The Sun.
London, England, 1859-06-11 00:00:00

TEE SIT, LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, JIJNE 1859:

Government of her Majesty to the confidence of ,the House
of Commons. That enumeration was, with more or less
consistency, followed up by the leaders of the party to which
the noble lord belongs. I must, however, except from the
category the noble lord the member for London, who to-
night broached a theory which has, at all events, the merit
of novelty. He has told us that upon the discussion of a
motion of want of confidence you need not go into any rea-
sons at all. (Hear, hear.) That is a maxim which, he says,
he has gathered from the writings of Burke, and which he
contends is unquestionable as a constitutional view of the
privileges of the House of Commons. Now, I must, in the
first place, beg leave to ask what, if that be so, was the

meaning of the cry which was raised on Tuesday last when
my right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer
invited the house to proceed without delay to a division on
this question ? Why was it that we were then told by the
noble lord the member for Tiverton that the subject ought
to be fully discussed ? (Hear, hear.) I shall in the next
place, if the house will allow me, take the liberty of read-
ing a few lines from a statement Which was made by a
public man on the' occasion of a' vote of want of confidence
having been proposed on the assembling of a new Parlia-
ment. The statesman to whom I allude said, " I do not
find fault with the vote, the motion is quite regular," but he
added, " When I say this, I say it is with them as with all
depositories of power in this country ; there should be rea-
sons given for such a proceeding. As a Sovereign is not
justified in appointing a Minister from mere caprice, so
neither is the House of Commons justified by a mere con-
sciousness of power in setting aside appointments which
have been made by the legitimate exercise of the prerogative
of the Crown." (Hear.) These observations were made
when the Ministry of. Lord Melbourne was met on the as-
sembling of anew •Parliament by a motion of a want of con-
fidence, and the statesman who made them was the noble
lord who sits there (pointing to Lord J. Russell--(cheers)
—and who to-night has instructed us in constitutional
learning out of the writings of Burke. (Hear.) Now, re-
serving for a few moments the enumeration of the charges
to which I have adverted, let me briefly examine the grounds
on which the followers of the two noble lords opposite give
their support to the amendment beforc the house. And first
let me allude to the speech of the gallant admiral the mem-
ber for Southwark, who spoke early in the debate. He did
not give us very precisely to understand what course he
meant to take, and, exercising that discretion which in a
commander is the better part of valour, declined altogether
to argue the question, saying he preferred leaving it to be
dealt with by those for whom it possessed some interest.
(Hear.) He then proceeded to make some observations with
respect to naval affairs, to compliment my right hon. friend
the First Lord of the Admiralty, and to tender him advice,
the value of which I have no doubt he duly appreciated.
(A laugh.) We have next the hon. member, for Devonport
(Mr. Wilson), who told us some scrap of news which he
hadpicked up during a visit to Paris, the rest of his speech
being a free libation of what he, no doubt, intends to make
upon the budget, and a charge which he deemed it his
duty to bring against the Government with respect to the
sale of old stores. (Cheers and laughter.) Next comes
the hon. member for the Wick burghs (Mr. Laing), whom
I am glad to see again in this house. (Hear, hear.) He
said he should be glad to vote with the Government, but
that he thought he could not, as a matter of personal hon-
our, act in opposition to the party with which he sat, and
to which he nominally belonged. He added that if he were
obliged to allege a reason for the vote which he was about
to give he should find one in connection with the foreign
policy of the Government, and that reason was that if we
drifted into war We should not,, under the auspices of her
Majesty's present advisers, be found upon the side of
France. (Cheers.) Then we have my hon. and learned
friend the member for Cork (Mr. Sergeant Deasy), who
looks upon this question in an Tush point of view—(a laugh)
—in every sense of the word. The Government, he asserts,
are unpopular in Ireland, and he therefore intends to vote
against them. But what, let me ask, is the proof of this
alleged unpopularity ? (Hear.) Is it to be found in the
fact that at the late elections in Ireland where there is an
extended suffrage in the counties and in the boroughs they
have had the good sense for the first time since the passing
of the Reform Bill to return a majority of Conservative
members to Parliament? (Hear, hear.) That is a fact
which, to my mind, does not appear to prove the justice of
the proposition which my hon. and learned friend has laid
down. (A laugh.) It is the one, however, which is satis-
factory to him, and he therefore intends to vote , for the
amendment. I now come to the right hon. gentleman the
member for Stroud, and the reason which he assigned for
the vote which he is about to give is even of a still more
singular character than that which I have just mentioned.
He says he does not desire to pass a vote of want of confi--
dence in. the Government, but that the point to be con—
sidered is whether they have efficiently conducted the nego-
tiations which have preceded the breaking out of war, the
papers with respect to which have not as yet been laid upon
the table of the house. " Now," argues the right hon. gen-
tleman, "if the Government had, instead of meeting the
amendment on the broad ground of want of confidence, come
down to the House of Commons and said, our foreign
policy remains to be considered ; the materials for pronounc-
ing a judgment upon it are not yet before you; we, there-
fore, implore you to pestpone this discussion for a fortnight
until you have had an opportunity of acquiring the neces-
sary information on the subject before arriving at a decision
with respect to it"—if they had taken that course, I should
have voted with them, but now that they have thought
proper to take the more straightforward course which they
have adopted I cannot give them my support. (Cheers.)
I now come more directly to the chimps made against the
Government by the noble lords the members for Tiverton
and the city of London. The noble lord the member for
Tiverton goes to the fountain head. He says, "I begin at
the ofattapcokrrep (Hsinear.)the
circumstances
beginning,
cum tacesunanddermwyhfiicrhst
you
uoucnd came into power."
" You voted," he says, " for the first reading of the Con-
spiracy Bill, and then youovofed against the second read-
ing ;" and the noble lord says ho never alluded to this cir-
cumstance before, but feels compelled to do so now. The
noble lord has derived certain advantages -from not having
referred to this subject before, and one of these is, that had
he mentioned it in the late Parliament, he would have found
