to the competency of the crown to make such cessions. I can, however, relieve the hon. member's mind with regard to Malta and Gibraltar, by assuring him that there is not the slightest intention, on the part of the crown, of making a present of either of these possessions to any foreign power. There has been a great deal of misapprehension in the public mind with regard to this question of the Ionian Islands; and people in general imagine that we have, by a stroke of the pen, made a present of them to Greece. But no such thing has been done. What we said was, that if they chose a sovereign in whom the British government could place confidence-that he would govern the country internally upon liberal principles, and that, externally, he would abstain from aggression on his neighbours then we would take those steps which were necessary for the purpose of ceding the islands to Greece. But it does not depend on the will of the British crown singly to do so. These islands were placed under British protection by a treaty signed by the great powers of Europe--by the powers who were parties to the treaty of Vienna, and whose consent to the cession must be obtained. But there, again, we are not going, even with the consent of those powers, to transfer the population of the islands even to another power, if that population be not willing. There are, therefore, required for the cession-the consent of the powers who were parties to the treaties of 1815, and the acknowledged and official consent of those who are the organs of the national will of the Ionians. But none of these steps have been taken, because the case has not arisen. No sovereign has been chosen for Greece as yet, still less any sovereign answering the condition upon which further steps were to be taken. Undoubtedly, it would be right, if those islands were to be annexed to Greece, that Greece should undertake, by treaty, not to alienate them; because it is quite clear that there might be arrangements by which the islands might come into the possession of some other foreign power than Greece, to the detriment of neighbouring states. But we have not come to the point at which these details should be gone into. I wish the hon. member (Mr. D. Griffith) and the House to understand, that it is my opinion, founded on historical evidence, that the power to alienate even the possessions of the crown, does exist in the crown; but those islands are not possessions of the British crown, and the transaction requires the consent of all the parties to the treaties of 1815."

DENMARK AND PRUSSIA.-1864.

"My honourable friend (Mr. Bernal Osborne) has his opinions, but I do not think they are partaken by the country at large. Although my honourable friend is very abundant in his criticisms, I am really quite at a loss to understand what he would have done if he had had the management of affairs. [Mr. Bernal Osborne-Let it alone." My honourable friend, therefore, would have been a party to a treaty [Mr. Bernal Osborne-I would not have made it'] by which this country was bound to acknowledge a certain sovereign as king of the duchies under the sway of the Danish Court, and to respect the integrity of the Danish monarchy; and, in spite of the general opinion that this country was bound by honour and by interest to endeavour to maintain that treaty, he would have done nothing, but have sat still with his hands in his pockets, as he is doing now. I think that such a course would have been no credit to the government, nor to the satisfaction of the country at large. We may be wrong, and we may be right; but such, at least, is our opinion on the matter. We endeavoured to persuade other countries to fall into our views; and we trust we have accomplished, or are about to accomplish, a considerable step in establishing a conference, with the object of restoring peace. My honourable friend, who opened the question, referred to a transaction at Sonderburg, which, I am afraid, really did take place.' We have no official or authentic information; but we have every reason to believe, without knowing the extent to which lives were sacrificed, that a bombardment of Sonderburg did take place, and that some of the citizens were killed. The invasion of Danish territory was, in our opinion, unjust and unjustifiable; and I am sorry

3 E 2

779

to say that circumstances have occurred, in connection with the conduct of the German troops during the invasion which are not in keeping with the practice of civilised nations in modern times. We have made an inquiry at Berlin, but we have not yet got an answer-an inquiry, first, as to whether the thing did really take place; and next, by what authority and under what orders the bombardment was carried out. I do not think that the British government can presume to dictate to the Prussian army the manner in which they should conduct their operations; but there are opinions which men may express, as to conduct pursued in violation of the ordinary rules of humanity, though I hope we shall be allowed to determine what we shall say when we get an answer from Berlin."

THE YEOMANRY.-1864.

Lord Palmerston explained that no slight was meant to the yeomanry, but the contrary, in supposing that they could dispense for this year with their annual training. The unfortunate war in New Zealand had entailed very large expenses incidental to the year, "and which we hope will not occur in any future year. Looking over the various heads of charges connected with our military arrangements, we have thought the reduction proposed might fairly be made without any diminution of the efficiency of this valuable part of our domestic force. I hope, therefore, that the House will not agree to the motion of the hon. member, and diminish, by the amount of £46,000, that saving which we think the House may be fairly called on to effect with regard to this force."

THE FRENCH EMPEROR.-1864.

"I am convinced that my honourable friend (Mr. Stansfeld) attaches the same value to the welfare and personal safety of the sovereign who reigns over the empire of France as any man in this House can attach; that he is as sensible as we are that that great sovereign has, on many grave and important occasions, proved himself to be a true friend and faithful ally of this country; and we all feel that his personal security and dynastic welfare are not only of the utmost value to the loyal and attached people he governs, but are equally essential to the general interests of Europe."

THE DUTIES OF AN OPPOSITION.-1864.

