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

THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING,

r
this debate after my Noble Friends the mover of the
Address, and the seconder, paid a tribute which I think
natural to the Noble Lord who loeg led that party with
which he was connected, and whose loss he most justly de-
plored. Sir, I could not hear that tribute without remem-
bering I, too, since the last session of Parliament, have lost
friends with whom I was politically connected; and I must
say that I think it is not only natural, but riOit, that such
losses should not be passed over in silence in this House
(Hear, hear)—because the loss of men of undoubted integrity,
of high spirit, of great talent, and of indefatigable industry
in the transaction of public business, are not private but na-
tional losses.—( Hear,) Sir, in reatrring to the various to-
pics which have been raised ki this debate, I will state
but briefly the remarks that I have to make with regard
to Ireland, because there is no subject connected with that

country which is not likely, in a short time, to form the
subject of a separate discussion.—(Hear, hear.) With re-
gard to the particular amendment which the Hon. Gentle-
man has moved, relating to the powers of which the Go-
vernment propose to ask the renewal, I Nvili only call upon
the House to defer its judgment until they hear the state-
ment which my Right Hon. Friend shall make, founded
upon the opinion, certainly, of the Lord-Lieutenant; but
that opinion, formed not only upon his own judgment and his
own strict and sagacious observation of passing events, but
likewise upon the testimony of those from whom he is accus-
tomed to obtain information with regard to the state of the
country.—(Hear, hear.) I will only say, further, that I
hope this House will bear in mind, when they come to
that discussion, how long a Government must pause, sup-
posing no such power to exist, before it comes down to ask
Parliament for such powers—what menaces, what agita-
tion, what interruption of trade and commerce, what dis-
turbance of the public peace must occur ; and that if the
Suspension Act should expire, and agitation were again to
begin, it would not be at the first moment of that agitation
that Government could, with any hope of success, ask for a
grant of such powers, but that they must wait until a course
of events somewhat similar to that which took place before
had again occurred in Ireland, to the great misfortune of that
country.—(Hear, hear.) For these powers which we pro-
pose to ask are not powers against Ireland ; on the con-
trary, they are powers for the protection of all the well-
disposed—for the protection of the great majority of the
country against those who would turn its present condition
to purposes of disaffection and rebellion.—(Hear, hear.)
Sir, with respect to another topic, I own I was somewhat
surprised to hear from the Hon. Gentlemen who moved and
seconded this amendment, that the Government ought to
have come down and proposed at once its Bill for tho Amend-
ment of the Poor-law. I have been accustomed to hear con-