there was very little sympathy with such a discussion.
The noble lord, however, in now bringing the subject for-
ward, shows that he labours under certain difficulties as to
the facts of his case. (Hear, hear.) But I have to ask the
noble lords opposite, before they charge this side of the
house with inconsistency on that question, to settle a little
business with a right hon. gentleman who sits beside them
—I mean the right hon. member for North Wilts. (Hear.)
That right hon. gentleman voted for the first reading of the
Conspiracy Bill, and then voted against the second read-
ing. (Hear, hear.) The noble lord the member for
Tiverton says he can have no confidence in any one who
could do that. Now, if the noble lord presses the right
hon. gentleman, perhaps he may get from him satisfactory
reasons for the course he took. But I mention it because I
think these side attacks on his co-patriots are hardly in
accord with that knowledge of the world which the noble
lord is known to possess, and do not augur very favourably
for the concord of the future Cabinet. (Hear.) Now, as
regards the course taken by the Conservative party on that
occasion, I must say that the noble lord does not seem to be
aware of the circumstances as they occurred. The Conser-
vative party, speaking through my right hon.friend,who was
the leader of the party, when they voted for the first reading
of the Clpispiracy Bill, expressly stated that they disap-
proved of the conduct of the Government in not answering
thedespatch of the French Minister—(hear)—and that when
the time came for the second reading, the Ministers of the
Crown would be called on to justify their proceedings with
regard to the Bill, and the fact that the despatch had not
been answered. (Hear, hear.) The Government was
warned of what would take place. The second reading
came, and the noble lord at the head of the Government
said the dispatch was not only not answered, but could not
be answered. (Hear, hear.) In these circumstances, the
Conservative party had no alternative but to oppose
the bill. (Hear.) It was not, however, the Conservative
party who turned out the Government on that occasion.
The noble lord had forfeited the confidence of his own.
party, and the verdict which they gave was approved by
the country. (Hear, hear.) The noble lord might well
have drawn a veil over that transaction, but instead of doing
so he has again justified the course which he took, and has
shown to his new party that he has abandoned nothing, and
repented of nothing during the time be has been sitting on
those (the Opposition) benches. (Hear, hear.) The noble
lord told us that he had exercised the greatest forbearance
towards the Government during the last session. I have
no doubt the noble lord has persuaded himself into that
belief, but we consider that we are indebted to him for no
forbearance whatever. (Hear, hear.) We all remember
the motion made against the Government before they were
long in office—a motion supported by the noble lord in this
house, and proposed by a near connexion of the noble lord
in another place. (Hear.) It is true that the motion never
came to a division, but that did not arise from the forbear-
ance of the noble lord. (Hear.) But let me advert to
another circumstance. When the noble lord was in office,
the hon. member for East Surrey (Mr. L. King) proposed
his bill for the reduction of, the, county franChise, and the
noble lord opposed it and voted against it. The bill was
renewed when the present Government was in power.
Every word of the bill was the same, though the title was
altered ; and the noble lord, on the ground that the figures
in the bill were printed in italics, said he would support the
second readings and by doing so defeated the Government.
(Hear.) But, if the noble lord chooses to go over division
lists since the present Government came into office, he will
find that there were nearly 40 divisions taken against. the
Government, and that they certainly did not originate with
the Conservative side of the house. (Hear.) The next
charge of the noble lord against her Majesty's Ministers
related to the Government of India Bill. He says that
when in opposition we voted against the India Bill for
transferring the Government of that empire to the Crown,
and that when in office we brought in a bill to effect that
object. Now, the Conservative party opposed the India
Bill when it was brought in by the Government of the
noble lord on the ground that while the rebellion was
raging it;was not a proper time to make an experiment of
that kind. The house, however, affirmed the bill by
a majority of 150. Lord Derby soon after acceded
to office, and on the first occasion of his ap-
pearing in his place in Parliament he stated that, as the
House of Commons had decided by so large a majority
against the East India Company, that company was weak-
ened, ii not destroyed, and that it was impossible to delay
legislation on the subject any longer. (Hear, hear.) But,
then, Says the noble lord, it was, after all, my bill that was
carried, and any credit you have is credit derived from my
handiwork. I must demur to that view of the case. I dare
say that in the 10 bills relating to India there were formal
matters the wording of which was identical ; but the house
will recollect that the great points in controversy were the
Council,—who were to be the councillors, what was to be
their number, what their tenure of office, what should be
their pay, their powers, and their duties. These were
points with regard to which the bill of the present Govern-
ment differed from that of the noble lord, and on nearly all
of them the noble lord voted against the Government in a
minority. (Hear, hear.) The right hon. baronet the mem-
ber for Carlisle addressed himself to the subject of the ad-
ministration of the affairs of India, and found fault with the
noble lord the Secretary for' India for asking a loan of
£7,000,000, which did not turn out to be sufficient. Now,
it will be recollected that when my noble friend applied for
that loan he mentioned that the annual financial statement
had not arrived from India, and that it was impossible for
him to say. whether the loan he asked for would be suffi-
cient to meet the exigencies of the the case. (Hear, hear.)
But the right hon. baronet spoke of the reorganisation of
the Indian army being thrown over to a commission, and
said the servants of the Queen differed as to theright course
to be taken. Now, he contended, that it was a wise thing
on the part of the Indian Government, who could not be
supposed to be cognisant of all that it was desirable to know
on a military question like that, to send the matter before a
commission, in order to obtain their advice, and he was able
to state that now there was no difference of opinion among
the servants of the Crown, and that his noble friend was
prepared to submit to the house a measure for the re-organi-
sation of the Indian army. (Hear, hear.) But in the ease
of a motion of want of confidence questions like these were to
be decided very much by comparison, and he asked the house
to compare the administration of the affairs of India now

