The Press.
London, England, 1858-05-29 00:00:00

THE PRESS, MAY 29, 1858.

ment. He could not rely now so much upon the
pacific policy of the Government as he had done.
The house was now going to consider the army esti-
mates, and the policy of disbanding the militia—men
who hail been well disciplined were to be discharged
at a time when the best part of our veteran troops
had been sent out to India. He could not, however,
imagine that such a course would be adopted by
the Government if they believed this country was in
danger of war at any moment—so imminent, indeed,
that when the Government came into office war was
not a question of weeks or days, but of hours. (Hear.)
He hoped ho should be allowed to say that he
believed both the people of this country and the
people of France, taking them in the main, were sin
cerely and cordially disposed to keep and maintain
the peaceful relations existing at present between the
two Governments. ( Hear, hear.) They did not
believe that war would be of any commercial ad-
vantage, or irnprave communication, or add to the
maintenance of civilizathn ; but that friendly rela-
tions warded off those many evils, burdens, and
dangers which under another state of things would
fall upon thorn. He fully believed that both nations
were inclined to peace, and the great difficulty would
he either in France or England to induce the nations
to take up arms without there being the most serious
cause of dispute. (Hear, hear.) He should be glad
to know what was the meaning of those ominous
sentiments of the right hon. gent.eman, and it this
country were upon the brink of a war how it was that
the Government were not makirig greater prepara-
tions to meet it. (Hear, hear.) The right hon.
gentleman said in another part of his speech that
there had been an endeavour to promote hostilities
between Sardinia and Naples, and that that had
been done with a view of upsetting the present
Government. (Hear, hear.) Now the right hon. gen-
tlnnan should explain what he meant, for he (Lord
John Russell) would repeat that there had been great
forbearance shown to the Government on that side of
the house, and a feeling had existed that this country
should not betray or abandon Sardinia. (Hear, bear.)
Though there was no desire to destroy the Govern-
ment, there was a desire to see those people released.
( Hear, hear.) 'There was another subject to which
lie would refer. The right lion. gentleman stated to
his constituents that the policy pursued in India by
the late Government was a policy of extermination—
that we should have to keep a force of Europeans
there four times larger than that ever maintained
there before, and that they were going to rule by
force alone, without showing discriminating policy,
and taking the chance of restoring peace. (Hear,
hear.) He (Lord J. Russell) wished to know who
had proposed that policy, and where it had been pro.
posed. (Hear, hear.) Was it by the late Govern-
ment it was proposed that no mercy should be
shown—that all persons taken with arms should be
put to death without exception, and that a generai
massacre should take place of all those who had
been subjects of the Queen? Did Lord Canning
propose such a policy ? Where did the right hon.
gentleman get his information from ? He was not
aware of any statement having been made either
here or in India that such a policy would be pro-
posed. (Hear, hear.) The right hon. gentleman in
his attack upon certain members of the house had
raised in his own imagination a terrific scene, for it
had no reality. (Hear, hear.) It reminded him of
the lines of the poet that—
Existence saw him spurn her bounded reign,
And panting time toiled after him in vain.
For the right hon. gentleman had put time out of
breath in his speech to his constituents, who, he
dared to say, believed all he had said to them.
(Hear, hear, and laughter.) There was another
matter to which he wished to call attention, and upon
which the right hon. gentleman gave some informa-
tion to his constituents. It appeared the right hon.
gentleman told them that if a majority of the house
had voted a censure upon the Government, they pro-
bably would have had to defend their opinions upon
the hustings. (Hear, hear, and cheers.) He would
beg leave to recall to the house those measures of
other statesmen who had bad possession of the con-
fidence of the Crown. They had thought that when
great questions depended upon which no satisfactory
conclusion could be arrived at by the house, when
the house and the Ministers were decidedly at
variance—as in the case of the India Bill of 1784, the
Reform Bill of 1831, and the question of Free Trade
in 1811—that the true solution of these ques•
nuns was to appeal to the people and ask the
electors to decide that difference, but it was quite
another matter when the question was whether a
particular Minister or a particular party should
remain in office. Sir Robert Peel in 181 d explained
his conduct in resigning office, and stated that he
declined to advise her Majesty to dissolve Parlia-
ment, because it was his opinion that that was a
delicate and sacred prerogative of the Crown, and
ought not to be exercised fur the purpose of any indi•
vitinal who might happen to be at the head of affairs.
In the year MU, when he was Prime Minister, ha
claimed to advise her Majesty to dissolve the then

