Sitting of 5 February 1861

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBERS SWORN.—For Southwark, Austen Henry Layard, esquire; for Kirkwall, &c. (District of Burghs), Viscount Bury; for Honiton, George Moffatt, esquire; for Dartmouth, John Hardy, esquire; for Reading, Gillery Pigott, esquire; for Sussex (Western Division), Walter Barttelot Barttelot, esquire; for Notts (Southern Division), Lord Stanhope; for Newcastle upon Tyne, Somerset Archibald Beaumont, esquire; for Ripon, Reginald Arthur Vyner, esquire; for Pembroke County, George Lort Phillips, esquire; for Cumberland (Western Division, Honble. Percy Wyndham.
NEW WRITS ISSUED.—For Wilts (Southern Division), v. Right honble. Sidney Herbert, now Lord Herbert; for Bolton, v. Joseph Crook, esquire, Steward of the Manor of Hempholme;
44
for Bradford, v. Titus Salt, esquire, Chiltern Hundreds; for Aberdeen County, v. Lord Haddo, now Earl of Aberdeen, in the Peerage of Scotland, and Viscount Gordon, in the Peerage of the United Kingdom.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Outlawries.
The House met at half after One of the clock.
Message to attend HER MAJESTY.
The House went;—and having returned;—
MR. SPEAKERacquainted the House,—that he had issued Warrants for New Writs:—For Honiton, v. Joseph Locke, esquire, deceased; for Boston, v. Herbert Ingram, esquire, deceased; for Dartmouth, v. John Dunn, esquire, deceased; for Reading, v. Francis Pigott, esquire, Lieutenant Governor of the Isle of Man; for Wick (District of Burghs), v. Samuel Laing, esquire, Member of Council of Viceroy of India; for Newcastle upon Tyne, v. George Ridley, esquire, Inclosure Commissioner; Southwark, v. Admiral Sir Charles Napier, deceased; Nott (Southern Division), v. Viscount Newark, now Earl Manners; Ripon, v. John Ashley Wane, esquire, deceased; Sussex (Western Division), v. Earl of March, now Duke of Richmond; Pembroke County, v. Viscount Emlyn, now Earl of Cawdor.

OUTLAWRIES BILL.
  FIRST READING.
  Bill "for the more effectual preventing Clandestine Outlawries," read 1°; to be read 2°.
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.
SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKE(who wore the uniform of a Deputy Lieutenant) said:—Sir, I rise to move an humble Address to Her Majesty in answer to the

45
gracious Speech we have just heard. Although, Sir, I cannot claim the indulgence of the House on the ground of want of experience in addressing it, yet, on the present occasion, from the nature of the task I have undertaken—although I have accepted the office readily, as a compliment to the important interests J have the honour to represent, and feel the privilege of being the first to address the House after the reading of Her Majesty's most gracious Speech—yet, at the same time, I experience the difficulty which must always attach to those who stand between the House and those Members of it to whom the House is accustomed to look with expectation for advice and information in the present important juncture of affairs.
Now, Sir, I believe I shall best consult the feelings and anticipate the wishes of the House if, instead of taking up the subjects in the order in which they were presented to us in the Speech, I were first to advert to that question which will naturally rise most prominently to the minds of all, since it has reference to the personal feelings of Her Majesty—I allude, of course, to that portion of the Speech in which Her Majesty expresses Her appreciation of the cordial manner in which the Prince of Wales has been received on his visit to the British American Colonies and by the people of the United States. I cannot but congratulate Her Majesty and the House on the success of that visit, and on the loyal and personal feelings of attachment which were manifested towards the Prince by a most important British province, which was formerly torn by rebellion, and in the administration of which so many difficulties exist, occasioned by the difference of the races which inhabit it. But the House will agree with me that a still deeper interest attaches to the visit which the Prince paid to the United States, and in regarding it as a most important historical event. We are all familiar with instances, both in ancient and modern history, in which dynasties having been overthrown or expelled, it has been found impossible that the members of those dynasties could return to the dominions where they once ruled except as conquerors; and so strong has this feeling been, that we know that in many countries laws have been passed forbidding the members of a Royal family from ever returning to a country whence their ancestors had been exiled. But here we have a Prince, the heir to the British Throne—the descendant of
46
one to whom historians have attributed the severance of those dependencies from the mother-country—who has made a peaceful progress through a republican population, and who was received by them with a feeling of respect, and even of enthusiasm, without any compromise of the principle of their own republican institututions. Perhaps the most remarkable incident of that visit was the meeting between the heir to the British Throne and the sole survivor of the first conflict between the colonists and the mother country. We have thus seen that, in a period which is short in the history of a nation, and which, indeed, is comprehended within the period of one individual life, and has since been embittered by another war—all feelings of bitterness completely laid aside, and the old feelings of brotherhood which should bind two kindred nations revived. This result is to be attributed, of course, in a great degree, to the influence of commercial intercourse, and in no small degree to those ties of a common kindred, and a common literature. But they are also to be attributed in no small degree to the frankness of the policy we have invariably pursued when dealing with that country, and to the cordial desire we have shown in the midst of many difficulties and dangers to maintain a cordial alliance with that country. But the cordiality of the Prince's reception is not to be attributed wholly to political considerations. This reception has a more important significance, and a peculiar interest. We are told—and no doubt it is the fact—that it was intended as a personal tribute of respect to the son of our Sovereign—a testimony of respect for the manner in which the Sovereign has borne herself in all the relations of life ever since her accession to the throne. I think we may address Her Majesty with peculiar satisfaction on this point, when we recognise in our kindred on the other side of the Atlantic the same feeling of respect for the personal character of the Sovereign and of regard for her family which is so familiar and so widely diffused at home. Sir, I cannot pass from this topic without asking the House to join with me in the expression of the regret which we feel, in common with Her Majesty, that circumstances should have arisen to threaten the continuance of the union of these provinces. In their political career this country has a deep interest, being so closely allied with them in race and kindred; and

47
I am sure, therefore, that the House will join with Her Majesty in the expression of a fervent hope that those dangers which beset the Union may be dispelled.
Passing now from this subject, and coming to the questions which are of more immediate interest to us, I will ask the House—and I anticipate that this part of my task will be an easy one—to join in congratulating Her Majesty on the success of our arms in China. I hope I shall be able to do so without reviving those differences of opinion to which Chinese questions seem destined to give rise. I confess that there are many circumstances in the past history of our connection with that Empire which I view with regret; and I must say I do not share in the sanguine opinion entertained by some, who anticipate that we shall find a solution of all our difficulties in a closer relation with the Court of Pekin. But I believe it was the general feeling of the House and of the country that the evasive policy of the Celestial Empire had left us no alternative but to prosecute the war with vigour, and that the best policy and economy would be found in carrying it on in a way that would afford a prospect of an early termination, and nothing can more strongly demonstrate the advantages of such a policy than the complete success of the expedition. I have no doubt that the House will express its admiration of the way in which the expedition has been handled. I, as a civilian, may be excused for speaking on military matters; but I know that great doubts were entertained amongst military authorities as to the possibility of successfully conducting operations against Pekin. I say, therefore, that to have conveyed a great expedition, fully equipped, and in the highest state of efficiency, to the gates of Pekin, with the sea, which was the base of their operations, open only for a part of the year to the naval forces, is a great triumph, and that gratification is to be found, not only in the brilliant operations of the different services, but also in the cordial co-operation that subsisted throughout between us and our Allies. I think we may now congratulate ourselves on the prospect now held out to us that the barrier which has so long kept out our commerce has been broken; but the amount of political and commercial advantage which will be derived from these successful operations will depend in no small degree upon the manner in which we use our victory. Our agents have not only
48
difficulties to encounter in relations with a semi-barbarous Government, but there are difficulties also connected with the regulation of our intercourse with the various ports and with the different races that resort to them. But we have had experience of the same kind of difficulties in a similar government nearer home—I allude to the Government of the Sultan—and as by temper, and discretion, and moderation we are able to maintain friendly relations and to carry on trade there, I do not see why we should not be able to do the same with the Government of China.
I come next to questions in which the House feels a more direct and vital interest. All are looking with anxiety to the state of affairs in Europe, and therefore it is with no small satisfaction that we hear Her Majesty announce that She is on satisfactory and friendly relations with all foreign Powers. When we speak of foreign Powers our first thoughts naturally turn towards France, and I suppose that few of us are perfectly satisfied at having for our next neighbour a Sovereign who has the uncontrolled command of the resources of a country the power of which has so often preponderated in Europe, and who employs no small portion of those resources in raising his navy to an equality with, if not a superiority to, that of this country. These, and many other thoughts rise in the mind when we think of France, and the important part she has lately taken in the affairs of Europe. A deep feeling of anxiety has been aroused in this country, which has manifested itself not merely in the great Volunteer force which has sprung up, but in the large expenditure on fortifications, and the increased activity in our dockyards. But, on the other hand, the ruler of France, whose policy has in a great measure produced this feeling of anxiety, has not only declared his desire to enter on a new era of peace, but has evinced his anxiety to do so by the manner in which he has concluded the Commercial Treaty, which removed so many of the restrictions formerly existing on the commerce of that country. The treaty, indeed, though not yet in full force, may he regarded as an accomplished fact, and affording real evidence of the desire for peace which that remarkable man declared in the course of last year to be the policy which he desired for his empire. It is almost inconceivable that a Sovereign should embark on such a course, knowing as he must do the impossibility of carrying

49
it out except with the aid of peace—that he should confront the jealousies of his own subjects, and at the same time be eager for war. I have been thus particular in referring to France from these different points of view, because I believe that the inconsistencies of its great ruler in some manner explain our own policy. There are persons in this country—and they have representatives in this House—who believe that our policy towards France ought to be one either of suspicion or of blind confidence. I do not believe that either of these attitudes would correctly represent the opinions of the people of England. Her Majesty's Government, when they saw a disposition on the part of the French Emperor to engage in friendly commercial relations with us, did most right in encouraging him in his design by meeting him half-way. It has been said that the opinion of the advantages of the treaty were a passing intoxication. I believe that it is a growing and strengthening feeling. I have taken particular pains to ascertain the feeling of my constituents, especially in the important commercial emporium of Glasgow, and I find there is a strong and growing belief on their part of the good faith with which the treaty had been entered into and carried out on the part of the French Emperor, and that the result of the treaty will be a beneficial and increasing commercial intercourse with France. These sentiments are not confined to persons engaged in a single branch of trade, and they are all agreed that the terms obtained are more favourable than they had expected, and that the benefits will result, not to one single branch of industry, but to many. If there is one branch that may be said to be not so directly benefited as the others, it is that in which my own constituents are more immediately interested—the mining interest; and, indeed, they entertain the feeling that the tariff was not so advantageous to them as it should have been. In many branches of iron manufacture the tariff is so high as to be an actual bar to trade. There is, of course, a general feeling in the country that the benefits which are anticipated from the Commercial Treaty will not be realised unless there is more stability in continental affairs. But, at the same time, the impartial and sober view which the country takes of the treaty with France in no way interferes with the attitude of watchfulness which is imposed on us by the state of the Continent, and which it is our duty to take
50
wholly irrespective of the conduct or disposition of the head of the French Government. Perhaps there is nothing which creates greater anxiety in this country than the result of the exciting events which were now taking place in Italy, to which attention has been specially directed in Her Majesty's Speech. It is not, I think, the desire of the people of this country that our policy towards Italy, or towards the Continent generally, should be one altogether of indifference, or that, as is desired by some, we should isolate ourselves from the great events which are agitating the world. Any State adopting such a line of action would not merely fail to maintain its own security, but would probably lose its allies, and find its position untenable from weakness. The people of this country, on the contrary, desire that their Government should have its due weight in the councils of Europe, and should be able to offer advice with regard to the great questions of the day without compromising the general principle of nonintervention, or without risking the freedom of the different States on which their progress must ultimately depend. It is because I believe that the course pursued by Her Majesty's Government has tended to increase the influence of this country, and to aid in the maintenance of peace on the Continent, that I am disposed to view with confidence their conduct of foreign affairs. The deep interest taken in the events in Italy by the people of this country proceeded not merely from sympathy with the exciting struggle for freedom, but from the feeling that the strength which united Italy would possess must be of the highest importance to the balance of power in Europe; and I cordially trust that the issue of the struggle may be that the different provinces will merge into one common kingdom.
I have been induced to refer thus prominently to foreign affairs on account of their important hearing on the financial position of this country. It is probable that one of the first questions which will engage the attention of the House will be the state of the national finances. I know the strong feeling which many entertain as to the danger of a high scale of expenditure, and I entertain a hope that the Estimates to be laid before the House would show that they had been prepared by Her Majesty's Government with a due regard to economy. But, at the same time, I cannot fully agree with the san-

51
guine opinions entertained as to reduction by some hon. Members. In the present aspect of foreign affairs the country will expect the House to scrutinize closely the items of expenditure, but it will never desire that economy should be carried so far as to weaken the efficiency of our establishments, or to abate from the attitude of watchfulness which the general condition of foreign affairs has imposed upon us.
With regard to our home policy, I think it a subject of especial gratification that some hope at last is offered of efficient steps being taken to promote law reform, to which subject our attention has been so pointedly directed in the Speech from the Throne.
And here I might have brought my remarks to a close, if it were not that censure may be passed on the Government by some for what they probably consider an important omission in the Speech from the Throne—I refer to the subject of Parliamentary reform. I should not, of course, have taken the prominent part I am filling on this occasion if I had thought that omission subject to censure. I know it will be viewed with regret by many who think that the time has arrived when they ought to be admitted to the privilege of exercising their votes at Parliamentary elections; but I do not think there is any disposition on the part of the country generally to blame the Government in respect of this matter, because there never was a time at which the country was more fully aware of the difficulties in the way of passing a comprehensive measure of reform. The experience of the last Session has strengthened this conviction. It may be said that those difficulties could easily be overcome if the Government showed itself resolved to act with determination, and to appeal to the country by a dissolution. But that implies enthusiasm on the part of the people out of doors; and it is useless to disguise the fact that at present such enthusiasm does not exist. There are many causes which contribute to this state of things; two, especially, which are only of a temporary nature:—First, the alienation between the middle and working classes which the late strikes have created. The other, and more paramount cause, is the absorbing interest of foreign affairs. It may, however, be deserving the consideration of hon. Members whether, if they cannot embark all their energies in one comprehensive measure, they may not apply themselves to the passing of
52
partial measures that would confer immediate and practical advantages on the country. I shall not say more on this point, because I hope that on this occasion there will he no disturbance of that unanimity with which I expect to see the Address adopted; and I, therefore, trust that the House will defer to a future time the consideration of details on which there may be a difference of opinion. In conclusion, I am sure the House will concur in the prayer at the close of Her Majesty's gracious Speech. Her Majesty says:—
"I confidently commit the great interests of my Empire to your wisdom and care; and I fervently pray that the blessing of the Almighty may attend your councils, and may guide your deliberations to the attainment of the object of my constant solicitude—the welfare and happiness of my people."
The hon. Baronet concluded by moving—
"That an humble Address he presented to Her Majesty, to convey the Thanks of this House for Her Majesty's 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 friendly and satisfactory; and humbly to assure Her Majesty that we trust with Her that the moderation of the Powers of Europe will prevent any interruption of the general Peace.
"Humbly to thank Her Majesty for informing us that, believing that the Italians ought to be left to settle their own affairs, Her Majesty has not thought it right to exercise any active interference in these matters.
"To thank Her Majesty for directing Papers on this subject to be laid before us.
"Humbly to thank Her Majesty for informing us that temporary assistance has been afforded to the Sultan for the purpose of establishing order in Syria by the body of French troops who have been sent there to represent the Allied Powers; and to assure Her Majesty that we share in the hope that tranquillity will soon be re-established in that province, and the objects of the Convention fully attained.
"Humbly to thank Her Majesty for informing us that the operations of Her Majesty's Forces in China, in conjunction with those of the Emperor of the French, have been attended with complete success, and that, after the capture of the Forts at the Mouth of the Peiho, and several engagements with the Chinese army, the Allied Forces became masters of the Imperial City of Pckin; to assure Her Majesty that we learn with satisfaction that the Earl of Elgin, and Baron Gros, the Ambassador of the Emperor of the

53
French, were enabled to obtain an honourable and satisfactory settlement of all the matters in dispute, and that throughout these operations, and the negotiations which followed them, the Commanders and Ambassadors of the Allied Powers acted with the most friendly concert.
"To thank Her Majesty for commanding that Papers on this subject should be laid before us.
"To express to Her Majesty our gratification at hearing that the state of Her Majesty's Indian Territories is progressively improving, and humbly to join in Her Majesty's hope that the financial condition of India will gradually partake of the general amendment.
"Humbly to assure Her Majesty that we fully concur in the hope which Her Majesty has expressed, that the measures which have been taken will speedily suppress the disturbances which have interrupted the peace of a part of New Zealand, and enable Her Majesty's Government to concert such arrangements as may prevent their recurrence.
"To express our full participation in the concern with which Her Majesty looks upon the serious differences which have arisen among the States of the North American Union as affecting the happiness and welfare of a people nearly allied to Her Subjects by descent, and closely connected with them by the most intimate and friendly relations; and our hearty concurrence in Her Majesty's wish that these differences may be susceptible of a satisfactory adjustment, and in the sentiment which Her Majesty expresses that the interest which Her Majesty takes in the well-being of the people of the United States, cannot but be increased by the kind and cordial reception given by them to the Prince of Wales during his recent visit to the Continent of America.
"Humbly to assure Her Majesty that we learn with deep gratification Her Majesty's warm appreciation of the loyalty and attachment to Her Majesty's Person and Throne manifested by Her Canadian and North American Subjects on the occasion of the residence of the Prince of Wales among them.
"To thank Her Majesty for informing us of the Conventions, supplementary to the Treaty of Commerce of the 23d day of January, 1860, which Her Majesty has concluded with the Emperor of the French, and of the Convention concluded with the King of Sardinia for the reciprocal protection of Copyright.
"To thank Her Majesty for having directed the Estimates for the ensuing year to be laid before us, and for having caused them to be framed with
54
a due regard to economy and to the efficiency of the several Branches of the Public Service.
"Humbly to thank Her Majesty for informing us that measures will be laid before us for the consolidation of important parts of the Criminal Law; for the improvement of the Law of Bankruptcy and Insolvency; for rendering more easy the Transfer of Land: and for establishing a uniform system of Rating in England and Wales.
"Humbly to assure Her Majesty that, in common with Her Majesty, we fervently pray that the blessing of the Almighty may attend our councils and guide our deliberations to the attainment of the welfare and happiness of Her People."
MR. PAGETsaid, that in rising to second the Motion that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty in answer to Her gracious Speech, he felt that he should best consult the convenience of the House and his own wishes, if he did not dwell on those subjects which had been so ably discussed by his hon. Friend who had proposed the Address. There was, however, one subject which, from the interest his constituents took in their brethren across the Atlantic—an interest founded both on commercial and social relations—he should make an exception; for he should not be doing justice to his own feelings, or those of his constituents, if he did not take that opportunity of expressing his hearty concurrence in the hope expressed by Her Majesty that the differences of the people of the United States might be settled amicably. The Treaty with France also was one of great importance to the commercial community, and one in which the country generally was concerned. During the last Session that treaty was treated with coldness, and sometimes with derision. It was represented that unworthy concessions—concessions that were against the interests of this country—had been made in order to obtain it from the French Government. He believed that the principles upon which the treaty had been negotiated and framed were perfectly sound, that not a single concession had been made on our part that was not of advantage to England, and that there was not a step which had been made towards free trade by France that would not equally tend to the advantage of the French people. That the Emperor of the French intended that the treaty should be the foundation of cordial commercial relations he believed from the spirit in which the details of the tariff had been negotiated.

55
Notwithstanding the greatest efforts of the protectionist manufacturers of France, the Council to whom the adjustment of the tariff had been entrusted, had given to the details laid before them a fair and candid consideration, and the result had been such as to satisfy every Chamber of Commerce in England. It was a matter of great satisfaction to see the votes of thanks that had been presented from the representatives of the commercial communities to the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Cobden), and the other gentlemen who had negotiated the treaty for the ability with which they had represented the interests of England. He thought there was good ground for supposing that the treaty would be attended by satisfactory results. No doubt, the actual effect of the treaty would not be early appreciable. As a first effect the cheaper manufactures of France had been brought into competition with our own, and so far, that had been an injury to our manufacturers without counterbalancing advantages; but so satisfied were they that the treaty would lead to a considerable intercommunication, and ultimately tend to their own prosperity, that they were quite content with the progress that had been made; and it might be expected that, in the course of a few years, the treaty would be the means of more intimately uniting not only the Governments, but the people of the two countries. The present was a time of great trial to the people of the United Kingdom. After the coldest and wettest year on record, there was a harvest such as was natural^' the result of such a season as had preceded it. However, it was consoling that that harvest had not been followed by the distress which had followed similar harvests in former years—by pestilence and famine; and he thought they might in a great measure attribute their escape from those calamities to the abandonment of the Protectionist system; but it was impossible, when the produce of the country was by many millions sterling less than usual, that the effect should not be manifested in a bad home trade and in the diminished resources of agriculturists. There could be no doubt, either, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer must feel its effect on the public income, and would have to tell them so in the statement he would Lave to make, The deficiency of the harvest, and the stagnation of trade which had taken place in consequence, made the constituencies exceedingly anxious on the score of economy. The House had been assured
56
in the Speech from the Throne that the Estimates had been framed with a due regard to economy, and he trusted it might be so, because he believed it was by the heads of departments that economy could be fully carried out, and not by anything that could be done in that House when the Estimates had once been framed. Those who had been accustomed to discuss those Estimates must feel how empirical were all their present attempts to deal with them. It was quite impossible that the Members of that House could have the information that was necessary to enable them to amend the Estimates with efficiency when they had been once introduced, and, therefore, the only sure mode of effecting economy was to support those men in office who would be economical in their expenditure. But when he spoke of economy, he believed he only expressed the sentiments of the people of England when he required that the efficiency of the public services should not be diminished. He believed that to reduce our military and naval armaments below the point which was necessary for the safety and honour of the country would be a measure as unpopular as impolitic. He founded this opinion on the success of the Volunteer Rifle movement. The young men of this country had turned out during the past inclement season, and gone through cold, and wet, and darkness to their nightly drill till they had attained an efficiency which is the pride of England and the astonishment of Europe: and had done so not from any trivial love of dress or the gorgeous appointments of war, but from a strong determination that to no individual will or sufferance hut to their own right hands they would owe their lives, and liberties, and their sacred hearths. This Rifle Corps movement was an emanation from the people, and he was convinced the same spirit would ever actuate the people, who would never deny the money that was necessary to maintain the independence and the position of the country. But in return for the sacrifices they made, the people demanded that the money so hardly earned and intrusted to the hands of the Government should not be profusely wasted. Let them ask themselves, however, what chance the House of Commons gave their officials for carrying out economical views. What was the life of a leading officer of state in this country? He rose in the morning after having been up late at night in that House, waiting,