tinual reproaches that in our legislation for Ireland we do
not consult those who represent that country, and who know
the feelings, the wants, and the condition of that country ;
that we rely upon our own notions and English feelings,
and do not listen to the opinions of those who are natives of
Ireland, and so much better acquainted with the nature of
the measures suited to that country. Now, that we propose
that there should be a Committee in which we should be
able to ascertain what Irish Members think of the operation
of the poor-law, and to consult their experience before we
bring a Bill into the House, we are told that we ought to
have framed our Bill entirely upon our own notions ; that
we should not have listened to Irish Members, but acted
independently of any such advice or information.—(Hear.)
It is obvious that if we had taken that course, we should
have been liable to reproach, and I have no doubt we
should have come under the censure of those who now
blame us for taking the opposite course.—(Hear, hear.) We
cannot say, either, that there is that unanimous opinion in
Ireland as to the amendment of the Poor-law that upon that
opinion we could frame a Bill for the amendment of that
law, because when a small portion of the representatives of
Ireland met, I think only nine, as the Hon. Gentleman says,
there were among them five different opinions as to the
amendment that ought to be made in the Poor-law—(A
laugh)—so that if we take the opinion of one of those five,
we should have had four to one of Irish opinions against the
measure we should have proposed.—(Hear and a laugh.)
With regard to what has been said as to other Irish mea•
sures, there were several Bills introduced last year, and which
we mean again to submit to the consideration of the House;
there is one with regard to that long-vexed question of land-
lord and tenant, which last year was before a Committee,
and which we propose again to lay before the House; there
is the question with regard to the franchise, with respect to
which my Right Hon. Friend has a Bill already prepared;
and there is the grand jury system also; so that we are not
liable, in fact, to the reproach of not having attended to
any other subject with respect to Ireland but that of re-
straining the liberties of that country.—( Hear, hear.) I
come now, Sir, to some of the questions raised by the lion.
Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli), and I think it will be as well
that I should enter into them now, taking this Address
as a whole, as speak merely to the question of the amend-
ment which has been moved. Now let me say, with re-
gard to the Honourable Gentleman, that I think he dis-
played very great ingenuity in the objections that he
made to the Address proposed; he cavilled at one phrase,
carped at another term, found fault with the title that had
been given to a foreign sovereign, and in that way with very
great ability kept the House from the consideration of the
questions that were really before it—(Hear, hear)—and he
proceeded upon that to move an amendment, which as I shall
presently show is of a most extraordinary character.—
(Hear, hear.) But the Hon. Gentleman thought fit first
of all to state to us what was the present state of our
commercial legislation and policy, and how much we had
gone astray in respect to it. In support of this opinion he
made some statistical observations, which I confess were
unintelligible to me; he told us that when a very large
import of food was introduced from America, the American
growers and importers bad 5.000,0001. of profit in the trans-
action; and what does he wish to infer from that? I
should have thought, anon that question, that even all Pro-
tectionists as well as all Free-traders would acknowledge that
when there is a great deficiency of food in this country,
whether you have sliding-scale, fixed duty, or no duty
at all, it should be your object in that emergency to col-
lect as much food as possible—(Hear, hear)—and that if
there is a good price in this country while the price in the
country of production is low, the temptation of that profit
is a reason why your wants should be supplied—(Hear,
hear)—and that you should rejoice that those wants should
be supplied by so large an importation.—(Hear, hear.) That
American growers and merchants should gain 5,000,0001. of
profit in that transaction, provided we had the benefit of the
food for the consumers in this country, is not a subject of
lamentation with me. f only think that it is the natural
result of commerce, and one which we are not by any
means to deplore, but to take as the effect of all commer-
cial transactions.—(Hear, hear.) For my part, I never
can enter into that notion which the Honourable Gentle-
man seems to entertain, that every gain of the foreigner is
the loss of the British people—(Hear, hear)—that every
time there is a large profit made by some foreign pro•
ducer or merchant we ought to lament, and that we should
consider that it is so much of which we have been robbed.—
(Hear, hear.) On the contrary, if commerce is carried on
in a healthy state, there ought to be a gain on both sides
—a
gain on our side, if we have commerce with America,
with regard to the articles we want—a gain on their side
in furnishing them—a gain on the part of those who are
concerned in carrying the goods from one country to another
—and so far from thinking that a subject upon which we
should pour our lamentations, I should be glad to see
that commerce is still further extended.—(Hear,
hear.) I believe that the laws we have passed in the
course of the last few years, so far from tending to
impoverish the country, will tend to enrich it.—(Hear,
hear.) Ido not think that we have any reason to com-
plain if those commercial transactions become more ex-
tended; but I do believe, with respect to the importation
of corn, for instance, which is the great necessary of
life for the people, that the people of England will be great
gainers by not having the recurrence of those times of very
high prices to which they were formerly subjected.—(Hear.)
The Hon. Gentleman says that the law of 1842 was changed

after an experience of three years; but in my opinion the
laws were changed after, an experience ot 30 years. The
corn-law was enacted by Parliament in 1815 ; it was changed
and modified into various shapes, but at last statesmen of
different parties, and the majority of this House, came to the
opinion that in no shape whatever would it be expedient to
continue this law, and that it would be far better that the
trade in food should be made entirely free. I was an advo •
cate, for one; of the modifications of that law—for a fixed
duty; and I believe that if that fixed duty had been
enacted many years ago, it would have acted most
beneficially tor the country, and, at last, have gra-
dually given way to the complete free-trade that we now
have.— (Hear, hear.). But Parliament having not chosen to
adopt that mode, having chosen to set corn entirely free, I
hope that no one' will attempt—above all, I hope that no one
will be successful—in renewing any duty upon that main
article of subsistence.—(Loud cheers.) The Hon. Gentleman
having stated his opinion upon this subject, which, if it
meant anything, meant, as I conceive, a restoration of pro-
tective duties, then proceeded to enter into the, question of
our foreign relations. Now, all that is stated in the Queen's
Speech, with regard to the foreign relations of this
country, has been put in that Speech by the advice given
to her Majesty according to what is strictly the fact with
regard to the transactions that have taken place; and all
that my Noble Friend (Lord H. Vane) calls upon this ,House
to de is, to thank her Majesty for informing them of those
various transactions. There is throfighout the Address no
word of congratulation or of approbation of the trans-
actions,or of the policy pursued : on the contrary, those ques-
tions are entirely reserved, because her Majesty is pleased
to say in her Speech that, when the public service will
permit, the papers relating to these various transactions
will be laid before Parliament. Now, it has been usual for
the House of Commons, which does not take upon itself ge-
nerally the initiative in these matters, at all events to wait
for such communications; to press for such papers if they
should think it necessary, or having waited till those papers
are produced, to found, if any Member should think it ne-
cessary to found upon them, some charge or some resolution
with respect to thetipinion'of the House; and such appears
to me to be the reasonable course with regard to these trans
actions.—(Hear, hear.) With respect to the state of
manufactures, with respect to the state of the colonies or of
agriculture, the Hon. Gentleman may fairly call upon this
House to express an opinion ; but these foreign negotiations,
as we know, are generally matters of a somewhat com-
plicated character, leading to the, exchange of notes.
and assuming different Phases in the ,course of the transac-
tions ;- and it is unusual for a Member to come forviard on
the first night ot a session, without the information, and
without even asking for it, and to call upon the House to vote
that her Majesty's relations with foreign powers are not
such as to justity us in addressing her Majesty in the lan-
guage of congratulation. No congratulation is pro posed, no
congratulation has been asked, and this is merely saying that
the House of Commons thinks proper to form its opinion
without a knowledge of the negotiations that have taken
place, without any insight into the transactions, and to say
at once that _they do not form matter of congratulation,
which means saying at once that they form matter of con-
demnation.—( Hear, hear.) But when I heard the Honour-
able Gentleman make his observations upon our foreign re-
lations, it convinced me the more that he was wrong in asking
the House to come to a conclusion, because his observations
convinced me that he was totally wrong with regard to them.
He seemed to suppose, for instance, that with regard to the
war carried on between the King of Sardinia, whom, in
his zeal for titles, he called the King of Piedmont and
the Emperor of Austria, we had proposed to impose our
mediation without ever having been requested by the
Emperor of Austria to mediate. Another statement I
know has- been made, and is current ' with the public,
that mediation was proposed to us by lAustria, and
was refused by this country. Neither of those statements is
at all correct. Tile real fact is, that the Emperor of- Austria
was pleased to Send, an Austrian statesman, a very dis-
tinguished man—a gentleman whom I have often had occa-
sion to ineet,and always had great pleasure in intercourse with
him—he sent that statesman to this country with a proposal
to this country to mediate between him' and the King of
.
Sardinia We accepted that mediation ; but with regard. to
the proposed basis of it we suggested that an alteration
should be m d
that we hada e:by the Emperor. That statesman considered
accepted the mediation, but he demurred to the
terms of
the
r
ou basis,- and insisted that the terms proposed by
returned Emperortoyrere those which ought to be the terms, and he
diation was his own country. At a subsequent period a me-
these circumstances:--the
to the Emperor of Austria, and under
pressed in the fie King of Sardinia being much
France; a correspondence
determined to ask for the assistance of
endence took place between this country
and the French
onsoveeurnment, and the French Government
at our request . c ted to put aside the question of be-

