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

LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, FEBRUARY 2, 1849,7

internal condition of this country or its external
relations. —(Loud [cries of "Hear, hear.") At this mo-
ment, important and numerous as are the subjects for our
consideration, doubtless the most exigent would seem
to be the state of Ireland ; the language which I find
in the note which I have made of the Speech does
not convey to me the impression that her Majesty's
Ministers are of opinion that the state of Ireland re-
quires any immediate remedy.— (" Hear, hear," from se-
veral Irish Members.) The language is obscure, and, if

it can be satisfactorily explained, it will show the advan•
tage of discussion in the present instance. I find it stated
that the seperation of the laws for the relief of the poor in
Ireland will properly be a subject of early inquiry; " and
any measures by which those laws may be beneficially
amended, and the condition of the people may be improved,
will receive my cordial assent." Now, I think it is of very
great importance to know what her Majesty's Ministers
mean to convey by the phrase "early inquiry."—(Hear.)
Is it an inquiry, for example, by a Committee of the House
of Commons? In that case the "inquiry," no doubt, might
be early, but the conclusion most probably would be
delayed.—(Hear, hear.) And why an inquiry by a Commit-
tee of the House of Commons? We have had sufficient ex-
perience, I think, of what inquiries ,by Committees of the
House of Commons way accomplish upon subjects upon
which an Administration, duly informed, ought to have
initiated measures. I do not see why, in the present in-
stance, for example, the case of the poor-law in Ireland
should be an exception to that rule. You have a Poor-law
Commission in Ireland, you have a Government Board in
Ireland, and I want to know from what sources can
the Administration obtain more ample and satisfac-
tory information than from such quarters? They ought
to be in possession of the information ; if they think
there ought to be an alteration in the laws,
they ought to be prepared to legislate upon that well-
digested information. They have had sufficient time well to
consider the authentic information that has reached them;
and certainly, in the present state of Ireland, if the only
measure that her Majesty's Ministers are about to bring
forward with respect to that country is the proposition of an
inquiry into the operation of the poor-law by a Parliamen-
tary Committee, I think that is .a course neither satisfactory
nor statesmanlike.—(Rear, hear.) I do not doubt for a
moment—no. one can—the urgency of the state of Ireland.
Honourable Gentlemen who represent that country have
much to answer for, in my opinion, by their conduct with
respect • to their constituents—(Hear, hear)—they have to
consider whether the state of Ireland is merely brought about
by the present operation of the poor-laws—whether it may
not in a great measure have been occasioned and aggravated
' by other measures which they supported—(" Hear, hear,"
from the Opposition benches)—and by the non-adoption of
other measures which they. oppose—(Hear, hear)—mea-
sures to which, by-the-by, they gave their private en-
couragement and offered their public opposition.—( sear,
hear.) Therefore, when gentlemen representing Ireland
come forward and complain of the condition of Ireland, it is
well that they should recollect how far they individually
may be responsible for the present state of Ireland.— (Hear
hear.) I believe I see a gentleman opposite who represents
a county in Ireland—l read a speech of his at a county
meeting the other day—l read the reasons he alleged for the
present condition of Ireland; and one of the weightiest was
the repeal of the eorn-law in the year of our Lord 1846.
But when I referred to the list of those who voted for that
repeal, I found in it the name of that worthy knight of
'the shire.—(Hear, hear, and a laugh.) I think it is well
for us to consider whether these circumstances--Irish
Members complaining so much who supported that repeal,
and who opposed measures that were brought forward on
this side of the House, privately encouraged at meetings
holden by those very same Members (Hear, hear)—are to
be forgotten at this moment.—(Heir, hear.) I confess it
is a subject upon which I have no inclination or heart to
dwell •upon the present occasion. (The Hon. Member
paused a moment, apparently somewhat embarrassed by his
feelings.) There was a policy once proposed in this House
with respect to Ireland—(Hear)—which by the Irish Mem-
bers was defeated—(Hear)—but which, if it had been pur-
sued, would have produced a very different effect from what
we now see in that country—(Hear, hear)—a policy which
was obliged to be partially pursued, even by the Govern-
ment who then opposed it.—(Hear, hear.) The proposer of
that policy is no longer among us. At a time when every-
thing that is occurring vindicates his prescience and de-
mands his energy, we have no longer his sagacity to guide
or his courage to sustain us.—(Hear, hear.) In the midst
of the Parliamentary strife his plume can soar no more for
us to rally round.—(Hear.) But he has left us the legacy
of heroes—the memory of his great name, and the inspiration
of his great example. Sir, there is one subject, I confess,
with regard to Ireland, which I am glad to see has been
omitted from her Majesty's Speech. I think I may con-
gratulate the House, the country, and the Government, that
they have not brought forward a measure with respect to
Ireland, the only recommendation of which was the tradi-
tionary approbation of statesmen who existed half a cen-
tury ago, and who, if they were not mistaken in the opinion
that they then adopted, at least formed that opinion under
circumstances very different to those under which we unhap-
pily now live—(Hear)—a measure which it was rumoured
was to be introduced the moment Parliament assembled, the
rumour assuming at one time all the colour of authen-
ticity. I think it is a matter of congratulation, with all the
difficulties which we have to encounter, that we have
not that measure introduced—(Hear)—a measure which,
while it would violate principle, as it appears to me, could
not accomplish any of the objects of policy—which must, un.
der all circumstances, be a great blow to the Church, from
sanctioning a too prevalent misconception as to the tenure
under which the ecclesiastical estate is holden—a measure
which would not conciliate those whom it was projected to
please, and which would at the same time have outraged the
sentiments and convictions of the great majority of the popu-
lation of the three kingdoms.—(" Hear, hear," from the Op-
position henches.) I think that omission from her Majesty's
Speech is a significant subject for congratulation.—( Hear.)
It argues, I think, rather a want of resource in the statesmen
of the present age, that their only expedient for the cure of
Irish evils should be the revival of an antiquated project,
which really is not suited to the spirit of the age in which
we live, or to the present condition of these kingdoms.—
(Hear, hear.) I trust we shall hear no more of that project.
