The Sun.
London, England, 1849-02-03 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, FEBRUARY 3, 1849,

fee neon be entertained by those who advocated
era e new system that the old one would be
adopted; but he wished to ask the Hon. Gentleman who
bad talked so loud in favour of the new course of policy,
who rejoiced that yesterday the duties upon food were prac-
tically at an end, why those duties were alone made the
object of reform? W.hy, he asked, when they heard so mach
about the poor man's loaf; did they hear nothing about the
poor man's loaf and the poor man's slice of cheese.--( t,
hear.) He put this question to those consistent politicians,
those free-trade economists, and disciples of the new
school, which advocated the abolition of protective duties
the
'o the retrenchment of the national expenses, why, in
‘ootBe of last session, when they had commenced their agita.
agita-
tlba, their voices were not raised in behalf of_ the poor
meet's butter and the poor man's slice of cheese?—
(Hear, hear.) They made no effort to cheapen these
articles, and allowed the Chancellor of the Exchequer to
swell his budget by their aid. Sharp accountants as they
were, how he would ask were they to get the 300,0001. ob-
tained by the sliding duties scale which expired yesterday?
Did they think, though 5-6ths of the duty were paid by the
foreigner, that the people of this country would
be scared by a name, and which never could be
more, than a name and a delusion, from going back
to the system which had afforded a fair return for
their produce—by the adoption of a moderate system of
import duties? The free-trader looked not to the interest of
the consumer, but the Protectionists looked to the in-
terest of both producer and consumer. They could
not forget the magnitude of the interests in-
volved, and the claims of their old labouring
poor, and they were desirous of meeting the heavy charges
by framing taxation in accordance with a statesmanlike
system, and not in accordance with an impracticable theory.
They must remember that they had assiduously endea-
voured to establish a system in which all duties on imports
or for excise were to be done away with. It remained yet to
be seen how far those who had been so ready to destroy a
system, would be able to re-establish the means by which
the several departments of the Government were to be sup-
ported.—(Hear, hear.) They must recollect that if they
had in their endeavour to carry out certain theories
developed certain principles, and set themselves against
anything like protection, they might very probably have to
resist the application of these principles against themselves.
The farmers were considering even at the present time what
to them was the advantage of an expensive Government,
and when asked to look into the advantages which they en-
joyed, they merely replied that they had nothing to attend
to but cheapness ; and he had to inform the gentlemen
opposite that there was even now a coalition among them,
sot weak, nor destitute of•those elements of combined opera-
tion the evil effects of which they had so fatally expe-
rienced. He was himself about to attend a great public
_meeting in which the consideration of the retention of the
malt tax would be actively taken up, in which those present
would energeticallydiscuss the whole principles of import duties.
When asked to look at the importance of our colonial empire,
they replied what was the colonial empire to them, for they
.found. that the colonies were, in many respects, protected
-even against themselves. In making this assertion, they
were, undoubtedly, going upon high ground. They had
themselves set the example of attacking protection, and must
expect that the arguments which they had so fluently used
would be retorted with equal force and good will.
.gonourable Gentlemen would recollect that some time ago
a considerable quantity of tabacco was grown in Ireland, and
in some of the districts of England. But this growth had
bees stopped, and the home consumer had been sacrificed, in
order to secure what had been deemed an unjust monopoly
for the colonial producer. Was it not natural, then, that
when this sacrifice had been made for the sake of revenue
the home farmer should believe that there was as
little consistency as prudence in their opponents-
So long as we were to keep our invaluable, but at the same
time our expensive form of government, so long, he con-
tended, must we be able to levy taxes sufficient to meet the
expenses of the Government, and also those of the public
creditor, which we could not do unless Ministers returned
to the system which they professed to denounce.
For them to be scared by the term " protection," or to be in-
'ited by the term " free-trade "—to form their financial sys-
tem on such a theory as they had promulgated—was not
compatible with the institutions of this country. With re-
specs to the relief of the poor in Ireland, he had heard with
aerprise and very great regret that it was not the intention
of the Government to propound any measure, not even to lay
down the principles of any measure ; but, instead of that,
they. proposed to throw the whole thing before a Committee
of Irish Members, which was anything but statesmanlike,
wanly, or bold for the Government to do at the commence-
ment of) the session. With regard to the poor-law, whether
the area be larger or smaller, the question was considered to be
one at all events of first-rate importance. He wes not going to
discuss that question now. If there was-one subject more than
imethewon wtileli the Governmeet could obtain accurate and
decisive information, it would be the very one subject on which
Ministers now declined to legislate. He maintained the Com-
mi.mion, and the Government through the Commission, was
in full possession of the public opinion, either for or against
the diminution of the area of taxation ; and as far as in-
formation went, at the rising of that Commission, no
snore valuable information could be obtained then
that which was at present before the House.
Any measure which might be proposed ought to be of im-
mediate efficacy to Ireland, or it should not be passed by the
House. It appeared that the Government had merle up
their mind to enlarge the area of taxation, but what he
called upon them to do was to stato to the House how
far they were prepared to stand by the Irish Poor-law.
Many opinions had been expressed on the subject. A very
influential journal in Ireland protested against the relief of
the able-bodied poor. There was a strong feeling among
the clergy that the system of tithe commutation should be
different to what it was ; and, again, there was a large
class who were of opinion that the burden of
taxatlen should fall entirely upon the landlord.
Hee-therefore, would ask the Government not to let another
postteout-to-Ireland before they stated how far they were
able to- stand by the principle of the poor-law, what conces-
sions they were prepared to give, and what principles they
were willing to maintain.—(Hear.) He understood they
could not bring forward any measure because the Government
were not united in opinion upon the Irish poor-law, and
'therefore he charged them not to resort to the miserable
etsnae that it was impossible to legislate when Irish Mem-
here could not agree on the subject.—(Hear, hear.) The
best way to act for the welfare of Ireland would be for
some member of the Government to come forward;in a states-
manlike manner with some definite proposition, and wait
the issue whatever it might be.—( Hear, hear.) They could
bring forward coercive and restrictive measures without re-
ferring the matter to any Committee, and why could such a
coarse not be adopted with regard to the poor-law? The
fact was the Government were not united,- and in order
to shift the responsibility from their own shoulders they pro-
posed the appointment of a Committee.—(Hear, hear)
With regard to the points of the amendment, he had already
trespassed too long upon the time of the House to say much
upon them ; but with regard to the foreign policy of the
corebry, he must be allowed to express his regret that
the Speech from the Throne did not contain the custo-
mary paragraph, stating that her Majesty still continued
to receive assurances of friendship from her various foreign
alies.—(Hear, hear.) With regard to colonial matters,
after the very grave charge which the -Hon. Gentleman
the Member for Montrose had made against the Noble
Lord at the head of that department, he should
be very much ,suprised if the Honourable Gentleman
did not follow up that charge; while if the
Hon. Gentlemen succeeded in turning out the present Secre-
tary-he appteheitiled that the Noble Lord who at present
filled that office would be quite ready to admit that the co-
lonies had grown too extensive to be governed properly by a
single department.—(Hear, hear.) He voted for the amend-
ment of his Hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire
because • he felt that when other interests were mentioned,
the oldest and largest interest ought not to have been omitted
from the Speech. Either the agricultural interest was flourish-
ing, and ought to have been a matter for congratulation ; or the
agricultural interest was suffering, and ought to have been a
snbject of condolence; but at this time, because they could say
nothing congratulatory, her Majesty's Government had deter-
mined to say nothing in the way of sympathy. That was
treatment which, he thought, the farmers of England had no
right to expect from the first Minister of the Crown. That was
not the course which the representatives of the agricultural
iritarost could allow to pass unnoticed, and therefore they
Lad s right to propose this amendment. The agricultural
Interest had a claim to the sympathy of the Legislature, and
those who conceded that claim would vote for the amend-
ment, while those who were indifferent as to whether the
Itrieultural interest was flourishing or in dill-
cnities would no doubt vote against it. But let
aria tell the House and the Government that the
farmers would experience the deepest regret when
they found no sympathy prevailed in thlit, House
fereheir sufferings; but notwithstanding the abuse which
bad eenheaped upon them, notwithstanding they were consi-
deredh lit fallen interest, they still had the means of making
their representatives understand their feelings—they still
had the means of punishing the silence of those who showed
themselves indifferent to their interest.—(Hear, hear.)
