in this country, because we are mainly indebted to Mr. Fox for that great privilege; and the House will recollect that during the interval-not a very long interval, little more than half a century—that liberty of the Press has been often modified, often interfered with by British ministers; and that modification and that interference have always been sanctioned by British Parliaments. I hope we live in happier times than those which preceded us in that respect. I hope we have arrived at a conclusion in this country that if the Press is free,. it should enjoy a complete freedom; that the best protection against the excesses of the Press is the spirit of discussion,. which is the principle upon which our society at present depends; and I think that all parties in this country have come to the conclusion that the liberty of the Press is the most valuable of our public privileges, because, in fact, it secures and guarantees the enjoyment of all the rest; but, at the same time, it is always advisable, when we make observations on the conduct of foreign nations, that we should be perfectly satisfied that the circumstances in those countries to which we are applying the opinions prevalent in our own are identical with the circumstances in which we ourselves are placed.

all

Now, Sir, with all my love of the liberty of the Press, with

my confidence that we have arrived at a state of society in England which will prevent any minister at any time ever again attempting to interfere with that liberty of the Press, I am still conscious that we enjoy it in this country on certain conditions which do not, in my opinion, prevail in other countries: namely, of a long established order, a habit of freedom of discussion, and, above all, an absence of all those circumstances and of all those causes, many of which are disturbing society in other countries.

Now, I will take a case as an example. Suppose that in England at this moment we had the greatest of all political evils-let us suppose that, instead of our happy settlement, we had a disputed succession. Let us suppose that we had a young Charles Stuart, for example, at this moment at Breda, or a young Oliver Cromwell at Bordeaux, publishing their manifestoes, and sending their missives to powerful parties of

their adherents in this country. We may even suppose other contingencies. Let us suppose that we had had, in the course of a few years, great revolutions in this country-that the form of our government had been changed-that our free and famous monarchy had been subverted, and that a centralised republic had been established by an energetic minority--that that minority had been insupportable, and that the army had been called in by the people generally to guard them from the excesses which they had experienced. Do you think that, under any of these circumstances, you would be quite sure of enjoying the same liberty of the Press which you enjoy at this moment? Do you think that in the midst of revolutions, with a disputed succession, secret societies, and military rule, you would be quite certain of having your newspaper at your breakfast-table every morning?

Sir, these are considerations which ought to guide us when we are giving an opinion upon the conduct of rulers of other nations. There is no doubt the circumstance that the present ruler of France has stopped that liberty of the Press which we so much prize has occasioned great odium against him in this country, and has arrayed the feelings of the powerful Press of England against the French Government. I myself speak on this subject with no other feelings towards the Emperor of the French than that feeling of respect which we ought all to entertain for any sovereign whom Her gracious Majesty has recognised and admitted into the fraternity of monarchs. 1 am not ashamed or afraid to say that I, for one, deplore what has occurred and sympathise with the fallen.

Some years ago I had occasion frequently to visit France. I found that country then under the mild sway of a constitutional monarch; of a prince who, from temper as well as from policy, was humane and beneficent. I know, Sir, that at that time the Press was free. I know that at that time the Parliament of France was in existence, and distinguished by its eloquence and a dialectic power that probably even this, our own House of Commons, has never surpassed. I know that under these circumstance France arrived at a height of material prosperity which it had never before reached. I know, also,

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 uponthis 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 mentionednamely, 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