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

•
held by one or two members upon this side of the house
when they spoke of the ministers as if they were but a few
- days in office, and asked that they E Loulslhave a fair trial.
But we have given them a fair trial. 'They have been more
than a year in office, and we have se en. and'considered the
measures WECTi thdy have brought I 'ward. But before I
refer further to those measures let me .say a few words with
respect to the mittianr in Which they had entered office. I
think I am justified in doing this, bi icztuse I found that the
resoktion.which I had the honour t o move and the satis-
faction to carry in the last Parliame at, has been styled by
many of the ministerial candidates at t ;11 e late election a fac-
tious resolution. (Ironical cheers.) Ai s f
. ar as I can discrimi-
nate, I should say if any member or DO* dy of men in this
house bring forward a motion which they believe calcu-
lated-for the public good, however to 13taken they may be,
it may be called a party motion, but it c an hardly be styled
a factious motion. On the other hand„, those who oppose a
measure of which they approve, for f Ile sake of party in-
terestn,lare, I think, much more deser ing of the epithet
faction. Now what was the mode in -whibh the ministers
came into office ? A bill was propos eei by the noble vis-
count the member for Tiverton when b.ie was at the head of
the Government, which bill was su, cfgested by the noble
earl now First Minister. That bill wn en brought forward
was supported by a speech of great ability in tde by the
present Chancellor of the Excheqw sr, and I remember
that my right hon. friend the r aambkr for Ports-
mouth, from.whom I had the misfortu lae• to differ, told me
on that occasion that he was convinced'. by the statements
and arguments of the Chancellor of the, Exchequer of the
Propriety of that measure, which was lo.oled upon as feces-
earty to maintain friendly relations w ith France. Subse-
quently, however, that very measure w as made the occasion
of defeating the then Government, and with it the bill
itself,: which right hon. gentlemen opposite and their
party had so warmly advocated. Welli, say that conduct
More factions—conduct more treacherous on the part of
those who succeeded to office—can scs.rce)ly be conceived.

(O~position cheers and cries of ~~ Oh, oh,".from the Minis-
terial benches.) From what the Chancellor of the Exche-
quer said, yen would suppose that it w as:nothing but obsti•
nate prejudice or party violence that ca-asod the rejection of
some of the Government measures. Bat was that so ? In
respect to the India Bill their course wa s e xceedingly simple
and plain to common understandings. Her Majesty's Go-
vernment hitving refused to accept the bill brought in by
say-noble friend, introduced one of their own, which was so
fanciful„ Unpractical, so strange 'and m ?.w in its'provisions,
that it was ridiculed both inside and outside of this house.
In respect to their Reform Bill, which was equally fanciful
and inefficient in its provisions, havin gistfidied the ques-
tion of reform for a great number of y ears, I trust I may
be allowed to express my thoughts upon that question. I
consider that there may be three kinds of a Reform Bill in-
troduced. The one may be a measure which shall diminish
popular power; the other may be a measure so complicated
in its provisions as to leave the number and character of
the constituent body somewhat in the position in which
they already stand ; the third kind may be a plain, prac-
tical measure which will add to the popular power, and
thereby increase the strength of the House of Commons.
Now the Reform Bill introduced by the• Government was, I
consider, a measure having much of the 'first character, and
somewhat of the second, but none at all of the third. It was
a measure which, if passed in the shape in which it was
originally framed, and if it had been in operation for 10 or
20 years, would by that time have much diminished the
popular strength which ought to be represented in this
house. (Ironical cheers and laughter from Ministerialiats.)
It would certainly have had the effect of taking away a great
part of the Liberal element in counties, and of returning
men to Parliament who would never be found voting for

anything that tended to increase the civil and religious liber-
ties of the country. The measure, too, was one calculated to
'create some 30 or 40 Old Sarums. (Cries of Oh, oh.) My
belief is, that if the bill had passed in its then shape, it
'Would have gone far to repeal the Reform Act and the power
of the people to send representatives into this house. Now,
that is the measure which we are blamed for defeating. For