Sir W. SOMERVILLE said, after the extraordinary
statements of the Hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, the
House would perhaps allow him to say a few words upon the
subject of the Irish pooneaw, to which the Hon. Gentleman
bad ,so often referred. The Hon. Gentleman accused the
Government of tampering and trifling with the
question,
but how could the Hon. Gentleman sustain that charge,
when, it was remembered that the course the Governmentge
pursued on this very question last session met with
almost the entire approval of all
the
ee
alprpoishintteenintbeorfs
for delay
Government asked themslbject unlfoiuntandYatiolanadforreithveeidr the
on the
Committee
a:blae Gentleman taunted them
with of a CommissionH
Honourable in-
quiries. But the
denounced them because
nth
with indecision, and”r did
upon the question, by enlarging
not at once enter let him remind or
taxation ; but Hon. Genes
reducing the area of
maters connected with the Irish
tlemen that there were other
than the area of rating. Go.
poor-taw of more importance
keep the promise they made
**ernment had determined to
last session, that at the commencement of the present session
f a Comttee
they would concede the appointment o miim
e immense poon this
rtance
subjeee, and looking at the
objection
Th overn-
of the question, he could not see
what
could be advanced against that course. e
Govern-
ment were perfectly ready to propose any measures
which were likely to be calculated to alleviate the suf-
ferings of the people. With respect to what had been said
concerning the Irish Poor law Committee he had
to reply, that it was not usually understood that
the members of the Committees entered upon the task with
a determination to be unanimous. No ; they entered upon
the investigation for the purpose of hearing and collecting
the best evidence, upon which they arrived at a re-
milt. He confessed he was surprised to hear the exagge-
rated statements of 3lr. Grattan. That Honourable and
Learned Gentleman had said he was :a ruined ntan.—(Roars
of laughter.)
Mr. GRATTAN (jumping up, and with much emphasis)—
no.—(Laughten )
Sir W. SOMERVILLE thought he heard the Mon. and
Learned Gentleman say that if he was a younger man he
would go away from Ireland, as staying would lead to his
becoming a ruined man.
Mr. GRATTAN—Hear, hear.
Sir W. SOMERVILLE—Now what did the House think
was the rate of taxation in Celbridge,:the union with which
the lion. Gentleman was connected—the rate was 73/4d. in
the pound--(Roars of laughter.)
• Mr. GRATTAN (raising his eyes and hands aloft)—Oh I
f—(Laughter.)
Sir W. SOMERVILLE—The expenditure was 71-d. in the
ppund, so that the Celbridge Union had now money in
the bank. The Honourable and Learned Gentleman
also Said that 400,000 able-bodied men could not obtain em-
ployment, and that they were receiving rations of one
penny a day : now this was an erroneous statement, since
the highest numberi tiring the year in the receipt of
relief was 65,000.—(Hear, hear.) He thought he had
a right to complain of these exaggerated statements,
statements which were eminently calculated to give English
Ontlemen erroneous information as to the real state of
Ireland. He was bound to state that there were
many parts of Ireland in which the people
were not so poverty-stricken as was represented.
Mr. GRATTAN explained. Thank God, he was not an
Irish Secretary.—(Cheers.) The rates in the Celbridge
Union, which were voluntarily contributed to by many of
the landlords, amounted to ls. 3d. in the pound. They taxed
themselves, and got rid of the fine gentleman the

Government had sent over from Downing-street. Colonel
Conolly, whose death he deplored, Lord Cloncurry, Mr. Kil-
patick, and several others contributed sums of 101., 81., and
6/. for this purpose, and one person employed 38 persons upon
a piece of land of 20 acres, which showed what Irishmen could
do when they liked.
Sir JOHN WALSH blamed the Government for not de-
vising, ere the meeting of Parliament, measures to remedy
the defects in the present poor-law. They must bear in
mind that the condition of Ireland had been altogether
changed since last year. Had not this change taken place,
the charge of the Hon. Baronet might be well founded.
On that occasion the Right Honourable Gentleman
the Secretary for the Home Department had stated
that, in his opinion, he and his friends had only
wished to get rid, by a side wind, of the con-
sideration of the poor-law altogether; they might retort
the same accusation, for truly they had more reason to en-
tertain a similar apprehension. A Committee, in the hands
of a dexterous politician, was of all things the
most useful and convenient machine in the world,
for postponing the consideration of any question whatever.
Not that he, and, those who acted with him, would oppose
a Committee. On the contrary they would do all in their
power to promote the object of the Ministers, but they could
not help feeling that the Government ought to be in the
present receipt of sufficient information to proceed to a de-
cision without any further delay.—(Hear, hear. )
This was a matter which could not be postponed for a
year for the simple object of getting at a
conclusion which might already be given. There was a
great and growing evil, which ought to be instantly met.
He would now allude to a matter, which during the last
session had excited much attention, and to which the
Noble Lord at the head of the Government had given
at that time what, he must say, he thought an insufficient but
an evasive reply. The Noble Lord on that occasion stated
three grounds to justify the presence of the British fleet in
the Bay of Naples; the first was an alleged violation of the
flag of this country—some Neapolitan ships of war having, it
was said, shown the English flag to deceive and capture Si-
cilian vessels ; the second was that there was an intention of
establishing a forced loan in the kingdom of Naples, to which
British subjects might be compelled to contribute, if there
was no protection near them ; the third was, that the
neutral waters, as they were denominated, had been en-
tered upon by a Neapolitan vessel in pursuit of a Sicilian.
Not satisfied with this explanation, he (Sir J. Walsh) put
the question whether Admiral Parker had either propria
motu, or acting on instructions received from home, inter-
posed in any way in the quarrel between the King of
Naples and his subjects, or attempted to prevent the Nea-
politan fleet from sailing for Messina. He (Sir J. Walsh)
did not charge the Noble Lord with any breach of faith to
him or to the House ; but on that occasion the Noble Lord
did distinctly state that up to that point of time England had
not interfered in any way whatever between the contending
parties. The inference of the Neapolitan Government from
this statement was naturally enough that the English Go-
vernment would not in anywise interfere, because there was
no cause for such interference. It appeared, then, that Sir
W. Parker offered no obstruction to the sailing of the Neapo-
litan expedition. If any valid reason existed why he should
have interfered, there was the time and place for it ; but none
occurred, because it was considered that the British Govern-
ment had no ground to justify them in making any demon-
stration as respected the King of Naples and his re-
volted subjects of Sicily. The expedition to Messina
sailed—it was successful—Messina was captured, and
the King's authority established. It appeared to
be probable that this authority would be also re-
established in the remainder of the island, when
her Majesty's Government thought fit, in conjunction with
France, to interfere in the question. On what ground did
they so? Was it on the ground of the atrocities alleged to
have been committed in the war, and if so, by whom were
they committed. These questions had not, however, been
answered. He (Sir John Walsh) admitted the vast responsi-
bility of the Foreign Minister at the present time • but he
conld not help contrasting the views of the Noble ',Ord who
presided over the foreign. affairs of this country as regarded
other institutions, with those which he enforced in his own
department. That department was tarried on upon the
principles of a .Nesselrode or a Metternich, and the
principle which the Noble Lord seemed anxious to
introduce was to set aside all the powers of Parlia-
ment as regarded the Foreign-office. He (Sir John
Walsh) however, hoped that House would never
blindly subscribe to such a doctrine, or renounce the right
of inquiry into subjects which so largely influenced the
destiny of the civilized world. Another topic of the Address
was the large measure of financial r_form which the Noble
Lord proposed to bring forward. For whatever large re-
trenchments the Noble Lord could safely make in the ex-
penditure of the country the House would be grateful, but
there was a great inconsistency between the 'toner and lan,
gunge of the Noble Lord on this occasion, and his tone and
language on the same subject last year. "I will never
consent," said the Noble Lord, " to disarm England in the
present state of the world." On that occasion also the
Noble Lord said he would never consent to be led astray by
a feeling of economy to prostrate the power of the country.
The Noble Lord had touched upon the affairs of Ireland, and
had pronounced one of the most deserved eulogiums he had
ever heard on the present Lord-Lieutenant. One part of
Lord Clarendon's proceedings deserved particular
.praise; it
was the mode in which he answered deputation and replied
to addresses. To one address Lord Clarendon appropriately
replied, that he hoped an end would be put to that system
of pernicious political agitation in Ireland, which more than
anything else disturbed the peace and checked the progress
of the country. He agreed with these sentiments of Lord
Clarendon, but then, he asked, if political agitation was per-
nicious in Ireland was it salutary in England? Was agita-
tarion to',be put down in Ireland by force and by coercion
Bills, and was it to be allowed to reign unchecked and un-
controlled in England? For what were the agitations at-
tempted to be got up in Manchester and other places? Were
they not in th nature of pernicious political agitations?
Were they to be governed by club law—that is, by the law
of clubs?—(Hear, hear.) In France they had put down
clubs ; and he would tell the Noble Lord that, ere long, the
Government of this country must grapple with the evils of
political clubs in England.—(Hear, hear.) He would sup-
port the amendment of the Member for Buckinghamshire.
Mr. M. MILNES had hoped, when he saw the Hon. Mem-
ber for Northamptonshire (Mr. Stafford) rise, that he did so
for the purpose of telling the House that, after the speech of
the Noble Lord at the head of the Government, the Opposi-
tion had agreed not to insist upon pressing their amendment.
