Sitting of 24 January 1860

MINUTES.
NEW WRITS ISSUED.—For Forfarshire, V. Viscount Duncan, now Earl of Camperdown; for Pontefract, V. William Overend, esquire, Chiltern Hundreds; for Beverley, v. Ralph Walters, esquire, void Election.
NEW MEMBERS SWORN.—For Devonport, Sir Arthur Buller; for Hertford, Right hon. William Francis Cowper; for Bodmin, James Wyld, esquire; for Kingston upon Hull, Joseph Somes, esquire; for Berwick upon Tweed, Dudley Coutts Majoribanks, esquire; for Salop
74
County (Southern Division), Sir Baldwin Leigh-ton, baronet; for Ayrshire, Sir James Fergus-son, baronet; for Whitby, Harry Stephen Thompson, esquire; for Lewes, John George Blencowe, esquire; for Durham, William Atherton, esquire; for Reading, Sir Francis Henry Goldsmid.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Outlawries.
The House met at a quarter past One of the clock.
Message to attend HEM MAJESTY.
The House went; and being returned,
MR. SPEAKER MR. SPEAKER acquainted the House, that he had issued Warrants for New Writs,—For Salop (Southern Division), v. Hon. Robert Windsor Clive, deceased; for Ayrshire, v. Lord James Stuart, deceased; for Whitby, v. Robert Stephenson, esquire, deceased; for Durham, v. William Atherton, esquire, Solicitor General; for Reading, V. Sir Henry Singer Keating, one of the Justices of the Court of Common Pleas; for Lewes, v. Right hon. Henry FitzRoy, deceased.

MEMBERS OF THE JEWISH RELIGION.

  RESOLUTION.
  Several Members came to the Table to be sworn, and Sir Francis Henry Goldsmid, Member for the Borough of Reading, having stated that being a person professing the Jewish Religion, he had a conscientious objection to take the Oath in the form required by the Act 22 Vict. c. 48:—The Clerk reported the circumstance to Mr. Speaker, and Sir Francis Henry Goldsmid was directed to withdraw; and he withdrew accordingly.
  Resolved,—
  "That it appears to this House that Sir Francis Henry Goldsmid, a person professing the Jewish Religion, being otherwise entitled to sit and vote in this House, is prevented from so sitting and voting by his conscientious objection to take the Oath which by an Act passed in the twenty-second year of Her Majesty has been substituted for the Oaths of Allegiance, Supremacy, and Abjuration in the form therein required."
  Resolved,—
  "That any person professing the Jewish Religion may henceforth, in taking the Oath prescribed in an Act passed in the twenty-second year of Her Majesty to entitle him to sit and vote in this House, omit the words 'and I make this declaration upon the true faith of a Christian.'"
  Sir Francis Henry Goldsmid accordingly came to the Table, and was sworn on the Old Testament.

OPERATIONS IN INDIA.—THE VOTE OF THANKS.

  LETTERS OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT.
  MR. SPEAKERacquainted the House, that he had received from the Right hon. Earl Canning, Her Majesty's Viceroy and Governor General of India, the following Letters in respect to the Thanks of this House communicated to him, in obedience to the commands of this House of the 14th day of April last: together with the General Order No. 4,187 by the Right Honourable the Governor General:
  Which Letters and the General Order were read.
  These Letters severally acknowledged the Thanks voted by the House to Lord Elphinstone, Governor of Bombay; Sir R. N. C. Hamilton, Bart., late agent to the Governor General for Central India; and Lieut.-General Sir James Outram, C. B.

OUTLAWRIES BILL.
  FIRST READING.
  Bill "for the more effectual preventing Clandestine Outlawries" read 1° to be read 2a;
HER MAJESTY'S SPEECH.
MR. SPEAKER reported, That the House had, this day, attended HER MAJESTY in the House of Peers, when HER MAJESTY was pleased to make a most gracious Speech from the Throne to both Houses of Parliament, of which Mr. Speaker said, he had, for greater accuracy, obtained a copy, which he read to the House.

ADDRESS IN ANSWER TO HER MAJESTY'S SPEECH
MR. ST. AUBYN:—Sir, in ising to move that a humble Address be presented from this House to Her Majesty in answer to the gracious Speech delivered from the throne this day, I feel that it is more than usually necessary to appeal to the House for that indulgence which, I believe, is never denied to the natural hesitation of those who venture to address it for the first time; and I may be permitted to add, that when I was requested to undertake the duty which
76
I shall now endeavour to perform, I was selected certainly not from any qualifications of my own, but rather as a mark of respect to the large constituency that I have the honour to represent—a constituency which is not less varied and important than any in this kingdom, and which has invariably, for a long period of years, returned to this House two Members belonging to that great party with whom I have the honour and the happiness to act.
The first great subject to which Her Majesty has called attention is the state of our foreign relations; and it must be a satisfaction to every one that Her Majesty is again able to repeat the announcement that Her Majesty's Government is on terms of amity and friendship with all Foreign Powers. With respect to public affairs on the Continent of Europe, there is undoubtedly one question which has occupied the attention of all thinking men in this country, almost to the exclusion of every other, and that question is the present state of affairs in Italy. I believe I may safely say that the course which Her Majesty's Government has thought it right to pursue during the war which has desolated and the struggles which are still distracting a large part of that peninsula, is in accordance with the opinions of the great majority of the people of this country. It was felt, inasmuch as we had no direct personal interest in the question, and as we were no parties to the original dispute, that we were not called upon to interfere between the Italian people and those who had governed them. But it is impossible to deny that there was in this country a deep sympathy with the cause of a generous people, struggling for freedom and independence, and the hopes that were at that time entertained are now, I hope and believe, in a fair way of being realized.
By the treaty of Villafranca it is stipulated that neither on the one side nor on the other shall force be employed with the view of imposing any Government upon the Italian people, in any way obnoxious to them; and for eight months the population of Central Italy has been freed from the domination of their former rulers. During that time they have exhibited to the world a firmness, moderation, and, generally speaking, an absence from excesses of all kinds, which has endeared their cause to every lover of true liberty. I trust that the great influence which Her Majesty's Government is able to exert, whether it is used in or out of Congress, will be exercised for the

77
purpose of securing to the Italian people those privileges of freedom and good government which they have already proved themselves so worthy to enjoy.
It will be in the recollection of the House that in the course of last year the Chinese Government, in direct violation of existing treaties, and either in ignorance or in wanton violation of the usages which regulate the public intercourse of civilized nations with each other, attacked and nearly destroyed an expedition which was advancing into the interior of the country with the view of carrying out the provisions of the treaty of Tien-tsin. It has been determined, in concert with France, to send an armed force to exact reparation for that injury; but, notwithstanding the insult offered to our flag and the indignities to which our representatives have been subjected, it is still, I believe, in the power of the Chinese Government, by full, prompt, and permanent reparation, to avert actual hostilities. Should they, unfortunately, be so obstinate as to refuse acquiescence in the moderate terms now offered them, we must trust to the skill of our commanders and the bravery of our troops, which have never been more signally displayed than on former occasions in that country, to vindicate the honour of England.
As to the difficulty which arose in the course of last year with regard to the island of San Juan, and which, but for the moderation of the British officers in command there, might have assumed a much more disagreeable aspect than it has done, negotiations are, I believe, at present on foot which are likely to remove all difficulties by an amicable settlement of the question.
With regard to the affairs of India, it must be matter of congratulation to every one to learn that tranquillity has been completely restored in that part of Her Majesty's dominions. All traces of the great mutiny of 1857 have passed away, the last embers of discontent have been trodden out, and the successful issue of the Viceroy's progress through what were lately the most disaffected provinces appears to augur the commencement of a new and happier era in the history of India, when England, by assuming a policy of conciliation and regard, may not only win, but retain the affections of the Indian people, and prove herself not unworthy of the high mission which has devolved upon her in the supremacy over that empire.
As to that part of Her Majesty's speech which refers to the coming Estimates, I will
78
only say, that if one idea has taken possession of the minds of the people of England during the past year with a firmer hold than any other, it is, that however strict and close our alliances might be with neighbouring Powers, it is neither becoming to the dignity nor consistent with the safety of this country that we should be at the mercy of an invasion which might arise from causes entirely fortuitous and unforeseen. I believe the country will heartily support the House in voting such sums as may be necessary for rendering England independent of any menaces or apprehensions of the kind. The reference of Her Majesty to the internal condition of our own country at this time also appears to me to contain ample matter for congratulation. The loyalty and contentment of the people, and the total absence of all agitation at the present moment, seems to mark the present as a peculiarly fitting time for introducing and effecting those reforms in the Parliamentary representation of the people, so long expected, so often promised, but so long delayed. Her Majesty has intimated that a Bill will shortly be laid before us with that view, and I hope not only that such a measure will be introduced, but that it may so far meet with the approbation of all parties in the House as to have a successful course, and become the law of the land before the end of the present Session. I am encouraged in that hope by the reflection that, on the one hand, hon. Gentlemen opposite are not averse to the principle of reform, but, on the contrary, regard it with so much favour that they last year brought in a measure, which, if carried, would have effected very considerable changes in the constitution of this House; and, on the other hand, that there are many Gentlemen below the gangway on my own side, who, though generally supposed to desire a more extreme measure, appear very generally willing to accept the coming Reform Bill as an instalment, even though it may not contain all they wish. I trust, therefore, that the approaching measure will sufficiently meet the views of all parties in the House as to pass through Parliament, and that it will at the same time rest on such a broad and firm basis as to admit within the pale of the constitution many of those classes who are now excluded, but whose intelligence, increased education, and industry have proved them not unworthy to exercise a more direct influence in the legislation of the country.
Of the loyalty and spirit of these classes,

79
and indeed of every class in the country, no one can form an adequate idea who has not attentively considered the volunteer movement. I will not inquire into what were the causes which led to the sudden outbreak of military ardour, now displayed among us; but the fact still remains that the people of this country, acting, whether rightly or wrongly, under apprehensions of attack, rose and armed, with a zeal, devotion, and disinterestedness which have convinced the world that the old English spirit is not yet extinct among us, and that one and all, high and low, rich and poor, are resolved to preserve inviolate the honour, and, if need be, the soil of England. Second only in importance to the reform of the representation, on account of its bearing on the happiness and well-being of all classes, is the question of reform in the administration of the law; and the people will hear with satisfaction that the legal advisers of Her Majesty's Government have been actively engaged in preparing measures which have for their object improvements in that department. It is proposed, as the House has already heard, to introduce measures with a view to the consolidation of the statutes, to the removal of evils now existing in the laws of bankruptcy and insolvency, and to the avoidance of those delays and expenses 'which arise from the conflicting jurisdictions of the courts of law and equity.
In conclusion, I trust that I may express, without impropriety, the satisfaction which I feel at being permitted to be the mouthpiece of the House in congratulating Her Majesty upon this occasion; because I never remember to have read of a time in which the position of this country stood higher than now, whether as regards domestic or foreign relations. At home we present the spectacle of a free, contented, and happy people, united among all classes by a community no less of interest than of patriotic feeling. Those panics which in former years, and not long ago, caused such disastrous consequences in the commercial world, have not been repeated in the year just closed, and the gradual increase of trade proves a return of that confidence which was no doubt somewhat shaken by the events of 1857. Abroad, the position of this country excites the envy and admiration of the whole civilized world. We have seen two great nations, both the allies of this country, engaged in a desperate and sanguinary struggle on the plains of Italy. Her Majesty's Govern-
80
ment, as I have already truly said, did but express the opinion of the majority of persons in this country, by steadily and resolutely refusing to interfere in that conflict, and the consequence of their conduct has been that England is now in a position to enforce, with the greatest possible effect, the policy which, in my humble opinion, should ever be the policy of this country— namely, to allow every other country to be the best judge of the form of government under which it would live. Our relations with France, which at one moment in the course of last year, caused uneasiness to the true friends of both countries, are now on a much more satisfactory footing. The powerful Prince who controls the destinies of that great country has lately inaugurated a scheme of commercial policy, long ago adopted by England, which, if carried to its legitimate end, cannot fail to confer the greatest benefit upon both. If the Emperor shall be permitted to carry his plan to its legitimate consequences, it will do more to maintain and secure the good will which should always exist between this country and France than the most liberal professions of amity unaccompanied by acts calculated to give effect to them. That the Emperor of the French may be permitted to persevere in the course which he has now introduced must be the sincere wish of every one who desires to advance the civilization of the world. That our Queen may long continue to rule over a nation which presented the spectacle of a loyal and contented people, attached to peace but not afraid of war, must be the sincere desire, not only of every Member of this House, but of every man who owns the name of Englishman.
The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving,—
"That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, to convey the Thanks of this House for Her Majesty's Most Gracious Speech from the Throne.
"To express to Her Majesty the gratification with which we learn that Her Majesty's relations with Foreign Powers continue to be on a friendly and satisfactory Footing.
"Humbly to thank Her Majesty for the information which Her Majesty has given us with regard to the invitation which Her Majesty has received from the Emperor of Austria and from the Emperor of the French to send a Plenipotentiary to assist at a Conference of the Great Powers of Europe.

81
"Humbly to express our gratification at learning that Her Majesty has accepted the invitation, while, at the same time, making known that in such a Conference Her Majesty would steadfastly maintain the principle that no external force should be employed to impose upon the People of Italy any particular Government or Constitution.
"Humbly to thank Her Majesty for informing us that, whether in Congress or in separate Negotiation, Her Majesty will endeavour to obtain for the People of Italy freedom from foreign interference by force of arms in their internal concerns; and that we trust, with Her Majesty, that the affairs of the Italian Peninsula may be peacefully and satisfactorily settled.
"Humbly to thank Her Majesty for commanding that Papers on this subject should be laid before us.
"Humbly to thank Her Majesty for informing us that Her Majesty is in communication with the Emperor of the French, with a view to extend the commercial intercourse between the two Countries, and thus to draw still closer the bonds of friendly alliance between them.
"Humbly to assure Her Majesty that we partake in the regret expressed by Her Majesty that Her Majesty's endeavours to prevent a rupture between Spain and Morocco have been without success.
"To thank Her Majesty for informing us that Her Majesty's Plenipotentiary and the Plenipotentiary of the Emperor of the French having, in obedience to their instructions, proceeded to the mouth of the Peiho river, in order to repair to Pekin to exchange in that city the ratifications of the Treaty of Tien-tsin, in pursuance of the 56th Article of that Treaty, their further progress was opposed by force, and that a conflict took place between the Chinese Forts at the mouth of the river, and the Naval Forces by which the Plenipotentiaries were esoorted; and that Her Majesty is preparing, in concert and co-operation with the Emperor of the French, an expedition intended to obtain redress, and a fulfilment of the stipulations of the Treaty of Tien-tsin.
"Humbly to assure Her Majesty, that we shall participate in Her gratification if the prompt acquiescence of the Emperor of China in the moderate demands which will be made by the Plenipotentiaries, shall obviate the necessity for the employment of force.
"To thank Her Majesty for directing that Papers on this subject should be laid before us.
"To assure Her Majesty that we learn with satisfaction that a collision, which might have oc-
82
curred between Her Majesty's Forces and those of the United States, arising from an unauthorized proceeding by an Officer of the United States in regard to the Island of San Juan, has been prevented by the judicious forbearance of Her Majesty's Naval and Civil Officers on the spot, and by the equitable and conciliatory provisional arrangement proposed on this matter by the Government of the United States; and that we trust with Her Majesty that the question of Boundary, out of which this affair has arisen, may be amicably settled in a manner conformable with the just rights of the two Countries as defined by the First Article of the Treaty of 1840.
"To express our heartfelt thankfulness in learning that the last embers of disturbance in Her Majesty's East Indian Dominions have been extinguished; that Her Majesty's Viceroy has made a peaceful progress through the districts which had been the principal scene of disorder; that, by a judicious combination of firmness and generosity, Her Majesty's authority has been everywhere solidly established, and that Her Majesty has recived from Her Majesty's Viceroy the most gratifying accounts of the loyalty of Her Majesty's Indian subjects, and of the good feeling evinced by the Native Chiefs and the great landowners of the country.
"Humbly to thank Her Majesty for informing us that the attention of the Government in India has been directed to the development of the internal resources of the Country, and that an improvement has taken place in its financial prospects.
"To express our satisfaction that Her Majesty has concluded a Treaty with the Tycoon of Japan, and a Treaty regarding Boundaries with the Republic of Guatemala.
"To thank Her Majesty for having directed the Estimates of the ensuing year to be laid before us, and for having caused them to be prepared with a view to place the Military and Naval Services and the Defences of the Country upon an efficient Footing.
"And to assure Her Majesty that we are glad to learn that the Public Revenue is in a satisfactory condition.
"Humbly to thank Her Majesty for graciously expressing to us the feelings with which Her Majesty has accepted the extensive offers of Voluntary Service which Her Majesty has received from Her Subjects.
"To thank Her Majesty for informing us that measures will be laid before us for amending the Laws which regulate the Representation of the People in Parliament, and for placing that Repre-

83
sentation upon a broader and firmer basis, and to assure Her Majesty that we will give our best consideration to this important subject.
"To assure Her Majesty that we will give our most serious attention to Her Majesty's recommendation that we should resume our labours for the improvement of our Jurisprudence, and particularly in regard to Bankruptcy, the Transfer of Land, the Consolidation of the Statutes, and such a further fusion of Law and Equity as may be necessary to insure that, in every suit, the rights of the parties may be satisfactorily determined by the Court in which the suit is commenced.
"To humbly express our gratification in learning that the great interests of the Country are generally in a sound and thriving condition; that Pauperism and Crime have diminished; and that, throughout the whole of Her Majesty's Empire, both in the United Kingdom and in Her Majesty's Colonies and Possessions beyond sea, there reigns a spirit of loyalty, of contentment, of order, and of obedience to the Law.
"And humbly to assure Her Majesty that, in common with Her Majesty, we fervently pray that the beneficent power of the Almighty Ruler of Nations may guide our deliberations for the advancement and consolidation of the welfare and happiness of Her People."
LORD HENLEYsaid, that he rose to second the Address which has just been so ably proposed by the hon. Member for Cornwall. The hon. Member in the speech which he had just delivered had described to the House the thriving condition of the nation at home and abroad. he had described to the House the tranquillity and contentment of the people; he had told them that provisions were cheap, that railways were constructing in every direction. he described everything as flourishing at home, and then he told them of the proud position occupied by this country in relation to all the Powers of the Continent. But there was one thing upon which, in the course of his able and eloquent speech he did not congratulate the House, and it was one, therefore, upon which he, (Lord Henley) in seconding his Motion, might be allowed to supply his omission—it was on the fact that the affairs of the country were in the hands of the Government, into whose hands they gladly saw them committed. he was happy to say that the presence of the noble Lord at the head of Her Majesty's Government and of the noble Lord as Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs was a sufficient guaran-
84
tee that our relations with foreign nations would be such as they had always been while under the conduct of those noble Lords. With regard to domestic affairs, he believed that the Reform Bill which this Government would produce would be such as would put the representation of the people on a firmer and broader basis, and that, while it increased the popular character of the House, would at the same time maintain the character of that noble constitution of which, as Englishmen, they were all so justly proud. In legislating with regard to the affairs of religion he believed that the Ministry would be actuated by one great principle—a principle which had been too often neglected, upon which all history showed that pure religion and morality could best be founded and which was approved by God and man —namely, the principle of universal toleration. he begged the House to look for a moment at the question of foreign affairs. —the subject first referred to in the Speech from the Throne. he would ask them whether the position of this country had ever been higher than it was at the present moment? Let them cast their eyes across the Channel and take the first nation upon which they would light. he asked any one to recollect the state of France a few years ago, who could recollect the later years of the reign of the Bourbon dynasty—the condition of mind of the French people twenty years ago. The city of France was still, but it was the stillness of a quiescent volcano. There was a fire burning beneath and trying to burst forth and cast off the mass of misgovernment by which it was suppressed—a fire which was the remnant of that old revolutionary spirit which sixty years before hurled France like a thunderbolt against the peace and tranquillity of Europe. The feeling of discontent remained even until the commencement of the reign of Louis Napoleon. It was not until affairs began to be developed, and the people found that they really had a man to govern them, that it subsided. During the later reigns of the Bourbon dynasty France was governed by a scholar, a bigot, and an intriguer; but until the accession of the present Emperor, she had never felt that she was governed by a man—by a really reflecting, efficient, and patriotic Sovereign. It was only when France felt she had such a ruler that, like a noble horse, which felt a good rider on his back, she pushed forward in the career which would carry her to prosperity and

85
honour—and be was sure that no man in that House would grudge to see her bounding forward on the path of improvement. Such a man as Louis Napoleon at the head of such a country as France could not fail to have a great effect upon the affairs of Europe, and, through the affairs of Europe, upon our affairs. he asked the House to look at the past conduct of Louis Napoleon, and, by considering it, to form some idea of what his future conduct would he. They would find that he was not averse to war—a peaceful ruler would be hardly able to maintain his rule in France—but while he had not been unwilling to make war, instead of making war for self-aggrandisement he had made it on behalf of the weak and powerless, against a tyrannical Government which oppressed smaller States. he thought that, looking at the past conduct of Louis Napoleon, he was likely to assist in carrying out that kind of Government of which, as Englishmen, they were all proud. The war which had lately been concluded was undertaken by Louis Napoleon to countenance the King of Sardinia in assisting the States of Italy to throw off the iron and despotic rule of Austria. Now that the war was concluded it was found that the Emperor of Austria was endeavouring to construe the words of the Treaty of Villafranca into an admission on the part of the Emperor of the French, that he was hound to use force to replace the discarded Sovereigns of Italy on their thrones, and restore the lamentable state of things that existed in Central Italy previous to the breaking out of the war. The words of the treaty might be somewhat ambiguous, but, looking to the fact that the Emperor of the French had taken up arms solely for the purpose of freeing Central Italy from Austrian tyranny, it never could have been his intention in making peace to consent to conditions which would have the effect of binding him to employ force to restore that tyranny in Central Italy by compelling the inhabitants of the Duchies to replace their expelled rulers. Our Government had been invited by France, in conjunction with Austria, to take part in a Congress to consider of the pacification of Italy; and he thought that the Government had acted rightly in agreeing to be one of the parties to that meeting; for the influence of this country in European affairs was justly such, that no Congress could be effectual without her concurrence. In going into a Congress our Government
86
could but have two objects in view—to maintain England in the position which she had always occupied among European Powers, and to use English influence to induce the great Powers to concede to Italy the power of choosing her own rulers. On this principle our Government had acted all along, and it would be for the benefit of the whole of Europe, that every State, however small, should have the power of deciding on its own form of Government. Whatever might be the decision of the Italian States—whether they returned to their old Sovereigns, established a republic, or placed themselves under the dominion of the King of Sardinia — England would have the satisfaction of knowing that she had done her best to obtain for them the exercise of their own free will and the blessings of that freedom which she had herself so long enjoyed. As Italy a thousand years ago had introduced Christianity into England, so England in our own times would have the proud satisfaction of carrying freedom into Italy in return for it. After the war was concluded, Louis Napoleon had wisely come to the determination that the Romagna ought to be separated from the Papal territories. The people of the Ro-magna had shown that they were not desirous of continuing under the dominion of the Pope, and the Pope had shown that he was not fitted to exercise dominion over them. This question of the Romagna, no doubt, was the great obstacle to the meeting of the Congress; but, whatever might be the course pursued in this matter, he felt confident that, as far as our Government was concerned, the right of every people to choose their own rulers would be maintained. Turning again for a moment to our own domestic affairs, while he rejoiced to hear that Her Majesty's Government had given notice of their intention to introduce a Bill for the amendment of the representation of the people, he must be permitted to say that there were two essential faults in the present system of election, which he hoped would be amended by that Bill. The first was the prevalence of bribery in the election of Members; the second the exercise of undue influence. Whatever might be the original theory of our Constitution, it never could have been the intention of the framers of it that gentlemen should go down to boroughs and secure the honour of representing them in Parliament by purchase, or that those persons who possessed large territorial domains

