The Sun. — London, England, 1860-01-25 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, JANUARY 25, 1860. tions of this country with foreign Powers. The Crown also possesses the great prerogative of declaring war and making peace.. But this, high authority is guarded by this rule-- that her Majesty's servants are to be held strictly respon sible for the manner in which it is exercised ; and further, that whenever the situation of the country is such that it is necessary to arm with a view to probable, or even pos sible hostilities, it-is-the duty of the advisers of the Crown to make this known to Parliament, and to call on Parlia ment to provide for the expense to be thus incurred- My lords, it is not requisite that war should be declared in order to create an occasion when such a communication ought to be made to the Legislature. It is sufficient if the state of things is such that a necessity arises for making naval and military preparations. I am convinced there are none of your lordships who will dispute that I am laying down correctly what may be regarded as the law and practice of Parretlt I might quote many examples to show how rip s rule has been adhered to, but I shall t rou ble your to ?s p with only two ; and in doing so I hope I shall not be tak ins up too much of your time. (Hear.) Theseprecedents, acted showing how in former times great Ministers have ord in these cases, will be valuable. as a guide to your 1 179 ships' judgment in the present instance. S In the y r 0 ea some British vessels were seize d by the paniards on the north-west coast of America. An application was made by our Government for redress.. That application was not at tended to. On the contrary, Spain replied by putting for ward claims that were held to be inadmissible; and a fresh application was ordered to be made by the English ambas sador at Madrid. At the same time, on the sth of May, a message from the Crown was brought down to both houses of Parliament, in which, after reciting at greater length than I have done the facts I have just stated, his Majesty made use of the following words :—" Under the circumstances, his Majesty, having also received information that con• siderable armaments are going on in the ports of Spain, has judged it to be indispensably necessary to give orders that such preparations shall be made as may put it in his Ma jesty's power to act with vigour in support of the honour of his Crown and the interests of his people. And his Ma jesty recommends his faithful Commons, in whose zeal he has the most perfect reliance, to take such measures as will enable him to effect such an augmentation of his forces as may be requisite for that purpose." This message was brought down by Mr. Pitt before the Crown proceeded to increase the naval or military force of the country in the case of the Nootka Sound dispute. The Address in answer to the Royal message was unanimously agreed to on the following day by both houses ; and the House of Commons gave a vote of credit of £1,000,000 to meet tho expenses of the .proposed armament. I need not tell your lordships that, in consequence of the determined attitude of this country, the difference relative to Nootka Sound passed off without a war. There is another ca se. At the beginning sf De cember, 1826, the Princess Regent of Portugal applied to England under the treaties between Portugal and this coun try for assistance to defend her dominions against an appre hended aggression on the part of Spain. The British Go vernment determined that this appeal was one which should be responded to. Accordingly, on the 11th of December, 1826, a message from the Crown was brought down to both houses. On the following day, the 12th of December, Mr. Canning, in moving the address in answer to the mes sage, informed the House of Commons that the decision of the Cabinet had been come to only on the Saturday ; that it was approved on the Sunday, ;and on the Monday the message was sent down to the House of Commons. Such, my lords, was the course adopted on those two occasions. Contrast it with what happened in the present instance. On the 16th of September last the despatches of the English Admiral arrived from China. I have no means of knowing how soon after that the decision of the Government was comp to, but we know from the news papers that at a very early period afterwards prepara tions were commenced. My lords, it is new more than four months since this intelligence was received, and during at least three of those months our forts and arsenals have re sounded with the din of preparation. Measures have been taken, as we all know from the public sources of infores orma tion, for despatching artillery, gunbots, st to China. I do not know whether any troops have been ordered to proceed to China direct from this country, but troops have certainly been ordered to proceed thither from India, and preparations have been made for a large force, we are told:not less than 10,000 men, in addition to our naval forces. Therefore, a very large expense must already have been in curred, and I only ask you to contrast the course which has thus been taken—all these measures being taken during three months—without communication with Parliament till this moment, with the practice which I have described as having been taken on the occasions to which I have alluded by Mr. Pitt and Mr. Canning. (Hear, hear.) They thought it their duty before they did anything else at once to ask Parliament to support the Crown in the measures they pro posed to adopt. Is that, my lords, to be the rule in future ? If it is not, r say that it is necessary that we should take some notice of the delay that has taken place. If we admit that a Minister may without blame for so long a period as I have mentioned continue warlike preparations without seeking the aid and sanction of Parliament to his measures, I say we admit that a principle which our greatest statesmen and our most distinguished writers have always held an essential element in our constitution, is no longer binding upon our statesmen. The !power of the Crown to enter on war is admitted, but it has always been held that it was only safe that this great power should be intrusted to the Executive Government of the day, because they were not at liberty to take even one step towards involving the country in war without associating Parliament in the measures they adopted. It was con sidered to be their duty to call on Parliament for sup • ~ port in the very first instance, and when the appeal was made to Parliament the whole question of the policy and justice of the`war was immediately brought under the con sideration of theigreat council of the nation, which had it in its power to check at the very beginning any steps which it might think inexpedient, or calculated to involve the coun try in an unjust or impolitic war. (Hear, hear.) But what becomes of this security ? What becemes of this guard against abuse if a Minister is to be allowed for such a time as 1 have described to carry on warlike preparations keep ing Parliament ignorant of them? (Hear, hear.) It may, perhaps, be said that in the instances I have quoted Parlia ment was sitting at the time, and therefore it was natural that Government should make a communication to it as soon as circumstances arose which, in their opinion, made it empedient for the country to arm. My lords, I can really scarcely believe that anybody will pretend that the mere accident of Parliament being sitting at the time should make the slightest difference. If it is proper to make a communication to Parliament it is proper also to call Par liament together for the purpose of receiving that communi cation, and neither our convenience nor the convenience of the members of the othbr House of Parliament ought for a moment to be put in competition with the importance of maintaining a great constitutional principle—(hear, hear) —and, as it is in the power of the Government at any time, with very short delay, to call Parliament together, if it was their duty, while Parliament was sitting, to make such a communication, it was equally their duty to call Parliament together for the purpose of receiving it. (Hear, hear.) I may, perhaps, be told that the large and liberal grants made by Parliament in last session for our naval and mili tary service rendered it unnecessary to make a further com munication to Parliament. My lords, it is, no doubt, true that Parliament made large and liberal grants in the last session for the naval and military service ; but these grants wore not more than sufficient to provide for the demands on the service which Parliament thought ought to be pro vided for before these new demands on account of the Chinese war were known. What has occurred in China certainly in no degree diminishes the demand on those services in other countries. If looked into we may, perhaps, find that demand rather increased than diminished. It may be possible that by postponing what measures cannot ultimately be abandoned, with a view of considering the more urgent demands of the Chinese war, no technical irre gularity may have taken place, or any illegal approbation been made. I am quite prepared to expect that such is the fact ; but of this I am quite sure, that not only a large, but a very large, expenditure has already been incurred, which Parliament will ultimately have no alternative but to pro vide; that an expenditure has been incurred which may also lead to one far, far larger than anything we may yet dream, an expense of almost incalculable amount. And I would point out to your lordships that this question of ex pense is not a mere technical One of so many pounds paid under such and such a head of the estimates ; what is really wanted is this—that the country is not to be committed to any heavy expendit ure an d, a b ove a ll, t o no h eav y enpendi ture in the way of war, without giving the great council of the nation an opportunity of considering the propriety of that war. (Hoar, hear.) I contend, therefcre, my lords, that in the ' course they h ave pursue d on thi s subject her Majesty's Government have been guilty of an unjustifiable departure from the established practice of Parliament. And I am the more surprised that this should happen under the present Government, because it happens that there is in the present Government a very distinguished person who only three years ago laid doiin in very c l ear t erms w h a t i s th e correct rule to follow on this subject. (Hear.) In the de bate which took place in the other House of Parliament upon the Address in the year 1857 I find that the following expressions were used with reference to the Persian war " If her Majestfs Government have carri e d us i n t o a Pei:- shin war it was their duty to have called Parliament toe flier at the first moment when they ventured to contemplate so serious a step. I will say, without fear of contradiction, that the practice of commencing wars without associating Parliament with the first measures is utterly at variance with the established practice of the country, danger ous to the constitution, and absolutely requiring the inter vention of this house in order to render the recognition of so dangerous a proceeding utterly i m p ossible." (O pp osition cheers.) My lords, the person who made these comments with reference to the Persian war was the present Chancel lor of the Exchequer—(continued Opposition cheers)--4hat member of the Government whose duty it is to see that in the administration of the finances the rules of Parliament are strictly adhered to. (Hear, hear.) Now, my lords, the object of the amendment which I shall think it my duty to move will be simply to enforce this sound view-of the law and practice of Parliament. There are many other impor tant questions which will arise in regard to the Chinese war —questions which I hope your lordships will have to consi der at a very early period. There may be a question whe ther we have any just cause of war with China at all--(op position cheers) —whether the Chinese, having had experi ence that the way of access to their capital by the