ginning hostilities against Austria in Italy, and conjointly
with us to propose terms of mediation to the two powers.—
( Hear, hear.) The Wm. Gentleman said, in another part of
his speech, that he doubted whether this country ought to
have acted with France—with the Governments which she
has had since the Revolution of February. Sir, I feel no
such doulets.—(Cheers.) I feel convinced that our acting in
concert with France during the past year has been of great
benefit to the peace of Europe.—(Hear, hear.) I feel con-
vinced that if we had said at once, " However moderate
your propositions—however pacific the course that you pro-
pose to pursue, you have changed your monarchical Govern-
ment into a Republic, and therefore we will have nothing to
say to your proposals,"—in the first place, such an answer
would have excited a suspicion in France that, although we
did not profess it, we meant to interfere with respect to her
form of Government—(Hear) ;—and I believe, in the next
place, that being left to take herown line without concert and
without advice, she would have been driven by the violent
party in that country into hostilities by which the whole
peace of Europe would have been compromised—(Hear.) I
therefore differ entirely from the Hon. Gentleman in think-
ing that we ought not to have had any concert with France
upon these matters. Whether France has been wise in
changing her form of Government to a Republic—whether
it is true, as the Hon. Gentleman says, that there are no
Republicans in France—that is a question upon which I do
not choose to enter—(Hear, hear)—it is a question for the
French people.—(Hear.) But what I know is, that although
at the commencement of that revolution there were terms
used in a circular of M. Lamartine's which certainly appeared
to menace the peace of Europe, and though there was, as I
thought, a great deal too much jargon about " na-
tionality," yet, with respect to M. Lamartine, with
respect to General Cavaignac, and with respect
to the present Government, I can say that we have
had to deal with persons directing the foreign affairs of
France since the revolution, who have listened fairly and
candidly to all the representations we had to make to
them, and who have fairly stated to us what they
believed to be the interest and the policy of
France ; and we have had no reason whatever to
complain, but, on the contrary, reason to rejoice that we
had to deal with men of high honour and of pacific
views.—(Cheers.) But I am not sure that I am at all con-
vincing the Hon. Gentleman when I say that our concert
with France has tended to the preservation of the peace of
Europe, because, as far as I collect from the tenor of his
speech, his inclination seemed to be that our object ought to
be war, and that the fault he found with us was that we had
not let war take its course.—(Hear, and a laugh.) That
was his view more especially with respect to Holstein. He said,
" Your mediation has put a stop to hostilities, and what would
have gone on very well has been arrested by your mediation."
Why, what would have gone on ? The King of Denmark would
have resisted the power of the Germans; the Germans would
have insisted that they had rights with respect to Schleswig,
which has been long a favourite opinion in Germany; and
France and Prussia would have taken their view of the matter.
Those views not being counteracted by any pacific media-
tion, war must have been the result; and the complaint
the Hon. Gentleman makes is, that we did interpose when
both the King of Denmark and the King of Prussia, and the
Central Power at Frankfort wished us to mediate, and that
we did not allow that war to get up, and to take its course
in Europe, as he showed very clearly it might otherwise
have done.—(Cheers.) Then there was another question,
naturally, so far as wo are concerned, of more serious im-
port, because we have more actively interfered ; I mean with
regard to Naples and Sicily. It will be recollected by those
who heard the statements that were made last year, that
Lord Minto was requested by the King of Naples to pro•
pose to the Sicilians terms upon which they might consent
again to return to their allegiance ; after a very consi-
derable time spent in conferences, Lord Minto, at the re-
quest of the King of Naples, went to Sicily and conveyed
those terms to the Sicilians. The terms were not ac-
cepted by them. Lord Minto was of opinion that they
might have been in prudence accepted by them; but the
ground upon which they declined to accept was one on
which it was not very easy to shake their determination.
They said that in ancient times Sicily was a free country;
that in 1812 the constitution had been reformed, and under
the auspices of the British generally, and with every proof
of British sympathy, and that it was part of the
' terms of the constitution then agreed upon. that the
Parliament was to decide with respect to the whole internal
administration, and with regard to the number of troops to
be kept up in Sicily; that no foreign troops of any kind,
being other than Sicilians, except those admitted by
treaty, should be allowed to come into Sicily. More-
over, there was an article in that constitution, that if the
King of Sicily should ever reside in Naples he should name
one of his sons, or one of his family at all events, to
reign in Sicily. In 1816 the British Government had de-
clared, that though it gave no guarantee to the Si-
cilian constitution, it should take an interest in the wel-
fare of Sicily, and consider it injurious to the British
name if the welfare of Sicily should be less well provided
for in future than it had been. The Sicilians insisted that
that constitution should be in whole restored. When Lord
Minto returned to Naples he found that the King
would not consent to such terms ; and there was an
end of that negotiation. It was undertaken by a British
Minister at the desire of the King of the Two Sicilies, as he
would be called in a formal diplomatic instrument; the two
parties could not agree, and that negotiation fell to the
ground. Whatever might be the case as to the justification
which the British Government might make for any further
interference, their decision was not to interpose any further
than to give any friendly advice to the Sicilians in cases in
which they might ask it.—(Hear, hear.) Accordingly, when
some time after an expedition was prepared at Naples for
the purpose of conquering Sicily, no obstacle was interposed
to the sailing of that expedition. It has been said that a