87
should exercise the influence so obtained, for the purpose of influencing the election of Members of Parliament. A remedy might, he believed, be found for both these evils by the enlarging of small constituencies, by adding considerably to the number of voters, and also by adding large districts to those places which now enjoyed the privilege of returning Members. Another remedy which might be applied to these evils, and which he trusted he should live to see enacted, was the establishment of a system of voting by which persons would be enabled to exercise the suffrage without the fear of the interference of their landlords or any other persons who might be in a condition to exercise power over them. But he was afraid we could hardly look forward to the establishment of such a system as yet. We must be satisfied at present with that which the Government had promised to bring forward, to which the House of Commons had almost promised its consent, and which, to a certain extent, had been proposed by hon. Gentlemen opposite. Even those who sat opposite must feel that the settlement of a question of this sort rested better with the party who sat on that side the House, and whose hereditary policy it had always been to place the Constitution of the country on a wider basis, than in the hands of those who had always opposed great changes, and who did not profess to see those abuses to the removal of which a new Reform Bill would be addressed. he trusted that the Bill to be introduced by the Government would have the effect of admitting to the exercise of the franchise a large number of the industrial classes. How far it would go, it was impossible for him to say, but though it might not go so far as every one would wish, he hoped it would receive a full and fair consideration from all parties—especially from all parties who sat on his side of the House. he could not expect that all of them would be quite satisfied with it, but he had no doubt that it would be a great improvement upon the existing electoral system. Seldom had Parliament been summoned together under more prosperous circumstances, and he hoped that the country, now that it had a strong, wise, and united Government, would advance rapidly along that path of prosperity which lay before it, and that no factious opposition would prevent the House from considering the measures that would be submitted for its approval. And having adopted every means which ingenuity
88
could devise or experience perfect, let us put our trust in that Providence which for 800 years has maintained this kingdom in an united, a prosperous, and an advancing condition. he begged, in conclusion, to second the Motion of his hon. Friend, that an Address be presented to Her Majesty in answer to Her Majesty's Gracious Speech they had that day heard from the Throne.
Motion made, and Question proposed,—"That," &c. [See Page 80.]
MR. DISRAELI:—Mr. Speaker—The last Session of Parliament opened with a question of confidence; but until the noble Seconder rose to-night, I was not aware that the question was to be renewed upon the present occasion. Sir, you read the Address not with that usual clearness which characterizes your elocution, and I did not collect whether the passage expressing confidence in the two noble Lords, which I suppose from the intimation of the noble Seconder (Lord Henley) must form a portion of the document, is really to be found in it. But, although anxious on this occasion not to move an Amendment, I beg it may be distinctly understood on my own part, and on that of my friends, that if that passage is included, it is under protest. The noble Lord has addressed the House to-night in rather an unusual tone. Indeed, as I listened to the noble Lord, it appeared to me that he delivered an address suited rather to the atmosphere of the French Senate than to that of the English House of Commons; and the noble Lord will allow me to say, that I do not think it favourably contrasted with that graceful and ingenious speech with which the Mover of the Address introduced his sentiments and observations to the consideration of the House.
Sir, it is not my intention to-night, and I have heard of no such intention in any other quarter, to move an Amendment to the Address which we are about to vote— I hope unanimously—in reply to the gracious Speech from the Throne. But as that Address adverts to many topics of great interest, the House will perhaps excuse me if upon some of them I make a few observations; because I think there are passages in that Speech—passages referring to matters of considerable gravity and import,—on which the House, even to-night, has a right to expect some explanation from Her Majesty's Government. I remember last year that the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs found great fault with me that

89
the paragraph which referred to that which in common parlance is termed the Reform Bill, was placed in so low a position in Her Majesty's Speech. But on referring to the gracious Speech which has been delivered to-day, I find that that passage—in the composition of which from the notice that has been given this evening, I doubt not the noble Lord has the vested interest of a parent—does not occupy a more prominent position than it did in the Speech of last year. And this shows how much easier it is to be critical than to be correct; for the noble Lord himself, alive as he is to the importance that the Reform paragraph should obtain an early and prominent position in Her Majesty's Speech, still finds, with all his solicitude upon the subject, that it was unavoidably necessary that it should occupy the position which it now fills. I hope I may augur, from the similarity of the circumstances under which that notification has appeared in these two Speeches, that the measure which the noble Lord is about to bring forward, although it may of course differ in details from that which was introduced by Gentlemen sitting upon this side of the House, will, at least, have this resemblance to that measure that its tendency will he to strengthen and confirm our Parliamentary institutions, and not to change their character or to impair their influence. I can assure the noble Lord that if such a measure is brought forward it will receive from us that calm and candid consideration which was once invited from the Throne to a proposal dealing with the same topic; and if necessary we shall offer such assistance as we can to render it a measure such as the exigencies of the country require, and such as the public opinion of the country may sanction.
Sir, there is another point on which I would also make an observation, and that is the congratulations which the House has received on what I may consider the successful negotiation of a commercial treaty with France;—for although technically that title is not included in the Speech, I apprehend it necessarily follows, from the language which is actually employed, that the form of instrument in which the new commercial relations of the country are laid down must be a treaty,—even if we had not heard to-day, I believe from authority, that it is so, and that such an instrument is signed. Now, the fact that there is a prospect of increased commercial relations with France is one undoubtedly of much gratification; and taking it
90
also, as we are bound to take it, as a sign of the cordial good feeling subsisting between the Governments of the two countries, no one can for a moment deny that it is a circumstance, not only of gratification, but of an important political character. Nevertheless, I must address an inquiry to Her Majesty's Government with respect to the mode in which the attention of Parliament is to be brought to this subject. I want to know what is to be the duty of the House of Commons if a commercial treaty should be laid on the table for our examination and approval? I certainly did not expect to live to see another commercial treaty introduced into the House of Commons. From all that has recently passed I associated that form of instrument with those ancient modes of conveyance which have in our time disappeared, and which, although the traveller may perhaps have found them more interesting than those now in vogue, have yielded without much chance of revival to the rapid means of locomotion which are now at our command. Assuming, as of course we have a right to assume, that it is convenient to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to reduce the duties on wine, for instance—assuming that, I can easily understand why Her Majesty's Government should have felt that by a reduction of such duties the commercial relations of the two countries might be considerably and advantageously increased; and, that being the case, I cannot understand why Her Majesty' Government should not have proceeded to adopt that policy without having recourse to a commercial treaty. What is to be our business as a House of Commons in examining this commercial treaty? Are we to be called upon to decide whether the terms of the bargain are advantageous or adequate? If we do that, we must admit that the principle of reciprocity is the principle which is to guide us in our decision. But it appears to me that by admitting that the principle of reciprocity is to guide us in our commercial relations, we are shaking to its centre that new commercial system which has of late years been established in this country with so much zeal, especially by hon. Gentlemen opposite, and established with a determination upon our parts of showing upon all occasions that it is totally independent of reciprocal concessions from other nations. But if reciprocity be not the principle that we are to acknowledge in the present instance as the one which is to determine the merits of this instrument, I

91
should like to know why we have recourse at all to such a form, and why we should not have increased our commercial relations with our neighbours—a circumstance which we all highly value—without at the same time asking for an equivalent, if indeed an equivalent has been made. We have all been told that a distinguished Member of this House, the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Cobden), is the individual to whom we are indebted for this prospect of increased commercial relations with France. But I am quite sure that the hon. Member for Rochdale is not the person who would ever have counselled the adoption of a commercial treaty founded on the principle of reciprocity, in order to increase the commercial relations of the two countries. There is another circumstance connected with this question of a commercial treaty which requires, I think, some explanation from Her Majesty's Ministers. We live in an age in which events succeed each other so rapidly that whatever occurs, however important, is easily and soon forgotten. But I find that in 1856, only four years ago, the Emperor of the French made a similar communication—similar in character and very similar in expression to that which he has recently addressed to the Minister of State, and in that document also he proposed the entire extinction of the prohibitive system, and the adoption of measures similar in character to those which are intimated in the State paper that has lately created such a sensation in Europe. In that case, in the year 1856, a Bill was absolutely introduced into the Legislative Assembly of France; and although that Bill was not upon that occasion passed—probably from the lateness of the Session—the Emperor of the French considered that it was of such importance that the question of commercial freedom should be settled and acknowledged by the country—based as his recommendations were on the acknowledged superiority of articles of French industry in the Great Exhibition—that his Imperial Majesty ordered that this proposal of his should be referred to the 86 Conseils G£neraux—the departmental Parliaments of France; and it is a fact that, with the exception of six of these conseils, the proposal was adopted, with the understanding that a certain period of time should be allowed to elapse before the new system should be brought into play. The consequence was that the Emperor, agreeing to this suggestion, published an ordinance, or
92
some public document of that character, in which he treated their decision as final, expressed his firm resolution to carry that system into effect, and appointed July, 1861, as the period at which its operation was to commence. And that is the reason, I apprehend, why in the commercial treaty that is to be placed upon the table of this House, a provision will appear to the effect that on the part of France the relaxation of her system cannot come into operation until the month of July, 1861. But then the House will see that if there even had been no commercial treaty at all, this abolition of the prohibitive system on the part of France, and the adoption of protective duties would have inevitably occurred; and therefore if we are making a concession to the French we are making it for that which we should have obtained without it. If, therefore, we can conveniently, in the present state of our revenue, make such a concession, I say make it upon a scientific principle—make it in a way which will not embarrass you hereafter—make it upon the general principle recognized in our own commercial system, and not upon the principle of reciprocity, by which you will create a precedent you may on some future occasion find extremely embarrassing, and which is not in the least necessary, if the circumstances I have detailed are correct — and I shall be surprised if their accuracy is impugned. The adoption of such a policy upon our part is not in the least necessary, because all that France now engages to do is to put an end to the system of prohibition in the month of July, 1861, and to substitute a system of protective duties, or something analogous, instead; and to that policy she is already committed. What, then, is it you expect to gain by a treaty? All you can do to encourage an increased commercial exchange with France, you can do at once by reducing your own duties, without placing on this table a document you may find very awkward and embarrassing hereafter, and raising claims for reciprocity from other quarters, opposed to that commercial system you have now so long and so successfully been carrying into practice. On these two points, then, I think the House has a right to ask some explanations from Her Majesty's Government; we have a right to ask why they have negotiated a treaty with France on the principle of reciprocity, which has been absolutely rejected in our own commercial system? Why have they ostensibly endeavoured to obtain a result which

93
must inevitably have occurred at the very period the treaty stipulates for? Why have they engaged us by treaty for what must have been done without any treaty whatever? These are points, in my opinion, which call for explanation.
Passing to another topic, I must say I think it extremely inconvenient that we should to-night enter into any discussion upon the recent events in China, notwithstanding the strong opinion expressed by the noble Lord the Seconder of the Address. I hope, however, it will not be understood by noble Lords and hon. Gentlemen opposite that our silence upon that subject argues that we at all agree with the version which the noble Lord has given of those transactions. I have no doubt that our policy with respect to China may in due course become a source of discussion in this House; but if I advert to the subject now it is only because I for one would express my satisfaction that Her Majesty in her Speech has been wisely re-commended to refer to the bravery of our troops in the recent engagement. It is too much our habit to sympathise only with the successful. But there are occasions of adversity in which the most signal courage may have been displayed; and I do not think that the conduct of our troops —disastrous as was the ultimate consequences of their onset—I do not think that the conduct of our troops upon that occasion should, when Parliament meets, and the subject is thus brought before us, be passed over in entire silence. It was characterized by a signal bravery; and I think that we can hardly remember the conduct of the Admiral, who upon that occasion commanded our forces, without feeling that his behaviour was that of a man whom England may be proud to own as one of her warriors; and, unfortunate as was the termination of that struggle, let us make him, at least, feel that his country regard his sufferings with pity and his conduct with admiration.
I have touched thus upon one or two points to which I thought it was right that I should refer before I asked for some explanation upon that theme which is undoubtedly the one that engages most the public interest, and on which I may perhaps say that all the attention of the country is at this moment concentrated—and that is the condition of Italy and the relations of our Government to that country. Now, that subject is treated in Her Majesty's gracious Speech at considerable
94
length. But I confess, after having read it with great attention, it appears to me that there is in the treatment of the theme so much ambiguity and perplexity of phrase, that I should be totally at a loss to gather from this document what is the real state of our diplomatic relations with that country, or with France with regard to that country, had it not happened that we have been favoured from another, although a foreign, source with information upon the subject. The terms employed in Her Majesty's Speech renders it my duty to-night I to ask some explanation from Her Majesty's Government of what has taken place in the interval since the prorogation of Parliament, and how far this country stands committed, and what prospects may exist in reference to any engagement into which Her Majesty may have been counselled to enter upon this important subject. Now, I would recall to the House the tone and temper in which, towards the close of the last Session of Parliament, this question was entered into and discussed. About three weeks before Parliament was prorogued, there was a general expectation that a Congress of the great Powers and other States would be held, by which the affairs of Italy would be settled, That was the expectation throughout the country, and in this House it was accompanied with some distrust and suspicion. We were not responsible for the condition of Italian affairs. It was felt that if we were called on to participate in any way in their settlement, it was highly expedient this country should not interfere, unless the object of that interference was satisfactorily determined. In the House this feeling was strong, even stronger than in the country. I expressed my hope that Her Majesty's Ministers would not be induced to take part in a Congress on this subject. I did so for this reason—the soundness of which time and experience have confirmed,—that if we went into the Congress it would be asking England to assist in carrying into effect the Treaty of Villafranca—an office that, in my mind, England ought not to be called on to perform. On the other hand, if the Treaty of Villafranca were to be set aside, then it would be asking England to commence in the dark the task of reconstructing Italy, a task that might embroil us seriously with other Powers. That opinion was not unpopular in this House. A noble Lord, not now present, gave notice of a Motion which would have afforded the House an opportunity of expressing an

95
opinion against the policy of our entering into a Congress on the state of Italy; but accidental circumstances, for which he was in no way responsible, prevented him from carrying out his intention at the time he had expected, and the result was that the Motion was not introduced until the last night the House sat. Even then, I believe, there could be no doubt that it would have been adopted by a majority of the House if it had been pressed to a division. But I thought it would be a circumstance to be deplored if the Government should then be embarrassed by its adoption; and although I did not consider that the advice which I gave to the noble Lord was in any way opposed to the course which he recommended, I used my humble influence to procure its withdrawal. There is no doubt, however, that the House was opposed to our going into the Congress, and that it was in favour of that policy which is popularly known by the name of the policy of non-interference. I say popularly known by that name, because I do not know any Member of this House— either among my colleagues or among those who sit on the other side the House—who has ever maintained the monstrous proposition that England ought never, under any circumstances, to interfere in the affairs of foreign States. There are conditions under which it may be our imperative duty to interfere. We may clearly interfere in the affairs of foreign countries when the interests or the honour of England are at stake, or when, in our opinion, the independence of Europe is menaced. But a great responsibility devolves upon that Minister who has to decide when those conditions have arisen; and he who makes a mistake upon that subject, he who involves his country in interference or in war under the idea that the interests or the honour of the country are concerned, when neither is substantially involved—he who involves his country in interference or war because he believes the independence of Europe is menaced, when, in fact, the independence of Europe is not in danger—makes, of course, a great—a fatal mistake. The general principle that we ought not to interfere in the affairs of foreign nations, unless there is a clear necessity, and that, generally speaking, it ought to be held a political dogma that the people of other countries should settle their own affairs without the introduction of foreign influence or foreign power, is one which, I think, the House does not only accept, but, I trust, will cordially adhere to. That
96
was the policy which the late Government maintained six months ago when there was some wavering in the faith of that policy, and some persons high in authority spoke of the possibility of England being humiliated by not taking what is called a leading part in the settlement of foreign questions. I ask those who then wavered or who indulged in such observations to contrast the position of England now, when after six months we still have to acknowledge the blessings of non-interference in the affairs of our neighbours, notwithstanding the efforts which may have been made to interfere, and to which I shall presently refer —I ask them to contrast the position of England with that of any other country in the world. Has not the adhesion to the policy of non-interference by England been most beneficial? Has there ever been a period when England has occupied a prouder or a more powerful position than that which she at present fills? As, therefore, she has attained that position while adhering to the policy of non-interference, I trust that the House of Commons, which, on the last night of the Session, clearly expressed its opinion in favour of that policy, will, at the commencement of the present Session, take this opportunity of asking explanations of Her Majesty's Government, or, in other words, will show to Her Majesty's Government that if they continue in that policy they will receive the support of the House; but that if they diverge from it they must offer to the House reasons far graver than any that have yet reached my ear, and arguments of more weighty import than I believe will be introduced into this debate. I mention this because, while the House of Commons in the month of August was expressing in so unequivocal a manner, sustained by the common sentiment of the country, its opinion that the policy of non-interference in the affairs of Italy was the one which this country ought to follow, it appears to me, from what I have learnt, that Her Majesty's Government were pursuing not precisely that course. I make no charge tonight on that head. I am, however, speaking from information, and I shall make the statement which I have to make upon what I believe to be facts, and shall give to Her Majesty's Government a fair opportunity of explaining what may now seem ambiguous, and of refuting statements which may not be founded in truth and accuracy. The House will recollect that upon its prorogation we were informed that overtures were

97
made in order to ascertain whether Her Majesty's Government would be represented in any Congress which might take place upon the affairs of Italy. Certainly, it was to me somewhat surprising that when on the last night of the debate we were speaking on that subject, Her Majesty's Government gave us no intimation that any such overtures had been received. But the matter is of little import; it is of more importance to remember that in the Speech from the Throne at the prorogation we were informed that overtures for a Congress had been made, but we were not informed that they had been accepted. On the contrary, we were then told, if I recollect rightly, that until Her Majesty received further information she could not give any answer on the subject. Now, I should like to know what was the intimation which Her Majesty's Government received, which induced them to consent to enter into a Congress. But what I want to know from Her Majesty's Government still more than that is, why in the month of August, when Parliament was sitting —the very month that Parliament was prorogued, the very month that the House of Commons had expressed in debate, scarcely with any exception, its belief that the maintenance of a policy of non-interference in the affairs of Italy was necessary and politic—I want to know if, in that very month of August, the noble Lord, the Secretary of State, made overtures to the French Government in order to enter into a special agreement for the settlement of the affairs of Italy? We are, indeed, promised in the gracious Speech that papers on this subject will be soon laid before us. On that I would make two observations. I will say to the noble Lord the First Minister that there are no promises that he has made so frequently as promises for the production of papers to the House; and, of all Ministers, there is no one of them of whom it can be alleged, as of the noble Lord, that so great an interval was allowed to elapse between the promise of papers and their actual production. Papers are promised at the beginning of the Session, and they are produced at the end of it. Therefore when the noble Lord says that papers will be laid upon the table of the House, let me remind "the two noble Lords"—to use the language of the Seconder of the Address—that there has been a formal account of all the negotiations that have taken place between the Government of the Queen and the Government of the Emperor
98
of the French already published. Is it to be our lot that we are not to receive information from the Ministers of our own Sovereign respecting our own affairs, but that we are to be indebted for the information to the condescending candour of a foreign potentate? I think, therefore, that upon this subject it is becoming that Her Majesty's Government should give us some distinct information to-night. I did, indeed, believe—knowing that in this very month of January an intimation of these important negotiations has been authoritatively published on the other side of the water, —that the noble Lord the Secretary of State would, on the very first night of the Session, have placed the papers relating to these negotiations on the table of the House. Well, then, on that subject I want information. It appears, according to this statement, that in the month of August last Her Majesty's Government made overtures to the Emperor of the French to enter into a special agreement for the settlement of the affairs of Italy. I should like to know what was the character of those overtures, and what was the nature of the agreement which the noble Lord the Secretary of State contemplated. Is it unreasonable in the House of Commons to expect such information? I know that the noble Lord the Secretary of State may say that the sources from which I have obtained my information are anonymous. [Lord JOHN RUSSELL: Hear, hear!]. The noble Lord cheers, and I, of course, accept that as an objection to the information. I take it for granted he means to say that it is not authentic. ["Hear, hear!"] Very well. All I can say is this; three communications have appeared by means of the electric telegraph in this country, and they are communications dated the 9th, the 12th, and the 16th of January. In the communication of the 9th of January it is stated that Lord Cowley had repaired to England in order to revive negotiations which were commenced in August previous by the English Government for the settlement of the affairs of Italy by England and France by way of a special agreement. The noble Lord seems to deny the authenticity of that statement. I can only say, before I availed myself of it in this House, that I took steps which I thought would be satisfactory under the circumstances. I did not presume to follow the example of those four ingenious gentlemen of Liverpool to obtain it; but I took adequate steps, and I have been assured from a quarter which leaves

99
it impossible for me to doubt that these are communications from the French Government. And what are these communications? Lord Cowley arrived in England in the course of this month; there were immediately rumours which came from the other side of the water that his Lordship had arrived on matters of great importance, and there were immediately seemingly official and authoritative paragraphs in our own journals totally contradicting those rumours and announcing that Lord Cowley had arrived solely on personal affairs. Yet while Lord Cowley was in this country, it is stated that in the month of August last, when the Conferences of Zurich were threatened to be dissolved, the English Cabinet proposed to the French Government to come to a special agreement between France and England for the settlement of the affairs of Italy. It then goes on to say, in diplomatic language, which I do not read because I will not take up the time of the House, that Count Walewski, in order to prevent the proposals of Lord John Russell being accepted, tendered his resignation, and that he was successful was shown by the note which appeared in the Moniteur in September, relative to the recognition of the old Government in the Duchies; and after alluding to the failure of the attempt at the restoration of the Grand Duke of Tuscany, it goes on to say that Lord Cowley's mission is undoubtedly to resume the negotiations which were then interrupted. Lord Cowley returned to Paris, and a second telegram appeared, describing the object of Lord Cowley's mission to London as to resume negotiations between England and France, which were initiated by the former Power, but were interrupted by the opposition of Count Walewski; and it says that the basis of these negotiations was the adoption of the principles of non-interference in the affairs of Italy, and that the object of Lord Cowley's mission was to obtain the consent of England to a joint note, signed by England and France, and addressed to all the Powers, announcing that interference in the affairs of Italy would be looked upon by France and England as a casus belli. Now, Sir, I think I have a right to ask the noble Lord whether that is, as I have been informed, an authentic and authoritative statement. I beg the House to watch very narrowly this proceeding. This was nothing more nor less than a proposition of an alliance offensive and defensive between France and England to prevent
100
interference by any Power in the affairs of Italy. I dare say, from the language of the Royal Speech, that this very sentence may refer to a renewed effort for the same object—an object at the first blush innocent, and some might think praiseworthy, because it is Her Majesty, the Speech says, who endeavours to obtain for the people of Italy freedom from foreign interference by force of arms in their internal concerns. But look at what might be the consequences to this country if that alliance had been entered into, and which, according to the statement which I am assured is authoritative and authentic, was mainly refused by the English Government in these words—the British Cabinet, while expressing their readiness to support the principle of non-interference, either at the Congress or in their Communications with Foreign Powers, pointed out the impossibility of the Cabinet pledging itself without the consent of Parliament to a course of policy that might involve hostilities. Now Parliament has assembled, and we have in the speech from the Throne this somewhat ambiguous sentence, and which would have been to me altogether obscure had we not cognizance of the preceding events to which I have referred. We have it stated here that Her Majesty's Government will endeavour to obtain for Italy freedom from foreign interference by force of arms in its internal concerns, and that freedom it would appear is to be secured by this joint note of France and England, which makes interference by other Powers a casus belli. Observe what might happen. When you enter into a treaty you are not to look merely to the obvious and the probable engagements which you may be called upon to perform; but you are bound to contemplate every possible liability which, by so doing, you may incur. That is a rule of prudence universally acknowledged and invariably pursued. Suppose for a moment that that offensive and defensive treaty between England and France for the positively laudable object of preventing interference in the internal affairs of Italy had been entered into; and Parliament having assembled it may yet occur. Consequences may arise which are not contemplated by Franco more than by the English Government; but, if that treaty were entered into it is possible this might occur. A French dynasty might be established at Naples or in Etruria, the regality of Rome might be revived, the bouudaries between Sardinia and France

101
might be considerably changed. Other Powers, alarmed at circumstances which, in their opinion, would shake the political equilibrium or endanger their political independence, might consequently interfere in the internal concerns of Italy: and we should be bound under that treaty to uphold with our fleets and armies these French dynasties, to uphold this regality of Rome, to uphold this extension of the boundaries of the French Empire. These are the results which might occur, and such would be the situation of England. This is the gravest question that can possibly be introduced at this moment for the consideration of the House; yet if the documents before me are authentic — and I have been assured on very high authority that they may be taken certainly as authoritative and authentic documents — such are the propositions which have been made, and which I think, very much to the credit of the English Government, have been refused; but which have been refused mainly by the British Government, according to the statements to which I have referred, because it was undertaking too great a responsibility on their part to enter into an agreement which might ultimately involve the nation in hostilities without obtaining the sanction of Parliament. Still they may meditate such an alliance while Parliament is sitting, and therefore, it is of the highest importance that we should, on the first night of the Session, be acquainted with our actual and probable situation, and that the noble Lord should give us the fullest and frankest explanation. If the noble Lord means to say that the statements are mere inventions— and I am sure he will not equivocate on the subject, but meet me fairly—if he means to say that he, in the month of August, did not propose to the French Government to come to a special agreement between England and France for the settlement of the affairs of Italy, that the visit of Lord Cowley to this country was not in any way connected with the subject, or made with a view to arrange a joint action between France and England; if he means to say that there never was a proposal made by France to join with England in what was virtually a treaty offensive and defensive, making it a casus belli for any Power to interfere in the internal affairs of Italy, by force of arms;—if the noble Lord says so, I shall not feel mortified by the noble Lord rising and confuting me in that manner. he will give information which will be most satisfactory to the
102
House, and most important to the country. But I assure the House that I should not have made this statement unless I believed as I do most fervently believe, that the information which has reached me is authentic. Now, there is another point. After the alleged failure in negotiating this treaty offensive and defensive, the telegram adds, "The British Government having thus declined to enter into engagements having such an important bearing, the question of an early meeting of Congress is again revived." And, therefore, when Parliament meets in 1860, so far as the Italian question is concerned, we are actually about to debate on the very topic which occupied the House on the last day of the Session of 1859. Again, we are told that the idea of a Congress is revived. My objections to a Congress are the same as they were then. I do not for a moment lay it down as a principle that because England did not interfere originally in the affairs of Italy, nor during the war, England ought not to be represented in any Congress which may take place on the affairs of Italy. I admit the time that has elapsed is an argument that might call for her presence at such a Congress; but if we are to go to a Congress, it ought to be for a specific object, the Congress ought to meet on a definite basis, and the Parliament and the country ought to understand the object of Government in entering into it. Why, Sir, when we acceded to the proposal of a Congress before we quitted office it was under very different circumstances—it was before the war occurred, and as a last hope of preserving peace—and we defined in the most exact manner what were to be the objects and the duties of that Congress; and only upon these conditions did we accede to the proposed Congress. There were four grounds laid down—to which I need not refer now, because all the circumstances have passed away—but there were four grounds laid down which were designed to limit and confine the Congress to specific aims and purposes; and the Members of the Government in both Houses— myself in this House, and my noble Friend the then Secretary of State (the Earl of Malmesbury), in the other House— gave explanations on the subject of the proposed Congress to Parliament. I ask if the result of the deliberations of Her Majesty's Government is that it would be wise for us to attend a Congress, whatever may be the general objections to our interfering in affairs with which