Peiho was exposed and undefended—a source of considerable danger— were justified in fortifying it, and thereby obstructing the mouth- of the river—whether, taking those measures pub licly, and announcing them in the Pekin Gazette, they af forded any just ground of complaint to this country, or any right to insist that the obstructions so placed in the mouth of the .river should be removed in order to enable our am bassador to proceed to Pekin—whether the treaty of Tien havine given us a right to send an ambassador to Pe kin, but being silent as to the route which that ambassador should take—(" hear, hear," from Lord Derby)—our pleni potentiary was would entitled to say, when offered another route, that he not being open, by no other than the Peiho, and this whether, even if he e at he was entitled to force it—(hear) — use of force, withoti l t iad such a right, he was entitled to make Pekin to see whether, to the Imperial authorities at they might not be inaues:ed mere peaceable representations, to withdraw the obstructions — (hear)--whether it made any difference that those fortifica tions were stated to be garrisoned by aforco of militia, and not by the regular troops of the entire; whether, if we ourselves should think that, in the event-of tkieiaperor of the French insisting to come to London, and sending a number of a gun boats up the Thames to effect that object whi c h s h ou ld f i n d obstructions to their further progress t Gravesend, w ould be entitled to remove those obstructions by he order' e• hie, forces to fire upon them because they happen e d t be inarto ed only by a body of the Kent Militia ; wh e th er e i rcnei stanee of our demand being backed in the case of. the Chines.) by the despatch of a large military and naval force to that country in a manner which will probably lead to war is calculated to promote, in any one respect, the interests of hear)— and whether any conclusion to Ene-landc— (ge ar, which such A contest may be brought can in, any one par ticular b e ce mlucive to our real benefit. (Hear, hear.) may also ask, ra.ielords, whether any treaty which we may succeed in extorting from China, or any amount of degrada tion which we reasir impose upon her Government, is likely to place us in a b enter position in her regard, or whether we have any securits r thatsuch a treaty would be acted . upon one hone beyond Ishe time at whic happen orce by which it was wrung from the people to be withdrawn. Thep, my lords, i s t becomes a question whether our great •..........,.................. trade with China—a trade which, directly and indirectly, contributes more • to our prosperity than that which we carry on withany other nation of the world, with the single exception of the - United States—a trade which is of such enormous importance to the flourishing condition of Our In dian revenue—would be likely to be promoted by burning the cities and slaughtering the inhabitants of that vast em pire ; whether, in a word, they would,be in a position to be of advantage to us owing to the fact that we spread devas tation through their land. (Hear.) Is it wise and prudent that we should enter upon a contest from which, once it is com menced, there may be no retreat, save by pulling down the 'ancient and already tottering fabric of the Chinese Empire? (Hear, hear.) Those, mylords, are grave ques tions, which it is our duty to consider with a deliberation commensurate to their importance. They open, however, too extensive a field to be adequately discussed on an occasion like the present. I now advert to the fact that such questions call for our serious notice simply as affording to my mind conclusive proof of the impropriety of the delay which has occurred on thepart of her Majesty's:Government in bringing this subject under the consideration of the Legislature. It will be our duty to deal with these in the course of this session, but we cannot do so with the same effect as three months ago might have been the case. Parliament may now disapprove the policy which her Majesty's Government have pursued in this matter, but then we may be too late to correct many of the errors which that policy involves. Their orders have gone out to the other side of the world. They have been guided by particular views in issuing those orders, and have taken all their measures with reference to a possible war, so that an event which might some time ago have been avoided if the judgment of Parliament had been appealed to in due course may now be inevitable. We are at the present moment, for instance, far more deeply committed to France, who is to act as our ally in this contest, than we were at no very distant day. It is more difficult now than it was some few months since to make any propositions of a con ciliatory kind to the Chinese Government with a chance of their leading to amicable relations between the two coun tries. The very preparations for war which both we and they have made diminish the chances of such a policy being attended with success. I have now, co ntrar y I think, made out my case. It is, then, I repeat, to the rules and practice of Parliament that any Government should presume to take upon itself, without the sanction of the Legislature, to make preparations, as has been done in this instance, for what may turn out to be a frightfully disastrous contest. (Hear, hear.) No merely theoretical, but a practical and substantial injury has, I contend, been done to the country by so great a departure from the esta blished law of the constitution. (Hear, hear.) If, there fore, we agree to the Address in answer to the Speech from the Throne in the form in which it now stands, thanking her Majesty for the information which she has communi cated to us upon this important subject, without saying one word as to the time at which that communica tion happens to have been made, we by clear implication admit that the point is one with respect to which we have no fault to find. It is, therefore, my object, .in framing the amendment which I am now about to submit to your lord thips' consideration, to take notice of the irregularity of which I complain in terms the most temperate which I am able to devise. I may 'add that if any noble lord should suggest to me terms still milder by which the views which I entertain upon this subject could be adequately expressed, I shall be most happy to act upon the suggest ion. My sole object - in proposing this amendment at all is to prevent the pernicious proceeding to which I advert from being drawn into a precedent. Bear in mind, my lords, that the law of Parliament is an unwritten law—that it rests on custom and usage. Every bad precedent which you set up in opposi tion to it may tend to break down a wholesome constitu tional check. I am of opinion that this house was greatly to blame in omitting to notice the irregularity which oc curred in connection with the declaration of the war with Persia. We see in what has since taken 'place the conse quence of the course which was then pursued. If we pass over with similar neglect a similar irregularity, we shall have gone far to establish a rule which may supersede the old law of Parliament; so that in future any man could hardly complain with justice of a Minister who during the Parliamentary recess should take measures and pledge the country to a policy, owing to which we may find ourselves, when the Legislature assembled, hopelessly involved in a great European war. (Hear, hear.) These, my lords, are the considerations upon which I venture to submit to your notice the amendment which I am about to propose, and which, I trust, your lordshipiwill sanction. (Cheers.) To the words in the Address thanking her Majesty for the information which she has been graciously pleased to communicate to us with respect to the conflict at the mouth of the Peiho, and the measures which she proposes to take in co-operation with the Emperor of the Faench to obtain redress for what there took place, and to secure the fulfilment of the treaty of Tien-sin, I beg to addthe following words :—"But humbly to express to her Majesty our regret that when the prepa rations for the intended expedition were commenced her Majesty's servants did not advise her Majesty to communi cate to Parliament, without delay, the measures decided upon by them, in order that Parliament might have an op portunity of forming a judgment thereon, and that its pre vious sanction might be obtained to the expenses it might occasion." (Hear, hear.) The LORD CHANCELLOR having put the question, The Duke of NEWCASTLE rose and said,—l greatly regret, my lords, that the noble earl who has just spoken has found it to be inconsistent with his duty to allow the address of your lordships' house to proceed to her Majesty without having proposed his amendment. The practice— the very wholesome practice, in my opinion—has of late grown up in the proceedings of the Legislature of never moving an amendment to the Address to the Sovereign in answer to the Royal Message at the commencement of the session, unless some great party objects were sought to be attained, or unless some very flagrant assertions were made in that Address to which the opposition found it impossible to assent. Now, the practice to which I allude has, I believe, prevailed in recent times, mainly because it has been the custom of Ministers, no matter to what party they may be long, to abstain from introducing into the Speech of the Sovereign, so far as it may lie in their power, any topic or phrase which might be likely to produce discord in the de liberations of the Legislature on the first evening of the session. And, indeed, my noble friend the mover of the amendment now under our notice expressly stated' in the course of his speech that he is perfectly aware that her Ma jesty's Governmenthave studiously avoided the employment of any such words in the Royal Message as were very fairly used by the noble lord who seconded the Address in com menting on the proceedings which have taken place in China. As, however, my noble friend has felt himself called upon to move this amendment, it becomes my duty, on the part of the Government, to make some observations, not , only upon the amendment itself, but upon the arguments by which it has been supported. But before I proceed to do so I hope the house will allow me tc say a few words in re ference to another topic which is mentioned in the Royal Speech, and upon which the noble earl has commented un favourably—l mean the treaty of commerce with France. I am sure your lordships will not expect that any member of the Government should at this moment, when the treaty was only signed yesterday, and there has been no opportu nity of laying it before the house, enter into any discussion of its details or attempt any hypothetical defence of the transaction itself. But I at once concur in my noble friend's observations as to the impolicy of commercial treaties gene rally. I readily admit a commercial treaty, as the term was understood in years gone by, to be at variance with the soundest principles of free trade, and that nothing but pe culiar circumstances can justify on our part in these days a treaty of that nature. I am, however, firmly convinced that when this treaty is laid before Parliament, and when your lordships come to consider the circumstances under which it has been proposed by one country and accepted by the other, you will be of opinion thet the proceeding was a justifiable one, to which you can g ive your approval. (Hear.) Without entering into details, I will only put it to the house and to my noble friend whether a measure which is not absolutely contradictory to the principles of free trade may not be justifiable as a means of cementing the union of two countries like England and France ; whe ther there can be any stronger or more reliable bond of union than an extension of the commerce between those countries, which, considering their enormous wealth, has been hitherto of a restricted nature. We may make bar gains 01 engagements with Emperors or Presidents, but they may be broken by those potentates. An extension of commerce, on the