He had hoped so, because an amendment of this kind,
brought forward by one who, he presumed, was now the
recognised leader of the Opposition, was a very serious and
solemn step, and one which they would hardly have been
justified in taking so hastily even if we had actually been
plunged into a continental war, or if every kind of misfor-
tune had accumulated on the head of,the country by the inns
prudence of Government, But when the charges upon which
the amendment professed to be founded had been proved to
be erroneous, he really thought the Opposition would not do
justice to themselves with the country if they persisted in so
grave a censure upon her Majesty's Government. Neither
would such a course be at all consistent with the generous
character of the Opposition in former sessions ; anti it
persisted in it would be a sign that the Government must no
longer expect that justice and moderation of which there
had been so many previous instances.—(Hear, hear.) It
seemed to be assumed by Hon. Gentlemen opposite that the
country was in a state of rapid declension. He did net
agree with them in that opinion. On the contrary, he
thought that better prospects were at hand—that trade and
commerce were improving, and that there was no reason
for believing that the agricultural interest, by the event
of yesterday (the entire abolition of the corn-laws), had re-
ceived a blow from which it could not recover. The Hon.
Member for Buckinghamshire had asserted that our exports,
so far from being lessened by the confusion and tumults on
the continent, had been larger last year than in the preceding
year. By what moans did the Hon. Member learn that fact,
when no papers on the subject had vet been laid upon the
table of the House? The Hon. Member must either have had
some secret source of information of which other Members
knew nothing, or he must have indulged in a very reckless
assertion.—(Hear, hear.) The charges against her Majesty's
Government resolved themselves principally into questions of
foreign affairs. He presumed to call upon the House to
beware how they condemned, in the solemn manner which
the amendment did, the peaceful policy of her Majesty's Go-
vernment, for it was above all things important to bear in
mind that the conduct of the Secretary for Foreign Affairs
had been one continuous and successful effort to preserve the
peace of Europe during a most difficult and perilous time;
and he thought ho had a right to call upon the people of
England to accept his conduct in that sense, and to demand
from the House that they should grant it to have been such.
—(Hear, hear.) The Hon. Member for Buckinghamshire
had asked whether the Government were co-operating with
the Universal Peace Society. Now, although he (Mr. Milnes)
could not indulge in the hopes in which those amiable enthu-
siasts seemed to indulge, yet he believed that there was a
growing opinion in the country to an extent of which many
Honourable Members were little aware respecting the
wickedness, the miseries, and the abominations of war.
—(Hear, hear.) He "believed that this opinion was the re-
sult, not of mere Christian emotion, but of a strong and
intimate conviction that if statesmen chose to set their
minds to it—not perhaps every act of violence, but certainly
the greater part of the contests which desolate the world,
might be avoided by means of peaceful mediation.—(Hear,
hear.) He (Mr. Milnes) fully accorded with that feeling.
He deeply respected it ; and he believed that it was the
feeling upon which his Noble Friend at the head of the
Foreign Department had continuously acted. He blamed
the Hon. Member for Buckinghamshire for having carefully
concealed in the course of his speech that but for the very
acts which he condemned it would hardly have been pos-
sible to avoid a continental war; and in proof that such was
the case he briefly referred to the state of affairs between
Naples and Sicily, between Austria and Sardinia, and Prussia
and Denmark. Such was the wise and Christian policy of
his Noble Friend ; and if by some hazard it had not entirely
succeeded—if his great hopes had not been entirely realized,
were they to say that the principles on which he had acted
was absolutely unjust, and that the attempt ought not to
have been made ?—(Hear, hear.) It was not impossible
means of preventainngd
that the conduct of the Opposition last night might be the
war beteen these two countries.—(Hear, ttilpeaceful settlement of the disputes
between Naples
Id of ce
na causing
under-
stood a congress was ihngeara.n)
H e internecine
about to •meet on the affairs of Italy.
He had lived in the Lombardo-venetian kingdom, and he
had left with the conviction that the military occupation of
by strangers unsympathizing and
those beautiful provinces
ungenial, could not continue without giving rise
to a dissension. Admitting militaryng occupation. to be a right
thing, he had very little charge to arinbgisagcaoinnyst thet Austrian
conviction that, so
Government. But he must express
long as the Lombardo- Venetian kingdom lasted
no security for the peace of Europe.—(gear,
Austria had made no advance in conciliating the
people. The most suitable arrangement was perfectly
simple. There was no confusion of race in that kingdom
;
there was a determination to get quit of the Austrian Go-
a feeling which was shared by all classes, from
the
r n
noble difficulties,
to the peasant. The
however, were
now greater than
before. Since the occupation of Milan by
;
the Austrians under Marshal Radetzky, the people had been
kept down by a most cruel and oppressive rule. The Aus-
trians seemed intent on establishing a second Poland in
Italy. When on all sides except one, Lombardy had the
sympathies of homogeneous populations, he did not believe
that the military occupation of the country could be suc-
cessful. He could not, therefore, anticipate any great ad-
vantage from the congress which had been proposed. The
Honourable Member for Buckinghamshire—who he wished
would take some other subject for jest than great constitu-
tional struggles—bad made extreme mirth of what he had
called the sentimental cant of race. Composed as this nation
was of so many races, they ought to be the last to indulge
in such ridicule. But uo one could read. as with great plea-
sure he had read, the works of the Honourable Member
for Buckinghamshire, where the predominance of race was
the sole motive by which it was held the world was go-
verned, without feeling that the Hon. Gentleman at least was
guilty of some inconsistency.—(Hear, hear.) With re-
ference to that part of the Speech from the Throne in which
her Majesty expressed the hope that considerable reduc-
tions would be effected, it had been alleged that Ministers had
been influenced by the proceedings of the Financial League
in Liverpool; though the Government had, as soon as they
entered office, expressed their willingness to adopt financial
reforms, and the measures they had taken since showed
their sincerity. Agitation was said to be detrimental to the
general interests of the country, but all parties had got into

a way of calling anything they did not like " unconstitu-
tional"—(Hear, hear)—and the word, when applied to the
present agitation, seemed only to imply that the people were
taking a deep interest in the question. Let the people of
England understand that order was the cheapest possible
thing, and let them confine themselves to that kind of as-
semblages and discussions which were so denounced, and no
evil consequences were to be apprehended. Those leagues
were a safety valve, by means of which revolutions were
avoided; and so long as the public feeling was expressed
through such channels, this country would continue to enjoy
the benefit of the Constitution, living under a blameless So-
vereign, an unoppressive Church, and a Parliament ready, in
the main, to meet the wishes of the people.—(Hear.)
Lord MANDEVILLE supported the amendment. Our
interference in Sicily might have been warranted by our
connexion with that country, particularly in 1812, but he
could not but agree in the condemnation which had been
pronounced by the Hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, on
the conduct pursued by the British Government with re-
ference to Austria and the States of Lombardy. The most
important of the many omissions in the Speech—not one of
which had been satisfactorily explained by the Noble Lord
—was that it did not contain one word as to the condition
of the agricultural interest in this country.--(Hear.) Next
to that was the absence of any allusion to the state of the
colonies. He thought that our colonial interests, having no
representatives in that House, were more especially entitled
to their care, and demanded every possible support, for they
were as much the offspring of the State as any other part of
the empire. Instead of having protected, this country had
injured, her colonies by legislation.—(Hear, hear.) There
was nothing heard but complaints from every colonial pos-
session, and every account that reached this country con-
veyed some fresh intelligence of distress and suffering, of
estates abandoned and lying waste, of buildings out of repair,
of labourers flocking into the towns for work and food, and
of destitution so great that in some cases the people had
made houses of packing-cases.—(A. laugh.) These were
subjects on which he thought the Government owed some
explanation of their views to the House.
Mr. HORSMAN said, he was unwilling to give a gene-
ral vote on the amendment without drawing a distinction
between those portions of the address which he could cordi-
ally support and those which he thought objectionable. The
Hon. Member for Buckinghamshire in his review of the
effects of the free-trade policy of this country seemed
to assert that the result of those measures had veri-
fied the predictions he had made respecting them on former
occasions. He (Mr. Disraeli) having stated that, and having
gone into a great number of statistical details, and of finan-
cial and commercial questions, to prove to the satisfaction of
his party that his predictions were fully carried out, very
consistently concluded his speech by moving an amendment,
the last paragraph of which declared that " a large portion
of the agricultural and colonial interests of the empire are
labouring under a state of progressive depression, calculated
to excite serious apprehensions and anxiety." Now, he
was sure the Honourable Member did not mean to disguise
his opinion that, if this depression existed, it was directly
connected with those free-trade measures from which he
had predicted unfavourable results in 1846.—(Hear, hear.)
If, therefore, he (Mr. Horsman) voted for that paragraph of
the amendment, he must be supposed to approve of the
principles laid down by the Hon. ;Member (Mr. Disraeli),
and to recant the opinions he had expressed, and to retract
the course he had taken, with respect to free-trade in 1846.