103
we are not immediately connected? This is a matter to be carefully weighed; but I think the House, before giving its assent to our taking part in any Congress, should make it a condition to know what objects the Congress will entertain, and should have security that those objects should not be expressed in such vague phrases as its "preventing the interference of others in the affairs of Italy," or any general expressions of that kind. I think the Government and the House will do well to consider into what an embarrassing and dangerous position this country may be led by entering into agreements of that kind. Sir, these are questions upon which I think we have a right to ask information from Her Majesty's Government. I do not think that on the first night of Parliament assembling, with a Royal Speech of this length, embracing topics of such importance and dwelling at such length upon that one topic upon which all public interest is now concentrated—I do not think we should be doing our duty without asking from the Government for a full explanation of what has taken place during the recess with reference to Italian affairs. For my own part, the only conclusion that I can arrive at upon the subject is, that the less we meddle with this business the better. I defy any man, be he Monarch or Minister, to form any accurate conception of what is the real opinion and the real feelings of the various populations of the Italian peninsula. One man will tell you—and I speak of men of the highest position and authority, and men who have mingled in the politics of the Italian States —one man will tell you that Tuscany is prepared to be annexed to Sardinia. Another, with means of information and knowledge quite as good, will tell you that if there be one conviction rooted in the mind of that mild and tranquil people of Tuscany deeper than another, it is their nationality, and that the Tuscans will consent to anything but not to be Tuscans. If you will go to the Romagna you will be told that it is ready to be annexed to Sardinia; while another may say, who is inclined to more democratic or republican opinions, that if it is so desirous of being annexed to Sardinia it is with the view of obtaining that unity for Italy which should enable them to free Venice; but if there were any intention of making the Romagna part of a central kingdom of Italy the country would be in flames to-morrow. One man will tell you
104
that Lombardy is prepared to send members to the Sardinian Parliament; but another will allege that if the principle of federation is to be applied to Italy the Milanese have as much right to an independent place in a national federation as the Sardinians. Go to Naples, and you are told that Naples is in such a state that a spark only is required to make a revolution; but as good authorities will deride this as a mistaken notion, and maintain that if conspiracies should be attempted there is no Sovereign who has so strong a hold upon his subjects, or who would be better able to put down a revolution than the King of the Two Sicilies. Again, if you come to Sardinia itself, opinions equally differ. One man will tell you that there only is security for a national constitution and national independence for Italy; and another man will tell you that the whole thing is illusory, and that as soon as a special emergency arises constitutional forms are cast aside—and the Government of Sardinia is merely a Government of force and fraud. What is the moral of all this? The moral I draw is that a country in that state is in a condition far beyond the management and settlement of Courts, and Cabinets, and Congresses. National independence is not created by protocols, or public liberty guaranteed by treaties. All such arrangements have been tried before, and the consequence has been a sickly and short-lived offspring. What is going on in Italy—never mind whose may have been the original fault, what the present errors—what is going on in Italy can only be solved by the will, the energy, the sentiment, and the thought of the populations themselves. The whole question, in my mind, is taken out of the sphere of Congresses and Cabinets. We are pure — we are at this moment pure — from any consequences of previous interference in these affairs; and it is of the utmost importance that we should remain so. The process of emancipation appears to be one of considerable length, ambiguity, and perplexity. It is a year ago since the commencement of the freedom of Italy occurred. Then there was one French army in Italy. The process of freedom has been going on for a year, and you have now two French armies in Italy. I think it must be a source of satisfaction and pride to us that we have held aloof from any interference. I am quite sure if we now interfere we shall do so to the lasting dishonour of this country. But I do not doubt that we may do great good

105
to Italy by our counsels and by the authority of our position. It is however of the last importance that this country should not enter into engagements which have the plausible pretext of preventing interference in Italy, and the consequence of which may he not the freedom of Italy, but the aggravation of the very circumstances which have produced her previous weakness and degradation. Now, Sir, I hope the noble Lord will throw some light upon our situation as regards these important questions. I hope that we shall know from the noble Lord—from an English Minister— from a Minister of the Queen—what has been the conduct of the Government, and that we shall not have to derive from foreign sources that information which ought to be supplied to us from this country. The noble Lord seemed to think that because the document I have referred to was anonymous, that, therefore, it was not correct. I will now refer to a document which is not anonymous, and which, I think, will justify me in asking explanations from the noble Lord; and that is a letter addressed to the Pope of Rome by the Emperor of the French—a public document, published throughout Europe, and signed by the Emperor himself. Well, there is laid down a policy upon which I will to-night give no opinion, because to-night I am rather making inquiries of the Government, and trying to obtain information, than attempting to call upon the House to give an opinion; but there is a policy recommended to his Holiness by the Emperor of the French, which is shortly this, "Renounce your right to certain provinces at this moment not under your authority, and the Powers of Europe will guarantee the rest of your possessions." The Emperor does not say, "I will guarantee the rest of your possessions; and will ask my Allies to do the same; I will use my influence with the Powers of Europe to do the same." The Emperor says, "Renounce these provinces, accede to the terms in this letter, and the Powers will guarantee yon the rest of your possessions." Surely it is no unreasonable request—even the noble Seconder of the Address will hardly call it a factious one — to ask Her Majesty's Ministers whether among those Powers England is included? Who are the Powers the Emperor refers to? Now, Sir, I do not at all urge this inquiry to raise odium against Her Majesty's Government upon the point of guaranteeing the possessions of the Pope. I am observing upon the
106
question simply as a political question. I think we have a right to ask the noble Lord whether Her Majesty's Government has authorized the Emperor of the French to make that offer. I think if the Government has taken that course it has taken one very impolitic; but I deem it inconvenient, at this moment, to enter upon a subject which would bring about such a lengthened debate as its importance naturally requires, and therefore I do not wish any erroneous inferences to be drawn from my question. It is a simple, honest, and legitimate question, and after the publication of such a document as the letter of the Emperor of the French to the Pope making that assertion, I say it is our first duty, when Parliament meets, to request information upon the subject. I hope, therefore, the noble Lord, the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, or else the noble Lord at the head of the Government, will, upon this question of Italian politics and the diplomatic conduct of the Government during the recess, enter into a frank explanation to the House. I have no doubt the papers promised by the Government, and which in due time are to be produced, will give us much information which it might be inconvenient and embarrassing, being such a mass of details, for the noble Lord to enter upon to-night. I think these are questions to which the noble Lord ought to furnish an answer, and that he will do so—I think the noble Lord will tell us what are the reasons which induced Her Majesty to assent to enter into Congress in August, when on the invitation being first made Her Majesty was evidently disinclined to do so, as deeming the occasion not one justifying her compliance; I think the noble Lord will tell us whether he did or did not, in August, offer to enter into a special agreement with France for the settlement of the affairs of Italy; and if he did, I trust he will tell us the nature of that special agreement. I hope the noble Lord will tell us to-night whether it is true that Lord Cowley did come over here merely for his private affairs, or whether it is the fact that Lord Cowley came over here to revive the special agreement which was commenced in August, and which, from the opposition of Count Walewski, was then prevented from proceeding—whether Lord Cowley came to propose that England and France should sign a joint note, addressed to the Powers of Europe, declaring that interference in the affairs of Italy should be considered by both as a casus belli —

107
whether the noble Lord and his colleagues refused to enter into such an engagement, and whether he did so, merely or mainly, because Parliament was not sitting; and, whether, now that Parliament is sitting they are prepared to propose or recommend such a course; lastly, I hope the noble Lord will inform us, whether he has on the part of Her Majesty's Government authorized the French Government to say that England was prepared to join with it in guaranteeing the States of the Pope other than the province the Romagna. These are legitimate Parliamentary inquiries, which if I did not make I should not be doing my duty. I do not want upon these inquiries to raise any controversies as to the state of Italy, or as to the course which we may think it wise to take. Subsequent occasions, when we shall be better informed, will no doubt be afforded to us for that purpose; but upon this, the first night of the Session, it is in my mind most important that the House of Commons should have a clear comprehension of what is their position.
The gracious Speech of Her Majesty from the Throne is full of topics involving questions of no mean character; but every man in the House knows that there is only one subject really upon which the people of this country are thinking; and that is what may he the position of England with regard to this Italian question, and whether the course which we shall pursue will be one which, at the same time may redound to our honour and yet secure the blessings of that peace which every year that elapses we learn more and more to value. I invite the answer of the noble Lord or of the head of the Government to these inquiries.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Sir, I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Buckinghamshire, has announced that on this occasion there will be no interruption to that unanimity with which it is so becoming and so desirable that on the first night of the Session this House should return a respectful answer to the communication from the Throne to Parliament. I must, in the first place, however, congratulate the noble Lord (Lord Henley) and my hon. Friend behind me (Mr. St. Aubyn) on the ability with which they have respectively moved and seconded the Address; and I am sure that the House has listened to them with pleasure on this the first time they have been heard within its walls. Sir, the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli),
108
has made some observations upon the different topics to which the Speech and the Address relate, and he thinks that without going into the details of the measure of Parliamentary Reform which we shall have very shortly to propose to Parliament, we have been inconsistent at least in regard to form, inasmuch as it was made a reproach to the late Government that at the opening of last Session they put reform at the very tag end of the Speech, and now we have ourselves failed to put it in that prominent position which the right hon. Gentleman thinks it ought to occupy. I cannot, Sir, admit the justice of that remark. According to practice, the first part of the Royal Speech is devoted to foreign transactions, then comes the Address to the House of Commons in regard to the Estimates and matters of finance, and questions of internal legislation are reserved for the third department of the Speech. Now, Sir, on the present occasion we thought it fitting that the Sovereign should take the earliest opportunity when she came to the domestic portion of Her Speech to express the pride and gratification with which she accepted the generous offers of voluntary military service from Her subjects; but immediately after that we have placed the question of Parliamentary Reform, which thus takes precedence of all other topics of domestic legislation. I am very glad, Sir, to hear the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman in regard to the distinguished bravery exhibited by our forces in that unfortunate conflict at the mouth of the Peiho; and I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman that there may be as much merit displayed, as much honour gained, and as great credit reflected upon the country by exertions not attended with success as by those upon which fortune smiles. It is well said that nunquam snccessu crescit honestum. It is not the success of an achievement which ought to be the measure of the merit of those who have been engaged in it; and there certainly never was an occasion on which those in command and all concerned exhibited more heroic devotion and bravery than in that unfortunate conflict.
The right hon. Gentleman then made some observations on the commercial negotiations between France and Her Majesty's Government. Sir, I am happy to be able to say that yesterday a convention or treaty was, I believe, signed between the two Governments at Paris. We have not yet received the document, and I have reason

109
to believe that there may have been some technical informality which may have rendered it necessary that a fresh document should be signed to-day. The right hon. Gentleman has stated opinions on this point in the abstract of which I entirely concur. The right hon. Gentleman says, that as a general principle it is not desirable that this country should enter into any conventional agreement with other countries as to her tariff and Custom duties; on the contrary, it is better that we should keep in our own hands full discretion to legislate from time to time, in regard to these matters, in such a way as the interest of the country may seem to demand. But there was this unusual feature in the present negotiations—that, owing to a peculiarity in the French constitution and mode of legislation, we could not obtain from the French Government that security for future arrangements which it was essential we should obtain, unless the transaction assumed the character of a Convention between the two countries. It is, therefore, an entirely exceptional arrangement, and not one which at all implies that we have altered our opinion as to the general principle on which commercial matters of this kind should be governed. I am not going at present to enter into any details as to the arrangement proposed. When ratified, the Convention will be laid before the House; but this much I will say now in answer to the question of the right hon. Gentleman as to what would be the function of this House in regard to that Convention, that the arrangements stipulated to be made on the part of Her Majesty are made conditional on the consent of Parliament to them. Unless we have the consent of both Houses of Parliament we are free from any engagement that has been contracted. I must also remark generally, that it must be for the interest of the two countries to enter into any arrangement calculated to promote commercial intercourse between them. No great increase in the exchange of commodities can take place without giving an increased stimulus to the productive energies of the two countries. Commerce is not a one-sided operation. An increase of commerce must be an advantage to both countries, and cannot be an advantage to one alone. Therefore, if we in this country should reap advantage from the arragements contemplated, France must participate in it also. If, on the other hand, the French nation are to obtain advantages, it is impossible they can enjoy them without our
110
receiving corresponding benefits. Taking it in its political bearing, it must be obvious to every man, that whereas it is for the interest of the two countries that they should remain together in a state of friendly intercourse, it is manifest also that the more they are connected together by the ties of mutual interest and commercial transactions, the more likely it is that neither will, on light grounds, suffer an interruption in their political relations with each other.
Then, Sir, the right hon. Gentleman has asked questions as to our policy with respect to Italy. The right hon. Gentleman is fully entitled, when Parliament meets after a recess, to call upon Her Majesty's Government to explain what has been the course of their policy upon a great question, upon which he justly says the attention, the feelings, and the opinion of this country are more particularly concentrated than upon any other question now pending. But, Sir, I think the right hon. Gentleman need not have rested his right to put these questions upon the grounds upon which he has been pleased to put them. He seems to me an example of a man reasoning rightly, but upon wrong premisses. The grounds upon which the right hon. Gentleman put these questions are a certain number of anonymous telegrams which he picked out of newspapers. "Here is a telegram," he says, "stating that in August you made a proposal to France to come to a clear understanding and agreement for mutual action in Italy. You tell me it is anonymous. Ah! but I have an answer. I asked the editor of the newspaper whether the article was correct, and he told me it was."["No, no!"] Sir, I cannot be mistaken. The right hon. Gentleman said he made inquiries whether those articles were correct, and was told that they were. It reminds me of the Italian proverb, that you ought not to ask an innkeeper if he has good wine. You ought not to ask the author of an anonymous telegram whether he rested it on good authority. Of course he will tell you he did, but the assertion is of no more value than the paragraph to which it applies. I shall protest, however, in the first place, against any Government being called upon to answer interrogations founded upon anonymous telegrams picked out of newspapers. I admit the right of the right hon. Gentleman to make his inquiries. But, I apprehend that he had much better put it on his light as a Member of Parlia-

111
merit to interrogate than found it on such flimsy and frivolous grounds as those which he has chosen. I have no hesitation, Sir, in saying, that the telegram upon which the right hon. Gentleman mostly relied— namely, that some time in the month of August this Government applied or proposed to the French Government to enter into a specific engagement with regard to the affairs of Italy—is totally unfounded; that there is no truth whatever in that statement; and I have to say that at the moment at which I am speaking Her Majesty's Government are totally free from any engagement whatever with any foreign Power regarding the affairs of Italy.
Now, Sir, the right hon. Gentleman admits that we were right in consenting to enter into the Congress, but he thinks that the communication made at the end of last Session and that now made are somehow or another inconsistent, and he wishes explanations upon that point. At the end of last Session the Crown informed Parliament that overtures had been made for the purpose of ascertaining whether, if Conferences were to be held, Her Majesty would send a plenipotentiary. It had not at that time been determined that a Congress or Conferences should take place, because the holding such Congress or Conferences must be, and was, contingent upon the conclusion of a definite Treaty to carry out the preliminary engagements of Villa-franca. At that time no such Treaty had been concluded. All that had passed then was, that we were told it was the intention of the French and Austrian Governments, whenever that Treaty should be concluded, to propose a Congress to take cognizance of the Treaty, and to consider the affairs of Italy. The Treaty was not concluded until late in the autumn, and the actual invitation to join a Congress did not reach us until the month of November. It was not, therefore, until then that Her Majesty's Government were able to advise the Crown to give an answer, aye or no, whether the Crown would send a Plenipotentiary to the Congress. In the intermediate time no doubt communications frequently passed. There were constant communications between the two Governments. Lord Cowley came over once or twice to this country. Of course, when an ambassador comes from a foreign Court to communicate with his Government, the communications are not confined to what sort of weather it has been at the place from which he comes he naturally comes to
112
communicate the information he possesses, and receives instructions which can often be given verbally in more detail than in despatches. When the distance is so short and the communication so easy as between Paris and London, it is natural that, without any particular or important transaction in view, Her Majesty's Government should, from time to time, find it desirable to have personal communication with the Ambassador at Paris. It is very probable that on those occasions the Ambassador combined private convenience with public duty. But, Sir, there was no overture received from the French Government of the nature of that of which the right hon. Gentleman has been informed—that is, the French Government did not propose the separate engagement which the right hon. Gentleman thinks was proposed and, I believe he said, declined by Her Majesty's Government. No doubt, in the interval which elapsed between the preliminary intimation and the actual announcement that a Treaty was concluded and a Congress was to be held, Her Majesty's Government endeavoured to ascertain, with as much clearness as they could, what were the views of the French Government with regard to Italian affairs. It was our duty to do so. The knowledge which we might acquire of the views of the French Government might very much influence Her Majesty's Government as to whether the proposal, when it came, ought to be accepted or declined, because, although there were many reasons why it was undesirable we should decline to join a Congress, yet if we had reason to think that in that Congress there would be a wide difference of opinion between England and France—that we should find ourselves quite at variance with France on the great questions to be discussed—that knowledge would be a considerable element in the decision as to whether we would go into Congress or not. Upon the general question the right hon. Gentleman seems not to have any doubt that our decision was right. When the proposal came, we might either have accepted it or declined it. Suppose we had declined. Suppose we had said, "We anticipate that a majority of the Powers who will be parties to the Congress will differ with us upon an essential point upon which we have a strong and decided opinion. We make no secret that is is our intention in Congress to assert the principle —(to which I am glad to find the right hon. Gentleman agrees)—that it is right the people of Italy should be left

113
to settle their own affairs—that the people of Italy should be left, as the right hon. Gentleman says, by their own will, opinion, and energy to settle the question of Government between themselves and their rulers, or between themselves and their allies and neighbouring States. We anticipate a majority of the Powers will differ with us, and we decline." We made no secret; we took pains to make known that such was our principle, and that we should maintain it in Congress. If we had found that it was likely a majority of the other Powers would have differed in opinion, and a moment would have arrived in Congress in which we should have been compelled either to acquiesce in silence in a principle which we did not approve, or withdraw, that would have been an element in our decision. It was, therefore, of the utmost importance that we should ascertain as accurately as we could what were the opinions and feelings of the French Government in regard to this question, and it was upon it that the communications which have been referred to took place between us and the Government of France.
Now, Sir, if when the invitation came, we had met it with a refusal, one of two things would have happened. It was possible, in the first place, that Prussia and Russia might have said, "If England, one of the great Powers in the Congress of 1815, does not choose to go into Congress, neither do we." It was thus possible that our refusal might have prevented the Congress assembling. If that had resulted in disturbances in Italy, we should have been called the cause of those calamities, and that was a responsibility which I think we ought not lightly to have incurred. If, on the other hand, Congress met without us, England, by its own act, would have excluded herself from a great transaction in which all the other Powers of Europe were engaged. Now that was a position which it did not become the Government of this country to take. Moreover, in abstaining from going into Congress, we should have run the risk of seeing conclusions adopted opposed to our convictions, and which we might have prevented from being adopted had we been there to give our reasons against them. We, therefore, were perfectly right, I think, in accepting the invitation, and we should have been very blameable if we had held aloof from the Congress, if Congress there had been. We were prepared to enter into Congress free from all engagements, but having announ-
114
ced fully what our opinions were as to the propriety of leaving the Italians to settle their own affairs, without any foreign interference by force of arms, I am quite persuaded that if that policy is adhered to, if the Italians are left free to settle their own affairs, the result will probably be satisfactory; and if it is not, then the Italians alone will be to blame.
Then, Sir, the right hon. Gentleman, quitting Mr. Reuter's telegrams, took higher ground, and quoted the letter of the Emperor of the French to the Pope —though I think he did not read it quite accurately—which, he contends, contains an engagement that, if the Pope would agree to allow the Romagna to remain independent, the Powers of Europe (including England, as the right hon. Gentleman conceived) would guarantee to him the secure possession of the rest of his territories. Speaking from recollection, though, probably, as the right hon. Gentleman has the paper before him be may be right after all. [Mr. DISRAELI: I spoke from recollection.] Well, then, my recollection differs from that of the right hon. Gentleman. The phrase, I think, is, that in that case the Pope might address himself to the other Powers, and ask—demander — such a guarantee, which I think the Emperor said they would very likely give. All I can say, Sir, is, that we were no parties to such an engagement. It is not a guarantee, I think, which this country would be at all disposed to enter into. I trust, therefore, that I have given the right hon. Gentleman an answer on this point which will be satisfactory to him. I agree with him that it would be trespassing needlessly on the time of the House to go on this occasion into the detailed communications which have taken place on this subject. What they are will be shown by the papers which are to be laid on the table; and though I do not recollect the instances to which the right hon. Gentleman referred of papers promised at the beginning of the Session and delayed until the end, I can assure him that my noble Friend (Lord J. Russell) has no intention of delaying until the end of the Session the production of the papers which the right hon. Gentleman is so anxious to see, and which I trust will be perfectly satisfactory to him and to the House.
Our policy, Sir, with regard to Italy has been the simplest possible. It is fully explained in the Speech from the Throne, and which I certainly cannot admit to be

115
either ambiguous or unintelligible on this point. Our policy has never varied. We said in the beginning, and we say still, that no foreign force ought to be exerted to control the people of Italy in the arrangement of their own affairs. Our opinion is, that they should be left to settle their affairs among themselves between people and Government; that they should be free to adopt that form of Government and such an arrangement of States as they might think best for their own interests, and that no foreign Power ought to interfere by force of arms to prevent them from arriving at the result which would be most satisfactory to their own feelings and interests. The right hon. Gentleman says that if you ask the opinion of different people, all of whom are respectively and individually good authorities on the subject of Italy, one will tell you one thing, and another another; that whether it is about the Romagna, Tuscany, or Sardinia, or Naples, or Lombardy, every one you consult gives you a different opinion. But, Sir, is that peculiar to Italy? Without going further than the walls of this House, I should like to know whether you won't find Gentlemen here who will give you the most opposite opinions about any question of domestic interest you like to name. Ask my hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Spooner) his opinion about Maynooth, and then go to some Irish Member below the gangway, and ask him his opinion on the same subject. Ask about Parliamentary Reform, or any other question on which the public attention is fixed, and I will venture to say that within the walls of this House you will find as many discordant opinions as the right hon. Gentleman says exist among Italian authorities with regard to the state of Italy. Well, then, adopt the same course with regard to Italy as you do with regard to questions of domestic policy. In this House a question is settled according to what the majority thinks about it; let the people of Italy settle their own questions in the same way. If it be true that Lombardy wishes to be a separate nationality, so be it. If it be true that the King of Naples is the most beloved of monarchs, let his subjects remain united to him in the bonds of affection. If it be true that the people of the Romagna are enamoured of the Government of the Pope, let them return to the happiness from which they have been temporarily separated. All that we want is that the Italians should be left to judge of their own interests—to
116
shape their future arrangements according to their own opinions of that which is most likely to contribute to their happiness and is most in unison with their feelings and opinions. I quite concur with the right hon. Gentleman that there is no question which has arisen for some time upon which the people of this country feel more decidedly than on this, and I am persuaded that the policy which we recommend is most in consonance with their wishes. It is founded upon the same principle as that on which the Throne of this country now rests, and therefore in advocating it, I feel that the Government are backed and supported by the feelings and opinions of the people at large, by the historical traditions of our own country, and by the principles on which that constitution is founded under which we have the happiness to live. I trust, therefore, that when these papers are produced, the House will find in them nothing to censure, but much to approve; and that in pursuing the course which it is our intention to pursue, in endeavouring by negotiation, whether in Congress or out of Congress, if no Congress should meet, to secure to the people of Italy freedom from the control of foreign interference, we shall meet the wishes and receive the approbation of the country.
Motion agreed to.
Committee appointed, to draw up an Address to be presented to Her Majesty upon the said Resolution:—Mr. ST. AUBYN, Lord HENLEY, Viscount PALMERSTON, Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, Lord JOHN RUSSELL, Sir GEORGE LEWIS, Mr. Secretary SIDNEY HERBERT, Sir CHARLES WOOD, Sir GEORGE GREY, Mr. MILNER GIBSON, Mr. CARDWELL, Mr. VILLIERS, Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Mr. LAING, and Mr. MASSEY, or any Five of them;—To withdraw immediately.
Queen's Speech referred.
House adjourned at half-after Seven o'clock.