AnyO;nTart: neat-toTi;siitaaction I feel in haviiig taken.
large share in carrying through the original Reform Act,
Is the satisfaction I experience in having assisted in defeating
so objectionable a measure. (Laughter.) Well, I now come to
that measure of the Government which I consider most

perilous, and which the right hon. gentlemen on the Minis-
terial bench ought to consider to be one that exposes them
to great responsility—l mean the measure of the dissolu-
tion. - Her Majesty's Ministers chose to dissolve Parliament
at a time when war was impending in Europe, and was
looked: pon by every person as one not of weeks only, but
even' of days. For my own part, I thought that there could
be but one excuse for that dissolution, and thatwas the very

great objection which her Majesty's 'Ministers stated they
had to the lowering of the franchise in counties. The noble
lord the Secretary of State for India declared that it would
destroy the influence of the middle clasaes. The right hon.
baronet the Secretary for the Colonies, in a speech of great
force' and eloquence, said it would place capital and property
at the disposal of impatient poverty and uninstructed num-
bers. The right hon. gentleman the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer said that if the borough franchise were lowered,
you, would:have a House of Commons which would be ready
to sanction every extravagant expenditure, but vieuld never
consent to grant the taxes necessary to meet that expendi-
ture—which would enter recklessly into war, and yet would
be afterwards prepared to agree to an ignominious peace.
These are very gravaconsiderations, and I can easily ima-
gine that a ministry which entertained such apprehensions
should put it to the country whether it would sanction a
measure which they believed to be fraught with such great
national calamities. But, to my infinite surprise, I find that
now that Parliament has again assembled her Majesty's
Government, state that they have no objection to this very
change. (Hear, hear.) Then, I say that there was no ex-
cuse for the dissolution. (Hear, hear.) If they were satis-
fied that they could adopt the substance of the resolution
Which' I brought forward, or of that proposed by Mr. Stuart
Wortley; or-that it would be possible for them to agree to a
reduction 'in the borough franchise, • I say it was their
'bounden duty totheir Sovereign, to Parliament, and to the
country, taannounce that they were prepared to effect such
a settlement of the question, and not to dissolve Parliament
and subject themselves to the dangers which they incurred.
But, the.right hon. gentleman (the First Lord of the Admi-
ralty) takes credit to the Government for having assumed
the responsibility of adopting measures for the augmentation
of our naval force without the consent of Parliament.

