The Press.
London, England, 1858-06-05 00:00:00

THE PRESS, JUNE 5, 1858.

of weeks or days, but of hours. As far as he (Lord
Palmerston) was informed, that statement, as re-
garded our relations with France at that period, was
utterly and entirely groundless, and opposite to the
truth. Had it 'peen true, and had it been necessary
to make it known, it should have been published in
that house on the army or navy estimates. He
denied that the answer he had given to Mr. Griffith,
to which Mr. Disraeli had referred, bore the con-
struction he had put upon it. Such a statement he
considered to be most injudicious and indiscreet on
the part of u Minister of the Crown, and calculated
to affect the public credit of the country, and to dis-
turb the commercial as well as the political relations
of the two nations. He called upon Mr. Disraeli to
explain this assertion, as well as that intrigues had
been carried on (by the late Government he sup-
posed) to involve Sardinia in a war with Naples for
party objects—an assertion he utterly denied. With
reference to India, Mr. Disraeli, he said, had been
guilty of a libel upon her Majesty's late advisers ; he
had accused them or Lord Canning of intending to
act upon a policy of unmitigated vengeance and
massacre. In speaking of the state of parties in this
country, Mr. Disraeli had talked of a cabal on the
opposite side of the house in order to upset the pre-
sent Government. A cabal meant a body few in
number ; but he should like to know, he said, to
whom Mr. Disraeli alluded when he spoke of in•
trigues and cabals. The late Government had acted
towards their successors with uncommon forbearance,
and he denied that they obtained information on
foreign affairs, as seemed to be implied, by unconsti-
tutional means. He wished to know who the foreign
intriguers were who caballed with the late Govern-
ment to eject their successors—a charge he entirely
repudiated. Mr. Disraeli, he remarked, had attacked
the press; he (Lord Palmerston) left the press to
defend itself ; but when he said that there were
some candidates for office under the late Adminis-
tration who contributed to the press, he (Lord Pal-
merston) would like to know whether there were
none on the other side of the house who had contri-
buted to THE PRESS for the purpose of getting into
office.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, after ex-
pressing a hope that, in this second encounter, his
fate would be less unfortunate than that of a party
in a recent duel in France, proceeded to reply seria-
tim to the objections of Lord Palmerston. With
respect to the state of our foreign relations when the
present Government mitered upon office, he gave a
diffuse explanation of what he said at Slough.
He denied that he had stated that we were then on
the verge of war, and he did not mean that the late
Government bad left affairs in that state. He said
that, owing to the truckling and servile policy of the
late Government, war might have been an affair not
of weeks or days, but of hours, and that by aban-
doning that policy the present Government bad vin-
dicated and maintained the honour of the country,
while the alliance with France was now as firm and
cordial as ever. He repeated what he had said on
Friday regarding the affair of the Cagliari, observ-
ing that Lord Palmerston had taken to himself and
his colleagues what he had stated on this subject :
The noble lord then travels t) Italy. lie is still han-
kering on the case of the Cagliari,—that case on which
the noble lord was so reserved and so silent when he sat
on these benches. (Cheers.) The noble lord grudges
us the satisfaction of freeing two of our countrymen whom
he had permitted to remain for long months unnoticed in
prison, and, at last ashamed of himself and his colleagues,
makes an inaccurate statement to-night, which I defy him
to prove, by which he wishes to convey that it is not true
that these two unfortunate Englishmen had been freed by
our efforts and influence. The noble lord is entirely
wrong. Both of our countrymen were prisoners when we
acceded to office, and the first thing we did was to tele-
graph to Mr. Lyons, and ta send him to Naples to interfere
on their behalf. The noble lord says that Watt was already
free, and under the care of the English Consul. But
how was he freed, and why, and in what condition? That
unfortunate man, in consequence of the treatment he had
received and the neglect of the noble lord and his Govern-
ment—(cheers)—the reason of that unfortunate man, I
say, was affected, and upon the application of the English
Consul, who behaved throughout with great spirit and
humanity, he was permitted to leave his dungeon for an
hospital or lazaretto; but on what terms? Why, the
moment his reason returned he was to come back to his
imprisonment to meet his trial. ( Hear, hear.) As I have
already had the satisfaction of announcing, in answer to
an hon. and learned gentleman, these English subjects
have left their prison without trial and free. (Cheers.)
They have quitted Naples without conditions, and yet the
noble lord has attempted to state that one of these persons
owes his liberation to the influence of the late Govern-
ment. (Cheers.)