other hand, forms a binding engage ment between the people of two countries, and I be lieve, in proportion to its extent, will make war be tween them less likely, if not Impossible. (Hear, hear.) I am unwilling to trouble your lordships now fur ther upon this point, but the amendment proposed by my noble friend requires me to notice some of his argu ments. He started from an assumption that it was the established rule and practice to lay before Parliament an announcement of the intention of the Sovereign to com mence hostilities with a foreign nation. I am surprised that my noble friend should have framed his proposition upon so broad a basis, for I believe writers upon international law have greatly differed upon the subject; but surely my noble friend does not forget that, notwithstanding the examples of 1790 and 1826, to which he has referred, the n friendu r ul e saying sh c ad h kte hpehasaetr departed i da l thoughhfreg a rdseroadm, a buts du r in g a h i n a b et lletlhiestablishedeevdee last describes imabt e years.rus Im l a e ma h y has been re peatedlyii haveMo t noble vbr oene been the established rule in cases of hostilities with European nations, yet there are few, if any, instances where it has been adhered to in cases of hostilities with eastern nations. The noble earl must admit that it h as no t eve n the univerral rule with regard to European instances, for he cannot have forgotten the cases of Port uga l i n 1831, and of Greece at a subsequent period, not to mention other in stances. My noble friend has said that he hopes the Govern ment will not attempt to set up as their defence the fact that Parliament was not sitting, nor the argument that they had sufficient funds resulting from the votes of Par liament for other purposes to enable them to carry on hos tilities. As to the last-mentioned defence, I certainly shall not have recourse to it ;but the other ground—that Parlia ment was not sitting at the time—l consider to be an im portant and justifiable defence of the conduct of the Govern ment. (Hear.) In the two cases which have been quoted by my noble friend, in 1790 and 1826, it happened that both occurred while Parliament was sitting. Surely, there is a great difference between the Sovereign communicating to Parliament the state of affairs with regard to foreign countries and his summoning Parliament together specially , to consult it upon an event which might never occur. How ever, it is not necessary to rely upon that for a defence in the present instance,fer my noble friend has based his argu ment upon the supposition that we are about to commence war et ith a nation with whom we were previously at peace. (Hear, hear.) I say that is not the case here. We are not commencing new hostilities with China ; we have never been at peace with China for the last two years, and at the very moment when the transactions in question occurred we had possession, and still retain, one of the most impor tant towns of the Chinese empire. Surely that could not be called a state of peace ? (Hear.) A treaty, no doubt, was negotiated by my noble friend near me (Lord Elgin) which Mr. Bruce was proceeding to Pekin to ratify, but it could not be a treaty of peace until it was ratified, and until that ratification took place, we were not at peace with China. .(Hear.) However, I shall not dwell upon this point at pre sent, for my no ble friend himself has told us that there must be many other occasions when the subject of this Chinese war must be fully considered, but he has mentioned me of hi s o bj ec ti ons to that war which I will just notice.. My noble f r i en d sa y s we h a d no rie,lit.to attempt to pais up the ' etho, and that we should have taken seine other route than that h e,i at l tray we cons id ere d t o b e th e hi g hway to the fairly beforecan only y her Majesty's Government will be o e p nt a e r r ii i aro eto on t t_ hat (h qu ea e r s ) t_ion and whe w n i e l v l e o r ni it 3 ch s a ay shall come now that we had everyo e r i gi n htts consider that river to be the pro perwh i eh highway may t observe thati not the only highway, in proof of clause in s the Russian treaty, agreed to in May last, there is a to proceed to the capital of C hina the Russians a right a vi either by their usual over. , land route, or by this very route of the Peiho, or by any route. I believe, without any attempt at special pleading, it might 'be shown that under the "fivoured nation" clause of the treaty of 1343 we might insist upon this route, but I do, not wish to urge it now, and only mention the last treaty , with Russia to establish the fact that there was a determi nation on the part of the Emperor of China or his people to treat the English nation differently from the Russians, and to exclude us from a route which was allowed to the latter nation by treaty only a month before. My noble friend also indulged in some general phrases with regard to the horrors of war. Now, I respect him for the feelings which he entertains on all occasions on this sub ject, although I think that he sometimes allows those feelings to carry him too far. But, will my noble friend maintain for one instant that if the honour of the country is involved we ought to consider whether we may to a certain extent be endangering our commerce, and whether, by car rying on hostilities with China, we may not injure the tea trade 2 (Hear, hear.) Those are no doubt important consi derations in themselves, but when the country has been outraged by attacks upon its forces, in which 400 or 500 Englishmen were struck down, I cannot think that my noble friend, having, as I know he has, the honour of his country at heart, would urge that then, being smitten on the one cheek, we should turn the other to be smitten also. (Hear, hear.) If, then, my lords, it can bo shown that we are bound to prepare this fleet and army, for the purpose of vindicating thenational honour and of obtaining reparation for the injuries inflicted upon us, providing it can be ob tained in no other way, I think that on a future occasion, when this subject comes to be discussed, I may claim the vote of my noble friend himself, in common with the rest of your lordships. That we are bound to take such a course, to uphold our honour as a nation, I firmly believe; but I will not enter into the question now, and am only sorry that my noble friend has forced me on to say so much. Her Majesty has announced that papers will be laid before Parliament, and when those are forthcoming we shall be enabled to un derstand and to discuss this subject much better. (Hear.) As to the point which forms the basis of my noble friend's amendment—that the Ministry have committed an act of disloyalty to Parliament by not laying before them their in tentions respecting China—l repeat that this is not an esta blished rule, though it may be a convenient one ; and, even if it were an established rule, I maintain that in tho instance before us it has not been violated, because we have not been at peace with China, and had nothing, therefore, to com municate. All we could have informed Parliament of was hat the treaty with China had not been ratified, and that he war was therefore continuing. But were we to call Par- liament together in order to make such an announcement I do not inter d to enter now into the other topics of my noble friend's speech, but I cannot help thinking, in conclusion, that your lordships will nob agree with him on the issue he has raised, and will not support his amendment. (Hear.) The Marquis of NORMANBY said that he for one agreed in the principles laid down by his noble friend (Earl Grey) that it would be more in accordance with the usual practice, and more for flip public interest, if the Govern ment had summoned Parliament on the subject of the war in China. However, he would not enter on the present oc casion into any details on the question before their lord ships, as a more ample opportunity would soon arise for discussing the whole question. At the same time he must observe that he could not agree that, as a general prin ciple, no amendment ought to be moved to the Address unless a great principle happened to be involved. The Duke of NEWCASTLE said that what he had stated was, " except when Ministers inserted words in the Speech which it was impossible for the Opposition to agree to." The Marquis of NORMANBY said it must not be for gotten that at thelast meeting of the Parliament an amend ment wa3 moved and carried which had a party purpose to serve. He, however, agreed with the noble duke that it would be right to postpone the details on the treaty of com merce with France to a future occasion, but the subject had been forced upon them by the noble seconder of the Ad dress, who said it was a bar to future war. The master ma nufacturers of France hardly took the same view of the sub ject, if they were to rely upon the speech which they had addressed to the Emperor respecting this matter. He had that morning received a letter from a source on which he could rely in which it was stated, "that armaments of all kinds were still carried on inFrance in the fiercest manner possible—that naval armaments wore continued as if they were going to war next week. Ships were being built, guns proved, and dockyards rang with the noise of warlike preparation " This statement was at variance with the universal peace hoped for by the noble lord opposite. He complained that while the French tariff was not to be altered until 1861, that of this country must commence im mediately, a step which involved of necessity the loss of con siderable revenue. With respect to the passage in the Speech in allusion to the affairs of Italy—what was the meaning of saying that no " external force" should be used to "impose upon the people of Italy any particularform of government ?" Why, the phrase was so vague and general that it could be used by Mazzini himself. Now, he wished to ask a ques tion, often put by his noble and learned friend (Lord Brougham), who were the people of Italy ? He must say that to hint such a doctrine as that propounded by the pas sage he alluded to was novel, and a very striking one. Was it to be put forward that if an insurrectionary or revolu tionary molement took place in any country and succeeded, it established a right to change the government and depose the sovereign ? Italy was composed of different states, go verned by different princes, and under different forms of government ; its people differed in manners and habits, and even in language, and in many respects cordially hated each other. Now, which of these formed the Italian people ? It did not appear to him that there was even the slightest trouble, honestly taken, to ascertain the real feelings and opinions of the people. The majority obtained was procured by foreign Intrigue and by foreign gold distributed by foreign agents ; and, in his opinion, if a proper mode were taken to ascertain the voice of the majority of the peaplo, it would be found that those who now held the governments were vastly in a minority. But another thing which surprised him was, that England appeared to recognise those pro ' visional Governments. Now he remembered that when in 1848 Lombardy was annexed to Sardinia, positive orders were given to the British representative in Milan not to recognise such annexation by any public act whatever ; and most assuredly his own instructions in Paris were not to recognise any provisional government. He knew not how the people of Lombardy liked the changes recently made ; but he had it on the best authority, that the Milanese were now taxed 15 per cent. higher than when they were under the dominion of Austria. Her Majesty, he thought, should have been advised to express herself in clearer terms when speaking of the Italian question. If any change were to be made, he thought means should be had recourse to for the purpose of ascertaining the feelings and opinions of the Italian people. For the last seven or eight months they were subjected to bribery of the most odious description; riedmontese gold had been used in a most extensive manner, and if any changes