That might be very, well if the necessity for such an aug-
mentation arose suddenly during the usual Parliamentary
recess ; but when I remember that the absence of Parliament
Was their own act—(hear)—their merit is counterbalanced,
and more than counterbalanced, by their guilt in dissolving
Parliainent under the circumstances of the time. (Hear, hear.)
They, could have no other object in the dissolution than to
strengthen their own party, and I contend that in that re-
. epect their conduct was entirely inexcusable. I come next to
the conaicTeration of their management of foreign affairs.
The right hon. gentleman claims great credit for them on
account of the mode in which, they settled the question of
the Cagliari. Now; I remember perfectly well what oc-
curred in that case. An hon. gentleman in this house asked
as question with regard to what had been done in the matter,
and the riglithon. gentlem an the Chancellor of the Exchequer
' stated in reply that the question had been brought to a
conclusinn: by the preceding Government ; and while he
showed no very great feeling for the English engineers, he
expressed immense satisfaction that no uncivil words had
been used by the. Government towards the late King of
I\l'aples. There the subject would probably have remained
had not my noble friend' the member for Tiverton said that
the question had not been concluded. The right hon. gen-
tleman was pressed to take some further measure upon the
subject ; and then, indeed, at the suggestion of this Wise,
the Government, promptly enough,, and, I must say, ably
enough, adopted the necessary steps and obtained the re-
lease of those engineers. (Hear, hear.). But that only shows,
among other things, the danger of leaving the management
of our foreign relations in the hands of Ministers at a time
When Parliament is not sitting. (Hear, and a laugh.) The
next question which arose during the recess was that of the
Charles et Georges. The right hon. gentleman is very
triumphant because we did not move .any vote of censure on
the. Government, and I must say I think that in that case
we showed great forbearance—(hear, hear)—because lan-
guage snore unbecoming a British Minister than that used
'anon the subject by Lord Malmesbury I never read. It was
not a question on which we could have advised Portugal to
$o to war ; that was quite clear ; but the advice which we
had
to offer might have been of a more manly character,
gulch as it would have been more becoming of us to give
and more becoming of Portugal to accept. I come now to
that most serious question—the outbreak of the war in-
Italy. have no doubt that the efforts of her Majesty's Go-
vernment have been unceasing for the preservation of peace;
and I am myself inclined to believe that it would not have
been possible for any Government to prevent a war between
Austria on the one side and France and Sardinia on the
other. (Hear.) But before I go into that question I cannot
help noticing the reference which has been made by the
right hon: and learned gentleman the Attorney-General for
Ireland to certain events that took place in the year 1848.
The right hon. and learned gentleman seemed to be rather
Unwilling that the house should fix its observation on the
Merits or demerits of the Government, and theiefore he tra-
yelled etet the occurrences of past years forthe purpose appa-
' rently of diverting attention from the question whether ornot
the Government are now entitled to the confidence of this
house, He resembled a bird which has a nest in the grass
and which in order to keep it concealed from some intruder
flutters about, picking up a straw in, one place and chirping
some wild note in another. (Hear, hear.) The rig ht honi and
learned gentleman attacked the conduct of my noble friend
and that of the Government over which I had the honour to
preside because we did not accept an offer made by Austria
in the year 1848 to withdraw from Lombardy. But the
right hon. gentleman seems to have forgotten one part of
the transaction. At that time not only was Milan and the
greater part of Lombardy free from Austrian 'troops, but
Venice was in the hands of its own inhabitants, who had
shaken off the Austrian yoke. (Hear, hear.) They had de-
clared their independence, and they were ready to maintain
it; and the proposal made to the Government of Great Bri-
tain was that we should interfere not only to dispose of
Lombardy, but also to place an Austrian Archduke in autho-
rity over Venice. Now, I ask, how could the British Govern-
' meat, which had no immediate concern in those transactions,
interfere to destroy the independence of Venice, in order to
increase in another part of Italy the territories of the King of
Sardinia ? (Hear, hear.) For my part it has always appeared
to me that one of the foulest transactions in European his-
tory is the transference of Venice tc Austria by the treaty
of Campo Formio ; and that is also; I believe, the opinion
of Count de Montalembert, who stated in the pamphlet
Which was lately prosecuted that English diplomacy can be
reproached with nothing so bad as the betrayal of Venice
to Austria under that treaty. I say that this transaction
was only second in infamy to the partition of Poland ; and
•- let it be remembered that the proposal made to us in the
Year 1848 wasi"that we should assist in restoring in Venice
the Austrian domination. And now with regard to the pre-
sent state of Italy. We have on one side the treaty of 1815,
Which gives Venice and Lombardy to Austria. But Austria
is not entitled under that treaty to any other part of Italy.
And has she confined her rule to that territory ? Far from
it. In the very year 1815 she made a treaty with Naples
that the King of Naples should not introduce any kind or
form of Government in Naples different from the Govern.-
anent which was established in the Italian possessions of
Austria. At a later time she occupied the Roman States ;
she occupied Tuscany, with respect to which kingdom I
Will say a word presently.z. And, according to a letter
addressed to me by a vary eminent Italian, it appears by
the archives of Turin that the Austrian Minister was so
determined not to allow any improvement in the Govern•
tent of Italy that, being asked if the King of Naples should
of his own accord grant a constitution to his subjects what
Austria would do, the answer of the Austrian Minister was
. that she would make war against the King of Naples. Now,
I will state what happened in Tuscany. In 1849 the people
of Tuscany had been led by the wild demagogues, the fol-
.- • towers of Mazzini, to proclaim a republic, but the people
restored at their will the Grand Duke. They appointed a
•. ' trovisional Government, and sent a delegation to the Grand
JJUke to say that they were ready to receive him, but they
expected him to govern by a constitution. He gave them a
larantee, and- answered by letters, copies of which I have
tae; and by a proclamation, that he would return to
Plorence ; that he thanked those who restored his power;
that he meant to govern according to the constitution, and
• that a constitutional monarchy was what he intended to
establish in the Grand Duchy. It was already drawn, and
the Grand Duke, who was a mild Sovereign, would have