large British fleet was assembled at Naples for the purpose of
preventing that expedition from sailing; that is totally an
error, Sir W. Parker having taken the British fleet on ac-
count of other questions in respect of which he thought he
was entitled to ask reparation. But when that expedition,
reached Messina, there took place at the close of the
siege of Messina events which appeared so horrible and so
inhuman in the eyes of the French Admiral, that he de-
termined to interfere. I need not say now what those
circumstances were. There were atrocities, as I think
sc both sides; the destruction of houses, of villages, and of
unoffending peasants on the one side, the bombardment
against a town which had ceased to resist on the other. It
appeared to the French Admiral that it was impossible such
a warfare could continue without an utter desolation of
Sicily, and such alienation from the Neapolitan Government
on the part of the Sicilians, that no final terms of agreement
could arise; he therefore determined to take upon him.
self to put a stop to the further progress of such a horrible
warfare. After he had so determined he communicated with
Sir W. Parker. Sir W. Parker had a most difficult duty to
perform, but taking all the circumstances into consideration,
our former friendly relations with the Sicilians, the accounts
lie had received from the captain of one of her Majesty's
ships then at Messina, the atrocities he heard of, and that
the French Admiral was about to act, and it was important
at that juncture that the two nations should act in concert,
his determination was to give orders similar to those which
had been given to the French Admiral. I stated last session
that no orders had been given to stop the Neapolitan
expedition, but that the Government reserved to itself
to act in future as circumstances might dictate, and

that I had perfect confidence in the discretion and judgment
of Sir W. Parker. I remember the Right Hon. Gentle-

man, the Member for Stamford, expressing apparently,
though not in words, a concurrence with that sen-
timent ; and I have the same opinion still.—(Hear, hear.)
He was not a man likely to be led away by passion ; he had
none of that revolutionary mania by which some persons
might be misled in those circumstances; he was anxious for
the honour of the British flag, and anxious for the cause of
humanity : and he took that proceeding upon his own respon-
sibility. The question, then, for the British Government was
whether they should entirely disavow Sir W. Parker, whether
they should tell him that he had done wrong to interpose, or
whether an armistice having been established, we should take

