RUSSELL: Sir, I feel that I cannot avoid saying a few words after the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Member for West Surrey (Mr. H. Drummond). I will therefore take upon myself to say a few words with reference to that matter. My opinion is, that Earl Grey was very reluctant to recall Sir Harry Smith, although he had been for some time convinced, and I had been at one time of

767
opinion, that it was a matter of doubt whether Sir Harry Smith did not take too sanguine a view of his own operations, and whether he was not misled by his own too favourable anticipations. However, the Government was anxious that Sir Harry Smith should have an opportunity of bringing that war to a close. At length, however, the information which reached us from the Cape was to the effect that there was no reason to expect the speedy termination of the war which Sir Harry Smith in his despatches evidently latterly anticipated. It was then that Earl Grey proposed to the Cabinet that Sir Harry Smith should be recalled, and the Cabinet unanimously agreed in that opinion. My belief is, that Earl Grey came with pain to that decision; and I am quite sure that no want of uprightness or of generosity, no wish to throw any blame upon others which he ought to incur himself, is rightly to be attributed to Earl Grey. That is not a part of the character of my noble Friend. Then the hon. Gentleman (Mr. H. Drummond) said, repeating an insinuation which I have heard, but which I should not have expected from him, that if Sir Harry Smith had been, like Lord Torrington, a relation of a Cabinet Minister, such a despatch would not have been written. Sir, there is no doubt that Lord Torrington is a distant relative of mine. But he does not owe to that relationship the appointment to the Governorship of Ceylon. I had mentioned to Earl Grey three or four persons whom I thought qualified to hold that important appointment. Earl Grey proposed the appointment to each of those persons in succession, and it so happened that each declined it. Earl Grey then informed me that he had received a suggestion—I know not now from whom—that Lord Torrington would be a fit person to conduct the Government of Ceylon. I gave my acquiescence in that recommendation, which had not originated with me. My own opinion, however, is, so far from Lord Torrington being treated with any favour, Lord Torrington underwent an unfair and unjust trial, and that it was partly on account of that misfortune of being related to me that unmerited blame was attached to him, and repeated faults were attributed to him. Lord Torrington's governorship was successful. Whatever difficulties he had to encounter—whatever disturbances had taken place—he had suppressed; and when he left the Colony he left it in a better state than he found it.
768
The investigation which took place before a Committee of this House produced, by inquiry and by cross-examination, a private correspondence that had taken place, and on that ground he was recalled. My belief is, that never was a man subjected to such an ordeal as Lord Torrington was, and that, so far from deserving censure for his general administration, he deserved the praise that was given to him by Earl Grey. Unfortunately that private correspondence showed that he had not preserved harmony amongst his subordinates in Ceylon. But when the hon. Gentleman (Mr. H. Drummond) imputes to the Government and to Earl Grey that he showed favour to one man because he was related to his colleague, and passed censure on another because he was not so related, he does a gross injustice both to Lord Torrington and to Earl Grey.
MR. HINDLEYsaid, he regretted that the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. F. Peel) had not taken that opportunity of justifying the vast accession of territory which Earl Grey approved, because the present was not a party Motion. He (Mr. Hindley) thought that the policy of Lord Glenelg was the right policy, and that it would have been much better if we had confined ourselves within the boundary of the Great Fish River. If that had been done, we should not now have the Government asking for votes like the present. He was sure that the sooner we returned to the policy of Lord Glenelg, the better would it be both for this country and for the colony of the Cape.
Vote agreed to. House resumed.

CORRUPT PRACTICES AT ELECTIONS BILL.
Order for Committee read.
House in Committee. Clause 6 (Inquiry by the Commissioners).
MR. WALPOLEsaid, he had to propose an Amendment limiting the retrospective operation of the Clause. His object was, not to leave the Commissioners an unlimited discretion to go back to as many antecedent elections as they might think proper, but to restrict their powers of inquiry to the last ten years, or to the last three elections.
Amendment proposed, in p. 3, lines 19 and 20, to leave out the words "and for such period retrospectively as they think proper."
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, he did not think it would be wise to limit the

769
powers of the Commissioners in the manner proposed by the right hon. Gentleman. There might have been corrupt practices extensively prevalent at every general election for twelve, or twenty, or twenty-five years past, and he thought that they would afford most material matter for inquiry.
MR. CHISHOLM ANSTEYopposed the Amendment, and said he must blame the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) for making so many concessions to hon. Gentlemen opposite. If there was to be any utility in the Bill, the Clause must be allowed to stand in its original shape; and if the proposed alterations were permitted, the country would consider the Bill a delusion and a sham, and would not believe there was any disposition to put a stop to corrupt practices at elections.
The ATTORNEY GENERALthought, if the words stood as they were, they would give too large a discretion to the Commissioners, and that it was desirable to put some limit to the inquiry. It might be difficult to define what that limit should be, but he was rather disposed to take a certain term of years, and to prevent the Commissioners from going beyond it. He should suggest that the term of ten years, or three elections—either one or the other—should be taken, which would give sufficient space for full inquiry into the state of the borough, more particularly when it was recollected that this Commission was to be preceded by an inquiry before a Committee.
MR. BOUVERIEsaid, the St. Albans Bribery Bill had the words now proposed to be expunged in it when it left that House, and when it came down there again they had disappeared from the Clause, but the House had them reinserted. That was pretty conclusive as to what had been the feeling of that House against the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment.
MR. REPTONsaid, he should support the Amendment, as being calculated to render the Bill a good working measure. The St. Albans Commissioners had had very large and unlimited powers confided to them, and they had gone into evidence regarding a great number of anterior elections. He admitted that they had performed their duty with great fairness and ability; but he thought this Bill would be more efficient if some limit were laid down with respect to the powers of the Commissioners to be appointed under it.
MR. HUDSONthought that until the
770
leaders of both sides of the House declared publicly that henceforward they would dispense the patronage of the Government without favour or affection, and irrespective of political opinions, it was all nonsense, and purely absurd, to pursue the poor voter for taking a bribe. When he sat on the other side of the House he never had any applications for places; but now that his party had come into office the applications to him were very numerous, it being supposed that he had the disposal of all the patronage of the Government as far as his own borough was concerned. He believed the corruption at head-quarters was worse than that amongst the humbler orders.
SIR ALEXANDER COCKBURNhoped the Committee would not consent to this Amendment, nor agree to anything that would abridge the powers of the Commissioners. If the Commissioners were to be invested with such large powers, they must, of course, select men for the office on whose discretion they could rely; and if they could rely upon them, it would be unwise to fetter them in their investigation. They were now on the eve of a general election, and each party was going to the country with confidence in the result of the appeal. If he might judge from the last election which had taken place—he alluded, of course, to the borough of Monmouth—scenes of corruption, debauchery, and violence would take place which would be a disgrace to us as a civilised community. He trusted, therefore, that this Bill would be made effective, so that boroughs which were guilty of corrupt practices might be punished, and on this ground he called on the Committee to resist the Amendment.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out, stand part of the Clause."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 116; Noes 99; Majority 17.
MR. MULLINGSproposed to add in line 42, after the word "election," the following words:—
"And whether or not all or any of such corrupt practices were committed or done by the fraud or contrivance, or at the instance, of any and what person or persons in particular, and for what object, or under what circumstances."
SIR ALEXANDER COCKBURNthought that the proposed Amendment was superfluous, as the object of the Bill was to punish corruption in the electors, and not in any other person; and at all events there was this conclusive objection against it, that the Commissioners would have nothing to do with disfranchising a

771
borough, which must he reserved for the action of Parliament.
MR. WALPOLEsaid, he concurred with his hon. and learned Friend in thinking that if they appointed Commissioners, they must trust that they would report fairly what had taken place; and if fraud had taken place, and evidence of it was given before them and reported to the House, they would not then disfranchise the borough.
MR. JOHN STUARTsaid, that he could not help expressing his astonishment at the doctrine which had been propounded by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southampton (Sir A. Cockburn). It seemed that this Bill was only intended to punish the recipients of bribes, while those more guilty persons who paid the money and tempted the poor voters were to go unpunished. He protested against this wretched hypocrisy, especially coming from the quarter whence it did. Did any one doubt that the dockyard boroughs were the most corrupt and the worst seats of bribery? And, therefore, when a Member for Southampton, of all persons in the world, was considering how he could punish those who accepted bribes, but not at all those who offered them, he (Mr. J. Stuart) said, that he was advocating a measure contrary to every principle of justice and fair dealing, and one in which he (Mr. J. Stuart) would take no part. The whole principle of the Bill seemed to him eminently calculated to defeat its professed object, and half the speeches that had been delivered upon it were founded on the most hypocritical pretences.
SIR ALEXANDER COCKBURNsaid, that he would not bandy words of this description with his hon. and learned Friend who had just resumed his seat; but he begged leave to tell him that when he charged him (Sir A. Cockburn) with hypocrisy he made a most unjust and unfounded charge. There was not, he solemnly protested, either in or out of that House, an individual who would do more than he would to put down this practice of bribery, not only in the bribed, but also in the bribers; but how could two objects be accomplished in one and the same Act? This was a Bill to prevent the corruption of a constituency, and if it had taken place, to detect and expose it. He did not contend that if they had a Report from Commissioners pointing out that corrupt practices had existed in a certain borough, and who had been guilty of them, that they should
772
disfranchise the borough, and should pot visit with punishment the bribers as well as the bribed. What he objected to was, that it was not the matter in hand to ascertain whether bribes were given fraudulently; that it was merely to detect the, corruption of the constituency; and if his hon. and. learned Friend, having listened to him, had misunderstood him, or had thought proper to misinterpret him (he cared not which), he begged leave to tell him that no more unfounded charge was ever made than when he accused hips (Sir A. Cockburn) of hypocrisy.
MR. CHISHOLM ANSTEYsaid, that the hon. and learned Member for Newark (Mr. J. Stuart) appeared to have so had an opinion of the Government as to think that they would use dockyard influence at the next election for corrupt purposes. The hon. and learned Member for Southampton did not, however, represent such a borough; and he (Mr. C. Anstey) had a better opinion of the Government than to suppose they would be guilty pf that wholesale bribery which the hon. and learned Member for Newark foresaw would take place at the coming election.
Motion withdrawn.
Clause agreed to.
MR. ADDERLEY MR. ADDERLEY moved to add the following Proviso:—
"Provided that nothing contained in this Act, or any other Act, shall be construed to bring within the meaning of corrupt practices the giving reasonable refreshment to any voter who shall come from a distance of more than two miles to the poll, if any such refreshment be given not later than three hours after the time at which the polling of that day ceases."
He thought that it would be a disastrous thing to go to a general election with the law in such a state as it was at present, that no one could stand a contest without breaking the laws and rendering his return liable to be voided. It had been recommended, he believed, by the noble Lord (Lord John Russell), and certainly by Mr. Speaker, that treating should be recognised by law, and that tickets for refreshment should be given by the sheriff to the ejectors who polled, the expense to be afterwards divided amongst the candidates as hustings expenses. He believed that it would be better to escape the difficulty by taking the votes of electors at their own houses; but so long as candidates had to invite their friends to their own houses—for he was afraid that candidates at ejections must consider the public-houses something like their own—it was against the