himself governed according to tlit constitution ; but at that
time a division of the Austrian troops marched into_Tus=
cany ; the promise to govern according to the constitution
was violated, and from that time until the flight of the
Grand Duke the other day there has been no government
by constitution. These are the things that have aroused
the resentment of the Italian people against the Austrian
Government. It is not, as the hon. gentleman who moved
the Address seemed to imagine, that Austria holds her Pos •
sessions just as her Majesty holds her different colonies.
There has been an attempt from 1815 to the present day by
Austria to govern the whole of Italy, to make the Italian
Sovereigns her viceroys, and make the laws conformable to
the will of the armies of Austria. That is the case of Italy
on the one hand ; now let us see what is the case of Sar-
dinia on the other. Sardinia established at a late period her'
own free constitution. She might have been satisfied with
establishing her own freedom, her own law, her own free
assembly, her free press, her liberty of conscience, such as
I believe is unexampled in other parts of Italy; but she has
not been satisfied. The temptation was natural, but cer-
tain it is that for the last seven or eight years men coming
from other parts of Italy presented addresses to the
King and his Ministry, praying for the liberty and
independence of Italy, urging Sardinia to be the defence of
her freedom ; and the consequence was that in every part
of Italy, in every state, in the Roman States. in Naples, in ,
Tuscany, the people became attached to Sardinia, and they
looked to Sardinia as their liberator. The temptation might
have been great, the enterprise glorious, but it was quite
impossible for Austria to consider these as other than pro-
voking attempts to destroy her power in Italy. The pre-
tensions, according to my mind, were unfounded on both
sides, but they were more detestable on the part of Austria,
because she had attempted to destroy liberty and extinguish
freedom of thought, while the effort of Sardinia was in the
direction of independence and liberty. She went, however,
beyond her natural duties, and she had no right to do as
she had done—to receive recruits and conscripts from other
states. Well, at a moment most fortunate for Sardinia she
obtained the support of France. At what moment she ob-
tained it I cannot tell, but from the time she obtained the
promise of the support of France her conduct became less
regulated by her international duties, and she proclaimed
more openly her sympathy with the sorrows of Italy ; and
from that time it could not but be that, relying on the sup-
port of France, there would be a contest of arms between
Sardinia and Austria. lam satisfied that neither my noble
friend the member for Tiverton nor myself since the end of
last session have done anything to increase the danger of
war. On the contrary, we have said everything that could
be favourable to the maintenance of peace. I certainly
doubt myself whether, under the circumstances, her Ma-
jesty's Ministers would have been able to preserve the peace
of Europe ; and it had become obvious that the day must
arrive when those powers must contest in arms. (Hear.) I
come now to the question as to what our policy should be.
Everybody is for neutrality and maintaining peace, but I
own I have no confidence that the present Government will
be able to maintain peace. In the first place a deliberate
speech was made by Lord Derby on a most solemn occa-
sion, when he was to declare the policy of the Govern-
ment, and he said, "if war breaks out, whatever may be
the consequences, our neutrality, as long as it lasts,
must be to a certain extent an armed neutrality—(Minis-
terial cheers)—enabling us to take part on that side,
whatever it may be, which the honour, interests, and
dignity of the country may indicate as best deserving
of our support." (Ministerial cheers.) Well, but if
Lord Derby intended peace, why take part with either?
(Cheers.) There was war between France and Spain in,
1823, and Mr. Canning declared neutrality, and it was pre-
served to the end. - There was war in 1848, and the Go-

vemment declared neutrality, and it was preserved to the
end. Why should we suppose—because it seems to be a
supposition—that when we are fully armed we should in-
quire what state it is which the honour, the interest, and
the dignity of the country requires us to join? (Cheers,
and cries of " no, no.") I know that a few days afterwards
Lord Derby denied that such was his meaning—Niniste-
rial cheers)—but it was true. No man expresses himself
with greater precision than Lord Derby, and what can be
the meaning of words of that kind ? No doubt it was right
we should be sufficiently armed in our own defence, in order
that when our mediation and good offices are asked we
should say what are the terms which appear to us fitted to
the circumstances of the times and likely to make a lasting
peace. I can well imagine the Government of this coun-
try, in the full possession of the confidence of the house
and the country, giving such advice as would be listened
to, and that the two parties' weary of bloodshed, would be
glad to make terms ; but I do not expect that such terms
would be accepted by the present Government. (Oh, oh,
and cheers.) I declare at once my belief that the Govern-
ment are not disposed—l take it from the words of the Un-
der Secretary of State—to maintain that intimate alliance
with France on which everything depends. (Oh, oh.) 'I
understood him to find fault with that intimate alliance.

(Hear.) My noble friend did not say that we ought not to
be on the most friendly terms with Austria, and I am sure he
meant no such thing. We ought to be on friendly terms
with Austria ; but depend upon it we shall have no weight
in the councils of France, unless we are prepared to con-
sult the honour and dignity ofFrance, as well as the honour
and dignity of England. (Cheers.) Those questions are
not only unpleasant, but almost impossible to debate in
this house. Some gentlemen think the. Earl of Derby the
perfection of wisdom, and the Earl of Malmesbury very
nearly so. That is not my opinion. I consider, from all I
hear, that the alliance with France is very much weakened,
and that we have not that weight in Europe which the
Government of this country ought to have ; therefore I
think we ought to have such a change in the Govern-
ment as would give it proper weight. (Cheers.) I
should wish, not only that our neutrality should be re-
spected, but that our voice should be listened to in the
counsels of Europe ; and for that purpose I shall vote a want
of confidence in the present Government. Then, sir, with
regard to the question of reform, I for my part having seen
what the late measure of the Government was, am not dis-

posed to wait till the month of February nest in order to
see some other measure in which we shall have similar coun-

terbalances intended to take from the people on one hand
what is conferred on the other. What I wish to see is a