were to take place at all, they ought to have ascertained the legitimate feelings of the people. As regarded Tuscany, he was firmly convinced, and had it on the highest authority, that the great majority of that country were opposed to any annexa tion with Sardinia. But England ought to take care that her own interests wore not injured by those changes. He had received a letter from a Tuscan gentleman, who in formed him that the old system of putting an ad valorem duty on foreign goods imported there was entirelyabolished and an enormous additional tax put on each separate artiole. See what an effect such a system as that must naturally have on the exportation of British goods and manufactures into the States of Italy. But, then, it was said that the liberal Governments now in existence were the promoters of liberty. Well, if that be so, they had a very odd way of showing it, for the rigours of imprisonment were now greater than on any former occasion. A gentleman named Montelli had been quietly living in England, but on these changes taking place he went to Florence, where, in ac cordance with the custom now prevailing, all letters passing through the Post office were opened, and subject to an exa mination. A letter had been sent to poor. Signor Montelli, which was found to contain what was considered a doubt ful phrase, and he was immediately followed to Leghorn, brought back to Florence, and thrown - into prison. That he considered to be rather harsh treatment on the part of a liberal Government. This gentleman was subsequently set at liberty, and although he published the particulars, and complained of the unjust treatment he received, not one word of it ap peared in any English newspaper. Last year he (the Mar quis of Normanby) stated in that house that the Grand Duke Ferdinand of Tuscany never gave any orders, as had been stated, to the garrison of Florence to fire on the town. He was contradicted in that assertion by an individual who now, it appears, was in prison, and who had stated since that the allegations he put forward as a contradiction were entirely false. (Hear.) His grace went at considerable length into an exposition of his general views upon the sub ject, but in a tone of voice which prevented his being heard in the gallery. He was understood to urge the Govern ment to be consistent, and to sympathise with aspirations in the lonian Islands which they so cordially sympathised with in Italy. Lord BROUGHAM, who was for some minutes inaudi ble, said he had always lamented the divisions of Italy. In conversing with the Unitarian party in Italy, he had always lamented that Italy had hitherto been rather a geographical than a political name ; that from all time, from the time of Dante downwards, there had been animo sity and divisions, not only between neighbouring States, but even between one city and town and another, so little did the Italians deserve the name of a united people. It was deeply to be lamented; but there seemed no help for it. There seemed no chance by means of war, by the as sistance of Sardinia against Austria, or by any other means, of their obtaining union among themselves, and in the great body of the nation. But times have changed, and the for tunes of nations change with events. When the Italian war was discussed he had expressed his opinion of the objects of both the parties to it. Of France he would now say nothing—either as to the time it commenced the war or the reasons for commencing it. As to Sar dinia, and the reasons it had put forward for engaging in a war with Auttria, he had expressed more than doubts—his suspicions —that the war for the liberation of Italy was entered into to obtain for Sardinia a part of the Austrian dominions. Of the Italian war he had expressed the reprobation which he might almost say was the feeling-of every one in this country. In that war England had no share. England did all in, her power to prevent the war ; she did all in her power to induce Austria to join in negotiations that would have prevented hostilities. Unhappily, Austria would not yield to those recommendations, but wont on in her own course. In the war that ensued the defeat of Austria was complete. From the beginning to the end of it there was not a single battle in which the armies of Austria were not defeated. There was not a single action in which Sardinia and her ally were not entirely successful. And after a fearful amount of slaughter, after the greatest pos sible misery had been inflicted on the north of Italy, the result was that Austria was driven from the greater part of her dominions. The treaty of Villafanca accomplished nearly the whole object Sardinia had in commencing the war. She virtually obtained the greater part of the terri tory of Austria, the whole of Lombardy, all but Venetia. Such was the result of this short and successful campaign. Then came a totally new state of things. Italy that never before succeeded in uniting itself under one ' Government was at last free from foreign domination. And all that England could now wish was that foreign in terference with Italy should be prevented ; that the Italians should be left to themselves to fight their own battles, to form their own Government, and choose,what ruler they thought fit, provided they did it without Austrian, French, or any other interference. He had yet to learn why several different Italian States should not secure their own freedom without the interference of the foreigner, the Modenese as sisting the Tuscans, and the Tuscans assisting the people of Parma. No one was originally more opposed than he was to the treaties of Vienna in 1814-15. He condemned them over and over again, but after they became as it were the statute law of Europe it was in vain to argue against them. When Charles Albert attacked Austria we objected to his conduct, because it was calculated to disturb the distribu tion of kingdoms which had been effected in 1815. That attack failed, but it had since been repeated, and had been signally successful—a result due not to want of valour on the part of the soldiers of Austria, but to the errors of her councils, which were as great as those of the Aulic Coun cil, which marshalled the way to the victories of the First Napoleon, and to the incapacity of her generais, each of whom showed himself to be almost more unit for command than his predecessor. It was to be hoped that the struggle would be succeeded by a settlement in which regard would be had to the relative force of the parties engaged in the contest, but in which deference would also be paid to what was just and fair. He would not say what were his hopes and expectations, but he was not without faith that; the victors would act with justice and moderation. (Hear, hear.) His noble friend had alluded to the expected treaty of com merce between this country and France. He had an old prejudice against commercial treaties which was not wholly without effect in the present instance, but, nevertheless, he had less objection to this treaty than to almost any other that he remembered ; and he was quite convinced that the greatest possible advantage would result to France from the commercial policy which the Emperor had announced his intention to pursue. In France he had heard that all the benefits of the treaty would fall to England, and that the former country would derive but little advantage from its operation. He would not go the length of saying that it was a treaty wholly for the benefit of France, but he was quite clear that our gain from its operation, would be as no thing compared with hers. Our gair was to be postponed for 18 months ; our neighbours' would be immediate. Ou'r gain would be to a very small extent ; theirs to a very large one. The outcry against the treaty reminded him of what had frequently occurred in this country. No step was over taken in the direction of free trade, or of the removal of re strictions, that a clamour was not immediately raised by some party which, though numerically large, was not so in comparison with the rest of the community, but the mem bers of which made up for their want of numbers by the vio lence with which they strained their throats ; so that, to listen to them, any one would have thought that all Eng- land was against the measure. Probably the most exten sive,—in deference to some of his noble friends he would not say clamour—he could hardly call it argument or declama tion, —but the most extensive utterance was that against the repeal of the corn laws; and yet we had lived to see the day when a real genuine Protectionist could only find his proper place in one of our museums, among the relics of the an cient world, or the specimens of extinct animals. (Loud laughter.) Tranquillity now prevailed all over the Conti nent. The liberal policy now inaugurated by the French Government would tend to confirm and consolidate that peace. But, he had been asked in Paris, " If that be so, why do you go on arming ?" In answer to that question he would remind his French friends of a proverb of their own :—" When it is fair weather, be sure to take your cloak with you ; when it is four weather, do as you please." At present all was peace. The storm had ceased, the wind no longer blew, the thunder, if it rolled at all, rolled at a dis tance, and the lightning was but sheet lightning, that flashed innocuous through the sky. That being so, let us prepare for all exigencies. We lived in an armed world. There were prodigious armies all around us ; armies of 500,000 men in one country, of 300,000 or 400,000 men in another; besides naval armaments, which were being in creased, as they are told, in the time of peace. Who, more over, could answer for the chapter of accidents, or predict what state of things might exist six years—aye, or six months hence ? It was, therefore, absolutely necessary that we should be armed—he would not say to the teeth—but suffi ciently to make all attack upon us not only impossible to suc ceed, but impossible to be attempted. (Cheers.) He had been in the north of England since Parliament was last prorogued. He there found that one question which once used to excite a very livelyinterest was dead—dead even in Yorkshire. He had taken the liberty w hil e among hi s o ld - friends in that county to chide them, and to chide them pretty severely, for the share they had in electoral corruption, some of the very worst cases of that kind haring occurred in that quar ter. He was zealously and constantlysupported in all his re ferences to that topio by those whom he had addressed, and they showed themselves as stoutly determined to put down by all possible meansthat curseof our representative system as he could wished to have seen them. But the subject on which of all others there was the greatest earnestness and enthusiasm as well as the most perfect unanimity in those assemblages was the defence of the country. Everywhere there was the most entire agreement as to the necessity, at all costs, at all pains, and all risks, of putting the country by every means which human wisdom could devise and hu man activity employ on a footing of perfect and absolute security. (Cheers.) The Marquis of NORMANBYoffered a few words in ex planation relative to the influence of Sardinia in the settle ment of the Italian question, but his observations were made in too indistinct a tone to be intelligible in the gallery. The Earl of DERBY—My lords, I do not recollect any occasion on which a speech from the Throne, touching on such a variety of important topics, was treated in debate with greater silence by her Majesty's Ministers than we have seen observed by them in this instance. The noble mover and seconder of the address, no doubt, made very ex cellent speeches; but, unfortunately, I was unable, from the tone of voice in which they spoke, to hear mere than a word here and there of the one, and not a syllable of the other. (A laugh.) And, notwithstanding the great va riety and importance of the subjects adverted to in her Ma jesty's Speech, we have heard from her Majesty's Minis ters not one single word in the course of this discussion except