57
perhaps, for some Bill with which he was charged. He had to attend important Committees, he had to receive deputations, and had to prepare replies to the questions that were to be put to him in the House, and had to come down at five o'clock to answer those questions, and then had to sit out their almost interminable debates. What strength and vigour could be left to him after this for attending to the business of his department? Abuses thus sprang up, but it could not he expected that a remedy for those abuses would proceed from those who had long lived in the midst of them. It was with the reform of departments as it was with sanitary reform. They were told that to detect the corruption whence fever sprang they must come from a pure atmosphere, and he believed that those who had long lived among the abuses of departments would never originate a reform of those abuses. He would refer to the case of one who was not now among them, but who had held a conspicuous place in that House, and who by his courtesy, ability, and high principles had raised the tone of their debates. As Secretary for War, Mr. Sidney Herbert had signalized himself by great zeal for the public service, but from the operation of our public system his health was not sufficient for the duties he had to discharge in his office, and at the same time to fulfil the duties of a Member of the House of Commons; therefore he was obliged to resign the one that he might devote himself to the other. He admitted that it was necessary they should have in that House the power of asking questions of the Government, and bringing forward Motions on Supply, but still he thought they ought to feel the responsibility they incurred in so doing, and not take up unnecessarily the attention of the Government and the House. There were a few other subjects to which he wished to allude. The Speech from the Throne held out the prospect of reforms in the Bankruptcy laws, and for these the public mind was quite ripe. These were reforms for which the commercial community were exceedingly anxious. The existing state of the law upon that subject was au opprobrium to our statute-book, and he rejoiced that the acute mind of the Attorney General had been directed to a consideration of that question. The hon. and learned Gentleman had been in communication with the mercantile bodies throughout the country, and he trusted there would soon be laid before them such
58
a Bill as would give satisfaction to the House and the country. Another Bill had been promised, which appeared to him to be an important preliminary to any future Reform Bill—he meant the Bill for uniform rating. All who heard the debates of last Session on the Reform Bill would agree that the greater portion of those debates turned upon the question what would be the effect of a £6 franchise? Now, if we had a uniformity of rating, discussions of that kind could not arise, for sufficient statistical information would be obtained to enable any Government to construct a measure which the House could intelligently discuss. He, therefore, thought that it had been wisely resolved by the Government not to introduce a Reform Bill this year which would result only in a repetition of the labour of last Session; but that they had agreed to bring in a measure which would, he thought, lay the foundation for a future Reform Bill by securing for them and the country authentic information on the subject. He begged to second the Motion for the Address.
Motion made and Question proposed,—That, &c. [See Page 52.]
MR. WHITEsaid, he could sincerely say that he was very reluctant to disturb the unanimity which appeared to prevail on both sides of the House. There were, however, some portions of, and some omissions from, the Royal Speech upon which he felt himself compelled to trouble the House with a few remarks, and with an Amendment, for he considered that he should ill-interpret the sentiments of his constituents if he were to remain wholly silent. He trusted he should be excused if he took exception, in the first place, to the omission from the Royal Speech of all reference to the great controversy which so many held to be still pending, as to the respective and distinctive functions of the two Houses of the Legislature. It was not, he could assure them, a pleasant position to be compelled to give utterance to opinions which might be distasteful to the majority of that House; hut when it was remembered that they had been told—as they were told last Session by Her Majesty's Chancellor of the Exchequer—that there had been perpetrated "An innovation the most gigantic and the most dangerous that has been attempted in our time"—and when, too, the noble Lord (the Member for the City of London) also declared "that for 200 years there is no instance of the House of Lords having exer-

59
cised such a power as that which it exerted on a recent occasion," he (Mr. White), armed with such deservedly great authorities, must be forgiven if he said that he disdained to ask pardon from that House for not consenting to leave this great question in a state of dastardly abeyance. He trusted, therefore, that the House would acquit him of a restless, reckless pertinacity of purpose for presuming to declare, as he now did, that this was the fitting time to re-open, if it was not the fittest time to reargue, the great constitutional question which had been slurred over, but not settled, during the last Session. On the very last day of the last Session he had protested against the ignominious abandonment by that House of one of the most, if not the most precious privilege of the Commons; and he now seized the very earliest opportunity of renewing his protest against their quietly assenting to that "gigantic innovation" on one of the, till then, indefeasible, constitutional rights of that House—rights which we held in trust, as he thought for the good of the people. He need not, he was sure, now affirm that they who felt so strongly on this question had not the slightest desire to attempt to eliminate one of the Estates of the realm—neither did they wish to provoke a collision with the other House of Parliament. But still they could not, and, with all respect, they would not, rest contented when the immemorial, vital privileges of that House were over-ridden and trampled down by the irresponsible branch of the Legislature. Hence he would respectfully inquire of the noble Lord at the head of the Government whether he was now prepared to heal the wound which he last Session permitted to be inflicted on the Constitution? It was quite unnecessary for him to indicate, because the noble Lord well knew, how alone this great question could be satisfactorily settled, and right glad should he be to see the present painful antagonism of the two Houses effectually extinguished, and extinguished, too, through the happy instrumentality of the noble Lord himself. He, therefore, would beg to inquire of the noble Lord whether he was prepared to heal the wound that he had permitted to be inflicted on the Constitution? Should, however, the noble Lord, or his Government, evince no disposition to fill up this breach in the Constitution, then it was due to the noble Lord that he should now inform him that he must be prepared for this great question continuously springing up in sea-
60
son and out of season, until it was finally and irrevocably settled. He (Mr. White) would glance at that portion of the Royal Speech which referred to their relations with a neighbouring State, and here he was compelled to express his sincere regret at the absence of even the ordinary niggardly perfunctory praise which Ministers might have caused Her most gracious Majesty to accord to Her Majesty's personal friend as he thought; but certainly Her Majesty's faithful Ally—the Emperor of the French. That he might not be misunderstood, he would ask the House, had he ever been an adulator of the Emperor of the French? He bad bewailed the coup d'etat. He did his best to defeat that un-English measure, the Conspiracy Bill; and he had, in his place, before avowed the loathing he felt at the fulsome praise which it was the fashion only two or three short years ago to lavish upon the Emperor of the French, by the party leaders on both sides of that House. The very distrust which so many of them formerly felt as to the intentions of Her Majesty's Imperial Ally, ought now to dispose them to be the more ready to acknowledge the unequivocal evidence the Emperor had since afforded of his sincere desire to cultivate the most friendly relations with this country. He felt bound, therefore, to mark his sense of the omission of this subject from the Queen's Speech. The incontestible advantages which must accrue to their country from the late Commercial Treaty, and the subsequent conventions with France, the abandonment of the French passport system as affected their countrymen, were great patent facts, which demanded, as he thought, a more generous acknowledgment and reciprocation than was to be found in the Royal Speech; for who could over-estimate the mighty, material, and social results which must spring from the intimate alliance of the two great neighbouring nations, which confessedly stand in the van of civilisation and progress. He wished it could have been announced that Her Majesty's advisers had endeavoured to come to some arrangement with the Government of Her Majesty's Imperial Ally, with the view to make an end, if possible, of the present deplorable rivalry in armaments which inflicted upon an already overtaxed people all the burdens of a war expenditure during a time of peace. He felt also constrained to refer to another paragraph of the Royal Speech, which told them that the Estimates

61
would as usual be framed with a "careful attention to economy, and with a due regard to the efficiency of the several branches of the public service." Year after year they had this stereotyped, threadbare phrase, or its equivalent, repeated until the constituencies were heartily sick of this annual iteration. Moreover they called upon them (their representatives) to most strongly urge on Her Majesty's Ministers the imperative necessity of now making this periodical declaration—a truth. How many successive Sessions had they been told the same, same thing, and yet it had come to this—that each recurring year brought with it an augmentation of the public burdens, the aggregate weight of which had now become intolerable to a too patient and long-suffering people. Owing to the lavish disposition of that House, it was no exaggeration to say the world had never witnessed a Government so extravagant as the present; and they had even reached this point—that economy had not merely ceased to be practised, but had become despised—while those Members of the House of Commons who dared to stand up and plead for economy in the State expenditure were almost pointed at as entertaining a sordid, if not a vile appreciation of the true glory, honour, and greatness of their country. In the interest of the great national party to which he had the honour to belong, it was a positive kindness that he should now inform the noble Lord at the head of the Government that the people were beginning to find out that no Conservative Government would have ventured to bring in such Estimates as were voted last Session by that House. Or, if they had dared to bring in such enormous Estimates, would they not have encountered the opposition of the noble Lord and his thick-and-thin supporters, and would they not have been driven from office amidst the execrations of an indignant people? The right hon. Gentleman who now so worthily filled the office of Chancellor of the Exchequer—an office which, for the good of the people, he fervently prayed he might long occupy—that great Minister of State last Session, as the House would recollect, had honestly denounced their existing administrative system. They would remember it was Her Majesty's Chancellor of the Exchequer who then told them that "vacillation, uncertainty, costliness, extravagance, meanness, and all the conflicting vices that could be enumerated are united in our present system." Nor was
62
this all, for the right hon. Gentleman continued, with a force of truth and eloquence for which he was unrivalled, to expose the ruinous expensiveness and the almost incredible absurdity of the present system, concluding with these remarkable and never to be forgotten words—"I believe," said the right hon. Gentleman, "such are the evils of the system that nothing short of revolutionary reform will ever be sufficient to rectify it." These words coming from such a high quarter had sunk deep, very deep, into the mind of the nation, and after such a candid and indignant utterance by Her Majesty's Chancellor of the Exchequer would not the people be justly disappointed at the omission of all reference to administrative reform in Her Majesty's most gracious Speech? He had never been behind the official scenes, and cared not to inquire how Royal Speeches were concocted, but he could imagine it might be after the approved fashion of the Witches in "Macbeth," when they compounded their "gruel thick and slab." And if so, he could in his mind's eye see the noble Lord the Member for the City of London putting in as his contribution to the Cabinet cauldron—in memoriam of his last year's Reform Bill—
"Finger of birth-strangled babe."
But no, the noble Lord would not give even a "finger of birth-strangled babe" on the present occasion. Pursuing the same simile, having made their "charm firm and good" he could picture the noble Viscount at the head of the Government joyously accosting his colleagues—
"Oh! well done! I commend your pains; And every one shall share i' the gains."
Now seriously by "every one," he would fain recognise as included that great industrial class now groaning under the weight of their present heavy imposts, and who had so long been deprived of the franchise which was their due. Despite the many sinister reports which had of late been in circulation, he quite counted on having to say he was glad to learn that Her Majesty's Ministers did intend to bring in this Session a Bill for Parliamentary Reform, and he had hoped that the measure would be found well calculated to meet the just expectations of the people—that whilst it would correct the acknowledged defects which exist in our present system of representation, it would also extend the franchise to those deserving classes which the noble

63
Viscount at the head of the Government, in the year 1857, most truly told them "were unmeritedly," he repeated the words, "were unmeritedly" excluded from that privilege. But he regretted to say that he was grievously disappointed, and hence the Amendment with which he should conclude. Yet, after so recent, so emphatic and authoritative a condemnation by Her Majesty's Chancellor of the Exchequer of their present system of administration, had not the people just grounds for looking forward to the announcement in the present Royal Speech of some comprehensive measure for administrative as well as for Parliamentary Reform? With regard to that part of the Royal Speech which referred to China, he could say much, having passed many years of his life in that country, but he was too sensible of the kindness of the House to trespass further on its attention than by now saying that any peace—not purchased by national humiliation—would always be gratifying to him. At the same time, he must add that any knowledge of the Chinese people—or, rather, any knowledge of human nature—forbids the expectation that the ratification of the Treaty of Tien-tsin, and the subsequent Convention of Pekin, could be regarded otherwise than as a truce, for it would be a gross delusion to believe that conditions and stipulations so extorted would be faithfully carried out when the military pressure which obtained them had been removed. The perversity, or rather the ignorance of their diplomatists on this, as on the preceding occasion, had sown the seeds of future China wars, unless future Home Governments, unlike, but wiser than their predecessors, sternly forbade the renewal of such costly, and, apart from the admirable conduct of the naval and military forces, such nationally disgraceful contests. He would now beg to thank the House for its attention, and, as an independent supporter of the Government of the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton—and as one who would regard the return of a Derby Administration at this juncture as a national calamity, he would, in conclusion, warn the noble Lord that the day would be a fatal one to the cohesion of the great Liberal party on which the people discovered that an Administration professedly Liberal persistently ignored and treated as obsolete the cardinal vital principles of the true Liberal faith—principles which successive Liberal statesmen had taught the people to believe and cherish;
64
principles which were summarised by the late Lord Grey in his ever memorable, but now disregarded words—Peace, Retrenchment, and Reform. In conclusion, the hon. Gentleman moved as an Amendment, to add at the end of the last paragraph of the Address, these words—
"Humbly to represent to Her Majesty that Her Majesty's Government should, on an early day, introduce a measure for the extension of the Parliamentary Franchise in the Boroughs and Counties of the United Kingdom, in fulfilment of the express pledges given by Her Majesty's Government when they came into Office, and thus adopt a course calculated to increase the loyal devotion of Her Majesty's Subjects to Her Majesty's Throne and Person, and also satisfy the long-deferred but just expectations of the Country."
MR. DIGBY SEYMOURsaid, he rose with great pleasure to second the Amendment of his hon. Friend. He fully agreed with his hon. Friend as to the necessity of applying steady economy to the finances of the country, for, according to the calculations of the right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, they might look forward to an expenditure for the year of £76,400,000; and when they considered that of that sum so large a proportion as £61,000,000 must go in time of peace for the burdens of wars, or to pay the interest on loans contracted for previous military armaments, then it became important that the attention of Government should be drawn to the matter, and that some stop should be put at least in the beginning of this Session to this extravagant and wasteful expenditure. If they considered that these £61,000,000 exceeded by £5,000,000 the united exports of woollens, cottons and linens from this country for the year 1859—that they were more than double the amount of the gross rental of all the railways of the United Kingdom, that they exceeded the amount of the rental of all its landed property, including tithes, and also the rental of all the factories and houses used for trade or private dwellings throughout the breadth of the land—then some idea might be formed of the enormous expenditure thrown away in interest on the cost of former armaments, and in meeting burdens of former wars. When they considered that the expenditure last year exceeded the income by no less than £10,300,000, he thought there was sufficient to vindicate his hon. Friend in the observations which he had made on the desirability of increased economy in the national expenditure. As to Reform he entirely agreed with his hon. Friend

65
that they would not be true to the principles upon which they were returned to that House if they remained silent and indifferent to the absence of all allusion to it in the gracious Speech from the Throne. He had himself personally particular reasons for complaining of the course which had been taken by Her Majesty's Government. When returned for the important borough which he had the honour to represent, he assured his constituents that he should not be carried away by faction, and that in Parliament he should look more to measures than to men. The first question upon which he was called upon to vote was whether he would concur in a Motion expressing want of confidence in Lord Derby's Administration, which was based upon the assumption that they could not obtain so unequivocal an extension of the franchise from the Ministers then in office as from a Liberal Cabinet. After hearing the pledge of the noble Lord the Member for the City of London, he voted for the Motion, and helped the present Ministers to office. Now in what position was he placed at the present moment? How had the noble Lord at the head of the Government and his colleagues fulfilled their promises, and how had they satisfied him and others, who gave them a generous support? How could they (the Liberal party) come to any other conclusion than, to use a vulgar expression, that they had been "sold" by Her Majesty's Government? Unless Her Majesty was to be made the vehicle of uttering general common-places, unless Her most gracious lips were to be made the means of conveying expressions which had no meaning, the extraordinary omission of all allusion to Reform could not fail to strike their attention. In 1852, in 1854, in 1856, in 1859, and in 1860, during the Administrations of the noble Lord, the Member for the City of London, of Lord Aberdeen, of Lord Derby, and of the noble Lord, the present Prime Minister, Her gracious Majesty had informed them that the time had arrived when their attention ought to be directed to the amendment of the representation of the people, and yet, with all the pledges which had been made, no excuse was offered now for this marked and extraordinary omission. The only thing which resembled an excuse was an allusion by the hon. Gentleman who seconded the Address to a proposed Bill for equalizing rating in the country. They did not know the principles upon which that Bill was
66
based, and they did not know what the change in the mode of rating would cost. But if the Government were really in earnest it would not be necessary to refer to an intended measure which might never pass as a reason for postponing indefinitely the subject of Reform. They must all recollect with what apparent sincerity the noble Lord the Member for the City of London expressed himself in introducing the Reform Bill of last Session. He admired the eloquent speech of the veteran Reformer whose name bad been so long connected with the cause, and who had so long been one of the responsible advisers of the Crown. Although by some the measure was thought too simple in its framework, and by others too restricted in its objects, he felt confident at the time that the noble Lord would persist manfully in the determination to make concessions to the just demands of the country. Neither, he was certain, could they forget the evident emotion under which the noble Lord laboured when he withdrew the Bill. If the noble Lord was full of sanguine zeal and earnest hope when he introduced it, he seemed sinking under a burden imposed by others when he withdrew it. Not only was the Bill withdrawn,—but there was no pledge or assurance that it would be introduced again, and Reform now reminded him of the mirage in the desert, which deluded the parched traveller with the belief that in the distance he would find healthful and refreshing waters. So the pure waters of Reform were held up to the people, but withheld from their lips. This was a state of things against which the House ought to protest. He did not second the Amendment in a spirit of hostility to the Government. He regarded the foreign policy of the noble Lord the Member for the City of London with admiring wonder and hearty respect. He thought that with the difficult position of affairs in China and Italy the Foreign Department could not have been filled by a more able, fit, or honest Minister. He rejoiced at the victory which had crowned the united arms of France and England in China, and at the success which had been achieved by an army of patriots in oppressed Italy. But if Italy had won increased liberty, that was no reason why increased liberty should be denied to England. Whenever there had been complications in public affairs the unenfranchised people of England had shown no desire to take advantage of those difficulties, and to exact unreasonable

67
terms from Her Majesty's Ministers. Instead, therefore, of turning their eyes to the possibility of European complications or financial difficulties or commercial distress, the Government would have done well to choose the present time to admit large masses of the community to the benefits of the Constitution. In the words of the Amendment, by so doing they would have best consulted the safety of the Throne and the security of those institutions which they all loved and admired. In that spirit, and without wishing to show hostility to Her Majesty's Government, yet anxious to obtain from some member of it satisfactory reasons which would enable him to feel that he had not done wrong in assisting them to office, he cordially seconded the Amendment which had been proposed by the hon. Gentleman.
Amendment proposed, at the end of the last paragraph, to add the words,—
"Humbly to represent to Her Majesty that Her Majesty's Government should at an early day introduce a measure for the extension of the Parliamentary Franchise in the Boroughs and Counties of the United Kingdom, in fulfilment of the express pledges given by Her Majesty's Government when they came into Office, and thus adopt a course calculated to increase the loyal devotion of Her Majesty's Subjects to Her Majesty's Throne and Person, and also satisfy the long deferred but just expectations of the Country."
MR. DISRAELI: Sir, we reassemble under grave circumstances, and I should wish that Foreign Powers should understand that, at a crisis like the present the Sovereign of these islands is supported by a devoted people and an united Parliament. I will not, therefore, criticise the Amendment which has been offered to the Address. I would, however, say in vindication of Her Majesty's Government, although it is certainly not my office to defend them, that the reception which was given to the comprehensive measure which they introduced last Session by a great many of their own supporters, was not of a character calculated to cause them to hold it a matter of duty on their part again to come forward and solicit the opinions of the House on the subject of Parliamentary Reform. To the second reading of that measure those who sat on this side of the House offered no opposition; and, therefore, secured for it every opportunity which could be afforded of improving, altering, and amending it. Yet, notwithstanding the forbearance and moderation of the Opposition, the great majority of the speakers
68
on the benches opposite to us, including many hon. Gentlemen representing capital cities and considerable communities, expressed decided hostility to that measure of the Government. I think, therefore, that those who now find fault with the Government for their reluctance in again bringing forward a measure of Reform should reflect what were the chief elements of the opposition to the former measure. I do not think it open to hon. Gentlemen opposite to accuse the Government of having betrayed the interests intrusted to them. A measure for the reconstruction of this House should not be introduced at a time when there is no probability of its being accepted, and a Minister would incur a great responsibility who again introduced such a subject from a mistaken sense of honour to a party which was anything but unanimous in supporting his original proposal. As far as those matters are concerned, to which the hon. Mover and Seconder of the Amendment have referred, I am perfectly content to give a general support to the Address. I should not have troubled the House with any observations to-night, had it not appeared to me that since we last met several subjects have arisen on which great perplexity exists in the public mind, and on which we should hardly be doing our duty to the country if on this occasion we did not make some inquiry of the Government.
The mind of the country is extremely bewildered as to the general state of Foreign Affairs, and the policy and the course which has been pursued by the Government. I know it may be said that, as the Government have in the Speech from the Throne very properly undertaken to produce the papers on the subjects I refer to, and that however eager we may be to obtain more satisfactory information on these topics, the regular course would be to wait till those documents have been laid before us; but the peculiar circumstance of the present state of affairs is, that the perplexity in the public mind concerning our foreign relations, and the policy of the Government in regard to them, does not arise from want of information. It is rather in consequence of the information we possess that the public mind is so bewildered. Therefore, on account of the general mystification which prevails, I think this is the constitutional occasion which should be taken for addressing some inquiries to the Government on the matter. Sir, I remember some two or three years ago

69
that there was a strong feeling in the country against what was called secret diplomacy. To secret diplomacy was attributed many, if not all, of those evils to which States are subject—unnecessary and expensive wars, costly establishments, the burden of excessive taxes, often the dishonour and sometimes the humiliation of nations. The cry was that if the Minister would only take the public and Parliament into his confidence, allow them to know how things were going on, and what really were the points at issue between us and Foreign Powers, he would then be so guided by the judgment, and so encouraged by the support of Parliament and the country, that he would be preserved from falling into those errors, or committing those mistakes, to which he would otherwise be generally liable. It was satisfactorily shown, that the proper way to win the game was to show our cards. Such were the maxims of what may be called the school of candour. It is greatly to the credit of the Government that, since their accession to office, they have acted with great frankness to the House of Commons upon the subject of our foreign relations. I give them entire credit for a candour which has been often excessive, and sometimes even unnecessary. There was no project which had failed, no scheme in which they had been disappointed, no occasion on which they had been deceived, that they did not in the most ingenuous manner reveal to the House, and make them partakers of their grief, mortification, and chagrin. Indeed, it may be said that during the last year the House of Commons were really admitted to the brooding meditations of statesmen. The noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs came down to the House one evening, and with an appearance of much alarm, which he successfully imparted to the House, declared that the time had come when it was necessary to look out for new allies for Her Majesty. What in old times—in the days of secret diplomacy—would have been a soliloquy in Downing Street became a speech in the House of Commons. That, Sir, was the manner in which our foreign relations were conducted by the noble Lord during the whole of last Session; and certainly it was highly complimentary to the House of Commous. There were not wanting, however, some ignorant cavillers and malignant spirits who attributed the candour of the noble Lord to the very worst motives, such as are always imputed, and nearly
70
always falsely, to public men. It was said that in the nice balance of parties it was the aim of the noble Secretary to conciliate, perhaps to cajole, the House of Commons. The House of Commons was easily cajoled, for nothing is more flattering than to be admitted into the secrets of State. But subsequent events have vindicated the character and conduct of the noble Lord, and proved he was not influenced in the open course he followed by any of the improper motives imputed to him. Because, when the Session was over, and during that interval in which Ministers, and especially the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, are supposed to have the privilege of acting with the least possible sense of control, the same candour was exhibited by the noble Lord. We were told at the end of August—a most unusual period of the year for disclosing a political secret—the policy then pursued by the Crown. Not satisfied with that, at the end of October we had further revelations on the same subject. Hence it is not true that it was merely during the Session, from an improper desire unduly to influence the House of Commons, but from a pure love of candid behaviour on the part of the noble Lord, that the old habits of secret diplomacy were exploded, and the public admitted to the confidence of the Government. It is extraordinary, however, that, notwithstanding all the candour of the Government—notwithstanding all these confidences respecting almost every phase of their policy—the public are more perplexed, more bewildered as to the real state of our foreign relations, and the real character of the policy which the Government have pursued, than they ever could have been under the old system of secret diplomacy. At the present moment there is no one who really knows what is the policy of the Government with respect to our foreign relations—the subject which now entirely engrosses the public mind—or what are the prospects of the country with regard to any of those great questions which arise out of them. I would, therefore, ask from the noble Lord answers to a few natural inquiries. I should like, for example, to learn from the Government what is the real state of our relations with France. I should like to know whether we are still conducting our external affairs generally by an alliance with France, or, what is equivalent to an alliance, by that cordial and confidential understanding of which we have heard so much. Are we