sound measure, if I do not say in the present session—(hear,
hear)—still I say in the present year. I know of no reason
why a Reform Bill should not be passed in the present year,
and my belief is that it would be a great advantage to the
public welfare to have a bill for the amendment of the re-
presentation of the people disposed of singly and separately,
and that in the usual session of Parliament other important
questions of supply, of taxes, and of the budget might be
considered in their ordinary course. (Hear, hear.) With
regard to the question of reform, an hon. gentleman asked
me a question about details, and, what seemed to me a little
unfair, he who never was a reformer till this year, asked me,
who have been a reformer for more years than I like to say,
to condescend, as the Scotch say, on particulars. The reply
that I gave in the last session of Parliament seemed to me
a very fair outline of a measure of reform. What would be
the exact extent, must of course, until the present Govern-
ment disappears from the scene, depend upon the Govern-
ment which is to succeed it. As soon as such a measure
can be framed, and questions relating to the navy disposed
of, I think the bill ought to be introduced. I must notice
the appeals made by the First Lora of thelAdmiralty. I am
quite willing to admit that in the administration of that de-
partment, by the additions' he has made to the strength of
the navy, he deserves the utmost praise. (Hear, hear.) I
wish, however, that he had not mixed up the account he
has given us of the state of the navy with so much lauda-
tion of himself, or so much reproach of his predecessors.
(Laughter.) I think the Government acted rightly and
as the occasion required, and I hold that the manner in
which the right hon. gentleman has conducted his depart-
ment gives him a claim to the gratitude of the coun-
try. (Hear, hear.) Now, sir, with reference to the
statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer
in reference to my noble friend who proposed this amend-
ment, I must say that I think his attack was very gratuitous
and unfounded. The right hon. gentleman says that the
noble lord represents a combination of great families, and
gives this as a ground why the amendment should not be
adopted. If the argument had been used in 1759 it might
have had its application, but I cannot conceive that any one
would undertake the formation of a Ministry at this time
who would not admit men of talent from whatever part of
the house or the country they may come. (Hear, hear.)
I stated to my constituents that there were bodies of men
in the country who had been instrumental in all the great
political changes that have taken place. I instanced the
Whig party, and the party of Sir Robert Peel, and a party
of gentlemen of advanced opinions in this house ; and
whether we look to the question of Catholic Emancipation,
rgeeptheaelr,oafntdhehycoarnmlaarowsri,
tyyouea7ryiwllinfing dt
htohsees einmeae
to the question of religious liberty, or to free trade and the
snh a cr. e ts
nwgh it co
h
the present Government and the party opposite have always
opposed. (Hear, hear.) In 1831 they did their utmost to
oppose reform in Parliament. The right hon. and learned
gentleman who spoke last night referred to a phrase used
by me, borrowed from Mr. Fox —" a miserable monopolising
minority." I had forgotten the phrase, but it recalls to my
mind the time when the Parliaments of Ireland were pro-
perly designated by those words. I remember when it was
said that it was impossible to, allow the Roman Catholics
the possession of rights which they might fairly claim, and
when even giving a silk gown to an eminent Roman Catho-
lic barrister was a piece of liberality which was to be looked
on with dread. I quite agree with my right hon. friend
(Mr. S. Herbert) that it is a good sign to see Roman Catho-
lics returning a Conservative to Parliament, when the com-
plexion of their opinions calls for such a representative,
because it tends to break down those lines of separation
and ill.will by which persons of different religions in Ire-
land were formerly separated. (Hear, hear.) There was
a phrase of mine, which being misreported gave offence to
some of the members of the Roman Catholic communion—
it was in a speech of mine in the City, is speaking of the
affairs of Italy, when I was stated to have said that the
Austrians maintained in Italy an oppressive government
and a "benighted religion ;" these were not my words.
What I said was;that they had maintained an oppressive go-
vernment and a benighted rule, and it will be seen that I was
not speaking of religion. For these reasons I think the house
will be fully justified in coming to a vote of want of
confidence in the present Government. They have had a
year to introduce measures which not only have not, met
with the approbation of parliament, but which the great
majority of the country thought were not deserving of ap-
probation. Their weight in the councils of foreign powers
It not such as to give this country the influence it ought to
wield ; and it is supposed, and I believe justly, that the
Government is partial in the present contest. It is a ques-
tion whether the person at the head of the Government
deserves to be there,
and whether he is fitted to preside over
thecouncils of this great country
at a time • of peculiar
diffi-
culty. lam told that the noble lord for 32 minutes enter-
tained another assembly with an account of my political
course, and which he afterwards published in
• a pamphlet
as a sort of political address. (Laughter.)d
the speech or the pamphlet, but I observed I never read
had this Parliament met than new a that no sooner
directed against me. I have a fair right,therefore,e though
and
jests were
I will not occupy 32 minutes, for I will
than two, to state what I conceive the qualificationsloccupy more
noble lord are to be at this time Prime Minister of that
Eng-
land. The noble lord is a great orator, he speaks of
Eng-
most perspicuous language, but that most perspicuouss-akain the
lan-
guage conceals poverty of thought—(oh, oh, andanter
—he is very quick in forming opinions, and exceedingly
ready in coming, to a wrong. decision—his characteri is
marked by levity of mind and instability of principle.
(Re-
newed cries of "oh, oh," and laughter.) It is my opinion
therefore that a man who, in difficult times, aspires to the
direction of affairs, ought not to have these qualities belong-
ing to him. I cannot understand a man who at one time
declares that a lowering of the borough franchise wii be
destructive, and at another time, very soon after, ready
to grant it; who at one time declares that the admission of
Jews to Parliament would be against his conscience, and at
another is ready to admit them. (Cheers, and oh, oh.) I
cannot understand a man dissolving Parliament in .852
when ,
some men said that protection starved the peopld, and
others said that free trade would ruin the whole farming
interest, who puts it before the electors to decide in favour
of the one system or the other, and who says " Ryon decide
in favour of free trade I will be as stout a free .trader as the
best of them; only let me be minister, and I am indifferent
to principles." (Cheers, and oh, oh.) In such t 1 man
I feel no confidence, and I should be glad to see him re-
moved. (Loud cheers.)
Mr. ROEBUCK said, I intend, Sir, to oppose the alrOtta-
.