—( Hear, hear.) That was a step he was not prepared to
take.—(Hear, hear.) The occurrences of subsequent years,
and more particularly of the year just passed by, bad per-
fectly . satisfied him that the measure of 1846 had saved
this country, politically speaking, from most appalling
perils, and commercially and financially he expected that
in years to come the empire would derive great advan-
tage from the adoption of a free-trade policy.—(Hear, hear.)
The other paragraph of the amendment declared that the
state of our relations with foreign powers was not such
as to justify the House in addressing her Majesty in the
language of congratulation. But, as the Noble Lord
at the head of the Government justly observed, the
speech did not call upon the House to indulge in the lan-
guage of congratulation at all. The object of the amend-
ment, however, must be best explained by the speech in
which it was introduced, and in that speech he observed the
Hon. Member stated that he viewed with serious apprehen-
sion the proposal for retrenchment which the Ministry had
indicated, and that, going back to the history of past re-
trenchments, he had endeavoured to show they had been
rashly undertaken, and had been followed by the most un-
happy results. The Hon. Member, too, had condemned
strongly the system of " unwise economy" to which the
Government, not from statesman-like motives, but from less
creditable influences, were about to become subservient.
If, then, he (Mr. Horsman) were to concur in that portion
of the amendment, he must be supposed to assent to those
doctrines, and to express his disapproval of the dimi-
nished estimates and reduced expenditure promised in
the Speech from the throne.—( Hear, hear.) However
the amendment might be in accordance with the
views of the Hon. Member's party, it was one which
he (Mr. Horsman) could not consistently support.--(Hear.)
He could not vote for any proposition which would carry with
it the conclusion that he was adverse to reduced expenditure;
for he hailed with satisfaction any promise of it, and certainly
he must say there was nothing in the announcement of the
expected retrenchment calculated to excite any very serious
apprehensions among the opponents of financial reform. Let
the principles be once introduced, however, and it must be
carried out still further. The aspect of foreign affairs was
such as to fully justify the reduction of our establishment.
Last year France had been the volcano from which the erup-
tion might be expected that was to lay Europe in ashes, but
now there was but one political object in that country.
From the President down to the lowest candidate for popular
favour, every man who addressed a public assembly there
talked of peace and of retrenchment. Already there was a
popular movement in favour of those objects, which was fast
swelling into a general agitation, and even the Marshal of
France who commanded her armies had consentedto a reduc-
tion of from one-third to;a fourth of her whole force.—(Hear.)
The Noble Lord who moved the Address had taken great
credit to foreign Governments for having controlled the na-
tional will atm kept the people from war, but events had
proved that the statesmen he praised had followed, not
guided, the national sentiment. There were, he must say,
two extra.or Unary omissions in the Speech. He could not
but concur in much that had fallen from the Hon. Member

for Buckinghamshire with respect to our foreign relations,
- - - - - - - - -

Many of the facts he bad stated could not be-denied, not:
could he (Mi. Horsman) conceive there was one man in the
House who could assert that the state of those relations was
such as was satistactory to the Parliament or creditable to
the country; but at the same time he could not lay all the
blame of this on the Minister; a great deal was attributable
to Parliament itself.—(Hear hear.) The manner in which
our foreign affairs was allowed to be conducted was
a disgrace and a reproach to the country, There was a
secrecy and a responsibility-in the transactions of them which
shut the doors of the Foreign- office against all inquiry. If
a question was asked with reference to any subject, the
House was told that the public interests required the public
to be kept in ignorance of it."—(Hear, hear.) If such an
explosion took place as that in Spain, where, as the Hon.
gentleman observed, the British Minister was kicked out of
Madrid, so that the public could not be kept in complete ig-
norance, they discovered that there were two sets of dis-
patches in the Foreign-office— ene for the guidance of the
Minister abroad and the other to amuse the Parliament at
home.—(Hear.) They were told, moreover, that the English
people took no great interest in foreign affairs. It was a fal-
lacy to say so. No man could take interest in a subject on
which he was kept in the completest ignorance. But the
people of this country must take an interest in every ques-
tion which affected their pockets. It had been laid down as
a constitutional maxim by the English people that publicity
was the best, if not the only guarantee for good government.
If that held good in domestic, it equally held good in foreign
affairs. Nations now-a-days had no secrets from each other.
They knew the precise resources, power, and even the inten-
tions of their neighbours. They valued at a lower rate than
in times gone by the arts of political rivalry. They knew
the danger, as they had paid the cost of diplomatic rivals.—
( Hear, hear.) Had the system of secrecy worked well ? No.
The country had all the semblance of peace, without the eco-
nomy—they had all the cost of war, without any prospect of
termination. —(Hear, hear.) The hange which had taken
place in royal speeches lately as to the state of foreign affairs
was remarkable. First, the House was told the Crown " had
received assurances of friendship from foreign powers ;" next
they were told the Crown " looked with confidence" to the
continuance of good relations, Then came no confidence,
but " a hope" that peace would be preserved, and now, in-
stead of " confidence" or " hope" there was nothing but "a
desire" that a good understanding should continue between
us and other countries.--(Hear, hear.) That paragraph of
the Speech must have been prepared with peculiar care ;
but, unless the phrase was accidental, it must create con-
siderable uneasiness. In what Court of Europe were they on
cordial terms with the Sovereign ?—(Hear, hear.) In some
the terms of diplomatic civility, if not broken up, were with
difficulty sustained.—( Hear, hear.) He could not but ask
by what fatal ingenuity it was that, after thirty-four years
of peace, the Queen of England should be compelled to de-
part from the language of her predecessors, and to imply that
she did not meet those royal courtesies to which she had a
just right?—(Hear.) Of late years, so far from having fol-
lowed our old rule of non-intervention, we had made it the
exception.—(Hear.) Interference with foreign States had
become the rule, but we had not followed it so that it could
be traced to any distinct principle. One week we interfered
on behalf of the Crown, and upheld its influence, the next we
gave aid to the revolted subjects, and prevented the Crown
from reducing them to submission. Next week we disap-
pointed both parties, and gained the hostility of both.
One censured England for going too far—another fir not
going far enough. They had meddled everywhere, and
wherever they had meddled most, there they were most dis-
liked. It was announced in the Royal Speech, that as soon
as the interests of the public service would permit, the papers
relative to foreign transactions should be laid before Parlia-
ment; which meant, when all interest in the subject should
be lost, and when the public would not take the trouble to
ascertain whether the documents presented to it were perfect
or not. It was the duty of Parliament to take care that the
public mind was not kept in a state of ignorance respecting
foreign affairs. If Ministers were pursuing a correct course,
nothing could strengthen more than the backing of public
opinion ; if, on the contrary, it should appear that they were
prosecuting an erroneous policy, the national interests
would be vindicated by the restraints of public opinion.—
(Hear, hear.) The vices of this system of secrecy were not
confined to one department of the Government ; they were,
if possible. even more injuriously developed in the Colonial-
office.—(Hear, hear.) If the mal-administration of foreign
affairs was annoying to our continental neighbours, the mis-
government of the colonies harassed our own subjects. In
the one case we risked our foreign relations, in the other we
hazarded the allegiance whilst we sacrificed the interests of
our own subjects.—(Hear, hear.) If anything could sur-
prise in the omissions "of the Royal Speech, it was certainly
the absence of all allusion to the colonies.—(Hear, hear.)
To read the Speech, one would suppose that we had no co-
lonial possessions, or that they were in such a state of
blessed prosperity as did not call for even a passing remark.
Yet, it was doubtful whether, at any previous time, our
colonial possessions were in a more unsatisfactory, and, in
circumstances
somethingro
it
ds
worseinomst
than
some respects, in a more perilous state.—(Hear, hear.) Many
of our colonies were labouring under extreme distress,
which had p
somea
feeling
extraordinary discontent.of
that discontent,
Under
ina
in and
others these
Royal
Speech opening a session immediately succeeding one in
which colonial distresses and interests engrossed a large
share of the attention of the Legislature, not the slightest
allusion should have been made to the subject.—(Hear,
hear.) The omission was the more remarkable' because
there was hardly a paragraph in the Speech from the Throne
but must have reminded its framers of the colonies. One
paragraph speaks of " progressive improvement ;" was that
remark applicable to the colonies 2—(gear, hear.) In
another paragraph reference was made to the revival of com-
merce; was that, again, applicable to our colonial posses-
' sions ? Another paragraph congratulated Parliament on the
fact, that while troubles existed in other countries, tranquil-
lity prevailed in her Majesty's dominions; was that appli-
cable to the British colonies? Retrenchment and economy
were promised—but those again were limited to her Majesty's
own territories. From beginning to end the Royal speech
vaunted of prosperous prospects, but the boastful announce-
ment was so belied by tha condition of the colonies that
their introduction into the Speech could only be accounted
for on the supposition that Ministers no longer reckoned our
colonial possessions a part of her Majesty's dominions. At
what time did this surprising omission occur? Not only at

a time when distress and-rain impended over the colonies,
but when the correspentler es between the Coletrial Gov,-)rn-
ment at home and its governors abroad exhibited a mass of
confusion and blundering almost without example. We saw
Governor Grey in Jamaica furiously scolded by Lord Grey in
Downing-street, and on the other hand Lord Grey was con-
victed of ignorant temerity by another Governor Grey in
New Zealand.—(llear.) A stoppage of supplies was threat-
ened in one colony, whilst martial law and military execu-
tions to a frightful extent prevailed in another. Neverthe-
less, under these appalling circumstances, the colonies were
passed over without the slightest mention. It was most nn-
fortunate that such a moment should be chosen for not only
exempting the colonies from the royal sympathy, bat even
excepting them by implication from the royal dominions. In
conclusion, he must repeat that publicity was the only gua-
rantee for good government, and unless Parliament forced
publicity, it would neglect its duty.