11 Parliament. But there appeared to be an opinion
gradually acquiring weight, and which he was sores
to observe, that w!ien a Primo Minister had not a
majority in the House of Commons he might revert
to what Burke had called a " a penal disaolutien "
that was, he might expose the members of the house
to the expense of an election, and also to the danger
of any tnisrepresentation to which they might be sub-
ject as between themselves and their constituents
for the honest performance of their duties. lie
lamented that the late Government bad thought it
advisable to dissolve Parliament in the spring of last
year, as he thought they ought to have tendered their
resignations, and that Lord Derby should have been
summoned to form a Government. (" Hear, hear,"
from the Ministerial benches.) He did not, how-
ever, think that evil would be remedied if Lora Derby
were now to say that whenever his views were not in
conformity with those of the majority of the house
he should dissolve Parliament, and use that threat
to coerce lion. membvrs to vote contrary to
their opinion. Nothing in his (Lord John
Russell's) opinion could he more likely to
derange the constitutioc of the country, and to raise
the question of shortening the duration of Parliaments
Then, with respect to the question whether her Ma-
jesty's Government enjoyed the confidence of the
majority of the house, it appeared to him, after all
that had happened, and the triumph which the right
hon. gentleman had recently achieved, that the
position of the house as regarded the Ministry was
the same as when the new Administration was first
formed. He thought it remained still to be seen
whether the Government could obtain the support
of a Liberal House of Commons—that was, of a
House of Commons favourable to reform and other
questions of great public interest. if the Govern.
went were prepared to bring forward those measures
the house might support them. He did not wish to
anticipate the course which they meant to pursue,
but there were various questions which the Govern.
ment must either bring forward or be prepared to
defend their opinions. If they obtained a majority
in the house those who agreed with them would be
rejoiced, while those who did not agree would be corn.
pelled to bow to the decision of the majority. He did
not, however, think that when the Government had
not the confidence of the House of Commons it was
entitled to hold out the unworthy threat of a disso-
lution to obtain that support which it could not
otherwise hope to gain. (Rear, hear.)

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHHVJER, Who was
greeted with loud cheers from the Miuisterial
benches said, " I can hardly flatter myself that hon.
gentlemen could have read those observations which
I made to some of my constituents upon a recent
occasion, but of this I am quits sure, that the noble
lord opposite has assumed thron4hout that no lion.
gentleman present can have read them, for the noble
lord has endeavoured to convey to the house that I
have been abusing the member; of the House of
Commons, and that I have declared that her Majesty's
Ministers have not received in this house fair and
equitable treatment. But perhaps I may be per-
mitted to remind the noble lord, who has at last read,
and is still reading, the speech—(the noble lord com-
menced to read a newspaper extract as soon as he
had resumed his seat)—that in my opinion he would
have done much better if he had studied it, for had
he done so he would not have found a single sen-
tence or a single phrase to justify the impression he
has endeavoured to convey. (Hear, and cries of
Oh, oh.') To hon. gentlemen who cry Oh, oh,' I
repeat that if the noble lord had read the speech he
would have found statements and phrases which
convey the very reverse of what lie meant to imply.
Speaking from memory, and not a very inaccurate
memory, I am prepared to state that what I did say
was this—that, considering that the House of Com-
mons was elected under the auspices of our rivals,
and that under the peculiar circumstances by which
a large majority had been returned, supposed to be
hostile to the principles which we were generally
supposed to maintain, the Ministry had received
from the House of Commons a general courtesy,
and that on several occasions the sense and spirit
of the house had saved us from the restless intrigues
and unceasing machinations of those who wtsiied
to disturb her Majesty's Government. (Cheers.)
Was that an attack upon the House of Commons?
1 say it was not, and I am sure the majority of this
house will exonerate me from the imputation which
the noble lord has endeavoured to convey. (Hear,
hear.) Aline was a dinner, and the noble lord's was
a dessert—(laughter)—and his part of the festival
is not, I think, as happy as that which I enjoyed.
(Laughter.) The noble lord has also attacked me
in consequence of what I said about foreign affairs.
He seems astonished that I should have said that
the question of peace or war was immediate when We
acceded to office. He said be consulted members Of
the late &Tenant on the subject, end that be bid