advantage of the circumstance to propose terms by which the
Neapolitan Government and the Sicilian people might again
be induced to agree, and this horrible warfare might
not be renewed. We took the latter part of the alternative.
—Meat-, hear.) We are responsible for that conduct. If
it was right to allow the war to recommence, to separate the
British fleet entirely from the coarse which was taken by
the French Admiral, and to disavow Sir W. Parker, we have
been wrong, and we have taken a course which deserves cen-
sure; but if, as I believe, it was the duty of the Govern-
ment, with respect to two countries in which they took a
great interest, with respect to the King of Naples, an ally
of this country, with respect to the Sicilian people, with
whom we had been long connected, to endeavour to frame
terms upon which both parties should agree, then, I say, we
are justified in the course that we have adopted.—(Hear. )
The Hon. Gentleman seems to say that there is no negotia-
tion, so well is he informed upon all these subjects on
which he proposes to address the Crown ; that it is a
negotiation confined to England and France. Now, he is
entirely mistaken in that. There have been terms stated
by the Sicilians, and an answer received from Naples
with nespect to them, stating some of those terms as
reasonable in themselves, and such as the King would be
ready to consent to, and objecting to others, and leaving the
matter as one to be treated in further negotiation. The fur-
ther negotiation still continues. If it should end in our es-
tablishing permanent peace there, I think we shall have per-
formed a duty both to the Sovereign of Naples and the people
of Sicily, and shall have rendered a service likewise to the
cause of peace in Europe.—(Hear, hear.) If we are unable
to procure such a result, due.suotice will be given when the
armistice is to cease, and that war may begin again. But my
belief is that, after what has taken place, even if that war
were to be renewed, it would not be renewed in the same
spirit in which it was begun.—(Hear, hear.) My opinion
is that there would be, in the first place, such terms offered
by the King of Naples and such orders given, that it is pro-
bable that that war would not be conducted in so destructive,
so savage, and so desolating a manner. But with regard
to all these matters, although we do not ask for congra-
tulation or for approbation, yet I must say that I am
glad to find that during a year of great peril to the peace
of Europe, the services of England have been of use to stay
the ravages of war and to mitigate hostilities.—(Hear.)
I believe that, standing secure ourselves, having no such con-
vulsions as other nations have been exposed to, I believe it
was befitting this country, when she was asked, and in other
cases, to offer her good offices for the purpose of removing
quarrels, of which very often the ground is not very consi-
derable, but to which if once left to the arbitrament of war
may tend to as long and as bloody contests as if the grounds
of difference had been wider and more serious.—(Cheers.)
With respect to the next question to which the Hon. Gentle- .
man referred, namely, the expense of our military establish-
ments, I think he seemed naturally enough to be hardly
better informed on.it tharthe is as to the -state of our foreign
affairs. He seemed to suppose that we had yielded to repre-
sentations which had appeared in a public letter addressed
to the Financial Association of Liverpool by the Hen. Mem-
ber for the West Riding. Now, Sir, my opinion is entirely
contrary to that. I think whatever reductions or augmenta-
tions you might make to take, the year 1835, or any other
fixed year for some time past, and to say you will square your
estimates and fix your establishments according to the ex-
penditure of that year, would be, with great deference to the
Hon. Gentleman, an extremely irrational course for any Go-
vernment to pursue. In the first place, it is obvious that your
requirements might be very different. In the next place, any
one who will look at the finance accounts, or the votes of the
year, will see that there have been 50me4,000,000/. or 5,000,0001.
added to our expenditure on grounds which have nothing to
do with any increase to our armaments. Therefore if you take
off 10,000,0001., instead of having the same establishments
you had in 1835, you would have smaller establishments
than in that year. Then, if you take 1835 as the standard,
you must be sure that the establishments were then fixed
exactly according to the exigencies of the country. I de-
cline altogether to adopt that priticiple. It is assumed by
' the Hon. Member for the West Riding. In the next place,
our position, and what we have to furnish, is very much
altered and increased since 1835. In one colony we have
acquired since 1835, there were 1,800 of the infantry of the
line. So that if you were to take your rule from 1835 you
would have certain garrisons diminished below that year in
order to supply others which had since been acquired. Per-
, sons engaged in manufactures, commerce, or farming never
. would adopt such a principle. Suppose a man should say,
" I find that while my expenditure in factories is 30,0001. a
P year now, I never paid more in 1835 than 20,000/. ;" yet
he might find that he had two or three new factories
since that time; or that he had conducted the
. business of two or three additional farms to what-