—:(Hear.) Of this I am certain, that it will never bear dis-
cussicin in this House, and that no Parliament will pass it
that fairly represents the opinion of the people of these
realms.—(Hear, hear.) Sir, there are three paragraphs in
her Majesty's Speech which I must describe as congratula-
tory paragraphs; they refer to the state of commerce, to the
state of manufactures, and to the state of the revenue. There
cari be no difference of feeling among gentlemen on
either side of the House in respect of pleasure at hearing that
there is an increase of employment in the manufacturing dis-
tricts, especially among those gentlemen who come from
rural regions, because certainly they cannot assure the House
that there is any great increase of employment in that
quarter.—(Hear, hear.) But I am bound to say that when I
am called upon to express great satisfaction that commerce
is reviving from those checks which during the last session
we had to deplore, I am required to assent to a statement
which appears to me contrary to fact, and which, under the
authority of Parliament, is calculated to convey to the people
a very deceptive conclusion.—(Hear, hear.) I must take a
general view of the commercial position of this country at
the present moment. It appears to me that the commerce
of.this country is greatly suffering. I find that the exports
have fallen off by millions; I find that the decay has been,
though rapid, in a certain sense gradual, and that it has
taken place under a new commercial system.—(Hear,
hear.) That commercial system was introduced to
' our notice and adopted by our votes, on the ob-
servation of three years ; and now I bring to the consi-
deration of its results also the observation of a period
of equal duration. I am perfectly willing to admit—more
than willing to admit, I am anxious to enforce—the expe-
diency and extreme necessity of the most unimpassioned
spirit in discussing now our commercial tystem. When these
alterations were proposed, they were theoretical projects, and
our apprehensions were equally theoretical; it is not at all
surprising that under such circumstances there should have
been some heat and passion; but when we have results be-
fore us, when we have facts to deal with that are official,
conclusions that cannot be contradicted, all that we have
got to do is to exercise the common sense which I trust we
all possess, and draw those deductions which no one can
deny, if they are founded upon data, the authenticity of
hear.) In my opinion the
w commercial ;tre;ults of which are referred to
ssyPhsuattese. disputes.—(Hear,
a trial, a fair trial, and has
iine whicht
the
n o
Speech,on e
failed.—(" Hear, hear," and some murmurs.) I am per-
fectly aware of everything that can be said on the other
hand; I hear murmurs that are repeating the arguments
which are daily brought forward; it will be said, " True it
is, the new commercial system has been on trial for some
three years, but it has had to encounter exceptional circum-
stances which no one could have anticipated."—(" Hear,
hear," from the Ministerial benches.) Hear, hear !
exactly; I am perfectly prepared for your giving in your
adherence to my statement of your own case. "The new
commercial system has had to encounter a famine of corn
in Europe, a famine of cotton in America; it has had to
encounter more than these two great disadvantages—it has
had to encounter convulsion throughout the continent ; you
cannot, therefore, be surprised that the system under such
circumstances should have failed." Now let us look 'at
the facts of the case. I am anxious to test the state of
commerce in this country in a manner most advantageous
to the opinions of gentlemen opposite; I test the effect of
your measures upon the markets which you have most lauded
—your chosen markets, and with reference to the effect upon
that branch of industry whose interest you most advocate,
and which all must acknowledge to be the most important
in the country, because all interests in the country in
turn are obliged to bow to it. I will see, for ex-
ample, how your new commercial system has worked be-
tween England and the United States; and I will take with
'
every advantage your chosen item of the cotton manufac-
ture. I will not -weary
you with statistics. I will give yea
the conclusions at which I have arrived upon official state-
ments, to which you can appeal ; and if you doubt my con-
clusion; in the course of the session there will be plenty of
opportunity of refuting them. In the year 1847 the impor-
tations from the United States into this country were the
greatest in amount upon record. There was an importation
of what in the American language is called " breadstuffs "
(A laugh)—to so great an amount that the extra profit of
the Americans upon breadstuffs, as compared with the prices
in 1848, amounted to 5,300,0001. sterling; so that besides the
ample and sufficient profit the Americans would have obtained
under any circumstances, by the prices of 1848 for example,
the excess of price in 1847, in consequence of the famine of
mlel i:cial
corn in Europe, gave them an extra profit of 5,300,0001. ;
while, in consequence of the,famine of cotton in the United
states, although they sent a much lesser quantity than in
the, preceding or subsequent years, the extra profits
No v,
cotton amounted to 3,200,000/. ; therefore the Americans re-
ceived
that
wasa from us
year an extraextremely pr o fit that year
favourable of f
tBOSW
co
in-
terchange, and therefore your two great evils of you corn
famine inEurope and your cotton famine in America com-
bined together to test the principles of your new commercial
system with every possible advantage. The natural question
is, what did the Americans take from us in exchange under
these circumstances? Now, we have the complete returns
upon this point before us; and I find that they took of our
round numbers,
cotton manufactures, in 60,000,000 of
yards extra.—(Hear, hear.) Instead of 25,000,000,
which they took from us before the change of
the law, they took in 1841, under the remarkable circum-
stances I have stated, 85,000,000 of yards; an amount not
equal to that which the whole Levantine market takes at
the present moment. The question, therefore, for you to
consider is whether taking 66,000,000 yards more of your
manufactures is an equivalent exchange for the immense
importations
to ortattihonesuyonuit:decesitvaetdes --(Hear, hear.) But it so hap-
froin, and the immense price you
paid
pans that returns before us prove that even these 60,000,000
of yards were not an exchange at all on reference to the
operation of the new law, because it appears by American
returns which I now possess, that American home manufac-
tures were increasing at the rate of 30,000 bales per annum.—
(Hear, hear.) In the year 1847, in consequence of the high
price of cotton, and the commercial circumstances that al-
lowed her to import our manufactures much cheaper than
she could make them herself, ceased that year to manufac-
ture at all.—(Hear.) If, therefore, you had not taken her
" breadstuffs, she would have taken your piece goods all the
same. This is proved by the patent fact that in 1848 she re-

sumed her own manufactures; and that your exports have
consequently fallen off more than 30,000,000 of yards.—
(Hear, hear.) Now, Sir, these two famines combined to give
you a chance with the United States which it is clear you
can never again enjoy in your commercial intercourse with
her.—(Hear.) With regard to the third exceptional circum-
stance, Hon. Gentlemen on the other side point to the
convulsions that have taken place upon the Continent,
and attribute that as a cause of the failure of their
commercial system. Have we not had every daily organ,
every morning journal, and every evening paper—aye,
every oracular weekly published on the Saturday—
(A laugh)—reminding us that this was only what they had
from the first anticipated and expected. One and all of
these writers maintained that, in the present state of the
Continent, English manufactures could not by any possibi-
lity be disposed of. But what is the fact? It now appears
that, in 1848, more English manufactured goods were ex-
ported to the Continent than ever.—(Hear.) The third great
cause turns out, therefore, to be a circumstance—excep-
tional, if you will—bat a circumstance also highly favour-
able to the development of your commercial system.—
(Hear and a laugh.) There are two other circumstances
that would likewise be alleged as exceptional, no doubt, but
which are likewise highly favourable to the system. They
have not beets referred to; but their influence cannot be
calculated upon any longer. In the first place, the corn
famine on the Continent prevented agricultural distress in
this country from :being felt as it was now begun to be felt.