Mr. SCOTT remarked, that the Hon. Member who had
jest addressed the House had made a clever speech in oppo-
sition to the vote which he had announced his intention to
give; but, much as he admired the Hon. Gentleman's
ability, he confessed he would rather have had his vote than
his speech. He (Mr. Scott) concurred in all that had been
stated relative to the unsatisfactory position of our foreign
relations, and thought that in such a state of things eco-
nomy might be practised by withdrawing some of our ambas-
sadors, or retrenching their expenses. As regarded the
colonies, the House expected that the gentlemen who pre-
sided over that department in that assembly would explain
the absence of all allusion to them in the Royal Speech. The
whole of our colonial system was vicious, and that was
attributable to the circumstance of their being placed
under the control of a sort of Star Chamber in
Downing•street. The local assemblies were so re-
stricted as to have only the right of complaint, without
the power of redress. It would seem that for a colony to
obtain a representative system it was necessary that there
should be rebellion on its part, and payment of 2,000,0001.
on ours. That had been the case in Canada, and was likely
to happen at the Cape, though it appeared that the artifi-
cers in the workshop at Downing-street were mistaken in
supposing that the constitution which suited the latitude of
Quebec was adapted to that of Cape Town. The mal-ad-
ministration of the colonies had caused the dismemberment
of the empire eighty years ago, and a similar result might be
apprehended now, unless a change were to take place. It was
necessary that the colonies should be secured against the
vagaries of the Colonial-office, and admitted to the advan• '
tags of good government.— (Hear. )
Colonel SIBTHORP said that after the excellent speech
of his Hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire and the
Jesuitical, weak, and imperfect reply of the Noble Lord—(A
laugh)—admiring the one and despising the other—he could
not be content at the opening of a new session to give a mere
silent vote. The Speech they had heard read from the chair
was not the Speech of her Majesty, but an omnium gatherem
pie of her Ministers—(A laugh)—and, politically speaking,
it was a falsehood throughout.—(Continued laughter.) Any
man who placed such a speech in the hands of her Majesty
ought to be impeached. There was nothing in it that was
good, favourable, satisfactory, or consoling to the country—
everything was black, underhand, and deceitful—full of
fraud, trickery, and subtlety. It was painful for him to use
strong language—(" Ohl" and laughter)— but he would not
shrink from speaking inthe House or acting out of it. How
much did he regret they had no longer amongst them 'the
Noble Lord who with such fearless ability had opposed the
Government. Not less than his Hon. Friend the Member for
Buckinghamshire, not less than any Member of that House
did he regret the early removal of such a man. Had that
Noble Lord been there to criticise the Speech from the Throne
he would have lashed the Prime Minister, as he had done
before, and made him shake in his seat with the conscious-
ness of his misconduct.—( A laugh.) That Speeck contained
a recommendation of economy. It was upon that principle
that the Whigs came into power. But, had they ever prac-
tised it? It was stated that the revenue had improved. It
that were so—if his Right Hon. relative the Chancellor of
the Exchequer would show him that the revenue was in so
prosperous a state as the Speech represented it to be, then he
would ask him, in the name of the people of England,
whether he meant to continue the income-tax and that most
unjust tax of all—the duty on fire insurances. He could
not place the slightest confidence in either the motives or the
intentions of her Majesty's Ministers.
Sir D. L. EVANS would remind the Chancellor of the
Exchequer that the opinion was generally entertained out of
doors that an injustice was done to the owners of personal
property by the present imposition of legacy duties. He
trusted that some inquiry would be made into this subject,
with a view to show whether this injustice was more appa-
rent than real. He was glad the Noble Lord had announced
reductions in the expenditure, and he only hoped they would
be commensurate in extent with the wishes of the public.
A revision and more equal partition of the taxation was
also strongly desired by the country. He felt inclined to de-
fend the foreign policy of the Government against the attacks
of the Hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, both with re-
spect to our mediation in the Schleswig-Holstein and in the
Sicilian question. He felt bound to add his meed of praise
to the Noble Lord at the head of Foreign Affairs, who had
for so many years and with so much success, supported the
cause of liberty in every country in the world.—( Hear,
hear.) He would remind the Hon. Member for Stamford
that it was now sixteen or seventeen years ago since he
heard him (Mr. Herries) prophecy that it would be impos-
sible for the Noble Lord (Palmerston) to maintain the peace
of Europe for six months,
Mr. HERRIES intimated dissent.

Sir DE LACY EVANS—But, notwithstanding that pro-
phecy, the peace of Europe had been preserved for sixteen
years, and great progress had been made in the cause of
liberty and constitutional government.—(Hear.) He thought
the present Government deserved the greatest credit for the
manly support they had given to that cause in every portion
of the world.—(Hear, hear.) He approved of the entire
cordiality which the English Government had maintained
with each successive Government in France. While that
Government were actuated by a liberal and generous policy
the cause of civilization and progress would be best promoted
by the existence of a continued cordiality between the two
Governments.
Captain HARRIS complained that the Speech from the
Throne contained no allusion to the suffering state of the
agricultural and colonial interests. In the present state of
public opininion he apprehended that nothing could be done
with respect to the corn laws. He thought certainly that a
fair trial ought to be given to the experiment. But the
landed interest had, at the same time, a right to complain of
the unjust burdens and assessments to which they were sub-
jected. On their behalf, therefore, he thought himself jus-
tified in saying that the Government of this country ought
to lose no time in seeing what could be done for their relief.
The next topic in the Royal Speech to which attention might I
naturally be directed was that which related to the revenue.
It was true that with regard to the revenue of the present
year Very little information had yet been communicated to
Parliament, and as they had few accounts before them, he
could say little upon that subject, but he might at least I
venture to assert that nothing had yet appeared to warrant
the satisfaction expressed in the Royal Speech on account of
the condition of the revenue and the present state of the
commercial interest. The cotton trade certainly appeared
to be in a prosperous condition, but he ventured to assert that
no other interest was now flourishing. Hardware, wool, and
every other species of manufacture was suffering; cotton
alone was in a state even apparently prosperous. That
surely was not a condition of things that could be called free
trade, but a plan rather which gave a vast advantage to the
cotton trade, and to that solely. So long as there was a duty
on the importation of manufactured cotton goods, it surely
could net be said that this country possessed anything like
free trade. In those proceedings which were taken for the
alleged purposes of free trade and economical reform, there
were spirits at work who were identical with those to whose
agency no small portion of the disturbance which had oc-
curred on the Continent might justly be attributed, and he
deeply apprehended that that party in this country were
urging on and stimulating the endeavours of Hon. Members
in that House whose voices were the most loudly raised in
favour of free trade. Nevertheless, he gave the Hon. Mem-
ber ;for the West Riding full credit for the best inten-
tions; but at the same time he thought that Hon. Gentle-
man most grievously mistaken when he talked of looking
forward to the time at which duties were not to be imposed
for the purpose of aiding the revenue. He understood the
lion. Member to say that he would do away with all duties
for mere purposes of revenue, a project which could hardly
be carried into effect at any less cost than that of national
bankruptcy. He wished to add a word or two with regard
to the proposed reductions in the army and the navy. Let
it be remembered that these reductions were intended to
take place at a moment when it was admitted that an in-
surrectionary spirit was rife in Ireland and the war in the
Punjaub still going on. When the navy was mentioned in
that House, he often heard it said that the nine or ten
Bail-of-the-line which we had in the Mediterranean consti-
tuted a needless drain upon the resources of the country;
but he looked to France, not as our natural enemy—that he
should never say—but as the Power which, from local posi-
tion and inherent strength, must always be to us the most
formidable for which we could at any time be called on to
encounter. England, therefore, ought at all times to main-
tain a force sufficient to balance that great state and main-
tain the peace of Europe.
Mr. COCHRANE did not think that the Hon. Member for
Pontefract proved himself a very competent judge of what
he was speaking of when he applied such terms as those of
a great constitutional struggle to the events which in the
course of last year took place on the continent of Europe.
