The Sun.
London, England, 1852-02-04 00:00:00

EVENING, FEBRUARY 4, 1852.

dispute whether that was a fit thing to be done; that was
entirely a question for the French people to decide.-
(Hear, hear.) The French people might say that their
history entitled them to say, that what we call in Eng-
land Parliamentary government has produced such evils
in France, it has so frequently led to convulsions in the
State, and is so incompatible with the peace of society in
their country, that it ought at once to be abolished, and a
different system established in its place. If the French
nation choose to say that, who has the right or the least
pretence to contradict it ? (Hear, hear.) But it is another
question to give the moral approbation of England, to place
the broad seal of England upon that doctrine with respect
to so great a question. If France has so resolved, let us
acquiesce in that decision. I shall do nothing to prevent it.
I may lament that those great qualities of human nature
which are brought out by Parliamentary government, by free
discussion, and a free press - that those great qualities could
not henceforth have full development and display. But with
respect to our position, it was to be remembered that during
the existence of the present Administration, with my Noble
Friend as its organ, we have given the moral support and
the moral sympathy of England to constitutional govern-
ments. We have done so in Spain, we nave done so in Por-
tugal, we have done so in Piedmont ; and none was more
ready than my Noble Friend to impart that moral influence.
But if we were at once to side with a deviation from con-
stitutional government, and to give our sanction to the act
cf the President of France, how can we tell any other country
that we advise them to continue Parliamentary government?
It therefore appeared to me a d -Future, a signal and wide de-
parture, from that policy which the Governmennt had sup-
ported and pursued, and which my Noble Friend had espe-
cially advocated. But when thsis took place-when, as 1
conceived, the authority of the Queen had been set aside, it
appeared to me that I had no other course than to inform
my Noble Friend that he, while I held office, could no longer
hold the seals as Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.
Later in the day, and after I had formed that resolution, I
receiyed,a long utter from my Noble Friend, stating the
reasons why he approved of the act of the President of
France. But it appeared to me that those reasons no longer
touched the case ; because the real question now was,
whether the Secretary of State was entitled, of his own au-
thority, to write a dispatch as the organ of the Queen's
Government, in which his colleagues had never concurred,
and to which the Queen had never given her Royal
sanction ? It appeared to me that, without degrading the
Crown, I could not advise her Majesty to retain that Minis-
ter in the Foreign Department of her Government. lat
the same time informed her Majesty that a correspondence
had gone on between Lord Palmerston and myself with re-
spect to her Majesty. That was on the Wednesday, I
think, and I waited till Saturday in order to consider and
to reconsider the matter before I fairly submitted the cor-
respondence to the Crown. I think on Thursday I informed
my Noble Friend I would be at home (as we understood),
thinking he might propose some course by which a separa-
tion could be avoided, but nothing of that kind took place,
and I, being fully as convinced then as I had been of what I
should do, wrote on Saturday, the 20ih, to her Majesty,
conveying the correspondence which had passed between
my Noble Friend and myself, and shortly intimating my ad-
vice to her Majesty that Lord Palmerston should be re-
quired to give up the seals of the Foreign-office. Sir, in
coming to a decision so painful-in coming to the decision
that I must separate from a colleague with whom I had
acted so long, whose abilities I had admired, and in whose
policy I had agreed- I felt, whether rightly or wrongly it is
not for me now to say, I was bound to take that decision
alone-to consult none of my colleagues, to avoid anything
which might hereafter have the appearance of a cabal, but to
assume the sole and entire responsibility on myself.-
(Cheers.) With respect, therefore, to the stories which my
Honourable Friend has quoted from a Breslau paper,
as regards a letter written in Vienna, I can assure him
that, however curious the coincidence of that letter
may be, there is no truth whatever in the stories that
there was an attempt to establish fairer terms and
more intimate relations with the Court of Austria, and
that the affair was entirely founded on the correspondence I
have stated and on the motives I have laid before the House.
-(Hear, hear.) In two days after the Cabinet met I read
to them the correspondence-both official correspondence and
private correspondence-which had taken place between my
Noble Friend and myself, and I stated to them that I was, of
course, responsible for what had passed ; but if they disap-
proved of my conduct, then of course I must quit office; and
I left it to them to form their judgment. They decided,
without any difference of opinion, that they thought I could
take no other course than that I had taken.-(Hear, hear.)
I know not that I nee f state anything further with regard
to this transaction, but I immediately proceeded to Windsor
and advised her Majesty to make choice of a successor to
my Noble Friend. Now, Sir, with whatever pain that
separation was made, I was convinced at the time -I am
convinced stilt- that, considering what was due to the
honour of the Crown, and what was due to the character
of the country, I could take no other course. But let me say,
because some part of my statement may have led to a sepa-
rate impression, that I am far from accusing my Noble
Friend of any intentional disrespect to the Crown.-(bear,
hear.) My belief is that having been long conversant with
the affairs of the Foreign-office and with foreign affairs, and
having great confidence in his own judgment and in his own
mode of carrying on the business of the country, he forgot
what was due to the Crown, and what was due to his own
colleagues, without any intention of personal disrespect to
the Crown. But it is impossible for me to make the present
statement without also referring in some degree to the
state of affairs which now exists on the continent of Europe.
- (Hear, hear.) I think it necessary to make this statement
because I have been necessarily led into an avowal
of my opinions that we could not properly or fairly express
an opinion here favourable to the conduct of the President
of France on the 2d of December.- (Hear, hear.) I
thought it was not our part to do what we heard the
Russian and Austrian Ministers had done-to go at once
and congratulate the President on what he had done--
(Hear, hear)-but then I am bound to say that the Presi-
dent of France, having all the means of information he has
had, no doubt has taken that course from a consideration of
the state of France, and that the course he has taken is
best fitted to insure the welfare of the country over which
he rules.-(Murmurs and laughter.) Lef me state that
over again-(Hear, hear),-that while I do not concur in
the approbation of my Noble Friend, I have no reason to
doubt, and everything I have heard confirms that opinion,
that in the opinion of the President the putting an end to the
constitution, the anticipating the election of 1852, and the
abolition of the Parliamentary constitution, were all tend-
ing to the happiness and essential to the welfare of France.
(Cheers and laughter.) But I have certainly to state fur-
ther, because I confess I have seen with very great regret
the language which has been used by a portion of the press
of this country-(Loud cheers from both sides of the House)
-with respect to the President of France. I remember some-
thing as a boy, and I have read more, of that which occurred
during the Peace of Amiens to render that peace of short
duration, and to involve these two great countries in the
most bloody hostilities that ever mangled the face of Europe.
- (Hear.) I believe that temperate discussion and negotia-
tion between the two countries might have prevented the
calamity of war, but that the lauguage of the press at that
time was such that it embittered all negotiation and pre-
vented the continuance of that peace.-(Loud cheers.) Sir,
I should deeply regret if the press of this country, at the pre-
sent time, were to take a similar course.-(Cheers.) We
have obtained one advantage over that time-that the First
Consul, great as were his abilities, was totally ignorant of
the manners and constitution of this country. The present
President of France has this advantage over his uncle, that
he is perfectly aware how much liberty we enjoy, how much
license of discussion prevails, and that the most unmeasured
invective of the press does not imply any feeling of hostility
either on the part of the Government or on the part of the
nation. lam convinced of this, that there never was a time
in which it was more essential that these two countries should
preserve the relations of peace and amity. I am convinced
that there never was a time when the peace of Europe would
contribute more to the course of civilization and happiness.
I am convinced, likewise, from every source of information I
have had, that the ruler of France, the present President of
France, is desirous of keeping on those terms of amity-
(Hear, hear)-and it shall not be any fault of ours-it shall
not be any fault of the Government of this country, if these
terms of peace and amity are not continued.---(Cheers.) I
have said this more especially because it certainly will be our
diry, as her Majesty has intimated in her speech, to propose
some increase of our estimates. When the proper time
comes, and when the measures for that purpose are produced,
it will be shown to you-I trust to the satisfaction of the
House-that those measures are not for an increase to our
armaments, and that they propose no more precautions than
what every country, and even the United States, thinks it
necessary to take for national defence.-(Hear, hear.) It is
impossible not to see that in the great changes which have
taken place in the world within these few years, among
other arts the art of war has been improved, and that it is
necessary when there is-as there always is-a possibility of
war, to be prepared for our defence. But really to see some
of the letters which have been published, and to hear some
of the language that has been used, it would seem that these
two great nations, so wealthy, so civilized, so enlightened,
were going to butcher one another, merely to see what would
be the effect of percussion shells and needle guns !-(Cheers
and laughter.) I trust those fears are only temporary-I
am convinced the solid and deliberate opinion of this coun-
try and of this House is for peace-(Loud cheers)-for the
continuance of the most permanent and solid peace, and I
own I think it the greatest blessing the nations of Europe
can enjoy.-(Hear, hear.) But there is something more
which, it I may be permitted, I shall point out to the atten-
tion of the House. Four years ago we were astonished with
accounts of insurrections in various capitals of Europe; day
after day we heard of revolts and outbreaks, and were made
acquainted with the intelligence of the establishment of the
most democratic constitutions. I heard opinions of some in
this House expressing their great joy at the establishment of
those constitutions; but I could not participate in their joy
or in their grief. I looked, I said, on those events with
mixed feelings. I was glad of whatever would promote the
prosperity of the nations of Europe, but I was by no
ivmeans,ae
i
seen four years go over, and we have seen in confident those changes would have that result.
We
those countries that those democratic consteitutbeon
put in
constitutions
soshave
l
been destroyed, and that absolute powers have
v country of Tus-
cany, where I lived for several months under
their place. For instance, there is that
rule of, a mild and enlightened governor. we
Government overturned by a democracy, and the Grand
Duke driven from his dominions by
which seeks
thhaeves indulgenteenthat
what is called Italian unity; but we
demo-
cratic Government suppressed,
and the Grand Duke restored
thheavpearste
to power by a foreign force occupying chief town, and
his yenthat
which has its subsistence provided by the diminishing means
than before. In Austria, again,
lissbeen since strangled in its
been given to the people
d• In Hesse, likewise,
of the State, while the Italians hatvheemeaodnestnitoutroonrewhpircohghreasds
force has been used to put anh e
of events
the ctonhstitut.ionwhfii.csht
influence of popular excite-
ment, iardt hh, e
eahn and
introduced abs o l u t e
under
nder powert er ensi
prevails. `ow,
uoe
is there no
t
is
itnonotsow,lllthe
place, that we should judge asstilyNoow;raSsihrly •
" foreign countries
and absolute powernot prevahi
show, likewise,
occurring in
with respect to ourselves, though it was thought we
moral to be drawn from this? ? Drioeose
thhaaat,
not the same degree of liberty as some of those
States, we have done wisely to adhere to our ancient insti-
tutions, and that freedom of the press and liberty of
speech-quid yetis exponere, quid sentias dicere-the essence
of freedom are here more fully enjoyed than where popular
liberty prevails to the utmost ?-( Hear, hear.) I trust,
therefore, that we shall, with regard to our own country,
continue in the path of peaceable and safe reform rather than
by the hasty adoption of anything different from our insti-
tutions
anbkceee
concerns--e
said,_e
twhhait change.ew we
while
eabstainw Bute
da os
fnt
rOOO
not interfere
n at foreignenryt:eicountries
ha ttehei
their
rodedo
gnti smethis
run the risk of losing the very liberty for which we
on their internal affairs, yet there is one result which comes
homeestnonuots, atinidnchw.hichA imposes ptohseesse on us
Governmentsduty
foreign States, as each gets uppermost, send their enemies
and opponents out of the country, and the consequence is
from
which
o wet
that we have many who are seeking refuge in England. In
giving them hosoftaiity we are but pursuing the ancient
and known policy of this country; we are but doing that
which was celebrated two centuries ago, when Waller said-
" Whether this portion of the world were rent
By the rude ocean from the continent,
Or thus created, it was sure designed
To be the 111=W refuge of mankind."

