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

the grossest misgovernment against the Noble Lord at
the head of the Colonial Department, which had never
been satisfactorily answered. He ( Mr. Bankes) considered
it the duty of the par y with which he acted, from

respect to the memory of a Noble Lord (Lord G. Ben-
tinck), who was most zealous and indefatigable in sup-
porting the interests of the colonies, to endeavour, as far
was in their power, to promote the welfare of those de-
pendencies. He believed, indeed, that the indefatigable
application of his Noble Friend to the interests of the colo•
nies tended greatly to shorten his existence.—( Hear. hear.)
When he last saw his Noble Friend in that House, observ-

ing him to be greatly fatigued by his attention to the public
duties, he endeavoured to prevail upon him to leave the
House to obtain some necessary refreshment; but the Noble
Lord replied that he was watching over the interests of the
colonies, which he was determined to protect to the utmost
of his power, and he refused to leave the House even for a
few moments.—(Hear, hear.) No allusion was made in the

Royal Speech to. the condition of the agricultural interest.
The pressure upon that interest was daily and hourly in-
creasing, and bad already proceeded to an extent of which
he thought the Ministers could not be aware, or they would
have deemed it their duty to take some notice of the
subject. The Noble Lord opposite bad expressed his
opinion that the changes which had lately been made with
reference to the agricultural interest would ultimately tend to
benefit that interest; but he would ask the Noble Lord what
was to become of the agricultural interest in the meantime,

oppressed as it was with burdens, especially in the shape of
poor-rates--(Hear, hear)—which threatened to bring it into
the same condition to which Ireland had been reduced?