*a.

ment. I hope the house will allow me for a few moments
to state the grounds upon which I ground my decision. Sir,
the house has been treated during the many nights of this

debate -with gentlemen's descriptions of one another—(a
laugh)—and the conclusion to which I have come is, that
neither party deserves a good character. (Loud laughter.)
But I have to determine on this occasion what I think the
best to be done for my country: (Ministerial cheers, and
cries of "Oh.") Does anybody on this side of the house say
"No 1" I am called upon to give an opinion and I have to

decide what is best for my country. I want to know, if you
turn out the present Administration, whom you will let in,

and then I him toinquirewhether those let in will be better
than those turned out. (Cheers.) That, Sir, is a very plain
issue, and upon that lam called on to decide. The first

question I ask myself is, what are the circumstances in
which I am called on to decide between the two contending
parties—and it is not simply what is the condition of Eng-
land, but what is the condition of the world. (Hear, hear.)
Why, at this time one great part of Europe is suffering all
the horrors of war. Two of the greatest nations of Europe
are pitted against one another on the small plain of Nor-
thern Italy, and I have to ask whether in this state of things
I think it wise to deprive England of her present Govern-
ment in order to establish another. This is a perilous ques-
tion, to the consideration of which I come absolutely trem •

Ming. (Cheers and laughter.) I hear a laugh. I do not
much admire that man's state of mind who can come to the
consideration of a question like this without some smotion.
The emotion which I have is one of fear, for I fear for my
country. Upon our decision to-night may rest great con-
sequences. (" Hear, hear," from the Opposition.) If Ibe
wrong—if the house be wrong, evil may follow, and we
know how important an opinion is when on that opinion
great results may turn. Therefore I am not ashamed to say
that I look on this matter with fear and trembling. It may
excite the risible faculties of the gentlemen who have not
those faculties under the control of their reason, but:l think
that a just, honourable, rational man would say I am quite
justified in being trembling and afraid. (Hear.) I have
much to ask myself. If I turn out the present Government
who is to come in ? We know that this side of the house has
determined upon the noble lord the member for Tiverton
and the noble lord the member for London. I, who have
had the happiness of sitting for a long time by the side of the
noble lord the member for the City of London, have been
very much in the way of learning his political opinions.
(Cries of "Oh, oh," and "Hear, hear.") Does anybody sup-
pose that I have not learnt his political opinions? (Hear.)
I am sure the noble lord will not object to that statement.