the few remarks whieh fell from the noble duke op posite in reply to the amendment moved with great ability by the noble earl. Of many of the topics referred to in the Queen's Speech no notice whatever has been taken by any preceding speaker; and I am not going, more than by a single word, to deviate from the course which others have followed. Even on those subjects to which our attention has been called, and on which I shall have to make a few observations, I trust I shall be able to confine myself within very moderate limits ; for, as far as this discussion has gone, there does not seem to be any very serious difference of opinion between those who sit on different sides of this house. Certainly, among the great variety of topics which have been entirely passed over, I am not surprised that no notice should have been taken of the treaty concluded with the Tycoon of Japan— (a laugh) —or of the treatyregarding boundaries which has been entered into with the Republic of Guatemala—a very important subject, nevertheless, and one likely to have a very important influence on the serious questions pending between this country and the United States. I do not suppose that both of those treaties are alluded to because they were begun by the predecessors of her Majesty's present Government, but because the ratifi cations have been exchanged since the present Ministry came into office. But I certainly thought it probable that greater attention would have been paid in the course of this debate to proceedings which at one time threatened to lead to very grave eonsequences,—consequences which, how ever, have been averted—as is most truly stated in the Speech—by the judicious forbearance and admirable be haviour of the naval and civil (dicers of her Britannic Ma jesty in the neighbourhood of Vancouver's Island. I must also do justice to the conciliatory spirit in which the repre sentations of onr Government were met by the Government of the United States ; and I can only concur in the earnest hope that the questions out of which this difference has arisen " may be amicably settled, in a manner conformable with the just rights of the two countries." There is, my lords, another subject with regard to which I have listened to the remarks made to night with unfeigned astonishment. Up to the present moment I certainly did expect to hear, even in your lordships', house, some more complimentary mention than has yet been made of the question of Parlia mentary reform—(a laugh—but since the commencement of this debate the only hint we have had that this subject is under consideration, or has ever been discussed, fell from my noble and learned friend who has just sat down, and who emphatically assured us that from one end to the other of an important district, where there used to be a pretty en. tensive reforming element—as the noble and learned lord in former days had reason to know—he did net find a person who cared one fartheng about reform;. (Laughter.) I had certainly thought that the zeal and enthusiasm on that ques- . tion was not quite so great as has been represented, and I have seen hints tending to throw a wet blanket over it ema nating from cinarters of great eminence ; but I was not pre pared for the sweeping and unqualified statement of the noble and learned lord as to the public indifference in respect to a subject which her Majesty has recommended more than once to the careful consideration of her Parliament. (A laugh.) I can only say that if Parliament proceeds to con sider the question in the same cool and dispassionate spirit with which the pecplo of Yorkshire and Lancashire treat it, there is little apprehension of any very serious danger to the constitution, or of any very revolutionary principle being in troduced into the bill of the Government. (Laughter.) Now, having just touched on some points to which no at tention has been called, there aro others on which I am sure but one feelie g 'LILA pervade all classes of her Majesty's subjects, and that is a feeling at universal satisfaction and gratitude to Providence for the happy prospects which her Majesty is able to hold forth in the Speech from the Throne. I am sure all must deeply rejoice when her Majesty states that " the great interests of the country are generally in a thriving condition, that pauperism and crime have dimi nished, and that throughout the whole of my empire, both in the United Kingdom and in my colonies and possessions beyond sea, there reigns a spirit of loyalty, of contentment, of order, and of obedience to the law." I say, every one must rejoice to hear such language from the Throne, and more especially as I believe in my conscience, with the ex ception of an ebullition of some alio animated Irish feeling —(a laugh)—the statement may be taken to be tolerably correct. No one, I repeat, can hear such a statement, which her Majesty was justified in making to Parliament, without the most lively satisfaction and gratitude. Nor is it a less gratifying subject for congratulation that by a mixture of firmness and humanity, by listening to the dictates of justice and policy, as well as by the combined devotion and energy of ourtroops, an en/ has not only been put to that formidable insurrection which so long disturbed our Indian empire, but there exists a reasonable expectation that the restoration of peace will be followed by good and friendly feeling between the Government and the native princes and the increasing prosperity and welfare of her Majesty's subjects in India. I cannot but rejoice to think that these happy results have been materially assisted by the adoption of the spirit of a proclamation which her Majesty was advised to issue, of a policy at once just, generous, and conciliatory, and dealing, more especially with the inhabitants of Oude, in a temper and manner in accordance with that recommended by my !' noble friend (Lord Ellenborough), who then filled the office of President of the Board of Control. (Hear, hear.) It is due to Lord Canning to say that in his dealings with the talookdars of Oude ho has combined with justice a wise and well considered policy ; more especially, by his regard for territorial rights, he has done more to re-establish and maintain an empire in that part of India than could have been effected by all the measures of repression which Go vernment could devise. (Cheers.) There is one other sub ject of congratulation. I cannot but rejoice that her Ma jesty has been advised to express in the Speech from the Throne the gratification and pride with which she has re• ceived such extensive offers of voluntary service from her people. I think that expression was due to the spirit of loyalty and patriotism which has been manifested by all ranks and classes in the country in defence of her Majesty's Crown. (Applause.) I trust in God that the service of my countrymen will never be required, for there is only one oc casion on which such service can be rendered ; but at the same time that does not diminish the merit duo to the spirit in which they have come forward or diminish the value of the service they have thus rendered by lits tender under present circumstances—(applause) ; for I am perfectly cer tain that, with regard to our influence abroad, as well as our security at home, nothing could produce a gteater or more powerful effect than the spontaneous, universal burst of patriotic devotion,' which has shown that, with all our commercial anxieties and rivalries, they will not for a single moment be put in the scale in comparison with that loyal determination which has been shown by almost every man and youth in the country at the horrible prospect of inva sion, from whatever quarter it may come. (Applause.) There are three topics, and only three, on which comments have been made in this discussion, and to which I would now allude. They are all of them most extensive and im portant ; far too important and extensive for me to do more than allude to them in this discussion. Tho first of these questions is the commercial treaty, with regard to which it is rather singular that her Majesty's Speech has not been able to furnish us with the latest information. (A laugh.) Her Majesty's Speech says :—" I am in communication with the Emperor of the French, with a view to extend the com mercial intercourse between the two countries, and thus to draw still closer the bonds of friendly alliance between them." The fact, I believe, is that at the time we are speaking the treaty to which her Majesty thus vaguely refers as the result of these communications has actually been signed at F aris. (Cheers and a laugh.) Among the few words I was able to collect from the noble lord who se conded the Address was an expression which I regard in a somewhat different sense from that in which he used it. The noble seconder of the Address said, he hardly knew in what terms to express his gratitude for the reductions in the tariff announced in her Majesty's speech. (A laugh from the Opposition.) Now, I hardly know in what terms to express my gratification, but for a different reason, be cause I really do not know what the reductions are—(a laugh)—or what is to be the extent of the sacrifices we are to be called on to make for these advantages. Being wholly unknown to me, I am unable, in adequate terms, to describe them ; but I must confess that so far as I do know them I do not - consider them a matter for unmixed congratulation. (Hear, hear.) I have my doubts whether the peculiar time at which this treaty is signed, as being well calculated on by the Government and their friends [across the water, is likely to produce a very favourable impression on the public mind ; and all I can hope is, that the public mind in England will be well informed as to the fact before con clusions are formed as the advantages to be received from it. (Applause.) I don't hesitate for a single moment to say, that the extension of a commercial intercourse between thlii country and France is an object of the gi eatest national importance—(hear, hear)—and I should rejoice to see any opportunity taken for legitimately extending that trade, be • lieving as I do that the extension of commercial inter course, theugh it cannot be a preventive against war between the two countries, must always exercise a great moral influence in indisposing both Frenchmen and the people in this country unnecessarily or rashly to enter into a war, and more especially as our commerce with France has certainly been much more restricted than might be desired or expected, considering the relative position of these countries and their means of supplying each ether with the articles they respectively re quire. I sincerely and cordially rejoice in anything to extend the commercial intercourse between this country and France ; but with regard to the terms on which this treaty proceeds and the mode in which the Government have come to it I must forbear expressing, nay, I must postpone even the formation of an opinion until I know more about it. (Cheers.) The noble earl who moved the amendment discussed this subject with his usual ability and freedom. He laid down most distinctly and clearly the principles of free trade as he understands them, and no doubt he most accurately and most properly laid them down. He also drew a broad, clear, intelligible distinction between the principles of free trade, as he contended for them, and the principles of the extension of commercial intercourse through the medium of treaties of reciprocity or commercial treaties of any kind. I am not about to enter on a discussion of the abstract merits of the main question. I do not at all dispute the proposition laid down by the noble earl, that it is for the advantage of any country to make such reduction of duties as shall, con sistently with its general interests and the purposes of re venue, enable its population to obtain articles of primary necessity on easy terms irrespective altogether of corre sponding reductions in the tariff of foreign countries as af fecting its manufactures. But, on the other hand, lam not prepared to say that there may not be occasions, and many