He joined most cordially in supporting the amendment of
his Hon. Friend ( Mr. Disraeli), and in condemning the
Government for omitting from her Majesty's Speech any
allusion to the two important interests to which he had re-
ferred. He (Mr. Bankes), and those with whom he acted,
concurred with Ministers in the expression of satisfaction
that, both in the north and south of Europe, the contend-
ing parties had consented to a suspension of arms for the
purpose of negotiating terms of peace ; but it was perfectly
consistent with that concurrence to state that they did not
find in regard to our relations with foreign Powers any sub-
ject of congratulation.—( Hear, hear.) There were omis-
sions from the Speech, with regard to our foreign relations,
of a very significant character. Last year this country ex-
perienced an unparalleled outrage and insult from a hitherto
friendly nation. The British Ambassador was dismissed
with ignominy and insult from the Court of Spain.—(Hear,
hear) —and he thought it was due to the hononr and cha-
racter of this country that her Majesty's Ministers should
now have an opportunity of affording explanations on the
subject—(Hear.) The Spanish Government sent over an in-
dividual to explain the circumstances under which the Bri-
tish Ambassador had been expelled, but the Noble Lord
(Lord Palmerston) refused to hole any communication with
him ; and yet, after the insults this country had received in
the person of its representative, the Spanish Ambassador
was allowed to remain undisturbed in London. When some
inquiries were made on this subject last session, the Noble
Lord (Lord Palmerston) stated that negotiations were then
pending. He (Mr. Bankes) begged now to ask the Noble
Lord whether those negotiations were still pending?—(Hear,
hear.) Was it not long for those negotiations to be going on
for the vindication of the honour of the country, and for no
satisfactory result to be announced? This was an omission
which he thought it to be the duty of Hon. Members not
connected with the Government to bring under the notice
of the House, and for these reasons he considered the amend-
ment of his Hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire
to be justified in respect to foreign affairs. With regard to
the commercial and manufacturing interests of the country
he conceived the amendment to be also justified. The con-
dition of those interests was not a circumstance calling for
the congratulation of the country. The Hon. Members for
Manchester and the West Riding of Yorkshire might enter-
tain the idea that commerce and manufactures were in a
palmy state of prosperity ; and, should those Hon. Members
vouchsafe to deliver in the Parliament of England some of
those speeches which they had uttered in the Parliament of
Manchester, they might possibly convince Hon. Members
on his side of the House, but, until that was the case, he
must beg leave to remain of a contrary opinion. He believed,
that so far from those recent alterations which had been made
in the policy of this country having proved successful in se-
curing greater steadiness in respect to the industrial interests
of the country, whether as regarded manufactures or agri-
culture, they had entirely failed. It was upon these grounds
that he supported the amendment proposed by the Hon.
Member for Buckinghamshire.—(Hear, hear, and cries of
" Question." and " Divide.")
Mr. URQUHLIT said he could not give a silent vote on
this question—(A laugh) but must state some of the
grounds on which he should heartily support the amend-
ment which had been proposed. After alluding to the ex-
traordinary commotioas which had taken place on the con-
tinent of Europe, and the influential position which England
under these circumstances might have occupied by the dis-
creet exercise of friendly offices, he thought it was a subject
of disappointment that the Speech from the Throne could
only announce that the Queen of England no longer re-
ceived assurances of a friendly disposition from her former
allies. This was a momentous announcement, and amounted
to an entire change of our condition in respect to foreign
nations. He conceived that the Noble Lord at the head of
the Government had entirely failed in controverting the ar-
guments of the Hon. Member for Buckinghamshire with re-
spect to the events of the north and south of Europe. He
(Mr. Urquhart) maintained, with regard to Sicily and Na-
ples, that the intervention on our part was contrary to the
law of nations. Besides, was this mode of proceeding by a
British Admiral, proprie mato, a proper course ? Was it for this
that we had ambassadors and a Foreign-office? But it was not
an English admiral only that was to assume to himself the
prerogatives of the Crown of England ; the Noble Lord had
stated that the decision to interfere was the French admiral's
decision, the English admiral following.—(Hear, hear.) Now,
certain documents had found their way to the public, they
were published in the Times of the 6th of October last, and
the Noble Lord (Lord J. Russell), in the correspondence he
afterwards had with him (Mr. Urquhart), did not deny their
authenticity ; and from these documents it appeared that the
initiary step was taken by the Ministers, and not by the
admirals ; that the French representative commenced with
what amounted to a threat of war; that the English repre-
sentative followed in the same strain, and it was ten days
afterwards (so far as appeared by these papers) that action
commenced on the part of the admirals. He (Mr. Urquhart)
would venture to give a warning to the Government.—(A
laugh.) They had already been once broken by the Noble
Lord at the head of the Foreign Department—they bad once
failed to come into office through him ; that Noble Lord, who
had made England a personal affair of his own, and disposed
of her as he would of his old wardrobe, would drag them down
with him, unless they managed, before it should be too late,
to separate his conduct from them, and form an estimate a
little more accurate of what was befitting the honour and
character of England.
Lord PALMERSTON—Sir, I have three objections to
state to the amendment which we are now discussing. In
the first place, it refuses to give an opinion upon a matter on
which no opinion has been asked; secondly, it does give an