he did in 1835. Obviously, he would say, " That is the
cause of my increased expenditure. This accounts at least
for a part of it. I cannot conduct five or six establishments
at the same rate I could three or four." That would be the
course I am sure any man would pursue in private life; and
I cannot think it wise for a Government, or Parliament, to
pursue a different course, and say we shall have no reference
to the service to be performed and the garrisons to be main-
tained, because we find in one particular year a certain
number of millions sufficient for the public service, therefore
exactly the same sum must be sufficient for the present
year. But while I disagree with the Hon. Gentleman, and
though I think there is a phrase in his letter which rather
shows the wrong test he would apply to this matter, for he
says that 10,000,0001. is a good sum founded on
the experience of former years for the purpose of
agitation, he shows clearly that he has formed his
estimate not upon what the public exigencies require,
but what he thinks likely to raise the most popular cry.
(Cheers.) At the same time, when we had to consider the
question of oar establishments, I think it was obvious we
could not persevere in the course we found ourselves bound to
take last year. Last year there was a sudden and formida-
ble convulsion in various parts of Europe, and no man could
say what might be the issue of that convulsion. We did
not think we should be justified, in those circumstances, in
proposing to diminish our expenditure. We asked for the
same number of men for the navy and the army we had
asked at the commencement of the session, although we had
not the ways and means sufficient for that purpose. This
House supported us in that course. They declared, by
large majorities, that it was not expedient to reduce our
military establishments. But when we had again to consi-
iquestion
waosf
uesrtidmuatyt s
two conclusions—either to reduce those estimates to bring
ourdr rtehvee
them within the amount of revenue, or, on the other
I xt
heient gto tchoem eamt oe 'tonne ()off
hand, to attempt to raise the revenue to the amount of our
expenditure. It was not fitting to go on another year in-
creasing the public debt of the country without the prospect
of equalizing the expenditure. Now, the first course was
evidently the best, supposing it was justifiable and practi-
cable. We had to consider, Ist, whether there were not
many reforms that might be made, many retrenchments that
might be effected without impairing the number or efficiency
of our military establishments. The report of the Com-
mittee which sat last year upon our naval and military ex-
penliture—which was no proposition of mind—the House is
indebted for its appointment to the Hon. Member for Mont-
rose—the report of that Committee stated, that with regard
to the navy at least there might be many useful reforms
without impairing its efficiency.
,This was one source of eco-
nomy. But that would not enable us to bring the
revenue within the limits I have stated. We had
therefore to consider whether our effective force
could be reduced. Now, in considering that sub-
ject we had to remember that since we had been in office
we had added 3,000 men to the number voted for the
navy, and 5,000 to the number voted for the artillery.
In considering these subjects, then, we come to the conclu-
sion, that in the present state of Europe, and having made
these additions to our naval and military force, we might
now safely make some reductions—reductions which would
give us a considerable amount of saving, without, in our
opinion, impairing our force below that which was necessary
for the efficiency of the public service and necessary for the
defence of our various colonies. Whether we have done
wisely in that respect, whether the reductions we propose to
make come within the principles I have stated,—whether we
have carried them too far, or have not gone far enough, will
be proper questions for this House to consider when the esti-
mates come before them. But these reductions have been
contidered on the principle of what is wanted and what can
be spared from the service for the present year, and they
have not been taken with reference to any particular past
I year, or on the plan of squaring the expenditure with that
year.—( Hear, hear.) Sir, when we say that the aspect-of
public affairs enables us to make these reductions, I should
say that France is the most valuable friend and the most
formidable foe with whom we could have to deal,—( Hear,
hear.) For many years past, and under different Govern-
ments, it has seemed to be the object of France to increase
her military armaments, and more especially to increase the
strength of her naval force—a navy not commensurate with
her commerce—not required, be it observed, to protect the
colonies or the trade of France, but obviously a navy to be
used in case of war. Sir, my opinion was, and is, and I so
stated it last year, that if? France is to have very great arma-
ments at sea, and if we allow her to go on increasing her
naval strength without any proportionate increase of our
own, then that in the event of any trifling difference,
which if the power of the two nations seemed equal would
be easily adjusted, that difference might easily lead to
war between the two countries, if the war party in
France could point to England as a weaker power, inferior in
point of force.—(Hear, hear.) But, Sir, I am happy to find
that the conduct of the Government of France is to curtail
and restrict their naval and military strength, and not to con-
tinue the enlargement and increase of their armaments.
This is one reason why we have considered it safe to recom-
mend no greater estimates than we propose for the present
year; and I trust that, in spite of the denunciations of the
proposed amendment, the various States of Europe, however
they may settle their internal affairs, will, in the progress of
negotiation and the process of time, come to the conclusion
that war must be injurious to all the nations of Europe, and
that there can be no Sufficient cause why one State should be
an aggressor against another.—(Loud cries of " Hear, hear.")
If such pacific sentiments should fortunately prevail, and if
each power should be left to make arrangements for its own