71
doing that, or have we found new allies? Or are we attempting to find new allies? And if we have found new allies, or if we are trying to find new allies, I should like to know what is the principle upon which the new alliance is to be formed. Is it to be a disturbing or a tranquillizing principle? Is it to be a revolutionary or a Conservative principle? Is it, or is it not, a fact that the King of Sardinia, as we were told at the end of August, entered into a public engagement with our own Sovereign not to attack the dominions of the King of the Two Sicilies? Is it, or is it not, a fact that the King of Sardinia, as we learnt at the end of October, having attacked the dominions of the King of the Two Sicilies, received the meed of approbation from Her Majesty's Government? Was there a public engagement between the King of Sardinia and Her Majesty, as the Secretary of State assured us at the end of August, not to do an act which only two months afterwards that King of Sardinia did, and received from Her Majesty's Government their thanks and congratulations? Have we now or have we not interests in the Adriatic which it becomes us vigilantly to guard and watch? Or, on the other hand, are our interests in the Adriatic, like the law of nations, at the bottom of the Bay of Naples? Is the policy of England, as we were informed at the end of August, to maintain the power and the dominion of Austria in Venetia? or is the policy of England, as we learnt at the end of October, to preach the principle of insurrection and promulgate a theory of rebellion? These are subjects upon which the people of this country naturally require information, and, without giving an opinion one way or other as to these contrary policies, still it is extremely desirable that we should at least be informed by the Government which policy it is that they are pursuing, because, in consequence of the frank and candid manner in which Her Majesty's Government have conducted their affairs, and the elaborate methods which they have adopted to prevent secrecy as to their intentions and as to their schemes, the public mind is so mystified and bewildered that I am not surprised that there are many who almost regret that the old system of secret diplomacy should have been superseded. Under that system, although Parliament did not become acquainted with the conduct of a Minister until the events of which he had the control were completed, vet then that
72
conduct, even though some might think it erroneous, was at least consistent. There was, then, at least some sense of decorum and some sentiment of dignity in the management of public affairs; some regard for the interests and feelings of our Allies, and some respect for the law of nations. I just now ventured to ask the noble Lord, as the organ of the Government, what were the nature of our relations with France. It appears to me that there is no subject upon which a clearer conception ought to prevail in Parliament than as to our relations with a Power so considerable as France—relations of which we hear so much, and which can exercise so considerable an influence upon our own interests and policy and upon the affairs of the world in general. Why, Sir, there is no man in this House who has a clear perception what are our relations with the French Government. If we were to be guided by the authentic publications that have appeared in the shape of despatches—if we were to be influenced by the speeches and communications which have been made by the Secretary of State and by the First Minister in this House, one might be tempted to believe that our relations with France were not, as they are described in the gracious Speech from the Throne, friendly and satisfactory, but very unfriendly and highly unsatisfactory. Now, if there be still a cordial and confidential understanding between the two countries, the noble Lord or some member of the Government will be able to inform us what policy this country is pursuing with respect to these important affairs of Italy; nay, more, he will also be able to tell us what is the policy which the French Government is pursuing with respect to them. Sir, I have on more than one occasion upheld in this House what is called the French alliance, and I see no reason whatever to regret the principles which I have endeavoured to impress upon the House with reference to that subject. The most eminent statesmen have been of opinion that a cordial and confidential understanding between the Governments of France and England was a combination most conducive to the peace of the world, and, therefore, to the progress of civilization. They have believed that such a combination was not only politic, but that it was also practicable. I will not go back to remote or to comparatively distant times. I will not remind the House that that was the policy which was favoured alike by

73
Bolingbroke and Walpole, or, at a more distant period, by sued great Sovereigns as Queen Elizabeth and Cromwell. I will confine myself to modern times, and I say that ever since the Treaty of Vienna all statesmen who have at all influenced the Government of either of the two countries, all statesmen of eminence, have believed in the policy of such a combination, and also in its practicability; that that has been the great object and, generally speaking, the successful object of modern politics with respect to the foreign relations of those countries. But it was quite clear that so far as France was concerned that cordial and confidential understanding depended upon two assumptions. It depended, first, upon the assumption that France, profiting by experience, was convinced that by the development of her unrivalled resources, and by the multiplication of her highly gifted population, her power would be more securely increased than by any forcible accession of territory; and, secondly, upon the other assumption, that that noble weakness of the French people, that "last infirmity of noble minds," the love of glory, might be fairly satisfied by feeling that whenever there was any international difficulty, their opinion would be solicited, and would greatly and in the main be decisive. But Sir, it was perfectly obvious to both French and English statesmen, that even if these assumptions were well founded, that alliance could not subsist without the exercise on both sides of great forbearance, and occasionally the making of great sacrifices. For example, England was not a country that sought any increase of territory. During the revolutionary war she had obtained all those outworks which were necessary for her maritime and colonial empire. France, on the contrary, had lost a considerable colonial empire, and was slowly constructing another. France had also for a time, though but for a brief space, been in possession of great additions to her original territory, and had lost by arms what by arms she had obtained. It was clear, therefore, that there would be occasions when in the course of international embarrassments and difficulties that might arise France would be called upon to sacrifice the hope of any increase of territory. What was the commensurate sacrifice that England would be called upon to make? England would be called upon to make the concession that she would at least not promote a policy
74
which rightly or wrongly France believed to be adverse to her best interest. Now, Sir, the noble Lord assumed the office of Secretary of State, as I believe, an avowed and ardent supporter of a cordial understanding with France. I understood the noble Lord, when seeking to excuse conduct which might have been considered somewhat precipitate, to state at the time he acceded to office that he believed by so doing he had prevented a war between England and France. Her Majesty's late Government are still profoundly unaware of the circumstances to which he referred, and labour under the impression that the relations between England and France were cordial when they quitted office. But I mention that to show the tone and temper with which the noble Lord entered on the duties of his position. Taking office, however, as the warm supporter of this cordial and confidential understanding with France, the noble Lord—whose sense of duty I do not question—immediately felt himself called on to pursue on Foreign Affairs a policy exactly contrary to that which France was favouring, and one which, rightly or wrongly, France believed to be hostile to her best interests. What has been the result? The noble Lord avowed himself an advocate of the unity of Italy. France declared that she was entirely opposed to the unity of Italy. The policy of France and the policy of the noble Lord were contrary and contradictory. The noble Lord may, perhaps, say that he preferred the policy which he pursued—that he valued the unity of Italy more than intimate relations with the French Government. This is not the occasion, nor is it my desire, to enter into any argument on that point. It was perfectly open to the noble Lord to follow the policy which he preferred. But has the noble Lord obtained the unity of Italy? He may be in that situation with the French Government that he is obliged to look out for new allies. But having forfeited—if he has forfeited—that cordial understanding with them and that opportunity of pursuing the same policy, has the noble Lord succeeded in the policy which he preferred? Have his efforts effected the unity of Italy? We know that a powerful French army is powerfully intrenched in the centre of Italy. We know that the contemplated capital of Italy is not in possession of the Italians. In this age of jubilant nationality Rome is still garrisoned by the Gauls. We know

75
that Venetia is bristling with Austrian artillery and swarming with German and Sclavonian legions. We know that even the King of the Two Sicilies, deprived of his crown by universal and unanimous suffrage, unfortunately followed by frequent insurrections, and martial law, is even at this moment in possession of the two prime strongholds of his kingdom. We know that in the south of Italy they have combined the horrors of revolution with the shame of conquest. These are not the characteristics of a united Italy. But the noble Lord may say, perhaps, "All this is undeniably true, the unity of Italy is not effected, but great results like these are not accomplished with the rapidity you seem to expect; you must wait, we are only in the beginning of the operations; much has been done, and the rest will be accomplished." The noble Lord may say that the elections to the Italian Parliament indicate a most hopeful temper on the part of the people as to the means by which union may be ultimately effected. Sir, I will not depreciate the possible advantages which may accrue from these public elections. Unfortunately, history shows us that new political institutions have very little power in times as critical as these. Old institutions that have existed for centuries, possessing an authority which has been gradually conceded to them as public necessity rendered it advisable—institutions which have aggregated round them the power of prescription, more important than armies or police, may control and even create events in an age of revolution; but we have, unfortunately, no instance, so far as history can guide us, of new political institutions exercising this influence in an age and in a country where revolution prevails. But I do not want to argue on these points. In order to obtain as accurate a view of our situation as we can, after the bewildering communications that have been made to us, I am ready to offer every concession, as far as argument goes, to the noble Lord and to Her Majesty's Government. I will grant that the union of Italy, if not already accomplished, may in time be effected. But how is this result to be attained? I will admit that, manipulating what is called the spirit of the age, with all the adroitness of English diplomacy, you may produce such a state of affairs that the Emperor of the French, whatever may have been his original, or may be, present policy, may say—" On the whole, this unity of
76
Italy seems to be a result that is practicable, and I will consent to it." But on what terms will the Emperor of the French, or any one who represents French policy, consent to such a result? It will not be the moral influence of England that under these circumstances will have accomplished the unity of Italy—it will be the will and the sword of France. It is the will of France that can alone restore Rome to the Italians; it is the sword of France—if any sword can do it—that alone can free Venetia from the Austrians. If the unity of Italy is to be effected by such influences and by such means, are we to suppose that a Sovereign who is described as profound and crafty, and a people whom we know to be ambitious and quick-witted, will be prepared to make such an effort, and to endure such a sacrifice—such a surpassing sacrifice and such an enormous effort, without obtaining some result? Why, Sir, it would belie every principal of human nature. We cannot impute it to such a Sovereign, and to such a people as the French, that they would not after such exertions expect to obtain some great political and public advantage. And it is obvious what that result would be. Those who, under the circumstances I have stated, will free the nation will make their terms, and will be justified in making their terms. They will have an alliance offensive and defensive with Italy, and the Emperor of the French will then appear in the character which he has himself shadowed out, for which he has prepared the world; which the policy he has hitherto pursued with regard to Italy has shown that he has not too anxiously sought to fulfil, foreseeing its difficulties as well as its glory. The Emperor of the French will then come forward as the natural head of the Latin race. He will find himself the emancipator of Italy at the bead of a million of bayonets. A million of disciplined and even distinguished soldiers will be at his command; and then it will be in his power—you having forced him to a policy in Italy which, at first, he was unwilling to pursue—to make those greater changes and to aim at those greater results which I will only intimate, and will not attempt to describe. In offering these considerations to the House, I am merely trying to place the state of affairs in its real light, after all the bewilderment which the public mind has undergone from the speeches and from the despatches of Her Majesty's Ministers. I do not want in any way to underrate the object which Her Majesty's Ministers pro-

77
pose to themselves in effecting the unity of Italy; I am perfectly willing to admit that if the unity of Italy be practicable it would add greatly to the strength and splendour of Europe But, Sir, if a British Minister did conceive such a consolidation of territory to be of paramount importance, if he believed it to be a policy of that sovereign character why, then, I think he ought to have attempted his object by other means than those which are called moral influence. If we had really interfered in Italy with a material agency, if we had ourselves assisted the Italians in achieving their freedom, their independence, and their unity, we should then have had claims on their gratitude. We should then have been in a position to look on them as our natural and our grateful Allies. But we have not taken that course; we have had before us a large but misty object, we have expended upon it a puerile and declamatory diplomacy, which we have elevated with the barren title of "moral influence." I am not counselling the House to go to war to free Italy, nor have I ever counselled the House to such an object. I think, as a general rule, we should leave countries to make out their own freedom; but, when the freedom of a particular country is made the great political object on which the rival claims and the rival systems of great empires are concentrated, I say it is of importance the House should understand that the country whose sword and will free the enslaved land is the country which, obtains its future support, and commands its future resources. Such is the position in which it appears to me we are placed by the policy of Her Majesty's Government. I shall wait with patient curiosity, for the papers which they have promised on Italy; but when I recollect the speeches which the Members of Her Majesty's Government have made in this House, when I recollect the despatches distributed throughout Europe on this question of Italian independence, and when I see what the state of affairs is, I do not feel so much the want of information, as the want of an explanation of our present position. I fear it will be found to be one of great danger, per haps, of great disappointment; but whatever the result may be, I am clearly of opinion that the case is one that demands the gravest attention of Parliament. By the conduct of the Government we are placed in this dilemma—and it is a serious one—either we must he content to fall back on an arrangement similar in principle to
78
that of Villafranca, that settlement against which, for the last twelve months, Her Majesty's Government have been agitating in every Court in Europe; or we must he prepared to meet that far more dangerous situation which is open to us when Italy is united—united by the sword and will of France—and has necessarily placed at the disposal of France all its resources. As to the first case, I think it would be disgraceful to this Government; but the second is much more dangerous—more dangerous, indeed, than one would at this moment attempt to describe. The settlement suggested by the preliminaries of Villafranca was not one that would have realized the youthful dream of a poetical statesman. That, I admit; hut it secured many interests which this country has always considered most important and regarded with care. No doubt, it substituted French for Austrian influence in Italy. Who denies that? That was a natural consequence of a war between France and Austria, in which France had been signally victorious. We did not interfere in the war, and we had no right to question the arrangement, so far as it substituted French for Austrian influence in Italy, however much we might deplore it. The preliminaries of Villafranca, however, secured a great southern barrier to Germany, and that I believe is an object which no English statesman should despise. If it did not secure, it did not destroy the independence of the Pope, a consideration which the most eminent English statesmen of all parties have always held to he important. The preliminaries of Villafranca did not violate, endanger, or destroy the independence of Switzerland; Savoy and Nice remained still an appanage of the King of Sardinia. There is a great responsibility on the Ministry, who, by efforts, active efforts, influential efforts, I believe none will deny, mainly defeated the accomplishment of that settlement. Now, I say, we are in this position—either we must fall hack on a settlement similar to that of Villafranca, or we must encounter a state of affairs so dangerous that before its difficulties are solved every throne in Europe may be shaken, and which appears to me to be inevitably and logically brought about by the policy which Her Majesty's Government have steadfastly, but, as I think, most injudiciously pursued. And, Sir, how do we know that it is in the power of the English and French Governments, if they come to an understanding, to fall back on Villafranca

79
arrangement? Great influences have been at work during the last year—influences more powerful than French Emperors and British Ministers. They had been slumbering in chaos; but you called forth those anarchic elements, one of which alone may be sufficient, as it has done before, to produce a European war. What are those questions which are now agitating Europe? They are the questions which we had hoped would never again trouble the peace of Europe, from the agitation of which men shrank, shuddering, because they felt that, unless they were controlled, they must lead to the horrors of universal war? You have the rival claims of priests and kings, you have the rights of races and the boundaries of empires—questions, one of which alone caused a war of thirty years. All these questions have now been called forth while Her Majesty's Government have been pursuing the phantom of a united Italy. You have produced all those elements of anarchy, and he is a bold man who would say that it is in the power of Cabinets any longer to control them. Such is the grave position of affairs in which we stand. It is one on which we have a right to expect from Her Majesty's Government some information. They have been treated by this House on the subject of their foreign policy with, I will say—speaking for both sides, and claiming no party merit—generosity. The House has believed that the Government, on their part, have treated it with candour. I will not deny it; but I say that that candour has in its effects been unfortunate, because it has been of a bewildering nature. The more the Government told us the less we knew. What was one day explained to us as the policy of Her Majesty's Government was followed the next day by an exactly opposite one, and with contradictory speeches and conflicting despatches. I am using no exaggerated language when I say that the public mind of this country is utterly uninformed as to the precise nature of our foreign relations. I cannot find in the Speech from the Throne anything which gives us that information which I think we have a right to expect. On the question of our relations with France it will be satisfactory to us to have some clear announcement from the Government. Are we pursuing with regard to Italy the same policy as is being adopted by that Power? And if we are not, what, in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, must be the natural result? Is there rivalry
80
with regard to Italy, or is there harmony? These are questions to which the House has a right to invite the attention of the Government. I think it idle to say that we ought to wait for the papers before we do so. When we read those papers we shall be able to form a judgment on the conduct in detail of Ministers with regard to particular transactions; but their policy has been described by themselves, and it demands explanation. We have their despatches, and we have Vattel, "that eminent jurist." That quotation from Vattel is the basis of the policy of the Government; and as it is only four lines I shall read it to the House. In October the noble Lord informed us that,—
"That eminent jurist, Vattel, when discussing the lawfulness of the assistance given by the United Provinces to the Prince of Orange when he invaded England and overturned the throne of James II., says:—The authority of the Prince of Orange had doubtless an influence on the deliberations of the States General; but it did not lead them to the commission of an act of injustice; for when a people from good reasons take up arms against an oppressor it is but an act of justice and generosity to assist brave men in the defence of their liberties.'"
Now, Vattel was a Dutchman, which the noble Lord is not, and, therefore, he had a right to quote William III. I do not depreciate Vattel's authority. I think that on a diplomatic instrument, or a diplomatic procedure, or on some principle of the law of nations, he is an authority and a correct and lucid writer; but when it comes to a question of the political conduct of men, I think that the noble Lord is as good an authority as Vattel, or better, and that there are men in this House who may use their judgment on such a subject with confidence, though they do not agree with Vattel. However, what I object to in this celebrated quotation is, that it is not complete. This opinion of Vattel is followed immediately afterwards by a qualifying statement, which I shall read to the House. He says,
"But we ought not to abuse this maxim, and make a handle of it to authorise odious machinations against the internal tranquillity of States. It is a violation of the law of nations to invite those subjects to revolt who actually pay obedience to their Sovereign, though they complain of his Government."
Why, that is the conduct of Sardinia sketched by one not influenced by the passions of the hour, as he has long passed away. That is exactly what has been done by the King of Sardinia. A necessity of

81
State may, in the opinion of the King of Sardinia, and in the opinion of the noble Lord, justify the conduct he has pursued —I will not enter into any arguments on that point at this moment,—but certainly it was a most unhappy and maladroit quotation from Vattel which the noble Lord selected for his despatch of October 27. I have placed before the House, without attempting to argue on the practicability of a united Italy, and without attempting to argue upon the propriety or impropriety of the conduct of the King of Sardinia, my views upon this subject, and, looking at all the questions in controversy, I have endeavoured to bring those views to a single object.— If the unity of Italy is to be effected, it can be effected only by a power which occupies Italy in great force, not by a Power which has no force there whatever. That unity cannot be effected under such auspices without results dangerous, in my opinion, to the repose of Europe. That unity can only be effected in such circumstances by placing the Emperor of the French at the head of a million of of armed men, and making him master of all the resources of Italy. I want to know whether, with the probability of such a result as that, with such dangers as these impending over Europe, and more than Europe, inquiries and explanations have passed between the Governments of England and France as to the intentions and policy of the French Emperor. I want to know whether the Government can inform the House what is the exact state of affairs in that respect, what are the true relations of France with Italy, and what are the prospects on this all important question which Her Majesty's Government can hold out to the people of England.
LORD JOHN RUSSELL: Though the right hon. Gentleman has a perfect right on this first night of the Session to ask for an explanation of the views of the Government with regard to its foreign policy, and to express his own opinion as to what that policy ought to be, yet he is hardly justified in complaining of want of information, when we have laid papers on the table of the House which to-morrow morning would enable him to settle all those doubts and obscurities of which he complains. The right hon. Gentleman, however, having stated his views of the foreign policy of the Government, I have no objection to state in general terms what is the course which we have pursued, the opinions we have expressed, and the principles on which
82
we have acted, with reference to the Italian question. With regard to this mystery, of which it is curious enough the right hon. Gentleman should complain, the policy of the Government was proclaimed about a year and a half ago by my right hon. Friend the Secretary for the Home Department at the Lord Mayor's feast, and everybody knows that what is told to the Lord Mayor is proverbially told to the whole world. My right hon. Friend on that occasion said it was the policy of Her Majesty's Government not to attempt to impose any form of government on Italy, but to allow the Italians to settle their internal affairs in the way they thought best. That principle has been declared over and over again. It was declared in Her Majesty's Speech at the end of the last Session. It has been declared at the beginning of this Session, and it has pervaded all the despatches and documents that have been laid on the table of the House. Now I want to know whether the right hon. Gentleman considers that a right principle or a wrong one. The right hon. Gentleman has gone into this subject at length, nut he has not given an opinion or uttered a word as to whether he thinks it right or wrong that the people of Italy should be left to manage their own internal affairs. The right hon. Gentleman must have known, and known perfectly well, that that was the principle on which Her Majesty's Government has all along acted, and that the doubts and obscurities which he has conjured up have no existence in fact. When, some years ago, my noble Friend and myself were in opposition, we declared ourselves in favour of Italian freedom and independence. But the right hon. Gentleman was always the leader of those who derided such notions as visionary, who contended that the best government for Italy was that of Austria. If at any time an eulogium ever fell from his eloquent lips in favour of any King, it was in favour of the late King of Naples and his system of government. Such was the view which the right hon. Gentleman took of Italian affairs before the present complications arose. Two years and a half ago the right hon. Gentleman was in office. It was then said openly by the Italians—I remember being told of it by some Italian friends—that they had no hope of obtaining any assistance from England, but that they did look for assistance from France for the liberation of Italy, and that they believed they would obtain it. At that time the Government of the day did not