MINUTES.
Sat First in Parliament. —The Viscount St. Vincent after the Death of his Grandfather; The Earl of Camperdown, after the Death of his Father; The Earl Cathcart, after the Death of his Father.
Took the Oaths. —The Right Honourable Henry Labouchere, having been created Baron Taunton—was (in the usual Manner) introduced— Several Lords.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Select Vestries.

MEETING OF THE PARLIAMENT.
THE PARLIAMENT,which had been prorogued successively to the 27th October, thence to the 15th December, and thence to the 24th January, met this day for Despatch of Business.
The Session was opened by THE QUEEN in Person.

SELECT VESTRI S.
Bill, pro formâ, read 1a

THE QUEEN'S SPEECH.
THE QUEENbeing seated on the Throne, and the Commons being at the Bar, with their Speaker, HER MAJESTY was pleased to make a most gracious Speech to both Houses of Parliament, as follows:—
My. Lords, and Gentlemen,
IT is with great Satisfaction that I again meet you in Parliament, and have recourse to your Assistance and Advice.
MY Relations with Foreign Powers continue to be on a friendly and satisfactory Footing.
AT the Close of the last Session I informed you, that Overtures had been made to Me, to ascertain whether, if a Conference should be held by the Great Powers of Europe, for the Purpose of settling Arrangements connected with the present State and future Condition of Italy, a Plenipotentiary would be sent by Me to assist at such a Conference. I have since received a formal Invitation from the Emperor of Austria and from the Emperor of the French to send a Plenipotentiary to a Congress, to consist

3
of the Representatives of the Eight Powers who were Parties to the Treaties of Vienna of 1815; the Objects of such Congress being stated to be, to receive Communication of the Treaties concluded at Zurich; and to deliberate, associating with the above-mentioned Powers the Courts of Rome, of Sardinia, and of the Two Sicilies, on the Means best adapted for the Pacification of Italy, and for placing its Prosperity on a solid and durable Basis.
DESIROUS, at all Times, to coneur in Proceedings having for their Object the Maintenance of Peace, I accepted the Invitation, but, at the same Time, I made known that in such a Congress I should steadfastly maintain the Principle that no external Force should be employed to impose upon the People of Italy any particular Government or Constitution.
CIRCUMSTANCES have arisen which have led to a Postponement of the Congress, without any Day having been fixed for its Meeting; but whether in Congress or in separate Negotiation, I shall endeavour to obtain for the People of Italy freedom from Foreign Interference by Force of Arms, in their internal Concerns; and I trust that the Affairs of the Italian Peninsula may be peacefully and satisfactorily settled.
PAPERS on this Subject will soon be laid before you.
I AM in communication with the Emperor of the French, with a view to extend the Commercial Intercourse between the Two Countries, and thus to draw still closer the Bonds of friendly Alliance between them.
A DISPUTE having arisen between Spain and Morocco I endeavoured,
4
by friendly Means, to prevent a Rupture; but, I regret to say, without Success.
I WILL direct Papers on this Subject to be laid before you.
MY Plenipotentiary and the Plenipotentiary of The Emperor of the French having, in obedience to their Instructions, proceeded to the Mouth of the Peiho River, in order to repair to Pekin to exchange in that City the Ratifications of the Treaty of Tientsin, in pursuance of the Fifty-sixth Article of that Treaty, their further Progress was opposed by Force, and a Conflict took place between the Chinese Forts at the Mouth of the River and the Naval Forces by which the Plenipotentiaries were escorted.
THE allied Forces displayed on this Occasion their usual Bravery; but, after sustaining a severe Loss, were compelled to retire.
I AM preparing, in Concert and Cooperation with the Emperor of the French, an Expedition intended to obtain Redress and a Fulfilment of the Stipulations of the Treaty of Tien-tsin.
IT will be gratifying to Me if the prompt Acquiescence of the Emperor of China in the moderate Demands which will be made by the Plenipotentiaries shall obviate the Necessity for the Employment of Force.
I HAVE directed that Papers on this Subject shall be laid before you.
AN unauthorized Proceeding by an Officer of the United States in regard to the Island of San Juan, between Van Converts Island and the Mainland, might have led to a serious Collision between My Forces and those of the United States. Such Collision, however, has been prevented by the judicious Forbearance of My Naval and

5
Civil Officers on the Spot, and by the equitable and conciliatory provisional Arrangement proposed on this Matter by the Government of the United States.
I TRUST that the Question of Boundary out of which this Affair has arisen may be amicably settled in a Manner conformable with the just Rights of the Two Countries, as defined by the First Article of the Treaty of 1846.
THE last Embers of Disturbance in My East Indian Dominions have been extinguished; My Viceroy has made a peaceful Progress through the Districts which had been the principal Scene of Disorder, and by a judicious Combination of Firmness and Generosity My Authority has been everywhere solidly, and, I trust, permanently established. I have received from My Viceroy the most gratifying Accounts of the Loyalty of My Indian Subjects, and of the good Feeling evinced by the Native Chiefs and the great Landowners of the Country. The Attention of the Government in India has been directed to the development of the internal Resources of the Country; and I am glad to inform you that an Improvement has taken place in its financial Prospects.
I HAVE concluded a Treaty with the Tycoon of Japan, and a Treaty regarding Boundaries with the Republic of Guatemala. I have directed that these Treaties shall be laid before you.
"Gentlemen of the House of Commons,
I HAVE directed the Estimates for the ensuing Year to be laid before you. They have been prepared with a view to place the Military and Naval Services, and the Defences of the Country, upon an efficient Footing.
I AM glad to be able to inform you that the Public Revenue is in a satisfactory Condition.
"My Lords, and Gentlemen,
I HAVE accepted, with Gratification and Pride, the extensive Offers of voluntary Service which I have received from My Subjects. This Manifestation of Public Spirit has added an important Element to our System of National Defence.
MEASURES will be laid before you for amending the Laws which regulate the Representation of the People in Parliament, and for placing that Representation upon a broader and firmer Basis.
I EARNESTLY recommend you to resume your Labours for the Improvement of our Jurisprudence, and particularly in regard to Bankruptcy, the Transfer of Land, the Consolidation of the Statutes, and such a further Fusion of Law and Equity as may be necessary to insure that in every suit the Rights of the Parties may be satisfactorily determined by the Court in which the Suit is commenced.
I AM deeply gratified to observe that the great Interests of the Country are generally in a sound and thriving Condition; that Pauperism and Crime have diminished; and that, throughout the whole of My Empire, both in the United Kingdom and in my Colonies and Possessions beyond Sea, there reigns a Spirit of Loyalty, of Contentment, of Order, and of Obedience to the Law.
WITH heartfelt gratitude to the Almighty Ruler of Nations for these inestimable Blessings, I fervently pray that His beneficent Power may guide your Deliberations for the Advance-

7
ment and Consolidation of the Welfare and Happiness of My People.
HER MAJESTY then retired.
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

ADDRESS IN ANSWER TO HER MAJESTY'S SPEECH.
HER MAJESTY'S SPEECH heaving been reported by the Lord Chancellor,
EARL FITZWILLIAM,in rising to move that an humble Address be presented by this House in answer to Her Majesty's most gracious Speech, said:—My Lords, it is with diffidence that I rise to address your Lordships for the first time, and the greater is that diffidence when I recollect that although for many years I had the honour of a seat in the other House of Parliament, I remained throughout that time a silent actor in all the scenes to which my duties called me; but I will be brief, and the observations which I make shall be few, and I trust you will not weigh in too nice a balance any expressions which may fall from me on this occasion.
We hear from Her gracious Majesty that it is with gratification She meets her Parliament, that She continues on terms of friendship with all foreign countries; but while there is this general cause for satisfaction, there is, in my estimation, one reason for still greater congratulation. I heard but yesterday that a Commercial Treaty had been signed between the Government of the Emperor of the French and the Government of this country. I for one cannot hear of this Treaty otherwise than with the greatest satisfaction, as it appears to me more calculated to promote the prosperity, peace, and happiness of mankind than anything which could have been proposed, and tended more especially to bind together those two countries whose interests are more immediately at issue.
One circumstance we cannot hear of without regret, namely, that those kindly offices which were tendered by Her Majesty to the Governments of Morocco and Spain have not been accepted. But I will turn from that topic to one which we as Englishmen cannot view without admiration. We cannot witness the noble efforts now being made by the Italian people to win for themselves those liberties which we have so long enjoyed, and so justly prized, with-
8
out feelings of the deepest sympathy and respect—and having won them, I trust they will use them with the moderation and wisdom which their conduct has given us every reason to expect.
I will now turn to one other point of Her Majesty's Speech which we heard with feelings of the deepest gratitude. We learn that those vast territories over which Her Majesty rules in India are now tranquil—that the miseries and sufferings of their inhabitants have been brought to a close; and I cannot but hope that having been purified by those fiery trials through which they have passed, the people of those countries may become more moral, contented, and happy, than they have ever been.
My Lords, I said I would not detain you long by any observations I might offer, but there is one other point of Her Majesty's Speech to which I must allude, as from it we learn that the state of this country is one of the very greatest prosperity, and we have the happiness of learning that crime is decreasing, and pauperism dying out.
Allow me, my Lords, now to thank you for the kind forbearance with which you have listened to the few observations I have offered to your notice, but before resuming my seat, I have the honour to propose that an humble Address may be presented to Her Majesty, in answer to Her gracious Speech from the Throne.
The following is a copy of the Address agreed to:—
MOST GRACIOUS SOVEREIGN,
"We, your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal Subjects, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble Thanks to Your Majesty for Your Majesty's most gracious Speech from the Throne.
"We humbly express to Your Majesty our Gratification in learning that Your Majesty's Relations with Foreign Powers continue to be on a friendly and a satisfactory Footing.
"We humbly thank your Majesty for the Information which Your Majesty has given us with regard to the Invitation which Your Majesty has received from The Emperor of Austria and from the Emperor of the French to send a Plenipotentiary to assist at a Conference of the Great Powers of Europe.
"We humbly express our Gratification at learning that Your Majesty has accepted the Invitation, while, at the same Time, making known that in such a Conference Your Majesty would steadfastly

9
maintain the Principle that no external Force should be employed to impose upon the People of Italy any particular Government or Constitution.
"We assure Your Majesty that we humbly concur in the Purpose expressed by Tour Majesty, that, whether in Congress or in separate Negotiation, Your Majesty will endeavour to obtain for the People of Italy Freedom from Foreign Interference by Force of Arms in their internal Concerns; and we trust with Your Majesty that the Affairs of the Italian Peninsula may be peacefully and satisfactorily settled.
"We humbly thank Your Majesty for commanding that Papers on this Subject should be laid before us.
"We humbly thank Your Majesty for informing us, that Your Majesty is in communication with The Emperor of the French, with a view to extend the Commercial Intercourse between the Two Countries, and thus to draw still closer the Bonds of friendly Alliance between them.
"We humbly assure Your Majesty, that we partake in the Regret expressed by Your Majesty that Your Majesty's Endeavours to prevent a Rupture between Spain and Morocco have been without Success.
"We thank Your Majesty for informing us, that Your Majesty's Plenipotentiary and the Plenipotentiary of The Emperor of The French having, in obedience to their Instructions, proceeded to the Mouth of the Peiho River, in order to repair to Pekin, to exchange in that City the Ratifications of the Treaty of Tien-tsin, in pursuance of the Fifty-sixth Article of that Treaty, their further Progress was opposed by Force, and that a Conflict took place between the Chinese Forts at the Mouth of the River and the Naval Forces by which the Plenipotentiaries were escorted; and that Your Majesty is preparing, in Concert and Co-operation with The Emperor of the French, an Expedition intended to obtain Redress, and a Fulfilment of the Stipulations of the Treaty of Tientsin.
"We humbly assure Your Majesty that we shall participate in Your Gratification if the prompt Acquiescence of the Emperor of China in the moderate Demands which will be made by the Plenipotentiaries shall obviate the Necessity for the Employment of Force.
"We thank Your Majesty for directing that Papers on this Subject should be laid before us.
"We assure Your Majesty that we learn with Satisfaction that a Collision which might have occurred between Your Majesty's Forces and those of the United States, arising from an unauthori-
10
zed Proceeding by an Officer of the United States in regard to the Island of San Juan, has been prevented by the judicious Forbearance of Your Majesty's Naval and Civil Officers on the Spot, and by the equitable and conciliatory provisional Arrangement proposed on this Matter by the Government of the United States; and we trust with Your Majesty that the Question of Boundary out of which this affair has arisen, may be amicably settled in a Manner conformable with the just rights of the Two Countries, as defined by the First Article of the Treaty of 1816.
"We humbly express our heartfelt Thankfulness in learning that the last Embers of Disturbance in Your Majesty's East Indian Dominions have been extinguished; that Your Majesty's Viceroy has made a peaceful Progress through the Districts which had been the principal Scene of Disorder; that by a judicious Combination of Firmness and Generosity Your Majesty's Authority has been everywhere solidly established; and that Your Majesty has received from Your Majesty's Viceroy most gratifying Accounts of the Loyalty of Your Majesty's Indian Subjects, and of the good Feeling evinced by the Native Chiefs, and the great Landowners of the Country.
"We humbly thank Your Majesty for informing us, that the Attention of the Government in India has been directed to the Development of the internal Resources of the Country, and that an Improvement has taken place in its financial Prospects.
"We humbly express our Satisfaction that Your Majesty has concluded a Treaty with the Tycoon of Japan, and a Treaty regarding Boundaries with the Republic of Guatemala.
"We humbly thank your Majesty for graciously expressing to us the Feelings with which Your Majesty has accepted the extensive Offers of voluntary Service which Your Majesty has received from Your Subjects.
"We thank Your Majesty for informing us, that Measures will be laid before us for amending the Laws which regulate the Representation of the People in Parliament, and for placing that Representation upon a broader and firmer Basis; and we assure Your Majesty that we will give our best Consideration to this important Subject.
"We assure Your Majesty that we will give our serious Attention to Your Majesty's Recommendation that we should resume our Labours for the Improvement of our Jurisprudence, and particularly in regard to Bankruptcy, the Transfer of Land, Consolidation of the Statutes, and such a further Fusion of Law and Equity as may be necessary to ensure that in every Suit the Rights of

11
the Parties may be satisfactorily determined by the Court in which the Suit is commenced.
"We humbly express our Gratification in learning that the great Interests of the Country are generally in a sound and thriving Condition; that Pauperism and Crime have diminished; and that, throughout the whole of Your Majesty's Empire, both in the United Kingdom and in Your Majesty's Colonies and Possessions beyond Sea, there reigns a Spirit of Loyalty, of Contentment, of Order, and of Obedience to the Law.
"Wehumbly assure Your Majesty that in common with Your Majesty we fervently pray that the beneficent Power of the Almighty Ruler of Nations may guide our Deliberations for the Advancement and Consolidation of the Welfare and Happiness of Your Majesty's People.
LOED TRUROsaid, he knew when slender abilities and inexperience appealed to their Lordships' consideration, that appeal was not in vain. he did so then. They had just heard in the words of Her Majesty's Speech that She came to her Parliament with feelings of unmixed satisfaction. It might well be so, announcing as the Sovereign had that day done from the Throne, the good-will of all nations towards this country, pledging Her Ministers to the introduction of measures of high national concern, and gladdening the hearts of Her people with the prospect of an expanded commerce. And when their Lordships were informed that the revenue was never in a sounder condition, that manufactures were never more prosperous, that crime had decreased, and pauperism was less burthen-some, they had had laid before them the just grounds for the Royal satisfaction that had been expressed. he congratulated their Lordships when he reflected on the recent Continental strife, at the assurances that while this country had held aloof from political complications, while she had steadfastly adhered to the policy she had avowed and the principles she had promulgated, she had yet, by a spirit of forbearance and conciliation, maintained with all the Powers of Europe the most friendly and amicable relations. That upon the cessation of the Italian war this country was invited to enter a Congress, to receive communications in regard to the Treaty of Zurich, and to consider the future condition of Italy. This acknowledgment of the necessity for her advice in the resettlement of that country was only to be expected. It was due to her rank and natural influence in Continental affairs, and he rejoiced to learn from the Throne that her
12
compliance was unaccompanied by the smallest departure from the principles of non-armed interference, which England had, by her public men, distinctly avowed, and by the organs of public opinion made known to Europe. he congratulated the country upon the prospect, at last, of mutual reductions of tariff between England and France —that pledge of mutual prosperity, that guarantee of friendly relations, that special security for the prolonged peace of the world. It could not but be agreeable to the country to indulge the hope that under the guidance and sagacity of the Emperor of the French, a course of enlightened commercial policy was about to be substituted for a warlike and aggressive attitude. But if this country had been free from apprehension of war on the Continent, she had not been without grave alarm in the Far West, where the unbounded activity and restlessness of our excellent cousins had, for a moment, raised serious fears in the people of this country. But, however uncontrollable might be some of the spirits of the United States, and unauthorized and unjustifiable their acts and outrages, it was only due to, the Government of that great republic to acknowledge the promptitude of their suppression, and their willingness to enter into a frank reinvestigation of treaty engagements. From this satisfactory picture of our Foreign relations, he invited their Lordships to turn to a scene which but lately had been but a gloomy illustration of chequered fortune—where but two years since an empire was in flames, and all that is horrible of war and massacre was ruthlessly perpetrated. It was not too much to say that India had been reconquered amidst scenes of bravery, devotion, and heroism not surpassed by the deeds of old days, when that vast country was first subjugated. Greatly was it to be deplored that they could not be recorded by the same historian, but the House and the country had but lately grieved the genius that had enshrined the deeds of Clive in terms of unsurpassed eloquence and beauty. Their Lordships had, indeed, to deplore a good and a great man; a brilliant example, an experienced councillor, a nation's instructor. Whatever doubts might be entertained of the policy and propriety of our recent dealings with China, he conceived there could be but one opinion of the treacherous duplicity of the blow lately dealt to Her Majesty's forces in the Chinese waters—a blow for which the people of this country would

13
never be satisfied without voluntary reparation, or forcible redress. he would turn for a moment to a measure of domestic legislation which had been promised to them—the Reform Bill—a measure, the necessity for which had been admitted by all parties. A measure with which all had severally dealt, which had been submitted for acceptance but to meet with rejection, and which now came, it was to be hoped, for the last time before the country for the approbation of their Lordships. It appeared to be conceded on all hands that no extensive changes are demanded; a great extension of the franchise was nowhere required; but the necessity for a moderate measure of reform was, in his opinion, imperative. The country looked forward to such a measure with deep interest if not with anxiety; and it would expect from the great Conservative party that disinterested patriotism in its support which its provisions would, he believed, be found to deserve. And it was because he recognized in the words of the Royal Speech, the determination of Ministers to deal with the questions of the day without postponement or evasion that he invited their Lordships to adopt the Address which he had then the honour to second.
[See page 8.]
EARL GREY: It appears to me that, with one exception, there is no part of the Address to which any of your Lordships are likely to object; on the contrary, that the greater part of it, as of the Speech of which it is the echo, must have been heard by your Lordships with very high satisfaction. It must be a source of pleasure to us to learn that Her Majesty is able to congratulate us on the peaceful state of our relations with foreign States. We must also rejoice that Her Majesty is able to congratulate us upon the generally prosperous condition of her people, and upon the well-being of the great mass of our fellow-countrymen, as shown by the diminution of pauperism and the state of the revenue and of trade; upon the loyalty and good order so generally prevalent throughout Her dominions; upon the fact that the last embers of rebellion have been extinguished in India; and upon the circumstance that the dispute with the United States respecting the island of San Juan is likely to be settled amicably. Above all, we must have heard with great satisfaction—because upon that point some of us might have entertained misgivings which are thus removed—the paragraphs relating to Italian affairs and to
14
the assemblage of the proposed Congress. I, for one, at least heartily thank Her Majesty's Ministers for having advised Her to inform us that She is determined to maintain the principle that no external force shall be employed to impose upon the people of Italy any particular Government or Constitution. I rejoice to find that the British Government is to be no party to any scheme for cutting and carving the territory of Italy according to the real or supposed interest of other Powers or of foreign Princes, but will maintain the principle that it is the right of the Italians themselves to settle to what form of Government they shall submit. I trust that, taking their stand upon this plain principle of justice, Her Majesty's Government may succeed in conducting these affairs to a satisfactory conclusion, and that we may have the happiness of seeing established in Italy a powerful, independent, and free State. That I am certain is the conclusion which is most desirable for the Italians themselves, and which is also best calculated to promote the general welfare of Europe and that of this country. One paragraph of the Speech relating to a topic of foreign policy I have not, I confess, heard with so much satisfaction. I allude to the passage in which Her Majesty informs us that She is "in communication with the Emperor of the French with a view to extend the commercial intercourse between the two countries, and thus to draw still closer the bonds of friendly alliance between them." No man can desire more earnestly than myself that every obstacle to freer commercial intercourse between England and France should be removed, and a more intimate relation established. It is greatly to he regretted that two great nations so well calculated to promote each other's welfare should have so little commercial intercourse; that by artificial restrictions mutual trade, which might be so beneficial to both, should be so interrupted, and that a commerce which might be so great should be restricted within such narrow limits. But, my Lords, although I am most anxious to see an increase of commercial intercourse between the two countries, yet, if this passage in the Royal Speech is meant to announce to us, as we are led to believe, that a treaty is to be entered into by which France and England shall mutually stipulate to lower their duties upon each other's productions,—if this is what is really intended I must declare my conviction that it will be an unfortunate step backward in our financial

15
and commercial policy. To commercial treaties, within their proper limits, I see no objection; but those limits are very narrow. Beyond providing that each nation shall treat the other with as much favour as it extends to any other nation, and a few ordinary stipulations of that kind, I know of nothing which can properly be introduced into a commercial treaty. When you enter into stipulations as to the duties which each is to levy on the productions of the other, you make a very great mistake indeed. I cannot forget that at the conclusion of the great revolutionary war it was the opinion of almost every statesman of note in all countries, that it would be a common benefit to the civilized world if all nations would remove the obstructions which arbitrary legislation opposed to their commercial intercourse with each other. Unfortunately, with that opinion there prevailed this other—that in the removal of commercial restrictions the gain rested with the nation whose produce was admitted into the dominions of another, and that the maintenance of high import duties was beneficial to a people, provided that their exports were not unduly taxed by their neighbours. Entering upon diplomatic intercourse with that notion, the various countries of Europe, for more than a quarter of a century, went on trying, with much fruitless expenditure of labour and ingenuity, to remove the restrictiens which they had mutually imposed upon each other's trade. The spirit in which these negotiations were carried on was that which is so well described in Mr. Canning's well-known rhyming despatch:—
"In matters of commerce the fault of the Dutch
"Is giving too little, and asking too much."
That was the spirit in which each nation received the proposals of its rival. All thought that too much was asked with respect to their admission of the produce of other countries, and that too little was conceded with respect to the admission of their own by other nations, and the consequence was that they were all disposed to act upon the principle laid down by Mr. Canning at the end of his despatch:—
"Nous frapperons Falck with twenty per cent.
These negotiations continued, as I have said, for nearly a quarter of a century, and at the end of that time left the commercial intercourse of Europe more fettered, if possible, than it was before. At length, my Lords, this country adopted a wiser policy. It came to the conclusion that it was contrary to common sense that we should
16
punish ourselves because other nations refused to admit our productions to their markets; that the wiser course for us would be to regulate our own duties according to our commercial and financial interests, and to leave other nations to follow our example, or not, as they pleased, being convinced that if we opened our ports to foreign produce, it would, in some way or other, be paid for, and the general prosperity of the country would be increased. This policy was adopted at first with some degree of timidity, but afterwards with greater boldness, and was at length carried into complete effect by the repeal of the old Navigation Laws in 1849. We know that this great experiment has been attended with a success which has exceeded even the most sanguine expectations of its supporters. We have seen trade, manufactures, and every branch of the industry of the country improve with unexampled rapidity. We have seen ten millions of duties repealed, while the revenue derived from the Customs has not diminished. We have seen the welfare and general comfort of the people marvellously increase; and, lastly, we have seen other nations gradually begin, though with slow and hesitating steps, to follow our example. Those who are conversant with the commercial tariffs of Europe are aware that almost all nations have made some considerable improvement in their systems, and this, too, be it remembered, since we ceased to make their concessions preliminary to the improvement of our own legislation, or the participation by them in the freedom of our commerce. Unhappily, France is not among those nations who have been willing to make concessions in its tariff. The tariff of France is to this day highly restrictive; but, though I most earnestly desire that its tariff should be amended, I contend that is a step backward—a departure from the wise and sound policy which we have for several years pursued, if in the commercial treaty with France there are any stipulations binding us to reduce the duties upon any commodities of French produce in consideration of similar reductions in the duties upon British productions introduced into France. If there are any duties upon articles of French produce which, consistently with our financial exigencies, we can afford to reduce, let them be reduced at once, and without making similar concessions on the part of the French Government a condition preliminary to such reductions. I am