That is a fourth exceptional circumstance. There is
another, a fifth, which is also one of importance.
Men who have considered the subject of the na-
tional distress in all its bearings—men who have
considered it calmly in the closet, and without re-
ference or connexion with any party in the State—these
calm, dispassionate, thinking men have always held that if
you attempt to fight hostile tariffs with free imports, and so
to endeavour to get rid of those evils, or alleged evils, that
existed in respect to the commercial intercourse of one coun-
try with another, the consequence of that course of policy
would be an injurious—effect produced on the distribution of
the precious metals—an effect that would be more hurtful to
England than any other country, because of her fixed debt,
her fixed rate of payments, and her unchangeable standard of
value. But what has happened in respect to this circum-
stance? The convulsion on the Continent, which you so much
deprecate, has saved you from the effects of that disturbance
in distribution which would otherwise have ensued, and
poured the precious metals into the lap of this country, not
by means of a commercial, but by means of a political action.
—(Hear, hear.) In -fact your alleged five great causes of
failure—your live exceptional circumstances—have acted
altogether in favour of your commercial system—have given
it a support which it can never expect again, and have
softened down and rendered harmless for the time its in-
evitable evil to the country. And yet you go about the
country telling the people in all parts that these circum-
stances have been the cause of the failure of your system.
—(Hear, hear.) Why has your system failed? and why
has the commerce of the country been in an unprosperous
state? I will tell you. Because the countries whose pro-
ducts you take will not take your products.—(Loud cheers.)
I have shown you how the United States, with a corn
famine in Europe and a cotton famine in America, only
took from you 60,000,000 of yards one year, and in the next
only 30,000,000 of yards, though they received of your
money eight and a half millions sterling in the same period.
—( Hear, hear.) Look at our position with respect to Brazil.
You will all recollect that Brazil was the pet place
of the Ministry ; you will all recollect the glowing
accounts given by the late Vice-President of the Board of
Trade of its manufacturing-consuming capabilities. Yet in
1848 there were 25,500,000/. worth of property sacrificed in
that country ; and so glutted was the market that Eng-
lish goods were selling at Bahia at half the cost price. I
hold in my hand a letter from a merchant resident in
that country, dated December 2, 1848, in which the
writer says, " The state of trade in this country is truly
alarming. What the result of increased imports may be we
cannot foresee. We have cargo after cargo sent out here.
The future is an enigma which I cannot solve. What will
become of the goods already received is inconceivable. The
stores and warehouses, even the custom-houses, are full to
repletion. If we continue to import, we may shortly wit-
ness piece goods sold below the prime cost in the country of
their production." This is the state of the markets of Brazil.
I have already shown the House the state of the market
of the United States. All this has been caused by
the adoption of your commercial system. Your position in
Europe is no better. Russia is hermetically sealed against
you, and Prussia is not yet shook.—(Laughter and near.)
1 know that some gentlemen will say " It is no matter how
much we export, it is all a question of import; inasmuch as
foreigners will not give us their goods without getting some-
thing from us in return." _This is all very true. But the
country is looking at this moment to what terms of exchange
in the matter may be most beneficial. You may force the
markets and glut the markets abroad as much as you choose;
but 1 forewarn you that the only effect of such operations
against hostile tariffs will be that you will exchange more
and more of your own labour every year for less and less
of an equivalent ; that you will, therefore, render British
labour and native industry year by year less efficient—
that you will degrade it by lessening profits, and there-
fore by lessening wages—and that you will, as the phi-
losophers have foretold you, effect that distribution of the
precious metals which will be most injurious to this country.
Therefore it is that I advocate reciprocity—therefore it is
that I believe all practical men now advocate reciprocity as
the basis of our commercial system. I have always sup-
ported it in this House—not on those principles amusingly
attributed to me by Hon. Gentlemen opposite, but on those
principles propounded , in the treaty of Utrecht, those
principles copied and, acted upon by Mr. Pitt, those
principles which formed the foundation of Mr. Eden's
instruction, those principles, in a word, which were fully
adopted and wisely applied by the Cabinet of Lord
Liverpool, and which we abandoned in 1846. There
is another reason why you should no longer delay—
though you may think you are able to justify delay—in
dealing with the question, on what commercial principle
the policy of this empire ought to be conducted? Tort
can no longer delay the consideration of the state of our
colonies.—(Hear.) This is a question that is no longer a
mere question of differential duties. You, the disciples of
political economy, on every occasion have enunciated as an
admitted principle that our colonies are to be regarded as
an integral part of the empire. But though you protess
this principle, I do not find that you act on it. You have
acted on opposite principles with respect to your colonies.
You will therefore have to consider your relations with the
colonies, if you agree on the expediency of the principle of
commercial reciprocity. This is the only principle on
which you can re-construct your commercial system, so
as to make it an advantage to the mother country and
to the other side. , This principle is consonant with
every principle of common sense. It is not a mere phi-
losophical abstraction, but it . rests on the principles of ab-
solute truth—it is the only expansive system by which a
commerce can be established advantageous to the country.