83
expect war, but as soon as they gained information which led them to expect that war was impending, they used their utmost efforts to prevent it. They were not successful. I never blamed them for their want of success. I never said their conduct was tardy or unskilful, but I always regarded their conduct as prompted by the best intentions and by a due regard to the policy which this country ought to pursue. But their efforts were not successful, and the war took place. Information at length reached them that it was the intention of the French Emperor to liberate Italy from the Alps to the Adriatic, and that Savoy and Nice were to be transferred to France. Earl Cowley was instructed by the Earl of Malmesbury to inquire of the French Government if that intelligence was true, but he obtained no answer from the French Government. Soon after the French army was increased, and entered Italy, and those events took place which are familiar to the House. We were told at various times that if Sardinia were greatly increased, the French nation expected that Savoy and Nice should be transferred to the French Government. But we were also told that no such agreement had been made. After this came the Treaty of Zurich. That treaty stipulated one thing, while the French Emperor declared another thing, which, though not totally inconsistent with the treaty, was practically adverse to it. The Treaty of Zurich said that the Duchies of Tuscany and Modena should be restored to their former rulers. The French Emperor, however, also said no troops — Austrian or French—should be allowed to effect that restoration, and in consequence of that declaration, the article in the Treaty of Zurich was not fulfilled. Her Majesty's present Government then declared, not that the unity of Italy was their object—I shall show presently that from time to time that was not our object—but that we only wished the Italians to be free to choose their own rulers; that if the Grand Duke of Tuscany or the Duke of Modena were received with the consent of the people, our Government would see their restoration with pleasure, but that they could not approve and would protest against any attempt to impose on the Italians any government by force. Was that principle right or wrong? I ask the right hon. Gentleman who is so eager for an explanation, whether he approves or disapproves that policy? Does he maintain that it would be right to force upon Italy a govern-
84
ment not approved by the people? The right hon. Gentleman knows that Austria, seeing that the French Government had declared against the use of force, and that England had also entered her protest against it, declared in the most authoritative manner that she will not go beyond her own frontier to interfere in Italian affairs—that she will be satisfied with the territories left to her by the Treaty of Zurich, and that she was willing to abandon her ancient policy of interference in Italy, which, under a desire to serve the interests of law and order in Italy, she had undertaken, but which, so far as Austria was concerned, had been exceedingly detrimental to her. This has been the policy which Her Majesty's Government has endeavoured to act upon; and, so far as it has been in accordance with the policy of the Government of France, it has been successful.
But now as to the unity of Italy. We have declared from the first, that we have no wish that the Grand Duke of Tuscany and the Duke of Modena should not return to their dominions. Again, I have stated with regard to Naples, both in this House and in my communications with the Government of the Emperor of the French, that in our opinion the happiness of Italy would be better secured by the establishment of two kingdoms of Italy than one, and that if the King of Naples would have granted a constitution, and obtained the confidence of his subjects, we should have been glad to see two constitutional kingdoms in Italy. But still that was a question for the Italians themselves. It was for them to consider whether the Prince having hereditary right on his side was a Prince whom they could trust with perfect confidence to maintain their liberties, and they had the perfect right to regulate their internal affairs in such a manner as to secure their own happiness. Was that a wrong principle? We may have been wrong in our opinion that it would be better there should be two kingdoms in Italy, but we said that the Italians only ought to be the judges on that point. Well, Sir, other events occurred, and the right hon. Gentleman speaks of two despatches of mine which have obtained some notoriety. With regard to the first, it was published without my knowledge. I saw it translated into the Cologne Gazette. It was communicated by me to the Government of Sardinia, and I do not know to this day by what means it became public. But with respect

85
to its contents, I may say there have been three objects which Her Majesty's Government have kept steadily in view throughout these negotiations. One was that Italy should be left free to settle her own concerns. Whether she succeeded in obtaining two constitutional monarchies, or became one united Italy under one constitutional monarchy, we declared that it would be satisfactory to us to obtain either of those results, and that in our opinion in either case additional security would be given to the other States of Europe. Another object we had in view was that the peace of Villafranca, with the conditions of which we had nothing to do, should be maintained as a security for the peace of Europe. I confess I am utterly unable to express to this House the importance I attach to the maintenance of the peace of Europe. No one can say how far a war once begun for the acquisition of Venetia, or for some other and perhaps minor object, may extend, what changes of Governments may not be produced, what alterations in the position of various Powers may not be caused, and how difficult it may not be for any country in Europe, and particularly this country, which we are bound to cherish more than any other, to keep itself disengaged from such a war. Not only, therefore, from a general hatred to war and unnecessary bloodshed, but for reasons connected with the dreadful aspect of such a war, we have been most anxious that the peace of Europe should not be disturbed. On the 31st August, therefore, I wrote in strong terms—some may think too strong, although I think what I wrote was calculated to do good at the Sardinian Court—recommending that, for the benefit of Italy herself, Sardinia should not rush rashly and madly to war, thereby bringing on herself great evil, and the risk of final subjugation to one power or another. The result might be much the same as that described by Cicero as the termination of the civil war in Rome—"Si victus eris proscribere, si viceris tamen servias." The triumph of the Sardinians if gained by foreign interference would have been perhaps a triumph for the Italian arms, but not for Italian independence. It was therefore in the interest of the Sardinians, I urged, that the obligations of good faith bound them to keep the treaty of peace that they had concluded so lately—a treaty into which they had entered with their eyes open and under which they had given up Venetia while they had obtained Lom-bardy. Every consideration of regard to
86
their own interest prevented them from leading their newly-formed and not numerous legions against the tried armies of Austria. In the same despatch I said Her Majesty's Government trusted that the King of Sardinia would not make war on Naples. But other events happened without, as I believe, the knowledge of the Sardinian Government, but with the strong impulse of the people. An expedition went out from Genoa to Sicily. Sicily was conquered. The people declared in favour of Garibaldi. He bad only some 1,800 men to lead against 20,000 or 25,000 soldiers of the Neapolitan army; yet he marched from one success to another. Garibaldi then landed in the kingdom of Naples. He went to Naples in a railway carriage, with ten or twelve of his companions. He entered the town with those ten or twelve companions, although there were 3,000 or 4,000 troops of the King of Naples in the city. He was welcomed with general applause, and proclaimed himself Dictator. Now, if I look at a statistical account of the kingdom of Naples, I find that the King had 100,000 soldiers belonging to the regular army, and a reserve of between 40,000 and 50,000 men; that he had two sail of the line of 90 and 80 guns, and a great number of other ships, making in all, 40 men of war. Here was, then, a Sovereign who, one might have thought, would have laughed to scorn the attempt of a chief, who has been talked of in this House with much undeserved contempt, who, with nothing but his own valour and patriotism to counsel him, went with 1,800 men to assail so strong a kingdom. It might have been thought that it was madness to make such an attempt— that the ships, frigates, and corvettes of the King of Naples would enable him utterly to destroy such a force. Yet we all know the result. Well, the inference to which I came, and that every man made for himself, was that the King of Naples was not very strong in the affections of his subjects. I venture to suppose, not that 100,000 men were not able to defeat 2,000, but that they had no heart for the enterprise; that the accounts of my right lion. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and others of the dungeons of the King of Naples, and the descriptions given by our Consuls, were true; and that the cap of silence and the other tortures imposed on them had disgusted the subjects of the King of Naples, and had led them

87
to welcome as a deliverer any man who came, with however small a force, to free them from that rule. I do not mean to defend the whole of the conduct of the King of Sardinia, but it was a question for him and his Ministry to consider what they should do. The right hon. Gentleman thinks little of that potentate. I will, however, mention an opinion to which the right hon. Gentleman may attach more importance, It was given by a Minister of this country at a critical period and seems to me to contain sound doctrines. In 1821 the position of affairs in Italy afforded a great contrast to its present state. The Sovereigns of Europe met au Verona. They laid down certain principles, from which no nation was allowed to depart. Those principles were that Sovereigns might introduce improvements into their own dominions, and that if it pleased them to improve their laws they were at liberty to do so; but that if it did not occur to any Sovereign that arbitrary imprisonment, that caps of silence, and dungeons where prisoners might be confined without trial for several years, were objectionable, he need not introduce any improvement in those matters. It was, however, laid down that any improvement introduced by the people was an offence against the divinity that hedges a King, and was not to be permitted. Lord Castlereagh, on the part of England, did not think it necessary to declare on this account an armed resistance on the part of this country, and I think he acted wisely. This country had carried on a very long war, and the efforts she had made had been very costly. We had retained at a great sacrifice the ancient limits of Europe. The sovereigns who met on that occasion were chiefly sovereigns in alliance with Great Britain. They were sovereigns for whom and with whom we had encountered these perils and incurred these costs. But while Lord Castlereagh did not advise his country to go to war, he protested against the principle of this general supervision, and he said what, if the House will permit me, I am about to read. His words appear to me to be so sound that they are worth the attention of the House, although the extract is not a short one:—
"After having removed the misconception to which the passage of the circular in question, if passed over in silence, might give countenance, and having stated in general terms, without however entering into the argument, the dissent of His Majesty's Government from the general principle upon which the circular in question is found-
88
ed, it should be clearly understood that no Government can be more prepared than the British Government is to uphold the right of any State or States to interfere, where their own immediate security or essential interests are seriously endangered by the internal transactions of another State. But, as they regard the assumption of such right as only to be justified by the strongest necessity and to be limited and regulated thereby, they cannot admit that this right can receive a general and indiscriminate application to all revolutionary movements, without reference to their immediate bearing union some particular State or States, or be made prospectively the basis of an alliance. They regard its exercise as an exception to general principles, of the greatest value and importance, and as one that only properly grows out of the circumstances of the special case; but they, at the same time, consider that exceptions of this description never can, without the utmost danger, be so far reduced to rule as to be incorporated into the ordinary diplomacy of States or into the institutes of the law of nations."
Now, according to this opinion, in which I entirely concur, the question for the King of Sardinia and his Ministers was whether the essential interests of Sardinia and of that part of Italy over which he was then the ruler were so endangered by what had taken place in Naples that he could not remain a tranquil spectator of those events. What was that situation? Garibaldi, as I have said, had made himself master of Naples and the greater part of the country. But he had not been able—even if he had the talents for government, which he does not appear to possess—to found a solid Government in Naples. Everything was falling into anarchy. What would have been the consequences of that state of things? Not that that anarchy would have continued, but that other Powers would then have said, "We are willing to allow Italy to arrange her own affairs, but see what a condition of anarchy exists in Naples. A king unable to maintain his authority, a military chief master of the State, everything in confusion. Now is the time, certainly, for Europe to interfere to establish the Pope in his dominions, to place Austrian garrisons in several of her provinces, and to show for ever that that dream of Italian independence has been a mere illusion which can never again be revived." Well, in that position I really think the King of Sardinia could do no other than declare himself at once to be so deeply interested in what had happened, as well for himself and his States as for Italy, whose champion he avowed himself to be, that he would inarch with an army into Naples and establish that unity of Italy which had long been the wish of so many of the people in all parts of that

89
country. But, Sir, this act of his did not pass unnoticed. The right hon. Gentleman says that on the 27th of October I wrote a despatch justifying that proceeding. But that was not the first thing that had taken place. The Powers of Europe very frequently when it suits them adopt that practice which the right hon. Gentleman says was so new in this instance—namely, although their affairs are generally conducted with the utmost secrecy, they put forth declarations of principles signed by their Minister of Foreign Affairs, and which are intended to have an influence on the events of Europe. In this case Russia and Prussia had both thought it necessary to administer lectures to the King of Sardinia—to point out to him that he had departed from the law of nations, and that such an outrage had never been known in the history of Europe. Well, these proceedings were calculated to have a great effect. The Emperor of the French at the same time had withdrawn his Minister from Turin. Well, I certainly felt myself, and I found that Her Majesty's Government were also of opinion, that the King of Sardinia was defending a just cause when he had so taken up arms; and it was impossible, I think, with any regard to the dignity of England, that we should maintain entire silence while Russia, Prussia, Austria, and France were doing all in their power, as far as their moral influence would extend, to extinguish the freedom and independence of the new Italian State. That, therefore, was my reason for not only writing the despatch to our Minister at the Court of Turin, but, as the Russian paper had been published, for allowing the despatch, I had written to be published likewise. The right hon. Gentleman says that the Italians owe us no gratitude, but I believe their own feeling is very different. I believe their feeling is that the moral influence of England in their favour, while they had the moral influence of almost every other Power in Europe against them, was of great weight and importance. Sir, I have already said that we never put forward the principle of the unity of Italy; but if this unity, if one constitutional monarchy is the form of government which the Italians think best fitted to secure their independence, we should be the last persons to say we would interfere to prevent them from accomplishing their wishes. The right hon. Gentleman tells us we are now between two dangers; that those dangers are either that the Treaty of Zurich should be carried into
90
effect, or that, on the other hand, the sword of France will decide in favour of the unity of Italy, and thereby great results will follow—results so great that he does not venture to specify what they may be. But he is now talking, not of the actual state of things, not of anything that is apparent on the face of Europe, but he is borrowing from his imagination schemes and designs which he thinks will be carried into effect. Now, I disagree with him on that subject. The danger against which we wish to provide is the breaking out of war in Europe. We may succeed in this. If we are fortunate enough to succeed, we shall be most happy. We may fail; and then I only hope we may be treated by the right hon. Gentleman with the same candour with which we treated him and his colleagues when they failed in maintaining the peace of Europe in 1859.
But now, as to those two alternative contingencies of which he speaks, one is, that a confederation should be formed in Italy; that the King of the Two Sicilies should be restored; that the Pope should get back all his dominions except, I believe, Ro-magna; and that an Austrian Archduke should reign in Tuscany and Modena. Well, if there be any truth in what we hear, this would be very inconsistent with Italian feeling. It is not likely that this could be done except by force of arms, and against doing it by force of arms the Emperor of the French, as well as ourselves, is most deeply pledged. He has renewed that pledge no longer ago than yesterday. He has said, what is perfectly true, that acting on the principle of non-intervention may not exactly give rise to, but may allow of excesses which those who confine themselves to looking on may deeply deplore; but that, notwithstanding these excesses, notwithstanding the responsibility which may be thrown on other Powers, he means to keep steadfast to that policy. Well, then, on this high point Great Britain is entirely agreed with the Emperor of the French. The right hon. Gentleman questions us as to our policy. I will say at once, in one word, that we are not now divided upon any great question, such as the war of 1793. or the war of 1804. On a main principle of policy, then, we are entirely agreed with the Emperor of the French. We are at the same time in close alliance and intimacy with the other great Powers of Europe, and if there were any other question on which it should appear to us that France

91
was in the wrong, or was acting in that spirit of encroachment which has sometimes actuated a great military nation, then we should appeal to that alliance to combat her designs. And so, I believe, that the second alternative which the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned is not likely to come to pass. The Emperor of the French has declared his strong disapproval of any attempt on the part of Sardinia to break the Treaty of Zurich and attack Venetia. I believe the French people will entirely support him in that declaration. I believe he has no intention of marching an army into Italy with a view of aiding the Italians in that attempt. But, if a war were made, it is impossible to say at this moment what part France might take as new events arose. But let me state, in regard to this same question, that while I wrote that despatch of the 31st of August which the right hon. Gentleman saw in the Cologne Gazette, I wrote about the same time a despatch to our Minister at Vienna to say that we should entirely disapprove an attack by Sardinia on the Austrians in Venetia. We should entirely disapprove any aid given by France to such an attack; we should take care to have our opinion known at Turin and at Paris; we trusted our influence should have its due effect, combined with other considerations which must be in the minds of the Sovereigns of those countries; but, mind this, I added, we can go no further; it is not our intention to take part in such a war if it should arise; we confine ourselves to what we have stated. Now, Sir, the right hon. Gentleman has asked me what are our relations with France. Sir, I agree with my lion. Friend who seconded the Address with so much good sense and so much practical sagacity. The hon. Gentleman said that the Commercial Treaty would have this effect— that it would make an alliance not only between the Governments of France and England, but between the people of France and England. I believe that will be the case, and I render due homage to an hon. Friend not now in the House,—I mean Mr. Cobden, who has devoted so much labour, and, I am sorry to say, so much of his valuable health, in order to complete that work, and to unite these two nations in commercial relations which may tend to future peace and future alliance, and which I trust may be an enduring memorial to future generations. Such, then, are our general relations with France. But I stated in this House we did not mean to keep
92
apart from other Powers, and that declaration, I remember well, was received with great favour on the other side. We have acted on that declaration. We have always communicated confidentially with Austria, Prussia, and Russia, with regard to any affairs of Europe that arose. We have communicated our opinions to them; they have communicated theirs to us. On some questions we were in entire accordance; on others we had various opinions. But there is nothing in our relations with any of these Powers that should make any of them entertain any feeling of estrangement, far less of hostility, towards this country. Sir, I can only end this part of the subject by saying that my hope and my belief is that, notwithstanding the dangers that menace us—and affairs wore a far more dark aspect some time ago—notwithstanding these dangers, the peace of Europe may at this time be preserved. It will be for Austria to settle her affairs with Hungary, as it is for other Powers to settle their own internal affairs; it will be for Prussia and for Russia to settle the difficult internal questions which are now occupying their attention, but I do trust that none of the dangers which menace us may lead to actual conflict in arms. For, although some are sanguine enough to believe there might be a great war in Europe, in which we could take no part, yet I have the melancholy conviction that although that war might be begun without us—although we might declare we had no concern in it—yet, in the course of that war events might take place which would so seriously menace the independence of nations in which we take the deepest interest that we should hardly be able to be free from its complications and dangers. For this reason, therefore, I pray most earnestly that peace maybe preserved; and, whatever the right hon. Gentleman may think of the inutility or utility of my exertions, I can only say, such as they are, they shall be devoted to that purpose—the almost sacred purpose in my eyes — the maintenance of peace.
Sir, I will now say a few words as to the Amendment. With regard to the question of Reform, I will state at once that I think it is perfectly clear no measure could have been brought forward with a chance of its being carried, except a measure of a very trifling character; and I believe, for my own part, that it is altogether better for the Government to leave that question entirely untouched than to bring forward a measure which would create great disap-

93
pointment among its supporters, many taunts on the part of its opponents, and which, whether carried or not, would occupy a great deal of valuable time without any valuable result. There is another consideration, which is, that on this question of Reform I have always had considerable dread of what persons might be induced to do by way of compromise. We had franchises by the Reform Act which are secured to us so long as that Reform Act is not touched; but if, by way of getting certain provisions, you give up certain other provisions, your loss is certain, while it is not so certain you would gain anything like an equivalent to it on the other side. Therefore, Sir, I come to the opinion — we have had eight years now to arrive at that judgment—that in order to carry a Reform Bill that shall be actually of use to the country—and I should call no Reform Bill of use that did not admit great numbers of the working classes—in order to carry such a Reform Bill there must be a great and favourable breeze of public opinion that will enable us to carry it in this House, and with a swelling tide over the bar of the House of Lords. Now I come to consider what has been the state of opinion during the last year. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli) has said truly that a great part of the opposition against the Bill we brought forward last year was not on the ground that it did not go far enough, but on the ground that it was too extensive, and that it came from Gentlemen who sat on this side of the House, and who represented great bodies of constituents. There was one hon. Gentleman, a friend of mine, the Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Massey), who, addressing his constituents at Salford, said he was in favour of a £5 franchise. I thought if I produced a £6 franchise there was one Gentleman in the House of Commons who would not think I had gone too far; but my hon. Friend made a speech entirely against it. Then, more extraordinary still, there was the hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Black)—he made a speech almost against the extension of the franchise. There was clearly an indisposition of Members of the House of Commons on this subject. If these speeches had been made in 1831 by hon. Members representing great bodies of constituents, there would have been what the Americans call "indignation meetings" among their constituents protesting that they had been misrepresented. But not a bit of it; the
94
country was quite dead on the subject. My hon. friend the Member for Edinburgh had to undergo some severe schooling from his constituents, but scarcely anything was said about the Reform Bill, their attention being almost entirely confined to the Annuity Tax Repeal Bill. Well, then, I say if such is the state of public opinion—if the Governments of the Earl of Aberdeen, the Earl of Derby, and my noble Friend, have brought forward different plans of Reform, and they have failed, from the general dislike that seems to affect them, I must come to the conclusion that at the present time—and I speak only for the present time—there is no such disposition in favour of the further amendment of the representation as ought to induce the Government—I might say to justify the Government, in proposing a measure for the reform of the representation. However, the country has the matter in its own hands. It is not too late for indignation meetings. If nothing will satisfy the country but a Reform Bill which, to use the language of the hon. Gentleman, shall satisfy the just expectations of the people demanding it. they have only to insist that the hon. Gentleman who moved this Amendment shall take the place of my noble Friend, and he, no doubt, will carry the Reform Bill to their entire satisfaction. That would show completely the state of the case; and till that is done I shall believe we are in the right, and justly judge the disposition of the people. Well, Sir, with regard to my personal part in these Motions I may be allowed to say one word. With respect to Reform Bills, I have had enough of them to induce me not to be very eager in introducing another Bill. I began with a Motion on this subject in 1819, I am sorry to say 41 years ago. I had an examination in this House with regard to the corruption at Grampound. Everybody agreed the case was proved. It was proposed to give the two members to Leeds, with a £10 suffrage. That was met with universal horror. "What" it was said, "only think of giving the representation to a new place, that is revolution! that is democracy!" Well, Sir, I was; glad to find that opinion became more favourable to Reform, and that Mr. Canning, although he opposed me in an eloquent and brillant speech in 1822, yet at the end of that speech gave me great hopes and encouragement that if I went on I should succeed in my endeavours. Accordingly, in the course of time, Earl Grey was placed

95
at the head of the Government, and having from the beginning of his Parliamentary life been a consistent Reformer, he desired those who were associated with him to frame a Bill, which should be introduced into Parliament. My right hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle, Lord Durham, Lord Bessborough, and myself were named for that purpose. We prepared a Bill, and after a great struggle we were enabled to carry it in 1832. Am I, then, to be told that it is any mortification to me to find at the end of 30 years that the country is so well satisfied with the Bill of 1832 that it does not ask for anything else? Surely it can be no great humiliation to me that the amendment which I then introduced into the. Constitution has been so successful, has produced Such contentment, has given so much fairer a representation to the great seats of industry, that at the present moment the people think of other objects—of foreign politics, of commercial treaties, of church-rates, of various questions of detail — rather than lend their support to any plan of organic change. All I can say, therefore, is that when any further amendment is proposed I hope it will go, as all the Bills I have had the honour to introduce have gone, upon the principle of making a supplement to the Bill of 1832 rather than of attempting to disturb the foundations of an arrangement which was then established with the almost universal assent of the people. At all events, for this year I certainly believe our best course will be to give our attention to those various amendments which Her Majesty has referred to in her Speech. They will occupy most usefully the time of this House; and if the right hon. Gentleman opposite, after having read the papers upon Foreign Affairs, wishes further explanations from me I shall be always ready to give them, feeling as I do that it is a great security for the people of this country that the Government should be their organ in foreign politics, and that it is a great security for the Government to know that they have the support of the people in the sentiments which they express and the principles which they uphold.
MR. BRIGHT: Sir, I have to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton (Mr. White) for the course he has taken in bringing the question of Reform, to which the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) has so recently alluded, before the House. I think my hon. Friend did it in a speech
96
which was full of matter, and which has very favourably impressed the House. I am glad, too, that his speech has brought from the noble Lord a true expression. I take it, being the last, it must be accepted as the true expression of his sentiments upon this great question. At the same time, I would have given a great deal rather than to have heard that speech from the noble Lord, and I feel a grief which I cannot well express, in being compelled to understand that the noble Lord means precisely what he has said. He reminds me of cases which are often exhibited in the commercial world, where men for many years submit to pecuniary obligations and burdens which they are unable to satisfy, and at last call their creditors together, acknowledge a state of bankruptcy, and feel perfect happiness in having got rid in some way of the obligations that they have contracted. Now, that seems to me precisely the tone in which the noble Lord has addressed the House to-night. I would have admitted some force in what he might have said as to the difficulty of his position, as to the difficulty of handling this question, or of carrying it to a successful issue. Why, I have seen him shed tears on that very spot, when he was withdrawing a Reform Bill, where to-night he has done it with a jocularity that was absolutely contemptuous to those who placed him on that very seat that he might advocate that very measure. Now, Sir, I shall not, because I think it utterly beneath the feeling which I have with regard to this question, to expose the errors of the noble Lord and show him where I consider he has failed with regard to this question in a hostile and unfriendly spirit, because, notwithstanding what he has said to-night, it is just possible that the noble Lord may again find this question of use to his political objects. But, Sir, I will turn rather to the House, and ask the House what is its position with regard to this question?— for that matter is infinitely more to England and the people of England than the consistency of conduct of any particular Member of this House, however old in its service and however eminent he may be. The noble Lord has led us back to the year 1819. Well, I will not ask the House to go back so far. Surely the time of the Reform Bill was far enough. But I will ask you to go hack only to 1851, just ten years ago. That was the period when the noble Lord, the Foreign Secretary, first announced to this House