17
persuaded that this, as it is the most generous, is by far the best and wisest policy. Let any duties of that kind, when your can afford to reduce, be diminished, and with the least possible delay; but, on the other hand, at the present moment, when the financial exigencies of the country, if I am rightly informed, are likely to prove not a little onerous and not a little difficult to meet, I utterly protest against any reduction of duties upon French produce, which is not expedient and prudent with reference to our own financial condition, with the view of obtaining relaxations of the commercial tariff of France. If France likes to maintain a restrictive tariff, she, and not we, will be the principal sufferer, and I am convinced that though she may for a time defer the adoption of a wiser policy, it is utterly impossible that she should long continue to do so. She cannot do so without seeing herself outstripped in the race of improvement by every nation in Europe, and finding herself left far behind in comparative prosperity by those countries which are wise enough to adopt a system of commercial freedom. Knowing, as I do, the intelligence of the French people, I am persuaded it is impossible that they can long witness the effects of their present system without discovering the prudence and the wisdom of changing it. I am aware it has been said that, though our general policy is opposed to commercial treaties, still it is expedient to depart from it in the case of France, because in that country there is so strong a feeling in favour of Protection that even the great power of the Emperor is unable to carry into effect an improvement of its commercial system unless the people can be reconciled to it by gaining some immediate advantage in return. My Lords, that reasoning seems to me to be based on an entire mistake. I firmly believe that in France, under the present or any other form of Government, public opinion will in the end prevail in regard to legislation of this kind; and I am convinced that public opinion is far less likely to be enlisted in favour of a sound commercial system if it is put to the people that they are to consent to the introduction of certain foreign goods, and to the admission of competition in respect to certain articles, not for the sake of the advantages which they will derive from this greater freedom of import, but in order to purchase an easier entrance for their own produce into another country. This is nothing less
18
than the old principle which formerly prevailed amongst States come back again, and it will be represented, and very truly represented to France, that what she can gain by any changes which we may make in our financial policy will be so trifling compared with the effect of any real reform in the French tariff as to be totally inadequate to compensate her for her concessions. This is the light in which the matter will be put before the French people if the inducement you hold out to them for agreeing to the reduction of their import duties on coal, iron, cotton twist, or any other English commodities, is to be the hope that we shall take their silks or their wine more freely; instead of an expectation of the direct benefit which their commerce will receive from the removal of their own restrictions. And a very simple calculation, which the manufacturers of France are quite able to make, will suffice to show them how very small an equivalent they will, on this view of the question, obtain for what they are asked to give up. I believe, therefore, that by making this a matter of stipulation you will increase those jealousies which are the real obstacle to a permanent and effectual improvement. But, my Lords, though I could not permit this opportunity of noticing a question which occupies so prominent a place in the Speech to pass, I am happy to acknowledge that the passage which relates to it is so guardedly expressed and so carefully avoids committing the House to any opinion beforehand, that I have no difficulty whatever in concurring in the Address as it stands. But there is another portion of the Speech with respect to which I regret to say I cannot adopt the same course. In the paragraph which refers to the late calamity in China, and to the measures which Her Majesty's Ministers have taken in consequence, there is undoubtedly manifested a very laudable desire on the part of the Government to avoid to pledge the House prematurely to any opinion on some most important points involved in the transaction. They do not take the tone adopted by my noble Friend who seconded the Address, and ask us to express any opinion as to the conduct of the Chinese, or as to their having been guilty of any treachery of which we have a right to complain. They have no doubt studiously, and very properly, excluded any expression of that nature. But there is one respect in which it appears to me that the passage does commit the House to an admission which it

19
ought not to make. We are asked to thank Her Majesty for having informed us of what has happened, and of the preparations which are making for the sending out of an expedition to China. My Lords, by so thanking Her Majesty for giving the information, but at the same time taking no notice of the delay which has occurred in bringing this subject under the consideration of Parliament, the House does clearly admit that it has no right to complain of that delay. I, for one, cannot consent to make such an admission, even by inference, because I believe that by acknowledging that Her Majesty's Government are not to blame for having failed to bring this question at an earlier period under the notice of Parliament the House would surrender one of its most important rights and privileges. To the Crown it undoubtedly belongs by the constitution to conduct the relations of this country with foreign Powers. The Crown also possesses the high prerogative of declaring war and making peace. But this high authority is most cautiously guarded by this rule,—that Her Majesty's servants are to be held strictly responsible for the manner in which it is exercised; and further, that whenever the situation of the country is such that it is necessary to arm with a view to probable, or even possible hostilities, it is the duty of the advisers of the Crown to make this known to Parliament, and to call on Parliament to provide for the expense to be thus incurred. My Lords, it is not requisite that war should be declared in order to create an occasion when such a communication ought to be made to the Legislature. It is sufficient if the state of things is such that a necessity arises for making naval and military preparations. I am convinced there are none of your Lordships who will dispute that I am laying down correctly what has hitherto been regarded as the law and practice of Parliament. I might quote many examples to show how rigidly this rule has been adhered to, but I shall trouble your Lordships with only two; and in doing so I hope I shall not be taking up too much of your time. These precedents, showing how in former times great Ministers have acted in these cases, will be valuable as a guide to your Lordships' judgment in the present instance. In the year 1790 some British vessels were seized by the Spaniards on the north-west coast of America. An application was made by our Government for redress. That application was not
20
attended to. On the contrary, Spain replied by putting forward claims that were held to be inadmissible; and a fresh application was ordered to be made by the English Ambassador at Madrid. At the same time, on the 5th of May, a Message from the Crown was brought down to both Houses of Parliament, in which, after reciting at greater length than I have done the facts I have just stated, His Majesty made use of the following words:—
"And, under these circumstances, His Majesty, having also received information that considerable armaments are carrying on in the ports of Spain, has judged it to be indispensably necessary to give orders for making such preparations as may put it in His Majesty's power to act with vigour and effect in support of the honour of his Crown and the interests of his people. And His Majesty recommends it to his faithful Commons, on whose zeal and public spirit he has the most perfect reliance, to enable him to take such measures and to make such augmentations of his forces as may be eventually necessary for this purpose."
This Message was brought down by Mr. Pitt before the Crown proceeded to increase the naval or military force of the country in the case of the Nootka Sound dispute. The Address in answer to the Royal Message was unanimously agreed to on the following day by both Houses; and subsequently the House of Commons gave a vote of credit of £1,000,000 to meet the expenses of the proposed armament. I need not tell your Lordships that, in consequence of the determined attitude of this country, the difference relative to Nootka Sound passed off without a war. There is another case. At the beginning of December, 1826, the Princess Regent of Portugal applied to England under the treaties between Portugal and this country for assistance to defend her dominions against an apprehended aggression on the part of Spain. The British Government determined that this appeal was one which should be responded to. Accordingly, on the 11th of December, 1826, a Message from the Crown was brought down to both Houses. On the following day, the 12th of December, Mr. Canning, in moving the Address in answer to the Message, informed the House of Commons that the decision of the Cabinet had been come to only on the Saturday preceding; that the pleasure of the Crown was taken on the Sunday, and on the Monday the Message was sent down to the House of Commons. Such, my Lords, was the course adopted on those two occasions. Contrast it with what happened in the present instance. The Gazette of the

21
16th of September last contained the despatches of the English Admiral giving an account of the repulse sustained by our force in China. I have no means of knowing how soon after that the decision of the Government was come to, but we know from the usual sources of information—the newspapers—that at a very early period afterwards preparations were commenced. My Lords, it is now more than four months since this intelligence was received, and during at least three of those months our ports and arsenals have resounded with the din of preparation. Measures have been taken, as we all know from the public sources of information, for despatching artillery, gunboats and stores to China. I do not know whether any troops have been ordered to proceed to China direct from this country, but troops have certainly been ordered to proceed thither from India, and preparations have been made for a large force, we are told not less than 10,000 men, in addition to our naval forces. Therefore a very large expense must already have been incurred, and I only ask your Lordships to contrast the course which had just been taken—all these measures being taken during three months without communication with Parliament till this moment— with what I have described as having been done on the occasions to which I have alluded by Mr. Pitt and Mr. Canning. They thought it their duty before they did anything else at once to ask Parliament to support the Crown in the measures they proposed to adopt. Is that, my Lords, to be the rule in future? If it is not, I say it is necessary that we should take some notice of the delay that has taken place. If we admit that a Minister may without blame for so long a period as I have mentioned continue warlike preparations without seeking the aid and sanction of Parliament to his measures, I say we admit that a principle which our greatest statesmen and most distinguished writers have always held an essential element in our constitution, is no longer binding upon our statesmen. The power of the Crown to enter on war is admitted, but it has always been held that it was only safe that this great power should be intrusted to the Executive Government of the day, because they were not at liberty to take even one step towards involving the country in war without associating Parliament in the measures they adopted; because they were bound, so soon
22
as they imposed upon the country the expense of an armament, to obtain the sanction of Parliament for that expense; and because in making such an appeal to Parliament, the whole question of the policy and justice of the war was necessarily brought under the consideration of the great council of the nation, which had it in its power to check at the very beginning any steps which it might think inexpedient, or calculated to involve the country in an unjust or impolitic war. But what becomes of this security? What becomes of this guard against abuse if a Minister is to be allowed for such a time as I have described to carry on warlike preparations, keeping Parliament ignorant of them? It may, perhaps, be said that in the instances I have quoted, Parliament was sitting at the time, and therefore it was natural that Government should make a communication to it as soon as circumstances arose which, in their own opinion, made it expedient for the country to arm. My Lords, I can really scarcely believe that anybody will pretend that the mere accident of Parliament being sitting at the time should make the slightest difference. If it is proper to make a communication to Parliament, it is proper also to call Parliament together for the purpose of receiving that communication, and neither our convenience, nor the convenience of the members of the other House of Parliament, ought for a moment to be put into competition with the importance of maintaining a great constitutional principle; and, as it is in the power of the Government at any time, with very short delay, to call Parliament together, if it was their duty while Parliament was sitting to make such a communication, it was equally their duty to call Parliament together for the purpose of receiving it. There is another argument which, perhaps, may be used. I may be told that the large and liberal grants made by Parliament in last Session for our naval and military service rendered it unnecessary to make a further communication to Parliament, as the Government in their preparations have not exceeded those grants. My Lords, I trust we shall not have this argument brought forward, which would partake very much of the character of a quibble. It is, no doubt, true that Parliament made very large and liberal grants in the last Session for the naval and military service; but these grants were not more than sufficient to provide for the demands on the service which Parliament thought

23
ought to be provided for before these new demands on account of the Chinese war were known. What has occurred in China certainly in no degree diminishes the demand on those services elsewhere. If looked into we may, perhaps, find that demand rather increased than diminished. It may be possible that by postponing measures that cannot ultimately be abandoned, with a view of considering the more urgent demands of the Chinese war, no technical irregularity may have taken place, or any illegal appropriation of the sums voted by Parliament have been made. I am quite prepared to expect that such is the fact; but of this I am quite sure, that not only a large, but a very large, expenditure has already been incurred, which Parliament has not yet sanctioned, but for which it will ultimately have no alternative but to provide; that an expenditure has been incurred which may also lead to one far, far larger than anything we may yet dream of, and may prove to be but the beginning of an expense of almost incalculable amount. And I would point out to your Lordships that this question of expense is not a mere technical one of so many pounds paid under such and such a head of the Estimates; what is really wanted is this—that the country is not to be committed to any heavy expenditure, and, above all, to no heavy expenditure in the way of war, without first giving the great council of the nation an opportunity of inquiry into and considering the propriety of that war. I contend, therefore, my Lords, that in the course they have pursued on this subject Her Majesty's Government have been guilty of an unjustifiable departure from the well-established laws and practice of Parliament. And I am the more surprised that this should happen under the present Government, because it happens that there is in the present Government a very distinguished person who only three years ago laid down, in very clear terms, what is the correct rule to follow on this subject. In the debate which took place in the other House of Parliament upon the Address in the year 1857, I find that the following expressions were used with reference to the Persian war:—
"If Her Majesty's Government have carried us into an English war it was their duty to have called Parliament together at the first moment when they ventured to contemplate so serious a step"…."I will say, without fear of contradiction, that the practice of commencing wars without associating Parliament with the first measures is utterly at variance with the established practice of the country, dangerous to the
24
constitution, and absolutely requiring the intervention of this House, in order to render the recognition of so dangerous a proceeding utterly impossible,"—[3 Hansard, vol. cxliv. p. 145.]
My Lords, the person who made these comments with reference to the Persian war was the present Chancellor of the Exchequer—that Member of the Government whose duty it is to see that in the administration of the finances the rules of Parliament are strictly adhered to. Now, my Lords, the object of the Amendment which I shall think it my duty to move will be simply to enforce this sound view of the law and practice of Parliament. But there are many other important questions which will arise in regard to this Chinese war—questions which I hope your Lordships will have to consider at a very early period. There will arise the question whether we have any just cause of war with China at all— whether the Chinese, having had experience that it is dangerous to leave the access to their capital by the Peiho exposed and undefended were justified in fortifying it, and obstructing the mouth of the river,—whether by taking measures for that purpose publicly, and announcing them in the Pekin Gazette, they afforded any just ground of complaint to this country—whether we had any right to insist that the obstructions so placed in the mouth of the river should be removed in order to enable our ambassador to proceed to Pekin,—whether the treaty of Tientsin, having given us a right to send an ambassador to Pekin, but being silent as to the route which that ambassador should take ["hear, bear," from the Earl of Derby], our plenipotentiary was entitled to say, when offered another route, that he would proceed by no other than by the Peiho, and, this not being open, that he would force it,—whether, even if he had such a right, he was entitled to make use of force, without first appealing to the Imperial authorities at Pekin to see whether, by mere peaceable representations, they might not be induced to accede to his demands and withdraw the obstructions; whether it made any difference that those fortifications were stated to be garrisoned by a force of militia and not by the regular troops of the empire; whether this conflict in China must not be judged on the same principles as if it had happened here, and whether, if the ambassador of the Emperor of the French should insist on coming to London, accompanied by a number of gunboats up the Thames and should find obstructions to their further progress at

25
Gravesend, he would be entitled to remove those obstructions by force and to fire upon the troops defending them, because they happened to be manned only by a body of the Kent Militia; whether our now preferring a demand for redress for this affair, backed by the despatch of a large military and naval force to that country in a manner which will probably lead to war, is calculated to promote, in any one respect, the interests of England; and whether any conclusion to which such a contest may be brought can be conducive to our real benefit. We shall have further to consider, my Lords, whether any treaty which we may succeed in extorting from China, or any amount of degradation which we may impose upon her Government, is likely to place us in a better position in her regard, or whether we have any security that such a treaty would be acted upon one hour beyond the time at which the force by which it was wrung from the Chinese people may happen to be withdrawn; — we must consider whether our great trade with China—a trade which, directly and indirectly, contributes more to our prosperity than that which we carry on with any other nation of the world, with the single exception of the United States—a trade which is of such enormous importance both to our home and to our Indian revenue,—is likely to be promoted by burning the cities and slaughtering the inhabitants of that vast empire; whether they are likely to become better customers to us, and to be enabled to purchase more of our manufactures, and to give us in return more of those articles that China produces, by our spreading fire and devastation through their land;—whether it is wise and prudent that we should enter upon a contest from which, once it is commenced, there may be no retreat, save by pulling down the ancient and already tottering fabric of the Chinese Empire, and thus leaving that extensive empire and vast population a prey to anarchy and disorder, These, my Lords, are grave and momentous questions, which it will be our duty to consider with a deliberation commensurate to their importance. They open, however, too extensive a field to be adequately discussed on an occasion like the present. I now advert to the fact that such questions will arise simply as affording to my mind conclusive proof of the impropriety of the delay which has occurred on the part of Her Majesty's Government in bringing this subject under the conside-
26
ration of the Legislature. It will be our duty to deal with these great questions in the course of this Session, but we cannot now do so with the same effect as we might have done three months ago. It is possible that Parliament may disapprove the policy which Her Majesty's Government have pursued in this matter; but if it should, it may now find it too late to correct many of the errors of that policy. Their orders have gone out to the other side of the world. Those orders may be (and I much fear they are) of such a character as to bring on the war for which their preparations have been made, so that this calamity which might some time ago have been avoided, if the judgment of Parliament had been appealed to in due course, may now be inevitable. We are at the present moment, for instance, far more deeply committed to France, who is to act as our ally in this contest, than we were at no very distant day. It is more difficult now than it was some few months since to make any propositions of a conciliatory kind to the Chinese Government with a chance of their leading to an amicable arrangement between the two countries. The very preparations for war which both we and the Chinese have made, according to recent accounts, diminish the chances of such a policy being attended with success. I have now, my Lords, I think, made out my case. It is, then, I repeat, contrary to the established rules and practice of Parliament that any Government should presume to take upon itself, without the sanction of the Legislature, to make preparations, as has been done in this instance, for what may turn out to be a frightfully disastrous contest. No merely theoretical, but a practical and substantial injury has, I contend, been done to the country by so great a departure from previous precedent and the established law of the constitution. If, therefore, we agree to the Address in answer to the Speech from the Throne in the form in which it now stands, thanking Her Majesty for the information which she has communicated to us upon this important subject, without saying one word as to the time at which that communication happens to have been made, we by clear implication admit that the point is one with respect to which we have no fault to find. It is, therefore, my object, in framing the Amendment which I am now about to submit to your Lordships' consideration, to take notice of the irregularity of which I complain in terms the most temperate which

27
I am able to devise. I may add, that if any noble Lord should suggest to me terms still milder, by which the views which I entertain upon this subject could be expressed, I shall be most happy to act upon the suggestion. My sole object in proposing this Amendment at all is to prevent the pernicious proceeding to which I advert from being drawn into a precedent. Bear in mind, my Lords, that the law of Parliament is to a great degree an unwritten law—that it rests on custom and usage. Every bad precedent which you set up in opposition to it therefore tends to break down a wholesome constitutional check. I am of opinion that this House was greatly to blame in omitting to notice the irregularity of which the Government was guilty with reference to the war with Persia. We see in what has since taken place the consequences of the course which was then pursued. If we now pass over with similar neglect a similar irregularity, we shall have gone far to establish a rule which may supersede the old law of Parliament; so that in future any man can hardly complain with justice of a Minister who during the Parliamentary recess should take measures and pledge the country to a policy, owing to which we may find ourselves, when the Legislature assembled, hopelessly involved in a great European war. These, my Lords, are the considerations upon which I venture to submit to your notice the Amendment which I am about to propose, and which, I trust, your Lordships will sanction. To the words in the Address thanking Her Majesty for the information which She has been graciously pleased to communicate to us with respect to the conflict at the mouth of the Peiho, and the measures which She proposes to take in co-operation with the Emperor of the French to obtain redress for what there took place, and to secure the fulfilment of the treaty of Tein-tsin, I beg to add words by way of Amendment: —
Amendment proposed, to insert—
"After the Words 'Stipulations of the Treaty of Tien-tsin,' "but humbly to express to Her Majesty our Regret that when the Preparations for the intended Expedition were commenced, Her Majesty's Servants did not advise Her Majesty to communicate to Parliament without Delay the Measures which had been decided upon, in order that Parliament might have an Opportunity of forming a Judgment on their Propriety, and that its previous Sanction might be obtained for the Expense they might occasion."
THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLE: I greatly regret, my Lords, that the noble Earl who
28
has just spoken has found it to be inconsistent with his duty to allow the Address of your Lords hips' House to proceed to Her Majesty without having proposed his Amendment. The practice—the very wholsome practice, in my opinion—has of late grown up in the proceedings of the Legislature, of never moving an Amendment to the Address of the Sovereign in answer to the Royal Message at the commencement of the Session, unless some great political objects were in view and likely to be attained, or unless some assertion were made in that Address to which the Opposition found it impossible to as sent. Now, the practice to which I allude has, I believe, prevailed in recent times mainly because it has been the custom of ministers, no matter to what party they may belong, to abstain from introducing into the Speech of the Sovereign, so far as it may lie in their power, any topic or phrase which might be likely to produce discord in the deliberations of the Legislature on the first evening of the Session. And, indeed, my noble Friend, the mover of the Amendment himself, expressly stated in the course of his speech that he is perfectly aware that Her Majesty's Government, in framing the Royal Speech, have studiously avoided the employment of any such expressions as were very fairly used by the noble Lord who seconded the Address in commenting on the proceedings which have taken place in China. As, however, my noble Friend has felt himself called upon to move this Amendment, it becomes my duty, on the part of the Government, to make some observations, not only upon the Amendment itself, but upon the arguments by which it has been supported. But before I proceed to do so, I hope the House will allow me to say a few words in reference to another topic of the Royal Speech upon which the noble Earl has commented unfavourably —I mean the treaty of commerce with France. I am sure your Lordships will not expect that any Member of the Government should at this moment, when the treaty was only signed yesterday, and there has been no opportunity of laying it before the House, enter into any discussion of its details or attempt a hypothetical defence of the transaction itself. But I at once concur in my noble Friend's observations as to the impolicy of commercial treaties generally. I readily admit a commercial treaty, as the term was understood in year3 gone by, to be at variance

29
with the soundest principles of free trade, and that nothing hut peculiar circumstances can justify on our part, in these days, recurrence to treaties of that nature. I am, however, firmly convinced that when this treaty is laid before Parliament, and when your Lordships come to consider the circumstances under which it has been proposed by one country and accepted by the other, you will concur in the opinion held by Her Majesty's Government, that circumstances have rendered the proceeding a justifiable one, to which you can give your approval. Without entering into details, I will only put it to the House and my noble Friend whether a treaty of commerce, if it be not absolutely contradictory to the principles of free trade, may not be justifiable as a means of cementing the union of two great countries like England and France; whether there can be any stronger or more reliable bond of union than an extension of the commerce between those countries, which, considering their enormous wealth, has been hitherto of a restricted nature. We may make bargains or engagements with Emperors and Kings, and Presidents, but they may be broken by those potentates or their successors, but an extension of commerce, on the other hand, forms a binding engagement between the people of two countries, and I believe, in proportion to its extension, will eventually make war between them less likely, I might almost say impossible. I am unwilling to trouble your Lordships now further upon this point, but the Amendment proposed by my noble friend requires me to notice some of his arguments. he started from an assumption that it was the established rule and practice to lay before Parliament an announcement of the intention of the Sovereign to enter into hostilities with a foreign nation. I am surprised that my noble Friend should have framed his proposition upon so broad a basis, for I believe writers upon international law have greatly differed upon the subject whether it is necessary to proclaim war under all circumstances, and if it be not, it can hardly be maintained that it is absolutely required to lay the intentions of the Sovereign before Parliament. But surely my noble Friend does not forget that, notwithstanding the example of 1790 and 1826,to which he has referred, the rule which he regards as an established rule has been repeatedly departed from during the last thirty years. My noble Friend shakes his head, but I believe I am not wrong in saying that, although what he describes may
30
have been the general rule in cases of hostilities with European nations, yet there are few, if any, instances where it has been adhered to in cases of hostilities with eastern nations. The noble Earl must admit moreover, that it has not even been the universal rule with regard to European instances, for he cannot have forgotten the cases of Portugal in 1831, and of Greece at a subsequent period, not to mention other instances of smaller or greater importance. My noble Friend has said that he hopes the Government will not attempt to set up as their defence the fact that Parliament was not sitting, nor the argument that they had sufficient funds resulting from the Votes of Parliament for other purposes to enable them to carry on hostilities. As to the last-mentioned ground of defence, I certainly shall not have recourse to it. I am perfectly aware that, under whatever circumstances the revenue may be raised, Parliament only intended it to meet such contingencies as were contemplated at the time when the Estimates were framed. But the other ground—that Parliament was not sitting at the time—I consider to be an important and legitimate defence of the conduct of the Government. In the two cases which have been quoted by my noble Friend, in 1790 and 1826, it happens that both occurred while Parliament was sitting. Surely there is a great difference between the Sovereign communicating to Parliament, during the Session, the state of affairs with regard to foreign countries and his summoning Parliament together specially to consult it upon an event which might never occur. However, it is not necessary to rely upon that circumstance for a defence in the present instance, for my noble Friend has based his argument upon the supposition that we are about to commence war with a nation with whom we were previously at peace. I say that is not the case here. We are not commencing new hostilities with China; we have never been at peace with China for the last two years, and at the very moment when the transactions at the Peiho occurred we had possession, and still retain, one of the most important towns of the Chinese Empire. Surely that cannot he called a state of peace? A treaty, no doubt, was negotiated by my noble Friend near me (the Earl of Elgin), which Mr. Bruce was proceeding to Pekin to ratify, but it could not be a treaty of peace until it was ratified, and until that ratification took place we were not at peace