773
feelings of Englishmen to invite their friends and not give them some refreshment. Several Chairmen of Election Committees had recommended such a provision, and he believed that both the late Sir Robert Peel and the noble Lord the Member for London had stated that the present Bill did not intend to embrace such cases as he had referred to, but was directed against corrupt treating only. The giving of any refreshment had, however, been made illegal. He had been told by eminent legal authorities that "reasonable" was a legal and legitimate word, and one that could be understood and construed by lawyers.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, that this Proviso hardly came within the scope of the Bill, the object of which was to provide for an effectual inquiry into corrupt practices, but not to make any new law, or to define by law what was a corrupt practice. The two objects should, he thought, be kept perfectly distinct. The hon. Member (Mr. Adderley) could himself bring in a Bill on the subject, or he believed that an hon. Friend of his own intended to do so. There was much to be said in favour of such a Proviso; but at the same time great care must he taken in doing it. He thought, however, that it should be the subject of a distinct Bill.
MR. ADDERLEYbegged to draw the attention of the noble Lord to the 56th Clause, in which treating was referred to. He thought, therefore, that it would not be inconsistent with the object of the Bill to add a Proviso, explaining what should be taken to be treating.
SIR ALEXANDER COCKBURNsaid, that this Clause did not attempt to define either treating or bribery, but merely pointed out how, taking the offences to be as they were at present defined by law, the fact of their having been committed might be ascertained.
MR. ADDERLEYbegged to ask whether the proposed Bill, to which the noble Lord the Member for London had referred, would be brought in before the coming elections?
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, that it was his hon. Friend the Member for Essex to whom he had referred; but the hon. Member for North Staffordshire (Mr. Adderley) could, if he wished, bring in a Bill on the subject.
MR. M. J. O'CONNELL, as one of the Chairmen of the Election Committees to whom the hon. Gentleman had referred as
774
being favourable to an amendment of the kind now proposed, recommended the hon. Gentleman not to press his Amendment at the present moment.
MR. STUART WORTLEYquite agreed with the hon. Gentleman in thinking that the subject was one of importance; but this was not the opportunity for introducing it. Besides the objections pointed out by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Southampton (Sir A. Cockburn), and the noble Lord, he thought that, as this Bill was confined entirely to boroughs, the Proviso proposed by the hon. Member for North Staffordshire (Mr. Adderley) would not apply to counties where the grievance of which he complained existed.
MR. ADDERLEYsaid, in deference to the general feeling of the Committee he would withdraw the Amendment; but he would do his best to introduce a Bill on the subject.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at half after one o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Copyright Amend-merits; Colonial Bishops.
2a Mutiny; Marine Mutiny.
Reported.—Indemnity.

WAR WITH AVA.
The EARL of ELLENBOROUGH: My Lords, I fear that I may now speak without any incorrectness of expression of the war with Ava. As yet there has been, I apprehend, no declaration of war on our part, and it is not customary for Princes in the East to issue any such declarations, and therefore it cannot be expected that such a monarch as the King of Ava will make any change in that point of etiquette. We are, however, at war with Ava. The Government of India appears to have clung to the last to a hope that war would not take place; and yet it certainly made requisitions on the King of Ava which it must have foreseen would ultimately terminate in war, without having undertaken any of those preparations which such a war would of necessity require. In that country, and also in this, it appears that we cling to the hope that we may have as much or as little of war as we please. That, however, is not the case. War is a game that must be played by two parties, and we cannot deal with the King of Ava in this war as if he were altogether a dummy in the play, in order to conduct the game just as we please. If he should decide on assailing our provinces of Tennasserim, or of Arracan, or of Chittagong, or of Assam, he will subject our Government in India to very great embarrassment indeed; for he will have the advantage of acting on what is called an interior line of operations. Allow me, my Lords, to state to you, as shortly as I can, the circumstances connected with our last war in Ava, for it is necessary to see the magnitude of the crisis as it now stands. There was employed, my Lords, in the last war with Ava, a force of not less than 40,000 men—a force as large as that which the French sent to Algiers, and as that which Bonaparte took with him for the conquest of Egypt. There were 30,000 native troops, and nearly 7,000 European bayonets employed to form that force. Of the European troops two regiments, the 13th and the 38th, left Calcutta in April, 1824, 1,800 strong, and in January, 1826, they had not 500 men left fit for service in the field;
648
and I believe that the mortality in the other European regiments was not inferior. I doubt much whether at the end of that war 10,000 men out of the whole 40,000 were fit for duty in the field; the whole army in Arracan was utterly wasted away, and was totally unable to afford any co-operation to the other forces. On the 11th of May the army landed at Rangoon, and it was not able to move from that place till the 11th of the February following. It was detained there for nine months, having been surrounded by a large Burmese army, and not being able to move forward. During that time the European troops lived entirely on salt provisions. No fresh previsions, nor vegetables, were to be had in the country; and when bullocks were sent them, every bullock sent from India cost in freight 10 l.; in fact, during the whole of the war almost the whole of the provisions were necessarily sent from India. Notwithstanding the great amount of the force sent to Ava, I believe that the general, in advancing on the capital of that country, had never more than 5,500 men under arms at his command; and I know that on the 24th of February, 1826, at the conclusion of the war, he had with him only 4,000 men: to that small force had our grand army dwindled away. My Lords, we have undoubtedly now some advantages which we did not then possess; but the climate of the country continues the same, as also the same impracticability of moving in it for nine months of the year. We have also undoubtedly now great advantages in the rapidity of steam navigation; but we must not over-estimate them. We can convey troops and munitions of war to that country more rapidly than we could then, and thus our army will be better circumstanced than before; but I doubt whether we can convey them at less expense. Time is most valuable in military operations; but I doubt whether in point of cheapness the moving of troops by steam, is less expensive than before by means of sailing vessels. Moreover, our large steam vessels draw too much water to move much further up the river than Rangoon. The smaller steam vessels, however, which the East India Company possess, can be used above that point, and these by towing boats will much facilitate the operations of the army. But, at the same time, it must be remembered that the moment the army leaves the banks of the river—and nobody knows this better than the noble Duke (the Duke of Wellington) at the table—it can-

649
not move without animals, and animals under such circumstances must be a great expense to an army; for, though these small steamers may convey men, they cannot convey animals. There is also another advantage which we shall have now, but which we had not formerly. The climate of Arracan, then so fatal to the troops under General Morrison, is supposed to be now much improved, in consequence of the land having been cleared. But there is always this to be recollected—that there is a great difference in the health of troops well covered, as they now are, and in that of troops exposed as our troops would he in the open field for military operations. I feel confident, however, that the health of the troops would not be liable to such loss as it was in the late war. But there are other circumstances very disadvantageous to us at present, as compared with the former occasion. Rangoon was then attacked by surprise; there was not the smallest expectation that our forces would be directed on that quarter, and 17,000 Burmese troops were then in Arracan. Rangoon was attacked by 10,000 men, and was captured without loss. We then proceeded to fortify our position, and to occupy the great Pagoda, which at once protected and was the key to it. What is the case now? By our operations, untoward as they are, we have indicated the point of our attack. We have had a collision with the Burmese on that point, and, without finding any fault with the officers in command, we have twice most unfortunately retired, after a collision, from the conflict. Now the mere circumstance of our retiring under such circumstances must give encouragement to the Burmese. The town of Rangoon, which we occupied before, is now destroyed, and another town, four miles up the river, is built beyond the reach of our steamers; and the whole of that position, and especially the Pagoda to which I have before alluded, with terraces of brick, each rising 15 feet above the other, situated on a height 200 feet above the level of the river, and commanding all the ground in the neighbourhood—that position is now fortified and stockaded in every direction, and defended by 100 guns. It is impossible, therefore, not to expect that great loss will be incurred in taking it; and it is to be attacked, not by 10,000 men, as formerly, but by a force not much above 5,000. Moreover, the circumstances are particu-
650
larly unfortunate under which we are called on to carry our army into that country. The Punjab is not yet so settled as to make it safe for us to withdraw any considerable force from it; and, without drawing troops from the Punjab, we have not three regiments on the side of Bengal available to be sent there with safety. I regret, my Lords, to find—what no doubt, under the circumstances, was unavoidable—that one European regiment has been sent from Fort William—that there is only one regiment to supply its place, and that this has been sent from Dinapore, which is left without European troops at the very moment when we may be about to engage in another war: so that in the front of the Nepaulese we are withdrawing the only regiment which we have to defend Calcutta. There is also another circumstance to be considered, which I take to be one of a very serious nature. In the last war all the operations in Ava were carried on by the Madras army; and I attribute the sending of so large a portion of that army to Ava, mainly to the great personal influence and the great personal ability of Sir Thomas Monro. Without his influence, I think that the Government would not have been able to withdraw from that Presidency 23,000 men, or 28,000 men, including Europeans. I remember, with regret, certain passages in the recent history of the Madras army which make me doubt whether we can safely calculate on being able to despatch a large force from that Presidency on service beyond the sea. Your Lordships may not, perhaps, be aware that the Bengal soldier is accustomed to leave his wife and family in his native village when called into active service; but the soldiers of the Madras army take their wives and children with them into the camp; so that, when they go beyond the sea, all their families form a village, which is left without means of support. When I arrived, some years ago, at Madras, I found two regiments there, I will not say in a state of mutiny, but so disinclined to proceed to China as they had been ordered to do, that it became a matter of deep anxiety and apprehension to the Government; and the cause of this disinclination—so far as I can recollect the immediate cause of it—was the terrible state of misery and distress in which the wives and children of the men of the regiments which had already sailed for China were left. I am not aware, my Lords, of any alteration