97
his departure from the principle which it was supposed he had avowed, but which I believe he did afterwards repudiate— namely, that the Reform Bill of 1832 was a final measure in reference to the representation of the people. In 1851 the noble Lord stated one day, in answer to Mr. Hume, then an honoured Member of this House, that he was prepared to consider the question with a view of introducing some Bill to extend the principle of the Reform Act. Well, in 1852, the noble Lord did introduce such a Bill. But there happened what happens continually. There was a quarrel, an estrangement at least, between himself and the noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston), who was First Minister, and the result of that difference was that the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) retired from office. Immediately afterwards there came in that wonderful exhibition which struck the country with surprise;—the first Government of Lord Derby, in which the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Disraeli) held office as Chancellor of the Exchequer and leader of the House of Commons. They did not commit themselves on the question of Reform at all. Lord Derby said — I speak from memory — it was a part of his great duty "to stem the tide of democracy." Whether they stemmed it or not time will show. That Government which undertook the fearful obligation of stemming the tide of democracy was overthrown, because the House disagreed with the not very successful Budget of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. When that Government fell, there came in the Government which was called a "Coalition Government," over which a man of singular moderation, of singular love of justice, and of singular liberality—the late Earl of Aberdeen—presided. That Government contained the noble Lord the Member for the City of London, and in accordance, I presume, with some of his colleagues—for it does not appear that all of them agreed with him—he brought in a Bill to extend the right of suffrage, and to amend the laws relating to the representation of the people. That Bill was not withdrawn, because the expression of opinion was against it either as to principle or detail; but it was withdrawn because the two noble Lords who now sit together on that bench unhappily succeeded with their colleagues in involving the country in war with Russia, and it was owing to the excitement on that subject that it was thought
98
better not to proceed with the Bill, and it was withdrawn. But by-and-bye the Government of the Earl of Aberdeen was overthrown. I need not allude to the circumstances which attended that overthrow further than to say that it was followed by the Government of the noble Viscount who is now at the head of the Administration; and not long after the termination of the war, the noble Lord the Member for the City of London admitted, in answer to a question from the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. T. Duncombe) that the time was come to improve the state of the franchise, and he promised that in the succeeding Session the Government would he prepared to introduce a Reform Bill. In the succeeding Session some-thing happened which was not expected in the preceding Session, which I find to be nearly always the case. In the Session of 1858, almost immediately after the House met, the noble Viscount made a stumble in some matter connected with the French Government, and on a Motion brought in by the hon. Member for Ash-ton-under-Lyne (Mr. M. Gibson), the noble Viscount was ejected from office. Well, he had not brought in the Bill; in fact, he had not time in that Session. But, when my hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury asked him whether the Bill had been considered, or whether a Bill had been prepared, it came out at last—I will not say that it had not been considered —but that there was no Bill ready to be laid on the table of the House. Well, the noble Viscount had not quite kept the promise which he made to the House, but he might plead that circumstances had been rather against him, and that politically he had been cut short rather unexpectedly. Then came the second apparition of the Derby Government, and the right hon. Gentleman opposite was again leader of this House and Chancellor of the Exchequer. Well, so convinced were Lord Derby, the right hon. Gentleman, their colleagues, and the party whom they represent, of the necessity of something being done in the matter of Reform, that they promised in the ensuing Session to bring in a Bill to amend the representation of the people. Assuming that altering is amending they kept their promise, and brought in a Bill. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli), speaking of the Bill the noble Lord the Member for the City of London brought in last Session, said that all the Members on this side were not in

99
favour of it. Well, with regard to the Bill which the right hon. Gentleman himself brought in, nobody on his side of the House was in favour of it. They certainly voted for the second reading, but it was notorious that if it had depended for passing upon their votes, the right hon. Gentleman would have gone into the lobby accompanied only by his official supporters. I am not finding fault with Lord Derby or his party for the character of that Bill. It was a Bill which altered the franchise and conferred some fresh qualifications. But it would not have amended the representation of the people. The right hon. Gentleman told us that the Bill would add 500,000 to the borough voters. Now, the right hon. Gentleman did not understand what he was saying. No doubt there was a monstrous exaggeration. I should think the number he 'mentioned would be seven or eight fold what would have been added. But seeing that the first Government of Lord Derby was established to stem the tide of democracy, and that the second Government brought in a Bill which the right hon. Gentleman declared added considerably more votes than the Bill which the noble Lord the Member for the City of London brought in, then, I think, the Gentlemen opposite will come to the conclusion that the second Government of Lord Derby was worse than the first. Well, they proposed that Bill, and the House of Commons rejected it, on the special invitation of the noble Lord the Member for the City of London. The Government of Lord Derby, then, did one of two things which are imperative on the Governments of this country, according to constitutional practice. They did not resign. They were not bound to do so. But they advised the Queen to dissolve Parliament, and the Queen took that advice, and Parliament was dissolved. They appealed to the 1,000,000 of electors of the United Kingdom—the 1,000,000 of electors whose position is cooked and manipulated in so many curious and antique fashions that you do not even get the opinion of that 1,000,000 electors that you appeal to. I am told that the great united Italy of which the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) has spoken so enthusiastically tonight—that that united Italy got rid of its rulers, and chose Victor Emmanuel King of Sardinia as its governor, for the main object that it should have a Parliament in which Italy should be freely and fairly represented. And I understand that it is
100
represented in this manner,—that every 50,000 inhabitants of the kingdom are represented by one Member in Parliament. They will have nothing like a great West Riding, or Lancashire, or this mighty Metropolis, or Liverpool, or Manchester, or Glasgow, or Birmingham all neutralized by representatives from handfuls of people, a score of whose whole constituencies would not make a single ward in some of these towns. But, as I said, the right, hon. Gentleman opposite, his colleagues, and their chief, Lord Derby, did what to my mind was honourable. They dissolved Parliament to see if the country would support their Bill. The country did not support it. A Motion was brought forward when Parliament met, which had the effect of overthrowing the Government of Lord Derby. And then the noble Lord the Member for the City of London again came into the Cabinet of which the noble Viscount the Member for Tiverton is the chief. Well, the proposition of a Reform Bill by that Government was considered certain. There were public and private pledges of the most explicit character given. The Government were not coiled upon that Session to introduce a Bill, but the noble Lord the Member for the City had very fairly described what would be the character of the measure which he would propose. He described it, I believe, on the very night when the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Disraeli) announced the dissolution of Parliament; so that the electoral body fully understood what they were to vote about, and what the noble Lord intended to do if he came into office. Well, we went to the election; the return was made; and the result was to place the right hon. Gentleman on that side, and the noble Lord and his colleagues on this. We did not urge them to go on with the Bill immediately they came into office. The Session went over, and last year a Bill was introduced. Now the noble Lord the Member for the City knows, at least, that I am not one of those who treated him with indifference in reference to that measure. I have never, in public or in private, endeavoured to depreciate it; and this, I think, every Member of the House who heard me speak upon the subject will admit. I did regret that more had not been done in reference to the distribution of seats. I said that it merely touched the fringe of that question. But the public mind regarded as more important the question of the suffrage; and, as far as the feeling of the great body of the people at

101
this time goes, I believe that to be the most important matter. I do not say important as referring to the ultimate condition of the representation, but important as representing the feeling of the people. I said it was a measure which was a considerable advance for all Reformers who wished for an amendment of the law of representation, and that it would give great satisfaction to the country—that it would operate advantageously on the sentiments and feelings of the great body of the unrepresented population of this country. I thought that with the great improvement which, if the noble Lord's anticipations as to peace are fulfilled—if the fruits of the industry of the country are not wasted on war as they are too much wasted on armaments— will take place, the best portion of the working men might raise themselves up to that line which the noble Lord laid down when he took a £6 rental as the basis of his franchise. And I said further that I looked forward to the day when we ourselves, when we became older, or those who came after us, might find ourselves in a position to bring down the line fixed by the noble Lord's Bill to a still lower level. Well, the noble Lord brought in the Bill, and I am not going to blame him for what he did. I know you cannot get twenty waggons at once through Temple Bar; and I know that you cannot get such measures as the great beneficent Budget of the right hon. Gentleman who sits on the Treasury Benches and the Reform Bill—both measures distasteful to a considerable party in this House—I know you cannot get both through in one Session. But the noble Lord failed to pass his measure, and he specified two hon. Members—one the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Massey), and another the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Black), as having contributed to that result. Now, of the former I will say nothing, except that I believe he was generally supposed in the borough which he represents to be enthusiastically in favour of the very Bill against which the noble Lord says he made one of the ablest speeches that was delivered last Session. As to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, I can only say that at his election he made a distinct statement, to the effect that although he entertained some doubts as to the expediency of making any very large extension of the franchise, yet that, if the question of a £6 rental were raised, he should, with respect to it, not take a course opposed to that which might be adopted by the party
102
with which he acted. I therefore leave the hon. Gentleman to satisfy his own conscience upon this point; but this I may be allowed to observe, that we learn from the public papers that when the hon. Gentleman presented himself the other day to address a meeting of his constituents, which was supposed to have been made safe by his friends, he was subjected to one of those unpleasant examinations and cross-fires which, when I consider his high character, the long time he has resided in Edinburgh, and the great respect in which for so many reasons he is held by his fellow-citizens, I can scarcely account for upon any other ground but his conduct with respect to this question of Parliamentary Reform. Now, there is one very unfortunate circumstance connected with the Bill of the noble Lord to which I did not refer last Session, and to which I should not allude now but for the speech which we have to-night heard from him. The noble Lord at the head of the Government addressed the House on the second reading of the measure in what I regarded as a frank and statesmanlike spirit for the purpose he had in view — namely, to induce the House to assent to the second reading, and I certainly do not seek to accuse him of any want of fairness or honour in the matter. Unfortunately, however, the belief prevailed throughout the House that the noble Lord, though he supported the Bill, was not in favour of Parliamentary Reform; that the measure was introduced by the noble Lord the Member for London as a pet project of his own, and that some of his colleagues would not regard with any feeling of regret or pain any cruelty which the House might inflict upon it. I do not charge this on the noble Lord as true, but such was the idea which unhappily floated through the minds of many hon. Members, and the consequence was, I cannot help thinking, an opposition to the measure more persistent than that which it would have otherwise experienced. But what was the fate which awaited the Bill after all? Nobody made a Motion in direct opposition to it. The hon. Member for Berwick (Captain Gordon) indeed, gave notice of his intention to do so, but he was so worried on the subject by the right hon. Gentleman opposite and the members of his party that he shrunk from the task. They, of course, desired to see the Bill strangled, but they deemed it much more politic to leave the accomplishment of that object to the hon. Member for Rye (Mr. Mackinnon)

103
than to commit it to the hands of a Gentleman on their own side of the House. [An Hon. MEMBER on the Opposition side of the House: The hon. Member for Sal-ford (Mr. Massey) gave notice of a Motion against the Bill.] Yes, but he also ran away from it as your man did. And now let me say a few words to you. You know that our system of representation is imperfect, and that in many districts it is a mere sham. You know that 6,000,000 of men as intelligent as yourselves in all the common affairs of life are excluded from the exercise of the franchise. I, for one, undertake to say that I could find you 500 men from among that number who when brought into this House could debate this question of reform with as much solid information, as sound logic, as much courtesy, and as great general ability as we now discuss it. Such are the men you exclude from the exercise of political rights. The noble Lord the Member for London wrote despatches to the King of Naples, advising him to do certain things, which he did not, and he is now suffering the consequences of his non-compliance, and instead of being in Naples with a loyal people around him, he is shut up in one of his own fortresses. It does not of course follow that the same state of things which has taken place in Naples will be brought about in England; but depend upon it the same principles are at work in the minds of the people of all nations, and do not think that great questions are to be disposed of by ejecting one set of men from office and putting others in their stead. After such a speech as we have heard from the noble Lord to-night, after ten years of trifling with this question of Reform, I can well imagine some peace-loving Sovereign abroad asking his Minister to write a letter of advice to him on this subject, advising him of the consequences of his actions. Now I appeal to the House this evening—I appeal to the knowledge and the conscience of the House —is it right that the representation should be amended some time, or is it not? If it be right some time, is not it better even for your—what shall I call it—your timid and Conservative policy—that it should be done gradually now, than that it should be done as it was in 1832, and as it will be done again if you persist in the course that you are now taking? Surely, when one reads or remembers what is recorded of Lord John Russell, the leader of the Government at one time; of Lord Aberdeen,
104
the leader of the Government at another time; of Lord Derby, the chief of another Government; and of Lord Palmerston, the latest in the service of the country—that they have all declared that the representation of the country is so far imperfect that it is desirable it should be amended, I ask the House with confidence whether it is desirable that small questions, such as that of Savoy and Nice, and questions, if possible, even smaller than this, but to which we have been treated at such length tonight, are of as vast and permanent importance to this country as this great question, "What does the House of Commons, as now constituted, think of the people of England, and what are the people of England likely to think of the House of Commons?" Now, the House itself recollects that it passed a Resolution in favour of the working classes being enfranchised. The noble Lord's Bill did not propose to enfranchise, I undertake to say, more probably than from 100,000 to 120,000 of that class. I have stated at a public meeting that I lately attended in the town of Leeds, that there are commercial undertakings in the town in which Hive—a small town comparatively, of less than 40,000 inhabitants —to the amount of more than £400,000 a year, which are managed entirely by three committees of working men, composed of thirty-two individuals. There are eleven on each committee, but one person is on two committees. Of these thirty-two men—and I know many of them and their worth — of these thirty-two men, under your present system, which you now refuse to alter, there are but two that voted for my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale, or voted for his predecessor, or that can vote at all in that borough or that county. One of these men is in the employ of the firm in which I am a partner. He has the care of a large steam-engine, and is a man of great labour, of considerable intelligence, of great economy, and as respectable a man as I see before me or around me. Well, that man has succeeded in obtaining a vote. He is in this position —he has not a large family. I believe he has but one child, which makes a great difference to a man who lives on 30 s. a week. He has, therefore, secured by his resolution and industry a county vote; and another member of these committees has obtained a borough vote. Now you think that I—no I doubt whether you do think it—but some of those who pretend to speak in your name, and some of the less judicious

105
of your own body sometimes speak as if you did think—that I am advocating changes (such as that which the noble Lord proposed as moderate) which would revolutionize and be likely to bring harm to the country. These 6,000,000 of men will not always be content to be excluded from any influence in the affairs of this House. I should despise my countrymen as much as I might despise the most selfish people that breathe on the face of the earth, if I could think that the course which you think is the safe course is one that can be permanently maintained. The noble Lord has gone back to 1830, and he says that you thought — some of you—at that day that the £10 pounder was a revolutionist. Well, it is proved that he is not. But is there any doubt of this, that in the last thirty years —thirty years nearly of peace, and one-half of that time—fifteen years—of free trade—is there anybody can doubt for a moment that the class of persons the noble Lord proposed last year to admit to the suffrage are not equal, at least, to the £10 pounders whom the noble Lord admitted in 1832? The last thirty years have seen an age of improvement in the condition, the character, and the intelligence of the people of England. I speak not, of course, of those with whom hon. Gentlemen must he better acquainted than I am—their agricultural labourers—but I speak of the artisan —the man whose industry is the foundation of all that greatness which comes to this Country from the wonderful manufactures of the counties of Yorkshire and Lancashire. It is for these men that I speak: — but not more for them than for you; for if it be good for them that they should be represented here, depend upon it is not good for you that they should be permanently excluded from the franchise. The noble Lord has told us to-night, and with a jocular air, as if he really enjoyed it, that England appears not to care about this question. Now, from that I will give the noble Lord a warning—no, I do not need to give it to the noble Lord, for I am not sure that he has not on one or two occasions given it to the House himself—but I believe, if you turn back to the records of the years between 1819 and 1831, you will find that for the last six of those years there was not one solitary petition presented to the House of Commons in favour of Parliamentary Reform. The noble Lord brought it on in 1819, and I think after that; but for several years previous to 1831 so little was said about it that not a single petition ap-
106
peared on that table in its behalf. What did your predecessors say with regard to that?—for the majority who are here now were not here then—why, that if an angel had come down from Heaven he could not have framed a better Constitution, or one more admirably suited to the people, and that the country was contented with it. That was the sort of delight which I am sorry the noble Lord exhibited to-night, when he said, "Have I not reason to be proud that my handiwork of 1830 is so prized in 1860 that nobody wishes to alter it? But that time of tranquillity passed away, and in 1831 you were running for your lives. Consider the danger you ran. You were within twenty-four hours of a revolution; there would have been a good many things besides that if that had happened. You were in a state of terror. You—the Tories—could not travel through the country. You went to a general election —you were swept away—and the other House which I am charged with wishing to humiliate—the other House kissed the very dust before the people whom for years before they had been speaking of with the utmost contempt. And when the Monarch found it necessary to threaten at last the exercise of a power which, though constitutional, I should be very sorry to see exercised, your party in that House abased itself altogether, and you see now—what? Why the painter has given the whole story in that engraving which hangs in thousands of houses in this country, where the Royal consent is given to a great Bill denominated the Charter of the Liberties of the People of England, and on one side the House is filled with Peers belonging to a certain party, and the benches of the other side are altogether vacant, as if they that occupied them had vanished into space. Will you learn nothing from this? Will the noble Lord learn nothing? I believe that the consciousness that there is in the heart of the House of Commons that this question cannot remain where it is, and must before long be settled, would have enabled the noble Lord at the head of the Government and his colleagues to have passed — I will not say a wholly — but to some extent a satisfactory and useful measure, if they had taken the course which was taken by Lord Derby's Government. If, as I suppose, we shall not this year have an extensive Budget, such as we had last year, though I can express a hope to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer that it will be a worthy successor

107
of it—if we are not to have this great Budget—if we are to have nothing but the Attorney General's Bankruptcy Bill, and one or two other measures which are mentioned—if we really are not going to interfere with the Italian strife—and the noble Lord says we are not—well, then, this Session was, of nil Sessions, that in which a moderate, a short, but a useful measure might have been presented to the House. And, if the noble Lord the Prime Minister had stated that the Government considered that Bill to be the cardinal measure of the Session—by which the House would have understood one of three things—either that it would pass, or there would be a change of Government, or there would be a dissolution of Parliament, in pursuance of the honourable course taken by Lord Derby's Government—I will undertake to say there is not a shadow of a doubt that that Bill would have passed the House. But the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) says it wants a great tide to carry it over the bar of the House of Lords. Well, doubtless it does. But still there are men in the House of Lords not wholly oblivious to the past, and not wholly wanting in foresight as to the future. The Government of the noble Lord the Prime Minister, last Session, of course, made a submission to the House of Lords, which may have made them less reasonable upon this question than they otherwise would have been. Whether or not that is the case, still I do not think a measure of this kind would have been treated with contempt and ignominy in the other House, and there was good reason to believe that last Session, if that Bill had passed this House, the House of Lords would not have refused also to pass it. The speech of the noble Lord has placed this question, of course, in a very different position. So far, at least, as those Members of this House who were instrumental in placing the noble Lord in the office he now holds are concerned, they at least, as far as that question goes, are absolved from any supposed obligation to consider themselves supporters of the Government of the noble Lord. Well, I grieve very much at this, because I was most anxious that at least we need not have a change of Government and a dissolution of Parliament every two years, but a Government which the majority of the House might have enabled to pass that one measure for which it was particularly returned to power; and that on this side of that House, where so many schisms have esiated—schisms as bad as those which
108
exist on the other side. I was in hopes these schisms might have been healed, and that we might have gone on more comfortably together, with advantage to the real interests of the country. But now the noble Lord repudiates all this—and not with sorrow, but with satisfaction. He got a resolution of Parliament, and he got a majority of the Members of the House in favour of the proposition which he made. He brought it before the House; he has never stood a single division upon it, the principle of the Bill having passed by a unanimous vote of the House, and it was withdrawn, on the ground that last Session there was so much to be done that that could not be done. He comes now in the opening of the Session, in which almost nothing is to be done, and refuses to attempt to do that for which alone, for which, I venture to say, he was seated on the Ministerial Bench. Well, now, I shall only say this further. I am, with the noble Lord, quite content to wait for the time when this measure shall receive what I call a more honest, and more statesmanlike attention from this House. I believe that the time is not distant when the country will insist that something is done with regard to it. The working classes are not like Members of this House, and some million people in the country who have a little time to spare morning and evening, and a good many who have time during the day. They work from six o'clock in the morning until six o'clock, and sometimes later, in the evening—they have not the time-—except when they are out of work, and when they are in great distress—they have not the time to make great political demonstrations. The million to whom you have given the franchise declare in favour of the extension of the franchise; do you mean to say that the majority which they exhibit are not a fair representation of the enormous majority which would be exhibited if you could poll six-sevenths of the people to whom you refuse the franchise? And yet what does the noble Lord want, and what do you want? You want these six millions of the people to make a demonstration which you put it out of their power to make in any peaceable fashion. You won't poll the nation; you won't refer the question to the people of the country and let them decide it; you confine the franchise to the million, whom you hocus focus until their votes are of no value even to themselves, and then say, "Why don't these six millions show they want it?"

109
How are they to show it, except by great meetings? and, for the most part, in a state of political excitement they must go into tumultuous meetings. And if you should have those tumultuous meetings— if my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow should come here and say, "Mr. Speaker, I left Glasgow, and there were 100,000 people assembled, and this resolution was passed;" and if my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, and my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds and his colleague, could come up here and tell the same story, what would you do? Your difficulties would vanish. You would play the part you played thirty years ago. Your Ministers who are now so calm, and now so Conservative (especially if they were on that side of the House) would take the popular side; the other House would become as obsequious as it was in 1832, and a Bill would pass, perhaps more extensive than many of us would wish to see passed, and changes would take place which you dread. Now, I speak this to the House from an honest conviction. I am giving the House wise counsel, and I am warning them of dangers, which even though they be in some degree distant, as they may be —for I forget not the gift of prophesy as to time—are dangers which are ahead. They have overtaken the statesmen of every one of those countries who have disregarded these warnings, and overwhelmed not a few of them; and I say that after the course which the House of Commons has pursued on this occasion, which Ministers on both sides of the House have pursued, and after the statements you have made, you run the risk of losing, first, your own self-respect; and, secondly, the self-respect of the country, and when that once has happened in this kingdom, rely upon it that a more unpleasant and a more unhappy time will have come than can possibly come as the result of such a judicious and moderate measure as Government might this Session have proposed, if they were courageous in their duty, and such as the House of Commons, with great satisfaction, in my opinion, might have passed.
Question put, "That those words be there added."
The House divided:—Ayes 46; Noes 129: Majority 83.
Main Question put, and agreed to.
Committee appointed—
To draw up an Address to be presented to Her Majesty upon the said Resolution:—SIR EDWARD
COLEBROOKE, Mr. PAGET, Viscount PALMBRSTON Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, Lord JOHN RUSSELL, Sir GEORGE LEWIS, Sir CHARLES WOOD, Sir GEORGE GREY, Mr. MILNER GIBSON, Mr. CARDWELL, Mr. VILLIERS, Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Mr. PEEL, and Mr. MASSEY, or any Five of them. —To withdraw immediately.
Queen's Speech referred.
House adjourned at ten minutes to Ten o'clock.