31
with China. However, I shall not dwell upon this point at present, for my noble Friend himself has told us that there must be many other occasions when the subject of this Chinese war must be fully considered; but he has mentioned some of his objections to that war which I will slightly notice. My noble Friend says we had no right to attempt to pass up the Peiho, and that we should have taken some other route than that which we considered to be the highway to the capital. Her Majesty's Government will be prepared to enter into that question whenever it shall come fairly before Parliament, and I will only say now, that we had every right to consider that river to be the proper highway to Pekin, if not the only highway. In proof of this statement I may observe that in the Russian treaty, agreed to in May last, there is a clause—the second— giving the Russians a right to proceed to the capital of China either by their usual overland route or by this very route of the Peiho, or by any other route. I believe, without any attempt at special pleading, it might be shown that under the "favoured nation" clause of the treaty of 1843 we might insist upon this route, but I do not wish to urge it now, and only mention the last treaty with Russia to establish the fact that there was a deliberate determination on the part of the Emperor of China or his Government or people to treat the English nation differently from the Russians, and to exclude us from a route which was allowed to the latter nation as the proper route to the capital by treaty only a month before. My noble Friend also indulged in some general phrases with regard to the horrors of war. Now, I respect him for the feelings which he entertains on all occasions upon this subject, although I think that he sometimes allows them to carry him too far. But will my noble Friend maintain for one instaut, that if the honour of the country is involved we ought to consider whether we may, to a certain extent, be endangering our commerce, and whether by carrying on hostilities with China we may not injure, even to a considerable extent, the tea trade? Those are no doubt important considerations in themselves, but when the country has been outraged by attacks upon its forces, in which 400 or 500 Englishmen were struck down, I cannot think that my noble Friend, having, as I know he has, the honour of his country at heart, would urge that then, being smitten on the one cheek, we should turn
32
the other to be smitten also. If then, my Lords, it can be shown that we are bound to prepare this fleet and army, for the purpose of vindicating the national honour and of obtaining reparation for the injuries inflicted upon us, providing it can be obtained in no other way, I think that on a future occasion, when this subject comes to be discussed, I may claim the vote of my noble Friend himself, in common with the rest of your Lordships. That we were bound to take such a course, to uphold our honour as a nation, I firmly believe; but I will not enter upon the question now, and am only sorry that my noble Friend has forced me to say so much. Her Majesty has announced that papers will be laid before Parliament, and when those are forthcoming we shall be enabled to understand and to discuss this subject much more clearly. As to the point which forms the basis of my noble Friend's Amendment —that the Ministry have committed an act of disloyalty to the Parliament of Great Britain by not laying before them their intentions respecting China—I repeat that this is not an established rule, though it may be a convenient one; and, even if it were an established rule, I maintain that in the instance before us it has not been violated, because we have not been at peace with China, and had nothing, therefore, to communicate. All we could have informed Parliament of was that the treaty with China had not been ratified, and that the war was therefore continuing. But were we to call Parliament together in order to make such an announcement? I rose simply to answer the observations of my noble Friend, and I trust, therefore, I shall be excused if I do not enter now into the other topics of Her Majesty's Speech. I cannot help thinking, in conclusion, that your Lordships will not agree with my noble Friend on the issue he has raised, and will not support his Amendment.
THE MARQUESS OF NORMANBY,who was imperfectly heard, said, he, for one, agreed in the principle which had been laid down by his noble Friend (Earl Grey). In his opinion it would have accorded better with Parliamentary usage, and would have been more to the public advantage, if the Government had called Parliament together and acquainted it with their intentions when the new rupture with China took place. he would not, however, enter into any details on the question before their Lordships, as a more convenient opportunity of discussing it would arise; at the same time

33
he might observe he could not agree with the noble Duke that no Amendment was to be moved upon the Address unless some great party question presented itself.
THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLEsaid, he had added, "or in case the Ministry of the day had inserted words in the Royal Speech with which it was impossible for the Opposition to agree."
THE MARQUESS OF NORMANBYsaid, seeing that no great unity of feeling could exist in the Cabinet as to the war with China, he thought the country had a right to information as to the course which was being taken. With respect to the treaty of commerce, it wa3 certainly desirable that the discussion on that matter should be postponed for some more fitting occasion; but it had been rather forced upon them by the encomiums of the noble seconder of the Address. The treaty was described as a precursor of friendship and of peace between the two nations, and as a positive barrier to any future war. he was sorry to say he had lately read an address from the master manufacturers of France to the French Emperor, in which they hardly seemed to take the same view. "You have reduced us," they concluded, "to this alternative,—either we must submit to ruin, or must tear the treaty by cannon-balls." That certainly did not look as though the treaty would insure permanent concord between France and England. Only that morning he had received, from one on whose authority he thoroughly relied, a letter which by no means foreshadowed the halcyon age of peace and commerce now spoken of. Armaments of all kinds, his informant said, were now being pressed on in France with the utmost vigour. Naval armaments were continued as though war was expected next week. Munitions of war were being prepared, steel plating for ships was ordered all over the country, vessels were being built, guns proved, and the French dockyards rang with work night and day. Such preparations formed rather a curious concomitant of universal peace, and he could not forget that those who spoke of tearing the treaty with cannon- ball complained of the surprise practised on them by our illustrious neighbour, saying there had been a positive engagement that these changes should not be made without previous inquiry, and that the treaty with England had been hurried on as the means of breaking faith with them. Was this likely to promote good feeling between the two countries? Then, too, there was a
34
strange kind of reciprocity in the treaty, for whereas England was to give at once all the advantages which were asked for, France delayed her concessions until a period extremely remote. he recollected that in 1848 he was very anxious that there should be a practical proof of the good feeling which existed between England and France; and he told M. Lamartine, who had made a great free-trade speech at Marseilles, that the best means of establishing a good understanding between the two countries was to enter freely into a consideration of their tariffs with a view to a relaxation of them; but the hopes which he entertained on that subject were unhappily not fulfilled. M. Lamartine told him that the more popular was the form of the French Government, the more difficulty would there be on this question. he confessed, therefore, considering the disposition of the people of France, that he did not anticipate such a halcyon summer in 1861 as had been predicted; and he was disposed to think it was rather dangerous to have fixed the precise day after which the proposed changes were to take place. he now came to another part of the Royal Speech, but he did not intend to move any Amendment upon it, although he entertained some objection to the phrases it contained: the part he referred to was the following:—
"Desirous at all times to concur in proceedings having for their object the maintenance of peace, I accepted the invitation, but, at the same time, I made known that, in such a Congress, I should stedfastly maintain the principle that no external force should be employed to impose upon the people of Italy any particular Government or Constitution."
He quite agreed that these were not the times when this country should sanction any such proceeding, however unjust might often be the means by which the settled order of things had been upset; but he objected to the phrase put into Her Majesty's mouth respecting any particular government being imposed "upon the people of Italy." Who, he asked, were the people of Italy? [Ironical cheers from the Ministerial side.] he know Italy as well as his noble Friends opposite, and felt as sincere an interest in that country, and therefore he thought that the ironical cheers of his noble Friends on the other side were hardly justified; but in reference to the people not yielding to external force, who, he again asked, were the people of Italy? Italy consisted of various States, with various dialects, governed by different Govern-

35
merits and separated from each other for ages. In short there was no nationality in Italy, and he recollected last Session his noble and learned Friend near him (Lord Brougham) saying there could be no such thing as a united Italy. he therefore felt that he was entirely justified in remarking on the particular phrase put into Her Majesty's mouth, to which he had called their Lordships' attention. Again, the phrase raised a question, which had hitherto been considered settled from the dark ages downwards. Were treaty obligations binding or were they no longer to be so considered? It was a novel and startling doctrine that popular outcry in any country was to establish a right to change the government and territorial arrangements. Besides, had it been ascertained that in this instance the popular outcry was the honest expression of the national will, and not brought about by foreign influence or gold, or intimidation practised by Foreigners who had usurped the Government? An expression of popular opinion created in that way was no justification for a change of Government and deposition of rulers. Again, if in 1860 they agreed to ratify a change of territorial limits in accordance with the popular outcry of the day, they must equally recognize the same principle in 1861, should the popular outcry turn round by that time. In 1848, Lombardy was annexed to Sardinia by a popular vote; and in the autumn of the same year deputies were sent to Paris to say that this was not what the people wished; and that the vote had been obtained by deception. General Cavignac requested I would see some of these deputies, as I had hitherto given him to understand that the policy of my Government was rather to encourage the annexation of Lombardy to Sardinia if there were to be any change of territorial limits. I conceived myself that nothing could then be so distateful to the Lombards as such an arrangement. If they acted at all in the matter, they should guard themselves against recognizing any new settlement, until they were quite satisfied it was in accordance with the opinion and the wishes of the people; and Ministers would have advised Her Majesty to express herself more correctly if the Royal Speech had said that any proposed new Government, or constitution, or change of territorial limits should be in accordance with the well ascertained independent vote of the natives of the State. The last time they had assembled in that House his noble Friend the Foreign Secre-
36
tary had stated that he was content to leave the result to the well-matured deliberation of the Tuscan people. But what was the fact? There had been no deliberation whatever, and they afforded the only instance of a deliberate assembly, who, without one single word uttered, or one single reason given, had destroyed the constitution under which they had for years been governed, and had declared in favour of annexation to a State which was a stranger to their own. he would read a few lines which he had received from an Englishman who was well acquainted with Tuscany, and especially with its financial condition; and, perhaps, before both Houses of Parliament agreed that it was desirable to annex Tuscany to Piedmont, it might be well to ascertain what the effect of such a measure would be upon the interests of this country—interests which they had been that night told were to form the basis of international legislation. The letter stated:—
"There is no longer an ad valorem duty on English manufactures. The duty is regulated by weight; fine Saxony cloth pays the same duty as coarse Manchester fabrics; duty of cotton goods and produce of the Potteries is doubled; colonial produce doubled; mixed stuffs of silk and cotton are rated as pure silk—all to protect Piedmontese manufactures! Articles paying 15 per cent. now pay 10. Piedmont has no colonial possessions, no manufactures or commerce worth mentioning, but just sufficient to oblige them to adopt the protective duties. They cannot compete with England and France even with a duty of 20 per cent. I know of an hotel keeper at Genoa, who stated that in '48 he paid 60 francs a year duty on his house, and [this is now increased to 1,500…The equalization of taxation, which would compel all Tuscany, Parma, and Modena to pay from 50 to 60 per cent., would relieve Piedmont from the levy of 16 per cent. on her population."
He would next read a letter from a Tuscan gentleman of position and intelligence. The writer said:—
"If the English Government had followed their profession of absolute neutrality desired by the English people they would not so much have compromised the Government of England, which had always formerly been known as one desirous to maintain settled order in Europe. But since her statesmen and her organs of public opinion have allowed themselves to be deceived by the false reports of a factious and lying minority, they have deservedly exposed themselves to the criticism of all other nations for having, without due consideration, encouraged revolution and anarchy. The principles which the English Government now profess are such as must produce disorganization and ruin in any monarchy. The English Government pretends to sustain the rights of the people as claimed by the majority, and to free Italy from the yoke of the stranger These principles, if

37
well applied, might be praiseworthy and reason- able, but they have been willingly deceived in their application at the pleasure of a tyrannical majority. From whom have the British Government received their information as to the present condition of Tuscany? From honest men? Certainly not; they have always refused to listen to them, and the newspapers have refused to publish facts, though guaranteed by persons worthy of faith. They have confined their information to that which is published in the papers here, which is always at variance with the truth. They have received intelligence from the English Chargé d'Affaires at Florence."
The English Charge d'Affaires spoken of had, he (the Marquess of Normanby) was informed, attended the reception of M. Buoncompagni. Now, he perfectly remembered that, in 184S, a distinct expression of opinion had been conveyed to him, on the part of Her Majesty's Government, that so long as there was no settled government in a country, no representative of England, acting unofficially, ought to take part in any public demonstration, and upon those recognized rules he had acted during the whole of the French Revolution until, in August 1848, he was regularly accredited to General Cavignac as head of the Executive Government, appointed by the National Assembly. The letter proceeded to state:—
"The great majority of loyal citizens have hitherto been cowed and silenced by imprisonment, by domiciliary visits, thousands of which have taken place, while a band of paid agitators, commanded by a certain Dolfi, daily threatens the well-disposed. The majority of loyal men comprises at least three-fourths of the population, but they have never yet been able to make their wishes public, because this armed portion of the dregs of the people menace with death any manifestation from those who are entirely unarmed, and have no means of meeting in order to overthrow these usurpers. Their silence has therefore been taken as showing assent to the present order of things. The foreign newspapers have been persuaded or bribed in a spirit of partiality to suppress all accounts of local disorders, all the significant manifestations which have occurred, anything, in short, from which could he inferred the real feeling of the country. The arms of Sardinia, which have been placed over all the public buildings in the town by order of the Government, are nightly bespattered with mud. The troops begin to mutiny, the dungeons are crowded with political prisoners, the homes of thousands have been violated. The National Guard never stir without loaded pieces. And yet we are told that the most perfect order reigns, and the English Government itself is so well and impartially informed that its members assert it is impossible that there should be more complete tranquillity."
There were some instances which had come to his own knowledge showing that the so-called popular party were in the habit of imprisoning arbitrarily, and in the most
38
cruel manner, men who were more liberal than themselves. Of this nature was the injury inflicted on Signor Montecchi, who had held high office, and who was said at that time, 1849, although connected with the extreme party at Rome, to he enlightened and moderate in his own opinions. Letters were opened at the post-office, and in one, which was not signed, but supposed by the Government to come from Mazzini, were discovered some expressions to which a dangerous meaning was attached. he was arrested at Leghorn, and having been thrown into a dungeon but without being brought to trial, the utter absence of any evidence to connect him with political offences was so apparent as to cause the charge against him to be dismissed. The Tuscan correspondent of The Times had published the fact to the world, adding that Signor Montecchi's letters gave painful details of his treatment; but if these letters were published, as stated in many Foreign journals, the English press had never noticed them. Now, in a very curious document, entitled La Politica Napoleonica e il Sovrano Toscano, written by one of the most distinguished men of the liberal party in Italy, Signor Amperi, but which from the place of its publication must he presumed to have the sanction of the Emperor, it was shown that the French Emperor had been deceived by Sardinia as to the amount of force which she had at her disposal, and the assistance which the Italian States might expect from her. Instead of keeping up her army to the amount of 100,000 men, which was the extent of her army in 1849, there were not 50,000 men in arms; and as stated by that author, ha had good reason to believe that this was one of the reasons which tended to disgust the Emperor Louis Napoleon with the war, and induced him to sign the treaty of Villa-franca. Another object of the writer seemed to be to show that the inhabitants of the Central Italian States were averse from annexation to Piedmont, and desired the restoration of their former rulers, he further said, that the noble Secretary fur Foreign Affairs (Lord J. Russell) who was now so anxious to alter the relations of the Italian States with Austria, had on one occasion declared that Italy could not have a better guarantee for her liberties than was provided by the arrangements of the Treaty of Vienna; and it was asked how it was that that noble Lord, while joining in the cry of

39
"Italy for the Italians," imposed a foreign and hated rule upon the Ionians, and in many other parts of the world pursued a policy which he affected to condemn in the Cabinet of Vienna. The author concludes his notice of England by saying that the Italians are probably aware, however it may suit the temporary policy of England to thwart the Emperor Napoleon in the fulfilment of his engagements, that they could never expect the assistance of one penny or a single soldier. he was aware that papers were to be produced on this subject, and that other opportunities would be afforded for discussing them; but he could not help recollecting that this and the other House of Parliament was the only place where the voice of truth could be heard; and he had been urged by so many persons to undertake the task, as they complained that they could not otherwise get their case stated, that, unpleasant as the subject was, he felt bound to take up the question. he would object as much as any man to the restoration of any of the Sovereigns of Central Italy by military force; but he hoped that if the proposed Congress were to assemble it would prohibit foreign intervention in favour of, as well as against, the revolutionary Governments; and he would remind the House that in the treaty of Villafranca it was distinctly stipulated that the rulers of Central Italy should be recalled. It had been said that none of those Governments had countenanced any outrages upon persons or property, but he was informed that Farini had given an appointment in Modena to one of the principal instigators of the political assassinations in Parma. It was always unpleasant to labour against the popular feeling, but his sole object in the observations he had made was to promote the peace and prosperity of Italy, and to communicate to their Lordships facts which deserved to be published to the world.
LORD BROUGHAMsaid, that as he had been appealed to by the noble Marquess who had just sat down, he rose to say a few words in explanation he would admit that in discussing the proceedings of the Unitarian party in Italy and considering their prospects, he had always lamented that Italy had hitherto been rather a geographical than a political name; that from all time, at the least from the time of Dante downwards, but long before, there had been animosity and divisions, not only between neighbouring states, but even between one city and town and another in its neigh-
40
bourhood; nay, even between different streets of the same town, so little did the Italians deserve the name of a united people. It was deeply to be lamented; but there seemed no help for it. There seemed no chance by means of war, by the assistance of Sardinia against Austria, or by any other means, of their obtaining union among themselves, and in the great body of the nation. But times have changed; and the fortunes of nations change with events. When the Italian war was discussed he had expressed his opinion of the objects of both the parties to the making it. Of France he would now say nothing. he would not recall to their remembrance the language he then used; either as to the time she commenced the war, or the pretences, or, as in courtesy he might say, the reasons for commencing it. As to Sardinia, and what in equal courtesy he would call the reasons she had put forward for engaging in a war with Austria, he had expressed more than doubts—more than even his suspicions, that the war said to be for the liberation of Italy was really entered into to obtain for Sardinia a part of the Austrian dominions. Of this Italian war he had expressed the reprobation which he might almost say was the feeling of every one in this country. In that war England had no share. England did all in her power to prevent the war; she did all in her power to induce Austria to join in negotiations that would have prevented hostilities. Unhappily, we did not succeed; Austria would not yield to those recommendations, but went on in her own course. In the hostilities that ensued, the defeat of Austria was complete. From the beginning to the end there was not a single battle in which the armies of Austria were not defeated. There was not a single action in which Sardinia and her Ally were not entirely successful. And after a fearful amount of slaughter, after the greatest possible misery had been inflicted on the people of the north of Italy, the result was, that Austria was driven from the greater part of her dominions. The Treaty of Villafranca accomplished nearly, but not altogether, the object which Sardinia had in commencing the war. She virtually obtained the greater part of the territory of Austria, the whole of Lombardy, all Austrian Italy, but the Venetian territories. Such was the result of this short and successful campaign. Then came a totally new state of things. Italy, that never before succeeded in uniting itself under one Government, was

41
at last free from foreign domination. They had not perhaps established an Italian Kingdom, but they had freed from foreign domination several of the petty Italian States. One, two, three or four of those States had successively allied themselves to Sardinia, or declared their desire to do so. And all that England could now wish was, that foreign interference with Italy should be prevented; that the Italians should be left to themselves, to fight their own battles, to form their own Government, and choose their own rulers as they thought fit, provided they did it without Austrian, French, or any other interference. His noble Friend (Lord Normanby) objected to the expressions in the speech, people of Italy, because he said there was no such people. Would his noble Friend take the plural instead of the singular, and allow him to say, the peoples of Italy? he had yet to learn why several different Italian States, or a group of those States, should not secure their own freedom without the interference of the foreigner, the Mo-denese assisting the Tuscans, and the Tuscans assisting the people of Parma. No one was originally more opposed than he was to the treaties of Vienna in 1814–15. he condemned them in the other House of Parliament over and over again; but after they became as it were the statute law of Europe, it was in vain to argue against them. When Charles Albert attacked Austria, some twelve years ago, we objected to his conduct, because it was calculated to disturb the distribution of kingdoms which had been effected in 1815. That attack failed, but it had since been repeated, and had been signally successful—a result due not to want of valour, of the greatest valour, on the part of the soldiers of Austria, but to the errors of her councils, which were as great as those of the Aulic Council, which marshalled the way to the victories of the First Napoleon, and to the incapacity of her generals, each of whom showed himself to be almost more unfit for command than his predecessor. It was to be hoped that the struggle would be succeeded by a settlement in which regard would, of course, in some degree, be had to the relative force of the parties engaged in the contest, but in which deference would also be paid to a consideration of what was just and fair. he would not say what were his hopes rather than his expectations, but he was not without some disposition to believe that the victors would act with justice and moderation. His
42
noble Friend had alluded to the expected treaty of commerce between this country and France. he had an old prejudice, if it be one, against commercial treaties, which was not wholly without effect in the present instance, thinking that duties ought to be levied or removed without regard to diplomatic views; but, nevertheless, he had loss objection to this treaty than to almost any other of the kind that he remembered; and he was quite convinced that the greatest possible advantage would result to France and some to ourselves from the commercial policy which the Emperor had announced his intention to pursue, and which he had no doubt would be carried much further. In France he had heard great objections to the treaty. It was pretended that all the benefits resulting from it would fall to England, and that France would derive but little advantage from its operation. he would not go the length of saying that it was a treaty wholly for the benefit of France, because he believed that England would gain considerably by it, but he was quite clear that our gain from its operation would be as nothing compared with that of France. Our gain was to be postponed for eighteen months; our neighbour's would be immediate. Our gain would he to a very small extent; theirs to a very large one. The outcry against the treaty reminded him of what had frequently occurred in this country. No step was ever taken in the direction of free trade, or of the removal of restrictions, that a clamour was not immediately raised by some party which, though numerically large, was not so in comparison with the rest of the community, but the members of which made up for their want of numbers by the violence with which they strained their throats; so that, to listen to them, any one would have thought all England was against the measure. Probably the most extensive,—in deference to some of his noble friends near him, he would not say clamour—he could hardly call it argument or even declamation,—but he would only say the most extensive utterance was that against the repeal of the corn laws; and yet we had lived to see the day when a real, genuine, uncompromising Protectionist could only find his proper place in one of our museums, among the relics of the ancient world, or the specimens of extinct animals. The commercial policy of the Emperor tended to promote the friendly feeling between the two countries. Tranquillity, too, pre-

43
vailed all over the Continent. The liberal policy now inaugurated by the French Government would tend to confirm and consolidate that peace. But, he had been asked in Paris, "If that be so, why do you go on arming?" In answer to that question he would remind his French friends of a proverb of their own:—"When it is fair weather, be sure to take your cloak with you; when it is foul weather, do as you please." At present all was peace. The storm had ceased, the wind no longer blew, the thunder, if it rolled at all, rolled at a distance, and the lightning was but sheet lightning, that glanced innocuous through the sky. Then according to the wise proverb, let us be prepared for all exigences. We lived in an armed world. There were prodigious armies all around us; armies of 500,000 men in one country, of 300,000 or 400,000 men in another; beside naval armaments, which were being increased, as they are told, in the time of peace. Who, moreover, could answer for the chapter of accidents, or predict what state of things might exist six years—aye, or six months hence? It was, therefore, absolutely necessary that we should be armed—he would not say to the teeth—but sufficiently to make all attacks upon us not only impossible to succeed, but impossible to be attempted. he had been in the north of England since Parliament was last prorogued. he there found that one question which once used to excite a very lively interest, he meant the question of Parliamentary reform, was asleep if not dead—dead even in Yorkshire, where it used to be quite a local question. But it was far otherwise with electoral corruption. he had taken the liberty, while among his old friends and constituents in that county, to chide them, and to chide them pretty severely, for the share they had in that corruption, some of the very worst cases of the kind having occurred in that quarter. he was zealously and constantly supported in all his references to that topic by those whom he had addressed, and they showed themselves as stoutly determined to put down by all possible means that curse of our representative system as he could have wished to see them. But the subject on which of all others there was the greatest earnestness and even enthusiasm, as well as the most perfect unanimity in those assemblages, was the defence of the country. Everywhere, and he found it the same in Northumberland as well as in his own county,
44
and in Lancashire, every where there was the most entire agreement as to the necessity, at all costs, at all pains, and all risks, of putting the country, by every means which human wisdom could devise and human activity employ, on a footing of perfect and absolute security.
THE MARQUESS OF NORMANBYwas understood to remark that Sardinia ought not to have any influence in the final settlement of the Italian question, but that the people ought to be left to declare their wishes without any extraneous influence.
THE EARL OF DERBY:—My Lords, I do no not recollect any occasion on which a Speech from the Throne, touching on such a variety of important tropics, was treated in debate with greater silence by Her Majesty's Ministers than we have seen preserved by them in this instance. The noble Mover and Seconder of the Address, no doubt, made very excellent speeches; but, unfortunately, I was unable, from the tone of voice in which they spoke, to hear more than a word here and there of the one, and not a syllable perfectly of the other. And notwithstanding the great variety and importance of the subjects adverted to in Her Majesty's Speech, we have heard from Her Majesty's Ministers not one single word in the course of this discussion, except the few remarks which fell from the noble Duke opposite, in reply to the statements on the Amendment moved with great ability by the noble Earl. Of many of the topics referred to in the Queen's Speech no notice whatever has been taken by any preceding speaker; and I am not going, more than by a single word, to deviate from the course which others have followed. Even on those subjects to which our attention has been called, and on which I shall have to make a few observations, I trust I shall be able to confine myself within very moderate limits; for, as far as this discussion has gone, there does not seem to be any very serious difference of opinion between those who sit on different sides of this House. Certainly, among the great variety of topics which have been entirely passed over, I am not surprised that no notice should have been taken of the treaty concluded with the Tycoon of Japan, or of the Treaty regarding boundaries which has been entered into with the Republic of Guatemala—a very important subject, nevertheless, and one likely to have a very important influence on the serious questions pending between! this country and the United States. I do