651
in the regulations of the service which can relieve the families of the Madras soldier from the distress which they suffer when their husbands and fathers proceed beyond the sea. Notwithstanding all this, I will assume, for I doubt it not, that we have entire success in the war. What will be the consequence of that success? I think that the King will fight to the last, and the result will be the entire dissolution of the Burmese empire; and then it will be for our Government in India to consider what it will do under such circumstances. I know, my Lords, that the Governor General will be placed in circumstances under which a great pressure will be brought to bear on him as to the policy which he ought to adopt. First, there are certain enterprising British merchants, who, having exhausted all the forests on one bank of the river and its tributaries, are very desirous of possessing the teak forests on the other side, for the purpose of carrying on and extending their trade by Rangoon; and these persons are in concert and connexion with the press at Calcutta, the movements of which I have always viewed with anxiety and distrust. They say that in consequence of our occupying the whole Burmese empire an overland intercourse with China may be established, and that great advantage would accrue to our trade from its extension along that Burmese frontier. Thus the desire to push forward trade, and to make the whole affair a money speculation, is the feeling which actuates the press of Calcutta. I hope that the Governor General of India will treat that press with the disregard which it deserves. But, my Lords, there is also another serious pressure which my right hon. Friend ought to disregard, and which it will be more difficult I am afraid for him to resist; that is, the pressure of a large part of the civil and of the whole military service. They have before their eyes the occupation of Affghanistan, which produced a complete revolution in the army of Bengal. That will always be the case where a great territory is to be occupied even for a time, and still more where a now territory is to be annexed to and brought under our dominion. Young officers are then placed in command of districts—others are placed in political employments, where they actually direct the operations of troops under the command of their superiors. Great rewards and distinctions are obtained—and, no doubt, great talents exhibited; and the
652
consequence is that every man, with a natural ambition, looks forward to the distinction and promotion he may attain; and it is most natural, with these feelings, that the idea of a new war, likely to terminate in new conquests, is dear to that army—an army full of enterprise, and of those feelings which naturally excite military men to great actions. There is, however, nothing I should view with greater apprehension than the annexation to our empire of a large portion—ay, or even of any portion—of the Burmese territory. It is essentially a false position. My Lords, you must have seen before now that, with the greatest ability on the part of our generals, with the greatest courage on the part of our soldiers, and with the most perfect equipment on the part of our army, it is very difficult to retain, even for a short period, an eminently false position. A false position is as dangerous to an empire as it is to an army, and always ultimately vindicates its power over those who sin against the first principles of true policy. I feel, my Lords, perfectly satisfied that the annexation of Ava, drawing in that direction a large portion of the vital resources of the British empire in India, will weaken us in points where the exertion of all our force is required, and will materially impair both its civil and military strength. It is because I entertain these apprehensions of the consequences of the military occupation of Ava, and of the possibly fatal effects of even the most complete success, that I request you, my Lords, to call on Her Majesty's Ministers to produce such papers on this subject as can be produced without detriment to the public service, for the purpose of making us acquainted with the causes of this war. I have not heard that any trustworthy officer on the part of the Government has been sent to Rangoon to ascertain the facts out of which it has arisen. They rest entirely, I believe, on the authority of persons who went with their complaints to Colonel Bogle, at Moulmein. What value is to be attributed to their statements we know not; but this we do know—for it is stated, with a degree of confidence almost inclining us to treat it as correct—that the total amount of the indemnity which we require from the Government of Ava is only 900 l.; and yet to obtain that sum all these public dangers which I have recounted are to be incurred. Now, my Lords, when I look at the character of the trade

653
carried on at Rangoon, I cannot help looking with suspicion at the statements made by any of the persons concerned in it. One of the most considerable traders at Rangoon is a person of the name of Crisp. That man, as soon as he knew of the probability of war, freighted a schooner with arms, and sold it to the Governor at Rangoon. When the Governor refused payment for them, he had the effrontery to go to Commodore Lambert and complain of the injury inflicted upon him. I suppose we shall hereafter see the amount of the compensation claimed by that person (Crisp) in the bill to be paid by the Burmese Government. The Governor of Rangoon offered in consequence 100 l. for this man's head; and I confess that I should not have been deeply grieved if he had got it. This is a description of one of the persons for whom this great war is to be undertaken; I confess I look upon the matter with great anxiety. If our reputation and honour be at stake, no matter however small the injury, war must be submitted to, and we must endure it; but if there is not an overwhelming necessity for our interference at present, for the reasons I have stated, I think we ought not to interfere. There is also another peculiar objection to it at the present time. The services of the Madras army, we heard several months ago, were likely to be engaged in a different affair with the Nizam. We heard that the Indian Government, as a creditor of the Nizam, had required him to pay a certain sum of money, and that if be did not pay it by a certain day, his territory was to be occupied and his troops put down. The Governor General must consequently have looked forward to a collision with the Nizam as a probable occurrence; and I think, therefore, that he would not have made such a demand without having a certainty that he had the Madras army in hand; for the town of Hyderabad is in the hands of the Arabs, and so are half the forts in the Nizam's dominions. They will defend them with bravery, and no prudent man would engage in operations in that country without having the whole of the Madras army in hand for that purpose; and, unless we postpone the demand for that payment, the Madras army will be called upon to carry into effect two distinct and distant operations at the same time. I hope, my Lords, that my noble Friend opposite will not think it inconsistent with his duty to lay the papers to which I have referred on the table, in order that we may
654
know on what grounds the Government of India is proceeding in this matter.
Motion—
"That there be laid before this House, Copies or Extracts of Communications which may have passed with reference to Hostilities in Ava."
The EARL of DERBY: My Lords, with regard to the military grounds on which my noble Friend has based his observations, I have only to say that he speaks with a knowledge which gives him great advantage on any point which he thinks necessary to discuss. But whatever may be the difficulties which attend the operations now going on in Ava—and I am afraid I must agree with my noble Friend in his description of them as a war—whatever the difficulties and obstacles with which we may have to contend, I am quite sure that my noble Friend would be the last man to desire to shrink from a war, if war were necessary, for the due protection of our fellow-subjects. On the other hand, whatever may be the feeling of the public press in Calcutta, or of those "enterprising British merchants" whom my noble Friend has described, endeavouring to promote trade, or of the Army anxious to win fresh laurels in the field—however they may press upon my noble Friend the Governor General of India any extension or accession of territory—I am quite sure, whatever motives they may have to acquire territory, that there is no man more averse to such acquisition of territory than the Governor General; and I agree with my noble Friend that great inconvenience and disaster would be likely to result from a large accession of territory in the district alluded to. I hope when the papers are produced for which my noble Friend moves, and which, to a certain extent, there will be no difficulty in producing, that he will be satisfied that there has been no desire to incur all the responsibility and hazard of war, but that, on the contrary, the Indian Government has been anxious to avoid recourse to hostilities; and that, upon the other hand, the measures of my noble Friend the Governor General have been so prompt and ready as to lead to the reasonable conclusion that there will be no protracted hostilities with the Burmese empire; and that these hostilities will end in the entire success of our troops; though not, as my noble Friend seems to think, with the dissolution of the empire of our adversary. My noble Friend has thrown great doubts on how far we should be jus-