gone to the House of Lords to speak to Lord Cla- 1
rendon. But why did the noble lord go there?
Why did he not consult the members of the late
Government in this house ? Why did he not go to
the noble lord the member for Tiverton ? There was
no estrangement then that could have prevented a
friendly and candid commut ication between the two
noble lords. (Laughter.) But what happened two
days before the break-up of the late Government ?
The lion. member for Devizes (Mr. Griffith) asked
a question respecting French politics, and the noble
lord the member for Tiverton got up and said—
' Does lie want to have a war with France ? that is
the question, and I for one will decline to answer
such an inquiry: This was only forty-eight hours
before the Government was broken up, and the
noble lord declined to answer the query on the
ground that it might decide the question of peace or
war. ( Hear, hear.) I repeat that the circumstances
of the country were of a most critical character at that
period, and the noble lord the member for the city of
London, when he reflects, must know that they
were. The French Ambassador quitted us at a
very critical moment ; but three months have
elapsed since that time, and what has passed
in the interval has considerably and entirely
changed the state of feeling which prevailed
between this Court and that of the Tuileries.
I say that the relations between the two countries
have been entirely changed, and that the agreement
which exists between England and France at this
moment is shown by the entire accord which exists
as to the management of transactions of great im-
portance. Well, but, says the noble lord, it is not
merely the statement as to our relations with France
which requires explanation. There was a statement
made as to Sardinia which requires explanation ;
and the noble lord, following the ingenious but not
very candid tactics which he has preserved through.
out this not very terrible attack, intended to convey
to the house that I stated that an attempt was made
by this house to upset the Government by en-
couraging a war between Naples and Sardinia. It is
not true that I complained of the conduct of the
House of Commons. Why, when I alluded to the
great debate which had just preceded, did I not call
the attention of the country to the fact that, when a
vote of censure was proposed against us, this Govern-
ment was defended by the first men in this house in
authority, in intelllect, in eloquence, not connected
with us by party ties, but men stating their convic-
tions from a sense of truth and to the defeat of a
cabal ? (Cheers.) Was not that a public expression
on the part of her Majesty's Government that they
bad confidence in the generous justice cf the House
of Commons, and that they would endeavour to return
that confidence ? and in that confidence we hope to
be able to bathe the intrigues which I know are
already forming. (Cheers.) Well, then, the noble
lord says that 1 misrepresented in an extraordinary
manner the policy of the hon. gentleman
opposite towards India. He says that I stated
that we were opposed to a policy of extermination,
and that I intended to convey that those gentlemen
were in favour of a policy of extermination. Now,
neither in this house, nor in the county of Bucking-
ham, nor anywhere else have I have used the word
"extermination." Sir, what I then stated, and what
I have stated more than once, is, that we are not in
favour of a policy of confiscation, but that we are in
favour of a policy of discriminating arnn. sty, a policy
which will respect the religion, and will respect the
property, and that will pay due regard to the rights
and customs of the people of India. (Cheers.)
But, says the noble lord, all my observations on
foreign affairs and Indian policy subside into nothing
in comparison with the unconstitutional declaration
that if we were not supported by the house a dissolu-
tion would have been the consequence. Will the
noble lord read my speech again, and favour me
with the passage in which I made such a state-
ment? (Laughter.) What I did say was, that
if, as was certainly not improbable, we had had
to defend our. conduct on the hustings,
we should have uppealed with confidence to
the support of the country, and that I bad no doub
that the verdict of the country would have given us
their support. (Cheers.) Then the noble lord told us
that it was unconstitutional to recommend a disso-
lution; and he said that in 1852 he never had coml.
Belled the Queen to dissolve Parliament. Well, it
would have been a very bold thing if he had.
(Laughter.) He had been in office for six years.
He had bad several intimations from the House of
Commons that they panted to get rid of him. And
that a Minister at the end of all this should claim
the applause and the gratitude of the country and the
House of Commons because be did not advise a dis-
solution, is the most remarkable instance of self-com-
placency that I ever heard of. (Laughter and
cheers.) But although the noble lord was indirectly
very sore on the subject of the dissolution of Parlia-
ment as his theme advanced, he could not, from the
candour of his disposition, resist making the admis-
bion that neither in this house nor in the other had
there been any declaration of the kind which could