internal constitution and good government, then I would say
that the reductions of the present year may be followed in
future years, and that while it would be exceedingly unwise
and imprudent to make any sudden and great reductions at
once, still that gradual reductions, made, in the language of
the Speech from the Throne, with a " wise economy," may
be a policy which we may be able to pursue, and which it
will be the interest of every country in the world to !follow
also.—(Cheers.) Now, Sir, I do not contend that there is
not cause of anxiety in the present state of Europe. I ant
far from thinking that the revolutions which took place last
year have run their course—(Hear, hear)—and that every
nation in which they occurred can now be said to be in a
state of solid security. I rejoice as much as any man that
the ancient empire of Austria, our old ally, is recovering her
splendour, and is showing her strength in such a con-
picuous manner. Still I cannot forget that there are
many questions not yet settled with regard to the
internal institutions of Austria—that the question of
the formation, of (what the Honourable Gentleman
(Mr. Disraeli) has called an empire without an Empe-
ror, is still in debate—and that we cannot be sure what the
ultimate result of these events will be. It is also true that
there may have been during last year an excess of appre-
hension, caused by the great events that were taking place,
and by the rising up of some wild theories, pretending to
found the happiness of the State and of mankind on visionary
and unsound speculations, on which the happiness of no
country or people can ever be founded.—(Hear, hear.) We
have seen these opinions prevail in many countries to a con-
siderable extent, and no one can say that events may not at
some unforeseen moment take an unfortunate turn for the
peace and tranquillity of Europe:—(Hear, hear.) But still
the time that has elapsed since the breaking out of the re-
volution of Februarylias made men consider both what is
the value of real liberty, and what is the value of peace and
order, as set against political theories, and how much may
and ought to be sacrificed of what may be considered theu
retical perfection, in order to obtain the advantage of that
internal peace in which all reforms can alone be deli-
berately discussed, and gradually take their place in
the settled institutions of the country.—(Cheers.) No one
can deny that amid many misfortunes and mistakes the
foundations of the great principles which we revere
have been prepared, and that those principles are likely
to be perinament among the nations of Europe. I
trust that the event may ultimately be equal to the
expectations of the most sanguine.. But in the mean
time I do appeal against those who would pass a vote
of censure upon us, not by going through a minute de-
fence of every act of the Government, but with reference
generally to what is happening around us, and the present
state of Europe. We have gone through a commercial con-
vulsion, arising from a wild spirit of speculation. Is com-
merce shaken to the dust, or is it true that it is again re-
viving, that it is assuming a heathful condition, and that it
is taking its usual course, indicative of restored prosperity?
We have gone through what, with every deference to the
Hon. Member for Meath, I must consider an insurrection in
Ireland.—(Hear, hear.) That country has been restored to
peace—has it been by any sanguinary measures?—(Cheers.)
Has it been by arraying one class against another?—(Cheers,
and counter-cheers from the Repeal Members.) Has it been
by fixing upon Ireland a permanent state of civil war, which
would have been worse than a transitory insurrection? Sir,
I reply that it has not; and a large share of the credit is due
to my Noble Friend the Viceroy of that country for his
vigour and energy, and-for those rarer Qualities:of judgment,
temper, and forbearance.— cCheers.) He has shown himself
averse from the first to setting class against class, or inflict-
ing sanguinary punishments upon the guilty.—(Cheers.) I
say again that this country
has been menaced by those
who, like some in other countries, would for the sake of
plunder have disturbed the whole order of society. Have they
not been defeated in their machinations by the power of the
law alone, and at the same time dealt with by as fair
and as merciful a procedure as is consistent with the Consti-
tution of this country?—(Hear, hear.) Sir, during the past
year Europe has been convulsed with revolution. Without
going into the details of foreign commotion, I will ask
whether this country has been involved in hostilities, or in
danger of hostilities? Has not peace with Europe been pre-
served by this country,have we not shown a and with respect to other powers
desire to take a course much more ho-
nourable to us than would have been a desire to mix in the
fray, and excite other powers to conflict and war?—(Loud
cheers.) Sir, if I say these things
with truth, and admitting,
as I do, that with respect to the greater portion of them, the
wisdom, the prudence, and energY of this mighty first honour, after Divine Providence, to be given to the
such a period at least de-
servebeen at the ethhoeyadshoofuladffaniorts
bdouring
people—
yet, if such has been the result,
nthdeemGnoevdernnnmtehnet wfirhsitcnhighhast
of the session.—(The Noble Lord resumed his seat amid loud
cheering.)
Mr. E. B. ROCHE had read with great pain the para-
graphs in the Speech from the Throne relative to Ireland.
The Irish poor-law had one fault—that it came essentially
too late. The proposal to limit the area of taxation would
have no meaning unless it were to exterminate the people.
Neither would a stringent law of settlement be advisable.
Ireland could not be regenerated by a poor-law. Ireland had
suffered more than England from the adoption of the prin-
ciples of free'trade, and the depreciation in the value of pro-
perty in consequence of that measure entitled her to a much
greater boon by way of compensation than she had yet re-
ceived. The question of tenure was one of the first that
claimed adjustment. The grand jury tax amounted to
1,250,0001. The money levied in that tax alone would sup-
port the poor of Ireland in ordinary years. The Irish Church,
the Irish fisheries, and the Irish railways, each in turn de-
manded the attention of the Government.
Cries of " Oh, oh!" "Go on.")
Afterllaul,
felvEwsoaii-dds, fhroofromL anxious to express his feelings
Mr. IL A. HERBERT,
Mr.
on the topics alluded to in her Majesty's:Speech ; but at that
Speech. w
lallido.jauorudori
adjournment
mitshienenntnwiogfahsttht hoo eHt
takeohuo place he would take that opportu-
suog. it would be bettera t w
tai moveeo
n tahe d
,the
nasitoyoofwshtaattinv,g,shsiosmopitinteiodnin the
so much 011 h
On looking to the
Speech he could not find that any portion of the recommen-
dations of the popular Members on that most important subject
—the inequality and burdens of taxation—had been attended
to. He had been assured last year that the Government
iwoitiruoldduccoonstioderremduovriongthtaht inequality and relieve those e recess what measures they could
bur-
dens, but so far from their having done so, the question was
not even mooted.—( Hear, bear.) He complains-d of that as
a greht omission. The Hon. Member for Buckinghamshire
( Mr. Disraeli) never spoke but to interest and instruct the
House, but the greatest portion of his speech was devoted to the
while
directed
th
to foreign policy of the country, into which he (Mr. Hume)
did not feel disposed to follow him. He would rather put in
a claim on the part of the people of England, for he thought
s Ministers were
s they were ne-
glecting the interests of the country at home. He
e attention of of
of heorthe llrlajsetsatyte'
asked the Government whether they intended to meet the
wishes of the people, and have an investigation into the
state of the taxation of the country ?—(Hear, hear.) For
his part, he did not think the House would be warranted any
I longer in passing estimates which exceeded the income of
s theicountry The Honourable Member for Buckingham had
launched out at large into the question of his re-