45
not suppose that the silence with respect to those treaties arises from the fact that they were begun by the predecessors of Her Majesty's present Government, because the ratifications have been exchanged since the present Ministry came into office. But I certainly thought it probable that greater attention would have been paid, in the course of this debate, to proceedings which at one time threatened to lead to very grave consequences, consequences which, however, have been averted—as is most truly stated in the Speech—by the judicious forbearance and admirable behaviour of the naval and civil officers of Her Britannic Majesty in the neighbourhood of Vancouvers Island. I must also do justice to the conciliatory spirit in which the representations of our Government on this subject were met by the Government of the United States; and I can only concur in the earnest hope that the questions out of which this difference has arisen "may be amicably settled, in a manner conformable with the just rights of the two countries." There is, my Lords, another subject with regard to which I have listened to the remarks made to-night with unfeigned astonishment. Up to the present moment I certainly did expect to hear, even in your Lordships' House, some more complimentary mention than has yet been made of the question of Parliamentary Reform; but since the commencement of this debate the only hint we have had that this subject is under consideration, or has ever been discussed, fell from my noble and learned Friend who has just sat down, and who emphatically assured us that, from one end to the other of an important district, where there used to be a pretty extensive reforming element—as the noble and learned Lord in former days had reason to know—he did not find a single person who cared one farthing about reform. I had certainly thought that the zeal and enthusiasm on that question was not quite so great as has been represented, and I have seen hints tending to throw a wet blanket over it emanating from quarters of great eminence; but I was not prepared for the sweeping and unqualified statement of the noble and learned Lord as to the public indifference in respect to a subject which Her Majesty has recommended more than once to the careful consideration of her Parliament. I can only say, my Lords, that if Parliament proceeds to consider the question in the same cool and dispassionate spirit with which the people of York-
46
shire and Lancashire appear to treat it there is little apprehension of any very serious danger to the constitution, or of any very revolutionary principle being introduced into the Bill of the Government. Now, having just touched on some points to which no attention has been called, there are others on which I am sure but one feeling must pervade all classes of Her Majesty's subjects, and that is, a feeling of universal satisfaction and gratitude to Providence for the happy prospects which Her Majesty is able to hold forth in the Speech from the Throne. I am sure all must deeply rejoice when Her Majesty states that "the great interests of the country are generally in a sound and thriving condition, that pauperism and crime have diminished, and that throughout the whole of my empire, both in the United Kingdom and in my Colonies and possessions beyond sea, there reigns a spirit of loyalty, of contentment, of order, and of obedience to the law." I say, every one must rejoice to hear such language from the Throne, and more especially as I believe in my conscience, with the exception of an ebullition of some little animated Irish feeling, the statement may be taken to be tolerably correct. No one, I repeat, can hear such a statement, which Her Majesty was justified in making to Parliament, without the most lively satisfaction and gratitude. Nor is it a less gratifying subject for congratulation, that by a mixture of firmness and humanity, by listening to the dictates of justice and policy, as well as by the combined devotion and energy of our troops, an end has not only been put to that- formidable insurrection which so long disturbed our Indian empire, but there exists a reasonable expectation that the restoration of peace will be followed by good and friendly feeling between the Government and the Native Princes and a steady increase in the prosperity and welfare of Her Majesty's subjects in India. I cannot bnt rejoice to think that these happy results have been materially assisted by the adoption of the spirit of a proclamation which Her Majesty was advised to issue, of a policy at once just, generous, and conciliatory, and dealing, more especially with the revolted subjects of Oude, in a temper and manner more in accordance with that recommended by my noble Friend (the Earl of Ellen-borough), who then filled the office of President of the Board of Control, than that which, whether rightly or wrongly, we had been led to apprehend was contemplated

47
by the Governor-General of India. It is due, however, to that noble Earl to say that in his actual dealings with the talook-dars of Oude he has combined with justice a wise and well-considered policy; and I believe that by his clemency, generosity, and more especially by his regard for territorial rights, he has done more to re-establish and maintain an empire in that part of India than could have been effected by all the measures of repression which any Government could devise or any army enforce. There is one other subject of congratulation, to which I gladly take this opportunity of referring. I cannot but rejoice that Her Majesty has been advised to express in the Speech from the Throne the gratification and pride with which she has received such extensive offers of voluntary service from her people. I think that expression was due to the spirit of loyalty and patriotism which has been manifested by all ranks and classes in the country in defence of Her Majesty's Crown. I trust in God that the service of my countrymen will never be required, for there is only one occasion on which such service can be rendered; but at the same time that does not diminish the merit due to the spirit in which they have come forward or diminish the value of the service they have thus rendered by its tender under present circumstances; for I am perfectly certain that with regard to our influence abroad, as well as our security at home nothing could produce a greater or more powerful effect than the spontaneous, universal burst of patriotic devotion which has shown that with all our wealth and with all our commercial anxieties and rivalries they will not for a single moment be put in the scale in comparison with the safety of our beloved country from the horrible prospect of invasion, from whatever quarter it may come. There are three topics, and only three, on which comments have been made in this discussion, and to which I would now allude. They are all of them most extensive and important; far too important and extensive for me to do more than allude to them in this discussion. The first of these questions is the Commercial Treaty, with regard to which it is rather singular that Her Majesty's Speech has not been able to furnish us with the latest information. Her Majesty's Speech says:—
"I am in communication with the Emperor of the French, with a view to extend the commercial intercourse between the two countries, and thus to draw still closer the bonds of friendly alliance between them."
48
The fact, I believe, is that at the time we are speaking the treaty to which Her Majesty thus vaguely refers as the result of these communications has actually been signed at Paris. Among the few words I was able to collect from the noble Lord who seconded the Address was an expression in the terms of which I wholly concur, though I fear in a somewhat different sense from that in which he used it. The noble seconder of the Address has told us, he hardly knew in what terms to express his gratitude for the reductions in the tariff announced in Her Majesty's Speech. Now, I hardly know in what terms to express my gratification, but for a different reason, because I really do not know what the reductions are, or what is to be the extent of the sacrifices we are to be called on to make for these advantages. Being wholly unknown to me, I am unable, in adequate terms, to describe them; but I must confess that so far as I do know them I do not consider them a matter for unmixed congratulation. I have my doubts whether the peculiar time at which this treaty is signed, as being well calculated on by the Government and their friends across the water, is likely to produce a very favourable impression on the public mind; and all I can hope is, that the public mind in England will be well informed as to the nature of the arrangement before conclusions are formed as to the advantages to be received from it. I don't hesitate for a single moment to say, that the extension of commercial intercourse between this country and France is an object of the greatest national importance to both countries; and I should rejoice to see any opportunity taken for legitimately extending that trade, believing as I do that the extension of commercial intercourse, though it cannot he a complete preservative against the hazard of war between the two countries, must always exercise a great moral influence in indisposing both Frenchmen and the people of this country unnecessarily or rashly to enter into a war, and more especially as our commerce with France has certainly been much more restricted than might be desired or expected, considering the relative position of these countries and their means of supplying each other with the articles they respectively require. I sincerely and cordially rejoice in anything likely to extend the commercial intercourse between this country and France; but with regard to the terms on which this treaty proceeds, and the mode in which the Go-

49
vernment have come to it. I must forbear expressing, nay, I must postpone even the formation of an opinion until I know more about it. The noble Earl who moved the Amendment discussed this subject with his usual ability and freedom. he laid down most distinctly and clearly the principles of free trade as he understands them, and no doubt he most accurately and most properly laid them down. he also drew a broad, clear, intelligible distinction between the principles of free trade—as he contended for them—and the principles of the extension of commercial intercourse through the medium of treaties of reciprocity or commercial treaties of any kind. I am not about to enter on a discussion of the abstract merits of the two principles. I do not at all dispute the proposition laid down by the noble Earl, that it is for the advantage of any country to make such reductions of duties as shall, consistently with its general interests and the purposes of revenue, enable its population to obtain articles of primary necessity on easy terms, irrespective altogether of corresponding reductions in the tariff of foreign countries as affecting its manufactures. But, on the other hand. I am not prepared to say, that there may not be occasions, and many occasions too, on which you may obtain essential advantages for the manufactures of your own country on condition of conceding similar advantages to the manufactures of other countries, and consequently the conferring of these advantages on the manufactures of other countries may be made a most powerful instrument in your hand for obtaining reciprocal advantages from other countries. But it appears to me that the Government has pursued a most extraordinary course on this subject, because the noble Lords opposite, condemning the principle of reciprocity and commercial treaties altogether, now enter into a commercial treaty giving advantages on one side in consideration of advantages on another. And when do they do it? At a time when no step whatever is taken by the country seeking these advantages from us, and when we have made almost every concession to the commerce of France it is possible for us to make. We first of all give away freely almost all we have to give, and having given away everything we then go to barter on the principle of commercial reciprocity, which they all along condemn. They first give away almost all they have, and then deal with their customers on the principle of ex-
50
change. I do not know, I have no means of knowing, what advantages we are to obtain, or what sacrifices we are to make; but, with regard to this treaty, if I am rightly informed, the conditions in the first place, as stated to-night, and not denied on the other side, are that on the one side the advantages we are to give are to come into operation immediately, whereas the corresponding reductions to be granted on the other side are not to come into operation for a period of eighteen months. I pass by the question that the articles which are about to be admitted into France at a lower rate of duty than is at present the case are those very articles which are of vital importance to her, more especially for warlike purposes, and shall content myself with simply observing that among the manufactures which she will, under the operation of the treaty, take from us—if, indeed, the term manufactures is applicable to them at all—are those very articles which require the least amount of skill and labour to be applied in their adaptation to use: whereas the article which we shall receive from France is a staple commodity of that country, the production of which involves the longest industrial occupation in which the French people are engaged. But if there be objections upon general grounds to the principle of a commercial treaty, I think those objections acquire considerably increased force in the case of a treaty such as that of which I am speaking, regulating as it does the precise amount of duty to be paid on certain articles; and if ever there was a time when the Government of this country ought to be cautious in committing itself to the reduction of a duty which now produces a revenue of nearly £2,000,000—the exact sum, I believe, is 1,800,000 and odd pounds—that time is surely the present, when, in connection with the loss of revenue thus created, the enormous demands which in all probability must be made upon the Exchequer, for objects the most vital and necessary, ought to be taken into consideration. It is, therefore, my Lords, that I cannot help regarding it as, under those circumstances, a most unfortunate policy to bind yourself to a large reduction of duty on an article of simple luxury by entering into a treaty by which, supposing it should not answer your expectations in a financial point of view, you would still be bound, and without the power of retracing your steps. Recollect that we are at this moment on a friendly footing with France.

51
The language contained in the Speech from the Throne is, nevertheless, significant. It contains nothing of the ordinary phraseology about a "due regard to economy." It, on the contrary, informs us that "the estimates have been prepared with a view to place the military and naval services and the defences of the country upon an efficient footing." Well, my Lords, that is, no doubt, a most admirable and necessary object, but it is an object the attainment of which will, I apprehend, render it difficult to effect any diminution of taxation. It is, indeed, far more probable that the taxation of the country must, as a consequence, undergo a considerable increase. Bear in mind that the income-tax was to have expired in the course of the present year. No man, however, now entertains a hope that such will be the case. The tax will have to be reimposed by the very Chancellor of the Exchequer who made it a sine quâ non of his financial policy that in 1860 it should die a natural death. Bear in mind also that if you reduce the duty on wines you are guilty of a gross injustice to the great bulk of your countrymen in maintaining the present duty on malt and upon hops. Recollect that the use of these two articles is likely to undergo diminution in proportion to the extent to which French wines are consumed. You are, therefore, in reducing the duty on wine, exposing yourselves to the risk of a double loss—the loss which would arise from the fact that the increased consumption of the one article would not be equal to the falling off in that of the others which I have just mentioned, and also the additional loss that must accrue, if you mean to deal with any degree of justice in the matter, by the reduction of the duty on malt and that upon hops. Her Majesty's Government, moreover, have not, I hope, forgotten that the war duties upon tea and sugar are at present in force. Are there, let me ask, any articles of consumption on which it is more desirable that the duties imposed should be at the earliest possible period reduced? I shall be surprised, indeed, but not more surprised than gratified, to learn that simultaneously with the reduction of the duties on wine, Her Majesty's Government find themselves in a position to diminish also the duties upon tea and sugar; but to reduce all those duties, or to take off any considerable amount of income tax, is impossible without having recourse to the imposition of other taxes to
52
supply their places, and it is expedient, I think, that the imposition of those new taxes should obtain the sanction of Parliament before we give our assent to the treaty in question. Upon this subject, therefore, I can only say that while I concur in the policy of extending trade by all legitimate means, I am not yet prepared to maintain that this treaty of commerce is one which affords matter for congratulation to the people of this country, or one which they can with advantage accept; and I think it not improbable that, unless some explanation of the treaty very different from any which we have already heard be furnished by Her Majesty's Government, they will be very much disappointed in their expectations as to the effect which it is calculated to have on the public mind. I now proceed to the consideration of the question in connection with which an Amendment to the Address has been moved by the noble Earl opposite (Earl Grey). I allude to the unfortunate occurrences which have recently taken place in China. It is not, however, my intention on this occasion, to touch, even in the slightest degree, upon the merits or demerits of the policy which has led to our present position in that country. I am quite aware that great allowances must be made in judging of the conduct of any public servant who happens to be placed in a situation of so much difficulty and embarrassment as was the case with our officers in China, and who, under delicate circumstances, the nature of which could not have been foreseen by the writer of his instructions, is called upon to rely entirely on his own resources and his own discretion. Such allowance must, I think, be made for Mr. Brucein dealing with the question of the policy of forcing the passage of the Peiho. It is at the same time due to my noble Friend near me (the Earl of Malmesbury), who held the seals of the Foreign Office under the late Administration, to state that, although he allowed Mr. Bruce a large latitude—a latitude which was, in my opinion, most properly continued to him, and the continuance of which was amply justified by the manner in which he discharged the important duties which devolved upon him—yet neither my noble Friend nor the Government of which he was a Member could contemplate the occurrence of such a state of things as Mr. Bruce found upon his arrival in China, while the course which he pursued is certainly not capable of being justified by the

53
instructions which he received at our hands. Whether it is capable of justification by other instructions or on other grounds I am not now in a position to say. A grave question in connection with this point has been raised by the noble Earl who moved the Amendment. It is one, too, I am bound to say, which it is not easy to answer in the affirmative. That question is, whether all the blame of those unfortunate transactions which occurred at the mouth of the Peiho is to be thrown entirely upon the Chinese, and whether we ourselves are exempt from all charge of precipitation and imprudence in connection with the matter? The point is one which I do not now wish to discuss. We shall, in all probability, have at no distant day fuller information and more ample means to enable us to do justice to a subject so important and of such great extent. There is, however, one topic in connection with it which I must not pass over on the present occasion. It is a topic which I am sorry to find has not received publicly, whatever may be the case privately, that attention which it seems to me to fairly deserve. I now allude to the heroic conduct which was displayed by the Admiral and the seamen who were engaged in the conflict which took place at the mouth of the Peiho. In referring to that conduct your Lordships will, I am sure, concur with me in the justice of the sentiment that the meed of praise and honour is not to be the meed of success alone. I may add, that unsuccessful though this unfortunate expedition to the mouth of the Peiho may have been, I know of no other in which the daring gallantry and perseverance of British seamen and British troops have ever been more signally exhibited than in that unhappy encounter. I feel assured, too, that these brave men who have suffered so severely in person and in mind from the failure of their expedition will have justice done them by their fellow-countrymen, who, whatever they may think of the policy of the proceeding, will not fail to pay the tribute of their admiration to those unparalleled efforts by which success was sought to be attained, and which, even in the midst of defeat, were of a character nobly to maintain the national honour. The gallant officer who was chief in command of the expedition—Admiral Hope— received a most severe wound on the occasion; and the manner in which, after receiving it, he shifted his flag from one ship to the other, constantly placing him-
54
self in those positions most exposed to danger, furnishes, in my opinion, an example of almost unmatched devotion to his duty, and of an heroic bravery which cannot be surpassed by anything, even in the annals of the British naval service. Now, the noble Earl opposite (Earl Grey) has, in the course of this discussion, called our attention to what he considers! to be the neglect of Her Majesty's Government in not immediately, upon the receipt of the intelligence of those events, calling Parliament together for the purpose of consulting it as to the course which ought to be pursued; and it is, undoubtedly, under ordinary circumstances the duty of the Ministers of the Crown to take no step so serious as that which involves their country in war without seizing the earliest opportunity to secure—if possible even before taking so serious a step—the sanction of the Legislature to the course which they desired to pursue. I doubt not, moreover, that if Parliament happened to be sitting at the time, the Government would have availed themselves of the earliest opportunity to bring the whole subject of the war with China under our notice. The noble Earl opposite, however, seems to think that it was equally their duty to take this course, even though Parliament was not assembled. Now, in that respect, I do not altogether concur in the view to which the noble Earl has given expression. There are other matters which must be taken into consideration in determining upon such a point, and other motives which might render the calling together of the Members of the Legislature on such occasions a matter of difficulty. I am also disposed to give some weight to the argument of the noble Duke (the Duke of Newcastle) that this is not, in point of fact, the first declaration of war with the Chinese. Hostilities had been previously sanctioned by Parliament, as I think most unfortunately. Not that I think we had no cause of complaint with the Chinese; but I thought the Government acted with great imprudence in sanctioning the act of an officer on the spot, who took on himself to decide for the Government whether there was or was not a sufficient cause for war. We never had since been really at peace with China, because peace has never been ratified by that Power. We continued then in the state, not of war, but of hostilities with China. But I must take the liberty of saying that that fact disposes of another argument of the noble Duke opposite, for if we were at war the

55
Chinese were fully justified in strengthening their ports, and if we were not at war there was no occasion nor justification for our destroying them. I dissent altogether from the opinion laid down that we had a perfect right to force our way up the Chinese river. On the question of right there was nothing whatever said in the treaty as regards the manner in which we should go to Tien-tsin. We were informed that harriers had been placed at the entrance to the river and that resistance would he offered to our passage; and under those circumstances we had no more right to force our way up that river than, as had been happily said in the course of the debate, a French squadron would have to force its way up the Thames with an Ambassador, accompanied by an armed escort. But the important point to which I wish to call the attention of Her Majesty's Government is this. We call on the Chinese to respect international rights and the usages of civilization. Be we expect them to deal with us in accordance with our views of those matters? I entreat the Government to take care that we deal the same measure to the Chinese which we require at their hands; and that if hostilities are to be renewed they shall be renewed on a more regular footing than hostilities were formerly waged against that people. I had some experience upon this subject during the time I had the honour of holding office, of the extreme difficulty and embarrassment to which this country might be exposed in consequence of an irregular mode of carrying on a war. Without a declaration of war we have no right to introduce a blockade, to force our way up the rivers of another power, to establish a prize court, or to capture a single vessel. We learn that at present the United States and Russia have had commercial advantages secured to them by treaties with China. I entreat the Government to consider what will be the consequences if, without a declaration of war, should it be necessary to resort to hostilities—which I earnestly trust it may not be—we, undertaking a blockade of the Chinese rivers, stop a vessel belonging to the United States or to Russia in the prosecution of a legitimate trade. Your blockade will be treated as wholly illegal, for illegal it will be, and you will be answerable for all the consequences of an irregular seizure. I hope, therefore, that by prudence and judgment the calamities of a protracted war with China, the results of which no human being can
56
foresee, may be avoided; but should hostilities be inevitable, I trust the Government will take care that they are carried on, so far as we are concerned, in accordance with the usages of civilized countries. I admit, where any great party object is to be attained, it is a legitimate course to take advantage of the Address with that view; but not seeing in the tone of the Speech any cause for a serious difference of opinion, and not concurring with the noble Earl in the strong views he has expressed as to the laches alleged to have been committed by the Government with regard to calling Parliament together, I shall not be able to support his Amendment with my vote in the event of his pressing it to a division. I think, apart from the constitutional view of the case, it is rather a fortunate circumstance that Parliament was not called together on the receipt of the disastrous intelligence from China, because from the feeling which that intelligence excited in the country, Parliament—then imperfectly acquainted with the facts — might have been carried away in the adoption of a course, which in cooler moments and on a calmer consideration of the merits of the case they might not have been inclined to take. If I now touch upon another question it is rather with the view of eliciting some information from Her Majesty's Government which we do not at present possess than of discussing the merits of any particular course. Some suspicion has been excited in my mind by the introduction of a word into the part of the Speech relating to our sending a representative to the approaching Congress. I trust that expression does actually mean what at first sight it may be supposed to mean. I see we are promised that papers on that subject will "soon" be laid on the table. I have had some experience with reference to the production of papers, particularly by the noble Viscount now at the head of the Government, and I know there is a degree of latitude and elasticity about his movements in that respect, which would rather lead me to infer that the use of the word "soon" in that part of the Speech points to a remote rather than to an early fulfilment of the promise. Yet, in the present position of affairs, some information as to the views and policy of the Government ought to be furnished without delay; because we have been lately in a worse position than if we had received no information. We have had information, some of it anonymous, some of a semi-

57
official character, and some on an authority so high as to place it beyond dispute. Now, I must say when Parliament is ever disposed to press any Government for the production of papers, and when the Government states that the production of such papers at a particular time would he inconvenient, that is an excuse which is readily admitted; but I do think at the present period, when we have been obliged to take such information as we had from telegrams, many of them of high authority, from newspapers, and last of all from Imperial letters, Her Majesty's Government should set the public mind at rest by producing their own version of the actual state of things. I find it stated in the Speech at the close of the last Session that overtures had been made to Her Majesty with a view to ascertain whether, if Conferences should be held by the Great Powers of Europe for the purpose of settling arrangements connected with the present state and future condition of Italy, a Plenipotentiary would be sent by Her Majesty to assist at such Conferences; but Her Majesty went on to say that she had not yet received the information necessary to enable her to decide whether Her Majesty may think fit to take part in any such negotiations. I should like, therefore, to hear from the Government the precise nature of that proposition, and under what conditions the assent of Her Majesty had since been given to it. It has been also stated, in some of those sources of information to which I have referred, and I have not seen it denied, that, as long ago as August, Her Majesty's Government proposed to the Government of the Emperor of Prance, in the absence of a Congress, separate negotiations on the affairs of Italy between England and France, setting aside the other great Powers. What answer was given to that proposition at that time we have no means of knowing; but I believe there is no doubt that within the course of the present month—not from Her Majesty's Government, but from that of the Emperor of France — a proposition was made for a separate negotiation by England and France on the affairs of Italy, unconnected with the other Powers; but that —whether by a unanimous vote of the Cabinet or otherwise we know not, though Cabinets are always supposed to be unanimous—proposition was declined, and declined on the ground that such an alliance might be offensive to the other Powers, or might give rise to suspicion, and that,
58
as Parliament was about to meet, it was not deemed expedient to take such a step until it had met, and both Houses had had an opportunity to consider the question. The reason why I advert to this is, that the paragraph in the Speech from the Throne would seem to indicate a probability that the Congress may never take place; yet I trust some member of the Government will explain how they mean, either "in Congress or in separate negotiation," to secure for the people of Italy freedom from foreign interference by force of arms in their internal concerns. These words appear to me to lead to the inference— especially when connected with the previous proposition to which I have referred—that now Parliament has met, and supposing the Congress to fail, the question of a separate intervention of France and England in the affairs of Italy has not been dropped, but may be again renewed. I wish, therefore, to have a full explanation of what is meant by a "separate negotiation for the settlement of the affairs of Italy, and for preventing the intervention by force of arms of any other country in the internal affairs of Italy." I beg your Lordships and the Government to consider the serious consequences to which an agreement like this might lead. If you bind yourselves to France by any engagement to prevent foreign armed intervention on the part of any other Power you tie yourselves to the heel of France, and may find yourselves bound to support her in whatever she may attempt to establish in Italy by any mode other than by force of arms. If France should establish a state of things in Italy calculated to excite the not unnatural jealousy of other Powers, and those other Powers should attempt to interfere with the view of preventing it, if you were to bind yourselves by such a treaty as I have referred to, you would be compelled to join with France whether she had acted rightly or wrongly, in order to stop the intervention of those Powers by force of arms. Now, foreign intervention in the affairs of Italy has been denounced in this and the other House of Parliament in the strongest terms. If there is one principle more recognized than another in this country it is that every State has an undoubted right to settle its own internal affairs at its own will and pleasure, whether with regard to the constitution it may wish to have, or the dynasty it may desire to establish, and that without the intervention of any foreign

