indulged with the hope, that we may be allowed to meditate on the provisions of that intended measure, during the interval between this and the next session of Parliament. One step has, however, been gained with respect to this subject during the present session of Parliament, and that step is this that the right honourable Baronet has been induced to tell the House, that he will not reintroduce the Bill of his noble colleague, the member for North Lancashire, on the subject of Irish registrations. I think I may call it a step gained, when we are enabled to say, that if we are ignorant of what is to be effected, we at least know what is not to be done. I now come to the distress of the people. This subject was adverted to in the Speech from the Throne, and yet no effectual mea, sures have been proposed-still less have any been carried through, on which we could place the least reliance for relieving that distress. I have no difficulty in asserting, and I am sure those best acquainted with the state of the country will bear me out when I say, that those distresses are more severe and harder to bear at the present moment, than they were at the beginning of the session."

The language of Government had been admirable, although their conduct had not been deserving of such entire commendation. In regard to foreign affairs, however, he found fault with both their language and their acts. Lord

Palmerston then turned to Lord Stanley, the only Member of the Cabinet who had said much on foreign affairs:

"The noble Lord, the Member for North Lancashire, in a good off-hand speech no one is better

at an off-hand speech-made some observations on foreign affairs, to which I may advert; all off-hand speakers, however, say a great deal without much consideration as to whether what they do say is, or is not consistent with the real state of the facts. I remember having heard of a celebrated Minister of a foreign country, who lived about the middle of the last century, who was giving instructions to one of his agents as to the language he should hold with regard to the conduct of another Government. The agent having listened with attention to the instructions, ventured, in a submissive manner to insinuate, that the language he was ordered to hold was not, perhaps, strictly consistent with the facts-nay, indeed, might be said to be rather at variance with facts. What was the answer? It was this: Never mind what it is about; it is a very good thing to say, and mind you say it.' Now, I cannot but think that that Minister would have made a very good off-hand debater in this House. I do not accuse the noble Lord, the Member for North Lancashire, of having either upon that or any other occasion, stated that which he knew or believed to be not consistent with facts-what I accuse him of is, speaking of facts with respect to which the noble Lord was wholly misinformed."

Lord Stanley had charged the late Government, and Lord Palmerston in particular, with having created embarrassments for their successors in every part of the world; a charge which displayed not only want of information, but the grossest ingratitude:

"I had indeed, hoped, that, in regard to foreign affairs, it would be admitted, that we had bequeatha

ed only facilities to our successors. (A laugh from the Ministerial benches.) What, do you laugh at that?-why, you have been absolutely living upon our leavings. You have been subsisting upon the broken victuals left upon our table. (Renewed laughter.) Gentlemen opposite remind me of nothing so much as a pack of people who have made a forcible entry into a dwelling-house, and sat down to carouse on the leavings in the larder. Hardly a month, nay hardly a week has passed, since the beginning of the session, without Ministers bringing in some measure, which they have acknow ledged was proposed by their predecessors."

Ministers came into office on the 3d of September; the Speech from the Throne was delivered on the 3d of February; yet the whole of the Speech, with a single exception, was a record of what had been done by their predecessors: it made no complaints of embar rassments, but contained only expressions of satisfaction at what had passed, and happy anticipations as regarded the future.

It mentioned the treaty conIcluded with the Four Powers for the suppression of the slave-trade; "a treaty," said Lord Palmerston, "concluded by us." It next mentioned a treaty concluded with the same powers for opening the straits of the Bosphorus and Dardanelles; to which the present Ministers gave a more imposing title, for they described it in the Royal Speech as "having for its object the security of the Turkish empire and the maintenance of the general tranquillity." That was saying in other words, that we had succeeded in fixing an important element in the balance of power. The next point

was the restoration of friendly intercourse with Persia. Then the Speech said, that the Government were engaged in negotiations with several powers to extend the trade and commerce of the country; negotiations carried on for some time by the late Ministers, with Spain, Brazil, and Naples; the negotiations with Portugal having been concluded in a recent treaty. Exception had been taken to the policy pursued respecting China; but on that head he would appeal to the declarations of the Duke of Wellington in the House of Lords; and he must himself observe, that if our hostilities with the Chinese should terminate in a satisfactory arrangement of commerce with a nation containing 200,000,000 of people, a greater benefit to British manufactures could hardly be conceived. He would take some credit also for the settlement made with Denmark respecting the tolls of the Baltic; and he should be glad to know, how soon the present Ministry would be able produce a like settlement with Hanover respecting the tolls of the Elbe. If, as he had been informed, they meant to sacrifice the rights of British subjects to the interests of the King of Hanover, then the settlement made with Denmark by their predecessors would indeed be an embarrassment to the existing Cabinet. On entering office, the late Ministers found eighteen treaties: they concluded fourteen; two of them, those with Austria and Turkey, of great importance. He included the convention with France to regulate the fisheries of the two countries. One point in that was not concluded-it respected a demand by the French Commissioner, that French boats should be allowed to

to

anchor within three miles of the British_shore,-evidently in order that a French fishery on the coast of England might be made a nursery for manning the French navy: he did not know whether the present Government meant to concede that point? There was one instance in which the late Ministers failed-the settlement of the Portendic claims: their successors would know how that question was beset by difficulties.