MINUTES.
Took the Oaths.—The Right Honourable Sidney Herbert, having been created Lord Herbert of Lea—Was (in the usual manner) introduced; Several Lords; The Lord Dormer —Took the Oath prescribed by the Act 10th Geo. IV. to be taken by Peers professing the Roman Catholic Religion.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1ª Select Vestries.

MEETING OF THE PARLIAMENT.
THE PARLIAMENT, which had been Prorogued successively to the 6th November, thence to the 3rd January, and thence to the 5th February, met this day for Despatch of Business.
The Session of PARLIAMENT was opened by THE QUEEN in Person.

SELECT VESTRIES.
Bill, pro formâ, read 1ª.

THE QUEEN'S SPEECH.
THE QUEEN being seated on the Throne, and the Commons being at the
2
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 meet you again in Parliament, and have recourse to your Assistance and Advice.
MY Relations with Foreign Powers continue to be friendly and satisfactory; and I trust that the Moderation of the Powers of Europe will prevent any Interruption of the general Peace.
EVENTS of great Importance are taking place in Italy. Believing that the Italians ought to be left to settle their own Affairs, I have not thought it right to exercise any active Interference in those Matters. Papers on this Subject will be laid before you.
I ANNOUNCED to you at the Close of the last Session of Parliament that the Atrocities which had then recently been committed in Syria had induced Me to concur with The Emperor of Austria, the Emperor of The French, The Prince Regent of Prussia, and The Emperor of Russia, in entering into an Engagement with The Sultan by which temporary Military Assistance was to be afforded to The Sultan for the Purpose of establishing Order in that Part of His Dominions.
THAT Assistance has been afforded by a Body of French Troops, who have been sent to Syria as representing the Allied Powers. The Sultan has also placed a considerable Military Force in Syria, under the Direction of an able Officer; and I trust that Tranquillity will soon be re-established in that Province, and that the Objects of the Convention will have been fully attained.
I ANNOUNCED to you also at the Close of the last Session of Parliament that the pacific Overtures which My Envoy in China had made to the Imperial Government at Pekin having led to no satisfactory Result, My Naval and Military Forces, and those of My Ally The Emperor of the French, were to advance towards the Northern Provinces of China, for the Purpose of supporting the just demands of the Allied Powers, and that the Earl of Elgin had been sent to China as Special Ambassador to treat with the Chinese Government.
I AM glad to inform you that the Operations of the Allied Forces have been attended with complete Success. After the Capture of the Forts at the Mouth of the Peiho, and several Engagements with the Chinese Army, the
4
Allied Forces became Masters of the Imperial City of Pekin; and the Earl of Elgin and Baron Gros, the Ambassador of The Emperor of the French, were enabled to obtain an honourable and satisfactory Settlement of all the Matters in dispute.
THROUGHOUT these Operations, and the Negotiations which followed them, the Commanders and Ambassadors of the Allied Powers acted with the most friendly Concert. Papers on this Subject will be laid before you.
THE State of My Indian Territories is progressively improving, and I trust that their Financial Condition will gradually partake of the general Amendment.
AN Insurrection of a Portion of the Natives of New Zealand has interrupted the Peace of a Part of that Colony; but I hope that the Measures which have been taken will speedily suppress these Disturbances, and enable My Government to concert such Arrangements as may prevent their Recurrence.
SERIOUS Differences have arisen among the States of the North American Union. It is impossible for Me not to look with great Concern upon any Events which can affect the Happiness and Welfare of a People nearly allied to My Subjects by Descent, and closely connected with them by the most intimate and friendly Relations. My heartfelt Wish is, that these Differences may be susceptible of a satisfactory Adjustment.
THE Interest which I take in the Well-being of the People of the United States cannot but be increased by the kind and cordial Reception given by them to the Prince of Wales

5
during His recent Visit to the Continent of America.
I AM glad to take this Opportunity of expressing My warm Appreciation of the Loyalty and Attachment to My Person and Throne manifested by My Canadian and other North American Subjects on the Occasion of the Residence of The Prince of Wales among them.
I HAVE concluded with the Emperor of the French Conventions supplementary to the Treaty of Commerce of 23rd of January, 1860, and in furtherance of the Objects of that Treaty.
I HAVE also concluded with The King of Sardinia a Convention for the reciprocal Protection of Copyright.
THESE Conventions will 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 framed with a due Regard to Economy and to the Efficiency of the several Branches of the Public Service.
"My Lords, and Gentlemen,
MEASURES will be laid before you for the Consolidation of important Parts of the Criminal Law; for the Improvement of the Law of Bankruptcy and Insolvency; for rendering more easy the Transfer of Land; for establishing a uniform System of Rating in England and Wales; and for several other Purposes of public Usefulness.
I CONFIDENTLY commit the great Interests of My Empire to your Wisdom and Care; and I fervently pray
6
that the Blessing of the Almighty may attend your Councils, and may guide your Deliberations to the Attainment of the Object of My constant Solicitude — 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 having been reported by the Lord Chancellor: —
THE EARL OF SEFTONrose to move that an humble Address be presented by this House to Her Majesty in answer to Her Majesty's gracious Speech, and said: —My Lords, in rising to move that a humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, in reply to Her Majesty's most gracious Speech from the Throne, I trust your Lordships will extend to me that indulgence which you have always shown to those who address your Lordships' House for the first time. I can assure your Lordships that it is my intention to trespass on your time as briefly as possible; I trust, therefore, any error I may commit in the performance of the duty I have undertaken will be attributed to my inexperience of public affairs, rather than to any wish on my part to obtrude my opinions unnecessarily on your Lordships' notice. Under other circumstances, my Lords, I should have expressed a hope that the Motion I have the honour to submit would meet with your Lordships' unanimous approval. But I confess, for my own part—and I think I may add on the part of all my noble Friends on this side of the House —that the pleasure of seeing present the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Derby) restored to health, and able to deal with any question that may be brought before the House, tempts me to omit the usual form of deprecating any hostile criticism on the present occasion.
My Lords, Her Majesty has informed us that Her relations with foreign Powers continue to be friendly and satisfactory. I will not enter into any lengthened disquisition on foreign politics — I will content

7
myself with observing that the present crisis requires the greatest care in conducting our relations with foreign Powers; to guide this country safely and honourably through the existing perils will require the greatest prudence and sagacity, and if I could lay claim to either I think I should show it best by abstaining from allusion to those exciting but delicate questions which are agitating all Europe at the present moment. I think, however, I may be allowed to say this, that as long as it is the opinion of this House that the honour and interests of this country are duly cared for by the Executive Government, no party feeling will be allowed to intervene in our deliberations, but that Her Majesty's Government will receive your Lordships' hearty support. I may be here permitted to observe, that however desirable we may deem it that the present territorial arrangements of Europe should be preserved, yet we cannot help feeling the greatest sympathy with those Italian peoples in the ardent struggle which they have maintained for the purpose of raising out of the ruins of governments that have hitherto existed, one strong, free, and united kingdom; but still all will agree that that end is most likely to be attained by the non-intervention of the other Powers of Europe; and I trust that the energies of Her Majesty's Government will be directed to the maintenance of such a policy.
My Lords, Her Majesty then informs us that the operations of the allied forces in China have been attended with complete success. These operations in China, now so happily terminated, have so recently been a subject of deep interest to us all that it is needless for me to attempt to recall them to your Lordships' recollection, but I think I shall be justified in alluding to the completeness of the expedition in all its parts. The people of this country are accustomed to hear on all occasions of the bravery and self-denial of our soldiers and sailors; but when we come to consider the small amount of the loss that has been sustained by our forces in China, either from the efforts of the enemy or the effects of sickness, we cannot help feeling some pride at the intelligence with which the whole of the movements were directed, and the foresight with which the original organization was made. My Lords, we must not, however, forget the danger and loss incurred by another profession—the diplomatic service. Officers relying upon the protection that has
8
been afforded in all ages to members of that profession, together with military officers under the protection of a flag of truce, have undergone cruelties, indignities, and even death, under the very eyes of the Emperor himself. That potentate, however, has been punished in a manner which he cannot easily forget, and it is to be hoped that the crafty and bigoted advisers who led him into the scrape have now learnt a lesson which will be impressed upon their minds for some time to come. I trust that it may not be considered impertinent if, while upon this subject, I venture to express a hope that the English community in those distant lands have also learnt a lesson as to the necessity of prudence in their dealings with those amongst whom they dwell.
My Lords, Her Majesty further informs us that the state of Her Indian territories is progressively improving. Great doubts seem to be entertained in some quarters whether India can continue to bear the burden of her present debt and expenditure; but when we come to consider the great capabilities of that vast empire, and the great increase in her productions which may be expected when the communications shall have been more opened out, I think we cannot doubt the power of that country to meet the burdens now cast upon her. But the one great condition which is required is peace; and those who have watched the proceedings of that nobleman who now governs India must have seen that the leading principle in his mind is to carry out the conciliatory policy announced in Her Majesty's most gracious Proclamation to the princes and people of India. He has granted to the Native Princes some of the privileges which were most dear to them, he has watched over the rights of the peasantry, and has done all in his power to reconcile all classes to that Government which they are bound to obey.
My Lords, Her Majesty proceeds to express Her great concern at the serious differences that have arisen among the States of the North American Union. While we regret to see so important and flourishing a community, closely bound to ourselves by every tie, almost on the verge of civil war, we cannot help feeling some alarm as to the effects which those events may have upon the importation of cotton into the principal districts of the North of England. But at the same time, my Lords, we should remember that cotton can be obtained from other countries be-

9
sides America, and I am happy to say that this subject is exciting the deepest interest in Manchester, and I trust in Liverpool also. Increased facility of communication in India, and better modes of preparing the cotton and bringing it to market will, I hope, shortly place us in possession of a large supply from that portion of the Empire. There are also hardy and adventurous pioneers labouring on the coast of Africa, in the hope of creating a wide field for commercial operations in that quarter of the globe.
My Lords, Her Majesty next informs us that She has concluded conventions with the Emperor of the French, supplementary to the Treaty of Commerce with that country, and in furtherance of the object of that treaty. My Lords, whatever might have been the opinions upon the subject of that treaty when the negotiations were first set on foot, I feel assured that the fact of expectations being currently entertained that some of the stipulations of that treaty will be carried into effect by the Emperor of the French at an earlier date than was originally intended will be heard with satisfaction by all parties in the country. It has been said that the present troubles at Coventry are one of the results of that treaty; but the importation of French ribands into this country has not increased, and those who have considered the subject with larger information know that similar distress prevails among the riband makers of France. The disastrous state of affairs in Coventry must, therefore, be attributed to some other cause than the French Treaty.
Her Majesty then informs us that She has directed the Estimates for the ensuing year to be laid before the other House, and that they have been framed with due regard to economy and to the efficiency of the public service. My Lords, the position which England now holds among nations is due to the fact that we are prepared for any emergency, that our Army and Navy are in the highest state of efficiency, and that we have considerable defensive power in our Militia and Volunteers. It has often been imputed to us that we are a nation of shopkeepers, and as I am connected with that portion of the kingdom where manufacturing and commercial industry is most largely developed, it is a source of pride to me, as it must be of gratification to all, to know that that very district has been conspicuous above most others for the
10
energy and liberality with which the Volunteer movement has been created and supported. I hope, my Lords, it will not be considered out of place if I take this opportunity of bearing my testimony—which will be corroborated by all who like myself have been engaged in the organization of Volunteer corps—to the hearty support which they had received from the noble Lord the late Under Secretary of State for War (Earl de Grey and Ripon). It is to be hoped that the efficiency of the services will be in no way diminished in the present year, and that only such economy will be practised as is compatible with a due regard to the danger of the present state of Europe.
My Lords, Her Majesty has also recommended to Parliament the consideration of various legal reforms which will be laid before us, and I think there can be no doubt as to the necessity of completing those measures at the earliest possible time.
My Lords, having thus briefly touched upon some of the most important questions to which allusion is made in Her Majesty's Speech, I think I cannot better conclude than by expressing my fervent hope that we may in our deliberations in Parliament this year by our firmness and moderation offer such an example to other countries as may induce even those who are now most swayed by the desire of territorial aggrandizement, or other passions, to reenter those paths of legality and industry which alone can lead to happiness and prosperity, such as has been so long enjoyed by our own country. The noble Earl concluded by moving the following Address in answer to Her Majesty's most Gracious Speech:—
MOST GRACIOUS SOVEREIGN,
"We, Your Majesty's most dutiful and loyal Subjects, the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, in Parliament assembled, beg leave to offer our humble Thanks to Your Majesty for Your Majesty's most gracious Speech from the Throne.
"We humbly express to Your Majesty the Gratification with which we learn that your Relations with Foreign Powers continue to be friendly and satisfactory; and we assure Your Majesty that we trust with Your Majesty that the Moderation of the Powers of Europe will prevent any Interruption of the general Peace.
"We humbly thank Your Majesty for informing us, that, believing that the Italians ought to be left to settle their own Affairs, Your Majesty has

11
not thought it right to exercise any active Interference in these Matters. We thank Tour Majesty for directing Papers on this Subject to be laid before us.
"We humbly thank Your Majesty for informing us, that, temporary Assistance has been afforded to The Sultan for the Purpose of establishing Order in Syria by the Body of French Troops who have been sent there to represent the Allied Powers, and we assure Your Majesty that we share in the Hope that Tranquillity will soon be reestablished in that Province, and the Objects of the Convention fully attained.
"We humbly thank Your Majesty for informing us, that the Operations of your Majesty's Forces in China, in conjunction with those of The Emperor of the French, have been attended with complete Success, and that the Allied Forces, after several Engagements, became Masters of the Imperial City of Pekin. We assure Your Majesty that we learn with Satisfaction that the Earl of Elgin and Baron Gros, the Ambassador of The Emperor of the French, were enabled to obtain an honourable and satisfactory Settlement of all the Matters in dispute, and that throughout these Operations the Commanders and Ambassadors of the Allied Powers acted with the most friendly Concert. We thank Your Majesty for commanding that Papers on this Subject should be laid before us.
"We beg leave humbly to express to Your Majesty our Pleasure in learning that the State of Your Indian Territories is progressively improving, and humbly to join in Your Majesty's Hope that the Financial Condition of India will gradually partake of that general Amendment.
"We humbly assure Your Majesty that we fully concur in the hope which Your Majesty has expressed that the Measures which have been taken will speedily suppress the Disturbances which have interrupted the Peace of a Part of New Zealand, and enable Your Majesty's Government to concert such Arrangements as may prevent their Recurrence.
"We humbly express our full Participation in the Concern with which Your Majesty looks upon the serious Differences which have arisen among the States of the North American Union, as affecting the Happiness and Welfare of a People nearly allied to Your Subjects by Descent, and closely connected with them by the most intimate and friendly Relations, and our hearty Concurrence in Your Majesty's wish that these Differences may be satisfactorily adjusted, and in the Sentiment which Your Majesty expresses, that the Interest which Your Majesty takes in the Well-being of the People of the United States cannot but be
12
increased by the kind and cordial Reception given by them to The Prince of Wales during His recent Visit to the Continent of America.
"We humbly assure Your Majesty that we learn with deep Gratification Your Majesty's warm Sense of the Loyalty to Your Royal Person and Throne manifested by Your Canadian and other North American Subjects on the Occasion of the Residence of The Prince of Wales among them.
"We thank your Majesty for informing us of the Conventions supplementary to the Treaty of Commerce of the 23d of January, 1860, which Your Majesty has concluded with The Emperor of the French, and of the Convention concluded with the King of Sardinia for the reciprocal Protection of Copyright.
"We humbly thank your Majesty for informing us that Measures will be laid before us for the Consolidation of important Parts of the Criminal Law; for the Improvement of the Law of Bankruptcy and Insolvency; for rendering more easy the Transfer of Land; and for establishing a uniform System of Rating in England and Wales.
"We humbly assure Your Majesty that, in common with Your Majesty, we fervently pray that the Blessing of Almighty God may attend our Councils, and guide our Deliberations to the Attainment of the Welfare and Happiness of Your People."
VISCOUNT LISMORE,in rising to recommend to their Lordships' notice the Address in answer to the Speech from the Throne, entreated them to extend to him that forbearance which was usually granted to those who had the honour to address them for the first time. He felt that, after the able manner in which the different subjects had been treated by the noble Lord who preceded him, his duties as Seconder must be more than usually subordinate, and he flattered himself that there was nothing contained in the Address which could cause that division of opinion which it had always been held desirable should be abstained from on an occasion like this. The year just concluded had been characterized by many and startling events. Italy, a great and populous country, guided by the most disinterested patriot who ever attempted the regeneration of a people, had emancipated itself from the misgovernment of an ancient dynasty. In the northern part of that peninsula, large provinces, throwing aside former associations, had been incorporated under the dominion of a neighbouring and constitutional Sovereign. During all these changes, both past and present, the policy

13
of Her Majesty's Government had been strictly that of non-intervention; but at the same time their Lordships' House would be unmindful of its traditions, and the country forgetful of its past history, if they did not accord their warmest sympathy to that people in their struggle, and their heartfelt wishes for their ultimate success in procuring for themselves a rational and constitutional liberty. With the sanguinary disasters and disturbances which had taken place in Syria their Lordships were well acquainted; but he trusted there was every prospect that tranquility would be established on a firm basis, and the necessity for a temporary armed occupation cease. Much as contests were to be avoided, especially at so great a distance from home, yet in the case of China there was no alternative. That war had happily been concluded, affording during its brief but brilliant duration another occasion for Her Majesty's forces, in conjunction with our friendly Ally, to again emulate each other in deeds of daring and bravery. The efficiency of the most formidable weapon that modern science had as yet invented had been fully tested, and its adaptation to the casualties and accidents of active service fully placed beyond doubt. He trusted their Lordships would permit him to call their attention to the well-organized assistance of our Indian Government, and to the discipline and valour of the Native contingent. Their Lordships could not but hope that the peace which bad been the result of their operations might be permanent, and tend to the increase of great mercantile transactions with that country. The satisfactory state of our Indian empire could not fail to be a subject of the greatest congratulation to their Lordships. Notwithstanding the exhausting effects of the late mutiny, from which the country had only partially recovered, under the able administration of the Governor General, accompanied, as he trusted it might be, by an unbroken peace, wherein its almost countless resources might be developed, he saw no reason why they should not anticipate a great financial and commercial prosperity for India. To turn to the western hemisphere, the separation of one State from the great American Union could not but be deeply regretted. We, who in this country lived under a monarchical Government, hallowed by time, and endeared to us nut only by the great blessings we had derived from it and the greatness we had achieved under
14
it, but by individual love and loyalty for the Sovereign herself, could not but allow that under a Republican and Federal form of Government the United States had attained in a short time to unparalelled prosperity and greatness. That anything should occur to diminish that prosperity would at all times be a matter of great sorrow to us. It was to be hoped that the calming and soothing influences of some friendly Power might shortly reconcile the conflicting interests of the northern and southern States, and, by preventing fraternal war, preserve in its integrity the great American Republic. At the same time, knowing the extent to which we were dependent on America for the raw material of our greatest manufacture, he would urge on their Lordships the necessity of taking such measures in our Colonial dependencies as would insure us a constant and ample supply of cotton. He would not trespass further on their Lordships' attention, but thanking them for the indulgence they had kindly extended to him, simply conclude by seconding the Address.
[See Page 10.]
THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, it is at all times a great gratification to me, upon whichever side of the House I may happen to sit, when the terms of the Address moved in answer to Her Majesty's gracious Speech from the Throne are such as do not render necessary any interruption of that general harmony and unanimity with which it is always desirable at the commencement of the Session that both this and the other House of Parliament should express their dutiful and loyal attachment to the Sovereign; and if my noble Friend who moved the Address, and who has spoken in terms for which I am most grateful of my returning health, imagines that my appearance here indicates any settled purpose of hostility to Her Majesty's Government, or any desire to offer an Amendment to the Address, I can assure him he has greatly mistaken the course which I am disposed to take on this occasion. My Lords, we must recollect that a Speech from the Throne is a very different thing from an ordinary Message delivered by the President of the United States of America to Congress. It does not assume to be an exposition of the general principles of the Government for the time being, still less does it assume to be an exposition in detail of the manner in which they intend to carry out those principles. No doubt, there are occasions upon

15
which the general rule is departed from— when a Ministry finds it needful to give to Parliament a general indication of the leading principles of their policy, and when they may, therefore, think it necessary so to frame the Address as to compel an expression of opinion favourable or unfavourable to that policy from both branches of the Legislature. On the other hand, there have been times when the views of the Opposition on vital questions were so decidedly at variance with those of the Ministry, and when they were so strongly convinced that the Government of the country should be confided to other hands, that an Amendment to the Address has been proposed, and sometimes with success. But, my Lords, these are exceptions to the general rule; and I think it is wise on the part of the Government to confine the Address to that which is its most legitimate character—namely, a brief reference to the events which have occurred during the Parliamentary recess, accompanied by an intimation that papers explanatory of their details will in due time be presented to both Houses, and also by a general indication of the principal measures which it is the intention of the Government to bring in upon their responsibility in the course of the Session. My Lords, regarded in this point of view, the present Speech appears to me to be quite unexceptionable. And, although there are topics introduced into this Speech which are of deep importance and of the highest political interest, and topics, too, on some of which it is impossible for me to forbear from now offering a few observations, yet I conceive that neither in the Address itself, nor in the speeches of the Mover or Seconder, is there anything which calls upon your Lordships to depart from the unanimity usual on these occasions.
My Lords, it may perhaps be more convenient, in commenting on the Speech, if I deal with its paragraphs rather in the reverse order to that in which they are submitted to us. I shall refer, in the first place, to the paragraph in which Her Majesty's Ministers put forward the principal and most important measures which they intend to propose to Parliament in the present Session. And here I cannot help congratulating Her Majesty's Ministers, the two Houses of Parliament, and the country at large, that the programme appears to be of a much more practical, if of a somewhat less ambitious character than that which was presented to us in the
16
corresponding paragraph of the Speech of last year. My Lords, if the measures indicated are as wisely and skilfully prepared as they are judiciously chosen, they will, when passed, constitute a valuable addition to our legislation. In the present absence of party bitterness and party acrimony, it is to be hoped that these measures will receive from both Houses of Parliament that calm and impartial consideration which they might not under other circumstances be so likely to command. My Lords, although the present scheme of the Government promises much less than their scheme of last year, I must be permitted to say, that I think it a much more promising one. The measures they intend to propose are—
"For the consolidation of important parts of the criminal law; for the improvement of the law of bankruptcy and insolvency; for rendering more easy the transfer of land; for establishing a uniform system of rating in England and Wales; and for several other purposes of public usefulness."
My Lords, I hope I shall not be thought hypercritical if, in passing, I say I think one of those measures is not quite accurately described in the Speech. The phrase "uniform system of rating" should be "uniform system of assessment." A uniform system of rating exists at present. What is complained of is the want of uniformity in the assessment for the purpose of imposing the rates; and if you can make the law and practice of the country correspond you will certainly obtain a great advantage. There is a little supplementary clause added with reference to the introduction of measures that will be convenient for several other purposes of public usefulness. The style of the Speech is somewhat colloquial — perhaps too colloquial for a Queen's Speech; but I imagine that the measures thus referred to are of the same nature, just a kind of "et cetera." And yet I may be told by a noble and learned Lord that there is a great deal involved in "et cetera." I think Lord Coke upon Littleton says it comprehends almost every diverse question, diverse points of commercial law, diverse diversities; and in one case "et cetera" stands for six subjects, which occupy five pages. Such was the et cetera of Lord Coke, and it may be the Royal et cetera introduced in the Queen's Speech may be equally comprehensive. Still, I conjecture the measures referred to are of a more humble class, and of the same denomination with those which are specially mentioned. I must confess there

