that after a reign of unbroken prosperity of long duration, when he was aged, when he was in sorrow, and when he was suffering under overwhelming indisposition, this same prince was rudely expelled from his capital, and was denounced as a poltroon by all the journals of England because he did not command his troops to fire upon his people. Well, Sir, other powers and other princes have since occupied his seat, who have asserted their authority in a very different way, and are denounced by the same organs as tyrants because they did order the troops to fire upon the people.

I said, Sir, that I deplore the past and sympathise with the fallen. I think every man has a right to have his feelings upon these subjects; but what is the moral I presume to draw from these circumstances? It is this: that it is extremely difficult to form an opinion upon French politics; and that so long as the French people are exact in their commercial transactions, and friendly in their political relations, it is just as well that we should not interfere with their management of their domestic concerns. (Loud cheers.) I am glad to find the House is of the opinion which I have ventured to express upon this important subject. I do not say that it is not certainly the privilege of the English Press, or of any foreign Press, to make any observations they may please upon the conduct of foreign rulers, and upon the conduct of foreign nations. It is an affair of discretion; it is an affair of public wisdom. Our Constitution has entrusted the writers in public journals with the privilege of expressing their opinions; they have a very responsible position; they must consider what is the tendency, and what may be the consequences, of their acts; they have a right, however, to act, and no British minister and no foreign potentate can question the power which they exercise.

Well, Sir, what was the feeling of the Government of the noble lord opposite (Lord John Russell) upon the subject to which I am alluding? It is important to know what was the feeling, and what were the opinions of the noble lord when he himself was at the head of the Government. It is a pleasure to turn to Hansard,' not to twit and taunt an honourable gentleman with some quotation which may impugn his consis

tency, but to refer to a statement of views becoming a person filling the noble lord's exalted position, and expressed with all that propriety and terseness of language which distinguish him.

This was the declaration of the noble lord in 1852, about a year ago, almost immediately before he quitted office. These expressions were delivered in another Parliament; there are many gentlemen present who did not listen to them; they are peculiarly apposite to the present moment. An acquaintance with the opinions of a great minister at such a period must be interesting to all, and therefore I shall make no excuse for bringing before the House the views which the noble lord then professed, and which I most sincerely believe he now entertains.

"This, however,' said the noble lord, on February 3, 1852, 'I am bound to say, that the President of France, with the large means of information which he possesses, has no doubt taken that course from a consideration of the state of the country, and that the course which he has taken is that best fitted to secure the welfare of the country over which he rules. Let me restate what I have said on this subject.'

The House will observe that the noble lord spoke with perfect calmness. It was not a speech in reply. It was a speech delivered on the first night of the session. It was a statement well matured and voluntarily made; and, that he may not be mistaken, the noble lord begs permission of the House to give a summary of his views, and to restate them. 'Let me restate,' said the noble lord, 'what I have said upon this subject.

'I stated I could not give my approbation to the conduct of the President; but I have no reason to doubt, and everything I have heard confirms that opinion, that in the opinion of the President of France the three things which I have mentioned— namely, putting an end to the French Constitution, preventing the elections of 1852, and the abolition of the Parliamentary Constitution were all measures conducive, and perhaps essential, to the welfare of France. But I have something to state further, because I confess I have seen with very great regret the language which has been used by some portion of the Press

of this country with respect to the President of France and the affairs of that country. I remember something as a boy, and I have read more, of that which occurred during the peace of Amiens, which rendered that peace of so short a duration, and which involved these two great nations in the most bloody hostilities which ever mangled the face of Europe. I believe that temperate discussion, temperate negotiation between the two countries, might have averted the calamity of war with England, but that the language of the Press at that time was such as greatly to embitter all negotiation, and to prevent the continuance of that peace. Sir, I should deeply regret if the Press of this country at the present time were to take a similar course.'

I preferred, instead of giving my own representations of what the noble lord said, appealing to his own terse and perspicuous language. Sounder sentiments, more clearly expressed, I have never listened to; and I beg the House to understand why I am pressing this important declaration upon their attention at this moment; it is, because this is the speech of the noble lord when he was at the head of a Government, and I am anxious to ascertain to-night whether his opinions since he has taken a distinguished, but subordinate, part in a Government headed by another, may be modified, and whether we may count upon a unanimous similarity of opinion on the part of his colleagues.