"Admitting that we have done wrong, the blame rests as much with the opposition as the government. But, at the same time, although I admit that, unintentionally the right honourable gentleman, and those who sit near him, must share with us in the blame. Because, what is the natural occupation of an opposition? What are they there for, if not to find out when a mistake has been made? Their business is to watch with keen eye the conduct of the government they oppose; to trip them up even before they fall-at all events, if they stumble, to call upon them to set things right again. That is the peculiar function of the opposition, if anything be wrong or blamable, or liable to criticism in the conduct of the government. I must say, therefore, we have a right to complain of the right honourable gentleman, and those who sit by him, that they have not previously announced that, since April last year, we have gone on in a wrong course, which they might have known was wrong in point of law. They have laid a trap for us that, I maintain, is not fair in the course of a parliamentary opposition."

DIPLOMACY AT ROME.-1864.

"With regard to Mr. Odo Russell-by law, as it formerly stood, we were precluded from having any diplomatic relations with the Court of Rome. Some years ago, the House thought it desirable that the crown should have some diplomatic relations with the Court of Rome; and an act of parliament was passed, authorising the crown to have those diplomatic relations. In the course of that

bill through parliament a clause was introduced, providing that no ecclesiastics should be received in this country as diplomatic representatives of the pope. The court of Rome took offence at that clause, and said, if they were not allowed to be represented here by an ecclesiastic they would not be represented at all. We were obliged to submit to that decision; and, therefore, as they would not be represented here, so they said, also, they would not receive at Rome any accredited minister from the crown of England. Well, it appeared to the government that it was almost childish that diplomatic intercourse with the sovereign of Rome should be prevented by that etiquette, and, accordingly, the secretary of legation at Florence was stationed at Rome, with the consent of Rome, to be the official organ of the government at the Court of Rome. I forget the name of the person who was originally in that position; but, of late years, Mr. Odo Russell has been acting in that capacity. He is, unofficially I may say, diplomatic agent of the crown of England at Rome. He is, as has been stated by the honourable baronet opposite, most cordially received by the pope, to whom he has free access, and with whom he is on the best possible personal terms. Mr. Odo Russell is at Rome for these general purposes, and it is quite a mistake to say that he is there for any political intrigues. He is there to give us that general information which diplomatic agents do give at the Courts where they are stationed; and to carry on those communications which, from time to time, it is expedient to carry on with the Roman government. But these functions are totally distinct from those performed by a consul: the consul could not perform the functions of Mr. Odo Russell, and Mr. Odo Russell could not perform the functions of a consul."

THE AMERICAN WAR.-1864.

"He could assure his honourable friend (Mr. Lindsay) that her majesty's government deeply lamented both the sacrifice of life and property in America, and the distress which the war had occasioned in the country. But they had not thought that, in the present state of things, there was any advantage to be gained by entering into concert with any other power for the purpose of offering our mediation, or in any other way endeavouring, by communication with the government of the United States, to bring that unfortunate contest to a termination."

EDUCATION INSPECTORS' REPORTS.-1864.

Lord Palmerston, in rising pursuant to notice to move a resolution on the subject, said "I rise to ask this House to do an act of generosity and justice. This House is one of the highest authorities in the realm. There is, technically speaking, no appeal from its decision; but if, by circumstances, it should have been led to do that which is not founded on justice, there is an appeal which I am sure is always successful when made. We know that the approval of the House of Commons is one of the highest objects of ambition to any man engaged in the service of his country; and we also know that its censure is most deeply felt by any man on whom it may happen to fall. I have said that, technically speaking, there is no appeal from the decision of this House; but there is, nevertheless, an authority to which in reality such an appeal can be made, and that authority is one which is always ready to hear everything that can be alleged in favour of the person wronged, and is always open to listen to the truth when stated, though the truth may be in opposition to its original belief and conviction. The authority to which I allude is the House itself; and if it can be shown to the House that the decision at which it may have arrived, whether affecting an individual or a department, has been arrived at hastily, or without full consideration, or upon inadequate grounds, an appeal to its sense of justice can never be made in vain, and that it will always be ready to set right that which it may have done wrongly. On the 12th of April last there was a debate in this House, and a resolution was proposed inculpating a right honourable member, as well as a department of the government. The right