—(Cheers.) I trust that pro shall never see this boast falsi-
fied ; that while we disappve of any attempt made in this
country to change the established Governments of other
countries, so long as those exiles conduct themselves peace-
' ably we shall consider it the honour and distinction of this
country to receive indiscriminately all those who are the
victims of misfortune. With these opinions, therefore, with
respect to foreign affairs, and as to the advantages that
we derive from them, as to the obligations which they im-
pose upon us, I shall conclude when I say to the House,
that, not wishing in any degree to enter on the topics which
have been introduced, it has been necessary that at the
request of my Honourable Friend I should give the ex
planation of the conduct I have pursued with respect to
my Noble Friend, and that it has been impossible to do
so without at the same time recurring to what took place in
a neighbouring country ; but I must again repeat that in
any measures which we have to take—that in any mea-
sures which we may have to submit to this House, it shall
be our object not to increase that unreasonable panic, but
to alleviate it.—(Cheers,) It is my persuasion that it is wise
at all times to take precautions against contingent and
possible danger; but at the same time I say there is no
reason to suppose that any danger threatens us, that there
ist in fact, no dispute between us and any other Power.—
(Hear, hear.) I have the happiness to say that the relations
of peace exist between this country and foreign nations in
the fullest degree. I trust they may continue to do so; and
while I deplore events which have passed on the continent
of Europe—events which I fear were but the too certain
consequences of the revolution of 1848—I do trust that
by peace and civilization, by the intelligence which is
daily pouring in on us, by the inventions made to improve
the condition of mankind, liberty shall be at length intro-
duced and established, and that, with religion, it shall go-
vern the hearts of men and produce happier days to man-
kind.—(Loud cheering.)
Lord PALMERSTON rose from his place on the front
bench below the gangway, on the Ministerial side, and said,
—Sir, I am sure the House will feel that after what has
passed on the part of my Hon. Friend behind me (Sir Bs
Hall) and the Noble Lord who has just sat down, it is abso-
lutely incumbent on me to make some observations to the
House. I should be sorry indeed, Sir, that this House and
the country should run away with the impressiop which the
speech of the Noble Lord has been too well calculated to
make, that I have abandoned the principles I have ever en-
tertained—that I have changed the opinions I have expressed,
and which I will never alter - that I have been the advocate
of absolute power, and that I have been in favour of the
abolition of constitutional Governments. The Noble Lord
began the remarks he made to the House by stating his opi-
nion of the relations which ought to subsist between the
Foreign Secretary and the Crown on the one hand, and the
Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister on the other.
In that definition I most entirely concur, and I flatter
myself I have done nothing which is inconsistent with
either of those relations. Sir, the practice that pre
vailed in the Foreign-office was that which the Noble
Lord has described as laid down in the memorandum
of 1850, but the practice did not begin at that time,
but was in existence before—namely, that no important
political instruction was ever sent to any foreign minister
abroad, and no statement addressed to any diplomatic agent,
without the draught being first submitted to the Noble Lord
at the head of the Government, that he might take the
pleasure of the Crown upon it, and if he, either himself, or
from high authority, suggested alterations, those alterations
were made, and if-he objected to the dispatch, then the dis-
patch was modified. It is, at the same time, said that
thought the general tenor of the policy pursued by me had
met with the approval of her Majesty's Government and was
right, yet there was, notwithstandiug, something in the
manner of conducting it calculated to excite irritation on the
part of foreign Governments. Now, the manner of conduct-
ing it consisted in the formation of dispatches or notes, and
I have stated that they were never sent, unless they had
obtained the previous sanction of the Noble Lord at the
head of the Government. The Noble Lord had com-
mented upon an incident which I am ready to admit ex-
cited some degree of regret on my part—namely, the in-
terview which took place between me and a certain de-
putation from Finsbury and Islington on the subject
of the efforts made by her Majesty's Government
to obtain the release of the Hungarian refugees
detained in the Turkish dominions. I was asked bt letter
to receive a deputation, instructed to express the acknow-
ledgments of a certain meeting to me, as a member of the
Government and the organ of its foreign policy, for the ef-
forts made to obtain
sthe_liberation Of these refugees. I
thought it was my duty, being thus applied to by respectable
persons, to receive this deputation from a meeting of her
Majesty's subjects. I certainly did not expect, not being so
much in the habit of receiving deputations as my Noble
Friend probably is—l did not expect that what had passed
in conversation with those persons was to appear in a news-
paper paragraph next day as an important declaration on the
part of her Majesty's Government.—(Hear, hear, and a
laugh.) But there was nothing which I said to that depu-
tation which I have not stated in this House and elsewhere,
and which has not been publicly known.—(Hear.) I cer-
tainly regret that the meeting should haee mixed up with
their acknowledgments to her Majesty's Government expres-
sions with respect to foreign Sovereigns which it was en-
tirely unfitting that a person in my situation should have
presented to him.—(Hear.) If I had taken the precaution,
which I certainly might, to see the address previously, I
might have objected to such parts, and they might have
been expunged ; but, being taken by surprise, and the ad-
press being read on the spot, all I could do was to repudiate
those expressions, and to declare that I had not any partici-
pation in them. Ido not think that what passed on that oc-
casion was reasonably calculated to impair the friendly re-
lations between her Majesty's Government and any conti-
nental Power. I will now come to the particular trarsac-
tions to which my Noble Friend—(after a pause)—the Noble
Lord, has referred as the groundwork of my removal from
office. The event which is commonly called the coup d'etat
happened in Paris on the 2d of December. On the 3d the French
Ambassador, with whom I was in the habit of almost daily
communication, called on me at my house to inform me of
what he had received, and to talk over the events of the pre-
ceding day, and .I stated conversationally the opinion I en-
tertained of the events which bad taken place. That opi-
nion was exactly the opinion expressed in the latter part of
the dispatch which the Noble Lord bas read, and the French
Ambassador, as lam informed, in a private letter commu-
nicated the result of that conversation to his Minister. On
that day, the 3d of December, her Majesty's Ambassador at
Paris wrote a dispatch to ask what instructions he should
receive for his guidance in France during the interval before
the vote of the French on the question that was to be pro-
posed to them, and whether in that interval he should infuse
in the relations with the French Government any greater
desree of reserve than usual. I took the opinion of the
Cabinet on that question, and a draught of that opinion was
prepared and sent for her Majesty's approbation. The
answer could only be one, in consistence with the course we
had pursued since the beginning of the events alluded to,
and was such as the Noble Lord had read. Her Majesty's
Ambassador was instructed to make no change in his rela-
tions with the French Government, and to do nothing that
should wear the appearance of any interference in the inter-
nal affairs of France.—(Hear, hear.) There was no instruc-
tion to communicate that document to the French Govern-
ment; it simply contained instructions, not, in fact, whatthe
English Ambassador was to do, but what he was to abstain
from doing. The Noble Lord, however (the Marquis of
Normanby), thought it right to communicate to the French
Minister for Foreign Affairs the substance of that document,
accompanying his communication with certain ex-
cuses for the delay, which however did not rest
with that Noble Marquis, as his dispatch to the
English Government was dated the 5d of December. The
French Minister stated that lie had nothing to do with re-
spect to the delay, and the less, indeed, because two days
before ho had received from the French Ambassador in Lon-
don a statement which the Noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) has
read, viz., that I had entirely approved of what had been
done, and thought the President of the French fully justi-
fied. That was a somewhat highly-coloured explanation of
the result of the long conversation we held together.
Those particular words I never used, and probably the
French Ambassador never would have conceived it con-
sistent with the dignity due to his country to ask the
approval of a Foreign Secretary of State. Consequently,
the approval was not given, and was not asked. When the
Marquis of Normanby's dispatch reached my Noble Friend
(Lord J. Russell), he wrote to say he trusted that I could
contradict that report. There was, as he has stated, an
interval between the receipt of the Noble Lord's letter and
my
.answer. The Noble Lord's was dated the 14th, and
my answer the 16th. I was at the time labouring under
a heavy pressure of business, and, wishing fully to
explain the opinion I expressed, it was not until
the evening of the 16th that I was able to write my
answer. The Noble Lord got it early next morning, on the
17th. My answer was, that the words quoted by Lord Nor-
manby gave a high colouring to anything I could have said
in the conversation with the French Ambassador, but that
my opinion was, and that opinion, no doubt, I expressed,
that such was the antagonism arising from time to time be-
tween the French Assembly and the President, that their
long co-existence became impossible, and that it was my
opinion that if one or other were to prevail, it would be
better for France, and, through the interests of France,
better for the interests of Europe, that the Presidentt should
prevail than the Assembly, and my reason was,
Assembly had nothing to offer for the substitutioncivil war
ha
oft thethe
President but an alternative ending obviously
in
the
or anarchy ; whereas the President,
to offer unity of purpose and unity
if he were inclined to do so, he might give
oofn and that
authority,to France in-
ternal tranquillity with good and permanent in my
it Government.
I will not trouble the House with all the arguments
letter, or with all the illustrations contained. M yNoble
Friend replied to that letter that he had to come the re-
luctant conclusion that it would not be consistent with the
interests of the country to allow the management of the
foreign affairs of the country to remain any longer in my
hands. He said that the question between us was not
whether the President was justified or not but whether I
was justified or not in having expressed any opinion on the
subject. To that I replied that there was in diplomatic in-
tercourse a well known and perfectly understood distinction
between conversations official, by which Governments were
bound, and which represented the opinions of Governments,
and those unofficial conversations by which Governments
were not bound, and in which the speakers did not express
the opinion of Governments, but the opinions they might I
themselves for the moment entertain:
said that, in my
conversation with M. Walewski nothinglhad passed which
could in the sligntest degree fetter the action of the Govern-
ment, and that if the doctrines of the Noble Lord were
established, and if the Foreign Secretary were to be precluded
from expressing on passing events any opinion to a Foreign
Minister, except in the
_capacity of an organ of the Cabinet,
and after havingpreviously consulted the Cabinet, there would
be an end that freedom of intercourse which tended so much to
good understanding and to the facility of public business.
To this ray Noble Friend answered that my letter left him no
other course than to ask her Majesty to appoint a successor
to me, Now, it is my humble opinion that my doctrine is
right, and that my Noble Friend is wrong; because it is ob-
vious that if the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs were
never allowed in easy and familiar conversation with foreign
Ministers to express an opinion on foreign events, whether
important or not, not as the organ of the Government, but
an opinion which he had formed himself at the moment,
then such a restriction on the intercourse with foreign Minis-
ters would be extremely injurious and prejudicial to the
public service.—( Hear, hear.) Now I expressed this
opinion to which the Noble Lord has referred to the French
Ambassador on the 3d of December; but was I the only
Member of the Cabinet who did thus express an opinion on
passing events? - (Hear, hear.) I am informed that on the
evening of that very day, and under the same roof as I ex-
pressed my opinion,
the Noble Lord at the bead of the Go-
vernment, in conversation with the same Ambassador, ex-
pressed his opinion.—(Hear, hear, and laughter.) I cannot
jell what that opinion was, but from what has just now fallen
from the Noble Lord this evening, it may be assumed
that that opinion was not very different even from
the reported opinion which Lam supposed to have expressed.
--(Cheers.) Was that all? On the Friday, and in the
Noble Lord's own house, I have been informed that the
French Ambassador met the Noble Lord the President of the
Council and the Chancellor of the Exchequer.—(Lould cries
of " Hear.") The Noble Lord again expressed an opinion
(Hear, hear)—and the President of the Council and the
Chancellor of the Exchequer also expressed an opinion—
(Chem and laughter) ; and be it remembered, that the charge