17
is one point on which I feel some surprise that no notice is taken in Her Majesty's Speech. Without adverting to the causes which may have produced it, I think it would not have been injudicious if some expression had been allowed to proceed from the Royal lips of sympathy for the deep distress which has existed in some parts of England; nor would it have been ungracious to indicate something like a Royal approval of the extensive beneficence by which that distress has been in some degree alleviated. That distress may not be> referable to any special cause, but it certainly suggests matter for serious consideration, whether the ordinary machinery of the Poor Laws is insufficient to meet such cases. No doubt it was an exceptional case, but the operation of the Poor Laws was found totally inadequate to deal with it. I may be permitted to take this opportunity of saying that I hope the working classes will take a useful lesson with regard to provident habits from the distress which some of them have been called on to endure. No doubt many of them are utterly unable to do more than provide for their wants from week to week, and if an immediate failure of employment takes place they are unavoidably reduced to a state of great privation and suffering; but, on the other hand, it is a matter of notoriety that a large body, not merely of skilled artisans, but of the working classes generally, earn on an average 24 s. to 28 s. for four days' work, and could very much increase their means by working steadily the whole of the week; they might he in the receipt of 30 s. a week—an income equal to that of many who occupy a higher station, and have to keep up a better appearance; yet these persons waste a great part of their earnings in drink and idleness, and a week or a fortnight's want of work throws them and their families into destitution, for which they have themselves only to blame. However grievous this may be, I cannot but hope that the recent occurrences may be a warning to those men who have hitherto been improvident.
My Lords, I also observe, with some surprise, that no notice is taken in Her Majesty's Speech of the financial condition of the country. I should certainly have expected that we should be informed that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had succeeded to his most sanguine expectations in those sources of increased revenue which he anticipated from the operation of the Com-
18
mercial Treaty with France, and particularly in the increase of revenue he calculated on from the reductions effected last year. We may be told that questions of finance are not questions with which this House ought to deal or on which we should make any observations, although I do not know that there are any financial operations proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer by which the Members of this House are unaffected. But we have this year an opportunity which rarely occurs for considering and examining two Royal Speeches, and comparing the results of the policy followed in either case. I do find in the Speech addressed on Monday by the Emperor of the French to the Legislative Body, what has been the result of the Commercial Treaty to France, and I cannot do better than draw your Lordships' attention to this paragraph. He says, "At the least we ought to endeavour to make objects of the first necessity as cheap as possible. It is with this view that we have lowered the duties on raw materials and signed a treaty with England." And accordingly in his Commercial Treaty he proceeded on the principle not of abolishing but of reducing as far as possible all taxes on the raw material of manufacture, the greater use of which might make up for the deficiency in the revenue. He proceeded on the principle laid down by Sir Robert Peel in 1841 of making the greatest reduction on articles of prime necessity, and secondly, on articles of raw material, to promote the industry of the country. Now see the result. The Emperor of the French informs us that "to realize these economical reforms we have had to renounce ninety millions of annual receipts" — between £3,000,000 and £4.000.000 sterling— "but, nevertheless, the Budget will be presented to you in equilibrium, without its having been necessary to have recourse either to the creation of new imposts or by trenching on the public credit, as I had to announce to you last year." My Lords, I can imagine the Chancellor of the Exchequer reading this paragraph with very peculiar feelings. How he must envy the state of things described. But I will draw a veil—which must however be withdrawn before very long—over the financial sorrows of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I express my sincere satisfaction at this result in France. I wish I could express my satisfaction that the different policy pursued on the part of England had pro-

19
duced on the revenue such favourable results as those which the Emperor of the French says have been produced on the French revenue.
The next paragraph of Her Majesty's Speech to which I will address myself is that which is addressed to the House of Commons, which speaks of the Estimates, and says they have been framed with a due regard to economy and to the efficiency of the several branches of the public service. I hope it will satisfy the Members of the House of Commons, and more especially those sixty gentlemen who addressed a memorial to the Prime Minister on this subject, and who received a reply conceived in the most delicate and conciliatory language combined with the strongest expressions of friendship. As I read the answer of the Prime Minister, it amounts to this, —"Gentlemen, economy is a good thing, but efficiency is a better thing still; and as Her Majesty's Ministers are much better judges than you are how far economy and efficiency can be combined, I recommend you not to trouble us with your crude speculations, but be satisfied with the Estimates we propound."
Following the inverse order I have already indicated, the next paragraph of the Speech refers to the serious differences which have arisen among the States of the North American Union. My Lords, it is impossible not to feel the deepest concern at the threatening disruption of that great Union, as it must affect the happiness and welfare of that country. But apart from the relations of interest between the two countries, there is no man in this country who would not view with the deepest anxiety and regret the disruption of a community which, without claiming perfection for its institutions, and certainly under various disadvantages, has yet procured for its people an amount of prosperity almost unparalelled in the world, and an amount of personal freedom only inferior— and I think it is inferior—to that enjoyed by the people of this country. But it is impossible to look at that threatened disruption—only possibly to be effected at the cost of the horrors of civil war—without looking also at the effects it would produce on the manufactures of this country. Its first effects, at all events, would be most disastrous to one great branch of our industry. Unfortunately, it does so happen —I trust it will not be long so—that we have been almost exclusively dependent on the cotton of America. It will be of the
20
highest advantage, if the threatened disruption should lead those who are most deeply interested—I do not think it is a question on which the Government can or ought to interfere—to turn their serious consideration to the best means of averting the danger involved in a failure of the supply of cotton from the United States by promoting an increased 3upply from other sources. Such a supply can be had, and in great abundance, in many parts of the world, provided means be taken for encouraging its growth and import. My Lords, it is impossible also not to feel the greatest interest in the people of the United States, connected as we are with them by identity of language and laws. But that interest is increased by the pleasing circumstance to which Her Majesty next refers. Her Majesty says that the interest She takes in the well-being of the people of the United States cannot but be increased by the kind and cordial reception given by them to the Prince of Wales during his recent visit to the continent of America. With the exception, perhaps, of one little unpleasantness we may congratulate Her Majesty upon the loyalty and good feeling which were displayed towards the Prince of Wales by our fellow subjects in Canada, as well as by the people of the neighbouring Republic. But there is one point which, although it must have afforded the utmost satisfaction to the country, could not, perhaps have been introduced by Her Majesty into her gracious Speech. I allude, of course, to the perfect manner in which the Prince of Wales himself, by his personal conduct, justified the respect and good feeling which were manifested towards him in Canada and the United States. There is not one young man in ten thousand who would be able in so difficult a position, and on the spur of the moment, to show the same amount of self-possession, the same tact, the same freedom of action, and at the same time maintain as he did effectually the dignity of the country. That, of course, is not a subject upon which any formal Address can be presented to Her Majesty, but I am sure your Lordships will agree with me that our congratulations, instead of being limited to the reception given to the Prince of Wales, should include, in addition, the perfect manner in which His Royal Highness justified all the enthusiasm and good feeling which his visit called forth.
It is not my intention, my Lords, to comment upon the next two topics dealt

21
with in the Speech from the Throne. One is the insurrection of a portion of the Natives of New Zealand; the other and more important is the state of our Indian territories. With regard to the first, we are not called upon for any expression of opinion with respect to it, and, even if we were, we are not in a position to form a correct judgment in regard to it. I hope it may turn out not only that we have acted according to the strict letter of the law, but that in our treatment of Native rights and usages—which are most complicated in their character, which are difficult to be understood by Europeans, which, indeed, are hardly understood by the Natives themselves, but to which they are earnestly attached—we have not afforded any pretext for the armed rebellion which has occurred. I hope we have not given by one single act of injustice a pretext for this insurrection, which must be put down, because under no circumstances can an armed insurrection be permitted to continue. The state of India is, of course, too large and important a question to be dealt with incidentally upon such an occasion as the present. I rejoice to hear that the Government are able to express the hope that the finances of India will gradually partake of the general amendment, for I confess that, in my opinion, the prospect at the present moment is not of the most favourable character. Nor, my Lords, am I about to enter into any discussion of the origin of our recent dispute with China. The disaster at the mouth of the Peiho, which led to the late expedition, might, perhaps, have been avoided; but when that disaster occurred there was obviously only one course which could be taken. We were bound by a display of energy to enforce compliance with our terms, and at the same time to show to the world, by the moderation of those terms, that we were not using our military and naval power to an undue advantage. I am glad to be able fairly and honestly to congratulate the Government upon the manner in which their intentions have been carried out, upon the admirable arrangements made by the naval and military authorities, and upon the intelligence and activity displayed by the naval, military and civil administrations in the accomplishment of a most difficult and arduous service.
I need not say, my Lords, that what is called the Italian question is the most important subject dealt with in the Speech
22
from the Throne. Even upon the present occasion I cannot refrain from offering a few observations upon the general state of our foreign relations. But the point upon which I desire more especially to have a full and unreserved explanation from the Government is the state of our relations — I do not mean our ostensible and avowed relations, but our real, true, and genuine relations — with our great and powerful neighbour on the other side of the Channel. Two important questions are referred to in the Speech from the Throne. One is the presence of a French force in Syria; the other is the state of Italy. We are told that the French expedition to Syria was sent by the Emperor of the French in pursuance of an arrangement of several Powers for a specific and temporary purpose, and we know that the troops were to be withdrawn at the expiration of a certain period of time. The moment for their withdrawal, according to the terms of the convention, is now drawing near. If I am not mistaken the six months assigned for the occupation will expire on the 5th of March, and I should be glad to hear from Her Majesty's Government that they have reason to believe and expect that the French Government are determined to withdraw their troops at the appointed time, and not to seek to obtain the renewal of an occupation which is certainly of an anomalous character, calculated to create uneasiness and anxiety. But, my Lords, however important may be the affairs of Syria, those of Italy are of more importance still. I think it will be necessary, in expressing any opinion upon the affairs of Italy, to distinguish between the results which may have been attained, and the means and agencies employed for that purpose. For my own part, I have nothing to say in vindication of the system of government which was carried on in the kingdom of Naples, although I think Francis II. has had a hard measure dealt out to him, inasmuch as he has been exposed to the long pent-up indignation of his people before he had an opportunity of showing what his principles and policy really were. However, my Lords, I say not a single word in vindication of the frequent violations of law, and of the cruel punishments which were undoubtedly practised in Naples; I say nothing of the right of the people to break out in open revolt, nor do I express an opinion whether the dream or vision of Italian unity can ever be realized—a matter upon which I con-

23
fess I entertain very serious doubts; but I do say that if that dream can be realized I will look upon the establishment of a free and united Italy without any feeling of jealousy whatever, provided it is not only free and united, but really and truly independent of any foreign Power. I have no fear of a free and united Italy provided it is true to itself, and carefully excludes from its affairs the intervention and influence of other States. But, my Lords, when I pass from the question of the merits of the Neapolitan revolt to the manner in which that revolt has been encouraged and promoted, I must say I take a very different view. I am not going to say a single word in derogation of that brave, and, I believe, excellent man, General Garibaldi. He has displayed the highest qualities-of a soldier—great personal courage, great personal skill, great personal forethought. As a military man he is entitled to the highest praise; but, it may also be said to his honour, that he is an honest politician, with no arrière pensée; whatever, no personal interest to subserve, giving the whole energies of his mind and body to the accomplishment of what he believes to be for the good of his country. Therefore, my Lords, not a single word disrespectful of General Garibaldi shall pass my lips upon the present or any future occasion; but if I look to his expedition to Naples, and to the position in which he stood with regard to international law, I am compelled to say, however upright his motives, that if he had been unsuccessful, and if the King of Naples had taken him prisoner, he could not have claimed any of the rights of a belligerent Power, and even if he had been put summarily to death the King would not have violated any international law. All the efforts, however, of General Garibaldi would have had little effect if he had not been supported and upheld by a greater Power. That Power I need not say was the power of the King of Sardinia. I believe that the course pursued by the King of Sardinia, whatever excuses he may make to himself or to his countrymen, whatever palliations there may be, was a flagrant violation of international law. There could not, in fact, be a more flagrant violation of international law than that committed by the King of Sardinia when he invaded the Papal and Neapolitan States. Her Majesty has been advised to say, using a rather colloquial expression,
"Believing that the Italians ought to be left to
24
settle their own affairs, I have not thought it right to exercise any active interference in those matters."
There is a very palpable fallacy in the expression about the Italians having been left to settle their own affairs. If we admit the doctrine of the noble Lord at the head of the Foreign Office — and within certain limits I am not disposed to dispute it — that every country has a right to deal with its own Government according to its own disposition and judgment, free from the intervention of any foreign Power, it is impossible that the noble Lord can contend, as he must, in order to vindicate this paragraph, that Sardinia was justified in interfering with the inhabitants of the kingdom of Naples, without declaration of war, without cause of war, without any ground of complaint whatever for such intervention. It is impossible to justify that violation of international law on the ground of a general Italian feeling in favour of that violation. No man can doubt that it is the right of Frenchmen to deal with French affairs, but I apprehend that if the large body of Frenchmen who inhabit France were disposed to interfere with the affairs of the small body of Frenchmen who inhabit Lower Canada or the Mauritius, the noble Lord would find good reasons for objecting to such intervention on the part of that country. Shakspeare makes Macbeth, in reply to the two murderers, say:—
"Ay, in the catalogue ye go for men;
As hounds, and greyhounds, mongrels, spaniels, curs,
Shoughs, water rugs, and demi-wolves are cleped
All by the name of dogs,"
and proceeds to describe the various qualities by which the various descriptions of dogs are distinguished. The same idea may with justice be applied to the difference which exists between the population occupying the several States of Italy. We know that the qualities are not more heterogeneous than the nature, the habits, and the dispositions of the different races of Italy. It may be that the feeling of Italian unity may be strong enough to bring the various Italian States into active cooperation with the King of Sardinia, and at such a consummation I, for one, should rejoice. There has hitherto, I rejoice to see, been exhibited among the various populations of Italy great moderation, and it would seem as if they were disposed rather to submit to the rule of a

25
constitutional Sovereign than to indulge in any wild and excited notions of general democracy and unrestrained republicanism. But that which I desire to impress upon your Lordships' attention is not so much the merits or demerits of the King of Sardinia, of General Garibaldi, or of the Government of Naples; not so much, I may add, the prospect of the ultimate consolidation of the whole Italian territory under the one head of Italian unity; as the tone which Her Majesty's Government mean to assume with respect to the present state of Italy, and the views which they entertain as to her future position. We are, indeed, told that papers upon this subject will be laid before us; but my complaint is not that we have no papers, not that the oracle has not spoken, or that it has spoken in ambiguous terms. I am aware that certain papers have obtained publicity here even before they were published abroad in the quarters to which they were directed. I may add that I am, in speaking upon this subject, reminded of a somewhat extraordinary performance of the noble Lord the present Secretary for Foreign Affairs, who some years ago, when he was First Lord of the Treasury, took the unusual course of reading in the House of Commons a letter from the Sovereign, which had reference to the mode in which it was the duty of his noble Friend now at the head of the Government to conduct the foreign correspondence of the country, and which dwelt upon the necessity that existed to submit for the approval of Her Majesty previous to their being sent abroad all despatches which were about to emanate from the Foreign Department. I thought at the time that that was a strong step for one colleague to take towards another, and I cannot now help being of opinion that the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs appears to have been, in the course which he took in the case of his own despatch of the 27th of October, somewhat oblivious of the wise counsel which he gave on the occasion to which I am referring; for I cannot believe that that despatch was not sent out without having received that which in accordance with constitutional usage it was essential it should receive—the approval and sanction of the Sovereign. Now, as I have already said, I do not complain that the oracle has not spoken, or that it has spoken ambiguously—it has spoken on two occasions not at all ambiguously, but quite openly and very lucidly and distinctly.
26
What I do complain of is that it has not enabled us to form any satisfactory opinion with respect to the policy of the Government, for its two distinct enunciations upon these two occasions are in distinct contradiction to one another. I make this charge against the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, because I find that he has written two despatches to Sir James Hudson—one dated the 31st of August, 1860, and one the 27th of October following, embodying two principles totally distinct. One of these was to be communicated, the other might be communicated, to Count Cavour. Now, I will call your attention to the two principles laid down in the two despatches, and then I will ask to which of those principles is it that Her Majesty's Ministers have obtained the assent of the Emperor of the French, and by which of them do they themselves mean to abide? I have here, of course, no right to ask the Government in what the policy of the French Emperor consists; but I have a right to know from them whether their own policy has been systematically connected with him, and whether they have been assenting parties to the various steps which he has taken or is taking with regard to the affairs of Italy. The first despatch of the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs to which I have alluded—that dated the 31st of August last—very strongly deprecates, not only upon the ground of prudence, but of principle, any interference upon the part of Sardinia with the territories of Naples or Venice. This it does in principle, and with reference to Naples as well as to Venice; for the noble Lord commences with a declaration that Her Majesty's Government do not think it necessary to continue the discussion, because they conceive that in substance the note of the Sardinian Government disavows any intention of attacking the territories of the King of Naples or those of Austria. An intention, therefore, to invade the territories of the King of Naples was an intention which, if it were not believed to have been abandoned by the King of Sardinia, must be condemned by Her Majesty's Government. But, on the 27th of October, when the invasion of Naples had taken place, the noble Lord changed his tone and his language. He did so on a very remarkable occasion, when every Government in Europe had found it necessary to signify their disapproval of the course pursued by the King of Sardinia. Prussia and France

27
had withdrawn their Ambassadors, and Russia had signified her extreme disapproval. It was then—I suppose in order to exhibit to Europe how successful the noble Lord had been in obtaining those other allies with whom, in a moment of petulance last year, he threatened France, against the French alliance—that he seized the opportunity of all those allies having condemned the policy of Sardinia to say that he deemed it incumbent on him broadly and clearly to state that he altogether approved of that course. That declaration, made, with characteristic prudence and judgment, the noble Lord proceeded to enter into a discussion of the most difficult and delicate points of international law, and wholly without necessity to lay down principles which, if acted upon, must be acted upon with the utmost caution and reserve, but which he proceeds to apply in the broadest and most sweeping fashion. Now, I have known the noble Lord many years, and I am well aware how great the temptation is to him to rush into print on the subject of a great revolution; but, at the same time, I think he acted with even more than his usual want of caution, because he sought to go to such high authorities for the principles which he advocated. The noble Lord delighted to find a passage in Vattel which he thought would vindicate the course which the King of Sardinia had pursued. He quotes that passage where, referring to the assistance given by the United Provinces to the Prince of Orange, Vattel says, "That if a people for good reasons take up arms against an oppressor, it is but an act of justice and generosity to assist brave men in the defence of their liberties." Now, the noble Lord's reference to Vattel induced me also to look into the same authority, and I find that he lays down principles as different from those which the noble Lord has advanced as light is from darkness. Vattel, in the first place, says that it is no part of the duty or right of any Sovereign to constitute himself a judge of the merits of the internal government of any other Sovereign, though that other Sovereign may be as oppressive, his laws may be as bad, or as much violated as possible; and he says that no Sovereign has a right to deal with the internal administration of any other country, or to interfere between its people and their own Sovereign. When, however, once civil war has broken out in a country, and when there are two parties in arms, one opposed
28
to another, then, according to Vattel, foreign nations are at liberty to take any course which may suit their interests or feelings, and may join without reproach with one or the other of the contending parties, who have become two separate and distinct powers. But he says that until insurrection has actually broken out, until civil war is actually flagrant, however much the oppression of the people, however much the people may complain or remonstrate, there is no justification by the law of nations for the interference of any foreign Power. If the principle of intervention in the domestic affairs of a country is to be allowed, it may take place on one side just as well as on the other. Now supposing that Austria had interfered for the protection of the King of Naples against this invasion, I apprehend we should have had a great deal of very virtuous indignation from the noble Lord, and we should have heard that it was perfectly legitimate to sanction an intervention in support of the efforts of a great people struggling for their freedom, but that it was an unheard-of outrage for a despotic Government to interfere to assist a Sovereign against his people. Yet the argument of Vattel is applicable as much to one case as to the other, and he lays down this further doctrine—a doctrine which I hope the noble Lord will bear in mind when he proceeds, with Vattel in his hand, to expound these matters—Vattel goes on to say that if any Power whatever, by its own agency, seeks to instigate revolt and discontent in a neighbouring country, that under any circumstances is an atrocious injury, which the other country has a right to complain of and contend against. I believe that is a doctrine which it will be well should be considered, and it will be for Europe to say whether there is any Government which, at this moment, is through its emissaries exciting discontent and provoking revolt in that way. The noble Lord, in his letter of the 31st August, goes into the question of Venice, and he contemplates the case of an attack being made on that territory: —
"It is obvious," he says, "that no such attack can be made by an army without the consent of the King of Sardinia. It is also clear that in point of right, the King of Sardinia has no excuse for violating the Treaty of Zurich, so recently signed by him."
The noble Lord goes on to explain, and finishes by saying that "the only chance Sardinia would have in such a contest"—

29
that is, a contest in which, as he supposes, the King of Sardinia would in the first instance be worsted by the power of Austiia—
"Would be the hope of bringing France into the field, and kindling a general war in Europe. But let not Count Cavour indulge in so pernicious an illusion. The great Powers of Europe are bent on maintaining peace, and Great Britain has interests in the Adriatic which Her Majesty's Government watch over with careful attention."
Now, I should he glad to hear that the noble Lord and Her Majesty's Government entertained now the same confident hope and belief that no sanction would be given on the part either of France or of this country to any attack by Sardinia, now or hereafter, on the recognised and authorised dominions of Austria in Venice, and that, whatever may be meant by the intimation that we have interests to watch over in the Adriatic, we should not on such an occasion behold it with indifference. I hope the noble Lord will be able to say that they have not gone back from the confident declaration which he made, that any attack by Sardinia on the territory of Austria will not be viewed with indifference. I do not think it is too much for me to ask for an explanation on this subject—for a distinct and clear explanation of what is the view of Her Majesty's Government with regard to the future policy to be pursued in Italy—in presence of two documents which are absolutely and entirely contradictory as to the principles they lay down—because the very arguments which are introduced in favour of the right of Sardinia to interfere in the kingdom of Naples, in defence of a people groaning under oppression and wishing to throw off the yoke, are applicable to Venetia, where it is impossible to doubt that there is a great discontent against Austrian rule, but where such a state of things does exist that there is a people complaining of its government, but submitting to it, and not having broken out into open revolt. I ask for this explanation, the more because Her Majesty states in Her Speech that "She trusts the moderation of the Powers of Europe will prevent any interruption of the general peace." Now there is no use in blinking the question; it is right we should speak openly. The preservation of peace or the calamity of war depends wholly and entirely on the attitude taken by the Emperor of the French; and I must confess that I am not very favourably impressed with regard to the prospects of peace by the language used in
30
the Speech delivered by the Emperor of the French. At this time last year I undertook to express my earnest hope that the Emperor of the French would not commit so great an error and so great a political fault as to persist in the annexation of Savoy and Nice, which was at that time strenuously desired by Her Majesty's Government; and I expressed that hope, not only on account of the effect which the actual transfer of those provinces would have on the relations of the countries in Europe, but more particularly so on account of the effect it would produce in shaking the confidence of Europe in the good faith and discretion of the Emperor of the French. In this country people are only too ready to state openly, clearly, and distinctly what their views and objects are. They go straightforward to their mark— sometimes indiscreetly perhaps—but they expect to sec in explanations of objects and intentions on the part of other Powers the same straightforwardness. They are, therefore, very easily duped by specious promises and declarations; but, once duped, they are not so easily duped a second time, and confidence once forfeited is not so easily restored to the same person. But even were I disposed to place in the good faith of the declarations of France, or rather of the Emperor of the French, the same confidence as I was prepared to repose in them fourteen or sixteen months ago, I do not think that the expressions in the Emperor's Speech are such as to assure us that he will use his great and powerful influence for the maintenance of the general peace. I take it that there could not be a greater calamity for this country and for Europe than the rupture or dissolution of the friendly alliance between this country and France. There are many reasons which ought to bring us closely together, and an amicable intimacy is as important to the one as to the other, and is equally important to the general peace of Europe. But if the alliance is to be anything real and satisfactory, it is obvious that there must exist mutual confidence between the Governments, and a clear understanding by each of the policy, the objects, and intentions of the other. It is impossible to overlook the fact that the present danger of disturbance in Europe arises only from the attitude assumed by France; and that at the present moment there prevails a degree of apprehension, anxiety, and uncertainty, with respect to the future course of that Power.