With what it was under the Government of h tdia that pre-
ceded the present. (Hear, hear.) They challe.yed gentle-
men opposite to say whether they could compai.e the state
of Indian affairs now with that which exist°, 4. under
the preceding Government of India? (Hear, hear.) The
next charge of the noble lord is, that we brought in a
form Bill. I admit that if these matters are to be judged of
by comparison, the noble lord is free from any such charge.
(Cheers and laughter.) •But then he says, " Your Bill was
not approved of ; no person thought for a moment of agree-
. ing to its provisions." Now, I will mention one person who
did approve of the measure, and that was the noble lord him-
self. (Laughter.) He gave to the bill a considerable degree
of approbation. There were, he said, fancyfra achises which
he thought very good. It proposed to extend the county
franchise, and he praised it for so doing, though he thought
perhaps, that we went too far. (A laugh.). 'With regard to
the transfer of seats, ho added, some persons talked very
largely, but he thought the bill pursued a very safe course.
As to the borough franchise, he said he had been ofopinion
for a long time that a £lO franchise would he the best ; but
now he thought this amount might be reduced, though ho
did not venture to declare what reduction he would make.
The only subject uponwhich the noble lord found real fault
with the bill was as to the borough freeholders—a quebtion
which might easily and properly be dealt within committee.
(Oh, and hear.) The right hon. gentleman (Mr. Sidney
Herbert) bas expressed the greatest surprise that any one
should think it possible for the Government to lower the
borough franchise, and says that it was always stoutly
maintained that this could not be done. I deny that the Go-
vernment ever maintained anything of the kind. (Oh.) I
hear a gentleman express a doubt upon that subject, some
one probably who was not present at the discussions which
occupied the last Parliament. Now, I, who can recall those
discussions with considerable distinctness, remember that I
myself said, because I was authorised to say it, that that
subject, like every other point in the bill, was one which
might be treated in committee, and properly ought to be
treated there, and I compared it with the course taken by
the noble viscount, who only justified his vote for the bill of
the hon. member (Mr. Locke King), on the ground that he
could alter the amount, the italics, in committee. (Cheers.)
But don't take what I said. What did the First Minister of
the Crown state in his place elsewhere upon the same sub-
ject ? He said before the dissolution that if the question had
been between a £lO and an £8 suffrage in boroughs, the mat-
ter would not have been difficult of arrangement. These
were the views of the noble lord (J. Russell) upon this bill.
But now I will tell him what we objected to in his treat-
ment of the Government. We complained that, going to
the extent we did in the bill which we introduced—a bill
in which the noble lord could find so few faults, and those
so easily remediable in committee—he shduld yet combine
with those who found fault with it on an entirely different
matter, and to a much greater extent than himself—should
combine with those from whom he so greatly differed and
place the Government in a minority, not on the second
reading but upon an „abstract resolution. (Cheers.), We
were willing to submit to the country whether that was a
wise, patriotic, and statesmanlike course ; and if the verdict
of the country were to be taken upon that question I should
not have the slightest doubt about the answer. (Hear.)
But then the noble lord—and this is his last charge respec-
ting domestic affairs—sayS, "Your dissolution of Parlia-
ment was unwise and reckless." Well, I rejoice in this

moderation of tone as compared with what the noble lord
said before the dissolution. Then he declared that it was

impossible ; it could not be done ; the supplies would be
stopped ; Parliament would not allow a dissolution. But
at present it is only unwise and reckless. Now, I will not
ask the noble lord again whether, after the new alliance he
has formed, it is wise to make what are really indirect at-
tacks upon those who are acting with him. Let us examine
the opinion of the right hon. member for Birmingham, who

now agrees with the noble lord in voting for this amend-
ment. He has given us his opinion on the subject of the

dissolution :

" It is impossible (he said) to come to any other conclu-
sion. than that the Governmenthave taken the course which,
acting upon the well known rules of what is understood to
be the constitutional or Parliamentary practice of tb
country, they were bound to take. (Hear.) I entirely
prove of the course which the right hon. gentleman anr%
his
colleagues have taken. It is, I think, a wise course '„, the
emergency with which they have to deal."