was not the nature of the opinion," for the Noble Lord
distinctly told me, " You mistake the question between us;
it is not whether the President was justified or not, but
whether you were justified in expressing an opinion on the
matter at all. "-_(Hear, hear.) I believe that the Nob 1
Lord the Secretary of State for the Colonies did also in those
few days express an opinion on those events, and I have been
informed also that the then Vice-President of the Board of
Trade, and now the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs,
also expressed his opinion.—(Cheers and laughter.) Then i t
follows that every Member of the Cabinet, whatever his
political avocations may have been—however much his atten-
tion may have been devoted to other matters—is at liberty to
express an opinion on passing events abroad, but the
Secretary of State for the Foreign Affairs,
whose peculiar
duty it is to watch those events, who is unfit for
his office if he has not an opinion on them, ig the
only man not permitted to express an opinion--
(Hear, and laughter); and when a foreign Minister conies
and tells him that he has news, he is to remain silent, like a
speechless dolt, or the mute of some Eastern Pasha.—(Cheers
and laughter.) Now lam told, "It is not your conversa-
tion with M. Walewski that is complained of, but your dis-
patch to the Marquis of Normanby." What had I stated in
that dispatch, in reference to which a great parade was made,
as if I had been guilty of breach of duty to the Crown and e
my obligations to the Prime Minister. in sending it without
previously communicating with the Noble Lord?—(Hear')
No man can lay down the matter more strongly than I have
in reference to the obligations of the Secretary of State for
Foreign Affairs. I have always admitted that if the Secre-
tary of State for Foreign Affairs sends a dispatch of import-
non
ae to an Ambassador abroad, without ascertaining the ph
of the Prime Minister or Crown, he is guilty
of duty. But there are many cases in which it is perfectly
well known that he is only expressing the opinion of th
Government, and inconvenience might arise from delay-
There are many cases in which a sedulous and careful„„,
ob-
servance of the strict rule is attended with inconvenience
to the public service, and has exposed me to imputation.
of neglect and delay in answering the dispatches I receivedf
But what was the dispatch from the Marquis
of a breacie
.
Normanby, and what was my answer? Lord Nor-
manby, in his dispatch of the 6th. had said that the French
Minister had reported that I used certain expressions which
Lord Normanby represents as inconsistent with the laetrile"
tions not to interfere in the internal affairs of France. 14°4
if those expressions had been used, I do not see that they
are inconsistent with the instructions, not to make anYat
al-
teration in our relations with the French Government.' al%
the
aft
wherat
making does Lothat communrd Normanby
ic pation to
Mroceed to state
ur
? Heot to says,
which
. T
the Noble Lord has alluded, to do nothing which should bays
the appearance of interferiug in any way in the intern
affairs of France, he added that he was quite sure that if the
Government had known the events of Paris on the Thursday
and Friday they would have joined their congratulations to
his. That was a greater apparent interference in the internal
affairs of the French nation than any conversation of mine
with M. Walewski. However, Lord Normanby having re-,
ported the expressions of the French Minister to me, I did
not think it necessary to go into any argument on the Ob.
ject, but ten days afterwards, on the 15th of December, the
Ambassador at Paris, rather inverting, I think, the positions
of Ambassador and Secretary of State - (Hear, and a laugh)
—calls on the Secretary of State to give him an explanation
as to the language the Secretary of State was supposed to
have used to M. Walewski. In my dispatch in answer I re-
peated that neither the Secretary of State nor the Ambassador
at Paris was entitled to pronounce judgment on the affairs, d
France; but I stated the nature of the opinions I expressef
on the 3d of Dember. Therefore it is a misrepresentation
the facts of the case to say that, in answering Lord Nor'
manby's letter, I was giving instructions inconsistent with
the relation of our general intercourse with the French Ur.
vernment. It was no instruction. I did not give the Or.
nion of the Government of England. It was my own opinl
and, whether right or wrong, it was shared by numbers d
France. Therefore the charge which the Noble Lord (
J. Russell) has brought against me, founded on a dispatch't
has no foundation in justice or in fact.—(Hear, hear.) Ths
is the state of the case as between the Noble Lord and to
self. As for the letter of the Noble Lord, giving reasons
advising the Queen to appoint a successor to me, that was
step which it was perfectly competent for the Noble Lord to
rake without assigning any reason to me. But he chose to
assign a reason, and that reason was, that I did, in eenVer.
sation with M. Walewski, that which he and other divers
members of the Cabinet appear also to have done in °rifler;
sation with the same person.—(Hear.) I do not disPuterit
right of the Noble Lord to remove any member oft
vernment whom he may think it better to remove Noble
retain in the Cabinet. With respect to myself, thee'',4o_
Lord had done me justice by saying that the course_in't'he
reign policy of which I was the instrument had real"' at.
constant support and approval of the rest of the Govern for
fOr
I think that course of foreign policy was the proper one
this country to pursue.—(Hear.) I always thought it /La
the duty of the Government of this country to make the
terests of England the polar star to guide our course--AP:
hat it was my duty to be—as the Noble Lord described 01,(
in 1850, neither the Minister of Austria, of Russia, nor
Prussia, but the Minister of England.— (Cheers.) I have
felt it my duty to maintain the interests of England, to
af-
ford protection to British subjects abroad in all parts of the
world, to protect their commerce, their persons, and the.l.!
property.—(Hear, hear.) It is not to be expected that,,T
pursuing that course, in giving that encouragement which
our own disposition and wishes stimulated us to give to the
progressive diffusion of constitutional government
other countries, it is not to be expected, I reps"
that such a course could be pursued without meetenlf_
with opposition from persons and Governments which
entertained opposite opinions, or who have happened te_o7
wrongdoers, from whom redress might be demanded.
I am happy to say, and mystatement is confirmed by what D.:
just fallen from the Noble Lord, that after having for 8 Cll
siderable time had the good fortune and honour to be the in'
4trument to guide the foreign relations of this country
have left the country in a state of most friendly relation;
with respect to every part of Europe, and that there is _
question, no political question of any importance, creel;
difference between this and any country.—(Cheers.) been
not always that that could have been said. There have at
periods when unfortunately differences have existed-1)11;1r
all events that " firebrand,' as I have been called that
dividual who embroiled the relations of Digland with
other countries, as it has also been said of me, afte;„;--wvith
found the country involved in difficulties, has left e":;,„- s. but
no question of difference between this and other nations,
with amity subsisting between this and all other countriett•
'(Cheers.) For instance, there are our relations with Russia. e„h
time has been when we have had serious differences T
that Power. But between England and Russia there now
exists the most cordi it understanding upon the very
...,queiy,
tions on which formerly differences prevailed-135°°0
with regard to Persia. and Turkey. A short time 170..
questions arose_ ithich Prussia was concerned,- which se'
riously affected the_ peace of the north of Germany, and '9 to
we succeeded in arranging; and it was some satisfactiott_.,
her Majesty's Government that, by our conduct in second:l
the proper. and just pretensions of Denmark, we ,necte.d
in wiping out the recollections of former events
embittered the relations of these two countries, and Otto,
were enabled to establish between England and Den
relations of the most friendly and confidential flat"' the
(Hear.) Sir, no one will be prepared to underrate hoe
which aw'e
importance of this consideration, that whatever MaYaeers,
been the nature of the Government in France of late yew'
the nations of France and Great Britain have reine'ooe
upon terms of the most complete friendship and ggeo
understanding.--(Hear, hear.) During all the Chang
which took place in France during the year 1848, rf, /31 Of
was at the head of the Government, and whatever 10.1—ahe
government was adopted by the French nation, we •
of
stained from all interference with the internal affel." of
France. Our principle has been to treat the authoritle!aj
the moment as the Government of the French nation,Z;se
with those authorities our relations have always been WO
of cordial amity. - (Hear, hear.) Then, with regard to 00,
United States. The United States constitute a POWer
tween which and this country in former years the meetunott
rious difficulties existed. But these countries are noty'aile
a more cordial footing, and a better understanding 1"`
those
between them than has ever before prevailed between of
of
two great and kindred powers.—(Hear.) This is a 6,_ihtiee
things which, I must say, is very much owing to theettle_ii,..a
and conciliatory manners of our late Minister toe
tt
States, Sir Henry Bulwer, and very much t
straightforward, frank, and conciliatory character
distinguished person who represents. also
dtesr
tsotfestbe•
ett
this Court.— (Cheers.) wrelsir,
IwimtheytheelmSespatnisshay!tfeess
of America our normal condition,
a.nd our
subjects.bee nth a t oßfadte rented ipnegi e
tree derfes
disputefor injuries len% done ne
either
htoer British
ed
ever have been, or as the'
are hear.) I now Bras
are likely to be.—(Bear, come to
With Brazil we are now co-operating, with the
relations with thhoeitee
great (nn
Sortaintesaatrreainnowof asadjguosordniaenstth;ea
of the suppression of the slave trade. That object has be
attained with such success that whereas in former yea.rs,
number of slaves imported into Brazil had heen
16,000, and 17,000, the number of slaves brought during thr
last year was less than 3,000, of which a certain number
were seized by the Government for the purposes of enialleil;
tafeklelnowuepdon out tla
pation.—(Hear, hear.) And,
co-operation between England and Brazil, and the measures
now Sir, if the measures no,
teh
ecopaes
et
polfe Aeffrtihcias,
eaerseswtreyll
sys-
tematicallyb ei
ng
will >n C
short time have the satisfaction of accomplishing 11:_el,eep
and noble object which
the aim at which they rest a length of time n _ for so g
and cheers.) I have directed their effor nigtand
desire the Suppression of the slave
they believe they will utation and
gain thereb in rep hat
renown, because it is not to •reputation and renown t _
gain repu a
exertions these sacrifices have been made and those tinctioe;
been c • ex
continued.—(Cheers.) (Cheers.) They have desired the
eod,
of the slave traffic not for fame, but for "virtue's better
_„t
and the people great Ale'
of this country, whenever that
„NO
is accomplished, will look for their reward, not to the tP.tiee
of men, but to the dispensing award of a just and retrioteis.
Providence.—(Cheers.) I now come to Spain.. Our ;300
tions with Spain are now more cordial than they ever teat
been, notwithstanding our recent differences with
too
Power. With the States of Italy we have had ntleeesee
relative to losses sustained by individuals, but these m..0,e
been settled in the most satisfactory manner. With fur
our relations have been perfectly amicable. Austria ialeao
haps, the only power with which our relations have no,t tory.
quite so cordial as in some former periods of our inter
But with Austria, so far as outward appearances and Lereito,
matic relations are concerned, we are upon friendlY,teovet
With regard to Austria I must observe, however, the' 'wel
differences of opinion and principle have existed he Joe
the English and Austrian Governments. England
oat,
supported the diffusion of constitutional governor
while the Austrian Government, on the eon;001,
have preferred the despotic system. In Ffen°—ererev
Sicily, and the north of Italy the two `-"",. their
meats were at variance in their opinions, and also in the
on views upon some difficult internal questions, and vP_,..,ees
action of Turkey with regard to the treatment of the reel'on,
from the Hungarian territory. But these differences c 0
stitute no reason why the British and Austrian Governmu 00
should not co-operaie with each other upon any Inetterear,
which our opinions and our interests may agree.ierenees
hear.) Why, Sir, England and Austria had d. „„, with
with each other in the years 1834, 1835, 1836, and 18je,, „ag
regard to the affairs of Portugal and Spain, but that.,etiviuh'oo
prevent our co-operating with Austria in 1840 or 1841, nar
we found that their objects and views were identical veiluive
own.—(llear, hear.) And whatever irritation may bale
been introduced, and whatever differences of policy maythere-
existed, that irritation was sure to subside, and I enL with
fore justified in including Austria among the countries
intet„T
whom we have satisfactory relations of friendship and
thr°-Ph
Sir, having conducted the affairs of this country to
periods of considerable difficulty, it was my good for; the
be the instrument of peace, and to combine therewt.d.....
EDP' ice
not unsuccessful assertion of the interests of
(Hear, hear.) And I think I may say that in quittunee, to
coup"
I have handed over the foreign relations of the d
my successor with the honour and dignity of Eng5 ;;odieg
sullied, and leaving her character and reputation
h ere._
high among the nations of the world.— (Loud e e
ufaulurera
Mr. MUNTZ denied the assertion that the Mari _ tie wee
had entertained Kossuth with distinction becarsie-tb, he
a republican. As one of the entertainers of
ht to ,the
could say for himself that he never gave a thong__ or tt
question whether that individual was a raenarezpresse"
himself had _
republican. His constituents and Wee 140.
they ge""-- "
their 'sympathy with liosauth becalm.