occasions, too, on which you may obtain essential advan tages for your own country on condition of conferring simi lar advantages on the manufactures of other countries, and consequently the conferring of these advantages on the ma nufactures of other countries may be made a most power ful instrument in your hand for obtaining reciprocal advan tages from other countries. (Hear, hear.) But it appears to me that the Government has pursued a most extraordinary course on this subject, because the noble lords opposite. condemning the principle of reciprocity and commercial treaties altogether, now enter into a commercial treaty giv ing advant ages on one side in consideration of advantages on another. And when do they do it ? At a time when no step whatever is taken by the country seeking these advan tages from us, and when we have made almost every con cession to the commerce of France it is possible for us to make. (Hear, hear.) We first of all give away freely almost all we have to give, and having given away everything we then go to barter on the principle of commercial recipro city, which they all along condemn. (Hear.) They fret give away almost all they have, and then deal with their custo mers on the principle of exchange. I don't know, I have no means of knowing, what advantages we are to obtain, or what sacrifices we are to make; but, with regard to this treaty, if I am rightly informed, the conditions in the first place, as stated to-night, and not denied on the other side, are that on the one side the advantages we are to give are to come into operation immediately, whereas the reductions to be granted on the other side are not to come into opera tion for a period of 18 months. I pass by the question that the articles which are about to be admit'ed into France at a lower rate of duty than is at present the case are those very articles which are of vital importance to her, more especially for warlike purposes, and shall content myself by simply observing that among the manufactures which she will un derthe operation of the treaty take from us—if, indeed, the term manufactures is applicable to them at all—are those very articles which require the least amount oZ skill and labour to be applied in their adaptation to use; whereas the article which we shall receive from France is a staple com modity of that country, the production of which involves the longest industrial occupation in which the French people are engaged. (Hear, hear.) But if there be objections upon general grounds to the principle of a commercial treaty, I think those objections acouire considerably increased force in the case of a treaty such as that of which I am speaking, regulating, as it does, the precise amount of duty to be paid on certain articles; and if ever there was a time when the Government of this country ought to be cautious in commit ting itself to the reduction of a duty which now produces a revenue of nearly £2,ooo,ooo—the exact sum, I believe, is £1,800,000 and odd pounds—that time is surely the present, when, in connection with the loss of revenue thus created, the enormous demands which, in all probability, musttbe made upon the country for objects the most vital and neces sary ought to be taken into cansideration. (Hear.) It is, therefore, my lords, that I cannot help regarding it as, un der those circumstances, a most unfortunate policy to bind yourself to a large reduction of duty on an article of simple luxury- by entering into a treaty by which, supposing it should not answer your expectations in a financial point of view, you would still be bound, and without the power of re tracing your steps. (Hear.) Recollect that we are at this moment on a friendly footing with France. The language contained in the speech from the throne is, nevertheless, significant. It contains nothing of the ordinary phrase ology about a "due regard to economy." It, on the contrary, informs us that " the estimates have been prepared with a view to place the military and naval services and the defences of the country upon an efficient footing." 'Well, my lords, that is no doubt a most admirable and necessary object, but it is an object the attainment of which will, I apprehend, render it diffi cult to effect any diminution of taxation. It is, indeed, far more probable that the taxation of the country must, as a consequence, undergo a considerable increase. Bear in mind that the income-tax was to have expired in the course of the present year. No man, however, now entertains a hope that such will be the case. The tax will have to be reimposed by the very Chancellor of the Exchequer who made it a sine qua non that in 1860 it should die a natural death. (Hear, hear, and a laugh.) Bear in mind also that if you reduce the duty on wines you are guilty of a gross injustice to the great bulk of your countrymen in maintaining the duty on malt and upon hops. (Hear, hear.) Recollect that the use of theso two articles is likely to un dergo diminution in proportion to the extent to which French wines are consumed. (Hear, hear.) You are, therefore, in reducing the duty on wine, exposing your seives to the risk of a double loss—the loss which would arise from the fact that the increased consumption of the one article would not be equal to the fallity , off in that of the others which I have just mentioned, and also tho addi tional loss that must accrue, if you mean to deal with any degree of justice in the matter, by the reduction of the duty on malt and that upon hops. (Hear, hear.) Her Majesty's Government, moreover, have not, I hope, forg o tt e n that the war duties upon tea and sugar are at present in force. (Hear, hear.) Are there, let me ask, any articles of con sumption on which it is more desirable that the duties im posed should be at the earliest possible period reduced ? (Hoar, hear.) I shall be surprised, indeed, but not more surprised than gratified, to learn that simultaneously with the reduction of the duties on wine her Majesty's Government find themselves in a position to diminish also the duties upon tea and sugar; but to reduce all those duties, or to take off any considerable amount of income tax, is impossible without having recourse to the imposition of other taxes to supply their places, and it is expedient, I think, that the imposition of those new taxes should ob tain the sanction of Parliament before we give our assent to the treaty in question. (Hear, hear.) Upon this sub ject, therefore, I can only say that while I concur in the policy of extending trade by all legitimate means, I am not prepared to maintain that thi- treaty of commerce is one which affords matter for congratulation to the people of this country, or one which they can with advantage accept; and I think it not improbable that, unless some explanation of the treaty very different from any which we have already heard be furnished by her Majesty's Government, they will be very much disappointed in their expectations as to the effect which it is calculated to have on the public mind. (Hear, hear.) I now proceed to the consideration of the question in connexion with which an amendment to the Address has been moved by the noble lord opposite (Earl Grey). I allude to the unfortunate occurrences which have recently taken place in China. It is not, however, my in tention to touch oven in the slightest degree upon the merits or demerits of the policy which has led to our present posi tion in that country. I am quite aware that.great allowances must be made in judging of the conduct of any public ser vant who happens to be placed in a situation of so much difficulty and embarrassment as was the case with our offi cers in China, and who, under delicate circumstances, the nature of which he could not foresee, is called upon to rely entirely on his own resources and his own discretion. (Uear, hear.) Such allowance must, I think, be made for Mr. Bruce in dealing with the question of the policy of forcing the passage of the Peiho. (Hear, hear.) It is at the same time duo to my noble friend near me (Lord Malmesbury), who held the seals of the Foreign-office un der the late Administration, to state that, although he allowed Mr. Bruce a large latitude—a latitude which was in my opinion most properly continued to him, and the continuance of which was amply justified by the manner in which he discharged the important duties which de volved upon him—yet neither my noble friend nor the Government of which he was a member could contem plate the occurrence of such a state of things as Mr. Bruce found upon his arrival in China, while the course which he pursued is certainly not capable of being jus tified by the instructions which he received at our hands. Whether it is capable of justification on other grounds I am not in a position to say. A grave question in connexion with this point has been raised by the noble earl who moved the amendment. It is one, too, I am bound to say, which it is not easy to answer in the affirmative. That question is, whether all the blame of those unfortunate transactions which occurred at the mouth of the Peiho is to be thrown entirely upon the Chinese, and whether we our • selves are exempt from all charge of precipitation and im prudence in connexion with the matter ? The point is one which I do not now wish to discuss. We shall, in all pro bability, have at no distant day fuller information and more ample means to enable us to do justice to a subject so im portant and of such great extent. There is, however, one topic in connexion with it which I must not pass over on the present occasion. It is a topie which I am sorry to find has not received publicly whatever may be the case pri vately, that attention which it seems to me to deserve. I now allude to the heroic conduct which was displayed by the Admiral and the seamen who were engaged in the conflict which took place at the mouth of the Peiho. (Cheers.) In referring to that conduct your lordships will, I am sure, concur with me in the justice of the sentiment that the meed of praise and honour is not to be the meed of success alone. (Hear, hear.) I may add, that unsuccessful though this , unfortunate expedition to the north of Peiho may have been, I know of no other in which the daring gallantry and perseverance of British seamen and British troops have ever been more signally exhibited than in that unhappy encoun ter. (Cheers.) I feel assured, too, that those brave men who have suffered so severely in person and in mind from the failure of their expedition will have justice done them by their fellow-countrymen, who, whatever they may think of the policy of the proceeding, will not fail to pay the tribute of their admiration to those unparalleled efforts by which success was sought to be attained, and which, even in the midst of defeat, were of a character nobly to maintain the na tional honour. (Cheers.) The gallant officer who was chief in command of the expedition—Admiral Hope—received a most severe wound on the occasion ; and the manner in which, after receiving it, he shifted his flag from one ship to the other, constantly placing himself in those positions most exposed to danger, furnishes, in my opinion, an example of almost unmatched devotion to his duty, and of an heroic avery which cannot be surpassed by anything, even in the annals of the English nation. (Cheers.) Now, the noble earl opposite (EarliGrey) has, in the course of this discussion, called our attention to what he considers to be the neglect of her Majesty's Government in not immediately upon the receipt of the intelligence of those events calling Parlia ment together for the purpose of consulting it as to the course which ought to be pursued; and it is, undoubtedly, under ordinary circumstan ces th e d u ty o f th e Ministers of the Crown to take no step so serious as that which involves their country in war without seizing the earliest opportu nity to secure—if possible even before taking so serious a step—the sanction of the Legislature to the course which they desired to pursue. I doubt not, moreover, that if Par liament happened to be sitting at the time, the Government would have