(Cheers.). Well, is the hon. member for Birminc‘ham ming.
to vote against the Government upon the noble lord's
charges, including that of the dissolution ? 12.. nit I need not
go beyond the words of the noble viscount h:tm„if. He has
declared that the state of parties in the I`..tst Parliament was
unsatisfactory, that its continuancewa's undesirable, and that
an amendment has been propose() which may possibly
remedy the existing evil. Well, 11 ask how all these advan-
tages could be gained except by the dissolution. These, I
think, exhaust the charges 8476a.inst the Government upon
their domestic policy. I dors,t know whether I am right in
calling them charges. Statements of that kind, made in
support of a vote of want, of confidenee, were surely never
called charges before. (T teru., hear.) But, from the Govern-
ment measures whiCk have failed I might appeal to those
which have passed, or which were pending and are ready
to be resumed; to the conduct of the Government with re-
gard to the national defences; I might point to the effi-
ciency of the army, and more especially of the ordnance, to
the energy with which every part of the Administration has
been carried on ; and I think I may say with confidence
that on these subjects, at all events, the. Government has
the confidence of the country. (Cheers.) Now, I come to
that which no doubt is of the greatest importance—our fo-
reign policy. A great part of the observations on this sub-
ject have naturally turned upon the present state of affairs
in Italy. But before touching upon that I must turn aside
to deal with charges made' against the Government in ano-
ther place by the right hon. baronet the member for Car-
lisle. Don't let any one suppose that I am going to re-
open at this stage of the debate any of the personal charges
which the right hon. baronet brought forward on the Car-
lisle hustings. I think, however, as we pass on, it may be
desirable, as merchants say, to "take stock" "of these state-
ments. First, we had the charge relating to the Secretary
at War and the binding of soldiers. That statement we
know has been cpulogised for, and is not to be mentioned
again. Next, tnere is the statement respecting the Admi-
ralty and my right hon. friend the First Lord. That also
has been apologised for and retracted, and I therefore say
nothing about it. Then, thirdly, we' have the rumour of
election subscriptions, as to which I may say no one ever
supposed that the right hon. baronet was doing more than
repeating a statement which he had heard or read in the
reports of the day. We have next the statement about the
packet service at Galway, which met with a contradiction
on the first night of the debate. Next comes the statement
as to what is called the Roman Catholic alliance, which
the right hon. baronet fortified by reading a letter
said in the newspapers to be% from a Roman Catholic
bishop in the north of England, but I saw within a week
afterwards that that letter was declared by the bishop to be
a forgery. (Cheers and laughter.) Number six charge re-
lated to the barracks at Berwick, which has also been put
out of the question. All this was the rubbish gathered out
of the kennel of calumny which runs through every town
during the time of an election. (Cheers.) 'I am now going
to refer to a statement affecting the national honour, and
which I think transcends all the others. The right hon.
baronet was First Lord of the Admiralty not many years
ago. He was accustomed, I apprehend, to consider the
course taken by our cruisers abroad, and the rights
which they exercise with regard to ships of foreign nations.
Well, when he was commenting on the foreign policy
of the Government at Carlisle, he affected to doubt whether
the honour of the country was safe in the hands of the pre-
sent Foreign Secretary, and this was the instance he gate
to the 'unsuspecting people of Carlisle :
"With reference to the slave trade a question arose be-
tween the United States of America and England. The slave
trade cannot be put down upon the high seas unless the
flag supposed under suspicious circumstances to be carrying
slaves is visited by the British cruisers. That right of visit
has from the very commencement of our efforts to put
down the slave trade been exercised upon the high seas ;
and what did this champion of the honour of England do ?
Why, in a single personal communication with the Minister
of the United States, he remonstrating against this accus-
tomed right of visit, it was renounced and abandoned by
Lord Malmesbury ; and this champion of the honour of
England did on that occasion renounce a right, a maritime
right, on the part of England, which every Foreign Minister
for the last 30 years has not hesitated to uphold. Now, so
much for this champion of the honour of England in the
person of Lord Malmesbury !"
Every hon. member must admit the gravity of the charge,
and two reflections occur to me upon it. The first is that if
this were an accurate charge deprivation of office would not
be the proper punishment. The second observation is that if
any other person besides the Foreign Secretary deserves
punishment, it would be a statesmen of experience and of
weight in the house who knew all this, who sat in the last
Parliament, and who never informed the House of Com-
mons of the injury which had been done to the honour of
the country. (Cheers.) This was not a rumour, but a
matter depending upon statements made in the other house.
A knowledge of everything that had been done had been
communicated 'to Parliament in consequence of inquiries.
What was the case ? So far from Lord Malmesbury giving
up the right of British cruisers to visit ships under suspici-
ous circumstances, that is the very right which he has con-
tended for, and which the United States has conceded.
(Cheers.) The fact may be briefly stated. There was great
irritation on the part of the United States as to the proceed-
ings of some of our cruisers off the Island of Cuba. A cor-
respondence passed between the two Governments. Mr.
Secretary Cass, the American Foreign Minister, after some
preliminary corrth3pondence, stated that under suspicious
circumstances, neither he nor the country which he
represented would quarrel with such of our cruisers as
might exercise the right of visit. Lord Malmesbury
thereupon consulted the proper legal authorities ; he
found that was the right which we claimed and desired to
exercise; he closed with. Mr. Secretary Cass upon his
own statement, and without any further ill-feeling or
controversy the question was arranged upon that basis.
(Hear.) All this was told to the other house. The right
hon. baronet was for many years a colleague of Lord Abar •
deen, than whom no minister has ever taken a warmer in-
terest in this question. 'What did Lord Aberdeen say ?
He said, " I have seen the letter of General Cass ; I think
it reasonable and proper; it gives up what I have I
always
conje tended contended for." But he added. ", the only thing o
to is that there should be any idea allowed to go abroadthat
the right of search generally"—that is to say, the right of
search not under suspicious circumstances—" has been
given up ; it is impossible it can have been given up, be.
cause I abandoned it 'myself 20 years ago, and it has not
been claimed
since." (Cheers.) I do not, of course, sup-
pose that the right hon. baronet invented the story which
he told to his constituents ; but what I complain of is, that
a statesman of eminence and weight should, upon a subject
involving the honour of England and affecting the general
character of a minister of the Crown, have made so grave a
statement without taking the trouble to procure correct in-
formation. (Cheers.) I think this exhausts the chapter of
anecdotes at Carlisle. (A laugh.) I do not dwell any longer
upon them. Only one fact remains, and it is,.that not one
of those anecdotes has been found upon examination to be
correctly stated—(hear)—and I can only congratulate the
worthy electors of Carlisle upon the statements upon which
they have returned their distinguished member to Parlia-
ment. (Cheers and laughter.) I come now to the subject
more immediately before the house--the foreign policy
of the Government, especially in relation to the war now
raging in Italy. The noble lord who moved the amendment
candidly stated that, not having seen the papers which the
Government are about to produce, he was not in a position
to discuss the question of our foreign policy. In that he has
not been followed by some of those who act along with him.
The noble lord the member for Tiverton and the hon. mem-
ber for Devonport have said that they have information
enough without waiting for papers to express their opinion
upon the foreign policy of the government. I think we
have in their observations two remarkable instances of the
inconvenience of discussing this question in the absence of
those papers. The hon. member for Devonport makes a
grave charge against the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He
says that on the 26th of February last the Chancellor of
the Exchequer stated to this house that the Government
had reason to believe that the Roman States would shortly
be evacuated by the French and Austrian troops, and that
with the consent of the Papal authorities. The hon. member
tells us he has been in Paris, that he does not think there
was any foundation for that statement, and that he has
reason to know that at the Tuileries and at the Foreign-
office in Vienna it created great surprise. He also cora-