prd

11

IS

pi-
Di
in
Ird
ot

ben much-injured man, who had exerted himself in oppo •
sition to a bad Government; and, having done so, had been
interfered with by another Government. He had never
heard Kossuth ask for the intervention of England in the
affairs of Hungary. He only asked for non-intervention,
sad he was right, because if Russia, or any third party,
were permitted to interfere in the affairs of another Govern-
ment in a very short space of time the absolute Governments
Might unite to make Europe despotic.
Mr. H J. BAILLIE could not understand on
the
what
grounds the explanations by the Noble Lord (Lord John
Russell) relative to the statemeat of the late Foreign
Secre-
taryJn had been given—whether to satisfy the curiosityn:i of the
Honourable Member for Marylebone. or an appeal
judgment of the House. He had always had the misfortune
to differ from Lord Palmerston upon matters rforeign
policy, and he might, therefore, possibly be re-
garded as not altogether unprejudiced. But,a
havingatte.
listened to the explanations given, and
silents made on both sides, he could, not arrive( at
any other conclusion than that theic :Ne
ofbolre the Lords i p
ns of talli;
snerston) Lad been offered up as a sacra
whole Administration.— (Cheers and laughter) They were
told by those powerful organs of the press which defende
the Government that our foreign relations were not in that
satisfactory state in which they once were,
and
that the Govern-
ment of this country was very much hated abhorred by
all foreign Governments, that we were without a friend or
ally in Europe, except Sardinia, and that all this was to be
attributed to the Foreign-office. Now, if it were true that
in 184 g our Government outraged Austria, Naples, Sicily,
and Spain—if, in 1850, the Government wantoniy persecuted
the unhappy Greeks, the Noble Lord at the head of the Go-
vernment was responsible.—( Hear, hear.) He supported
that policy in the House of Commons, and promoted to high
office those who were most clamorous in approving it._( Hear.)
Until thisday he thought the Government entirely approved
the policy of the Noble Lord lately at the head of the Fo-
reign-office. To-day the Noble Lord, it appeared, was dis-
missed, because he, a most able, experienced, and successful
Minister, as he was described, had had the " presumption" to
take upon himself the management of his own department.
That was the " head and front of his offending," and was it
really upon such grounds that a most able and successful
Minister was to be so lightly shaken off? Was there a man
in that House who believed that these were the real grounds,
or who had any doubt that the recent changes in Europe
and France had at last brought conviction to the Noble Lord
at the head of the Government that his foreign policy had
been a failure, and that under existing circumstances it
would be dangerous to persevere iu it? But, if it were ne-
cessary to offer up his Foreign Secretary to the evil genius
of continental despotism, would it not have been the most
just, the most generous, and the most chivalrous course if
the First Minister of the Crown and his colleagues had also
thought proper to accompany the Foreign Minister in his
resignation? But the Noble Lord had not hesitated to get
rid of one of his colleagues when he and the rest of the
Cabinet were equally responsible.—(Hear, hear. )
Mr. GEACH had never heard Kossuth, in his many
sPeeches, ask for the intervention of this country in the
affairs of Hungary. All that he complained of was inter-
vention by other countries, since, if Hungary had been al.
lowed to settle its dispute with Austria the result would have
been very different. He (Mr. Gesell) had been in France
since the 2d of December, and had gathered the opinions of
all classes. Ho believed that the people of France were
almost universally satisfied at the solution of the difficulty
la which they had become involved, not as being the best
for France, but as being the best solution possible under the
circumstances. He regretted, considering the feeling that
seXisted in France with regard to the expression of opinion
ets the part of e press e thia coutry, that agentleman se-
lected for the thimportantf position of moving the Address
should have been so indiscreet as to express the opinions to
Which he had given utterance.
es Mr. MILNES thought the Noble Lord at the head of the
eeovernment would find that the speech of the Hon. Member
for Inverness-shire in a great measure represented the
;Vizi ms of Europe on the subject of the dismissal of the late
zoreign Secretary. He believed when the reports of this
sdebate went forth to the public it would scarcely be credited
41 Europe that upon the mere ground of Ministerial disci-
Wine a great change had taken place in the Government of
this country, and that an important Minister had been sum-
, elltarily dismissed from office. He did not presume to doubt
re Perfect veracity of all that had been stated by the Noble
Lord (Lord John Russell), but he believed that public
°Pinion, both in this country and elsewhere, would see be-
Yond the statement he had made motives and intentions
Which he had not' expressed, and of which he was, perhaps,
hardly conscious himself. It might be said that the charac-
ter and reputation of a Minister were hardly understood
Until he had lost power, and it was perhaps only when tha
news of the fall of Lord Palmerston spread throughout
old
that the estimation in which that Noble Lord was
hd was really ascertained. What was the meaning of the
universal jubilee of the absolutist Powers of Europe—of the
rejoicings of the oppressors and the lamentations of the op-
pressed? What was the reason that Lord Palmerston's
fall had been regarded as showing the accession of the
English Government to the new order of things to be in-
augurated in Europe? He (Mr. Milnes) had always be-
lieved that the Administration of the Noble Lord had been
entirely misunderstood and misrepresented throughout Eu-
rope, He had found that wherever upon the continent men
Were aspiring after liberty, or were i n any way oppressed,
there the name of Lord Palmerston was mentioned with re-
spect and regard by the oppressed and the suffering. In the
remote districts of Germany, in the cities of Spain, in all
countries and portions of the world where principles of liberty
were struggling into birth, the Noble Lord's name was re-
eaosnirled with respect—he might almost say with reverential
lean ; and it was natural that those Powers which repre-
opinions totally alien from the wishes and desires of
fie People of England should regard the Noble Lord with
eery
- e Lord to feel
ble°lltra
of vague
t their
inga- They consequently represented the
all kinds oferrr or and
Peevoiplle as as sort of hobgoblin—an object
wholly alien, repute, connecting his name with
eavnoduttlon and confusion, to which his spirit was
just influence. }liens endeavouring to diminish his real and
the Noble Lord
ttoOttirl; Milnes) thought, therefore, that
done great the bead of the Government had
injurya
taken. He believed
in the affairs s country by the course he had
they were approaching a period
office of this of Europe when the Foreign-
country would require to be guided by a prac-
intiseradthand, and the authority of the Noble Lord (Lord Pal-
,abilm') might prevent a great many evils which all the
itY, and just and good intentions, of any successor might
ziss.,o enable him to avoid. The fall of the Noble Lord had
sesuL been accompanied by any peculiar demonstration of the
reuSProvement of our relations with foreign Powers, but was
incident with a large demand for the increase of our na-
(fuel defences. He (Mr. Milnes), as a supporter of the
avertsment, felt very great regret at the dismissal of the
late Foreign Secretary, which he believed had materially
Weakened the efficiency of the Government, and had dimi-
Vbed its influence in the country • for the department over
tithe
jetslthe Noble Lord had presided had certainly been one
ie Most popular and the least obnoxious to general ob-
°lL The Noble Lord at the head of the Government
eighteen
have seen in the demonstration which took place some
ea!tetteen months ago what was the feeling of sympathy en-
sue ajned for the Nble Lord (Lord Palmerston) on that (the
Ministerial) side of the House—(Hear, hear)—and which Would
follow him into the position of independence he had
assumed. He would only express his hope that the
other of the Noble Lord might not be the precursor of
of 41 831elptoms of weakness and dissolution on the part
ear e Ministry, which he would profoundly and sin-
eely regret
neetord D. STUART observed that the Hon. Baronet who
"'Jed the address had referred to what he had called an
country• Now he (Lord D. Stuart) considered tbat the
;184intner whieh Kossuth hed been received rendered his
raiddlan event of some importance. The feeling of the
e classes in favour of the great patriot had been uni-
-0:84 and if the same feeling did not pervade the higher
weres---if few of the nobility or gentry came forward to
lea„ec(nue the distinguished exile—he must say their back-
eirt"stless did them very little credit. He could add his tea-
t%" to that of the Hon. Members for Birmingham and
pes°,eatrY, and could declare that Kossuth was not sup-
ji-e'sed in this country on account of his advocacy of repub-
at art doctrines, and that Kossuth had not called upon this
res,uritrY to interfere by arms in behalf of Hungary. He
slar,'d not congratulate the' Hon. Baronet (Sir R. Bulkeley)
t‘',ll,llis success in conciliating the different parties in
eeseoute, and he did not think the Government would feel
head
obliged to the Hon. Baronet for the mode in which he
lam"' advocated their cause. The Honourable Gentleman
e told them that he abhorred the ballot—a noble
eetithent to be cheered by hearty Reformers, many
the Whom thought as he (Lord D. Stuart) did, that
there
ballot was a sine qua non, without which
Cation would be no true, free, and complete represen-
(lire of the ple. The Hon. Baronet also talked of the
of thetaded interest of the country generally to the
L°Me-tax. He (Lord D. Stuart) did not know how the
ieu,veeruneent would like that statement, or whether it was
e'e_° taken as an indication that the Chancellor of the Ex-
eleeotter intended to relieve the country from the impost.—
Ltdy. laugh.) With regard to Ireland, also, the Hon. Baronet
them that it had always been a principle of this country'
si maintain the Protestant ascendancy. He (Lord D.
Stuart)a had hoped, however,
the case in times past, that the principles might have been
those of which were now
to flourish in this country were
inplete religious
equality. He felt great regret at the") late lamentable
to be de-
Change in the Ministry, for he thought it
ed with
plored that a great Minister who had henleclicharg one of the principal departments of the
years, during which he bad conducted Statepublicafkairnrsdiawaintyh
credit to himself, andwith honour to the country,
had, in most difficult times preserved uninterrupted pewalcio
should have been removed from office upon what he could
not
,t_ but call the most paltry pretences The speech they
uasl heard to-night from the Noble Lord at the head of the
Government would go forth to the world, and would be
manned with a careful eve both in this and in foreign coun-
t". What might be thouffeit of it abroad he did not
Ilow, but he believed the people of England would see it
was pretty clear that the Noble L ird (Lord J. Russell) was
,It
Th b
desirous, for some reason or other, of finding an excuse for
;L'ettine rid of his Noble Colleague. Whether the Noble Lord
ord Palmerston) was too liberal in his principles, or whe-
`t" a his advocacy of those principles occasioned remon-
4ances of a disagreeable nature from foreign Courts, or
mat Nether there was some truth in the existence of the foreign
which was alluded to in the debate on the affairs of
4eee in 1850, he could not say, but it was clear, from
ResStever reason, there was a foregone conclusion and
aertnination on the part of the Noble Lord (Lord John
11(73°11) to get rid of the Foreign Secretary as soon as
haieuld, and he took the pretext of the Noble Lord's
ati,,ng offered an opinion upon a certain question. Could
eafbra6ats_, believe that if the Noble Lord (Lord John Elm-
er his east been anxious to secure to the country the services
as ths. Noble Colleague he would have allowed such a reason
eta, la to operate? The Noble Lord (Lord Palmerston) had
esiOd that he gave an extra-official opinion upon a certain
Iqet That opinion, it seemed, was disapproved by the
por2e Lord at the head of the Governmeut, lat!t
.the late
Iseatteign Secretary had told them that similar opinions had
belie expressed by the Noble Lord himself (Lord J. Rus-
the'' e,°37 the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the President of
the te,',"ncil the Secretar for the Colonies, and
the "'le Lord' who had succeeded to the Foreign-office. lf,
,verrle, this statement were correct—and the Ministers present
l'ses ePerfectlY aware whether it was inaccurate or no—it
eto4T.Ty clear that the reason assigned for Lord Palmer-
the_smissal could not be the real reason. The speech
Palmer-
i "a! ob 1 e Lord at the head of the Government certainly
Tire4C,ltapression that the late Foreign Secretary had ex-
13rea,i'!Il strong terms his approval of the conduct of the
alter hint of France. If that wore so, it would very much
ssestien (Lord D. Stuart's) opinion of this case, because,
Qailaey deagt vrviseee
r 3 as he was that a god understanding should pre-
leihis country and France, he could not look with
ttirsea etrhcOmplacency upon the conduct which had been
..oreeetoni_Yse e president It was true that if the people of
"re " to be governed by a military despot, who had
Ileepeigard for the oaths. he had taken, and who trampled all
light,. and justice under his feet, it was their own
them'-hut ;- tu° this country had no business to interfere with
4,414- Britishat he thought the proper course to be pursued by
4_n Minister was to abstain from giving an opinion
seise rof such conduct as he had described, and he
eibirrielLtleat in this case greater caution had been used by
*At tmoera of the Government. generally with respect to
t ambers
of such nefarto
PW% URI oth us proceedings as had
1/1" th,-0 C 4141,1101. OW' I