availed themselves of the earliest opportunity to bring the whole subject of the war with China under our notice. The noble earl opposite, however, seems to think that it was equally their duty to take this course, oven though Parliament was not assembled. Now, in that re spect, I do not altogether concur in the view to which the noble earl has given expression. There are other matters which must be taken into consideration in determining upon such a point, and other motives which might render the calling together of the members of the Legislature on such occasions a matter of difficulty. I am nevertheless disposed to give weight to the argument that this is not, in point of fact, the first occasion on which war has been so declared, and to some of the other arguments in reference to the subject which the noble lord has adduced. Not that I think we had no cause of complaint with the Chinese : but I thought the Government acted with great imprudence in sanctioning the act of an officer on the spot, who took on himself to decide for the Government whether there was or was not a sufficient cause for war. (Hear, hear.) We never had been at peace with China, and we confirm( d in that state in which we had previously bsen. On the ques tion of right there was nothing whatever said in the treaty as regards the manner in which wo should go to Tien-sin. We were informed that barriers had been placed at the entrance too the river and that resistance would bo offered - to our passage ; and under those circumstances we had no more right to force our way up that river than, as had been happily said in the course of the debate, a French squadron would have to force its way up the Thames with an ambassador, accompanied by an armed escort. (Hear, hear.) We called on the Chinese to respect international rights and the usages of civilisation. Did we expect them to deal with us in accordance with our views of those matters. (Hear, hear.) I entreat the Go vernment to take care that we deal the same measure to the Chinese which we required at their hands—(hear, hear) — and that if hostilities are to be renewed they shall be renewed on a more regular footing than hostilities were formerly , waged against that people. (Cheers.) Without a declara tion of war we had no right to introduce a blockade,le esta blish a prize court, or to capture a single vessels s (Hear, hear.) We learn that at present the United States and Russia have had commercial advantages secured to them by treaties with China. I entreat the Government to consider what will be the consequences if, without a declaration of war, should it be necessary to resort to hostilities—which I earnestly trust it may not be —we, undertaking a blockade of the Chinese rivers, stop a vessel belonging to the United States or to Russia in the prosecution of a legitimate trade. Your blnelrede will be treated nes wholly illegal, for illegal it will be, and you will be answerable for all the conse quences of it. (Hear, hear.) I hope, therefore, that by pru dence and judgment the calamities of a protracted war with China, the results of which no human being can foresee, may be avoided ; but should hostilities be inevitable, I trust the Government will take care that they are carried on, so far as we are concerned, in accordance with the usages of civilised countries. (Hear, hear.) I admit, where any great party object is to be attained, it is a legitimate course to take advantage of the Address with that view ; but not seeing in the tone of the Speech any cause for a serious difference of opinion, and not concurring with the noble earl in the strong views ho has expressed as ti the lathes alleged to have been committed by the Government with regard to calling Parliament together, I shall not be able to support his amendment with my vote in the event of his pressing it to a division. I think it is rather a fortunate circumstance that Parliament was not called together on the receipt of the disastrous intelligence from China, because from the feeling which that intelligence excited in the country, Parliament—then imperfectly acquainted with the facts —might have been carried away in the adoption of a course which in cooler moments and on a calmer consideration of the merits of the case they might not have been inclined to take. (Hear, hear.) If I now touch upon another question, it is rather with the 'view of eliciting some information which we do not at present pos sess than of discussing the merits of any particular course. Some suspicion has been excited in my mind by the intro. duction of a word into the part of the Speech relating to our sending a representative to the approaching congress. I trust that expression doe s ac t ua lly mean w h a t a t fi rs t sight it may be supposed to mean. I see we are promised that papers on that subject will "soon" be laid on the table. I have had some experience with reference to the production of papers, particularly by the noble viscount at the head of the Go vernment, and I know there is a degree of latitude and elas ticity about his movements in that respect—(a laugh)— which would rather lead me to infer that the use of the word "soon" in that part of the Speech points to a remote rather than to an early fulfilment of the promise. (A laugh.) Yet, in the present position of affairs, some information as to the views and policy of the Government ought to be fur nished without delay—(hear)—because we have been lately in a worse position than if we had received no information. (Hear, hear.) We have had information, some of it anony mous, some of a semi-official character, and some on an au thority so high as to place it beyond dispute. Now, I must say, when Parliament is ever disposed to press any Govern ment for the production of papers, and when the Govern ment states that the production of such papers at a particu lar time would be inconvenient, that is an excuse which is readily admitted; but I do think at the present period, when we have been obliged to take such information as we had from telegrams, many of them of high authority, r from newspapers, and last of all from Imperial letters, he Ma jesty's Government should set the public mind at rest of by things. (Hear, their own version of the actual state (Hear, hear.) I find it stated in the Speech at the close of the last session that "Overtures had been made_ to her re pur poses e n Majesty with a view to ascertain whethe r, if conferences o f with for tthe e the p o should f be settling t t h h e n l d g b arrangements the Great connectedo we r s state and future condition of Italy, a plenipotentiary would be sent by her Majesty to assist at such con ferences; but her Majesty has not yet received the in formation necessary to enable her to decide whe ther her Majesty may think fit to take part in any such negotiations." I should like, therefore, to hear from the Government the precise nature of that proposi tion, and under what conditions the assent of her Majesty has since been given to it. It has also been stated, in some of those sources of information to which I have referred, and I have not seen it denied, that, as long ago as August, her Majesty's Government proposed to the Government of the Emperor of France, in the absence of a congress, separate nego ti a tions on the affairs of Italy betwe e n England and France, setting aside the other great Powers. What answer was given to that proposition we have no means of know suss • but I believe there is no doubt that within the course oil& 'present month—not from her Majesty's Government, but from that of the Emperor of France—a prop os iti on was made for a separate negotiation by England and France on the affairs of Italy, unconnected with the other Powers; but that—whether by a unanimous vote of the Cabinet or otherwise we know not, though Cabinets are always sup posed to be unanimous —(a laugh) —proposition was de clined, and declined on the ground that such an alliance might be offensive to the other great Powers, or might give rise to suspicion, and that, as Parliament was about to meet, it was not deemed expedient to take such a step until it had met. The paragraph in the Speech from the Throne would seem to indicate the probability that the congress may never take place; yet I trust some member of the Government will explain how they mean, either "in congress or in sepa rate negotiation," to secure for the people of Italy freedom from foreign interference by force of arms in their internal concerns. (Hear, hear.) These words appear to me to-lead to the inference —especially when connected with the pre vious proposition to which I have referred—that now Par liament has met, and supposing the congress to fail, the question of a separate intervention of Franco and England in the affairs of Italy has not been dropped. but may again be renewed. (Hear, hear.) I wish, therefore, to have a full explanation of what is meant by a "separate negotia tion for the settl emen t o f t h e affairs of Italy and for pre venting the intervention by force of arms of any other coun try in the internal affairs of Italy." I beg your lordships and the Government to consider the serious consequences which an agreement like this might lead to. If you bind yourselves to France by any engagement to pre vent foreign armed intervention on the part of any other Power you tie yourselves to the heel of France, and may find yourselves bound to support her in whatever she way attempt to establish in Italy by any mode othor than by force of arms. If France should esta blish a state of things in Italy calculated to excite the not unnatural jealousy of other Powers, and those other Powers should attempt to interfere with the view of preventing it, if you were to bind yourselves by such a treaty as I have referred to, you would be compelled to join with France whether she had acted rightly or wrongly, in order to stop the intervention of those Powers by force of arms. (Hear) Now, foreign intervention in the affairs of Italy has been denounced in this anti the other 1i0n.% of Parliament in the strongest terms. If there is one principle more recognised than another in this country it is that any State has an un doubted right to settle its own internal affairs, whether with regard to the constitution it may wish to have, or the dy nasty it may desire to establish, and that without the in tervention of any foreign country. (Hear.) When I say that I am only stating what is the feeling of every English man. It is a principle which has, generally speaking, been steadily maintained by us. Even the great war consequent on the French Revolution was no departure from that prin • ciple, because that war was undertaken not in consequence of what :had been done in France, but in consequence of measures that were deemed dangerous to the peace and tranquillity of other countries. (Hear.) There was a de viation from this principle in one particular instance, and that deviation has proved;utterly ineffective—l mean the re solution which bound the Powers of Europe to prevent in all time coming a member of the family of Bonaparte from sit ting on the throne of France. (Hear.) The Emperor who now sits on the throne of France, by the voice of the French people, has afforded Europe an opportunity of enforcingthis article of the treaty of Vienna, and there is not a single Power in Europe that has ventured to do so, or to call in question the right of the people in France to elect their own ruler. (Hear.) I say not only that every country has a right a settle its internal affairs without foreign armed interfe rence, but that it must be done without foreign assistance ; and I am sure that, much as we may desire to see the in dependence of Italy secured, every one of us would join in saying this, that they ought to attain their own freedom, that if they wish to place themselves under a constitutional Government they must achieve that great object, not by foreign assistance, but by their own unaided efforts. (Hear, hear.) I will go further, and say that they must be strong reasons indeed which would justify other Powers in taking away any portion