The Press.
London, England, 1856-08-02 00:00:00

AIMUST 2, 1856.

I apprehend, then, that with respect to these three sub-
jects of foreign policy, on any one of which we may at
any time be celled upon to act, there are distinctive
opinions ; and that it is idle to pretend that parties have
ceased, because on all political subjects men are now
united in their sentiments.
When I am told that parties are broken up, I say that
the Conservative party in this country retains the opinions
which it has always professed, and is prepared to vindi-
cate those opinions. I take it for granted that those who
bold other opinions are equally earnest and equally ready.
If I may be permitted to refer for a moment to a personal
topic, I don't think that I am misrepresenting the feelings
of hon. gentlemen who sit on this side of the house when
I state that in the observations which I have from time to
time made, both on our internal and external affairs, I
have generally expressed their opinions. (Hear, hear.)
But if there is such a thing as a Conservative party—if
there are such things as conservative opinions, I should
tike to ask where and by whom in this house are liberal
opinions represented? I really don't know whether her
Majesty's Government represent them. (A laugh.) As
ter as I can form a judgment of the opinions which the
noble lord hat. generally professed—and 1 take him to be
the chief and the ablest exponent of his political asso-
ciates—l cannot believe that he is not as ready to stand
by the parliamentary settlement of 1882 as any member
who sits on this side of the house. The noble lord has
frankly and explicitly told you that he does net disapprove
of the just influence of property on the exercise of the
franchise—that he would resist any endeavour artificially
to restrict it. He is not opposed to the land having a
sensible influence on our representative system. This
very session he announced his intention to support the
Irish Church establishment—he cannot be supposed to be
adverse to our ecclesiastical institutions—he has never
been hostile to traditionary influences—he has on every
oeJasion cherished and promoted them. The noble lord
has never joined in any attempt to pull down the free
magistracy of the country; on the contrary, he has in
several instances upheld them.
But I may be told that, although in domestic politics
the noble lord does not differ from gentlemen on this side
of the house, it is in his external politics that he is so
dangerous—that he reserves all his Liberalism for foreign I
affairs. (" Hear, hear," from an hon. member on the
Ministerial side ) lam glad to have my statement borne
out by a follower of the noble lord. (A laugh.) It so
happens that during the present session, if not the opinion,
the feeling of this house has been tested on the three great
cardinal points on which the foreign policy of England
must depend—the Russian empire, the Austrian empire, i
and our relations with the United States.
Let me for a moment recal what was the popular feeling
this time last year respecting the first of these questions.
The dismemberment of the Russian empire was then re-
garded
as not only a probability but a necessity by a great
party in this country ; and men high in office, colleagues
of the noble lord, sanctioned those opinions. Gentlemen
in office publicly announced that no peace could be ac-
cepted by England which did not restore the independence
of Poland, and at least wrest the Crimea from the Em-
peror of Russia; and no doubt there was a general im-
pression that, in regard to the great power with which we
were lately at war, the noble lord entertained very extreme
convictions. It was, in fact, with reference to that very
subject that I took occasion, in one of our debates, to lay
down what I conceived to he the conservative principles
on which peace should be negotiated. I maintained that
the dismemberment of Russia, if possible, was perhaps
not desirable, and if attempted to be attained, would lead
to a struggle of a duration which I could not venture to
estimate. I also indicated what I deemed were—to use
the epithets of another—the wise and statesmanlike con-
ditions on which a pacification might be based. The views
I then expressed were not sanctioned by those who sur-
rounded and followed the noble lord. But when the hour
of practice arrived, when the solution of the question had
to be effected, the conduct of the noble lord with respect
to the Russian empire appears to me to have been as con-
servative as any conduct that we could have wished to see
pursued. He agreed to a peace which recognised the in-
tegrity of the Russian empire, and the terms of the treaty
were framed very much in accordance with the policy that
I have sketched out. Therefore, as far as his views con-
cerning the Russian empire form a test of his opinions,
the noble lord is as little a votary of Liberalism as he is on
the wile range of questions of internal interest to which I
have adverted.

Then, turn to the Austrian empire. That unquestion-
ably was a subject on which—notwithstanding our recent
experience of the conservative policy of the noble lord in
regard to Russia—the greatest hopes are entertained by
the sincere supporters of liberal principles; and the pro-
tocol of the Paris Conferences certainly seemed to autho-
rise those expectations. What, then, has occurred?
Although but a few weeks ago it was supposed that a
violent interference was to take place in Italy--although
alterations of the greatest magnitude were anticipated
which would have totally changed the balance of power in
Europe--yet, as far as I can gather, there is no chance what-
ever of these dangerous courses being followed by the noble
lord. On the contrary, in a truly conservative spirit, he
is
.endeavouring, in conjunction with our great ally, to oh-
tam those temperate improvements in the condition of
Italy that all desire, by the aid and influence of Austrian
authority.
Let us come to the third case. A great many persons—
and probably in this instance on more colourable grounds—
believed that the noble lord would never have been con-
tent with less than a war with the United States. We were
told that he was prone to resent an injury or insult with-
out so much as asking or waiting for explanations—that he
was bent on picking a quarrel—and a quarrel he would
have. Well, what happened ? A very lamentable circum-
stance occurred, if, indeed, a very great insult was not
offered to the Government of this country. I may be