655
tified in acting on the representations of the merchants of Rangoon without previous inquiry. I am not at present in a condition to enter into the merits of those claims; but their justice has been admitted by the King of Ava himself; for, on representations being made to him with regard to those claims by a a former Governor of Rangoon, he not only acquiesced in them, but marked his displeasure at the conduct of the late Governor by removing him from his government, and substituting another in his place. Whatever may be the policy of the King of Ava now, that, surely, is a primâ facie justification that the claims for indemnity to the amount of 9,000 rupees were not put forth without just cause. On the 6th of January last, Commodore Lambert, in execution of instructions he had received, proceeded up the river to confer with the new Governor of Rangoon. The first communications with him were not of an unfriendly character. He received on board his vessel a deputation of persons—persons certainly not of very high rank, but he acted wisely in waiving the etiquette on which he might have stood—and received from those persons a communication not by any means unfriendly. He then sent Commander Fishbourne to have an audience of the new Governor—it was necessary for him as Commodore to remain on board the frigate—and that officer was instructed firmly to demand compliance with the terms we had before demanded. In performing this duty, Commander Fishbourne, and the officer who accompanied him, from whatever cause, were subjected to a series of indignities and insults which it was impossible for him as a British officer, acting under the orders of his Sovereign and in the public service, to permit. Whether these indignities arose from a mistaken idea of dignity on the part of the Governor of Rangoon, I will not undertake to say; for Commander Fishbourne (he being the second officer in command) having refused to communicate with any one but the Governor himself, they were kept waiting outside the village, and told that the Governor was asleep, and could not be disturbed. They were then subjected to a series of insults and indignities that could not be taken in any other sense than as premeditated, and which the meanest person could not have viewed otherwise than as insults. Every communication was addressed to Commander Fishbourne, as from a superior to an inferior, couched in
656
language implying superiority on the part of the Burmese; and no nation is more touchy and sensitive about dignity and forms than the Burmese. On receiving information of the insults offered to Commander Fishbourne, Commodore Lambert said it was impossible that he could continue communications with such a Government, and actually withdrew; but unfortunately, as I think, by way of retaliation for the insults offered to his officer, taking on himself, without previous instructions, to seize a vessel of the King of Ava, which he carried with him. In passing down the river with this vessel, his ship was fired on from a stockade; and I think the noble Earl will admit that, hostilities having been thus commenced by the Burmese, it was the duty of Commodore Lambert not to submit to such an insult, but to return the fire, which he did so effectually as to silence the stockade in a few minutes. In passing, I must say that my noble Friend adverted to the fact of two expeditions having been sent to the factory, in both of which hostilities occurred, as if he thought that this expedition was sent for hostile purposes, and that then upon the commencement of hostilities our ships had retired; but so far from this expedition having been entered on with hostile objects, in a subsequent letter the Governor of Rangoon himself pressed this point on our Government, that Commodore Lambert had no instructions to act hostilely, that he had come as a messenger of peace, and not of war, and that he had withdrawn without attempting to execute his mission. The withdrawal of that officer could not, then, have given that encouragement to the Burmese which had been represented. Commodore Lambert reported his proceedings to the Governor General of India; and, of course, the Governor General could not but be sensible that this unfortunate transaction must lead to critical events, if not to war. Not a moment was lost in taking those precautions which I am sure my noble Friend will think ought to have been taken, namely, to protect Moulmein and Arracan, and making other preparations to support our forces if hostilities should become necessary. But, although these preparations went on, yet, the fact is, that, immediately subsequent to the withdrawal of Commodore Lambert, there came a letter from the Governor of Rangoon, complaining of the course that had been pursued by that officer, and expressing his willingness to comply with the

657
original requisition. On receiving this answer, the Governor General, not suspending the preparations he was making for military proceedings, but having collected two Queen's regiments, five Native regiments, and a considerable force of European artillery, sent round to Bombay for the steam force—and this will show the efficiency of the Indian navy—that force was despatched in five days after the requisition. The Governor General, not suspending his preparations, and anxious to prevent the renewal of hostilities, but not to supersede Commodore Lambert, charged Commodore Lambert to proceed with a letter to the Governor of Rangoon, in which he stated that, on a compliance with the original demand, and an expression of regret on the part of the Burmese Government for what had taken place, the ship would be immediately restored, the blockade that had been instituted would be raised, and terms of friendship again entered into between the Governor General and the Governor of Rangoon. I think my noble Friend will admit that the Governor General of India could hardly have taken a more conciliatory course, or one more likely to avoid war. Commodore Lambert found, on arriving, that the ships were too far down the river to enable the message to be sent by the boats, and consequently the Fox was towed up by steamers, for the purpose of taking the letter; and, to prove the pacific character of the mission, the guns of the Fox were not loaded, and the tompions were actually upon the guns. They were fired on by the Burmese stockade. In three minutes the fire was returned, the stockade was silenced, and Commodore Lambert proceeded up the river and delivered the message. The answer evaded all compliance with our terms; it evaded giving satisfaction for the original claims, or for the further demands afterwards advanced by the Indian Government; and it proposed that the negotiations should be transferred from Rangoon to Martaban. On the receipt of the despatches containing this intelligence, the Governor General in Council, with the unanimous consent of the Council, thought that no time should be lost in trifling, but that it was necessary at once to strike a blow which it was hoped would supersede the necessity of any hostilities with the Burmese empire. At the same time, the Governor General was determined to proceed with his preparations, and to despatch his forces, so
658
that they might be ready to be sent by the latter end of last month. The Governor General did not even then relax his endeavours to come to terms; for simultaneously with sending that expedition he sent a further communication to the King of Ava—not to the Governor of Rangoon—stating that if the King of Ava would express his regret for what had occurred, and if the original conditions were complied with, and the expenses incurred in our preparations defrayed, hostilities should be stayed, and peace be restored. The Governor General is as well aware as my noble Friend can be of the great inconvenience of any protracted hostilities at that period of the year when the rainy season is commencing; and I believe that my noble Friend the Governor General has no further intention that to despatch such an expedition to strike a blow against Rangoon and Martaban as will be sufficient to produce terror in the minds of the Burmese. By a single blow struck without delay, and showing the efficiency of our preparations, peace may be yet restored on terms honourable to the British Government, and not involving any continued occupation, possession, or annexation of any portion of the Burmese empire. If those steps which are now being taken are not successful before the rainy season commences, in inducing the Burmese authorities to tender their submission and enter into terms of peace, it will be for the Governor General to consider what duties and responsibilities will devolve upon him in the more serious and arduous struggle which will be forced upon him. I have to hope that no such consideration will be forced upon him, but that terms will be agreed upon under terror of the force that has been so promptly despatched. I am sure the Governor General will not neglect any steps which his duty calls on him to take, and which are necessary for the security of the empire, and for the maintenance of the dignity and honour of the British name. My noble Friend will believe that there is no man more anxious than he is to avoid war, and to avoid what I should consider as a great misfortune—the compulsory annexation of the Burmese empire. I make no objection to produce such papers as can be produced without injury to the public service. If my noble Friend will move for extracts from papers with regard to the hostilities in Ava, I shall have no hesitation in producing such as will be sufficient to satisfy both him and your

659
Lordships, that, without any undue shrinking from the responsibilities which have devolved upon my noble Friend, the Governor General has taken every step in his power for the purpose of avoiding hostilities, consistent with our dignity and honour, in the maintenance of which are involved the safety and security of our Indian empire.
The EARL of ELLENBOROUGHsaid, he would make the required alteration in his Motion. He concurred in the observations that had been made by the noble Lord. He had not said that war should not take place if it were necessary to support the honour and dignity of the country. If it were so, might God prosper our success! He would therefore move for extracts from any papers explanatory of the grounds of the war with Ava.
Motion agreed to.

FOREIGN REFUGEES.
LORD BEAUMONT, in rising "to call the attention of the House to the Correspondence laid on the table respecting Foreign Refugees, and to move for Correspondence respecting the detention of the Rev. Mr. Wingate," said, that he should not have troubled the House upon the present occasion had it not been that the papers that had been laid on their Lordships' table were calculated to lead to an impression that Her Majesty's present Government intended to make a change in the policy which this country had invariably, heretofore, pursued with regard to those persons, who, in consequence of troubles in their own country, were obliged to seek a refuge here. He trusted that this impression was a false one, and that the Government of this country did not intend to abandon the principles so ably laid down in the despatch of his noble Friend (Earl Granville) near him, of the 13th of January last, and so invariably acted on by this country. He trusted that Her Majesty's Government did not intend to act the spy, to play the eaves-dropper, to dog the heels of every person of political character who arrived here from a foreign country, to render the asylum this country had heretofore afforded a mockery, and to make a residence here at least as painful and as restrictive upon the liberties of foreign refugees as that of their own country would have been. Yet this, and more than this, had been demanded by Foreign Powers; and though they had little hope of having those demands complied with by the late
660
Government, some steps in that direction had been expected by them, at least in a modified sense, from the present Government, as it appeared to him from the correspondence that had passed. However original might be the ideas of Her Majesty's Government with regard to the elective franchise, and various other matters of domestic policy, he trusted they were not going to abandon that line of conduct or those principles which had invariably signalised this country as different from all other countries in Europe, and made it the country of those who had lost their own. He would attempt to prove that the liberty we afforded to these refugees, while it was an honour to this country, was also beneficial to the Governments from which those refugees fled, and was conducive to the general tranquillity of Europe. Suppose that this country and America did not afford an asylum to political characters in adversity, but delivered them up to their own Governments, or made their sojourn here so oppressive that they preferred to remain at home, those Governments would then be obliged, when the tide of emigration now setting in on our shores was turned back to them, to fill their prisons, and to increase both their armies and their police establishments. What would be the effect of such steps with regard to those Governments? They would bring increased discredit on them—they would raise strong feelings against them, and spread discontent in the land—they would increase the passions they were intended to repress, and the very thrones of those countries would be in imminent danger from the odium such conduct would excite. Under our present policy, what was the position of the refugees in this country? They who, in their own country were listened to with great respect, in our multitudinous society were immediately lost, and became an injury to no one. When a refugee landed on our shores, he was entitled to the protection of our laws, but he was also bound to obey our laws. When he arrived on our shores he had the same liberty as one of our own subjects: he was allowed to advance, as loudly as he liked, his opinions on the conduct of those Governments from whose persecutions he bad fled—he was allowed openly to lecture on the defects of the Government under which he had previously lived—to discuss all political maters in the public press—the pages of the newspapers were open to him to disseminate his opinions; he bad, in fact, every