We must give up the ideaof fighting hostile tariffs with free
imports, for so long as such a course of policy is pursued so
long will it prove injurious to commerce. And what has
been the result of your system ? Every year you come down
here, not to congratulate the House of Commons on the
state of commerce, but to explain why the colonies are
undergoing sufferings and privations; and all you no Ny ven-
ture to say in the Speech is, that the colonies are recovering
from the unparalleled checks which they have received.—
(Cheers.) I am not going to trouble the House with much
statistical detail. I give you my conclusions founded on
facts which are accessible to all—there is no mystery in the
statements I refer to, they are drawn from official returns in
the library; and I have no other advantage in referring to
them except that they are comprehensive and accurate.
Though I will not trouble the House with the details, I will
give them my conclusions as to the value of that system
which has recently been in the ascendant, even on that
branch of national industry—the industry of Lancashire
—we being taught that to the interest of our Lanca-
shire trade all legislation must bend.—(Hear, hear.)
The returns which I shall read will surprise some Hon.
Gentlemen in this House, and many more in the country.
The exports of calico, plain and printed, from the year 1831
to 1846, show us the progress of the trade to our British pos-
sessions and to foreign countries. During these 16 years,
for it is only from such a general view that we can form an
idea of the colonial trade with all foreign parts, the ex-
ports were 5,913 millions of yards; to the British colonies
they were so that our colonies have taken 313,000,000 yards
more than the rest of the world in the same period; in
the same period Canada and other North American
colonies took 680 millions of yards, while the United
States, for whose sake ,we have ventured so much, took
only 514,000,000 of yards. Our American colonies, there-
fore, took in the same period 165,000,000 yards more
than the whole of the United States in the sixteen years
I have referred to. In the same period, the West Indies
took more than . the foreign colonies by 86,000,000
of yards. India and China, compared with the Brazils, ex-
ceeded, in the same period, 903,000,000 of yards. I know
what will be said—that so large a period as sixteen years
ought not to be taken, because at that time the colonies were
highly protected, and trade was not in its proper state. To
meet this difficulty, I will divide the sixteen years into two
parts of eight years each,- and show you that the result will
be the same. I find that during the last eight years, as com-
pared with the first, there has been an increased export of
.Manchester goods, to the British possessions, of one billion
566 millions, while to all foreign possessions there has been
an increase of one billion, showing an advantage, in favour of
the British possessions, Of 566 millions. To the British West
Indies there has been increased export to the extent of 69
millions of yards, while to the United States there has been,
during the last eight years, a falling off of 105 millions
yards.—(Hear, hear.) With respect to these facts I wish to
make one observation to the House, and that is, that during
the last year, since the changes in our commercial
legislation, the total decrease in our exports to all parts has
amounted to 174 millions of yards. Here are changes since
you changed the principles of your commercial code. These
are instructive data—this is the moral of your new com-
mercial system ; and yet, in the face of documents drawn up
by your own officers, and sometimes doctored by your own
officers—(Hear, and a laugh)—you call on the House of
Commons to express an opinion which in substance is that
at present there is a substantial and wholesome revival of
trade. The Address does not dwell very forcibly on the re-
venue. It seems to me that her Majesty's Government were
unwilling to use very strong terms in referring to this sub-
ject. And when I recollect that the principal source of the in-
crease in the revenue has expired just now I am not sur-
prised at the modesty of tone adopted; yet I certainly can-
not feel there is room to congratulate the country on the
state of this question. On the contrary, I should have
thought that the state of the revenue would have forced
her Majesty's Mininister to consider the question on what
course of policy the commerce of this country shall be per-
manently established, and to have added that the experience
of late years had induced them to declare that reciprocity
was to be the acknowledged principle of our tariff, and that
this was the only principle on which the tariff could be con-
stituted for the advantage of our commercial system.—
(Cheers.) I now approach a more interesting portion of
her Majesty's Speech, and I ,have only delayed referring to
this part before, because I felt it. to be my duty, in
vindication of opinions in which, however we may be
outnumbered, we are prepared to own, to state those
opinions fairly to the house and to the country—confident
always, and never more confident than now, that ulti-
mately they will be adopted by the force of that public
opinion which, from experience, we know is being raised
against our views.—(Hear.) - I will now call the attention of
the House to those more lively and stimulating parts, which
form the more stirring portions of her Majesty's Speech. And
when I listened to her Majesty's Speech and the well-trained
echo which it called forth, I was surprised, I confess, at the
moral courage of the Government. It is the first time since
I have had the honour of a seat in this House that the Sove-
reign has met Parliament and has not been able to congratu-
late the House of Commons that she has received from all
her allies expressions of continued amity. This is a most
sigaitic-ant omission.—(hear.) However, her Majesty has
been advised "to feel, it satisfactory to be enabled to state
that both in the north and south of Europe the contend-
ing parties, have consented to a suspension of arms fbr
the purpose of negotiating terms of peace." Now, that
expression appears to me to be very obscure—more dip-
lomatic than Parliamentary. Who are the contending
parties? Are they her Majesty's allies who are referred to
in the words the north of Europe? Last session I ha I the
honour of calling attention, in May last, to the position of
Denmark, and I believe that had it not been for that suspen-
sion of arms, the country would now enjoy all the COll9O. I

quences of peace. Let us hope we shall be enlightened on
this subject by some of her Majesty's Ministers. Then as to
the South of Europe, has there been a suspension of arms in
Sicily or Italy? Let us receive information from her Ma-
jesty's Government on these matters without delay. I
thought at first that this suspension of arms must have been
a mistake, that the paragraph had not been enunciated cor-
rectly, and I am still at a loss to give any definite idea to it ;
'for we have been told that in the affairs of the island of
Icily the British Admiral was, from motives of humanity, in-
duced to interfere in order to put a stop to further effusion
of blood. Are we to understand that this further
effusion of blood was stayed by a British Admiral with-
, out instructions from the Queen of England ? Was
the policy of the Queen of England dictated by a French
admiral? Nothing would have been considered more un-
likely than this if I had not recollected a debate in which
inquiry was made of her Majesty's Government as to the
conduct, not of a French, but of a British Admiral. After
the answer that was made, I must say that it would appear
to me to be a very strong proceeding for an admiral, without
instructions from his Government, to interfere between a
foreign Sovereign and his people.—(Hear, hear.) If this be
a suspension of arms, I am sorry I cannot understand the
case, and must hope, therefore, that the House will be
further enlightened in the matter. Then the next para-
graph does not give us much illustrative light. It goes
on to say—" I availed myself of the interval to propose,
in conjunction with France, to the King of N-pies
an arrangement calculated to produce a permanent
settlement of affairs." In the first place, I have
no idea who the King of Naples is. He may
be some member of her Majesty's Government. In
these days of great diplomatic confusion and change, for
aught I know, the King of Naples may be some new power
who is not yet recognised ; but, certainly, I should as soon
have thought of a Speech from the Queen of London,
as an Address in allusion to the King of Naples. Is this
change of titles preparatory to more important changes?