plains of another statement made by the Chancellor of the
Exchequer, that "under these circumstances" Lord Cow-
ley had proceeded -on a mission to Vienna. I have no
! means of knowing from whom in Paris the hon. member
' derives his political information—(a laugh),—but if
the hon. member, being in Paris, had referred to
those sources of information to which one might have
thought he could have had recourse--if he had looked at
the ifoniteur, the Government paper, he would have found
that on the 27th of February, by authority, there was in-
serted in the Moniteur a statement almost in words the
same as that made by the Chancellor of the 'Exchequer in
regard to the evacuation of the Roman States. I.say he
would have found the statement inserted by authority in the
Ifoniteur, and in addition to that I am able to inform him
that that statement was made in this house in consequence
of a direct communication from the French Ambassador in
London. (Cheers.) I think, therefore, the hon. member
will agree with me in thinking that upon that subject there
could not have been much surprise felt at the Tuileries. (A
laugh.) Then, with respect to the Foreign-office at Vienna,
when the hon. member reads the papers which will be laid
upon the table, he will find that for some days before the
date T have given, the authorities at the Foreign,-office had
received a communication from the Papal Government, and
that they had stated to our Miniiter that they were pre-
pared to communicate with Lord Derby. There could not,
therefore, have been any great surprise on the part of the
Foreign-office at Vienna. So much, then, for the hon.
member for Devonport. But the statement of the noble
lord the 'member for Tiverton is much more serious. The
noble lord told us that in the course of the negotiations, up
to the last moment, "the belief of the Gov, eminent was,
that if they conld only frighten France from hostili-
ties by holding it out to Europe that in the event
of war breaking out they would be found acting on the side
of Austria, peace would be preserverl, and war would be
avoided. I think," he added, "a threat to either side, that
any contingency of war was to, involve England as an ac-
tive party in the contest was wrong and imprudent, the
more especially when it was launched at a proud, warlike,
and independent nation, who must have understood what
was meant, and would doubtless have resented it." I have
no doubt the noble lord believed all this ; but I can assure
the house that there is not a shadow of foundation for that
statement. (Cheers.) Nothing ever passed during the ne-
gotiatons which could in the remotest degree be construed
into a threat to France that in the event of war breaking
out we should be found acting on the side of Austria.
Let the house remember that the noble lord is a states.
man of eminence, and one whose eminence is known
over the whole continent. (Hear, hear.) A statement of
this kind, therefore, ought not to have been made unle.-,,e
there was an accurate foundation for it within the kr"ow-
ledge of the noble lord. (Cheers.) Such a statement even
though it be corrected in this house, must do ir;ischief
when it goes abroad, and is read abroad ; becans-, next to
the threat of war, any proud, warlike nationCu
dislike to have it said in an assembly of ts' ..vo- 'd
most
is 'kind that it
.had been threatened with war. (Hear.) ow,ask' you
upon what ground is it that you'propose
Go-
vernment with regard to its foreign to censure the
~olicy on the Italian
question ? It must be either,
out; orit must be, secondly, becau
—first, '',,ecause war has broken
-ski the negotiations havenot
been conducted with energy and • witl
be, thirdly, because since the • i earnestness; or it must
war has broken out the Go-
vernment has acted in Borns.
endanger this country. r manner likely to prejudice or
13 it on the first ground,—that the
war has broken out ?
T.
has disposed of that qr he noble the member for London
_Leaden, for he has very fairly ad-
mitted that he did 1;0 think of anybody could have prevented
this war breakin; out. Is' it on the second ground—that
the negotiations have not been conducted with energy and
earnestness ?
negotiations How are you to judge of that without the
you have before you ? (Hear, hear.) Just observe :
dad the gracious Speeech from the Throne ; you,
have IrA?
t the Address so far as it goes, and you are about to
thank 7rier Majesty for the intimation-that the papers relating
to thrJ negotiations in question, and showing how great has
berm her desire to preserve the peace of Europe, will be laid
afore you; and then, by way of amendment, you censure
the Government for the conduct of those negotiations be-
fore you have had the information on which you might be
expected to found that censure. (Cheers.) Well, sir, is
it on the third ground, because anything has been done
since the war to complicate or compromise this country
with foreign Powers ? Sir, the course taken by the Go-
vernment is clear and distinct. It does not rest upon a
verbalstatement. The Government have issued a procla-
mation not merely for this country but for foreign Powers.
It is couched in clear and distinct terms, and affirms the
perfect and complete neutrality of this country. Is there
any reason to doubt the sincerity of that proclamation?
The noble lord the member for the city of London says
there is. He says that LordiDerby made a speech in an-
other place, and the noble lord read that speech and com-
mented upon it. I will notice the noble lord's comments
on the speech, but I will not notice his comments on the
character of Lord Derby. (Cheers.) The noble lord is an
eminent biograPher, and he has shown that he is no mean
proficient in sketching character.. But there is one ingre-
dient necessary to every successful sketch of character, and
that is, that the biographer shall be impartial, and that he
should be placed in circumstances that ensure his impar-
tiality. (Hear.) Now Ido not think it is the time for the
noble lord to sketch the character of a statesman when he
wished to dislodge that statesman' and assume his place.
(Cheers.) The noble lord knew that the construction he put
upon Lord Derby's speech had been denied by Lord Derby,
and that the true construction had been assigned by Lord
Derby. I think, therefore, it would only have been fair if
the noble lord had read the construction which the author
of the words himself put upon them. Lord Derby in his
speech at the Mansion-house said :