661
advantage and liberty which our own subjects enjoyed. Yet it was to take away this liberty that foreign countries had applied to this country. What was the effect of this liberty? Why, that these persons arrived here with every opportunity to make known their feelings; but they found that their voices, with all these advantages, were lost in political discussions that were going on here, and that, however able they were to interest their hearers in their own country, they found that in this country there were more important subjects under discussion, which sometimes even obliterated the memory of their own political grievances. The effect of their agitation was absolutely neutralised. Here men found their level more easily than in any other country, and nothing could be better for any Government in which there had been a revolution, in which one party had become predominant, than that the party which was for the moment overcome should be allowed to come to this country and become, as it were, lost in our society. Yet it was asked that we should watch over these persons, that we should establish a system of espionage to ascertain what opinions they were advocating, and what associations they formed. Such a practice was contrary to our habits, and was totally unnecessary. We have here something much more efficacious than any police: we have a press which searches out all that is passing of importance in every quarter of the country and amongst all classes of men; and if we only attend to what is announced in the press, we might be pretty well aware of what all classes of men were doing. Every memorandum contained in those papers before their Lordships, which was supposed to be information with regard to what was going on here, merely contained what had appeared twenty times over in the public journals: not a single event was in the memorandum which could be new to any person who read the newspapers. Many of these statements were copies of advertisements that had been paid for and inserted in more than one journal. By means of the press you had sometimes even announcements of where some noble Lords had dined. When the press even peered down into these matters, it was evident that no person who read the papers could long remain in ignorance of what was going on. Foreign Governments, therefore, showed their ignorance of the habits and customs of this country, in asking that we should establish a police system
662
of espionage or surveillance, and try to prevent that free expression of opinion which, as he had already shown, was so advantageous to them. He believed that our line of policy was correctly laid down in the despatch of his noble Friend (Earl Granville), and if the present Government adhered to the principles contained in that despatch, he believed they would be acting for the best interests of this country, and in accordance with those principles which this country ought to maintain. He would refer to one passage in that despatch, which pointed out the line of policy that he wished to see adhered to by the present Government, and then show the reasons why he believed—although he hoped his impression was not correct—that it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government not strictly to adhere to that policy. Before doing so, he wished, in order to narrow the subject, to state that his observations applied only to some of those Powers from whom had been received the despatches contained in these papers. In the first place, he altogether excepted Prussia from the remarks he was about to make. He wished to see the closest communication between that country and England, and he regretted to see that Prussia had joined in the note of the other Powers; but the speed with which that Power had withdrawn from joint action with the other Courts, and the conduct of that Government, satisfied him that there was not the slightest ground for any complaint in regard to the Government of Prussia. He also thought France might be excepted from the remarks he was about to make. Not only had France refused to be coupled with Austria and Russia, but an explanation had taken place on the subject between the most distinguished person who represented France at this Court and the Foreign Office, in which the nature of the memorandum and the purport of the note which accompanied it were professed to be such as to remove any suspicion of a wish on the part of that Power to interfere or dictate on the subject. He might also say that the last despatch from France left an impression on his mind that now there was very little to complain of in. the present position of France in regard to the question. Excepting those two Powers altogether from the remarks he was about to make, he would now read to their Lordships the exact words of the despatch of his noble Friend (Earl Granville), which he thought, laid down accurately the line

663
of conduct this country ought to adopt. His noble Friend said—
"By the existing law of Great Britain all foreigners have the unrestricted right of entrance and residence in this country; and while they remain in it are, equally with British subjects, under the protection of the law; nor can they be punished except for an offence against the law, and under the sentence of the ordinary tribunals of justice, after a public trial, and on a conviction founded on evidence given in open court. No foreigners, as such, can be sent out of this country by the Executive Government, except persons removed by virtue of treaties with other States; confirmed by Act of Parliament, for the mutual surrender of criminal offenders. British subjects, however, or the subjects of any other State residing in this country, and therefore owing obedience to its laws, may, on conviction of being concerned in levying war against the Government of any State at amity with Great Britain, be punished by fine and imprisonment. Offenders in this respect are equally open to prosecution by individuals or by the Government."
These extracts contained the real state of the case, and pointed out the line to be taken. Of course, if any parties here were taking any active measures of hostility, and were guilty of any overt act against the Government of a foreign country, our Government was bound to interfere in the matter. But this was not what was demanded. In one of the despatches from Russia, it was stated that it was not a question of levying war that was complained of. The complaint was that parties conspired here. Of course parties conspired here. Not one but many conspiracies now existed throughout Europe, and had long existed, and their ramification extended to this country. Ever since 1830 there had existed in France a conspiracy against the existing order of things, and there were persons in this country connected with it. The French Legitimists here talked over their grievances, and the means by which they could restore an order of affairs better for them. The same sort of conspiracy existed with the object of overthrowing others of the existing Governments on the Continent. It existed in Italy in particular. Wherever there were Italians there existed a conspiracy to overthrow the Austrian power in Italy. Wherever there were Hungarians there existed a conspiracy against the new system of government which the Emperor of Austria had established. But he was confident that the least dangerous portion of these conspiracies was the portion of it which was conducted in this country; because here all their proceedings were known, whereas in foreign countries the
664
proceedings were secret, and the Governments might be taken by surprise. He remembered of his own knowledge, that, in 1831, in Central Italy there was a conspiracy on a large scale brought to maturity throughout the Roman States, which was unknown to the Papal Government, and which, it was well known, was for a time successful. Such a conspiracy could not have taken place in this country without its proceedings being made public through the press. He should have hoped that this despatch would have been the conclusion of the correspondence on the subject of foreign refugees, and that the matter would have gone no further. An answer had been given, and any further attempt to induce the English Government to alter our laws and habits, was an interference with our internal affairs. Russia closed the correspondence by a note of great moderation. But he was surprised at the despatch frond the Austrian Government, dated from Vienna, on the 4th February, which must have created some regret on the part of those friendly to the Austrian Government. This despatch actually stated that the Austrian Government was about to take severe measures against innocent English travellers who chanced to be travelling within its dominions. He could give no other interpretation to the despatch when he coupled the words of it with the measures that had taken place. Let no one imagine that he disputed the right of Austria to establish a severe system with regard to the internal police of her own territories, provided it were fairly and generously carried out. She had a perfect right to establish any general law with regard to travellers that she might think calculated to produce tranquillity in that country. Such general rules had not, however, been made; but on the contrary, individual cases had been singled out. Certain stray Englishmen had been persecuted. Austria vented her spite against this country, annoying private persons. It appeared, however, that very shortly after a sudden change came over the dream of the Austrian Ministry; for he found Soon after two despatches of a very different character to those to which he had referred with so much pain, but at the same time equally extraordinary. The first was the despatch from Prince Schwarzenberg, dated from Vienna; March 15, 1852, expressing the great satisfaction with which the Austrian Government had

665
received the news of the formation of the Earl of Derby's Cabinet; and, proceeding to analyse the speech of the noble Earl on his installation into office, built upon it a conviction that a change was about to take place in the policy of England; and that, being discontented with the despatch of the noble Earl, late the Foreign Secretary (Earl Granville), the Austrian Cabinet hoped they would soon see the line of policy there marked out abandoned by Her Majesty's present Government. He was aware that the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Derby) laboured under the great disadvantage of not being always properly and clearly understood in the statements which he made in their Lordships' House; and he must bear witness also to the fact, that when the noble Earl undertook to explain his former speech, unfortunately his explanation very often made the speech still less intelligible than before; and this perhaps might have been the case with regard to what fell from the noble Earl on a former occasion in regard to political refugees. Certainly, the noble Earl's speech appeared to him (Lord Beaumont), when he heard of it, to contain all that was desirable on the subject; he could not at the moment differ from him as to a single point. The remarks in question appeared to him to satisfy the demands of justice and of hospitality; they appeared to set forth what had been before stated by the noble Earl (Earl Granville), that nothing but the law should be his guide, and that he would not strain the law at the request of any foreign Government. [The Earl of DERBY: Hear! hear!] If that were the intention of the Government, he could only say that he applauded it; if that were their policy, he could but approve of it. It seemed, however, that the Government of Austria put an entirely different interpretation on this exposition of the policy of Her Majesty's Administration, and they imagined that the noble Earl intended to abandon the policy of his predecessors, and pursue an entirely different one. On the whole, this despatch left an impression either that the Austrian Cabinet entirely misinterpreted the speech of the noble Earl, or that something had been held out to them by Her Majesty's Government which was not reconcileable with these papers. The reply of the noble Earl the Foreign Secretary, in answer to that of the Austrian Minister, was no less remarkable. It stated—
"Her Majesty's Government have received with
666
the liveliest pleasure the despatch to you from Prince Schwarzenberg of the 5th inst., which you have been authorised to communicate to me upon the part of the Cabinet of Vienna."
This, it would be remembered, was the despatch which announced the "genuine satisfaction" of the Imperial Cabinet at the change of Government in England. It went on:—
"In proportion to the value which Her Majesty's Government place upon a maintenance of a cordial friendship with Austria, the oldest ally of England, cemented, not only by the tie of mutual interest, but by the recollection of past efforts in a common cause, was the regret with which Her Majesty's present Government, on succeeding to office, found that the result of the events of the last few years had been to substitute for those friendly relations a tone of mutual suspicion, if not of actual alienation, and to give to their diplomatic correspondence a character quite at variance with the dispositions which ought to subsist between them. The despatch which you have recently placed in my hands affords the greater satisfaction to Her Majesty's Government, because, without reference to the past, it lays the foundation of a renewed good understanding between the two countries."
Now, he did think that a reference to the past ought to have been insisted on, especially as there still remained at the Foreign Office that extremely offensive despatch of the 4th February to which he had referred, and which ought either to have been withdrawn, or, at any rate, explained, whatever might be the Government in power. At that time every foreign Government had either withdrawn or modified at least its first demand on the question. The Prussian Government had withdrawn their note altogether; France had made the most satisfactory explanations; and Russia had considerably modified the language which she had first held. Austria alone, when the noble Earl came into power, remained without having taken steps to remove that which was insulting and derogatory to this country, while it was totally unworthy of the Government of Austria. It was clear that the perusal of these papers left an impression either that some deviation from the former line of policy had been promised to Austria, or that the noble Earl's speech and despatches had been totally misunderstood by the Austrian Cabinet. There was another part of the subject to which he was now about to refer, and that was, the treatment which Austria had exhibited towards certain English subjects who happened to be in the Austrian dominions. If there had been no threat uttered on this subject, it would have been sufficient to have left these matters, with-