Then we are told in the next paragraph that " negotiations
are still pending." What negotiations? Has her Majesty
and the King of the Two Sicilies agreed to enter into nego-
tiations—has a suspension of arms been agreed to, has any
mediation been accepted, or are we to adhere to the media-
-1 tion a the English and French Admirals? These are
points which we have a right to ask for an explicit and an
intelligible explanation of. Instead of there being any nego.
tiations going on, we can onlyperceive that no one is nego-
tiating but ourselves. Then we are told that it is the con-
stant desire of the Sovereign to maintain with all foreign
states friendly relations ; but we are not told that all foreign
states entertain the same anxiety to maintain friendly rela-
tions with us. At least it would be satisfactory to know if
all our allies are also our well-wishers, and that our diplo-
macy had so progressed that we still had an ally whom we
could address in- terms of amity, and who would reply to us
in the same spirit. I am not surprised to find that her
Majesty's Government has found it necessary to address
Parliament in terms so vague, unsatisfactory, and obscure on
our relations with Foreign Powers, considering the great
changes which have occurred on the Continent, and the part
which England has taken in the transactions which have
occurred. Look at the state of France—and the state of
the centre of Europe. I find in France a Republic with-
out Republicans—in Germany, an empire without an Em-
peror. This is progress.—(Cries of "Hear, hear.") This
is a settlement—this is an achievement of universal
suffrage.—(Hear, hear.) This is the constitutional mode—
these are the political exemplars who are to fashion the fu-
ture fame and fate of England.--(Hear.) The whole is a
scene of unrivalled absurdity, where all the circumstances
are only calculated to create our indignation and contempt.—
(Hear.) We appear to have been mediating without an ob-
ject, and I have a right to ask, what has been the object of
your mediation? Look at the unhappy case of Denmark.
Had you acted with proper firmness at the outset, it is quite
possible that the disgraceful proceedings in the case of Den-
mark and Schleswig-Holstein would have terminated.
Here was an ancient and independent kingdom attacked by
an 'Assembly meeting in a German town. I speak of the
Frankfort Assembly as a German romance.—(Laughter.)
But then a German romance may be a pernicious article, and
in my opinion there is nothing more unjust, violent, and un-
warranted, than the conduct of the Frankfort Assembly.
England might have had the support of France to terminate
these disgraceful proceedings; but I should not have been
surprised had Government felt it to be their duty, under
existing circumstances, to have refused to act with France.
On a former occasion I described the case of France in a
manner to excite the indignation of her Majesty's Ministers;
but her Majesty's Ministers are not in a condition to speak
against an offer by the Provisional Government of France.
The Provisional Government of France was recognised, and
as soon as it was recognised it fell.—(Laughter.) M. Louis
Blanc was not recognised, sad in the policy Government
pursued they acted according to prudence and precedent.
The editors of the National and the soldier who was brought
forward to support them were recognised, and an opportunity
might have been found to have saved Denmark. The state of
the question remains, after the lapse of a year, in as vague and
as unsatisfactory a state as heretofore, and I defy you to point
out the parties about which the Government are mediating.
What was your next mediation? You mediated in the
case of Austria, which was then engaged in a dispute with a
part of her subjects. In the' case of that ancient monarchy
you declared that Austria should be blotted out of the list of
nations! It is thus you interfere—that is to say, that you
mediate. Why the Emperor was never consulted! Other
parties have never been consulted ! But since then that
empire had shown, as she has always done, the wideness
and profundity of its resources; it has asserted its sove-
reignty in a manner so distinguished, that she stands in the
eyes of Europe in a more distinguished position than she
had acquired before this struggle ; she had settled the
question of the kingdom of Bohemia—its rebellious king-
dom ! It has asserted its authority in her ancient capital,
which is not to be questioned; and in the same manner that
empire has shown how completely the great body of the
population have established the sovereignty of Hungary.
There was another place where they consented to a suspen-
sion of arms, where victory was about to decide the dispute.
Then again, if we look to Lombardy—Lombardy was recon-
quered by the same empire. If I look to the case of the
kingdom of Naples, there is not thu slightest evidence that
there were ever two parties to that mediation.—(Cheers.)