" That noble lord (John Russell) supposes me to have
said that I thought it the duty of England to maintain
a posture of armed neutrality, in order that we might take
the part of whichever of the belligerents we believed was in
the right, and he adds that from the manifest partiality we
have shown for Austria, there .can be no doubt on which
side we are prepared shortly to draw the sword. Now I
take the liberty to say here, thus emphatically and publicly,
that nothing could have been further from our view. What
I did say was this,—That we intended to maintain a strict
neutrality; but that when a million or more of men
were in. arms, when war was not only imminent,
but in actual existence, and that moreover in Italy and
on the shores of the Mediterranean, it was incumbent on
and actually necessary for us, looking to the great interests
we havo involved there, looking to our great possessions,
and the military position we occupy in that quarter, that
we should be in such a state as to defend those possessions
and preserve the British flag and British arms from the
possibility of insult amid any of the contingencies that
might arise. And I said this, not that we should maintain
that armed neutrality for the purpose of joining this or the
other of the parties with whose quarrels there is nothing
in our national interests or national honour that calls for
our interference."

I say that this was a clear and distinct declaration of neu-
trality, and neutrality not in the sense assigned by the noble
lord the member for Tiverton, who talked of the neutrality
of this country as long as the war was confined to Italy,
but an absolute neutrality for every contingency that we
can either see or speculate upon. (Cheers.) The hon. mem-
ber for Birmingham has a different objection, and I now
come to his ground for voting for the amendment of the
noble lord the member for North Lancashire. The hon.
member says " It is all very well to declare a neutrality, but
look what you are doing. You are strengtheiing your
army, increasing your militia, enrolling volunteer rifle
corps, and adding greatly to your navy and seamen." The
effect, he says, is to make the French look suspiciously upon
you and to peril our alliance. I do not think it can be said
that because we do not expect Austria to attack us we must
therefore really expect France to attack us ; but I am glad
we have got this charge ; it is worthy the consideration
of this house, and for this reason. According to the hon.
member the French alliance ought to be drawn closer, and
that which perils the alliance is the icnrease of our arma-
ments and the strehgthening of our fleet. What is the
consequence ? The alliance with France, according to the
hon. member's theory, can only be drawn closer by the re-
linquishment and reduction of our armaments. (Cheers.)
It is a strong term—the disarmament of England—but using
it to denote the comparatively defenceless state of our shores,
and remembering what took place two years ago under a
Ministry which I need not name, I say that the observa-
tions of the hon. gentleman the member for Birmingham
convince me that, as his support is admitted to be necessary
to the new Government, the condition of that support must
be the disarmament of England. (Loud cheers.) But now
you talk of neutrality to the Government. Lot me ask a
question. What is the neutrality of the noble lord the
member for Tiverton ? (Hear, hear.) Here I must begin
by correcting, I am sure an unintentional, but still serious
misrepresentation which has been made by the right hon.
member for North Wiltshire and the noble lord the mem-
ber for London. They said, adverting to what fell from my
hon. friend the Under Secretary of State for Foreign
Affairs, that something fell from him that had the appear-
ance of depreciating or speaking lightly of the French
alliance. Now, there is not the shadow of a ground for
such a statement. (Hear, hear.) What fell from my
hon. friend was that, speaking of the Almack's meeting—
the meeting at Willis's-rooms--of which we have heard so
flinch, he said that no man valued more than he did the
French alliance, but he added that he found the noble
viscount at the meeting declared in favour of neutrality,
but, above all things, the interest of this country was to
preserve the alliance with France. The observation of my
hon. friend—and a well-founded one, I relieve—was, why
did not the noble,lord say it was the interest of this country
to preserve the alliance with both countries, and thus exhibit
a real neutrality ? (Hear.) What can foreign nations think
of saying in one breath we desire neutrality, and in the next
breath that above all things necessary for this country is
the alliance with France ? (Hear.) I will will not stop at
Willis's Rooms ; but the noble viscount at Tiverton, if
rightly reported, speaking of the position of Austria in the
out
of
said
the north
tihf
of Austriata
Italy
north of Italy, where her position, be it good or bad, is gua-
vamenpe,
sa
byran the
de
end
dy
et
fh
tehpeuybeliarc law ofdriE
and Italy left entirely to the Italians, every cne would 7
re-
joice. I want to know how a declaration of that kind con-
sists with, and how continental nations can take it to be
consistent with, perfect neutrality (Hear.) Suppose, for
instance, Lord Derby had said—(cheers)—that if Austria
succeeded in driving the Sardinians out of Lombardy and
Venice it would be a matter of rejoicing, what would have
been said then of the neutrality of Government ? (Renewed
cheers.) That is not my construction of those words. There
is a statesman who of all others should be competent to
form an idea of the effect of language of this kind on Italy;
he is not connected with us upon this side of the house; he
has been for many years a coile ague of the noble lord oppo-
site, and he is an experienced diplomatist in the affairs of
Italy—I mean, of course, Lord Normanby. What has he
said within the last day or two ? His opinion of that declara-
tion at Tiverfon is that the man who made it is a dangerous
man to be a Minister of England. (Loud cheers.) But the
neutrality of the noble lord the member for Tiverton is well
known. He was neutral in 1848, when he was Foreign
Minister. He then acted consistently with his notions of
neutrality I will not go into a review of those occurrences,
but will only say any who reads the blue-books relating to
them must come to the conclusion that if in 1848 there had
been any nation upon the Continent sufficiently powerful
and disengaged to enter upon a war against us the course
which the noble lord took would have furnished ample
reasons and justification for a war. (Cheers.) I know this
was made the subject of debate in this house, and that the
noble lord defended himself, stating that all he did was in
the interests of peace and freedom, and was not intended to
promote war. I firmly believe that that is his opinion, but
that is just the danger. (Hear.) It is just because the noble
4
lord thinks that in the proceedings which he took in 8,
when be was neutral, he was only promoting freedom in a
harmless and peaceful way, and because Ibel ieve
lookupon these
are his firm and ingrained sentiments, that
him as a dangerous Minister. I believe, that if the noble
lord were now to do one tenth-part of what h e did in 1848,
12
n
months were over. (Cries of Divide,
we should have this country involved war before The
right and cheers.)
right hon. member for South Wilts (his. S. Herbert) in his
speech to-night—the courteous
tone of which I gladly
re-
cognise, and the interest of which I need scarcely say was
felt by every one onboth
sides of the house—gave us some
details with regard to the
circumstances under which per-
sons can change their opinions ; and he also showed what
one sometimes sees even in the ease bf the most clear-sighted
and impartial men—how they can overlook the applicability
to themselves of the rule which they prescribe for others.