59
country. When I say this I am only stating what is the feeling of every Englishman. It is a principle which has, generally speaking, been steadily maintained by us. Even the great war consequent on the French Revolution was no departure from that principle, because that war was undertaken not in consequence of what had been done in France, but in consequence of what was done in France being deemed dangerous to the peace and tranquillity of other countries. There was, no doubt, a deviation from this principle in one particular instance, but that deviation has proved utterly ineffective—I mean the resolution which bound the Powers of Europe to prevent in all time coming a member of the family of Bonaparte from sitting on the throne of France. The Emperor who now sits on the throne of France, by the voice of the French people, has afforded an opportunity of enforcing this article of the Treaty of Vienna, and there is not a single Power in Europe that has ventured to do so, or to call in question the right of the people of France to elect their own ruler. I say not only that every country has a right to settle its internal affairs without foreign armed interference, but that it must be done without foreign assistance; and I am sure that, much as we may desire to see the independence of Italy secured, every one of us would join in saying this, that they ought to attain their own freedom,—that if they wish to place themselves under a constitutional Government they must achieve that great object, not by foreign assistance, but by their own unaided efforts. I go still further, and say that they must be strong reasons indeed which would justify other Powers in taking away any portion of territory from a particular country. Undoubtedly there are cases in which the transfer of a portion of territory from one country to another may be not only at variance with previous engagements, but may involve consequences so serious and dangerous as to render it a matter of universal European interest. If a State already powerful should seek to obtain from another, even with the consent of the people, a new line of frontier which, though not of large extent in point of territory, might be of great value in respect to the construction of fortifications, that would be a condition with regard to which not only the people to be transferred would be entitled to a voice, but which would give good grounds to the other countries of Europe for the gravest protest and remonstrance.
60
Applying this to the present state of affairs in Italy, I would observe that we were anxious in this country to prevent the war that ultimately broke out. So long as that rupture did not actually take place, so long as we were able to appeal to those treaties by which the various States of Europe were bound; and no man laid down more strongly than the French Emperor himself, that so long as Austria confined herself within the limits of those possessions secured to her by the treaty of Vienna he would recognize her rights, and had no power to interfere. But unhappily, and in an evil hour, Austria threw away her chance. I do not mean to say that she might not have had provocation to do as she did; but, unhappily for herself, she took the initiative, and the result was that she lost her possessions in Lombardy. By the treaty she has concluded with France she was compelled to make a sacrifice of a portion of her dominions. We are all familiar with the great evils that have arisen to Italy from the constant contests, not for the independence of Italy, but of the rival Powers of France and Austria to possess influence in that country. No doubt Austria had a perfect right to enter into treaties with the smaller States of Italy, and to afford them protection; but those treaties naturally excited the jealousy of other Powers, because by them, owing to the relative position of Austria and those minor States, the independence of the one was sacrificed in proportion as the other became a protector. But the provisions of those treaties which were most injurious, and by the sacrifice of which Austria might have retained her dominions, were those by which she not only guaranteed the Governments of the smaller States against external aggression, but against their own subjects. It was a violation of every right principle that the Governments of those States should be entitled to demand the assistance of Austria against their own people, and the refusal of Austria to concede this point naturally excited the opposition of other Powers. As to the state of things at Rome, I hope the noble Earl opposite will be able to give us satisfactory assurances on that subject, inasmuch as statements have been made that in my mind seriously impugn the position of Her Majesty's Government in regard to this subject. There has been, as your Lordships are aware, a remarkable correspondence between the Emperor of the French and the Pope, re-

61
cently made public. The Pope has been told by the Emperor of the French that if he would give up the revolted provinces, not that he might hope or expect to be guaranteed, but that he should be guaranteed by the other Powers in his other possessions. I will not enter into the vexed question of the temporal power of the Pope. It is said by Roman Catholics that the maintenance of the temporal power of the Pope is absolutely essential to the maintenance of his spiritual power. That is not the question which the country has at the present moment to consider. No doubt, the spiritual power of the Pope is of great importance to all Roman Catholics, and if they believe that the temporal power of the Pope, although it was not considered necessary by St. Peter himself, is necessary for the maintenance of his spiritual power, I cannot question the sincerity of their anxiety that the Pope's temporal power should remain undisturbed. I can understand that for the due exercise of his high spiritual power, it is important the Pope should be placed beyond a suspicion of being controlled or influenced by any temporal Power, and that he should be, indeed, practically independent. But I ask any human being whether, during the course of the last ten or fifteen years, the Pope has been practically independent? Up to a late period, we have seen one portion of his territory defended by one Power, and another portion by another Power. One portion was ill maintained by the troops of one of these Powers, and the instant they were withdrawn, those provinces were in revolt. Now, I am not arguing as to what shall be done, or what steps shall be taken, but I say that this country can look upon the Sovereign Pontiff in no other light than it would look upon any other Sovereign whatever; and the same principles must be applied to him, as to other Sovereigns, as between himself and his subjects. Viewed in this light, his dynasty is capable of being overthrown, the constitution of his kingdom may be modified by the free will of his subjects, and no foreign Power has the right to interfere with the action of the Pope and his subjects. My Lords, these are the opinions and principles that ought to be acted upon throughout the whole of the Italian States. They are free to choose their own Government and their own constitution; but that constitution must be established of their own free will and under
62
no foreign influence, domination, or interference. I should like to know from the Government, that with regard to these principles they have followed out that line of strict neutrality which was chalked out for them by their predecessors. I acquit them of any of that pro-Austrian tendency that was so liberally imputed to the late Government, because the course taken by Her Majesty's Government cannot be charged with any violation of neutrality in favour of the Austrian cause. But I ask the Government, who professedly desire that the Italian States should settle their affairs for themselves, on what ground one French army at the present moment occupies Lombardy, and another French army occupies Rome? Is that leaving it to the States of Lombardy and Rome to settle their own affairs according to their own free and unbiassed will? The Austrians have been withdrawn from the Roman States and Lombardy; they have crossed the Mincio, and Lombardy has been ceded to France, and by France handed over to Sardinia. Why, then, do the French troops remain in Lombardy, unless it is that there is some lurking apprehension that if the presence of the French troops is withdrawn from the Milanese or the Roman States, some manifestation of feeling would follow which might not be in accordance with the wish of the Sovereign who has sent those troops? The first step towards the due exercise by Italians of those rights which we admit them to possess, must be the withdrawal of foreign Powers and foreign interference, and then Sovereign and subjects will be free to exercise their constitutional rights without interference. We are now either to have a Congress or a separate negotiation for settling the affairs of Italy. How is that Congress to be carried out? What course are the separate negotiations to take? How the decisions of the Congress or the separate negotiations are to be enforced I do not understand. I object to any interference by England if it can possibly be helped in the settlement of a question in which she has no direct or immediate interest. I believe that it is in consequence of our having kept aloof from these embarrassments and from any interference that we have attained to the high position in which we now stand, and which has caused the opinion and the moral force of England to be looked up to, and given her the most powerful influence with all

63
parties engaged in this contest. I admit, with the noble Earl, that there may be steps in regard to the recent changes which ought to have the assent of the Powers who were parties to the Treaty of Vienna. I do not say that we are not to go under any circumstances to a Congress. I only say that you ought to go into a Congress with the basis of negotiations clearly and strictly defined. I object to entering upon a Congress upon the vague and loose terms in which it is described in the Queen's Speech —namely, for the purpose of deliberating with eight Powers who were parties to the Treaty of Vienna, and three others who were not, as to the pacification of Italy, without laying down beforehand clearly and precisely the points on which the opinions of that Congress are to be taken. I protest against this country being bound by the acts of a Congress which may not only bind us to active interference, but to acquiesce in the principles and policy that may be laid down by the majority of the Powers who may be parties to that Congress. Last year the state of things was widely different. There were then no dynastic changes in agitation. There was then a hope that war might be prevented, and certain definite propositions previously agreed upon were laid down between the contending parties, to be submitted to the Congress. Even that Congress was not to take upon itself to do more than decide the questions submitted to it, and to give advice to parties whom it had a right to counsel with regard to the future government of those States. If the Congress does take place, of which, at present, I see little pro Lability, I do not say we ought to refuse to go to it; but, unless I could see some fair prospect of such a result from its deliberations as this country could conscientiously and honourably sanction, and which would accord with public opinion, I think it would be far better not to go into it all. It would be better not to enter the Congress than to have to raise an ineffectual protest, or else to retire from it in the undignified position of being overruled by a council to which we had ourselves submitted our case. I have, I fear, detained your Lordships too long, but I thought it right to lay down the principles of policy which I consider applicable to this and other occasions. My object has been to elicit from the Government whether there is any truth in the statements which have been made as to the advice they have given, and offers they
64
have made, in what position they stand at present to the other Powers of Europe, and what is the policy they are prepared to recommend.
EARL GRANVILLE: I was hardly prepared to hear a complaint that only one member of the Government had spoken in this debate. As long as Her Majesty's Government do not shrink from defending their opinions when they are attacked, I think it is better that they should not monopolize the whole debate, but that they should give an opportunity to independent Peers on both sides to take a share in it, instead of jumping up, one after an other, to say the same thing over and over again. At the same time, I feel, after the speech of the noble Earl, that it is quite necessary for me to make a few observations, though I am afraid at this hour of the evening many of your Lordships must be disposed to deprecate any extension of the debate, and would prefer not to have another member of the Government address you. I will make but a few remarks, though I must take longer than I should like if I can remember only a fifth of the numerous questions which the noble Earl addressed to me. Among the minor topics upon which the noble Earl began by touching were the treaties with Japan and Guatemala. For the first of these he, perhaps very naturally, claimed some credit to his Government; as to the other—an excellent treaty in its way—when I tell you that it was negotiated under the instructions of one Government, made during the tenor of another, and ratified by a third, I think you will admit that the proportion of merit to be claimed by the noble Earl is not so great as he would wish your Lordships to believe. Another subject adverted to by the noble Earl was the subject of Parliamentary reform, which he treated with considerable humour, citing the speech of a noble and learned Lord as an instance of the want of excitement and enthusiasm on this subject.
THE EARL OF DERBY: I did not take it up myself, but merely used the language of the noble Lord.
EARL GRANVILLE: A great deal of stress has been laid by the noble Earl on the intelligence which appeared in the shape of newspaper telegrams, and through the same source we learned recently that the noble Earl had been taking part in a convivial meeting of some of his supporters at Manchester, and the pith of the speech he made to them was that he would support a very

65
substantial reform, and that the question must be settled during the present Session. Now, I flatter myself that the measure which Her Majesty's Government will shortly be prepared to bring before the House will merit the title of a substantial reform.
THE EARL OF DERBY: I never used the word "substantial." If the noble Earl is anxious to know what I really did say, I may tell him it was just this,—that I thought it important that the question of reform should be settled during the present Session, and that if the Government brought forward a fair, temperate, and reasonable measure—such as I apprehended they would— they would have no reason to anticipate hostility from those who generally sat opposite to them, but, on the contrary, I should be very glad to give them my support, and settle the question.
EARL GRANVILLE: I am delighted to hear the noble Earl's resolution, and can only say that I have been deluded, like himself, by the report of a telegram. I cordially concur in the very just compliment which the noble Earl next paid to the volunteer movement in this country— a movement which has met with the cordial encouragement and support of Her Majesty's Government. There is only one perfect test by which to measure the utility of this movement, and that is an invasion of our shores, which I trust and believe, though, of course, one cannot be certain on that point, will never take place. That this movement will be of the greatest use I cannot for a moment doubt, but of how muchuse will depend on a variety of circumstances— on how steadily the volunteers go on in the same spirited, resolute way in which they began, and are now engaged in perfecting their training for the work they have undertaken, on the degree of organization applied to this large force, on the discipline and obedience displayed by them, and on the readiness of officers of the regular army to avail themselves of this powerful instrument, placed ready to their hands. Though I have no doubt in my own mind of what will be the result, this is, as yet, only a matter of conjecture, and has never been put to the proof; but what is certain is, that already the spirit shown by these volunteers has had a great effect upon foreign nations. I believe that, while it is generally acknowledged to be a perfectly unexceptional movement on our part—purely and entirely defensive in its nature, and impossible to be diverted to purposes of attack,—no two things have raised the prestige of this
66
country more than, first of all, that marvellous resistance offered by a small number of military men and civilians in India against the millions who had been excited to rebel against our sway; and, secondly, that sort of warlike spirit which has sprung up among a nation certainly not military in its nature, and which any power which might venture to touch or attack our shores —as I hope and believe none think of doing at this time—would find very troublesome and difficult to deal with. It is, I think, a matter of especial congratulation that the time at which this movement is going on, and an increase of our defences is being made, is one when we are on good terms with our neighbours and other countries. If such steps were taken at a moment of great and sudden panic, such as certainly prevailed some months ago, it would stamp them with a different character; but, as it is not stamped with any characteristic of panic, it leaves us clearly and unmistakeably in the attitude of merely taking those measures of permanent and reliable defence which the nation has a right, to insist upon that the Government should adopt, and which are intended merely to render us independent of any casualty which may arise. The next point referred to by the noble Earl was India; and I entirely agree with what he has said on this subject. I am especially glad to hear such a tribute of praise accorded to the moderation and judgment of the Indian Administration. The noble Earl said that whatever might have been the mind of the Government of India previous to the proclamation as to Oude, subsequently the instructions of the late Government of Her Majesty had been carried out in a most conciliatory manner. But it is in my power to state what was the mind of the Government of India at that time, and that not from any private information, but from that celebrated despatch in which the Governor General stated what his plans were with regard to Oude, and expressly intimated that he had given the Talookdars to understand that the confiscation of the land was not to be regarded by them as a permanent deprivation, but merely as a means of placing in the hands of the Government the power of punishing or rewarding them according to whether they joined the insurgents or co-operated with the Government in the restoration and maintenance of peace. They were to understand that titles coming to them with the authority of the Government would be much more substan-

67
tial than the very insecure titles which they previously held, and that the acceptance of them would be coupled with conditions by which some guarantee would be taken for their fealty and good conduct. The noble Earl then reproached ray noble Friend on account of his approbation of the commercial treaty with France, of which he could know nothing, and then himself went into all sorts of assumptions and calculations in regard to it, which a better acquaintance with the purport and details of the convention would, I am sure, have dispelled. In thinking over the probable points of attack which would be made use of against us, and bearing in mind the axiom delivered by the noble Earl last year, that when one was bound to find fault one was sure to be able to do so, I had no doubt that some points in our policy would be selected as vulnerable. I anticipated pretty closely the style of objection to this treaty which might be made by the noble Earl who followed the seconder of the Address, and which I might characterize as the very purism of free trade. I have really no ground for knowing what the opinions of the noble Earl opposite may be at this moment on free trade and protection. I believe the last speech on this question which he made in this House was one in which he deferred to public opinion, although he prophesied national ruin, and even appealed to the Freetraders to know how far the gratification of their vanity would prompt them to carry the desolation of the land. Well, I thought we should arrive at what his principles were. he broached two principles, one that laid down by the noble Earl (Earl Grey), and the other a strict reciprocity system. The first admitted certain concessions to free trade, but I remarked throughout the whole argument the old anti-free trade principle coming out strong; whenever he mentioned advantages, it meant always the advantages of sending out our goods to other nations, and not of what we should receive from them. A great deal of what was said by the noble Earl (Earl Grey) was very true. he said it was bad for the nations of Europe to be continually haggling to see which could obtain the best terms, and he could not conceive anything more suicidal than when a nation considered a reduction good for itself that it should wait for the pleasure of another nation to make a corresponding reduction. Our great difficulty formerly was to make a commercial treaty at all. No human thing is perfect, but supposing that
68
our tariff is perfection itself, then perhaps it would be suicidal to alter it; but supposing that there are improvements which can be introduced in our tariff, and when it comes to be discussed it will be seen that it would be the height of pedantry to refuse to insert those amendments in any treaty when by so doing you extend to an immense amount the commercial intercourse with so important a country as France. Nobody doubts that there are great disadvantages to the mercantile and commercial interests of France under the present protective system, but it is also disadvantageous to ourselves. It is injurious to both parties, and it will be undoubtedly an advantage to both sides to remove those artificial restrictions to commerce. I happened by accident lately to open a speech of Sir R. Peel, in which he said that he favoured a better understanding with France, because it would lead to a more extended commercial intercourse, which would have the effect of increasing our mutual prosperity, as well as of increasing the guarantees for peace and goodwill between the two countries. That speech was made more than a quarter of a century ago, and during the time which has elapsed since that period the example on which the noble Lord relies, though it has had an immense effect on other nations, has had no effect on commerce; and now when we are assured that the effect of the treaty will be to introduce a more liberal system in France, combined with improvements in the economy of our tariff, it would be a monstrous thing to throw away the undoubted and immense advantage which increased commercial intercourse would confer upon both nations in the increased security for the maintenance of peace. It is true that we may have close commercial intercourse, and yet go to war with another nation; yet where there is that great commercial intercourse there will also be found a large body of persons whose personal interests will lead them to use their utmost efforts to avoid that which would destroy their profits. The other question—that of revenue— broached by the noble Earl, is one which of course it is impossible for me to enter upon now, as no one can expect me to anticipate the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer upon this difficult and important subject. The noble Earl suggested that this treaty had been managed by us to act as a sort of firework to produce an effect at the opening of Parliament, but I

69
can assure him nothing of the sort is the case. There is no secret about it. A distinguished man, Mr. Cobden, having, to my regret, declined to join the present Government, for certain reasons of his own went to Paris, and I think it reflects wonderful credit upon that gentleman, and is an extraordinary circumstance, that after having by his influence and eloquence exercised a decisive effect upon the multitudes of a free country in inducing them to adopt a certain policy, he has been enabled to exercise a similar influence upon a very few intelligent men at the head of a wholly different institution of Government, and to bring them to entertain similar convictions. An error not much to the credit of this country has been that sometimes there has been an adulation of the Emperor of the French, and at others a vituperation of him and his acts. I have never gone to either extreme, which are equally offensive to good taste as well as to other considerations, but I must say that this act of the Emperor, which, I believe, will be one of the most beneficial to the country he reigns over, has been one of his best acts, and one which I have no doubt required great moral courage to perform. The noble Marquess had referred to the representation of certain Protectionists in France, which afford a proof of the immense force which a strong organization offers to acts of this kind, and the noble Earl (Earl Grey) says that the Treaty will strengthen the feelings of the French against commercial liberty. There may at first be a feeling against reductions in favour of other nations, but the story of Sam Slick is quite apposite. he left clocks at cottages not for sale, but when he returned he found the cottagers had become, from their use, so alive to the value of the clocks that they would not part with them. A greater freedom of commercial intercourse on the part of France would have another effect, for it would show to other nations that there was nothing peculiar in the institutions and position of England which rendered free-trade possible for it, since so great a continental nation as France had taken the same course. The next subject touched upon by the noble Earl is the subject of the Amendment, namely, China; and I am rather embarrassed how to deal with it. It appears to me that the question—the technical question—of whether we were right or wrong in not calling Parliament together upon that subject has been so completely
70
answered by the noble Duke near me (the Duke of Newcastle) and by the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Derby) that I need not attempt to repeat their arguments. But then comes the general question of China, upon which both the noble Earls professed their intention not to enter, but using the usual oratorical figure, said they would not say the thing which they meant to say, and which they did say nevertheless. I think, however, I judge rightly the feeling of the House if I postpone my remarks upon the subject until a future and a more fitting occasion, and I hope the noble Earl, having had an opportunity of expressing his sentiments, will not press the Amendment he has moved. I next come to the subject of the Congress. The noble Earl has spoken of the imperfect information he possessed upon the subject, but a noble Friend near me assures me that further details will be speedily laid before the House. The noble Earl referred to various statements gathered from various sources, and asked me for an answer to them. I must say the whole of them are almost without foundation. I am not aware of any sort of negotiation or proposition having been made to the French Government in August such as he alluded to. I have no official communication as to any offensive or defensive treaty, and perhaps the best way of answering all those questions is by stating that the Government is perfectly unfettered, free from any pledge or engagement or guarantee to or with any nation whatever. Then there comes the question of our going into Congress at all, which the noble Earl deprecates. I will state shortly what the reasons were which induced the Government to consent to go into the Congress. If we had refused, one of two things would have happened—either the Congress would not have met, and then any complications which arose would have been imputed to our refusal; or the Congress would have met, and whatever dissatisfaction Italy might entertain as to its results would have been brought home to us. I believe it will be found that, with nations as with individuals, in political opinions there is no such thing as a secession from duties naturally belonging to them. Supposing that the Congress had met without us and adopted conclusions respecting the Italian people, opposed to our feelings, what answer could we have made to reproaches addressed to us that we had neglected to use the influence naturally belonging to us upon so interesting a subject?

71
And when we are asked under what conditions we would go into Congress there is the simple answer in Her Majesty's Speech which has made known to Europe that the condition was non-interference by arms in the affairs of the Italian people. We thought it necessary to preserve perfectly free action in the Congress, so that we might either retire or take any other line we thought proper; but to say that other nations had got into a difficulty, and they might get out of it as they could, would have been a selfish sort of policy accompanied with great discredit and fatal effects to this country. With regard to the future, I believe that our policy is very simple. I do not believe that the settlement of Italy is a very simple one. The various interests and feelings in Italy make the settlement a very difficult subject; but the policy of this Government is, I think, as clear and simple as noonday. Indeed, I agree with all the noble Earl has said as to using our influence to prevent armed interference with a country dealing with her own internal concerns. As long as we do that our influence will have a great effect, and if we obtain the result we seek, we shall obtain that which is the real interest of England, and also consistent with the real interests of Europe—namely, the maintenance of a condition of things likely to insure lasting peace. With regard to separate negotiations it is clear that, if we move at all and there is no Congress, it must be by separate negotiations; but I can assure the noble Earl that the interpretation of that point which he has suggested is entirely without foundation. The noble Earl has put to me questions which I certainly do not feel called upon to answer. he has asked me to explain what is the necessity for the temporal power of the Pope in support of his spiritual power, but I must decline to enter into that question. In a great deal which fell from the noble Earl I entirely concur. I am sorry to see a tendency among Catholics, and even among some Protestants, to treat it as a religious question. I do not think it is a religious question. I think it is a purely political question, and I am quite sure that, as far as the Government is concerned, it is their duty to treat it as a purely political question. At the same time I think it very natural the Catholics should feel an interest in the state of their spiritual head, and wish to see what guarantee there is of his independence of lay sovereigns. But, from the sort of accusations made against the Go-
72
vernment by some of these gentlemen, one would suppose that the Pope was in peaceful possession of large States, with a perfectly contented population, and that Her Majesty's Government were about to deprive him of some portion of those States. The case is exactly the reverse. All that we ask, free from any religious feeling, but in accordance with the political feeling of an enormous majority of the people of this country, is what has been eloquently laid down by the noble Earl—namely, nonintervention in the internal affairs of other countries; and all that we wish is, to leave the inhabitants of those countries to settle among themselves what form of Government they choose and what sort of administration they wish to adopt. I believe these principles will be shown by the debate to-night to be very generally adopted in this House. I was very much struck with the feeling manner in which the noble Lord alluded to the death of one among us. It is one of the melancholy incidents of each meeting of Parliament that we miss faces we have known, either the faces of political friends or of respected opponents, and this year has been no exception to the rule. It is very difficult not to allude to the fact that of the four perhaps most eminent modern historians of Europe and America, whose deaths we have seen within a year, one of them should have been a Member of your Lordships' House. It singularly illustrates the elasticity of our constitution; and while I know he felt proud to belong to this House, I believe few among us do not feel pride that his name should be upon the roll of Peers. I know that in accepting a peerage it was his intention to take part in our debates, and it was only that malady which prematurely cut him off which prevented his adding much distinction to our discussions. All know his writings and his speeches; many know his private conversation, and I believe you will agree with me there were no greater characteristics of that noble Lord than his pride in the past history and his faith in the future destiny of this country. Animated with the same feelings I am sure all here will agree to this Address, more particularly that portion of it which refers to the contentment, loyalty, improvements in social life and diminution of crime which year by year must add so much, not only to the material prosperity but the moral force of this country.
THE EARL OF DERBYasked whether the Government could give any information

73
as to the period when the French troops were likely to be withdrawn from Rome, or if they remained, upon what terms they would remain?
EAHL GRANVILLEsaid, it had been a subject of communication with the French Government, but that it was impossible to give an answer as to the precise period when the withdrawal would take place.
EARL GREYsaid, he would not withdraw his Amendment, but he would not give their Lordships the trouble to divide. he had listened in vain for any instances of an expedition like this to China being fitted out upon the simple sanction of the Government, without the early concurrence or authority of Parliament.
THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLEsaid, he had given the instances of Portugal and Greece.
EARL GREYsaid, they were not precedents, and that this was the first time such an expedition had been fitted out without the concurrence of Parliament.
Question put, Whether the said Words shall be there inserted?
Resolved in the negative.
Then the original Motion was agreed to; and a Committee was appointed to prepare the Address: The Committee withdrew; and, after some Time, Report was made of an Address drawn by them, which, being read, was agreed to, and Ordered to be presented to Her Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES.
The Lord REDESDALE appointed Nemine Dissentiente, to take the Chair in all Committees of this House for this Session.
House adjourned at Eleven o'clock to Thursday next.