There is not up to this moment, I say, the slightest evidence
to show that any person was engaged in this mediation save
and except the French Admiral. The King of Naples was
placed in the same position in respect to his rebellious sub-
jects, as our own Sovereign was placed in reference to her re-
bellious subjects in Ireland. Like our own Sovereign, the
King of Naples was prepared to assert his authority, and it
would have been a great mistake at that moment to say that
he should not vindicate his authority. But you allowed him
to vanquish one city in the rebellious island, and when
the rebels were on the point of giving up, then
you come forward and say that the rest must be
done by means of mediation. What was the con-
sequence? There have been two consequences resulting
from your mediation, both of which are most dan-
gerous. First of all, in consequence of this mock media-
tion, nothing is settled. If Austria had been let alone, I
believe that Denmark would have been let alone—certainly
the kingdom of Naples would have been left alone—and I
believe that all Europe would have "been in tranquillity by
this time. That tranquillity has not taken place, and why
because you have been mediating.—(Cheers.) But suppose
war occurs in consequence, and will not allow peace
to flourish? Then what must be the consequence ? No
confidence would be felt on the part of any country be-
cause you have offended them. But take s aples—the case
of the King of the Two Sicilies, for example. You,
by your language in Parliament, and your hostile
demonstration by the presence of a fleet in the
Bay of Naples, made the Sicilians feel certain that you
were about to undertake their cause! They are beaten, and
you leave them ; therefore they feel the deception doubly,
and at that moment you deprive the King of Naples of
victory, and you alienate the hearts of his rebellious sub-
jects. I will not take advantage of her Majesty's Govern-
ment whatever their position may be—l am not about to
use the hacknied language of the day about non interven-
tion; but, circumstanced as we are, I say that the presence
of an English fleet is the best guarantee of peace! But that
should be in accordance with the law of nations, and with
the stipulations of treaties which you are bound to observe,
in which, as the champions of the law, your interference
might be advocated. But what you do is contrary to the
law of nations—contrary to the stipulations of treaties—and
contrary to the policy of Europe. I took the liberty of
asking her Majesty's Government last year when they began
this eccentric course of policy—what were the principles
of foreign policy which they were adopting? When
I heard of their unexampled interference I asked—Are
you to interfere politically or sentimentally? If your
policy is only to arm to fulfil rights—if you mean to take up
the nonsense of the day—the principle of nationality—then
change your policy ; and you are bound to come to the
House and say we dave altered oar policy, and thus allow
us to discuss that policy. Nothing can be more dangerous
than that this policy, which is so revolutionary, should be
adopted. Before I make any observations on the interesting
topic of the day, I feel bound to those who are not imme-
diately my constituents, but whose interests I am bound
to advocate in this House—to make another inquiry in re-
spect to the mediation, not any mock mediation, which has
so long been carried on—l mean our interference in the
waters of the La.Plata? In this very extraordinary case
there has been no less than six confidential agents employed
by her Majesty's Government, and they have all failed ! The
last agent, if not expressly treated with personal indignity,
was treated by a second-rate colony in the same manner as
an ambassador had been treated in the capital of the mother
country.—(Hear.) Is it possible to imagine that negocia-
tions are still going on, or are we engaged in such important
transactions that six missions have failed? The House of
Commons has never been informed of:the instructions which
were given to Lord Howden by the Earl of Aberdeen. When
I asked for this information I was told it was inconvenient at
that moment, because another envoy was then on his passage
out with fresh instructions ; but the envoy who was on his
passage had failed then, and another had failed since. There-
fore, I say, I should like to have the instructions to Lord
Howden ; for, like the dynasties of Macbeth, " another to
another still succeeds;"—but that is the only thing they
do not do—they do not succeed.—(Laughter.) But one
hears so much of the affairs of the La Plata as
might have done for the Liverpool Reform Asso-
ciation, who have proved satisfactorily to the country
that the diplomatic profession is merely intended to
employ the aristocracy, and that the wooden walls of
England were the only means of maintaining the younger
sons. But unhappily it turns out that the merchants of
Liverpool, and the persons engaged in the Liverpool Finan-
cial Reform Association, are the very men to whom we are
indebted for the expense attending six missions to La
Plata, for the destruction of our commercial interests, and
all the injuries which we have experienced. And this leads
me to to a most important subject, namely, the immense
changes which have occurred since I last addressed you, Sir.
Empires have fallen—the Pope is no longer to be found in
Rome. Her Majesty's Government has met Parliament, and
tacitly admits that her Majesty has no allies. But porten-
tous as these changes are, nothing is so marvellous as the
fact in which is included the contingency that her Majesty's
Government have become converts to financial reform.—
(Cheers.) The age of miracles has not passed.—(Laughter.)
It would, however, be satisfactory, when statements of this
kind are brought before the House, and when the Noble Lord
the mover of the Address states that he has proposed an
Address to the Crowu which he thinks offers no ground for
difference of opinion, it would be extremely desirable that
some Member of her Majesty's Government should rise in
his place and explain this part of the Speech from the
Throne, which is brief, but very pithy:—" I have directed
the estimates for the service of the year to be laid before you;
they will be framed with the most anxious attention to a
wise economy. The present aspect of affairs has enabled
me to make large reductions on the estimates of last year."
Were the estimates which were presented last year framed
with " every possible attention to a wise economy" also?
But, Sir, it is rather strange that we should be told that the
present aspect of aflairs has enabled us to make these large
reductions! This question naturally arises, we ask our-
selves what is the aspect of affairs? Is it what I read up
here in another part of the Speech, " The insurrection in
Ireland has not been renewed, but a spirit of dissaffection
still exists"—is that it? Is it what I read up here, "A
rebellion of a formidable character has broken out in the
Punjaub," &c.—is that the aspect of affairs which justifies
these reductions? Is it the fact that at this moment
2,000,000 of armed dissatisfied men are moving about in the
face of Europe in hostile array ? Is that the aspect of atfair3
under which her Majesty's Government ought to make large

reductions in the estimates of last year? Why, when we
met last year her Majesty had allies. Her Majesty had not
only allies, but sovereigns have since been her guests in her
own Castle. Foreign affairs last year were so tranquil, that
it was with difficulty that the Noble Lord who presides over
the foreign department could furnish his quota of the Royal
Speech, in which he stated that there had been a treaty con-
cluded with an American Republic, the name of which per-
haps no six Honourable Members had ever heard of. This
was the tranquillity which prevailed in foreign matters. Our
revenue last year, Sir, was not more prosperous than it is at
present ; our trade was not more successful or brisk than it
is at present. But in the face of all the circumstances I
have stated, the Government propose these reductions.