That there had been an attempt to embroil Sardinia
and Naples, and to excite a war between those two
Italian States, which might have been fatal to con•
stitutional government in Sardinia, was his conviction.
He reiterated also the explanation he had given on
Friday regarding India. He denied that by any
possible logical construction could he be understood
to refer in his speech to any previous policy; he re-
ferred to (confiscation and to the consequences of

a thatlompmte p:
a,t, o
oni tntpi had
hee.
oc ntos
roassaocre
confiscation, which must be vengeance and ri7ls
s
t eraedds
e nt ht contrastedaGt
ovheern
hmt
ahedi
ns t
c.allpolicyeLdo
rwdt with
Palmer
rba ir l l
nt ehi
cabal, which meant (he had said) a limited body
oaf
individuals. But he (Mr. Disraeli) always under-
ssotoioradtotreha;t
stohethteartmhemecaonutlda sneoctrethasvoeciey re f n
principlesttiHu
hli
e,
eeovnelsra uetept of Commons,
aoGinkooeavfdecrtrhnoi
temfi
criticism srnmeteaat and h
mobfia,rli
bheiDee w
nr
iasiltrnahaeps certain
aeaaltsiruthuyrhouse.
ens
insistingda that
tn.h deEntering
policy
o he hadbiiyetyht hao:
there could be no connection or synipathy between
Lord Palmerston and his friends and that party.
What, he asked, must the country think of the con-
duct of Lord Palmerston and his co-managers when,
although time was so precious, night after night,
public business was suspended, in order that they
might give vent to their feelings of disappointment
and discontent? What be called a cabal, he said,
was a body of men who combined not to advocate a
policy, but to band together their resources, abilities,
and influence to upset the Queen's Government; anti
this it was, he added, that made the country look
with aversion upon their machinations, and attracted
the sympathy of generous minds.
Sir G. GREY denied that there was anything unfair
on the part of Lord Palmerston in demanding expla•
nations of gross imputations of misconduct cast upon
the Administration of which he had been the head.
The explanations given by Mr. Disraeli, he contended,
were inconsistent with those he had offered on Friday,
and it was humiliating, he said, to see a gentleman
of his talents driven to such unworthy shifts and
attempting to explain away indiscretions in such a
manner,
SirJ. PAKINGTON entered his protest against what
appeared to him to be a most unpardonable waste of
the public time. He protested, too, against the un-
fair use made, lie said, of the language of Mr.
Disraeli, and bad no hesitation in broadly stating
that, in his belief, the passage in the speech at
Slough regarding our relations with France when
the late Government quitted office was substantially
correct. He was in a position and at liberty to say
that on more than one occasion the late French
Ambassador to this country, Count Persigny, did re•
monstrate against the policy of this country, and did
state, in plain terms, that if it was not changed it
would be impossible for friendly relations between
the two countries to continue.
Lord J. RUSSELL could not agree that these dis-
cussions were a waste of thee. When supply was
asked for it was the proper time to call for an expla-
nation of the meaning of imputations made by a
member of the Government. He proceeded at some
length to endeavour to show that the explanations
given by Mr. Disraeli were unsatisfactory.
Some remarks were made by Mr. Whiteside, in
reply to Lord J. Russell, and by Mr. A. W. Kinglake
and Mr. S. Fitzgerald, with reference to the two
engineers of the Cagliari, and the subject then

dropped.
Mr. LINSDAY, referring to the accounts received by
the last mail, of American merchant vessels having
been fired into end boarded by British ships of war,
asked by whose orders the commanders had acted ?
Mr. WALPOLE suggested that notice should be given
of the question for Tuesday.
After some o6tervations by Mr. GRIFFITH and Mr.
INGHAM, the house went into a Committee of Supply
upon the Civil Service Estimates, when various votes
were discussed before the chairman was ordered to
report progress.
The house then went into committe? upon the Sale
and the Transfer of Land (Ireland), Salaries, Scc.,
when certain resolutions were agreed to.
Several bills were forwarded a stage, and, the re-
maining business having been disposed of, the house
adjourned at half-past twelve o'clock.

HOUSE OF LORDS—TUESDAY.
THE SLOUGH SPEECH.
The Earl of CLARENDON called attention to the
speech recently made by the Chancellor of the
Exchequer at Slough. He alluded first to the
statement that when the present Goyernment entered
office war with France was not a question of weeks
or days, but of hours. For that statement Lord
Clarendon declared there was not a particle of
foundation, but before their lordships and the country
b.e gave it a direct and unqualified denial. At the
moment, he quitted the Foreign-office the relations
b. tween France and England were as cordial and
confidential as they had been at any previous period.
It WWI necessary to deny the statement of the
Chancellor of the Exchequer, as it might be believed
in the country, though in London it was at once
received as a fiction, and caused no alarm. Lord
Clarendon noticed the contradictions between the
two defences made by the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer in the House of Commons, and the colour
lie gave to the departuvu of the French Ambassador
from London, though lie knew it WSS inerelY caUSed
by imporLaut privuiu business, Lord Gluten('

idyll