understanding and sincere co-operation on the part of France; but I noted down last night some instances which I think I am justified in stating to the House, and I shall place them before you with the conviction that, when unbiassed and unprejudiced persons consider the transactions to which they refer and the brief interval in which all these transactions-which are only a part of the transactions which did occur-took place, they will see the importance of the considerations that I am endeavouring now to impress upon them.

Let me, then, mention some instances, to which I can without impropriety allude, in which during the time that we occupied office we found the advantage of having a cordial understanding with our neighbours. There was a misunderstanding between France and Switzerland on a subject which disquieted Europe, and which many supposed at one moment might greatly disturb the peaceful relations of the world. Our advice was accepted in that case. Our good offices were tendered and accepted, and that cloud was completely dispelled. Take another case— the case in which France joined with us in the negotiation for 'the opening of the South American rivers. That was an operation tending to increase the commercial relations of the world, and to advance that cause of progress which all are so anxious to foster. Then there was the case of Prussia and Neufchatel, when a violent course might have been anticipated on the part of Prussia against Neufchatel; but the united representations of France and England, made in the most friendly spirit to the enlightened monarch who governs Prussia, led to the happy termination of that affair. A fourth instance is one in which France joined with us in pressing upon the United States the tripartite renunciation of Cuba. It is true we did not succeed in the immediate object of that interference; but the moral effect of the step has been very considerable, and at least indicated a total absence on the part of France of that anxiety to keep alive subjects and opportunities of public embroilment which has been so liberally imputed to her. We succeeded also, in cordial union with France, in preventing the war which was about to break out in Hayti.

But I will take another case, because it is greatly to the

honour and reputation of France-I am not forgetting, I assure the House, a proper reserve in alluding to these subjects. I will take the case when the peaceful relations of the Levant were threatened last year, with regard to the tanzimat in Egypt, which was instituted last year by the Sultan of Turkey. We had entirely failed diplomatically in inducing the Sultan to modify that tanzimat. Now, although it has always been the traditional policy of France to encourage the independent conduct of the Pacha of Egypt, and not to be too apt to aid in terminating disputes between the Prince and the Porte, yet when affairs assumed an aspect which seemed to threaten a disturbance in the Levant, we appealed to the cordial feeling of France; she joined with us, and by our united influence, the tanzimat was modified, and the question in dispute was amicably arranged. I might state another instance. I might appeal to the conduct of France in reference to the revision of the Greek Succession Treaty, which secured to the Greeks the fulfilment of their constitutional law. I might also appeal to the conduct of France and to her cordial co-operation with England, though against some of her apparent interests, in` preventing the disturbances which threatened the new Regency of Tunis.

I have stated eight instances in which the cordial union of France assisted us in preventing great evils, not only to this country, but to the world generally; but remember that during all this time, while all this was taking place, much to the credit of the noble lord who then presided over the Foreign Office (the Earl of Malmesbury), and who has had such scanty justice done him, but to whose indefatigable application and determined energy this country is much indebted-remember that all this time, while the French Government were quietly, tranquilly, and diplomatically working with our Government for these great objects of public benefit and advantage-that French Government was painted as corsairs and banditti, watching to attack our coasts without the slightest provocation and without the slightest warning. Well then, I have shown that the cordial understanding between England and France was the great principle, so far as our foreign policy was concerned,

of the Government of Lord Derby; but we shall always remember that the conduct of France, while we were in office, was conduct which entitled that nation to the respect, sympathy, and good feeling of the people of this country.