667
out farther investigation of them, to Her Majesty's Government, fully convinced they would have demanded and obtained full satisfaction; but since the famous despatch of Prince Schwarzenberg, he thought they were bound to ask what steps had been taken by the Government, and what had passed between them and the Austrian Government on the subject; because it was now evident that those acts had become a part of the general policy of Austria, and it was upon that account that he asked an explanation of the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Malmesbury) with regard to what had passed between him and the Austrian Government in respect of the various cases of hardship inflicted on individuals in Austria. One of these cases he could not help alluding to in particular, because, if it had been correctly stated to him, it was really of a monstrous character. It was that of Mr. Wingate, a clergyman of the Scotch Church, a harmless, inoffensive gentleman, established at Pesth, since the year 1841, with the sanction of the Viceroy and the Government, as a clergyman to the English residents there, and as a missionary to the Jews. He had become resident there with the sanction of the Viceroy of Hungary, and at no period of his residence there had anything in the shape of an accusation been brought against him—a fact that was fully admitted by the Government authorities; he had a pastport from the Foreign Office, and a permission de sejour from the local authorities. During the Hungarian war, the Hungarians had tried to press him for a soldier, but he had positively refused to serve, and was ultimately allowed to retain his character of a civilian. On the 3rd of January, all forms of law were abolished in Hungary, and on the 5th of the same month, this gentleman, with another gentleman, were ordered, without any reason being assigned, to quit Pesth. According to the account which he (Lord Beaumont) had received, it was then in the depth of winter—the Danube was frozen over, the ground was covered with snow; some of the members of his family were under medical treatment, some of them were bedridden, and, though a medical certificate that their lives would be endangered by exposure to the cold was sent to the authorities, it had no weight whatever with him. Mr. Wingate was summoned to appear before the head of the police, and was ordered to depart immediately. The unfortunate persons then begged to be allowed to appeal to Vienna;
668
and this permission was granted by the authorities at Pesth, who, he was bound to say, had behaved with a great deal of feeling, and did all they could to mitigate the sufferings of those whom they were ordered to expel. The appeal, when made, was, however, unsuccessful, and the answer returned from Vienna was an order for their immediate removal—the sooner the better. They then asked to be allowed to go by Vienna, but this also was refused. A member of their congregation then went to Vienna, but he too was unsuccessful, and a more imperative order was then issued, giving only two or three days to prepare for their departure. Almost the whole of this time was occupied in getting passports; there were, as he was informed, no less than six bureaus to pass through, and, last of all, they had to obtain the sanction of the military commandant. Great difficulties, too, were raised about a nurse going with them who happened to be a Hungarian woman, and all her brothers and cousins had to be produced to depose to her intention of leaving the country. In fact, the whole of this part of the transaction was well worth any of their Lordships' attention, as showing the great evil and inconvenience of the passport system. After going through these ceremonies, and after experiencing other difficulties, they were turned out of Pesth, and obliged to travel some hundreds of miles in the depth of winter, suffering seriously in health, and some of them still felt the ill effects of that journey. A similar cruelty was inflicted on Mr. Edwards in a part of Gallicia. He, also, without any cause of complaint being stated against him, was ordered to leave the Austrian dominions, along with his wife, who was then in such a state of suffering that she was taken ill on the road. He was willing to make great allowances for Austria. He did not doubt but that great severity was necessary to maintain peace and tranquillity in her dominions; and he was convinced that if her army were diminished, or the regulations of her police reduced, the existence of the present Government would be in considerable danger, especially in Hungary, where strong measures were absolutely necessary. Severity and strictness were essential to the maintenance of a Government which was loathed in Hungary, hated in Italy, disliked in Bohemia, detested in Croatia, and not much loved even in Vienna; but the treatment which had been

669
inflicted on these unfortunate persons could do no sort of good whatever, and could answer no great political end; and, therefore, coupling it with the previous despatch, he looked upon it as an instance of a little revenge on the part of the Austrian Government for not having received the answer which it had expected. He, therefore, had thought it his duty to ask the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Malmesbury) whether he was prepared to produce any papers explanatory of the steps which he had taken to obtain redress for these individuals; and he did entreat noble Lords opposite to declare whether it was their intention to abide by what had been the usual course of policy of all Governments of this country with regard to those unfortunate individuals who sought a refuge on our shores. If they did intend to abandon these unfortunate refugees, and no longer to extend towards them the hospitality which they had ever found in England, then they would be doing that which, in his opinion, was both derogatory to this country and dangerous to the peace of Europe. If, on the contrary, they intended to persist in giving the fullest shelter and hospitality to all who sought our shores—be they monarchs fleeing from a republic, or republicans from a monarchy—if they resolved to keep the shores of England open to all, without inquiring into their political opinions, but offering them all the advantages which our enlightened laws offered to our own subjects, if the noble Lords opposite were prepared to state this, he was certain that no one there would refuse to give every means, and afford all possible allowances, for conducting this correspondence with foreign Governments on amicable and moderate terms. He begged to move, in accordance with the notice that stood in his name on the paper, for the production of correspondence respecting the detention of the Rev. Mr. Wingate.
Motion—
"That there be laid before this House, Correspondence respecting the Detention of the Reverend Mr. Wingate."
The EARL of MALMESBURY: My Lords, I shall try to profit as much as I possibly can by the lecture of the noble Lord on the lucidity of the statement made on a former occasion by my noble Friend (the Earl of Derby). But I beg to remind the noble Lord that it does not quite follow that, when a statement has been made and not understood, the implication
670
of unsatisfactoriness in such statement should rest exclusively upon Her Majesty's Ministers. My noble Friend began this subject in this House by putting a string of questions the other night; to which, however, he said, he did not think I ought to reply at the moment, and which, therefore, I did not then answer. I shall now, however, take the liberty of replying to them, and, in so doing, to invert the arrangement of the topics in my noble Friend's speech, and reply, in the first place, to the particular cases, before I proceed to make any remarks upon the general subject. The noble Lord began by asking about the arrest of a courier of Sir Stratford Canning. The history of that transaction is simply this:—Sir Stratford Canning had employed an English workman of some sort (I think an ironmonger) of the name of Scott, in doing some work for him, at the Embassy at Constantinople; and when this was finished, and nothing more remained to do, he gave the man an English passport for his return home; and either because he really wished for his services, or in order merely to expedite him on the way, Sir Stratford confided to this person an official bag containing despatches. The man was dressed not in the usual uniform of a courier, but as an artisan, and he did not travel in the carriage which couriers ordinarily use, and there was nothing to indicate him as such to the Austrian authorities. He was arrested by the Austrian police on suspicion of being identical with a man who had robbed somebody at Manchester of 1,600 l. in bank notes, and whose description had been forwarded to Vienna. The mistake in the identity was certainly most unfortunate; the man was unacquainted with German, and was detained throughout a whole night; but as soon as the matter was explained by a person who understood the English language, he was at once liberated. This happened not in our time, but in that of my noble Friend opposite (Earl Granville) in the Foreign Office. My noble Friend remonstrated most properly, as I should have done if I had been in his place with the Austrian Government; and the Austrian Government made an apology for the error into which they had been led, explained the circumstances under which it had occurred, and sent an order for the punishment of the policeman, who had not sent, when he took the workman into custody, for somebody who knew English to investigate the circumstances. My Lords,

671
I regret as much as my noble Friend, or any man living, that any such misfortune should befall an Englishman travelling through a foreign country, with the language of which he may be unacquainted; but accidents of this nature are not confined to foreign countries; neither, my Lords, is this particular occurrence imputable, in any sense, to a feeling of revenge—supposing such had ever existed in the mind of the Austrian Government—for it happened, two months before the despatch adverted to in such strong terms by my noble Friend was written; and, in the second place, it was perfectly accidental, for I can bring the authority of Mr. Grey, now an attaché of the Embassy at Vienna, to show that instructions had been given to the Austrian police for the detention of a man of the name of Adler, who had committed the robbery at Manchester. I have said, my Lords, that such a mistake is not confined to foreign countries, and will go further and say, not only that it might, but I will tell you what did, happen in this country, and to a domestic in my own establishment no later than last year. The individual to whom I allude is one who, although not personally or directly known, may nevertheless, be agreeably and indirectly known to some of your Lordships. Having sent my servants home from the Highlands of Scotland, my French cook, in the free town of Glasgow, though one of the most quiet, inoffensive creatures I ever knew in my life, was forcibly seized by two policemen, and found himself in the same position as the English workman, for he could speak no English; and the policeman and he of course could not understand one another. He was dragged through the streets of the town; he experienced the desagremens of being taken to the station-house, followed by a crowd of boys, who hissed and hooted him; he was detained two hours. The magistrate before whom he was taken very civilly let him go; stating that he was mistaken for a man who had committed a crime in Ireland; but all the satisfaction he got from the policeman was, "Sarve you right; you are such a queer-looking fellow." The result was that he lost his passage by the railway, and was put to considerable, and for him serious, inconvenience. If he had been a susceptible man, instead of a French philosophe, he would no doubt have applied to the French Minister in London to demand redress, and in all probability a long correspondence
672
between M. Drouin de I'Huys and the Foreign Office would have been the consequence, a great deal of trouble would have been caused to both countries, and we don't know how the matter might have ended. But he did not do that; he took things as they were intended; he made no more stir in the matter; and so your Lordships were saved from this correspondence. I mention this, my Lords, not to justify the proceedings in the other instance, but simply to show that such an accident as happened in that case might also happen in this country, where there is no police law, and where freedom lives as much among the people as is possible. I now come to the case of Mr. Wingate, and I must say that I think that a very aggravated case. I believe him to have been a harmless, conscientious, religious man, who went to convert the Jews in Hungary, without any other object or intention; and I think the Austrian Government, therefore, who must. have known this, too, cannot be too much blamed, after having suffered him and his colleagues to remain quietly in that country for so long a period, and who consequently led them to suppose that they should be permitted to live there as long they chose—I say, I think that Government is very much to be blamed for not having given those gentlemen and their families sufficient time to collect their goods, to settle their affairs, and to leave the country. But while I confess this with sorrow, I must at the same time say I think the statement from which my noble Friend opposite quoted his account of the details of the transaction is not one which so good and so religious a person as Mr. Wingate ought to have given. He ought to have been more exact in his details of what took place; and, lest your Lordships should be led away by the statement which has been made, and that you may know Her Majesty's Government and our Ambassador at Vienna have done all they could in reference to this case, I wish to read to you the account which has been drawn up in writing by Mr. Grey, attaché to Lord Westmorland, regarding the whole affair, and your Lordships will see that there is great variance between the statements. Your Lordships would suppose from what you have heard that the rev. gentleman had been hurried on through the Austrian dominions in the worst of weather, and that his family had not been allowed to rest on their journey. I think the noble Lord said that Mr. Wingate