ciprocity. Ile (Mr. Hume) was glad to hear protection
was dead—(Hear, hear)—and that there would be
no foolish attempts to revive it. But he would have
preferred hearing the Honourable Member say whether
he was prepared to maintain the present amount of
taxation at a time when the effect of the corn-laws had
lowered prices, and caused a reduction in the profits of the
farmer.—( Hear, hear.) If some measures were not taken in
that direction they would soon have agricultural discontent
along with the discontent of the commercial classes.—
(Cheers from the Opposition.) Then, why did not those
gentlemen who cheered stand up and ask for relief to the
farmer, for it was vain for them to think of restoring artifi-
cial protection ?—(Hear, hear.) The Hon. Member for
Buckingham protested against any further concessions to
the popular power of the country. He (Mr. Hume), with
reference to that protest, wished to ask her Majesty's Minis-
ters whether they intended to take their stand upon the pre-
sent state of popular representation, and to refuse all conces-
sion on the subject?—( Hear, hear.) If they did so they
would continue that agitation which had made the name of
Ch artist odious to the country. But let the House recollect that
though the conduct of the Chartists had deserved odium, the
principles for which they contended were entitled to the sup••
port of every one who regarded the principles of the Con-
stitution. The next question of importance on which he
wished the Government to state their views related to the
management of their colonies. The proceedings which had
taken place in some of our possessions lately had been dis-
graceful.—(Cheers.) Not one of the acts which had driven
the Americans to rebellion had been characterized by half
the atrocity and tyranny of the arbitrary proceedings which
had taken place in British Guiana and Ceylon.—(Hear,
hear.) He considered that the Noble Lord at the head of
the colonies had forfeited every claim to support—(Cheers)
—and that her Majesty's Government should at once remove
him.—(Cheers.) On all these points he would wish to hear
some statement from the Government before he voted the
Address to her Majesty.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. A. STAFFORD—I move that the House do now ad-
journ.—(" Oh, oh !" and cries of " Hear, hear.")
The question having been put,
Lord J. RUSSELL said he did not oppose the adjourn-
ment if the Hon. Member wished for it; but he certainly
had expected that before the House rose that night the
first amendment would have been disposed of.— (Hear, hear.)
He proposed, therefore, that the House should divide on
the first amendment then, and take ,the second to-mor-
row.—(Hear, hear.)
Colonel SIBTHORP thought there should be ample:oppor-
tunity given for discussing the amendment.
Sir R. H. INGLIS supported the proposal of the Noble
Lord. _ _ _ _

Mr. DISRAELI—But perhaps the Hon. Member for
Meath does not wish to divide.

Mr. GRATTAN (with energy)—Certainly, Sir, I will di-
vide.—(Cheers and laughter.)
Mr. A. STAFFORD withdrew his motion for adjourn.
ment, and
The galleries were cleared for a division, when there
appeared—
For Mr. Grattan's amendment • 12
Against it
Majority against it ~
The debate on Mr. Disraeli's amendment was adjourned
till to-day.
The House adjourned at Half-put Twelve.