SUN,

dered that no reason had been given of a nature to justify
the dismissal of the late Foreign Secretary, but, after the
explanations which had been offered, he (Lard D. Stuart)
entertained the conviction that there had been a forgone
conclusion—a determination to get rid of the Noble Lard,
and he feared the step had been taken in consequence of re-
presentations cominz from abroad. Of this be was satisfied—
that the proceeding would not be found conducive to British
interests.
c tohnis.
oi
ud
ge rheodu t thatE u r
otphee
wcaaeu sine
oosft liberty
fHProVteEsßtaNntEisni
and of
indebted to the Noble Lord (Lord Palmerston), who had
been the friend
of liberty and Constitutional government
wherever they had existed. What was the first thing that
had taken place Fence the Noble Viscount left office ? The
efforts of the Bible Society had been condemned to be
stopped where Austria hard authority, and the Scottish
missionaries were required to leave Hungary, though
they had done nothing contrary to the laws of that coun-
try. But if the Noble Viscount did on the 16th of De-
cember write a dispatch contrary to the opinion of the
British Cabinet, and embodying sentiments which it
would have been a very different thing to utter on
the first blush or the events in France—(Hear, hear) —if he
did this without consulting the Members of the Cabinet, and
without receiving the accustomed sanction, the opinion of
the House and of the country in general would surely be,
that under these circumstances, the Prime Minister was
justified in declaring that he would no longer act with the
Noble Viscount as the responsible Minister of the Crown fur
conducting our foreign affairs.—(fear, hear.)
Mr. OSIJORNE observed, that his Noble Friend (Lord D.
Stuart) began by criticising certain observations of the
mover of the Address; but whatever c tvil might be taken
on the ground of particular expressions used by a gentleman
not accustomed to speaking in the House, the House gene-
rally wou d probably be more struck with the readiness of
the Hon. Baronet's address, aed feel regret that he did not
oftener mingle iu the debates,—(Hear, hear.) The present
discussion had been so wrapped up in one absorbing subject
that it would be almost looked upon as an impertinence to
allude to any other; but there were other matters interest-
ing to the country. The speech mentioned three counties,
of Ireland, but no member from Ireland had risen to express
an opinion upon this remarkable passage. It was a grave
question for the House, whether in the state of those three
counties the ordinary trial by jury was perfectly success-
ful.—(hear, hear.) Without calling for excessive powers,
he (Mr. Osborne) was not the man to do so—he would
throw out to the Government whether, it being impossible
to procure a verdict under the peril of being shot for giving
it, there might not be imported into Ireland the Scotch
principle of allowing a majority of the jury to convict ex-
cept in cases of treason.—(Hear, hear.) Life and property
could not be secure under the present system.—(Hear,
hear.) The system of offering money rewards in Ireland
was mischievous and unproductive; would it not be better.
to offer a grant of land in a colony to au approver.—(Hear,
hear.) Gentlemen here had no conception of the horrible
state of districts that were under the Riband system.—
(Hear, hear.) With regard to the subject on which an ex-
planation had been offered to the House, he must say he felt
more than common pain at what had occurred. He looked
upon the loss of the Noble Lord who had retired from the
Government, not only as a great loss to the Government, but
a great national loss. But he wished to state that he could
not entirely approve of the way in which that Noble Lord
had spoken of the recent transactions in France. As a
Member of that House, representing the great county
of Middlesex, he (Mr. Osborne) felt that he could not
go before his constituents and say that he sat silent
while he heard any Minister, or ci.devant Minister, give
even his qualified cpprobation to the coup d'état.—( Hear,
hear.) He did not wish to add fuel to flame, but he would
adopt the words of Lord Chatham, and say, that "power
without right is one of the most pernicious and detestable
things which the human imagination can conceive—perni-
cious to the math who holds it, and destructive to the people
over whom he wields it."—(Hear.) He hoped there was no
Member of that House who could, even by implication, give
any approval to the proceedings.—(Hear, hear.) He would
say no more of the unfortunate rupture which had taken
piece, but he hoped matters had not proceeded to such an
extremity but that, in process of time, the differences might
be:healed, and the Noble Lord might join that body of which
he was so leading an ornament.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. ROEBUCK would be sorry that the debate should
pass away with simply a personal explanation. The Speech
from the Throne travelled over a vast variety of interests.—
(Hear.) He wished, in the first place, to bring from the
discussion some sort of moral with respect to the pecu-
liar position of the Government. It was admitted by
the Noble Lord himself (Lord J. Russell) that
the position of affairs at home, in our colonies,
and abroad, was in the highest degree difficult. We
were on the eve of great administrative changes. In our
colonies we had discontent bordering upon rebellion, and in
some actual war; on the continent we saw a person in
power, with nothing on earth able to control his will; and
we ourselves were trembling, not with fear, but with anxiety
lest the peace of this great country should be invaded; and
surely this was a time to scan somewhat narrowly, if not
with severity, the capacity, firmness and energy of those who
had in charge the destinies of this country. At this critical
period the most marked person of the Administration—he
around whom all the party battles of the Administration
had been fought, whose political existence had been made
the political existence of the Government itself, and upon
whose being in office the Government had rested its exist-
ence as a Government—was dismissed ; the right arm of
the Government was cut off when it was most needed.
What was left in that Government that should conciliate our
confidence?—(Hear.)
We must judge of the possible future
of this Government by its actual past; and, looking at those
who remained in it, it was right to ask why were we to
place confidence in them?—(Hear, hear.) The Noble
Lord's Government was founded upon a most unwise
policy; the system of his administration, as far as the forma-
tion of his Government was concerned, was that of a mere
family party—(Hear, hear)—and the great interests of the
country were forgotten. The Noble Lord surrounded him-
self with those who doubtless were very near and dear to him
—(A laugh)—but who were not so importaut to the country.
—(Hear.) To take the department of the management of
that House; had there existed a government in the House?
Had the Noble Lord the least power to carry through the
House any plan he propounded, so that there should be a
unity of conduct and purpose, and a firmness of policy ?--
( Hear, hear.) In regard to the law, the business bad been
thrown abroad, and the real changes were made by pri-
vate persons.—(Hear, hear.). In regard to the colonies,
proposition after proposition was made and abandoned.—
(Hear, hear.) How was...it with the Admiralty depart.
went? Was not the whole machinery of its administration
disgraced before the country ?—( Hear, hear.) We could not
send out a ship to take men to a colony, but it had to put
in at Plymouth in a few days—(Hear, hear)—so ill-found
that it could not go on without.—(Hear.) Another had
not provisions enough on board, because it was unable to
reach the Cape in less than three months, and was obliged to
stop a vessel on the way for help.— (Hear, hear.) These
were mere routine matters, which a common clerk ought to
be able to perform, but the Admiralty was unequal to them.
--(Hear, bear.) They could not build a ship but they had
to cut her in two again.—(Hear, hear.) From the begin-
ning to the end of that establishment it was clear that
searching radical inquiry was required. - ( Hear, hear.) To
return to the Kafir war. Injustice attended our entrance
into that country, and what benefit had we obtained? We
had there some thousands of the finest troops that England
could furnish, and we should soon hear at what expense.—
(Hear, hear.) We should find that what was begun in in-
justice proceeded in imbecility, and that the colonists, whom
we had pretended we would protect, were exposed to all the
outrages and spoliation that savages could perpetrate, and
devastation reigned from end to end of the colony.—(Hear,
hear.) Had the Government abstained from creating dis-
content and alienating the colonists, sent them a constitu-
tion, and told them to take care of themselves, there would
have been no call for all this.—(Hear, hear.) Why had
New Zealand been kept in hot water so long after the con-
stitution was passed, though there had been nothing to
change our relations with that colony?—(Hear, hear.) At
home the whole administration of the law was in a state of
dislocation. Nothing was so mischievous as constant change.
There was no presiding mind in the matter; it was left to be
dealt with by individual members at their pleasure. Was
there ever such peddling?— (Hear, hear.) It was said that
no one but the Noble Lord could take the Government;
but let us really have a Government, and not have the House
merely an arena for every gentleman to try his hand.—
(Hear, hear.) Foreign policy was a delicate matter, bu
though the Legislature was not called upon to ex-
t
press an opinion as to changes abroad, individual
members of a great representative assembly were not tra-
velling beyond their duty in expressing, in grave and
guarded language, their sorrow at least, if not indignation, at
what had passed in a neighbouring country.—( Hear, hear.)
It was id'e to say there was no danger to our relations with
France, ruled by a man whom no sanction held. We must
know that he would consult only his own interests, and that
we should do wisely to be upon our guard, not in any the
most distant way sanctioning the opinion that he had done
justly by his people, though at the same time strictly ad-
hering to the rule of not interfering with the domestic affairs
of France.—(Hear, hear.) He (Mr. Roebuck) should be
very sorry to throw this country off its guard, though as
sorry to create an unwise
panic, and fancy that we were
about to be the victims of an invasion, when all we required
at the hands of the Government was calmness, prudence,
watchfulness, and caution.—( Hear, hear.)
Mr. NAPIER answered the appeal made by a preceding
Member to the Irish Members, and referred to the case of
the three counties in the north of Ireland. The special
commission which had been issued had proved an abortion.
The ordinary course of the law was insufficient to procure a
conviction for murder. There was no security for life or
Property, and yet the Government did not intend to apply to
Parliament for further powers. The remedies for the evils of
unfortunate Ireland were only to be found in making each individual satisfied the efficiency with of the law to protect
ham, Other special commissions had proved successful. He
complainedalso
trials exere that the Government had not in the recent
was certainredl its right of challenging the jurors. Ireland
hope of retui:nstowly recovering from her visitations, but all
vigorous adenininsti:rosperity would be vain unless there was a
Mr. E. B.
ROCan of the law.
petrated in Ireland a deplored the murders recently per-
tleman who had justssanrch as the Hon. and Learned Gen-
coercion would aggravat down, but feared that a return to
of the state of the relationesti evil. These murders arose out
Government had shamefull between landlord and tenant, and
important question. Withyrensegletcted the settlement of that
that when measures of extexseiconto the franchise, he hoped
Ireland would not be forgotten, as awtere in contemplation,
boroughs in Ireland with only 8,046 Irrearteserent there were 24
complain generally of the mode in eeh• a.
such business But he must
conducted in that House. Bills were proposed, was
poned, afterwards cut in halves, and ultimatenr' then poet-
half given to Ireland, as had been the case with l&"st
Charities Bill. He hoped that before long a wiser and tite
generous policy would be inaugurated with regard to Ireland,
Mr. DLSRAELI—I am unwilling that we should assent
to the Address to the Throne without making a few observa-
tions. I know it is inconvenient, under any circumstances,
to make observations on an address to the Crown upon
which no amendment has been offered. The subjects are so
interesting, so various, so universally engaging, that really
nobody thinks it anybody's business to attempt them. Every
body is convinced that in the course of the session legitimate
opportunities will be afforded of discussing in detail the
programme of questions which have been placed before
the House ; and it very often happens that we are told by
the Minister that the House is pledged by its unanimity
on the first night of the session. I am, therefore, indis-
posed at all times to refrain. (though the office is not a very
agreeable one) frcru offering some remarks on the address,
when no amendment has been brought forward which
naturally arrests the attention and commands the interest
of the House. There is another reason also which weighs
with me—that it is scarcely respectful to the Go-
vernment to pass unnoticed the interesting and remarkable
scene with which the opening of Parliament has been
distinguished. From my experience of the House of
Commons—an experience which is longer, I confess,
than I care to recollect —I Should 8a"
y-sehr't w a b•t
is the duty of an Hon. Member to make inquiry of a Minister
he is in general not very successful in elicitin
information— (A laugh)—and I am bound tog
sayany
tphaartt particular
information—
not think the Ilonouroble Baronet the Member for Mary
lebone has to-night proved a, remarkable exception to that
which is the experience of the great body of Members.
The Digcatit gflye duo notice of ALI iatwatiola to Addxofia

'

LONDON,

a question to the First Minister with respect to a subject of
imperial importance. The First Minister responded to his
inquiry, and was replied to by a statesman recently of his
councils. The persons, therefore, were considerable, the
subject important, and the audience were the assem-
bled Commons of England. But, so far as I can say,
from listening to this performance, it appeared to me to lie
a Downing-street eclogue, and that, so far as we are con-
cerned, no reasons have been given or information impai ted
to account for circumstances so remarkable and a catas-
trophe so sudden.— (Hear, hear.) The First Minister, in-
deed, did impart one most interesting piece of intelligence.
He gave us one of the great rules by which he manages his
Cabinet. He tells uo that he had not consulted his Cabinet
—that their expression of opinion would have made the
transaction appear the affair of a cabal. We have heard
comments on the conduct of the present ruler of France, but '
the Noble Lord seems t) have acted on much the same
principle as Prime Minister of Eugland.—( A. laugh.) Not-
withstanding those remarks of the Noble Lord, I think we
are bound, after the scene that has taken place, to express
our opinion as far as the displacement of the Noble Lord,
the late Secretary of State, is concerned. It has always
been my lot and my duty to oppose the political system re-
presented by the Noble Lord. I never refrained under any
circumstances from doing justice to the abilities of the Noble
Lord. I never for a moment supposed that he was justly
exposed to those absurd ur strange imputations which have
been sometimes circulated. I always believed he was a
faithful British Minister. I always believed the great ob-
ject of the policy he recommended was to maintain and to
vindicate the honour and interests of the kingdom. But I
thought that, unfortunately for this country, the means by
which the Noble Lord sought to attain that object were
often means directly adverse to the result he wished to ac-
complish. But I never severed the policy of the Noble
Lord from the policy of the Cabinet. When that great de-
bate occurred which involved a direct impugnment of the