673
complained he was refused permission to go to Vienna. If he were, he certainly cared very little for the permission, for he went to Vienna without it. [The noble Lord then read the document by Mr. Grey, which stated that a gentleman had called at the Embassy to state that two missionaries were in trouble, and, though the unfavourable answer of the Austrian Government to representations which had been made respecting a third missionary, Mr. Edwards, did not give good reason to suppose that interference in their case would be successful, the advice was given that Messrs. Wingate and Smith should send in a statement of their case from Pesth. No such statement had been sent in, and very soon afterwards Mr. Grey saw Mr. Wingate, who said his object was to obtain permission to travel by easy stages, without unnecessary interference on the part of the police. Mr. Grey obtained that permission for him, and saw orders to that effect sent off to the police. He took the passport, properly viséed, to Mr. Wingate's residence, and was told it was "all right." It was, therefore, perfectly clear, that though the manner in which the Austrians had acted was deserving of reprobation, it was not of the character described; the case required no exaggeration to make it one of cruelty, but, unfortunately, exaggeration had been employed in stating it. I am sorry to say I have seen accounts of large meetings in Scotland, where a clergyman named M'Leod has used very much the same language as my noble Friend, and has stated that Lord Westmorland behaved with the greatest remissness and negligence. [Lord BEAUMONT: I never said anything of the kind.] No; not my noble Friend, but the gentleman in question; and I have seen it with sorrow, because no person, and especially not a clergyman, ought to make such a statement with respect to the conduct of Lord Westmorland, who stands deservedly high in the estimation of your Lordships and of the country, for the manner in which he discharges his duties, before he had all the facts well substantiated. But, my Lords, having disposed of these points, I will now refer to the observation of my noble Friend on the general question involved in the correspondence. My noble Friend has made some general remarks on the correspondence respecting foreign refugees, which I had lately the honour to lay on your Lordships' table, on which I wish to make a few observations; and if I pre-
674
cede them with a few words in reference to myself personally, I am sure I shall meet with that indulgence your Lordships have always shown me whenever I have ventured to address you. I cannot blame my noble Friend, nor any man, for entertaining apprehension—nay, I would say even suspicion—respecting the security of our foreign policy, when he sees it placed so recently in the hands of a man so little experienced as myself. I am well aware, my Lords, that such a circumstance might excite those feelings; and I assure you that when I was called by Her Gracious Majesty to the place I now hold, I knew well it was not to any merit of my own I owed the appointment, but that it was to the partiality of my old and valued Friend now at the head of the Government, and to the confidence placed by Her Majesty in his recommendations. I knew I should be wanting—totally wanting, my Lords—in experience in the mode of carrying on the political affairs of this great country. I never had held office—I never had asked for office—I was perfectly inexperienced in the routine of public business. I had but one recollection which inspired me with some degree of encouragement, and that was that I had received the education of an English gentleman, and that one of the first principles in that education had been, as I trust it ever will be—I know that in my case it was one of the first feelings inculcated on my mind—that the dignity of the Crown and the honour of the country are, to every other consideration on earth, paramount; and, if I required another encouragement, allow me to say, though my noble Friend is present, that I found it in recollecting that he (Earl Granville), my junior in years, and almost as inexperienced as myself in official life—certainly with as little experience in that office in which I succeeded him—had, during the short time he had remained there, inspired the utmost confidence in all those who met him in the discharge of public business, and had left behind him at the Foreign Office a reputation which, when it shall be my turn to retire, I shall greatly envy. But, my Lords, if personal malice or party spirit should endeavour to invent the worst calumny against me that could be framed, it would be to put forward the supposition that, on a question affecting the safety and security of foreign refugees in this country, I do not hold, absolutely and entirely, the opinions I find expressed in the despatch of my noble

675
Friend opposite. I can well conceive the pleasure and happiness of a refugee, hunted from his native land, on approaching the shores of England, and the joy with which he first catches sight of them; but they are not greater than the pleasure and happiness every Englishman feels in knowing that his country affords the refugee a home and safety. My Lords, you know what our laws are on this subject; they have been over and over again explained in both Houses of Parliament on recent occasions, and so long as I have the happiness to be one of Her Majesty's Government, and of managing the Foreign Affairs of the country, I declare to you that from no Power in Europe, or in any other part of the globe, shall I consent to receive a demand that would change those laws. I would not answer such a demand by any epigrammatic despatch; because I think the province of diplomacy is negotiation and conciliation; but I would tell those who made such a demand, in a firm but conciliatory manner, that it could not be complied with, and I would answer them as the first Barons answered, Nolumus leges Angliœ mutari. Having said this much, my Lords, with reference to my own feelings and sentiments, and being convinced that every Member of Her Majesty's Government believes it impossible to change the laws of England upon this subject, even if a Minister could he found willing to do so, and that, so long as the foreign refugees respect and obey the law, that law will protect them against all comers, I will add, in the sense and in the principle of the policy of this country, that the same law which inexorably protects will as inexorably punish them if they bring their conspiracies into a practical shape which clearly breaks it. With respect to' the accusations on the part of the noble Lord opposite, I would ask, is there anything in the papers on your Lordships' table to give him a right to assert I will sacrifice foreign refugees in the manner he says? But the noble Lord has gone further than this, and has made a charge very grave in its nature against Her Majesty's Government; because he has more than insinuated that a secret understanding has been carried on between the Austrian Government and the Government of Her Majesty, which induced Prince Schwarzenberg to write the despatch of the 5th of March. My Lords, I positively deny such accusations or suspicions—they are totally and entirely
676
without foundation; and not only has no such communication ever taken place, but I do not believe it even entered the imagination of any of Her Majesty's Government. Why, if the noble Lord had taken the trouble to look to the dates—and I wish he had before he made his speech—he would have seen it was physically impossible for me who entered office on the 28th February, to write such a despatch as would enable Prince Schwarzenberg to write his in reply on the 5th of March, containing observations on the speech of my noble Friend. As to the despatch in question, I do not expect my noble Friend opposite (Lord Beaumont) to agree with the first paragraph. It states—
"The intelligence of the formation of the new Government under the auspices of the Earl of Derby has been received by the Imperial Cabinet with a feeling of genuine satisfaction."
Having referred to the statement made by my noble Friend, the despatch went on:—
"As far as that statement refers to foreign affairs we are happy to be able to adhere without reserve to the principles and intentions which the Earl of Derby has explained with so much candour and lucidity."
When my noble Friend made that statement, not a Peer in the House rose to make the slightest objection to it. Several of your Lordships made long speeches on our financial policy, but to the foreign policy of the Government no one made any allusion. Why did not the noble Lord rise on that occasion? Was he quite satisfied with my noble Friend's statement? If so, he is just in the same way of thinking as Prince Schwarzenberg; there was anly this difference between them, that the Prince expressed his satisfaction, but the noble Lord was so satisfied he said nothing. Well, if the Prince expressed himself satisfied, so did I. I said to him, "I'm glad you liked the speech;" the Prince gave me an opportunity of saying so. He said the intelligence of the formation of the new Government was received with "feelings of genuine satisfaction;" and I replied that Her Majesty's Government had received his despatch with "the liveliest pleasure." How I could have answered in any other way, I find it impossible to say. The noble Lord might have used more civil phrases, but I cannot see how he could have taken no notice of such expressions on the part of the Prince. Could I say it gave me no pleasure and no satisfaction that on a question of good feeling