of territory from a particular country. Undoubtedly there are cases in which the transfer of a portion of territory from one country to another may be not only at variance with previous engagements, but may involve consequences so serious and dangerous as to render it a matter of universal European interest. If a State already powerful should seek to obtain from another, even with the consent of the people, a new line of frontier which, though not of large extent in point of territory, might be of great value in respect to the construction of fortifications, that would be a condition with regard to which not only the people to be transferred would be entitled to a voice, but which other countries of Europe might have a right to protest against. (Hear.) Applying this to the present state of affairs in Italy, I would observe that we were anxious in this country to prevent the war that ultimately broke out. So long as that rupture did not take place, so long as we were able to appeal to those treaties by which the various States of Europe were bound ; and no man laid down more strongly than the French Emperor himself that so long as Austria confined herself within the limits of those possessions secured to her by the treaty of Vienna, he would recognise her rights, and had no right to inter fere. But unhappily, and in an evil hour, Austria threw away her chance. I do net mean to say that she might not have had provocation to do as she did, but, unhappily for herself, she took the initiative, and the result was that she lost her possessions in Lombardy. By the treaty she has concluded with France she was compelled to make a sacri fice of a portion of her dominions. (Hear.) We are all familiar with the great evils that have arisen in Italy from the constant contests not for the independence of Italy, but of the rival Powers ofFrance and Austria to possess in fluence in that country. No doubt Austria had a perfect right to enter into treaties with the smaller States of Italy, and to afford them protection ; but those treaties naturally excited the jealousy of other Powers, because, by them, owing to the relative position of Austria and those minor States, the independence of the one was sacrificed in pro portion as the other became a protector. But the provisions of those treaties which were most injurious, and the sacrifice of whichbyAustriamight have retained to her her dominions, were those by which she not only guaranteed the Govern ments of the smaller States against external aggression, but against their own subjects. (Hear, hear.) It was a vio lation of every right principle that the Governments of those States should be enabled to demand the assistance of Austria against their own people, and the refusal of Austria to concede this point naturally excited the opposition of other Powers. (Hear.) As to the state of things at Rome, I hope the noble earl opposite will be able to give us satis factory assurances on that subject, inasmuch as statements have been made that in my mind seriously impugn the con duct of her Majesty's Government. (Hear, hoar.) The Pope, for example, has been told by the Emperor of the French that if he would give up the revolted provinces, not that he might hope or expect to b e guaran t ee d , but that he should be guaranteed by the other Powers in his'other pos sessions. I will not eater into the question of the temporal power of the Pope It is said by Roman Catholics that the maintenance of the temporal power of the Pope is abso lutely essential to the maintenance of his spiritual power. That is not the question which the country has at the pre sent moment to consider. No doubt the spiritual power of the Pope is of great importance to all Roman Catholics, and if they believe that the temporal power ef the Pope, although it was not considered necessary by St. Peter himself—(a laugh)—is necessary for the maintenance of his spiritual power, 1 cannot question the sincerity of their anxiety that the Pope's temporal power should remain undisturbed. I call understand that fur the duo exercise of his high spi ritual power the Pope should be placed beyond a suspicion of being controlled or influenced by any temporal Power, and that he should be, indeed, practically independent. But I ask any human being whether during the course of tho last 10 or 15 years, the Pope has been practically inde pendent. (Cheers.) Up to elate period we have seen one portion of his territory defended by one Power and another portion by another Power. One portion was ill-maintained by the troops of one of these Powers, and the instant they were withdrawn those provinces were in revolt. Now this country can look upon the Sovereign Pontiff in no other light than it would look upon any other sovereign what ever—(hear, hear)—and the same principles must be ap plied to him as to other sovereigns as between himself and his subjects. Viewed in this light his dynasty is capable of being overthrown, the constitution of his kingdoms may be modified by the free will of his subjects, and no foreign Power has the right to interfere with the action of the Pope and his subjects. (Hear, hear.) MY lords, these are the opinions that ought to be acted upon throughout the whole of the Italian States. (Hear, heal ;) They are free t o c h oose th e i r own Government and tbn own constituti on , an d th a t const i tut i on must be esta blisiter of their own free will and under no foreign influence, donlr nation or interference. I should like to kn ow from aka. Government that with regard to these principles they have followed out that line of strict neutrality which was chalked out for them by their predecessors. I acquit them of any of that pro-Austrian tendency that was so liberally imputed to the late Government, because the course taken by Her Majesty's Government cannot be charged with any violation of neutrality in favour of the Austrian cause. (A laugh.) But I ask the Government, who professedly desire that the Italian States should settle their affairs for themselves, on what ground one French army at the present moment occu pies Lombardy, and another French army occupies Rome. (Hear, hear.) Is that leaving it to the States of Lombardy and Rome to settle their own affairs ? The Austrians have crossed the Mincio, and Lombardy has been handed over to Sardinia. Why, then, do the French troops remain in Lombardy unless it is that there is some lurking appre hension that if the presence of the French troops is with• drawn from the Milanese or the Roman States some mani festation of feeling would follow which might not be in ac cordance with the wish of the Sovereign who has sent those troops ? (Hear, hear.) The first step must be the with drawal of foreign Powers and foreign interference, and then Sovereign and subjects could exercise their constitutional rights without interference. - We are now either to have congress or a separate negotiation for settling the affairs of Italy. How is that congress to be carried out P What course are the separate negotiations to take ? How the decisions of the congress or the separate negotiations are to be enforced I do not understand. I object to any infeefer.. once by England if it can possibly be helped in the settle ment of a question in which she has no direct or immediate interest. I believe that it is in consequence of our having kept aloof from these embarrassments and twledpvsctf aeorteaphoo:ohfig:imii easneuen,grarecheegsgcrhdaesaatrd—. Congress nwsonh y edEgcsh:louh,vritl nzoopeiwiott. sotasiwbh,beforehand object are:ifestetoeylobcth. interference that we have attained to the high position in which we now stand, and which have made the opinion and the moral force of Eng land looked up to, and exercise the most powerful in fluence. (Cheers) I admit that there may be steps in re gard to the recent changes which ought to have the assent of the Powers lercetur l ienospr r eout o mothbaothootntraisn w hetntsaotielirie e hdenysnpyns s r altuteNp O obsyoetvltrafreeorh p pcyit. iainbnnh a oi ntoreei r hsetgeglnhihey t i uTtotto s eeinpeuifu nsarssiyotdsefitsoaddnoiacdopnatueetatnoaylr precisely ecsiboyo e cr iopaceutefineo T robtsol gvtleaher teo r iihbaltdi e fgiyi retye a enarilln t nyttegett y lahinsaotnikasselah o w itinieg f oeputna, drfotonQpw if. V mhisaedoniutrl i anntrtt e eeceyhsihp n n tniecogootr or: interference, be nohuhe s ynaiitt, • I do not say that we are not to ga under any circumstances but pa b d gre Con gress owahci laid down by the majority of the Powers who may be par ties to that Congress. (Cheers.) Last year the state of things was widely different. There were then no dynastic changes in agitation. There was then a hope that war might be prevented, and certain definite propositions pre viously agreed upon were laid down between the contending parties. Even that Congress was not to take upon itself to do more than decide the questions submitted to it, and to give advice to parties whom it had a right to counsel with regard to tho future government of those States. If the Congress does take place, of which, at present, I see little probability, I do not say we ought to refuse to go to it ; but unless I could see some fair prospect of such a result from its deliberations as this country could conscientiously and honourably sanction, and which would accord with public opinion, I think it would be far bettor not to go into it at all. It would be better not to enter the Congress than to have to raise an ineffectual protest, or else to retire from it in the un dignified position of being overruled by a council to which we had ourselves submitted our case. (Hear, hear.) I have, 1 fear, detained your lordships too long—(cheers)-- but I thought it right to lay down the principles of policy which I consider applicable to this and other occasions. My object has been to elicit fi ore the Government whether there is any truth in the statements of the advice and offers they have made, in what position they stand at present, and what is the policy they are prepared to recommend. (Cheers.) Earl GRANVILLE—I was hardly prepared to hear I complaint that only one member of the Government had spoken in this debate. As long as her Majesty's Government do not shrink from defending their opinions when they are attacked I think it is better that they should not monopolise the *hole debate, and that they should give an opportunity to bOth sides to take a share in it, instead of jumping up one after another to say the same thing over and over again. At the same time I feel, after the speech of the noble earl, that it is quite necessary for Inc to make a few observations, though I am afraid at this hour of the evening many of your lordships must be disposed to deprecate any extension of the debate, and would prefer not to have another member of the Government address you. I will make but a few remarks, though .I must take longer than I should like if I can remem ber only a fifth of the numerous questions which the noble earl addressed to me. Among the minor topics upon which the noble earl began by touching were the treaties with Japan and Guatemala. For the first of these he, perhaps very naturally, claimed some credit to his Government ; as to the other—an excellent treaty in its way—when I tell you that it was negotiated under the instructions of one Government, made during the tenor of another, and ratified by a third, I think you will admit that the proportion of merit to be claimed by the noble earl is not so great as he would wish your lordships to believe. Another subject adverted to by the noble earl was the subject of Parliamentary Reform, which he treated with considerable humour, citing the speech of a noble lord as an instance of the want of excite ment and enthusiasm on this subject. Lord DERBY—I did not take it up nipelf, but merely used the language of the noble lord. Earl GRANVILLE—A great deal of stress has been laid by the noble earl on the intelligence which appeared in the shape of newspaper telegrams, end through that source We will n Eat If th e may t that tl presen Ward aPprel I ft... learn a eon and t wont tion flatter Tenth