department over which the Noble Lord presided, I for one
repudiated the idea that you could consider the transactions
of a single Minister except as associated with the proceed-
ings of the complete Cabinet. The First Minister came
forward candidly to take his share of the responsibility on
that occasion. I remember how that subject was intro-
duced in the other House by a Noble Friend of mine; I
remember that the motion of that Noble Lord was sup-
ported by various suctions not acting in political commu-
nity ; and I remember the charges brought against the
Noble Lord and those who supported him in either House.
We were called conspirators. We wore held up to public
reprobation as, in fact, being instruments of a foreign cabal.
I know that I was tempted one afternoon to give an opinion,
and a very honest one, on the subject, because the Govern-
ment had denounced us as a band of conspirators for
.having
challenged the conduct of the department over which the
Noble Lord the Member for Tiverton presided. I under-
stand, from what has passed to-night, that the present Go-
vernment is the representative of that policy with which
she Noble Lord was identified; that in no respect is their
policy varied from that which was pursued under the Noble
Lord's auspices. I thought that policy would lead to incon-
veniences and injuries, which I understand that it has. If
that policy is to be administered unchanged and un-
mitigated, I !mould rather have it administered by a man
whom we all recognize to be able, and in whose panegyric
all his recent colleagues join. If the Noble Lord at the head of
the Government, indeed, had come forward to-night and
said that experience satisfied him that be had been rash
in prosecuting that policy ; if he would tell us, as we have
seen, that our policy had left us isolated in Europe,
that we found ourselves, at a most critical moment, without
allies—that we found it necessary to take steps which
would place England in a more secure position—we should
at least receive an assurance which would be agreeable to
the nation ; and how far that would be consistent with
their conduct to their late colleagues would be a matter
between them and their consciences. I must make one ob-
servation, also, on the speech of the First Minister. The
Noble Lord, eminent in many respects, was eminent for his
constitutional knowledge—for his acquaintance with the
spirit of the constitution ; but I cannot recollect any ana-
logous occasion on which the name of the Sovereign had
been so frequently introduced.—(Hear, hear.) Whatever
was done at the command of the Sovereign was at least
done on the responsibility of the Noble Lord.- (Hear, hear.)
—and, though it may he explained why it is that minutes
should be read to this House which we are informed have
been drawn up by a personage whose name is rarelyintro-
duced in our debates, I must express my astonishment at
the narrative of midnight dispatches, which were the. con-
sequence, as I understood—though I may have misappre-
hended the meaning of the Noble Lord—of conduct (as we
understood) pursued by the Noble Lord the Member for
Tiverton in matters of an urgent nature. I suppose that
for everything that has been done the Noble Lord the First
Minister is responsible. The Noble Lord is not the man
to dispute his responsibility. lam at a loss to comprehend
how the Noble Lord will account for that introduction of
her Majesty's name, that frequent and unnecessaryintroduc-
tion which has taken place. As lam one who never voted
for the motion that the power of the Crown had increased,
was increasing, and ought to be diminished, as I should be
willing to have the converse of that proposition, as I think
one of the great misfortunes of our time, one of the circum-
stances most injurious to public liberty is, that the power of
the Crown is diminished. I am not one to look with unneces-
sary jealousy on the assertion of the prerogatives of the
Crown. But the Noble Lord is an eminent representative
of a political party which has adopted opinions of a very
different character. The Noble Lord is a member of that
party which introduced—to our disgrace—that resolutionon the Journals of this House, and certainly lam asto-
nished at the Noble Lord on an occasion l ike the present,
when he seems to me—l suppose unintentionally— to have
shifted from himself the responsibility which he would
be the first to adopt for himself.—(Hear, hear.) With
respect to the programme of the session, the sub-
jects are various, the localities are different, nor were
they introduced in a geographical manner.—(A laugh.)
We pass from the Indus to the Pole with a rapidity I have
seldom seen rivalled. Of three Members of the Cabinet
each appears to bare afforded his paragraph ; and the Noble
Lord seemed in turning out the Secretary of State for
Foreign Affairs to have forgotten the arrangement of the
Queen's Speech. I shall only draw attention for the present
to the last paragraph of this State paper:—
"It appears to me that this is a fitting time for calmly
considering whether it may not be advisable to make such
amendments in the Act of the late reign, relating to the
representation of the Commons in Parliament, as may he
deemed calculated to carry into more complete effect the
principles upon which that law is founded."
Without expressing any opinion on the necessity or non-
necessity of what is called Parliamentary Reform, or of
any degree or kind of Parliamentary Reform, I am bound
to say that I cannot agree in the statement that this
appears a "fitting time" for the consideration of that
question.-(Hear, hear.)
It may he a subject which a
alinister may think necessary at a fitting time to bring for-
ward; but when he asks the House to a"rce to a statement
that this is not only a " fitting time" ?or considering such
a subject as the reconstruction of this House, but a fitting
time for calmly considering the subject, it is impossible
not to stop at expressions which I think so inapposite, and
not to ask the House at least to pause before they allow such
expressions to pass unchallenged. From all 1 have heard
to-night—when the continent is in a most disturbed state,
when the Noble Lord himself told us the whole aspect of
circumstances.. relating to the nature and exercise of the
ndicsoarpotrinietsinghad clearly changed within
failed us and experiment distracteadnduse—onthflingdhinitg
ft
ex-
pectationsfranchise
lastch is ef
e wi
on
fyfeoaarl
years,
men at a moment when experience had
!nth;
benecessary to consider the question of Parliamentary reform,
I cannot admit that it is a fitting moment for the calm con-
sideration of the question. —(Hear, hear.) It might be so
if there were an irresistible demand in the community for
measures on the subject, but no one contended that
there existed that circumstance. I will give no opinion
on that subject to-night. I will listen with attention,
and of course with interest, to the Noble Lord if he
favours the House and the country with the reasons which
have convinced him that the immortal measure he not
onlyintroduced but devised in 1830 has failed of the
objects he then thought it would accomplish. I will listen
with attention to the Noble Lord when he lays down the
principles on which he thinks, after twenty years expe-
rience, a new Reform Bill ought to be established, and ex-
plains how all those anomalies of representation of which we
are all sensible may be removed, many of which, it may be
remarked, render our system of representation as practical
as we find it to be. I believe I may say there is no Gentle-
man on this side of the House who is not ready to consider
any change that may be proposed, to supply any well-
proved deficiency in our representation; and I would say
even more, for my friends as well as myself—that there is
no one who insists that the increase of the franchise is the

same as the increase of democratic power. I will cons'der
the proposition of the Minister entirely without prejudice.
I will, with interest, watch the Whig critic of the Whig law.
The Noble Lord could hardly expect, on the other side, any
superstitious feeling in favour of the Reform Law. People
said —" It is a new Magna Charts. You cannot trust the
men who opposed it." My answer will be the speech of the
Noble Author. While I express the most sincere desire to
receive without prejudice any proposition the Noble Lord
may bring forward, I must at the same time ex-
press those sentiments to which I gave utterance last
year, that if 1 fled, under the name and guise of a Reform Bill,
only a reconstruction of this House which is in favour of the

predominance of some political party, which, without that
change, cannot govern this country, I will oppose, and I
believe the whole country will oppose, a device of that kind.
If, also, I were to meet a measure the object of which was
to destroy or even disturb that just and salutary balance
which now subsists between the various classes of the
country—if I saw a measure to destroy the legitimate anti
salutary influence of landed property in this country—the
surest security both of the prerogatives of the Crown and of
the liberties of the people—(hear, hear)—the fear of no im-
putation of being an anti-Reformer would prevent me from
giving such a Bill my determined opposition. I hope the
subject of Parliamentary Reform will not be allowed to divert
the House from subjects of as great importance. I find no
less than two colonies specifically mentioned in her Majesty's
Speech. Is Parliamentary Reform to prevent you from in-
quiring into the Kafir war?—(Hear.) Is it to be an answer
to us if we humbly wish some explanation of that singular
passage in the Speech respecting the constitution of New
Zealand? The House has been so engaged in listening to
the interesting discussion of this evening that its attention
perhaps has been diverted from that remarkable passage. If
there are any colonial reformers in the House I beg their
attention to this extraordinary statement. We are informed
in the Speech that the Act of 1848, for suspending the ope-
ration of a previous Act, conferring representative institu-
tutions on New Zealand, will expire early in the next year.
Of course, we would naturally suppose that in that event
New Zealand would then enjoy those institutions which
they had been so long promised. The Speech proceeds to
say, "I am happy to believe that there is no necessity for
the renewal of the Suspension Act." This must be most sa-
tisfactory to, those who are supporters of representative in-
stitutions in New Zealand. What other inference could you
draw from that paragraph than that, the Act of Suspension
would
being about to cease, the inhabitants of New Zealand
enjoy those representative institutions which were
suspended by that Act ? But what' is the next sentence?
" The form of these institutions will, however, require your
r
consideration. (Hear, hear.) So So that, although you are
an this pompous manner informed
seine for.)
med that the Act of Suspension
is about to cease, at e time it is intimated that
that the Constitution is - not to be enjoyed, but that you
are to consider what those institutions shall be. Will you
allow Parliamentary reform to Preventt you from inquiring
into this comparatively humble, 47e 111 y important ques-
tion ? Are you prepared to consider
whole of the rela-
tions between the mother country and colonies ?
(Hear, hear.) You may rely upon the colonies
no longer with impunity postpone thatyou inquiry.-
can
Year after year your attention has been called to it by-
gen-
tlemen zealous and well informed on this subject, who have
scarcely been able to command a House on the question. 1
need not refer to the Hon. Baronet the Member for South-
wark (Sir W. Molesworth). I do not agree with all or with
many of his views and principles with respect to colonial ad-
ministration; but no one can deny that he never addresses
the House on that subject but in a manner which ought to
command our attention and deepest consideration. Well,
you have destroyed the ancient colonial empire of England.
You have destroyed it in deference to the dogmas of political
economy and of abstract inquiries. Ido not believe that the
country itself has ever approved of that destruction. Ire zret
that 4clicl apt take 411 Actiye part in Qpivgiti94 to it. The