The Minister last year did not come forward with reduc-
tions, but he proposed an increased expenditure—not with
a proposition for the relief of the burdens of the people,
but with a proposal for increased taxation. We were
then to have an increase of the forces—the militia was to
be called out; and what has happened since? One of
my objects is, if possible, to extract the information that
there should be a necessity for retrenchment. It is not sur-
prising in a Government which tampered with the resources
of the country for years. It is not a year ago since one
whose loss we all deplore told you that a less reduction than
25 per cent. on all salaries would not be satisfactory or suf-
ficient, But, Sir, lam quite sure that no one on this side of
the House will agree to any retrenchment that is not really
a just retrenchment,. occasioned by the circumstances of
the case, not implied by some mysterious reasons which we
have not yet fathomed. Last of all, when a Government
in a like spirit meddles with the navy of the country—let it
be remembered that the fleet influences the Cabinets of other
nations more than any missions, and that our English regi-
ments become as famous as the Roman legions. Yet large
reductions are to be made in the estimates of last year and
this is to be done under " the present aspect of affairs."
Sir, it cannot be that her Majesty's Ministers are converts
to the perpetual peace theory. Because, if that be the case,
and they continue to be Ministers, I shall not be satisfied
with a large reduction which must carry out that principle ;
and seeing what may be the effect of their having been
cognisant of pamphlets which have been largely circu-
lated, it is my business to discover whether they have in-
spired any portion of her Majesty's Speech. There was a
budget, a celebrated budget, which was received with accla-
mation some little time ago ; and no sooner had the lumi-
nary overtopped.the political horizon in the northern atmos-
phere, than there was its parhelion opposed to it in mitigated
splendour, and almost received with equal ardour in the eco-
nomic world. In reference to these two positions I should
say, certainly, I have no objection to the burdens of the
people of this country being removed to the amount named
by the Hon. Member for the West Riding, or the Hon.
Member for Glasgow—only we have a right to ascertain, or
rather to stipulate as to the sources from whence these
savings are to be realised. Where so much is promised I
might quote the words of the poet :
" Quibus divitias pollicentur ab illis drachmae petunt
De divitiis deducant drachman."
Effect your savings by all means ; but I say to those Hon.
Gentlemen who propose them, deduct your 10,000,0001. or
your 5,000,0001. from that immense treasury—that more
than California gold mine—the 100,000,0001. per annum, or
2,000,000/. sterling per week which was to be realised by the
repeal of the corn-laws.—(Great cheering from the Protec-
tionists.) It is hardly possible that her Majesty's Ministers
are going arbitrarily to assume a particular period for the
expenditure of this country, and not to regulate that expen-
diture by the necessities of the kingdom. This I know,
that whenever a Minister in this country has advocated re-
trenchment, not from justifiable circumstances, and as to
the amicable state of our foreign relations or to a state of
domestic tranquillity, but with reference to " the present
aspect of affairs," the consequence which has always fol-
lowed such rash and unadvised retrenchment has been an
increased expenditure.—(Cheers from the Protectionists and
by Mr. Goulburn.) lam obliged to my Right Hon. Friend
the Member for the University of Cambridge for his cheer,
but when he hears me out I rather think he will not cheer
me again. There was, it is true, a aonsiderable saving in the
year 1835 ; but we had at the time a very weak Government,
though composed of very able men, and I regret their fall;
but that I have always felt that the retrenchments effected in
1835 were too much in consequence of the political position of
the party then in power; but what followed? The moment
they made these retrenchments—from causes not arising
from the external condition of the country, but rather
from a political and irrational cry— Foreign Powers
(this was in 1835-6) observing that this country was
reducing its establishments without any reference to their
policy, but to its own political position, immediately in-
creased their force, and commenced pursuing a policy which
we were ultimately obliged to check. A very short time
after the fall of the Government of 1835 there was a great
increase of expenditure. So again, in 1830 we also, unfor-
tunately, had a weak Government, though formed of able
men, that made retrenchments merely to please the public;
and what happened? No sooner had the Government, led: ,
by a man no less eminent and illustrious than the Duke of.
Wellington, fallen than the whole foreign policy had changed;
and had it not been for the revolution in 1830, an alliance
would have taken place between Russia and France to ob- •
tain those objects which your policy had always opposed. •
The same consequence has followed the passing of the Reform I
Bill and the repeal of the corn-laws. But I cannot believt
that the Government will regulate the expenditure arbi- •
trarily and with reference to a particular year, and not by
the exigency of the case. But if by exigency of the case
what difference is there between the circumstances of thi
year and the last ? There is not a member of the Go ;
vernment who might not most appositely come forwar 3
and represent his particular department upon all the inte
resting subjects of comparison which the two last year
present in regard to its revenue, to its foreign relations, an'
to the state of its Indian empire. And when the Noble Lori a
the Premier shall sum up the case, it will tax the unnos
artifice of that rhetoric of which he is a master to put th
question satisfactorily before the country.—(Cheers.) Wha
I contend is, that your Address to the Throne does not con
let
tain a candid exposition of the state of the country. a.
ascertain, if possible, what the present aspect offf
I must follow the strategy of the great master ofa
r if
and exhaust my subject. I must endeavour to ascertain ,
her Majesty's Government are influenced by the oracles an La
by the people of Manchester.—(Cheers.) There have bet la
given several reasons why it is totally impossible that th
country can ever go to war, and, therefore, why the expel v
hae ic
ltOr
diture may be cut down to 10,000,0001. But is this tt
opinion of the Noble Lord the Secretary of State J.(
Foreign Affairs? Is it the opinion of his colleagues
There has, also, been an opinion broached Oat 11'
the French nation can never go to war again
consequence of the tenure of the landed property in th
ts
country—the land being subdivided the people bore the bu r;
den of taxation, and would not, therefore, go to war. ,
when I remember /3
that the same tenure of property exists
in that country forty and fifty years ago—during the Cons' la
late and the Empire—that the amount of property hel
under that tenure was, in comparison to the populatioi
equally great to what it is at present, and that with th. tt
tenure of land we had wars between the whole Continent ar
the French empire, I doubt the soundness of the react
thus assigned why France cannot go to war. But th
is one reason put forth by the Manchester oracles, and
want to know whether it is a convincing reason with b
Majesty's Government? Again, I wish to ask, is it tr
that her Majesty's Government are of opinion that t
present state of Europe is a state not of war but of revel Gj
tion, and that there is no danger to be apprehended ?