There can be no doubt, upon the subject of our relations with France, at the beginning of 1852 there was a perfect union of opinion between the noble lord and his then colleagues, because in the other House the country was favoured on the same night with a declaration of opinion on this important subject, made by another person, who was for a long time a member of this House and of Her Majesty's Government, but who no longer occupies either of those positions-a noble lord who, whatever may be the difference of our political opinions, for his great abilities, his great capacity for public labour, and his unimpeachable integrity, will always in this House be mentioned and remembered with honour-I mean my Lord Grey. I will not apologise to the House for reading an extract

-it is the last I shall read-from the speech of Lord Grey, because I am sure that on this important occasion, when it is of the utmost advantage that accurate ideas upon this subject should prevail, the House will be glad to learn what Lord Grey, who cannot be doubted as a lover of public liberty, thought of the situation of France a year ago, for it may be a very efficient guide to us as to his opinions of the state of France at this moment. Lord Grey said

'I have the pleasure of being able to express my unqualified concurrence in, I believe, every word which the noble earl who preceded me (the Earl of Derby) uttered. I entirely agree with him as to its being the duty of this country, as a country and a nation, and the duty of each individual in his individual capacity, to abstain from any interference in the internal politics of that great and powerful nation which lies so near to us. I, like the noble lord, observe with the deepest concern, and, I may say, with the indignation which the noble earl has expressed, the tone which has been taken by a large portion of the newspaper press of this country. I think that the denunciation of the person at the head of the Government of France, coupled with those more than exaggerated—I will say, untrue -representations of the defenceless condition of this country, do not only savour of imprudence, but of something worse than imprudence; and I rejoice that the noble earl, in the position which he occupies, has come forward to assert, in the emphatic manner in which it has been done, his utter repudiation of language such as I have described. And I do trust that when, with the full assurance that I have the concurrence of my colleagues, I join in that repudiation, and when I am convinced every one of your lordships will echo the same sentiment, I do believe and hope that the mischief, the incalculable evil, which might otherwise have resulted from language thus held by a great part of the newspaper press of this country, will to a great extent be neutralised, and that it will be understood in foreign countries that, however those newspapers may express the opinions or the feelings of those who write in them, they do not express the opinions or the feelings of any great and powerful party in this country, or in the Houses of Parliament.'

Now, the House will observe that Lord Grey, on that occasion, entirely coincided in opinion with the noble lord who was then at the head of Her Majesty's Government in this House. I think it will be observed that on that occasion Lord Grey answered for the complete agreement of his colleagues as to the evil, not of public characters, but of anonymous writers in the Press, denouncing the ruler of France. We are clear, therefore, that on that occasion the whole of the colleagues of the noble lord in his Government were of opinion that, however lawful and legitimate the criticisms and strictures of the Press of England might be, these denunciations of the Emperor of the French were seriously to be deprecated; and that there was a most anxious desire and determination on the part of the noble lord and his Government to maintain between this country and France the most friendly relations. Well, Sir, that was the state of affairs between the two countries a year ago. Perhaps I may be permitted to say that during the period that we occupied office nothing took place that at all impaired that cordial understanding between the two countries which I may say we inherited from our predecessors.

I know well, Sir, that there are some gentlemen-some in this House-who, though they may highly esteem a friendly understanding between this country and other Powers, are apt to speak in a tone of great disparagement of the duties and the influence of diplomacy, and do not attribute to such intimate connection any great, or permanent, or advantageous influence on the general course of human events. I can only say, Sir-I feel it my duty to say—that during the period, however brief, in which we occupied a responsible position as regards the administration of this country, we found a cordial understanding with France to be of great advantage to the welfare of the world; that on several occasions we found that cordial understanding coming to our aid to maintain peace, to advance civilisation, and to promote the general welfare of mankind. I do not wish to take refuge in vague declamation; but of course upon such a subject I am bound to exercise considerable reserve. I shall not now pretend to give to the House a catalogue of all the instances in which we found the advantage of that cordial