WEDNESDAY

country has been perplexed and has been bewildered. I ask
you to give no opinion now, and 1 am giving none, on the
merits or demerits of the system you destroyed; but this,
Sir, I wish to impress, that while we have destroyed the old
system we have never established a new one.—(Hear, hear.)
We have never distinguished between imperial duties and
municipal rights—we have never settled any of the great
questions on which the material prosperity of any of our
colonies depends. We went on in the infancy of the change
with experiments, until five or six rears ago we had an
illustrious and avowed colonial reformer who took the
scale of office; and what has been the consequence? A Kafir
war.—(hear, hear.) 1 must say that, as the Noble Lord so
easily got rid of one Secretary of State, I wish ho had tried
his hand at some other Secretary of State.—( hear, hear, and
laughter.) Let him take a hint to night. The Noble Lord
is a bold and an adroit man. He can finish the business
with a rapid dexterity which very few of us can rival. Why,
half Europe was kept in alarm by the Secretary of State
which he recently discharged ; and I can fell him that all our
colonies are quite terrified at the other.—(Cheers and
laughter.) Sir, in taking up this remarkable document; and
having travelled with it from Schleswig-Holstein to Ger-
many and Denmark; the Cape of Good Hope, Ireland, and
New Zealand, I was somewhat struck with a strange omie-
eon in the Speech, to whicn I beg the House's attention. I
dare say, even in this age of rapid events, the House can
scarcely have fargotten the circumstances under which it as-
sembled last year. The Noble Lord had written a letter, as
he has written a letter now, and as he always writes a letter
--(Laughter) - but that letter was published. It must still
be fresh in the mind of the House and the country—a letter
of a most passionate character. The Noble Lord appealed to
the deepest sympathies of the country on a subject, not
only of grave, but 1 might say, of eternal interest. The
Noble Lord announced to the people of England that
there had been an insolent and an insidious aggression upon
the Sovereign and the realm of England. Sir, lam not one
of those who criticised that letter of the Noble Lord. Ire- '
gretted that there were expressions in it which hurt the
feelings of large bodies, of her Majesty's subjects, and which
for aught I know might have been misapprehended by them.
It is enough •that the Noble Lord explained those expres-
sions, and the Noble Lord is not one whose truth under any
circumstances I could doubt. But remember that that letter
was addressed virtually to the people of England. Remem-
ber the purport of that letter. Remember what it announced
—to what sympathies it appealed, and what result it was
pledged to. Remember the effect it prodeced on the country
one not equalled by the Reform Bill of 1830, with all its
factitious excitement, and certainly not likely to be equalled
by the Reform Act of 1852. There were no hired agents
going about England to stir up the paesions and convictions
of the people into a response to the letter of the Noble Lord.
There were no messages between Downing-street and Bir-
mingham and Manchester. There were no organized com-
mittees ; but the conviction of the people the indignation of
the nation, in the proudest city and the humblest hamlet, an-
swered that letter of the Noble Lord.—(elear.)
It was quite
clear, then, that a Minister who took a step like that was not
justified in taking it unless he had resolved to act upon it.
Talk of the Noble Lord being a bold man because he dared to
turn out one of the members of he Cabinet ! Why he was
ten times a bolder man when he told the nation that the
Pope of Rome had committed an insolent and insidious ag-
gression on their Sovereign. N't ell, it may be that the Noble
Lord acted from impulse—from the impulse of a high-
spirited and generous gentleman as he is. He may, in a
moment of indignation, have done that which was rash, but
which he might fairly have believed that the feelings, of the
people and of the Parliament of England would have sus-
tained him in doing, if it was not Mechanically wise. But
it was not a rash act. The Noble Lord had three months
to ponder on his course. The Noble Lord met Parliament.
He came forward and addressed us and the country in an
oration equal to the occasion, sustaining his great reputation
and not unworthy of his noble cause ; he gave to the nation
the reasons that bad induced him to take that singular—
that unexpected—that startling step, which for three months
had agitated, without exaggeration i may say had disturbed
and agitated, every hearth in the kingdom. He came to this
table, and told us that he had not acted in haste or in pas-
sion. He made what hat the time ventured to describe as
the most important statement that had for years been
made by a Prime Minister of England. He gave us the
solemn conviction of the Cabinet—of that Cabinet of
which the Noble Lord the Member for Tiverton (Lord
Palmerston) was a member—that there was an orga-
nised conspiracy against the Protestant liberties of Eng-
land and of Europe, and that he was determined to baffle
the conspirators, and to look to the people and the Parlia:
ment of England, without respect to parties, to support him
in his endeavours. With this conviction, and not acting
from impulse, but from the statesmanlike conclusion of a
man worthy to lead this empire, the Noble Lord gave us the
convictions of his Cabinet, and brought forward the measure
which was to meet this all-surpassing emergency. I will
not make any observations now on the measure of the Go-
vernment—a measure that was heralded by the memorable
letter of November—on a measure which was introduced on
the deeply-considered, elaborately-matured, and most im-
portant declaration of the Premier of England. I voted for
that measure; for there was no other means of expressing,
even in the moat nugatory manner, the feelings of the House
of Commons on the subject. But I ventured, then, to de-
nounce that measure as paltry and most inefficient, and as
and the , one the least calculated to cope with
as one the least worthy of the cause and the man ever
devised and brought forward in Parliament. I, on the
part of many with whom I have the honour to act,
ventured to express the principle upon which the proper
measure' ought to be founded. I said the measure pro-
posed by the Noble. , Lord asserted and vindicated no
Principle that it did not bring the hierarchies of
the Roman Catholic Church in Great Britain within the
grasp of the, law. ' Tne Noble Lord, however, notwith-
standing his portentous annoucement that there was, ac-
cording to the conviction of his Cabinet, a conspiracy
throughout Europe against the Protestant liberties of Eng-
land, the Noble Lord persisted in his measure. I did not
doubt the statement of the Noble Lord at the time. , I am
sure that no man in the position, with the character and the
abilities of the Noble Lord, could in his place in Parliament
have made such' a statement to the country unless he was
profoundly convinced of its truth. lam sure that on that
occasion, instead of exaggerating, he placed before the House
and the country, I should say, the calmest expression of
what his Government felt. Well, now, I ask the Noble Lord
what has been the fate of the Bill which he persisted in car-
rying through the Perliament ?—(Hear, hear.) has it vin-
dicates]. the outrage which was offered to the Sovereign and
her kingdom ? has it punished the insolent aggression?
Has it baffled that great European conspiracy against
the realm of England and the Protestant faith ? Why,
we all know that it has been treated with con-
tumely which cannot be expressed, and with derision which
I think was nierited.—(Hear, hear.) We know that from the
first in Ireland it was publicly announced that it would be
treated as a dead letter. But we may be told that Protes-
tantism is weak in Ireland—that Ireland is always to be re-
garded with peculiar consideration—that it was never in-
tended to check in that country the indulgence in these ille•
gitimate pranks—that the honour of England at least has
been vindicated—that the great Cardinal has been put in the
, position which he deserved. But the great Cardinal,
ashore
the Noble Lord recommended, in a manner which I think
was scarcely as dignified as his usual tone, to quit England,
has not quitted England, but I find him advertised in the
newspapers as the Lord Cardinal—the Lord Archbishop. of
Westminster.—(Hear, hear.) And I have had other in-
stances brought under my notice which prove, not only that
the law has been evaded, but that it has been as
flagrantly
set at nought in England as it had been in Ireland, and that
recently, just as Pailiament was going to meet,just as if they
meant to show before Parliament met again how they were
determined to have come synodical action, there had taken
place an aggregate assemblage of the bishops of the Vatican,
to give a kind of response to the letter of the Noble Lord.
Well, but I see no mention of all this in the Queen's Speech
—no notice whatever of that which farmed so prominent a part
of the Royal Speech last year—nothing about the insolent
aggression, or the insidious conspiracy
it was our duty to
baffle, and which were the great topics of interest last year.
Here we find not a single syllable about all this; and surely
with regard to such an omission 1 may ask the Noble Lord
what the intentions of the Government are? Do they mean,
as the only measure theyhave
adopted as failed in accom-
plishing their object—do they
mean to have recourse to
some other measure? Do you mean to propose some new
law to Parliament in place of that which last year we were
told was not only necessary but indispenable?—(Hear, hear.)
Is it found that the aggression
was not insolent, and that
there was no conspiracy against the Protestant faith ?
( Hear; hear.) The.ean'oble Lord his bound to give us infor-
mation as to whlYish bobiamsdchangeg his opinion. It is a sub-
ject on which to
speak frankly to the people if
hear.)
langland.—(lle3r't last
his we
anything occurred to induce
him to believe tha
In
.isear we were rash and ill-advised?
—(Hear, hear.) n Place at this table, in the most
solemn manner, after opportunity for the deepest con-
sideration, the No f
the Cabineted this country that it was
in the knowledge o
tant that there was a conspiracy
against the ProteaLord fafthand liberties of Eng-
land. Has the Noble
ddiscovered that he was mistaken?
Until the Noble Lor comes forward with that information,
my opinion from those means of
I, like others, must form
public instruction and private information that are open to
all. I don't see anything. in the occurrences of Europe to
ambitious--Hear, bear
that me that ls less
that the designs of the Papalthe_ Court are more mitigated-
-( Hear, hear)—or that Vatican has experienced such
defeats that she no longer means to claim thie realm of Eng-
land, which the Noble Lord last year told us she aspired to
—( Hear, hear.) Every place where the influence of Rome
can be traced, we find Whatot Only Successful but para-
mount.—(Elear, hpr.) iswhheart conduct in Ireland—
(ear hear)—or in England, or
course does she adopt
mother countries? In every place she exhibits the stamp
the national ear how
of sapremaey.—(Hear, hear. ) If the Noble •
he does not think fit,
Lord was justi-
fied last year in sounding the tocsin in
or in the speech of the
does it happp that ou this
either by intimation from the Throne
P—(llear hear.)
Minister, to say
antisahing on
teestbjt
'tan, and to in-
I think we have ght to p upon er
quire in a manner that . cannot h
what they ace ,
afisllepd_restehnet
es mistaken of
her • Majesty's Ministers,
Hea r
to change the murky convictions 'which
public mind during the last year ?—(
personall Lord said he would confine himself to-Sightg himself t ° the
p question ; but, instead of confinin
personal question, the Noble Lord has traversed not ° I
the relations with
all Europe politics but America too.—(Hear, hear. ) Tolaneryt3
were not the pof a single court, nor
n--that
a single country, that the Noble Lord did not touch upon
and enlighten the House, with one exceptio
cy
Court of Rome which last year he said had committed
insolent aggression on the Queen, and engaged in a cone ira
against our liberties:(Hear.) As to the subject of Ireplana,
I am not going to enter into any long discussion
upon that
unhappy country, which lam sure, ere long, Will
elicit our
consideration.—(Hear, hear.) It appears that some counties
are the scenes of outrages of the mos serious description.nted
necessit for
--(Hear, hear.) I must say lam extremely disappointed
in what has occurred in Ireland, and at the
Paragraph.—
introducing in her Majesty's Speech thisY
aw and
(Cries of " Hear, hear.") Considering the
oirtrrt her
Majesty's Government take in
a considerable
order"—(Laughter)—and considering that onemember alone
of the Government has expended
law and order" Sum out of
t mortifying
his own pocket to :secure
must
almostbe mostrelu requires
—it is extremely disappointing to England, a;d( aughter)
he
eounding to
to the House of Commons, and
a Coercion
should find
Lord Clarendon, that after such an investment
so many counties in a state that
subject
on wh•
Act.—(Hear, hear.) That is a ten we require
ilea .
r•) The investment of • some information.—(llear,
of the capi-
tal, if confined to the private revenuet
Viceroy,. is one
were a public
that for his sake I regret, but if Q
_s
__ investment
the aeen' Speech seems for public objects, certainly
(Hear, hear.) to
prove that it was a sorry one.—
that ' There is an-
othert notice, and is the absence
of point that I cannot bu
you sympathise • e
of any expression to show that oil.— (Hes with the
difficulties of the cultivators of the
should noticer'hear, from
the Protectionists.) At least you
it_being b i acknowledged—
last them. Two
years ago these were noticed witlot nowledged--
last year they were sympathisedwith.—(Hear, hear.) I
am not aware that any mitigatory circumstances can now be
appealed to. lam not aware of any changeof
of such import-
anee in the condition of the cultivators
the soil as would
authorise a Minister who had established
noticing the state of their fortunes in omitting them from
the Queen's Speech this year.—( Hear, hear.) It might be a
question, with the peculiar opinions of the Noble Lord and
' hi•O colleaggea, to wake that acknoyflocigulea And au that

EVENING,

sympathy which ho has done on more than one occasion;
but having established that salutary precedent, I think the
Noble Lord is bound to inform us what are the reasons that
this omission has occurred, as well as the omission of any
notice of the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill.—(Hear, hear.) Not-
withstanding some petty and mitigatory circumstances, I be-
lieve there is still the same strain upon the energies, and
the same drain upon the capital of the cultivators of the soil.
—(Hear, hear, from the Protectionist Members.) That has
been occasioned by our legislation, and as we have occasioned
it by our legislation, we are bound to consider whether by
our legislation we cannot remove it.—(Hear, hear.) I am
told there is a slight rise in prices—an extreme Free-trader
told me with great exultation that wheat is rising. Now, I
never connected this subject with price.—(Hear.) 1 think
that is a question with which we have nothing to say.
You have chosen by your law to place the country and
its soil in competition with the cultivator of the soil
of other countries. We bow to your decision. You place
the British cultivator in illimitable competition with other
cultivators, but take care that you place him in com-
petition with them on equal terms.—(Hear, hear.) If there
be an inequality, take care it is not produced by your legis-
lation.—(Rear, hear.) I observe to-day a new edition of a
treatise upon taxation, written by one of our most eminent
writers and unmitigated Free-traders. Mr. M'Culloch
having examined our isolated system of free trade in grain,
consummated in 1849—having done so with all the ability
which distinguishes him, and with as much impartiality as
an unqualified Free-trader can on such a subject command
—expresses, in the year 1852, his opinion that the culti-
vator of the soil is subjected to unjust taxation, which no
other class of the community shares, and to restrictions on his
industry which are peculiar only to him.—(Hear, hear.)
Taking into consideration our past and artificial system of
finance, he says it is almost impossible to adjust the
taxation with any degree of equality that will free the
cultivator from those restrictions with any due consideration
to our revenue. He gives it as his deliberate opinion that
the proper, just, and scientific means by which a fair adjust-
ment can be arrived at, are countervailing duties; but at
the same time he says, though those are just, still the oppor-
tunity- is lost, and the cultivator of the soil, in the present
state of the country, must submit to the grievance under
which he groans.—( Hear.) That is the political morality of
a political economist. —(Hear, hear, and laughter.) If the
data of Mr. M'Culloch be correct, I say the consequence that
he draws from them is an immoral consequence.—(Hear,
hear.) I say that the legislation that is founded upon
them is an immoral legislation.—(Hear, hear.) If it be
the conviction of Parliament that any class of producers