Now, Sir, in the portion of the speech of the noble lord opposite which I just read, the House perhaps noticed one of those fine observations which often distinguish the remarks of the noble lord. The noble lord pointed out to the House the advantage which the Emperor of the French has over his illustrious relative, in the fact that, instead of being ignorant of the laws and Constitution of this country, he, from long residence here, is familiar with our language, our habits, and our customs. No doubt, Sir, that is a most beneficial circumstance in the position of the present Emperor of the French: he has lived long in England; he has known English society in various classes; his education has not been deficient in the most important element, adversity, and it is not likely he would misconceive, however much he might be annoyed at, the character of the English Press. No doubt, the present Emperor of the French must have been perfectly aware that the attacks of the Press on him were attacks for which neither the Government nor the nation, as a nation, is responsible, and if he has-as I should suppose it is pretty well known that he has, both from official notification and other sources-expressed indignation and annoyance at these attacks, it must have been because he was of opinion that when they became known to his subjects at home, the latter might not form of the circumstances so accurate an opinion as himself. It is, indeed, not likely, when those attacks are made on his country, his subjects, and himself, that those who read them abroad could comprehendwhat few but Englishmen can comprehend-the exact relations between the readers and writers of public journals in this country. Therefore, I am not surprised he felt indignation and alarm at these attacks, though I agree with the noble lord that a person who had resided so long in England as the present Emperor of France could not for a moment misconceive the authority of the statements in question.

Bearing that in mind, I ask the House to permit me to

1

pursue my inquiry, and ask what is the feeling of the present Government, of which the noble lord the member for the City of London is a member, on the subject of the relations between France and England? We know well what were the feelings of the Government of the noble lord on this subject when the noble lord was at the head of the administration, and we also know well, both from the statement I have made and from the reference to past transactions which I have offered to the House, what were the feelings of Lord Derby and his colleagues on this important matter.

But I now wish to ascertain-for after all, that is the most important question--what upon this subject are the views, opinions, and sentiments of the Government of my Lord Aberdeen? Sir, soon after the formation of that Government, a declaration of opinion on this subject was made by one of its most eminent members, the First Lord of the Admiralty.' The First Lord of the Admiralty, a most experienced statesman, found himself, by his acceptance of office, and by a return to those councils he had previously adorned, in one of the most responsible positions in which an English minister at the formation of a Government can find himself-upon the hustings, before his constituents, in the face of the whole country, with the people watching for the expression of his opinions, in order that they might form some idea of the policy of the new Government, and, I may say, with the whole of Europe, not less anxious as to the result, listening to him. What, then, was the statement of the right honourable gentleman with respect to the state of affairs in France? The right honourable gentleman described the ruler of France, and he also described those whom he ruled, in one of those pithy sentences which no one prepares with more due elaboration. In the same sentence the right honourable gentleman contrived to give the character not only of the Emperor of the French, but of the French themselves. He described the Emperor of the French as a despot who had trampled on the rights and liberties of forty millions of men. (Loud cheers.) Nothing demonstrates the evil of making such declarations more than hearing them cheered in the manner the House has just wit

1 Sir J. Graham.

nessed. Well, according to the right honourable gentleman, one of the most distinguished members of the cabinet of Lord Aberdeen-which cabinet, we hoped, was to maintain that cordial understanding with France which was the cardinal point of the policy of the Government of the noble lord opposite and of the Government of Lord Derby-the present ruler of France is a despot who has trampled on the rights and liberties of forty millions of human beings. Therefore, the French people, according to the right honourable gentleman, are a nation of slaves; and a despot and slaves are those with whom we are to have a cordial understanding, in order to prevent those dangers and to secure those blessings which, by a reference to those proceedings which I have already detailed, are the consequences of having a cordial understanding with France.

Well, if I had to form an opinion of the policy of the cabinet from the first declaration made by so eminent a member of it as the First Lord of the Admiralty, I should certainly be induced to suppose that some great change was about to occur. How are we to account for such a declaration? I will not be so impertinent as to suppose it was an indiscretion. An indiscretion from All the Talents'?-impossible! Can it, then, be design? I will not misrepresent the right honourable gentleman; I will not commit the mistake I made the other day. I understand from what the noble lord opposite then stated that you may call the French slaves if you are speaking illustratively of politics in general; but you must not call the Emperor of the French a tyrant, or his subjects slaves, if you are formally treating of the foreign relations of the country. Now, I frankly admit that the right honourable gentleman was not treating of the foreign relations of the country; he was only offering arguments against extended suffrage and vote by ballot-arguments, by the way, which I trust have had a due influence on the mind of the President of the Board of Works (Sir William Molesworth). The right honourable gentleman made some significant observations on the subject. I do not allude to his promise of obtaining a large measure of Parliamentary Reform, because on the hustings there must be allowed some licence on such subjects, though there can be no doubt that whatever liberties you