opinion upon two other matters, upon which that opinion is
inconsistent with the fact; thirdly, it endeavours by a side-
wind to extract from the House an opinion upon matters of
great importance, on which the opinion of the majority of
the House is adverse to that of those who framed this
amendment.—(Hear, hear.) As happens sometimes in let-
ters, the pith is in the postscript—(A laugh)—the important
matter of the movers is contained in the last paragraph.
That paragraph, which relates to the omission of any men-
tion of the colonies and of agriculture, is dexterously
worded, but I think we have had revelations elsewhere, if I
am not misinformed, and if none had been made the amend-
ment itself is sufficiently indicative, that the real meaning of
that paragraph, and the real object of those who move the
amendment, is to record their opinion against the doctrine of
free trade—(Hear)—against the repeal of the corn-laws—
(Hear)--and against the removal of discriminating duties.—
( Hear.) That intention has been amply acknowledged in
another place; but I must say that it would be more fitting
for those who entertain these opinions, and more satisfactory
to the House and the public, that they should be brought
before the House upon a substantive motion, instead of en-
deavouring, I may say, to trick the House out of an opinion
on the mere pretence of an amendment to an Address.—
(Hear, hear.) In the next place, the amendment calls upon
the House to state that they can find no subject of congratu-
lation in the improvement which has commenced in the re-
venue and in the beginning revival of trade.—(Hear.) Now,
I can easily understand that those who lament the improve-
ments of late years made in our commercial system with re-
gard to the policy of protection, and who condemn every
movement made in the direction of free trade,—l can under-
stand how persons entertaining those opinions can find no
subject of congratulation in improving revenue and reviving
commerce—(Hear)—because improving revenue and reviv-
ing commerce negative the predictions they made, and are
the best refutations of them.—( Cheers.) In the first paragraph
of the amendment it is proposed that the House should state
that they cannot congratulate her Majesty on the state of
our foreign relations. My answer to that is " Who asked
you to congratulate her Majesty?"—(Laughter from the Op-
position.) If you say you cannot do so, my answer is
" Wait till you are asked."—(Laughter.) Those who moved
and seconded the Address never asked you to give an opinion
on the foreign relations of the country.—(More laughter.)
An Address is always studiously framed in such a manner
as not to commit anybody—(Renewed laughter)—not to
commit anybody to any opinion on the subject it embraces—
( Laughter)—for those who move an Address have no wish
to commit the house on subjects that may be matter of
great, and serious, and prolonged discussion in the course
of the session; and therefore it would be not only a de-
parture from ordinary usage, but a breach of propriety, to
ask the House to do so on any of the matters contained
in the Speech.—(Hear, hear, and laughter.) But I must
say that when the Hon. Gentlemen opposite state
that they are unable to congratulate her Majesty on the state
of our foreign relations, in answer to a Speech which an-
nounces that papers will be laid before the House explaining
what the conditions of those foreign relations are, I think it
may be well replied that the House would be stultifying it-
self to say that it is unable to congratulate her Majesty on
matters on which, till they receive the information promised,
they must necessarily be comparatively deficient in informa-
tion.—( Hear, hear.) But I go a little further, and I main-
tain, in opposition to the Gentlemen opposite, and in con-
tradiction to the amendment, that this House, and those
who have attended in the sligktest degree to what is pass-
ing in the world, might congratulate her Majesty on the
state of our foreign relations.—(Cheers.) What is the great
object this country has at heart? It is that, next to the
maintenance of the interests of this country, which must
always be the first and most prominent object, we
should insure the maintenance of peace—(Cheers)—peace
with the rest of the world; and next that we should, if
possible, prevent the wars of other nations.—( Hear, hear.)
Have these objects been accomplished? They have been
accomplished, and for that I say there is matter of congra-
tulation in so far as it can be ascribed to the action of the
Government of this country.—( Hear.) We have had it in-
deed from the mouths of those who oppose us, that it is in
consequence of the action which the Government has taken
that we are at this moment able to say we are at peace with
all the world—(Cheers)—and that those hostilities which
from time to time have broken out in other parts of Europe
have been suspended by armistices, and are in the train of
settlement.—(Hear.) We have not exactly heard of the
true feeling that appertains to those who have been our
accusers on the present occasion ; but they peer out, as I
shall have occasion to observe in reference to the speech of
the Hon. Member for Dorsetahire (Mr. Bankes), for there
the truth burst out--(Hear)—and we discover that the fault
found with Government is that we are not at war with some
of our allies.—(Hear, hear.) One great oflence has been
that we have continued on amicable terms with republican
Governments.—(Hear, hear.) There are those who think
that the Government of a Republic is not sufficiently good
company for the Government of a Monarchy.—(Cheers and
laughter.)
Mr. BANKES—I said nothing about France.
Lord PALMERSTON—I did not connect the Hon. Gen-
tleman with what I have now said. We have been accused
of sending an ambassador post-haste to Paris after the Re-
volution. Now, the relations between countries can only be
carried on by Governments, which are the organs of na-
tions; it is only by those organs that nations can communi-
cate with nations. But what business have we to inquire
what organs any foreign nation chooses to send here? What
business have we to inquire whether the French nation
wishes a Monarch, an Emperor, a President, or a Consul?—
(Cheers, and counter cheers.) Our object And our duty is to