s subject to unjust taxation, and that they are to con-
tinue subject to it that another class of the community
may be benefited by that taxation, they act immorally
in upholding that system. (Hear, hear.) It is confisca-
tion in another guise—it is robbery under the formulary
of political economy.— (Hear, hear.) And who are the
parties thus treated ? They are the most important and the
most numerous portion of the middle classes.— (Hear.) The
farmers of the United Kingdom are the greatest employers
of labour that we have.—(Hear, hear.) If there be any class
more than another entitled to consideration in the adjust-
ment of taxation, it is those very cultivators of the soil.—
(Hear.) And yet those are the people whose claims you
have neglected.—(Hear.) With the power and prosperity
of the middle classes the greatness of England is inseparably
united. Not only in this country but elsewhere, the legiti-
mate position of that class is one that must be looked upon
with interest by all those who look forward to the progressive
freedom and civilization of man.—(Hear, hear.) Let me re-
mind you that of that middle class the cultivators of the soil
form a considerable portion.—(Hear, hear.) Gentlemen on
the opposite side of the House should not arrogate to them-
selves all the influence and authority of the middle classes.
—(Hear, hear.) There are as many gentlemen on this side
of the House who owe their position to the middle classes as
upon the other.—(Hear.) I owe my seat to the middle
classes—the farmers of England sent me here, and therefore
I protest against those sneers that have been too long directed
against them.—(Hear, hear.) I ask again, are you prepared
to go on with this system of injustice, to strain illegitimately
the energies, and to drain unlawfully the resources of this
most important producing class of the community ?—(Hear.)
If it be true that you have put unjust restrictions on their
industry, and inflicted upon them injustice that no other
class experiences, is it not your duty to come forward and
investigate the subject? And if you cannot relieve them
from restrictions they find so injurious, and from taxes you
acknowledge to be so unjust, you should, in the construction
of your financial system, give them that countervailing pro-
tection that is their due, on a fair consideration of the sub-
ject. Last year we were told that the country generally was
flourishing, that our foreign commerce was vastly improved,
and that the imports and exports of the country had been in-
creased by our legislation; but it is a very remarkable cir-
cumstance that in the Queen's Speech this year we have no
paragraph congratulating the House of Commons on the
general prosperity of the country.—(Hear, hear.) If the
present system be carried on, by failures amongst the com-
mercial body that have not been equalled since the year
1847, you must remember this, that you are at the same time
diminishing the commercial capital of the country as well as
the agricultural.—(Hear, hear.) If it be true that in Liver-
pool alone, the merchants have lost of their capital
nearly 7,000,0001. sterling, it follows that if commercial and
agricultural capital are both in this situation, the employ-
ment of labour must be diminished, and the loss must
ultimately fall on the working classes.—(Hear, hear.) Is
this a.time to encourage in the country the war—of class
against class ?—(Hear, hear.) lam not going to enter into
any of those high discussions of policy which the Noble
Lord in his first speech this evening so lavishly indulged
in.—(Hear, hear.) I am perfectly willing to believe
that no possible danger can occur, and that the world is
governed by the principles of peace, though we are going to
increase our armament—(Hear, hear)—but no one can deny
that not only in this country, but throughout Europe, there
is a feeling of apprehension, which I trust may not be justi-
fled.—( Hear, hear.) Who are to sustain us if we are exposed
to war and peril ? We are told by a national poet that so
long as England is true to herself she has no need of appre-
hension ; but is England true to herself, when, under the
plea of passing class legislation, an unjust war is waged upon
one of the most important classes of her Majesty's subjects ?
Is England true to herself when she reminds one body of the
producers of the country that they are to look upon another
body of the producers
.as enemies ? I see the cultivators of
the soil, year after year, after all the exertion of energy
and the sacrifice of capital, growing poorer and poorer.
I see the list of bankrupt merchants,and I see secret societies
amalgamated with mechanics. I see every class placed
against each other • and what are we to do if our condition
becomes one of perilous isolation ?—(Hear, hear.) If we see
arrayed against us, whether on political grounds or, as the
Noble Lord told us, from religious sentiment, all the nation-
alities of Europe, where is there the appearance of that
united England that was the boast of our forefathers and the
bulwark of the country?—(Hear, hear.) No political system
can be sound which has resulttid in circumstances so menac-
ing and ruinous.—(Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord is about
to reconstruct our Constitution. May he j.te more fortunate
than in his first enterprise. Twenty years of reform hare
lett this country in circumstances which no statesman can
disregard, viz., an internal war of interests and a total want
of sympathy between the different classes of the people. The
.Noble Lord will be a greater statesman than I give him cre-
dit for being, if on the 9th of this month he shall- propose a
measure which will terminate that opposition of interests
which at present prevails.—(llear, hear, and cheers.)
Mr. GRATTAN was sorry that he could not offer his con-
gratulations to the Noble Lord at the head of the Govern-
ment for the manner in which the government of Ireland
had been carried on nnder his Administration. During the
five or six years of a Whig Ministry, the middle classes of
the people of Ireland had been driven from the country, and
poverty had spread through all ranks. The Noble Lord, in
blinding to three counties in Ireland, had stigmatised the in-
habitants as assassins. Now, why did he not bring some
proof of that charge? He had not alleged one tittle of evi-
dence in support of his accusations, but he had merely suc-
ceeded in showing the exceedingly ill manner in which the
country was governed. The Protestant Church of Ireland
was a great crying injustice, and ought to be immedi-
ately abolished. and the case was made worse by the system
of proselytism that was going on. Ireland required to be go-
verned by maxims of common sense, and not by setting its
different classes at war with one another.
Lord J. RUSSELL said that there had been three points
mentioned in the course of the debate, upon which the House
might allow him to afford some brief explanation. The
first matter which he wished to noiice was a statement of
the Noble Lord the Member for Tiverton. The Noble Lord
had told Lord Normanby that the conversation to which al-
lusion was made was not to be considered as an official con-

versation ; but it would appear by the Noble Lord's state-
ment as if he (Lord John Russell) had also expressed a si-
milar opinion to his own. (He (Lord J. Russell) had asked
Walewski if he could remember what had passed on the
occasion referred to, and the answer he had received from
that gentleman on three several times was that he could not
recollect any expression that bad been used to the effect
stated. So that it appeared the Noble Lord spoke only from
a vague recollection of the phrase used by him (Lord J. Rus-
sull). An Hon. and Learned Member had asked why the
Government did not proceed at once to introduce measures
founded on the failure of the Special Commission in Ire-
land? His answer to that qtiestion was very simple—
namely, that, that iCommission was not yet concluded,
and when it was, they should certainly take such mea-
..

sures as the failure of that Commission might render
necessary; but they should be wanting in their duty if
they were to introduce any measure upon the subject
at present, until they saw before them the result of the
trials, and heard the opinions of the judges. He did

not, therefore, think that, without some greater neces-
sity than the Government had now before them, any Bill
was called for in the present state of the law. For his own
part he looked with confidence to the constabulary and mili-
tary as an efficacious means of preventing those offences.
The. Honourable Member for Buckinghamshire had spoken

at some length with regard to the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill
of last year. His (Lord J. Russell's) opinion was that that
measure was sufficient for the occasion, that it was aimed at

—......... . .... .
the mischief which it sought to remedy, and that it would be
unwise to extend that remedy. When the Hon. Gentleman
asked what that Act had done, his (Lord:John Russell's)
reply was, that it had done what it was intended to do, be-
cause it had prevented the offence which it sought to put
down. It was to be remembered that the offence was not
that some person called another the Archbishop of Dublin or
of Tuam, but it consisted in certain persons taking upon
themselves those titles who had not a right in law to assume
them. He (Lord J. Russell) heard an instance of one of
those bishops having signed simply his name and sur-
name to a letter addressed to a Dublin newspaper, but
on the appearance of the paper containing his letter
he found that the printer had appended his title
to his name. He (Lord John Russell) there-
fore submitted that the appearances of the Act having been
violated were fallacious. He thought it would not be neces-
sary to have recourse to any further legislation, looking ais
he did to the hopeful circumstance of the greater portion of
the most intelligent of the Roman Catholics of Ireland.
adopting the system of mixed education, and allowing their
sons to attend the Queen's Colleges in that part of the king.
dom. Although it had been frequently said, and said by
the Hon. Member for Bucks, that the landed portion of the
community were suffering great injustice, thethiltonourable
Member had never persuaded the HOLM that a was the
case.' With regard to the countervailing y
which Mr.
M'Culloch said they ought to have, Ur. M C Hoch was no
doubt perfectly right when he said thatdthite for a Axed
duty on foreign corn had gone by ;au was certainly a
most remarkable thing that in 1841 Lord Stanley treated
with the greatest contempt and scornpitalicees,ptrhopeoNsiotibolne
Lord
frad
duty of Bs. a quarter on corn, which he said was an insult to
the agricultural interest of this country ; and yet, in 1850,
at Merchant Tailors' Hall,
so much co
stated that the great object which the landed interest had
and other
at heart was a fixed duty of little more than half of what he
had previously treated with
With regard to V$ bat fell from the Hon. and Learned Mem'.
her for Sheffield as to the sta.e of the Government, the state
no
twue 81
contempt.—(cheers.)
Pe
t .e
otherslu : de ha
te
moreer sa
.nyl
time, if they wished, withdraw their confidence, from the pre-
of the Government was seueacnnhedet,hiaftantthhdeerHevih
Government--
if n m thought
ent
_
tohne Gtohveoernm ment would be
seennttitleAdlintisoterthoefirCroteooswonnfi;
dca4ridye,
that decision. They sought only to do
mirttheolletdriheryediliatoc:yulbesewouvilisathhtedt°oruelsdpect to the several f.mbjects which they
1
office, brought tebreefarawaf nothing So inAivittrngthor°-te
delightful
tha
inY Allhadittilt

1852.

belonging to office which should render them unwilling to
submit to that decision. But all he asked was for a clear
course on those subjects; and if the House was disposed to
support the present Ministers, and would enable them to
carry on the Government of the country, he trusted it would
come to a decision at once. It was hardly becoming the abili-
ties, and the station, and the talents of the Hon, and Learned
Member for Sheffield to use the jargon lie had
done with respect to the capacity of some members
of the Government. He (Lord J. Russell) would remind
the Honourable and Learned
.Gentleman that the Noble Lord
at the head of Foreign Affairs had shown great
,talent in
conducting the business entrusted to him in the other House
of Parliament. Then he (Lord John Russell) was surprised
to find it said that because his great grandmother was the
sister of the Noble Lord's great grandfather (Laughter)--
it must have been for that reason that he (Lord John
Russell) had recommended the Noble Lord to the office of
Secretary for Foreign Affairs. He (Lord John Russell)
had certainly great respect for the memory of his great
grandmother—(A laugh)—but it was certainly not for that
reason that he had recommended the Noble Lord to her
Majesty as a person qualified to discharge the duties of that
office— (Hear, hear.) It did so happen that there was a
near connexion of his (Lord John Russell's) own who held
the office of Privy Seal. That was a Noble Lord who was
placed by Lord Melbourne at the head of the Admiralty, and
was at one time recommended by Lord Grey to hold the
office of Foreign Secretary ; and it would be rather absurd to
say to him that he was never to belong to the Cabinet because
he was connected with him (Lord J. Russell) by marriage.
But the real question was, whether the persons who filled
offices in the Government were competent.—( Hear, hear.)
If the House thought them competent, and would extend its
confidence to them, they would endeavour to discharge their
duty in carrying on the Government of the country; if
otherwise, it was desirable that the House should at once
come to a decision upon the point.---(Hear, hear.)
After a few words from Colonel SIBTHORP
111 r. WHITESIDE said his Honourable 'and Learned
Friend (Mr. Napier) had not stated that it was necessary to
have a coercion or insurrection Act for Ireland. On the con-
trary, he said the law of the land
would be sufficient, if
properly administered. He (Mr. Whiteside) had been for
nineteen years on the northern circuit, and at no period
of his experience had the counties of Monaghan, Armagh,
and Louth been in the condition in which theynow were., The arm of the assassin was sure and strong, and the arc
of justice was paralyzed. All he asked was, that the law might
be administered by earnest, sincere, competent and conscien-
tious men, so that honest men might live, and punishment
overtake the guilty. He, therefore, cohsidered himself jus-
tified in asking the interposition of the House.—(Hear.)
Sir GEORGE GREY said that, instead of spreading over
the whole of three counties, the language of the Speech was
quite accurate in stating that the outrages were confined to
. certain districts in those counties, and hecould, necesrary,
name the seven baronies in which the outrages existed. If
the Honourable and Learned Gentleman meant to impugn
the conduct of the Irish Government by saying an honest ,
attempt had not been made to enforce the powers vested in
the Lord-Lieutenant, he (Sir G. Grey) should be ready to
demonstrate on a future occasion that he was labouring
under a misapprehension. He trusted that the powers of
the law now in existence, and in the course of execution,
would be sufficient; but no pledge had been given that, if
they should prove insufficient, an application would not be
made to Parliament for additional powers.—(Hear, hear.)
The Address was then agreed to, and the House adjourned
at a Quarter before One o'clock until a Quarter before Four
this day (Wednesday).

HOUSE OF LORDS, Feb. 3.
The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the Woolsack
shortly before Five o'clock.

There was but a very thin -attendance of Peers. The
Early of Derby and Lord Brougham occupied their
usual seats on the Opposition benches. The Duke of
Richmond, the Marquis of Normanby, and Lord Lynd-
hurst were also in their places.
Earl Grey, who was early in attendance, laid some
papers on the table relative to the Cape. Lord Minto,
the Earl of Carlisle, and the Marquis of Clanricarde,
were the only other members of the Government we ob-
served on the Treasury bench.