In that speech, after having. plentifully--I do not say too
plentifully—supplied us with quotatione from the speeches
of almoit every one on this side o t the house who has spoken
in times past, or in times present, on the subjects under
discussion—after supplying us even with division lista for
the purpose of •testing the acts and opinions of hon. mem-
bers--=the right hon. gentleman fell foal of my bon. friend
the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, and of my right
hon. friend the Attorney-General for Ireland, beeauEe they
had done exactly what the right hon. gentleman (lid tlu-ougb.-
out the whole of his speech—because they had read the
opinions of statesmen, members of this house with regard
,
to the foreign policy of the noble member for Tiverton.
S'ow, I desire to refer to the opinions of statesmen:with
regard to the policy of that noble lord merely for the pur-
ixee of showing that upon a subject exactly similar to that
Which we are now discussing, they expressed their dissent
from the views entertained by the noble lord upon foreign
Policy. Why do I think it desirable that the house should
boar this circumstance in mind ? ANgood many speakers
on the other side have stated that their great desire is to
see a strong Government formed, and that, therefore,
they support the ainendment. The right honourable
member for Wilts has told us that a Government
must be either strong within, or strong from its support
without; and I wish the house to consider whether, with
regard to the composition. of a Government, there can be
any weakness to compare with that arising from the dissen-
sion of its own members ? It 1... as been shown to you, and
therefore I need not undertake the task, with regard to
those who are now said to be the leaders of this movement
originating on the other side, and who must be looked to in
a greater or less degree as the components of any Govern-
ment that may be formed, that they differ from the noble
member for Tiverton* nivel this great, this all-important
question of foreign poliey. I want to know, then, what
prospect of unanimity tb_ere is in a Cabinet so constructed.
The right hon. membe.e for Carlisle (Sir J. Graham), the
right hon. member for Wilts, the hon. member for Birming-
ham, and the right b on. member for Ashton (Mr. M. Gibson)
have all disapprov, ed in the strongest terms that policy
which we have 7:io reason to believe the noble member for
Tiverton has surrendered, or intends to surrender, and
which therefore he will be bound to carry out the moment he
isin office.. (Cries of "Divide," and cheers.) The right
hon. merdber for Radnor (Sir C. Lewis) endeavoured to jus-
tify the, amendment, and the hon. member for Devonport
(Mr- 'Wilson) seemed to be under the apprehension that I
sholldd be disposed to give it a hard name. Sir, I have no
intention. The noble lord who proposed the amend-
ment stated most frankly and fairly that he admitted it
to be a party motion. I will go further, and I will say
that I believe it to be perfectly legitimate as a party, mo-
tion, and that it would not have been made if it had
not been deemed necessary as a party motion. (Cheers.)
We are fallen upon anxious and upon critical times. I see
among statesmen opposite who samnort this amendment
many who have borne the weight` and responSibility of
office, and he among them must indeed be a bold man ,who,
at a crisis like the present, would desire for the mere 'sake
of office to resume that weight and that responsibility.
But the favourable construction which I put upon the
objects of this amendment I demand in return for the
Goveinment against which it is directed. The hon. mem-
ber for Birmingham has spoken of the pleasure or the pain
with which an interchange of parties from one side of this
house to the other is usually attended. Sir, if personal
ease and satisfaction alone were concerned, those who sit on
these benches might well hail with pleasure the change of
power which is sought to be effected by this amendment.
But there is in this country—and I do not claim it as a
monopoly for any one set of public men—a higher and a
stronger feeling than the mere desire for personal comfort
and personal qualification ; end that feeling is a sense of
public , duty and a desire for the public welfare. Sir, we be-
hete that we have. under circumstances of great disadvantage,
conducted, and are able to conduct, the internal affairs of
this country not without ability, and not without success.
We believe that the course we are pursuing, and intend to
pursue, with regard to our foreign relations is that which
can alone preserve to England the inestimable blessing of
peace, which can render her unassailable and unlikely to
to be assailed by any act of foreign aggression, and
which can enable her to labour in her opportunity to
secure to other States the blessings which we value for
ourselves. (Cheers.) We believe that this policy, so essen-
tial to the honour and prosperity of this country, would be
marred and thwarted by a transfer of power at this moment
into the hands of the noble viscount. And it is because
we believe this that we cheerfully and readily meet the
amendment which the noble lord has proposed, and await
with confidence and contentment on this great field the
verdict of the House of Commons. (Loud and continued
cheering, amid which the hon. and learned gentleman re-
sumed his seat.)
An How. MEMBER below the gangway on the Ministerial
side then rose to address the House ; but the general cries
of " Divide 1" with which he was greeted were so vehement
and so persevering that he was compelled to desist from his
attempt.