31
It is by the sight of the armaments of France that these anxieties are caused. At the same time that the Emperor of the French makes use of peaceful professions, he is at the head of 400,000 men, and the amount could easily be raised to 600,000. That army, if I am rightly informed, being sick of idleness, is demanding occupation, and exhibits impatience at the inactivity to which it is condemned; and the nation to which it belongs would go through great suffering, and sustain a great weight of taxation, merely for the sake of what it deems military glory. Such being the army, and such the nation, with the Emperor of the French at their head, it is not satisfactory to see that potentate at present exerting himself to increase the powers of France, more especially in that particular department in which it is absolutely necessary that we should maintain a superiority if we mean to maintain our independence. When I see the efforts made to increase the navy of France, I cannot— though I do not suppose that the Emperor would do anything to bring himself in collision with this country, but, on the contrary, I believe that his earnest desire is to continue in good terms with England— yet I cannot, I repeat, disconnect those efforts from the great exertions also made in this country against possible aggression, or help saying that we seem to be running a race of military preparations—with this difference, however, that those in France must be for aggression, while those in England are only for those defences which are essential for the existence of the nation. But even supposing we give entire credit to the declarations of the Emperor of the French, what do we find in his Speech? He says—
"I certainly do not ignore the fact that this system has the inconvenience of appearing to authorise many annoying excesses, and extreme opinions would prefer, the one that France should take cause with all kinds of revolutions, the other that she should put herself at the head of a general reactionary movement. I shall not allow myself to be turned aside from my course by either of these opposing influences. It is enough for the grandeur of the country to maintain its right where it is indisputable, to defend its honour where it is attacked, to lend its assistance where it may be invoked in favour of a just cause."
Now, I ask what possible contingency might not be included under these three exceptions to the general peaceful policy of France? To defend her rights and honour when attacked, there can be no doubt about that; but when you come to "ren-
32
dering assistance in a just cause," who but himself is to be the judge of whether a cause is just or not? No man would ever avow that he intends entering into a contest for an unjust cause. With regard to maintaining the indisputable rights of France, the Emperor gives an instance of what he means by that expression, and what is it? The maintenance of the indisputable rights of France consists "in causing the acceptance of the cession of Savoy and Nice, which are now irrevocably united to France." If that be an explanation of what is meant by the maintenance of the indisputable rights of France, what possible limit to any direct increase of power or annexation can be discovered under those terms? How can there be any war of aggression entered on by France which will not come under one of these three cases — the vindication of the national honour, the maintenance of the indisputable rights of France, or rendering assistance to a just cause? Therefore, I am anxious to learn whether Her Majesty's Government have still the same confidence in the peaceful intentions of the French Emperor. I do not ask the noble Earl opposite to perform impossibilities—to reconcile the two despatches to which I have referred; but I ask by which of the two principles the Government are to be guided—whether we are to maintain and secure absolute non-intervention by one State in the affairs of another State, or whether it is perfectly just, lawful, and patriotic, for us to step in and assist any struggling people against oppression. This is not an unimportant question, either as respects the future or the present, for unquestionably it is a state of doubt, and apprehension, and uncertainty, that places on the people of this country an amount of taxation which is absolutely unprecedented in time of peace, which is perfectly intolerable, and which is only made more intolerable by the financial freaks of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. How long is this state of things to continue, and when is the country to be relieved from the pressure of this heavy taxation? We are, in point of fact, at a time of profound peace suffering from almost a war taxation, and we want to know how long the nation is to remain in this position, how long these excessive armaments are to continue necessary, and how long, under the guise of peace, and while apparently in cordial and friendly alliance with our neighbours across the Channel, we are to

33
maintain these preparations for immediate war? We want to know, further, whether Her Majesty's Government are at this moment acting, with regard to European politics, in concert with the Emperor of the French, or whether we are with him merely on the footing upon which we stand towards Russia or any other country with whom we have no ground of quarrel? It is of great importance that we should know our real position on these points, and it is for the purpose of enabling the Government to give explanations—and I hope satisfactory explanations—of their views, their feelings, their intentions, and their principles, that I have trespassed upon your Lordships with some observations respecting a Speech upon which I am happy to say that I do not see any occasion to move an Amendment.
EARL GRANVILLEsaid, that the noble Lords on his side the House had shewed by their cheers how fully they sympathised with the noble Mover of the Address, and how great was their satisfaction at seeing the noble Earl (the Earl of Derby) now restored to them in perfect health. He was sure the noble Earl did justice to his (Earl Granville's) own feelings on the subject; and, though it might appear somewhat magnanimous to welcome the noble Earl's re-appearance, no one entered more sincerely into the congratulations of the noble Mover than he did. A maxim was once laid down by the noble Earl himself, that it was the duty of a leader of the Opposition to find every fault he possibly could with the Government during a discussion upon an Address. And, therefore, when the noble Earl began his remarks by compliments upon the Royal Speech, and the practical character of the measures it promised, he (Earl Granville) had a moment's fear that his noble Friend behind him had been slightly misinformed with regard to the perfect restoration of the noble Earl's health; but from the caustic pleasantry in which the noble Earl indulged, and the severe censures he had just heaped upon others, he was thoroughly satisfied that the noble Earl was quite himself again. That part of the Speech from the Throne, on which the noble Earl dwelt at least length was, naturally enough, that which relates to the Colonies. Beginning with India, the noble Lord expressed not an opinion, but a fear lest the hope placed in Her Majesty's mouth as to a gradual improvement in the financial condition of India might prove to be unfounded. In
34
this the noble Earl had placed his opinion in opposition to that of Her Majesty's advisers, and the noble Earl delivered himself so shortly on this point, and without giving any reason for his fears, that he did not think it necessary to go into so momentary a question before all the information procurable should have been laid upon the table. In the meanwhile he would only observe, that from all the information that reached him—although, of course, there could be no certainty on so complicated a subject, he (Earl Granville) was inclined to take a very favourable view of the resources of India when they should have been properly developed. With regard to New Zealand, his noble Friend the Secretary for the Colonies was not able at this time to give any additional information beyond what was already known. The last accounts showed an improved state of affairs. But it was quite clear that the first duty of a Government was to restore order, and then it would become their duty to deal with these extensive, and difficult, and complicated questions and disputes between the Natives and the English settlers. The noble Earl opposite had also spoken of the reception which had been given to the Prince of Wales on his late visit to America; and said that that reception of the Prince was a satisfactory proof of the loyalty of that important colony, Canada. He fully joined in the compliment the noble Earl had paid to the Prince; and he must be allowed further to say that, loyal as the people of this country have ever been to the Sovereign, it must be a further source of gratification and pride to feel that the care which Her Majesty had bestowed on the education of her children had, even before they arrived at manhood or womanhood, been attended by such successful results as to add something, not only to cement the tie between the Colonies and the mother country, but to bring more directly before the world a knowledge of the virtues of the Sovereign. I will not attempt to weaken the force of the just compliments paid by the noble Earl to the Prince of Wales for giving us so much promise for the future. But not only in Canada was a reception of a peculiar character given to the Prince of Wales going in his Royal character, with a Secretary of State and other officers of state accompanying him; but in South Africa, the mere casual visit of another son in his private capacity of midshipman on board one of Her Majesty's ships, the loyalty of

35
that colony was fully shown in a similar way to the mother country as it had been evinced towards the elder son in Canada and elsewhere.
But the greater part of the noble Earl's speech, as might naturally have been expected—and indeed it is a topic of discussion everyday and everywhere—related to foreign affairs. The noble Earl, with regard to the war in China, expressed a feeling in which he (Earl Granville) entirely concurred; and he thought it must be satisfactory to know that, though the dangers and trials to which our troops were exposed were not of a formidable character, no doubt had ever been expressed, either there or elsewhere, as to the ability of our officers and soldiers to fight. From some circumstances which would be fresh in their Lordships' recollection, there had been a doubt whether our organization for military purposes was as good as it ought to be. The China war had entirely dissipated that illusion. The expedition was partly undertaken by the authorities at home—by his Royal Highness the Commander-in-Chief, if he would permit the allusion, and by his noble Friend behind him, the Secretary for War—and partly also by the Governor General of India. The organization displayed in despatching this expedition — small, of course, in comparison with the forces sometimes required to be moved in Europe—was without a blot; and the force had been despatched without the slightest difficulty or delay. He remembered hearing the Duke of Wellington say that if any one would guarantee to feed his troops, he would, without the slightest difficulty, march 5,000 men across Asia; and what had recently occurred in China was an apt illustration of the remark. The operations were well and carefully planned, and he believed that the result would be to open to us an extent of trade hitherto perfectly unknown with China; and whilst they had given us a better knowledge of the resources of China than had ever before been obtained, it was, perhaps, more important that they had tended to force on the Government of that great empire a real knowledge of what England was, and what were her means for carrying out her reasonable and just demands. The noble Earl alluded to the unfortunate dissensions which were now raging in the United States. He thought that with regard to this country there was one very remarkable point in connection with that
36
subject. For years after the separation— the unfortunate separation, he would say, were it not for the signal prosperity which had since attended both the mother country and the former Colonies—a spirit of rivalry was shown between the two nations, and many jealousies were exhibited at each other's success. But the visit of the Prince of Wales had shown most conclusively that notwithstanding this rivalry there existed at bottom in the United States a large amount of sympathy for the country from which they derived their descent; and he thought that the Prince's visit promised a most valuable influence on the future of the two countries. He thought a most remarkable feeling was shown on the part of England since those internal quarrels in the United States had taken place. The Mover and Seconder of the Address had both expressed their sympathy with regard to these unfortunate divisions in America; and the feeling evinced in England was a feeling of sympathy and concern throughout the land that such a misfortune should have arisen. Foreigner after foreigner had said to him, "You must rejoice at the disunion, this weakening of your great rival across the Atlantic." But no Englishman had ever made such a remark to him; and he believed that a feeling deeper than a mere commercial or manufacturing feeling pervaded all classes in England on that subject, and that there was that sort of sympathy between England and America, which, as the noble Earl had so well expressed— America being one of the greatest nations on the earth, and almost as free as ourselves—can only exist between free peoples. In that opinion he (Earl Granville) entirely concurred. We had some advantage over the United States. The minority in England had more opportunities of expressing themselves than the minority possessed in more democratic America. It was not for him to prophecy how the quarrel between the States would end, or to point out the probable effect of a disruption on the welfare of the States, or on their relations with this country. He was sure we all wished the dispute might terminate in that manner which was most likely to ensure the prosperity and welfare of that great and kindred nation. With regard to cotton, he entirely concurred with the conclusions of the noble Earl as to the desirability of extending the sources from which we derived our supplies of cotton. He thought the advice of the noble Earl

37
was excellent. From political as well as other causes, it was not wise for us to depend for the supply of a great staple of trade on any one country. Cotton was a crop more dependent on the weather than any other; and there was no doubt that our own Colonies, as well as many other countries, were capable of furnishing us with an adequate supply. As far as they legitimately could, Government would give their encouragement and stimulus to an introduction or extension of the cotton cultivation in our Colonies; and they had already sent out circulars to our consuls in furtherance of a scheme with that object. But after all, it rested with the merchants and manufacturers particularly interested in the supply of cotton to take active and energetic steps in the same direction; for it was inexpedient that Government should actually engage in a work that could be better done by private enterprise. Coming back to Europe, the noble Earl opposite had alluded to that part of Europe which was exciting the greatest attention at the present moment—he meant Italy; and here he pronounced a most severe censure on certain acts of Her Majesty's Government, in reference to two particular despatches addressed by the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary to the Government of Sardinia, respecting the affairs of Italy. With regard to the latter of those despatches, the noble Earl made a statement which he (Earl Granville) had heard with great surprise. That statement was a most extraordinary one. It made an accusation, one affecting the constitutional character, or almost, he might say, the honour, of Lord John Russell, that he had disregarded constitutional usage in not laying a despatch before the Queen. He (Earl Granville) felt some difficulty in dealing with such a charge. He did not feel called on to state facts with regard to communications of such a character; but he thought he might say that, unless the noble Earl could bring some proof of his allegation—and he (Earl Granville) was at a loss to know what proof could be given —the noble Earl was not warranted in bringing so grave a charge against the Foreign Secretary of State, With regard to the despatches themselves, the noble Earl 6aid he required no further information than the papers already on the table. Now, he (Earl Granville) could not help thinking that if their Lordships were to enter into a discussion of the entire question when the whole of the papers
38
should be produced—and that would be as soon as they could be printed and distributed, for he believed his noble Friend had produced them that evening in the other House—it would be much better than dealing with a separate and isolated part of the subject, with only two despatches in their possession. When that time came Her Majesty's Government would not shrink from a discussion of their Italian policy. He hoped that discussion, however, would not turn on particular portions of that policy only, but that it would be directed to a practical end. He hoped that there would be no misrepresentations; and that noble Lords would not misrepresent, as he thought the noble Earl had done, one of the despatches of Lord John Russell. When a great question like this was going on, affecting the whole of European policy, it was impossible to judge every single act and the minute and technical details of international law. They must embrace a larger view of the subject, and a larger amount of details. The noble Earl had asked if an attack on Naples was justifiable, why not an attack on Venetia? Well, the answer to that was that an attack on Venetia would lead to a complication of a more extensive and serious character than attached to an attack on Naples, and produce a war in different quarters, without, perhaps, any advantage to the Italians themselves. The noble Earl did not point out what it was he wished to establish in that peninsula, or what he thought was the object of the Italians themselves. It was not his (Earl Granville's) place to vindicate all that had been done by the King of Sardinia, any more than it was to defend the Imperial Speech delivered yesterday at Paris. The noble Earl opposite had asked what are the state of our relations with France? adding that he did not wish to ask anything it was impossible to answer: and then he wished Her Majesty's Government to say when the present unhappy state of affairs in Europe is to cease. He (Earl Granville) regretted to state that it was entirely beyond our power to answer this question—nor indeed was it the province of Her Majesty's Government to do so. With regard to the noble Earl's question as to our relations with France, he (Earl Granville) had no hesitation in saying that our relations with France were founded on those principles which ought to guide those who administer the affairs of a great country; that they were founded neither on "a blind distrust," nor on "a

39
blind confidence;" their belief was that when France and England acted cordially together they must act for the general good of Europe; that it would be very difficult for them to act in concert, without acting for the good of Europe; and that if they did not act for the good of Europe, they would not be acting in concert, but would be taking one side or the other. The Government feel they cannot be too anxious to increase the friendly relations between the two countries. The noble Earl had adverted disparagingly to the Commercial Treaty concluded between the two countries last year. He (Earl Granville) believed, on the contrary, it had been, and would be, of great benefit to both countries. The noble Earl exulted in the beneficial effect it had produced on French finance, and the disadvantage resulting from it to England. Whatever might be the case with regard to any question of despatches and foreign policy, he (Earl Granville) was quite convinced that in discussing any matter of finance it would be of considerable advantage to have all the facts and figures before them; but he believed that, notwithstanding this exultation of the noble Earl opposite, and notwithstanding that the treaty did not come up to the sanguine wishes of Mr. Cobden himself, yet, on the whole, with the exception of one great staple of trade with which he himself was connected, and some complaints on small matters, the general anticipations of the commercial and manufacturing public had been more than realised, and the convention had been carried out in a very liberal spirit on the whole—much more so than had been stipulated by the treaty contracted in January last year. He believed it would lead to very great commercial relations between France and England; and he believed also that it would lead to a general revision of European tariffs. France was actually engaged in negotiating treaties with other countries, and if those countries reduced their tariffs in order to extend their commercial relations with France, the principle of self-interest as well as justice would induce them to extend the advantage to ourselves. Thus, in reality, the treaty which had been so much sneered at would be most beneficial to our interest. He did not pretend to say for a moment that commercial treaties would prevent war, or that commerce unfitted men for making war; but of this he was sure—that commerce disinclines nations from entering into war
40
unnecessarily. In regard to our cooperation with France, he thought it had been attended with the most beneficial results. In China he might refer to the cordial understanding that has throughout existed between the English and French commanders of the expedition. In Syria there had been a much more difficult question to deal with; cruelties of the most atrocious kind had been committed; and to put a stop to the violence, by an agreement between the European Powers, the country was occupied for a certain period. The accounts now received by Her Majesty's Government were more favourable. The local authority was now in the hands of a distinguished Turkish officer; and from the communications received, not by the English Government alone, but by those of all the European States, there was reason to believe it will not be necessary to prolong the occupation. In referring to our relations with France, the noble Earl asked whether we were to be taught by the French the best way of adjusting our finances? Although he (Earl Granville) thought that the Emperor of the French was deserving of credit for having introduced the system of free trade into France, where it was singularly distasteful, and although M. Chevalier and those who worked with him were entitled to praise for having firmly resisted the efforts of the people in opposition to free trade, he was not quite prepared to admit that the French Government was able to give us lessons with regard to protection and free trade, and he was sorry to say that the noble Earl himself, as a professor of political economy, had quoted from Sir Robert Peel a modified notion on the question to satisfy prejudices, and uttered much in the same way that George Stephenson stated to a Committee of the House of Commons, that he felt certain that a railway train would be able to travel fifteen miles an hour. Looking to the state of the whole world there was no doubt that much apprehension, uneasiness, and distrust everywhere existed, and there was a difficulty in knowing where all would end. Among the Governments there seemed a disposition to make liberal concessions to the governed who required changes; but many of those concessions were too small, and were made too late. If we looked to our own internal condition, he thought we had reason to be proud. He was not going to boast of it, for the recent events in the United States as well as the Indian mutiny, arising

41
suddenly, when the best informed minds were unprepared for such contingencies, should teach them not to speak in a boasting tone; but it was permitted to them to speak with grateful thankfulness of the state of this country in respect of political feeling. At no time was the general sentiment of loyalty so remarkable as at the present moment, and he believed the feeling of the country upon nearly all points to be of the soundest character. The noble Earl, in speaking of the financial state of the country, omitted, he (Earl Granville) thought, the consideration of certain circumstances which were calculated seriously to affect the finances, and over which the Government had no possible control. The noble Earl ought to have recollected that we had scarcely any summer last year—that we had a deficient harvest, and a winter of almost unparalelled severity so far as it had gone. The noble Earl lamented that there was not some stronger expression of sympathy in the Royal Speech for the suffering endured by a portion of our population. Now, with regard to those partial sufferings, it would be difficult to touch upon them without going into details which would be inconvenient to enter into in a Royal Speech. He agreed with the noble Earl in the admiration he had expressed of the noble spirit which had been shown by the more affluent classes towards their suffering fellow-creatures. Nothing could exceed the satisfaction which must be felt at the display of so noble a spirit, although he was afraid that in a great many instances that spirit had been shown in too great forgetfulness of the working of the old poor law, and from a want of due consideration of the extreme difficulty of dealing with questions of charity so as to secure the greatest permanent advantage to nil parties. At the same time the grand feature of sympathy between one class and another remained in its fullest extent. At former times, when we had deficient harvests, and when people were thrown out of employment, such state of things had led to great political disaffection. At the present moment, however, he believed there never was a country more free from this feeling, and he thought that that result might be traced to the legislation of past years in favour of the community at large, and the disposition that had been evinced on the part of the governing body to yield as far as possible to public opinion, when it has been continuously and clearly shown
42
to be the national will. The noble Earl appeared to express dissatisfaction at the amount of legislation effected last year. He (Earl Granville) thought that the noble Earl had greatly underrated what had been done last year. He was of opinion that a great deal had been done. Much had been done for the simplification of the tariff, for the improvement of the national defences, and in passing some Bills intimately affecting the prosperity of Ireland. There was, however, no doubt of the fact that business had not proceeded in the other House so satisfactorily as it might have done. Now their Lordships' House had much less to do than the other House of Parliament, and, therefore, he did not think they were open to the same accusation. The noble Earl last year pointed out some remedy for this evil, which he thought might be applied with advantage to the general proceedings of Parliament—namely, the appointment of certain Committees. He (Earl Granville) thought it desirable that a Committee, as suggested, should be so established, in order to effect a greater simplification of their proceedings, and if the proposal should meet with the general concurrence of their Lordships he should feel it his duty upon an early day to move the appointment of a Committee to consider how legislation in Parliament could be more easily accelerated. He hardly liked, on this, the first night of the Session, to close his remarks without making some allusion to a particular loss which that House had recently sustained. It would ill become him who had served under the late Lord Aberdeen during his Administration, to remain silent as to the character and merits of that deceased nobleman. He never knew in public life a more just and honourable man than Lord Aberdeen. On foreign politics, in which the late noble Lord took an especial interest, it might be said that his views were somewhat of a Conservative character. But in regard to the question of peace, Lord Aberdeen had learned in some of the great battle-fields of this century to prize peace for its own sake, and to show a love of peace, which perhaps was sometimes exhibited rather too strongly. With regard to all internal legislation—to all measures affecting the interests of the country at home—he thought the degree of liberality displayed on those points by the noble Earl was quite peculiar, considering his early education. He remembered the late Lord Aberdeen, on the occasion of some frivolous charge being brought

43
against him out of doors, saying he thanked God that character was something in this world. He (Earl Granville) believed now that all party and political feeling had gone that their Lordships would feel that no man in that House could appeal with greater force to his own character and his own example. His straightforward views and honesty of intention were, he (Earl Granville) thought, a lesson for them all. Leaving that subject, he must say, in reference to what fell from the noble Earl opposite in regard to a better manner of conducting the business of Parliament, whether in minor matters or in great and important national questions arising in that House, their Lordships should endeavour to show the example, which he was happy to say they had shown that night, of unanimity in all things affecting the honour of Parliament and the happiness of the nation.
Address agreed to, Nemine Dissentiente: and the same was ordered to be presented to Her Majesty by the Whole House; and the Lords with White Staves were ordered to wait on Her Majesty to know when She will please to appoint to be attended therewith.

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 a Quarter before Eight o'clock, to Thursday next, Two o'clock.