Lord Stanley had said, that they had bequeathed their difficulties in America. The Boun

dary question grew up before they entered office-before Lord Stanley himself grew up: but they had done what it had occurred to no previous Government to do they appointed two Commissions, who had ascertained that the boundary-line claimed by Great Britain did correspond with the terms of the treaty of 1783, and that the line claimed by America did not. The second Report, just issued, showed that part of the American line, like ours, proceeds from the due North line; but from a point further North, and although it does go along a range of high lands, and so far would fulfil the terms of the treaty, yet that line of high lands, instead of going to the head of the Connecticut river, as it ought to do, goes twenty-five miles wide to the North, and is separated from that head by a large tract of swampy plain, and not a part of the range of highlands. In the Right of Search question, Ministers had adopted the arguments of their predecessors. Lord Palmerston himself claimed credit for extending British commerce by opening new markets on the coast of Arabia, and on the

coast of Abyssinia, (whence comes the "Mocha coffee,") by laying the foundation for the commerce which must take place in China, and in the countries to the West of the Indus, a river navigable for 1,200 miles from its source. The late disaster, which had nothing to do with the original measure, he attributed to the want of" ordinary military precautions." He interpreted a reply which he had received from Sir Robert Peel to admit, that orders had been given by the Governor-general of India to evacuate the countries West of the Indus, whatever might have been done to defeat those orders by the misapprehension of the orders themselves, or by the fortunate arrival of an overland despatch, to save us from the eternal disgrace. He would submit what the late Ministers had done for commerce to the test of figures: the declared value of our exports rose from 37,000,000l. in 1831, to 50,000,000l. in 1841; the exports to Turkey, Syria, and Palestine, from 838,000l. in 1831, to 1,461,000l. in 1840; the trade with India and China, from 3,377,000l. in 1831, to 6,547,0002. in 1840.

In regard to home affairs, he found the prospect was rather cheering than otherwise. Government was pledged to the principle of free-trade; they could not recede-they could not stand stillthey must go on: and if they should be deserted by any powerful body of their own friends, they would have the cordial support of the Opposition in their march of improvement. As to foreign affairs, he looked with considerable apprehension and fear to a Government acting upon a system of timidity, of apathy, and of com

promise. Whether it be in reference to the King of Hanover, or to the French-fishery Commissioners, or to the United States, or to Akhbar Khan, they seemed to be prepared to act on a system of submission: but in that course they would be jealously watched by the same Opposition. Much cheering followed Lord Palmerston's speech.

Sir Robert Peel rose to second the motion, which Lord Palmerston, he said, had copied, even in the very wording, from one by Colonel Sibthorpe on the 25th of May, 1841; though without giving credit to his predecessor for the example. He thanked him for the opportunity of comparing the efforts of the two Governments. Following Lord Palmerston in the historical review of the state of parties since the peace, and beginning with the Roman Catholic Relief Bill, he said:-The result of that attempt was perfectly known to us when we felt it our duty to propose that measure to Parliament. We were aware what its inevitable result must be: it was foreseen that it must cause a temporary forfeiture of confidence among those who had been our supporters. When, however, the noble Lord reflects on his own conduct respecting Parliamentary Reform-conduct which I am sure was dictated only by the most honourable motives-I think that the noble Lord ought to be one who would have some toleration for changes of opinion. The noble Lord, till the death of Mr. Canning, the bitter opponent of Parliamentary Reform, was the faithful adherent of that right honourable Gentleman. In 1832, the noble Lord was as faithful an adherent to Lord Grey, the great

Minister of Reform. If the noble Lord did not, under Mr. Canning, see those clear indications in the country that Parliamentary Reform was close at hand, he ought at least to have some toleration for those who with only equal blindness overlooked the coming necessity.

Sir Robert Peel denied that the necessity for Commercial Reform originated in the change produced by Parliamentary Reform. In years long prior to that, Mr. Huskisson and others maintained the true principles of commercial reform. Nay, in the ten years preceding the Reform Bill, there was a greater application of commercial reform, and much larger abolition of monopolies, than took place during the ten years which followed the Reform Bill. But if from the era of Parliamentary Reform ought to have been dated the necessity for commercial improvements-if that be true, then the noble Lord passes the most severe censure on those to whom the Reform Bill gave political power. Why, when you were strong-when you were, as you would represent, convinced of the necessity of commercial reformwhen you saw, as you say, that Parliamentary Reform necessitated a new course of commercial policy, not only by the reason of the thing, but by the coincidence of great events-how can you justify yourselves for having left commercial reform to utter neglect at the very time when you had most power to secure it? Then, when you had powerful majorities, you might have disregarded any opposition of ours to measures you proposed. Parliamentary Reform had nearly annihilated the Conservative party: you, who tell us you had