The SPEAKER then put the question that the follow-
ing words be added to the Address in answer to her Ma-
jesty's Speech, viz. :—" We beg humbly to submit to your
Majesty that it is essential for the satisfactory result of our
deliberations, and for facilitating the discharge of your
Majesty's high functions, that your Majesty's Government
should possess the• 6onfidence of this house and of the
country ; and we deem it our duty respectfully to submit
to your Majesty that such confidence is not reposed in the
present advisers of your Majesty." (Cheers.)
The house divided, when the numbers were—
For the amendment
Against it

Majority against the Government ..

This announcement was received with renewed, vocife-
rous, and prolonged cheering. Lord J. Russell rose from
his seat and took his place on the front Opposition bench
next to Lord Palmerston amidst great laughter and ironical
cheers from the Ministerial benches. The noble lord good
humouredly bowed and laughed, but did not long retain his
seat, and Mr. George Bowyer, who had taken posiession of
the noble lord's place below the gangway, was obliged to
give it up again, to the general merriment. As soon as the
Speaker had officially declared that the "Ayes had it."
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER advanced
to the table and said—Sir, I move that this house at its
rising adjourn till this day at twelve o'clock, and perhaps
the noble lord opposite will by that time be prepared with
the report of the committee on the answer to the Address.
Mr. Tingessen handed to the clerk the names of the com-
mittee to be appointed to prepare the report, among which
those of Lord Palmerston, Lord J. Russell, and Mr. Sidney
Herbert elicited loud ironical cheers from the Ministerial
benches. The name of Mr. Milner Gibsen was received with
still louder shouts, followed by general cries of " Bright,
Bright 1" from the same quarter.

The motions for the appointment of the committee, and
;he adjournment till this day were agreed to.

Mr:SOTHERON ESTCOURT obtained leave to bring
in a bill for the better adniinistration of Criminal Justice in
Middlesex.

Sir STAFFORD NORTHCOTE obtained leave to
bring in a bill to amend the Galway Harbour and Port
Act, 1853, •

The House then adjourned at twenty. minutes past two.

THE NAVY.

The steamship Gibraltar, having embarked in
the London Docks from Woolwich, a heavy amount
of shot and other war stores, is under orders to
call at the Arsenal to-day to ship her powder in
readiness for departure. The sailing transport
Alciope has been chartered by Government for
the conveyance of war stores from Woolwich. _

The smallpox has made its appearance on board
the screw steam sloop Falcon, 17, at Plymouth.
Two cases hare been sent to the hospital.
The paddlewheel steam sloop Firebrand, 6,
arrived at Plymouth on Thursday morning. She
is destined to sound from the Land's End to Gib-
raltar, preparatory to laying down the electric
cable.
The screw steam troopship Himalaya, repairing
at Keyham, will be ready for sea about the 19th
instant.

The screw steam guardship Exmouth, 90, Capt.
Robert S. Robinson, arrived in Plymouth Sound
yesterday morning, accompanied by an SO-gun
ship, reported to be the Cressy, and a corvette, all
black.

Her Majesty's ship Neptune is commissioned.
A Russian line-of-battle ship, a three-decker, is
at S pithead still.

Cip!.. R. B. Watson, C. 8., has been appointed
Captain-Superintendent of Sheerness dockyard,
vice Capt. John C. Fitzgerald, deceased.
• The following appointments were made yester-
day at the Admiralty :—Capt. the Hon. J. W. S.
Spencer, to the Topaze, commissioned; Capt. R.
Lambert, to the Scylla, commissioned ; Capt. R. B.
Crawford, to the Sidon, commissioned ; Capt. J.
Corbett, to the Scout, commissioned; Lieut. W. J.
Grubbe, to the Dauntless ; and Lieut. C. D.
Sanders, to the Cressy.