That Hon. Member had said that he regretted that he did
not belong to any party, but he (Mr. Cochrane) might fairly
say that the Hon. Gentleman had taken his place on the
mountain of that House. To apply himself, however, more
immediately to the Speech which they had yesterday heard
from the Throne. There was evidently in that document, and
what followed upon it, an indication upon the part of Minis-
ters to yield to the influence of pressure from without. He
conceived that it was not right for any Government to be
influenced by threats or menaces; and in those threats he
saw something more than mere retrenchment. The Hon.
Member for the West Riding meant to organize a force
which was to override the Legislature, and dictate to
the House of Commons. He (Mr. Cochrane) considered that,
as a new League was now springing up in this country,
they were entitled to examine the opinions and objects of the
leaders of the movement. In 1846 the Hon. Member for
the West Riding warned the landlords that there was a
blacker spot in the legislation of the country than even the
corn-laws, namely, taxation, and he announced that when
his party were satisfied with regard to the corn-laws, they
would organize an agitation against the landlords on the
subject of taxation. The same Hon. Gentleman, in a memo-
rable speech which he delivered at Manchester in January,
1848, in alluding to the Duke of Wellington's opinions with
reference to the national armaments, spoke of the Noble
Duke in these terms :—" That the Duke was an old man,
and had passed into the last verge of existence, and —without
a figure of speech—was tottering to the grave." The Hon.
Member for Manchester (Mr. Bright) said the other day at
a public meeting, that he wished the people to be so repre-
sented that they might control the Throne and the House of
Lords ; and he added that there was nothing that was un-
attainable if the same means were used to which they had
before had recourse. He (Mr.lCochrane) regretted, after the
enunciation of such principles, that the Government had
given in the Speech those pledges of retrenchment; for it
appeared to him that they were giving way to a pressure
from without. Last year, when there were no revolutions on
the Continent, and when there was not half the danger of
war that existed at present, no allusion to retrenchment was
made in the Royal Speech ; and he conceived that no man,
looking to the state of the Continent now, could say there
was such a prospect of peace as would warrant—he would
not call it the retrenchment, but the disarmament now pro-
posed. He begged to remind lion. Gentlemen that Mr,
Pitt came down to the House in February, 1792, with prog-
nostications of a fifteen years' peace, and with proposals for
retrenchment, and that precisely a year afterwards that war
was commenced which lasted for so many years. The motto
of the Hon. Gentleman opposite was "Peace and retrench-
ment ;" but he considered that the motto of this country
should be "Peace and armament."
Mr. BANKES regretted to observe that no allusion to the
interests of most important portions of the empire was made
in the Speech which had been submitted to the Queen by
her Ministers. He agreed with the Noble Lord (Lord Man-
deville) that it was their duty to take care that the interests
of the British colonies, which had no specific representation
in that House, should not be neglected; and this was espe-
cially necessary at the present time when it was notorious
that the colonists were suffering extraordinary pressure.
The Hon. Member for Montrose had brought charges of

the grossest misgovernment against the Noble Lord at
the nnact tn 1",:olc•ni h
been satisiactorily answered. He ( Mr. Bankes) considered
it the duty of the party with -which he acted, from
respect to the memory of a Noble Lord (Lord G. Ben-
tinck), who was most zealous and indefatigable in sup-
porting the interests of the colonies, to endeavour, as far
was in their power, to promote the welfare of those de-
pendencies. He believed, indeed, that the indefatigable
application of his Noble Friend to the interests of the colo •
nies tended greatly to shorten his existence.—( Hear. hear.)
When he last saw his Noble Friend in that House, observ-
ing him to be greatly fatigued by his attention to the public
duties, he endeavoured to prevail upon him to leave the
House to obtain some necessary refreshment; but the Noble
Lord replied that he was watching over the interests of the
colonies, which he was determined to protect to the utmost
of his power, and he refused to leave the House even for a
few moments.—(Hear, hear.) No allusion was made in the
Royal Speech to the condition of the agricultural interest.
The pressure upon that interest was daily and hourly in-
creasing, and had already proceeded to an extent of which
he thought the Ministers could not be aware, or they would
have deemed it their duty to take some notice of the
subject. The Noble Lord opposite had expressed his
opinion that the changes which had lately been made with
reference to the agricultural interest would ultimately tend to
benefit that interest; but he would ask the Noble Lord what
was to become of the agricultural interest in the meantime,
oppressed as it was with burdens, especially in the shape of
poor-rates—(Hear, hear)—which threatened to bring it into
the same condition to which Ireland had been reduced?
He joined most cordially in supporting the amendment of
his Hon. Friend (Mr. Disraeli), and in condemning the
Government for omitting from her Majesty's Speech any
allusion to the two important interests to which he had re-
ferred. He (Mr. Bankes), and those with whom he acted,
concurred with Ministers in the expression of satisfaction
that, both in the north and south of Europe, the contend-
ing parties had consented to a suspension of arms for the
purpose of negotiating terms of peace ; but it was perfectly
consistent with that concurrence to state that they did not
find in regard to our relations with foreign Powers any sub-
ject of congratulation.—(Hear, hear.) There were omis-
sions from the Speech, with regard to our foreign relations,
of a very significant character. Last year this country ex-
perienced an unparalleled outrage and insult from a hitherto
friendly nation. The British Ambassador was dismissed
with ignominy and insult from the Court of Spain.—(Hear,
hear) —and he thought it was due to the hononr and cha-
racter of this country that her Majesty's Ministers should
now have an opportunity of affording explanations on the
subject—(Hear.) The Spanish Government sent over an in-
dividual to explain the circumstances under which the Bri-

tish Ambassador had been expelled, but the Noble Lord
(Lord Palmerston) refused to hold any communication with
him ; and yet, after the insults this country had received in
the person of its representative, the Spanish Ambassador
was allowed to remain undisturbed in London. When some

inquiries were made on this subject last session, the Noble
Lord (Lord Palmerston) stated that negotiations were then
pending. He (Mr. Bankes) begged now to ask the Noble
Lord wbether those negotiations were still pending?—(Hear,
hear.) Was it not long for those negotiations to be going on
for the vindication of the honour of the country, and for no
satisfastory result to be announced? This was an omission
which he thought it to be the duty of Hon. Members not
connected with the Government to bring under the notice
of the House, and for these reasons he considered the amend-
ment of his Hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire
to be justified in respect to foreign affairs. With regard to
the commercial and manufacturing interests of the country
he conceived the amendment to be also justified. The con-
dition of those interests was not a circumstance calling for
the congratulation of the country. The Hon. Members for
Manchester and the West Riding of Yorkshire might enter-
tain the idea that commerce and manufactures were in a
palmy state of prosperity; and, should those Hon. Members
vouchsafe to deliver in the Parliament of Engiand some of
those speeches which they had uttered in the Parliament of
Manchester, they might possibly convince Hon. Members
on his side of the House, but, until that was the case, he
must beg leave to remain of a contrary opinion. He believed,
that so far from those recent alterations which had been made

in the policy of this country having proved successful in se-
curing greater steadiness in respect to the industrial interests
of the country, whether as regarded manufactures or agri-
culture, they had entirely failed. It was upon these grounds
that he supported the amendment proposed by the Hon.
Member for Buckinghamshire.—(Hear, hear, and cries of
" Question," and " Divide.")
Mr. URQUHART said he could not give a silent vote on
this question—(A laugh)—but must state some of the
grounds on which he should heartily support the amend-
ment which had been proposed. After alluding to the ex-
traordinary commotions which had taken place on the con-
tinent of Europe, and the influential position which England
under these circumstances might have occupied by the dis-
creet exercise of friendly offices, he thought it was a subject
of disappointment that the Speech from the Throne could
only announce that the Queen of England no longer re-
ceived assurances of a friendly disposition from her former
allies. This was a momentous announcement, and amounted
to an entire change of our condition in respect to foreign
nations. He conceived that the Noble Lord at the head of
the Government had entirely failed in controverting the ar-
guments of the Hon. Member for Buckinghamshire with re-
spect to the events of the north and south of Europe. He
( Mr. Urquhart) maintained, with regard to Sicily and Na-
ples, that the intervention on our part was contrary to the
law of nations. Besides, was this mode of proceeding by a
British Admiral, proprio motu, a proper course ? Was it for this
that we had ambassadors and a oreign- office ? But it was not
an English admiral only that was to assume to himself the
prerogatives of the Crown of England ; the Noble Lord had
stated that the decision to interfere was the French admiral's
decision, the English admiral following.—(Hear, hear.) Now,
certain documents had found their way to the public, they
were published in the Times of the 6th of October last, and
the Noble Lord (Lord J. Russell), in the correspondence he
afterwards had with him (Mr. Urquhart), did not deny their
authenticity; and from these documents it appeared that the
initiary step was taken by the Ministers, and not by the
admirals; that the French representative commenced with
what amounted to a threat of war; that the English repre-
sentative followed in the same strain, and it was ten days
afterwards (so far as appeared by these papers) that action
commenced on the part of the admirals. He (Mr. Urquhart)
would venture to give a warning to the Government.—(A
laugh.) They had already been once broken by the Noble
Lord at the head of the Foreign Department—they had once
failed to come into office through him ; that Noble Lord, who
had made England a personal affair of his own, and disposed
of her as he would of his old wardrobe, would drag them down
with him, unless they managed, before it should be too late,
to separate his conduct front them, and form an estimate a
little more accurate of what was befitting the honour and
character of England.
