The Press. — London, England, 1857-03-28 00:00:00

No. 204.—V0L. V. SPEECH OF LORD ELLENBOROUGH In the HOUSE of LORDS, on FRIDAY, March 20, 1R57, ON THE STATE OF THE COUNTRY. (SUPPLEMENT TO " THE PRESS," SATURDAY, MARCH 28, 18570 GRATIS. LONDON, SATURDAY, MARCH 28, 1857. THE DISSOLUTION OF PARLIAMENT. In the House of Lords, on Friday, the 20th instant, on the third reading of the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill, The EARL of ELLENBOROUGII rose and said : As the motion for the third reading of this bill announces the approaching termination of the session, I trust I may be allowed to offer a few words to your lordships on the peculiar circumstances which have led to its premature conclusion. I believe the circumstances are these. The Governor of Hong Kong having taken ample reparation for an alleged offence, and the circumstances being such as would have enabled him to come at once to a pacific settlement with the Chinese authorities, thought fit to make, at a time the most unpropitious, a new demand, to which it was obviously impossible, under the circumstances, that the Chinese authorities would accede. Hence arose the war. That war has been approved by her Majesty's Government ; and the question having been submitted to the House of Commons, that assembly, by a small majority, thought fit to express their opinion that there were not sufficient grounds for the measures adopted in China and approved by her Majesty's Government. Upon that the course adopted by the Government was to advise the Queen to dissolve Parliament ; and the members of the House of Commons are to be sent to their constituents for judgment. At first a charge was made of conspiracy, and concert, and coalition, and of all those various offences which a dissatisfied Government usually charges on a successful Opposition. However, that charge has been denied, and is now altogether withdrawn. From the first it was unreasonable, and no one who considered the matter for a few moments could by possibility have given credenc3 to it. (Hear, hear.) I apprehend that two questions practically are to be submitted to the people—first, whether they prefer Lord Palmerston to any other Minister? and, secondly, whether they approve this war? Now, I think it not at all impossible that the answer given to the first question may be in the affirmative—that the people may on the whole prefer Lord Palmerston to any other Minister; but I feel the most perfect confidence that the answer given to the second ques tion by their representatives will be that they cannot approve the circumstances under which the war commenced, and that they desire that it should be terminated as speedily as possible. (Hear, hear.) So that, in fact, the position of the Government after the dissolution will be, practically, precisely the same RS now. But there IS a very important question involved in the commencement of these proceedings, and it is the question—to what extent it is politic to give sup port to distant authorities in measures undertaken by those authorities which endanger the pacific rela tions between the country and a foreign State. (Hear, hear.) If Sir J. Bowring is to be supported, he being Governor of Hong Kong, because he has undertaken measures which led to war with the Chinese authorities in his neighbourhood, I know not why, upon the same principle, the Governor of Gibraltar might not adopt measures which would lead to a conflict between us and the Spanish Go vernment, or a Governor of a West India colony might not engage in a war with the United States, and involve this country in most serious difficulty. (Hear, hear.) To the principle that our authorities abroad ought to have a fair and liberal construction placed on their acts no one can object, but that it should be incumbent on the Government in a most questionable cause to extend their support to their authorities abroad, and involve this country in war, appears to me one of the most dangerous innova tions. (Hear, hear.) Now that the representatives of the people are to be sent to their constituents, who are the persons to suer? The noble earl the President of the Council has told us that he is far from desiring that the forty-eight, old Whigs who voted against the Govern ment should be among those who are to suffer. (" Hear," and a laugh.) Now, it appears to Ina that that is contrary to the usual feeling in these matters. Those gentlemen who have given their support and confidence to the Government, and at a moment of peril withdraw their support and confidence, commit, it is generally considered, according to the doctrines of parties as they existed in former times, almost an act of treason. I remember, when I was a member of the House of Commons, if any Whig gentleman presumed to differ from his party, to make an independent speech, or to give an independent vote on any occasion, he was fired at from the benches ou tha floor, fired at from the benches above. It was distressing to see what he suffered in the house—