I am not going to allude to private' conversations—(hear,
hear)—but sitting, as I have sat, a very careful watch upon
the proceedings of the noble lord, I cannot but have felt
that he does not hold opinions in common with the noble

Lord the member for Tiverton. lam told that in every Go-

vernment there must be a compromise of opinion. (Hear,
hear.) Oh, yes, "hear, hear,' —a compromise of opinion,
. . .__

but not a cOrTipiomise of principle. (Heal-, hear.) The noble
lord the member for Tiverton has never shown himself a

thoroughgoing reformer, but I have always supposed that
the noble lord the member for the City, although he does

not go as far as I go, is a good reform—er. The great

questions upon whicli we must judge the merits of these two
noble lords upon this occasion are, first, reform, and next,
the foreign policy of the country. The noble lord has spoken
out of one who was formerly his colleague, and I will speak
out about the noble lord the member fer Tiverton. I say
that, before the country, I am justified in asserting that that
noble lord is no reformer ; and what I have to ask myself
is, have I a right to expect frogs him the reforms which I
can obtain from the party now in power? (Cries of " Yes,
yes ;" " No, no," and laughter.) The right hon. gentleman
opposite has told us that he is now prepared to bring in a
substantial Reform Bill— (hear, hear)—and I am told on
this side that that is a conversion. Have I not lived to see

many conversions ? (Hear, hear.) Have I not lived to see
the noble lord here (Lord John Russell) and the noble lord
there (Lord Palmerston) converts to free trade ? (Hear.)
But I am told that we cannot expectftny good from gentle-

men opposite. Now, in his younth, the-noble lord and the
party to which he belonged fought the great question
of Catholic emancipation, but by whom was that mea-
sure passed ? By the party opposite. (Oh, oh I and
cheers.) Ido not praise that party for so long with-
standing the claims of the Catholics. I think meanly
of their ability for not having come to a right conclusion
before ; . but they did come to a right conclusion, and they
carried Catholic emancipation, which had been advocated
by the noble lord, but which he could not carry. After
Catholic emancipation was obtained the noble lord and his
friends proposed the reform of Parliament. They were op-
posed by the party opposite ; but how was that measure
carried ? By the uprising of the whole people of this coun-
try, and by a quiet civil revolution. And I say again that
if reform be left iu the hands of the two noble lords I am
quite sure that they will quarrel—(a laugh)—and if they do
not the House of Lords will oppose them. Now, Sir, gen-
tlemen opposite will, lam sure, bring in quite as good a
bill as was ever concocted by the noble lord. (Hear.) I feel
quite certain of that, because adversity is a great teacher.
(Hear.) Gentlemen opposite have been returned to this
house upon an understanding very different from that of the
old Tory party. (Hear.) There is no longer an old Tory
party. They are a Reform party, spite of themselves, and
if they obtain a majority to-night we shall have a good
Reform Bill propounded by the right hon, gentleman
which will easily be carried through the House of Lords.
Therefore, I say that the house will receive from the party
opposite quite as good a Reform Bill as it will get from the
two noble lords, and that it will be certain to be carried

through the HOuse of Lords. But lam told that they are
to have additional support. It is to be a triumvirate. The

hon. gentleman the member for Birmingham is to lend his
aid to this composition Cabinet. If that hon. gentleman
were in this house what he is out of it. (Hear.) If he
spoke as boldly here as he does upon the platform at Bir-
mingham—(loud Ministerial cheers)—l should have much
greater faith in his efficiency and on the effect which he
would produce upon the Cabinet; but at Birmingham he
roars like any lion and when he comes here he is asucking
dove. (Renewed cheering.) Therefore, I say that the ad-
dition of the hon. gentleman to this composition Cabinet
will not be of any great advantage to the people of Eng-
land. It is said, however, that whatever advantage we
may desire from the Cabinet opposite in the way of reforms
they will be unable to keep the peace in Europe. But into
whose hands are we about to give power ? (Hear.) The
noble lord the member for Tiverton. is I suppose the person
who has the office upon this occasion. That noble lord
has not been very successful in his endeavours to keep
the peace. (Hear.) I want to know why he went to war
with China. (" Question 1") 1 have no doubt it is a
very disagreeable question. I want to know why he
went to war with Persia? that question has never

been discussed. (Hear, hear.) More than all, sir, I want
to know why the noble viscount truckled to the Emperor
of the French, and dragged England in the dirt ? (Cheers.)
The noble lord was ejected from office on account of that,
and what has happened within the year to whitewash him ?
It was not merely this house, it was the universal voice of
the country which condemned him ; and when I raised my
voice against thesinsolence of France the noble lord turned
his insolence on me. (A laugh.) But vrhat was the result?
Why, that by the very Parliament which had been called
together under the delusion of the name of Palmerston—by
that very Parliament ho was within a year hurled Efrom
power, and the people of England backed up the Parlia-
ment. (Hear, hear.) And this is the man who has kept
the world in combustion ever since he has been in power ;