Lord PALMERSTON—Sir, I have three objections to

state to the amendment which we are now discussing. In
the first place, it refuses to give an opinion upon a matter on
which no opinion has been asked; secondly, it does give an

opinion upon two other matters, upon which that opinion is
inconsistent with the fact; thirdly, it endeavours by a side-
wind to extract from the House an opinion upon matters of
great importance, on which the opinion of the majority of
the House is adverse to that of those who framed this
amendment.—(Hear, hear.) As happens sometimes in let-
ters, the pith is in the postscript—(A laugh)—the important
matter of the movers is contained in the last paragraph.
That paragraph, which relates to the omission of any men-
tion of the colonies and of agriculture, is dexterously
worded, but I think we have had revelations elsewhere, if I
am not misinformed, and if none had been made the amend-
ment itself is sufficiently indicative, that the real meaning of
that paragraph, and the real object of those who move the
amendment, is to record their opinion against the doctrine of
free trade—(Hear)—against the repeal of the corn-laws—
( Hear)—and against the removal of discriminating duties.—
(Hear.) That intention has been amply acknowledged in
another place; but I must say that it would be more fitting
for those who entertain these opinions, and more satisfactory
to the House and the public, that they should be brought
before the House upon a substantive motion, instead of en-
deavouring, I may say, to trick the House out of an opinion
on the mere pretence of an amendment to an Address.—
(Hear, hear.) In the next plaee, the amendment calls upon
the House to state that they can find no subject of congratu-
lation in the improvement which has commenced in the re-
venue and in the beginning revival of trade.—(Hear.) Now,
I can easily understand that those who lament the improve-
ments of late years made in our commercial system with re-
gard to the policy of protection, and who condemn every
movement made in the direction of free trade,—l can under-
stand how persons entertaining those opinions can tind no
subject of congratulation in improving revenue and reviving
commerce—(Hear) —because improving revenue and reviv-
ing commerce negative the predictions they made, and are
the best refutations of them.—( Cheers.) In the first paragraph
of the amendment it is proposed that the House should state
that they cannot congratulate her Majesty on the state of
our foreign relations. My answer to that is " Who asked
you to congratulate her Majesty?"—(Laughter from the Op-
position.) If you say you cannot do so, my answer is
" Wait till you are asked."—(Laughter.) Those who moved
and seconded the Address never asked you to give an opinion
on the foreign relations of the country.—(More laughter.)
An Address is always studiously framed in such a manner
as not to commit anybody—(Renewed laughter)—not to
commit anybody to any opinion on the subject it embraces—
(Laughter)—for those who move an Address have no wish
to commit the House on subjects that may be matter of
great, and serious, and prolonged discussion in the course
of the session; and therefore it would be not only a de-
parture from ordinary usage, but a breach of propriety, to
ask the House to do so on any of the matters contained
in the Speech.—(Hear, hear, and laughter.) But I must
say that when the Hon. Gentlemen opposite state
that they are unable to congratulate her Majesty on the state
of our foreign relations, in answer to a Speech which an-
nounces that papers will be laid before the House explaining
what the conditions of those foreign relations are, I think it
may be well replied that the House would be stultifying it-
self to say that it is unable to congratulate her Majesty on
matters on which, till they receive the information promised,
they must necessarily be comparatively deficient in informa-
tion.—( Hear, hear.) But I go a little further, and I main-
tain, in opposition to the Gentlemen opposite, and in con-
tradiction to the amendment, that this House, and those
who have attended in the slightest degree to what is pass-
ing in the world, might congratulate her Majesty on the
state of our foreign relations.—(Cheers.) What is the great
object this country has at heart? It is that, next to the
maintenance of the interests of this country, which must
always be the first and most prominent object, we
should insure the maintenance of peace—(Cheers)—peace
with the rest of the world; and next that we should, if
possible, prevent the wars of other nations.—(Hear, hear.)
Have these objects been accomplished? They have been
accomplished, and for that I say there is matter of congra-
tulation in so far as it can be ascribed to the action of the
Government of this country.—( Hear.) We have had it in-
deed from the mouths of those who oppose us, that it is in
consequence of the action which the Government has taken
that we are at this moment able to say we are at peace with
all the world—(Cheers)—and that those hostilities which
from time to time have broken out in other parts of Europe
have been suspended by armistices, and are in the train of
settlement.—(Hear.) We have not exactly heard of the
true feeling that \ appertains to those who have been our
accusers on the present occasion; but they peer out, as I
shall have occasion to observe in reference to the speech of
the Hon. Member for Dorsetshire (Mr. Bankes), for there
the truth burst out—(Hear)—and we discover that the fault
found with Government is that we are not at war with some
of our allies.—(Hear, hear.) One great oflence has been
that we have continued on amicable terms with republican
Governments.—(Hear, hear.) There are those who think
that the Government of a Republic is not sufficiently good
company for the Government of a Monarchy.—(Cheers and
laughter.)
Mr. BANKES—I said nothing about France.
Lord PALMERSTON—I did not connect the Hon. Gen-
tleman with what I have now said. We have been accused
of sending an ambassador post-haste to Paris after the Re-
volution. Now, the relations between countries can only be
carried on by Governments, which are the organs of na-
tions; it is only by those organs that nations can communi-
cate with nations. But what business have we to inquire
what organs any foreign nation chooses to send here? What
business have we to inquire whether the French nation
wishes a Monarch, an Emperor, a President, or a Consul ?
(Cheers, and counter cheers.) Our object and our duty is to

cement the closest ti.s of frifTlo.l,:7 "tl7—' •
• :;1.7 p, :
rope—that neighbour of whom it was justly said that
in war she would be our most powerful enemy, but in
peace our most useful friend.—(Loud cheering.) There is
nothing in the real interests of England and France to stand
in the way of the most cordial friendship between the nations
(Cheers.) There may be prejudices and passions, but
reason and calm reflection are beginning to teach the nations
themselves that there is nothing in the real interests of the
two countries that can injuriously clash, and that it is for
the good of both to cultivate the most friendly relations.—
(Cheers.) I feel it due to those public men who have been
at the head of the government of France since February last,
to say that their conduct towards this country has been
marked by the most perfect good faith, the greatest frank-
ness, and most friendly dispositions, and that they have
evinced not only an anxious desire to be on the most friendly
terms with England, but have also expressed invariably and
sincerely to us those pacific dispositions with regard hto the
rest of Europe which, attaching as we do great importance to
the maintenance of peace, must be the foundation of a real
good understanding between England and France.—(Hear.)
We did not withdraw our Ambassador from France when the
revolution took place. We could not give indeed those usual
technical credentials that are given and interchanged between
Governments established, because the first Government
was by its very name professedly provisional ; but the
moment there was a Government that assumed a permanent
character those credentials were exchanged ; and since that
time the relations between the two countries have been sus-
tained in the ordinary way.—( Near, hear.) Has this con-
tributed to the peace of the world? It has.—(Cheers.)
The French Government were sincerely anxious to pursue a
pacific policy towards all the other countries of Europe; but
if England had rejected friendly intercourse with France—it
she had scowled upon the Republic, and given the preference
to others who wished to displace the peculiar form of govern-
ment which France had adopted—if we by these means had
thrown ourselves hostilely against France, I will not under-
take to say that it would have been possible to maintain the
peace of the world, which, during the last year has been of
such paramount importance.—(Hear.) So much for our
relations with France; and I humbly venture to think that
there may be in that some reason why this country may
congratulate itself, though Hon. Members opposite re-
fuse to join in that congratulation.—(Hear, hear.) Then
comes the subject of what have been called " mock media-
tions." Why, anybody who has heard what has passed
here and elsewhere, in the course of the last 48 hours, would
imagine that never before this year was there such a thing
as mediation.—(Hear. hear.) They would imagine that it
was a newly invented operation, resorted to for some mis-
chievous purpose, and for which the Government who under-
took it deserved the severest censure.— (A laugh.) I must
plead guilty to this crime long before the present year., It
was my lot to be engaged in mediations many years ago,
and fortunately, with considerable success.—(lronical
cheers.) The Government of which I had the honour to be
a member was able by meditation to prevent a rupture be-
tween France and the United States, and also to make peace
between France and the Republic of sllexico. Other smaller
but also important mediations I do not mention—(A laugh)
but those two at least were events from which considerable
consequences must have followed. But in this sweeping
censure on mediations my predecessor in office, Lord Aber-
deen, must take his share of the blame. Lord Aberdeen,
in connexion with Russia, mediated between Persia
and Turkey, and also between Denmark and Sardinia.