677
between Austria and Great Britain, we had received the expression of a hope that the relations of old allies should be renewed? And while on this point I may observe, that I have seen the proposition supported in another place, that Austria is not the oldest ally of England. I express no jealousy of the historical acquirements which the gentleman who put it forward possesses, but in point of fact Austria is our oldest ally. The first treaty with Austria dates 1202, whereas our first treaty with Portugal was not made until 1386. In the despatch I wrote in reply, I went on to say—
"It is with the most unfeigned pleasure, though with no surprise, that Her Majesty's Government receive the assurance that the Court of Vienna subscribes without reserve to the principles and intentions developed by the First Minister of the Crown."
That again is very true. The noble Lord did not quote out of these despatches certain phrases or sentiments he might have approved of—he only quoted "unfeigned pleasure," and "liveliest pleasure." Is there anything so strong in those expressions, my Lords, that I am to be supposed to have bound myself to betray the honour of my country, and to hand over those unfortunate refugees to the Austrian Government? Why, the whole notion is perfectly unfounded; it exists only in the imagination of the noble Lord, and I do not believe there is a Peer in this House, with the exception of my noble Friend, who sees in these phrases more than a civil answer to a civil despatch, and the expression of the pleasure of Government that a useful and ancient ally of England was again placed on a footing of amity. My Lords, I have now told you what are my feelings in reference to that liberty which every refugee in this country enjoys, and what are the feelings of Her Majesty's Government, and I should be only doing injustice to the great statement made by my noble Friend (the Earl of Derby) on a former occasion were I to expatiate on this subject any further, or were I to say more than this—that while I have the honour to be a Minister of the Crown, and to hold the office I now fill, I will attempt to carry out the policy which has secured to these men a refuge in this country, so long as they prove themselves worthy of it, and do not by their acts violate the law which protects them.
EARL GEANVILLEwas understood to say, that the desire he felt to offer a few
678
observations on the subject under discussion had been much increased by his anxiety to acknowledge the very friendly compliment be had received from the noble Earl, who, though opposed to him in politics, had alluded to him in such kind terms. As it appeared that the correspondence relating to foreign refugees was now drawing to an end, it was hardly necessary for him to go into it; but he was happy to find that there had been expressed a very general concurrence in the principles laid down by Her Majesty's late Government in the despatch which he (Earl Granville) bad written in January last with respect to foreign refugees in this country. He was confirmed by the speeches of his noble Friend and of the noble Lord in the opinion he had expressed, that while we should concur in refusing to diminish in the slightest degree the hospitality now offered to political exiles of all climes and of all shades of political sentiment, and while we should refuse to depart from our municipal law and the practice of our courts, in respect of the definition of what constituted a political offence, and of the evidence to prove it, and to refuse to accept any foreign definitions, yet it should be the duty of the Executive Government to discourage all insurrectionary attempts against the Governments of other countries, and to prevent by all legal means all overt acts directed against countries with which we were in alliance. He very much regretted he ever had had occasion to write the despatch to Count Buol which had been referred to. The answer, though directed to him (Earl Granville), was received by his noble Friend opposite; and in reference to this subject he wished to remark there were two points on which some questions had been addressed to him out of their Lordships' House that he wished to make some observation upon. The noble Lord was then understood to say that he bad been asked why he had allowed so long a time to elapse before he had returned any reply to the note of Count Buol of the 7th of January, stating that the Holy See, through the Austrian Minister, joined in the representations of other foreign Powers respecting foreign refugees in England. He had previously received a note from Count Buol stating that the Duke of Modena concurred in the same representations; and it appeared to him of so unusual a character that he caused inquiries to be made in the proper department of the Foreign Office to know if it was customary to

679
receive an official communication from a foreign Court through a diplomatist not accredited by that Court to Her Majesty, and found that it was unprecedented. Believing that the Austrian Government was desirous of maintaining relations with us in a friendly spirit, he thought it well to avoid any fresh subject of discussion, and confined himself to telling Count Buol, when next they met, that he could not take any notice of his communication, for reasons he would understand. As to the fact that six weeks had elapsed between the time of his receiving the first despatch and his reply to it, all he (Earl Granville) could say was, that he would not have noticed it at all had he not received a subsequent communication from Count Buol with reference to the note addressed by the Holy See to the Austrian Minister at Rome. As to the moment which he had taken for sending that despatch, it had been asked why he had written it after the noble Lord then at the head of Her Majesty's Government (Lord John Russell) had announced that the noble Earl (the Earl of Derby) opposite had undertaken to form a Government, and after it was known that a new Ministry had accepted office? Whether this was a mere coincidence, or whether Count Buol, for whom he (Earl Granville) had the highest personal esteem, thought—very judiciously and very naturally thought—that it would be better to get rid of that point before he began business or to treat with his (Earl Granville's) successor, it still put him (Earl Granville) in a difficult position with regard to that despatch. The despatch was sent to him, and directed to him (Earl Granville), although at that moment the noble Earl (the Earl of Malmesbury) was bonâ fide the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. He thought he should have neglected his duty if he had sent the despatch back without making any remarks upon it; but after he had made his remarks upon it, he added that it should be resubmitted to the noble Earl for his consideration, and for the exercise of his discretion thereon. Had he not done so, he should not only have acted an unfriendly part towards the noble Earl, but also have placed both himself and the noble Earl in a false position; for if the noble Earl had remonstrated, he would have been met by the precedent which he (Earl Granville) had set six weeks before in the case of the Court of Rome. When he read the despatch, he certainly felt great regret that
680
the last act of his official correspondence with the Austrian Government should be one not actually of a courteous character; yet as he certainly did consider that that communication was not an offer of a friendly Power, to obtain some practical result with respect to a country with which the English Government had no other means of communicating, but that it was an official communication, and one, as it were, that was making Austria the official mouthpiece of Central Italy; it was therefore one which could not be entertained, and he was satisfied he could not take any other part consistent with his duty than to return that despatch. He might, indeed, have returned it without writing any remarks upon it; at the same time, he owned that if he had not put upon record the reasons which he thought to be sufficient for the conduct he had adopted, he should not have discharged his duty. He had now stated all that he had to observe with respect to that despatch. With regard to the correspondence that had taken place between the Austrian Government and the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Malmesbury), he might be allowed to say this, that, although he thought it was undesirable that foreign Governments should indicate a preference of one political party in this country over another political party; and although he should greatly deplore seeing any British Foreign Secretary bind up British foreign affairs with any political party in any foreign country, yet he was not disposed to censure the Austrian Government for what it had done in this instance; for he did not think it at all unnatural that that Government, feeling the inconvenience which had arisen from the unfriendly state of the relations between Austria and England, in consequence of the previous correspondence which had taken place between the two Governments, should have received with pleasure the intelligence that the party in England which, right or wrong, had for the last four years generally adopted the complaints of Austria against the actual Government of this country, had succeeded to power. No doubt, if the noble Earl had rejected these overtures on the part of Austria in a discourteous manner, he would have deprived himself of the power of bringing the many matters in discussion to a friendly issue. During his (Earl Granville's) short tenure of office, in the different communications which he had had with almost all the

681
nations of the world, he could not but feel grateful for the singularly candid and open manner in which he had been received, and certainly not less than by others had he been so treated by the great nations of Europe, though differing from him in toto on the abstract principles of internal government. He certainly regretted that he was not able to put the relations of this country with Austria on the same footing of amity as that in which we stood with other Courts; but this had not in the slightest degree changed his opinion as to the necessity of a good understanding existing between two such countries as Great Britain and Austria, or as to the fact that the state of the relations which had recently existed between those countries was most undesirable. Without going into the question whether Austria was the oldest, or comparatively the oldest, ally of Great Britain, there could be no doubt it was most desirable that the two countries should be on friendly terms with each other. He believed indeed that there were States with which an alliance was of more paramount importance; but he thought there was no nation in Europe with which it was more desirable that England should be on the most courteous footing, particularly when it was considered that the two countries had acted together in the most perilous times. Therefore, so far from feeling jealous that the noble Earl should have accomplished, without effort, that which he (Earl Granville) had failed to do, he should be most sincerely glad to learn that, with perfect self-respect and dignity, and with due regard to the interests of this country, combined with a conciliatory demeanour, the noble Earl had been able to put an end to the annoying and vexatious questions which had in recent days existed between the two countries. With respect to the case of the engineer, he recollected and entirely coincided with what the noble Earl had stated as to the nature of that case; but he did not quite agree with the noble Earl in thinking that the explanation which had been given by Austria, in reference to that case, was entirely satisfactory. He could not see any analogy between the noble Earl's French cook and that of the engineer; yet, since Prince Schwarzenberg had expressed his regret at what had occurred, and had informed Her Majesty's Government that the Austrian officer would be punished, he was quite satisfied with that
682
assurance. With respect to the case of the Rev. Mr. Wingate and his fellow-sufferers, although he (Earl Granville) wrote the despatch embodying the case of those gentlemen, yet as he was not aware of the answer which had been received from the Austrian Government, he could not add anything to that which the noble Earl had stated.
The MARQUESS of BREADALBANEthought that their Lordships had not sufficiently adverted to the fact that the Rev. Mr. Wingate and the Rev. Mr. Smith were not only endeavouring to spread the truths of the Gospel to the Jews at Pesth, but that they were also the Christian ministers to an English congregation at Pesth. A great number of British workmen were at present employed there in the construction of a railway, and those two missionaries were employed to perform the services of Christian worship to them. The Austrian Government, therefore, by having sent those men away in so summary a manner, had deprived many British subjects of the benefit of Christian worship. This was a very important fact, and he trusted Her Majesty's Government would not suffer themselves to be trifled with in conducting the negotiation for redress from the Austrian Government.
After a few words from Lord BEAUMONT and the Earl of DERBY in explanation, the Motion was withdrawn.

PATENT LAW AMENDMENT (No. 2) BILL.
LORD COLCHESTER LORD COLCHESTER moved that the Bill should be committed pro formâ, and whatever amendments were to be proposed should be discussed at the third reading.
The EARL of MINTOwas not aware that there was anything that required discussion which could not take place in Committee.
The EARL of DERBYobserved, that there was only one question to be discussed, namely, whether it was expedient to extend the operation of the Act to Scotland. To allow the Bill to pass through Committee without proposing any amendment, and to take that subject for discussion on the third reading, would, he thought, be the most convenient course.
House in Committee.
Amendments made: Report to be received To-morrow.
House adjourned till To-morrow.