honourable member is my right honourable friend the member for Calne, and the department of the government is the committee of council of education. The noble lord, the member for Stamford, moved a resolution affirming that the reports of the inspectors of schools had been mutilated as produced to this House; that the mutilation had deprived the reports of their proper value, and that the practice was at variance with the understanding on which those inspectors were originally appointed. My right honourable friend, feeling that, in the course of the debate, a question had arisen which, in his opinion, involved an imputation on his veracity, with a nice sense of personal honour, and at variance, I am bound to say, with the advice of his friends, tendered the resignation of his office, and took upon himself the censure which the resolution implied. That being so, we thought the matter could not be allowed to rest there; and the decision of the House having been founded on a misconception, and a want of sufficient explanation, we deemed it right that a committee should be appointed to investigate the subject, and to ascertain on what grounds the resolution had been proposed. I am not at all seeking to impugn the conduct of the noble lord who moved the resolution, or of those members who voted for and carried it. They acted on their honest and sincere conviction, though I think I can show that that conviction was founded on error. It was determined, at all events, that a committee should be appointed, and our first motion was that the members of that committee should be named in the usual way. We thought it essential that my right honourable friend should serve on it; but he declined to do so, and we were unable to get him to retract his decision. The committee was eventually nominated by the general committee of elections. That committee met, and made the report which is in the hands of the House. Now, the resolution of the 12th of April was, in my opinion, entirely negatived by the report; and that being so, I propose to the House to rescind a resolution at variance with the deliberate report of a committee so appointed. The resolution passed by the House was to the effect that the reports of the inspectors of schools were mutilated, and, therefore, were deprived of their value; but the committee reported, as honourable members are well aware, that, in point of fact, it was not correct to state, as stated in that resolution, that from these reports was excluded everything that was unfavourable to the views of the committee on education, and that those things only were inserted which were in their favour. The committee found that passages were admitted, some of them favourable to them, and some of them unfavourable; that there was no partiality in that respect, and that a fair representation was given of the opinions of inspectors of schools. Then the committee say that disquisitions on matters not belonging to the cognizance of the inspectors had been omitted, and that they think such omission was right and proper. They also say that such a supervision was essential to the working of the committee of council as now constituted; and, therefore, the report of that committee appears to me entirely to exculpate my honourable friend, and the department to which he belonged, from the charges which were implied by the resolution of the 12th of April. I therefore propose to the House that the resolution of the 12th of April ought to be rescinded, and is hereby rescinded." Which resolution, after a short debate, was carried.

THE MEXICAN EMPIRE.-1864.

"The course which her majesty's government intends to pursue in this case does not differ in principle from the course which her government has invariably pursued in other cases. Without going into minute questions as to the origin of the government, whether it be a republic or a monarchy-when we find a government established, we enter into friendly relations with that government. My honourable friend says, with regard to Mexico, that we proceeded prematurely to acknowledge the empire before it was practically and regularly established. I don't think our engagements were to that extent. We were applied to by the archduke to acknowledge his future empire when he was in Europe. We were

not inclined to do that, and we said it would be entirely at variance with our principles and practice; but that if, on his arrival in Mexico, he was received by the people, and his government regularly established by the people, our wish was that Mexico should have a stable government. The great cause of the dissatisfaction which we had for a long time, in respect to that country, was, that Mexico had been governed successively by a number of military chiefs, who, one after another, obtained power, and, one after another, availed themselves of that power to plunder and murder English subjects; for they treated them no better than the people of any other country, but rather worse. It was, therefore, a great object with us to see established in Mexico a government with which relations could be maintained, and from which we might expect justice for British subjects resident in or engaged in commerce with Mexico. My honourable friend (Mr. Kinglake) says, that the portion of Mexico occupied by French troops is limited. It may be so; but it does not follow that, in other parts of the country, not occupied by the French troops, the people may not be inclined to support the government of the emperor. And we have information-we may be misled-but our information is to the effect, that the Indian population, who form a large portion of the total number of the people, are well disposed towards the emperor. All I can say is, that our course will depend on what we hear as to the manner in which the authority of the emperor is established. If we find there is a prospect of a permanent government being established, we shall be very glad to acknowledge it. Such a government will be for the advantage of Mexico and of Europe. If, on the other hand, we find matters still uncertain, and a war still going on, which may result one way or the other, we shall say the government is not of a kind that would justify us in acknowledging the archduke as emperor of Mexico."

But we must conclude these extracts, which we give as illustrating the opinions of Lord Palmerston on many important questions, especially when, as in the course of our narrative, we have only briefly glanced at his lordship's speeches. To those to which we have already referred, it is unnecessary to remark that we make no reference here.

CHAPTER XXXVIII.

WAS LORD PALMERSTON A TRAITOR?

Ir is time now that we notice some of the charges made against Viscount Palmerston by the anti-Russian party, of which Mr. David Urquhart is the

head.

"Russia," we are told in a work printed, but not published, in 1842, entitled The Foreign Affairs of Great Britain, Administered by the Right Honourable John, Viscount Palmerston-"Russia has used the blindness of England and France to work out her objects. Gradually, every event which she predicted has come to pass; and they have come to pass in the face of, and often at the moment of, the bitterest demonstration and exposure of the means of action employed to bring them about. The words peace, civilisation, liberty, increasing commerce, interests of nations, and hosts of general propositions embodied in other similar abstract terms, have constantly intervened to carry away men's minds from the examination of any tangible thing connected with their country's safety or interest."

The writer first refers to the Syrian question as certain to lead to a war between France and England. He tells us "The treaty attempted to take away from the Pasha of Egypt his authority in Syria, and guaranteed him the sovereignty of Egypt. In the note of the 8th of October, the French minister agreed to leave