I say nothing of the mediation in the case of the
River Plate, which is still going on, part of the censure for
which I must divide with him—(A laugh)—but I trust
some paragraph will be inserted in the amendment contain-
ing a due portion of blame to Lord Aberdeen as well as to
me. Mock mediations ! One would suppose that media-
tions were merely diplomatic dramas got up for amusement,
and leading to no result. Take the mediation between
Denmark and Prussia. Was that a mediation of ours? Far
from it. It wad a mediation which this country was asked
to undertake; and, although it has not yet come to a final
close, it has at least had the advantage of obtaining a sus-
pension of hostilities, establishing a temporary peace, putting
an end to that interruption to commerce which hostilities
had for a long time produced, and i trust laying the founda-
tion for a satisfactory and honourable adjustment between
the parties.--(Hear.) The Hon. Member for Buckingham-
shire said—" You should have let Denmark alone. Your me-
diation began just when Denmark was supported by strong
and active allies, and if hostilities had been allowed to go on
Denmark would soon have settled the question." What was that,
in other words, except the advocacy of an European war?
There was Germany, on the one hand, running wild after
some particular doctrine in regard to the Duchy of Schles-
wig, and Denmark, on the other hand, strong in her
opinion as to her right to that Duchy. Demark was sup-
ported by Russia and France—war was going on—Denmark
was thrust into the field, and about to apply to Russia and
France to aid in sustaining her claim; while Germany
was already in the plains of Schleswig ; —what was that
but a general European war?—(Cheers.) And we are
blamed, forsooth, for having prevented it.—(Cheers.) That
is offence the first : that is the first article of our impeach-
ment. Sir, I feel no alarm as to the opinion to which the
House will come upon that subject.—(Cheers.) Then, as to
our mediation between Austria and Lombardy,—what was
its history? In May the Austrian Government sent over
here a diplomatist who had been before a chargé d'affaires
to this country, Baron Colloredo, asking the good
offices and mediation of England between Austria and her
revolting subjects. That diplomatist proposed certain
terms upon which the mediation was to proceed. We said
it would afford us the liveliest satisfaction to mediate
between Austria, who had been so long and so closely in
alliance with England, and any portion of her revolting sub-
jects; but to propose that which we had reason to know
would not be accepted by the other party would only be a
waste of time, and therefore we observed—" If you will add
so and so to your proposals, which we think will be accepted,
we will then proceed in our efforts to establish peace between
you, Austria, and Lombardy." What was the answer? The
Austrian diplomatist said—" I am not authorised to accede
to your proposition, but I do not feel justified in rejecting it;
I will take it ad referendum; I will gd to' my Government
and ask their opinion upon it." I believe the proposal was
afterwards made directly by Austria to Lombardy, but
was not accepted, so that that measure fell at the time to the
ground. Latterly things took a different turn. The Aus-
trian army being reinforced gained considerable advantages.
Application was then made by Sardinia to the Government
of France for assistance. The government of France stated
to us, in pursuance of those relations of confidence and good
faith which existed between us, "If you will join us in
carrying out a mediation between these parties, and endea-
vour with us to settle terms of peace between them, we will
act with you ; but if you refuse to do so, we shall be unable
to prevent military interference in the affairs of Italy."—
( Hear, hear.) We assented, and that is the real fault of the
Government of England.—(Cheers.) It is because we pre-
vented a war in Italy, which would have infallibly led to a
war in Europe ; it is because, in joining France in her sincere
and pacific offers of friendly mediation, we prevented events
which must have brought on a general war —that we are
now impeached by the Hon. Gentleman opposite.—(Cheers.)
That is crime the second ; but, Sir, I feel the same confidence
as to the opinion of the House upon that part of the impeach-
ment.—(Bear, hear.) It is said that we are imposing terms
on Austria. It is totally untrue. There is no imposition of
terms—nor any intention of imposing terns. We stated why
we thought certain arrangements would lead to the well-un-
derstood interests of Austria, and promote a pacific termina-
tion ; but it was for Austria to determine whether she would
accede to them. I hope she may. If not, it is as free for her
to refuse as we feel ourselves free to offer. Then as to the
mediation between Naples and Sicily. That mediation was
repeatedly asked by a person whom (following the example
of the Han. Member for Buckinghamshire) I may call the
Xing of Naples.—(Cheers and laughter.) Lord Minto was
sent from Rome, express by the Neapolitan Government.
When that Noble Earl went to Italy he had no instructions
to go on to Naples; but the Neapolitan Minister in this
country expressed to me a wish that Lord Minto might do so,
giving an assurance that if he did he would be most cordially
received. My reply was, that it was no part of Lord Minto's
instructions to go to Naples, but I said that he should imme-
diately have his credentials, and that the moment he received
direct intimation from Naples that his presence was wished
for he would forthwith repair to that Government. He went;
and was in constant communication with the Neapolitan Go-
vernment, at ther express desire and request. He was urged
by them to go over to Sicily to communicate with the Pro-
visional Government there, with a view to effect an amicable
arrangement; but that intervention unfortunately did not
succeed; for, meanwhile, the news of the revolution in Paris
had arrived there, which altered very much the state of feel-
ing in Sicily. Lord Minto thereupon returned to Rome. In
mentioning Rome and Lord Minto I must notice what has
fallen from an Honourable Member, who has attributed to
the presence of a Signor Sterbini at a dinner given by Lord
Minto the lamentable events that have since occurred in that
city. I can assure the Honourable Member that Lord Minto
did not receive Signor Sterbini at any dinner, and that so far
as an imaginary dinner given some twelve months ago had
produced the unfortunate events that have since happened at
Rome, I can say that Lord Minto is perfectly innocent.
Well, we withdrew from the mediation, retaining at the
same time a great interest in the affairs of Sicily, because
those who know the degree in which the British Government
was connected with the establishment of the constitution of
1812 in Sicily—that sort of assurance given by our Minis-
ters of that day—not amounting, however, to a guarantee
that England would afford her assistance to the Sicilians in
sustaining that constitution, must see that any Government
of England could not avoid taking a lively interest in the
affairs of that country. But then came the question whether
the expedition which the King of Naples was about to send
to Sicily was or was not to be put a stop to. No instruc-
tions were given to interfere with that expedition. It
sailed, it reached Messina, and commenced operations. I
have heard it said that Messina was the stronghold of the
Neapolitan army. God help me! The idea of that being a
stronghold to the Neapolitans! They had been driven out
of Palermo, but had not been driven out of the stronghold
of Messina. But when they no longer found resistance
from that town, and after the flag of the Sicilians
had been hauled down, and the very idea of hos-
tilities had been given up, they did for 48 hours continue a
savage bombardment, destroying houses, palaces, churches,
and public buildings. After that they sent a body of
troops into the town to complete the destruction which the
bombe, shells, and cannon, had not effected. They laid
waste three miles of suburbs, burning, plundering, and mur-
dering as they went.—(Hear, hear.) Well, Sir, the Admirals
hearing this, and seeing what had happened, although men
accustomed to scenes of war, but still accustomed only to
war carried on according to the practice of civilized nations
—(Hear, hear)—they felt revolted and disgusted.—( Hear.)
But they felt more. They knew that the town of Palermo
was doomed to the same fate which had been inflicted upon
Messina, and they said, " We cannot permit it, and although
we have no instructions upon the subject, yet, upon our own
responsibility, we will stop these atrocious proceedings, at
least till we have received the decisions of our respective Go-
vernments." They did so, and they established an armistice.
What were the Governments of England and France to do
in a case of that sort ?—(Hear, hear.) Was it fitting that
civilians sitting here in their comfortable homes—men who
have never seen a shot fired or blood shed in the field—was
it fitting that they should be sterner than those Admirals,
accustomed to all the horrors that are considered to belong
to ordinary wars? Was it fitting that Palermo should be
suffered to share the fate of sJessina? Why, Sir, even
those who now seek to condemn us I will not think
so ill of them as to believe they would have assented
to such a proposition. lam sure that no statesman
would, under such circumstances, have taken any other
course than has: been adopted by us. It was our duty to
follow it up by negotiation. That negotiation Is now going
on, and I am not without hope that it will be satisfactorily
concluded. If that consummation should be accomplished,
I shall feel no regret that the Admirals took upon themselves
the responsibility of interposing between the two contending
parties. But time is of great value in this as well as in
other cases. If an arrangement had been proposed at the
moment when the smoking ashes of Messina were before the
eyes of the Sicilians, they might have refused terms which
may now beaccepted without difficulty. On the other hand, the
King of Naples may perhaps now consent to an arrangement'
which, in the moment of his victory, or, as he might think,
his triumph, he would have been indisposed to agree to.
(Hear, hear.) At all events, we have the satisfaction of
thinking that. the mediation of England and France upon
that occasion prevented great calamities to Sicily, and I trust
also that while on the one hand that mediation secured hap-
pineaa and constitutional freedom to Sicily, it may also lead