this is the man to whom we are going to confide the keep-
ing of the peace of Europe. (Hear, hear.) I want to know-
whom the noble lord is about to bring with him. Are we
to have the benefit of the great abilities of the late President
of the Board of Control (Mr. Smith) ? (Ministerial cheers.)
Are we also to have the benefit of the great intelligence of
the right hon. gentleman who governed our colonies (Mr.
Laliouchere) ; and are we, more than all, to have the ad-
vantage of the splendid abilities of him who nearly ruined
the navy of England ? (Renewed cheering from the Minis-
terial benches.) But there is balm in Gilead. lam told
that this is to be a composition Cabinet, and possibly the
three right hon. gentlemen whom I have named will be
kept out of it. If so, does any one believe that the Cabinet
will be in power for a quarter 1 Will not the divisions thus
created be far more dangerous to the continuance of the
Administration than anything which can happen to the
present one ? Ido not mean to flatter gentlemen opposite.
I do not think very well of them—(laughter)—but of this I
am sure, that we can compel them to give us much more
than we can obtain from the noble viscount. You (ad-
dressing the members upon the front Opposition bench) will
go into office, but you will not be there a week without
bickering and confusion—(Ministerial cheers)—and in the
midst of all your trouble and confusion England will be for-
gotten. (Rene'Ved cheering.) I have seen that happen
before. Poor England 1 (A laugh.) Gentlemen laugh, but
under the rule of that bench I have seen her reduced to such
a condition that all patriotic hearts trembled for the result.
Their policy tended to ruin the people of England, and
when they were turned out of office men slept more quietly
in their beds. (Cries of " Oh, oh I") This statement is, I
have no doubt, somewhat unpleasant to those who sit on
this side of the house ; but, sir, my duty calls upon me to
decide, and in the present trying state of things I have to
ask myself what decision it is at which my duty calls upon
me to arrive. (A. laugh.) There seems to be a very curious
tendency to risibility on this side of the house. (Renewed
laughter.) Laughter, however, often marks emptiness of
head—(hear, hear)—and I can only assure hon. gentlemen
that I look upon the question under discussion as a most
serious one. I cannot, therefore, deal with it as a laughing
matter, for I have to consider what is best for the welfare
of my country. (A laugh.) That statement may again
excite the cacchination of hon. gentlemen on this side of
the house, still the question remains, what is it that my
duty compels me to do ? (Hear, hear.) It compels me to
take this course—namely, to support the Government, not
because I deem them that which I should wish an Adminis-
tration to be, but because I think they are better than any
Government by which they can be replaced. (Hear, hear.)
I have had considerable experience now for 26 years of the
Parliamentary government of this country. When the
Reform Bill of 1832 was passed it was stated that we were
about to get out of the old track of being ruled by the great
families of the kingdom. Such has not hitherto been the
case, so far as this side of the house is concerned. (Hear,
hear.) But I must say for hon. gentlemen opposite that
they have cast about to find ability, and in the attainment
of that object they have not asked how a man was born or
to whom he was related. (Hear, hear.) From 1832, how-
ever, up to the present hour there has been upon this side
of the house a constant,and careful exclusion from office of
everything that is termed plebeian. (Hear, hear.) The
real Government of this country has been confided to a
certain small number of hands, all drawn from a certain
small number of families. (Hear.) I may be told that this
state of things has come to an end. When that is the case
I shall rejoice, and when I see it I shall believe it. (Cheers
and laughter.) No, I have no faith in sudden conversions
of this description. The same feeling of exclusion whiCh
has hitherto narrowed down the Government of the Whig
party to the smallest possible amount of brains still, I
my country
casounltryam
requires en-
largediroepsiniontended cast of the net to secure intelligence wherever it
oppose the amendment which
principles of government, and a widely ex-
thealitevethecolarteinalueswetlofareelisoti
may be found, I intend to
has been moved by the noble lord the member for North
Lancashire. (Cheers.)
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL, who on rising was loudly
cheered, spoke as follows :—At the close of the third night
of this debate it becomes my duty to endeavour to examine
—with that conciseness which the importance of the subject
against the Government which this amend
renders possible, and which the hour of the night (20 minutes
after 12) reminds me is expedient—the charges that have
been brought
merit is intended to include, and to consider the arguments
by which those charges aro supported. The noble lord who
ro •
proposed the amendment—and to whose candour and ability
in discharging the duty intrusted to him on a subject of no
ordinary difficulty and
no mean importance we have the
satisfaction of knowing, whatever may be the fate of his
motion, no speaker en this side of the house has failed to
bear testimony—the noble lord, I repeat, entered into an
enumeration of charges which in his opinion disentitled the