should: like to know the Noble Lord's opinion upon th,
First, as an abstract proposition, I doubt it; I think t
state of the continent is almost a state of war. It is a sti tt
in which dissatisfaction prevails in the minds of all men,
which the honest pursuits of industry are paralysed, in whi
property is uncertain, and in which the whole of the per
lation are controlled by military power instead of the ci
ts
anti constitutional modes adopted in peaceable times. N 14
had a revolution in this country in 1688—a revolution 7,
which the royal dynasty was changed; but the new So' ff,o
reign did not reign in the hearts of his people; and 7'„
years elapsed before the new dynasty could be firmly es f,
blished in this country ; and yet, after that revolution ‘i't.4
entered into war which was not the least glorious in
character, or the least comprehensive in its object, when co 1.
pared with other wars in which England has been engag
But it may be said that that was an aristocratic war, / of
made to promote the fortunes of young men of birth. I :co
France was not an aristocratic state. I have read a ape. ,4
' delivered by Robespierre in the Convention that was wort a'.l,
of the Free Trade Hall itself, and I have no doubt, had PA
lived in the present day, he would have been a Leaguer, a 0;
for aught I know, would have been as honest and able a ( ..
as any Member for Manchester could be.—(Cheers I rot
laughter.) Another reason has been assigned which I can: 3e,.
believe her Majesty's Government can assent to, for I 5.
lieving that war is impossible. It has been said that c( .A
stitutional Governments are established in Europe, and tie
.10
is no chance of war, because constitutional Governme; r.
never go to war. The Noble Lord opposite (Lord Palm `rio
ston) will tell the House whether the Governments that ha
been established are constitutional Governments; but if a tp
be, I cannot help thinking that the first thing they do is, la
interfere with their neighbours. Ido not agree W'
the argument that no nation will now attempt a
tpb
quest, because during the last hundred years there '4 DO
no nation which had not repented of their conquests I re
found them a source of weakness. Will those who Pt' 10
mulgate that position tell me that the conquest of Malta
been a source of weakness to this country?—(Cheers.)
might ask the same question with regard to Gibraltar. rd
(Cheers.) Are those acquisitions a sort of weakne
What do you think of the conquest of Silesia by Frual 1,9
which converted Prussia from a second-rate power, not of
~0
to a first rate, but to a power whose possible height at t 9:0
moment we are not capable of estimating? What think y 0,
of the acquisitions of Servia and of Transylvania by A ice
tria, which laid the foundation of its greatness, and tivi
saved the empire? What think you also of the conque ,
of Russia? I speak not of her ancient colonies, nor of tits
conquest of Poland—though I believe it constitutes t its
greatest strength of Russia—but I look at her provinces as
the south of Europe, in Jeksterinoslay, in Kherson, and 0
Bessarabia, the immense wealth of which districts forni 0
great part of the resources of Russia. There is one or 1,
reason given why it is held by these oracles to be totally g•
possible that nations can enter into war—because a new pi
ciple has risen up, that of the nationality of races. „r a'
quite impossible for the Emperor of Austria to conquer
.1 ot ,
bardy, because the people of Lombardy have discovered
' they are of the Italian race. This must be a principla:,,, A
the Noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs a' e
' possibly embrace. I should like to ask these gentleli,r
oracles whether they have ever read Dante, and if so, 0.010,
ther they have not risen from the study of that great
rentine with the conviction that the whole history of Iv° t
Italy, is, in fact, that of the holding of the country bYes
Germans over the Italians. But this principle of "'cola
unfortunately one of the reasons why I fear war
0009
always exist, because race implies difference, dioesoo•
implies superiority, and superiority leads to predolgtriee
The gentlemen who have set up this theory of that
have, in fact, adopted a principle totally opposed Of. 030
which is the foundation of the whole schema let r
system which has been vaunted within the ins"rieci
years, because the principle of race is opposed to the P..,,bich'
pies of equality, fraternity, and social economics, of "Fro.,
we have recently heard so much.—(Cheers from t.betentei,
tectionists.) lam told that. England must be c'in,,,,ere"
with a less demonstration of brute force. I am not Pra"rdear
to contradict that doctrine ; but I should like to have
definition of what brute force is. In My opinion, a 'ill- t.
disciplined army employed in a great perfoimance---!_11:1"00.3
the defence of the country, the maintenance of oronallf the
vindication of a nation's honour, or the consolidation dir.
national wealth and greatness—that a body of men,temiaent
ciplined, influenced, and led by some of the most goleys,
generals, by an Alexander, a Caesar, or our own int°,
is one in which moral force is as much entered
as physical.—(Glieers.) But if, for instance, lneeclir
o s
a man possessing a certain facility r Egreat:,
happily adapted to his cause, addressing °epees,
body of his fellow. men in inflammatorY" . toe
to their passions, and stirring them up agulforce-"
institutions of the country, that is what I call I thin,,
(Loud cheering from the Protectionists)—woln, "withour
this country would he very well content t ao
left i"
and which, if there be any sense or spirit
"ea
or any men of heart and right feeling in the c
tr.„,inioces.
will resolve to put down as an intolerable and sg
culy,t „as
tyranny.—,Tremendous cheering from the Pfleave ofhfely,3
and counter cheering from the Free-traders.)
observed that the hangers-on of the new systera.areiplilligter
fond of questioning the apothegm of a great Sweats"

iy, wlaen we
jes ty had not
guests in her
ranquil, that
)resides over
of the Royal
a treaty con-
f which per-
ard of. This
matters. Our
than it is at
brisk than it
3umstances I
reductions.
with reduc-
ire—not with
f the people,

We.
were
iilitia was to
.e? One of
rmation that
It is not sur-
the resources

go since one
;duction than
tctory or suf-
n this side of
is not really
=stances of
Ins which we
Government
)untry—let it
inets of other
English regi-
3. Yet large
ast year, and
:t of affairs."
are converts
t be the case,
t be satisfied
iat principle ;
having been.
argely circu-
iey have in-
There was a
I with accla-
Lad the lumi-
them atmos-
in mitigated
ur in the eco-
ions I should
rdens of the
mount named
or the Hon.
ascertain, or
whence these
is promised I