relations of Europe. Up to the moment when the quadruple treaty was signed, the Ottoman empire was still conformable to a settlement made in 1833, to which the noble lord was himself a partythe convention of Kutayah. Mehemet Ali had never violated that settlement. The pacha held in 1840 the same territory which that settlement allotted to him. The Anglo-Syrian expedition was the first direct rupture of this settlement, and if it was to be set aside by the agency of the noble lord himself, and a new one to be made, the new settlement should have been, at least, such as not to raise any special grounds of disunion among the great powers of Europe. If the Turkish empire be disturbed by internal dissensions it was right we should interpose by amicable mediation; but he wished to record his deliberate protest against our undertaking to maintain the integrity of that empire, against spending the blood and treasure of the English people in providing factitious cement for that disorderly mass, to which, for ages, nature has denied cohesion. If," continued the honourable member, "in respect to our internal affairs we are destined to obtain no further progress or improvement, if the cold shadows of "finality" have at length closed in around us, and intercepted all visions of a brighter future; if the glowing hopes once associated with the reform ministry and the reformed parliament have perished like an exploded bubble, at least, in regard to our foreign affairs, let us preserve from shipwreck that which is the first of all blessings and necessities: that which was bequeathed to us by the anti-reform ministry and the unreformed par

liament, I mean peace and accord with the leading nations of Europe generally, but especially with our nearest and greatest neighbours, France." He concluded by saying that for these reasons he could not concur in any address which spoke of our Syrian policy in terms of praise or even of acquiescence.

Mr. James thought, that the results of the foreign policy of the ministers afforded the most triumphant proof of their sagacity and wisdom, and entitled them to the unanimous approbation of the house. He hoped they might long continue in office.

Lord John Russell then rose to vindicate the policy of the government against the censures of the honourable member for London, and entered at great length into an exposition of his views on the subject. The object, he said, to which these measures had been directed, was one which had already received the sanction of the house both last year and in the course of many years past, viz: that of maintaining the integrity and independence of the Ottoman empire, in order thereby to give fresh security for the peace of Europe. The importance of that object had been admitted by Mr. Grote himself, only he differed with the ministers as to the mode by which it was to be done. That honourable member was of opinion that the peace of Europe was best preserved by interfering as little as possible with the general affairs of the continent, but using, when necessary the terrors of our fleets and armies. He thought differently. He believed that it was by allying ourselves with the other powers of Europe interested in the preservation of the balance of power, and by a constant and vigi.

lant attention to the events which may affect that balance, that peace would be best maintained and the balance preserved. Such was the policy of sir Robert Walpole, the most pacific minister, perhaps, that ever held the reins of power. If in the present instance the policy recommended by Mr. Grote had been pursued, if we had refrained from interfering or giving assistance to Turkey, the consequence would have been that the sultan would have been compelled to look to Russia alone for succour, the ambition of that power would have been aroused, her projects of dominion would have risen with our inaction, and the terror of our fleets and armies would have been impotent to arrest her progress. A war would have been then the necessary consequence. He admitted that it was not in every case of internal dissension or rebellion against the sultan that our interference was to be exercised: but the honourable member for London made no distinctions. Was it to be said that when the empire was in convulsion-a triumphant and powerful pacha shaking off allegiance, and even aiming at supremacy, and a war hovering over Europe, we were to look calmly on and not interfere? Cases must be determined according to their circumstances, and no inflexible rule of interference or non-interference could be laid down. The noble lord then entered into a review of the position of the Turkish empire, recapitulating the principal events which occurred, from the termination of the war which ended with the treaty of Adrianople; the reduction of the power of the sultan,his appeals for protection to England and to Russia-his defeat at Nezib-the assistance then ren

dered him by Russia-and the treaty of Unkiar Skelessi. He then referred to the conduct of Mehemet Ali, and his repeated invitations to the other pachas to join him in a rebellion, the object of which was to establish his power in the heart of the Turkish empire. Now it might be said this did not affect us. Mehemet Ali

might be as good a sultan as the other. But Russia or Austria might regard it differently. Russia might say, or Austria might say, "I have a treaty with the lawful sultan of Constantinople," and that the maintenance of those treaties was their interest as well as their duty. Russian and Austrian troops would then occupy Constantinople-a war would be kindled in the east, and such a war as it would have been utterly impossible for Great Britain to look upon in silence. Such would have been the result of the pacific policy advocated by Mr. Grote. The noble lord then proceeded to enter into a detailed account of the course and progress of the negotiations which had taken place between the different powers prior to the formation of the treaty, in which he gave credit to the emperor of Russia for the most perfect good faith and sincerity in cooperating with the other powers of Europe to bring about the settlement of the Levant, and defended his own government from the charge of discourtesy toward France, and from all blame of producing the estrangement which he regretted as sincerely as the honourable member for London did. That blame justly belonged to France, who had endeavoured to give to the difference a national colour by appealing to popular passions, and had threatened the

peace of Europe by the preparation of vast armaments. The noble lord quoted extracts from some despatches of M. Guizot, who attested the sincere desire of the English government to draw closer the bonds of French alliance, and the absence of interested and aggressive designs manifested by the conduct of Russia. For the French people, he (Lord J. Russell) entertained the highest esteem and admiration, and he could not wonder that, when their honour was represented as being assailed, much popular irritation and jealousy should arise; but he did wonder that the government of France should be so reckless as thus to endanger the peace of the two countries, and to misrepresent the feelings of England towards her neighbour. The real reason why an agreement could not take place between France and the other powers was this, that France seemed to have laid down for herself a rule, that whatever Mehemet Ali positively refused to do, no coercion on the part of the European powers should compel him to do. In every arrangement and proposition made to her by the rest of Europe, France had been swayed by the determination to look always to what would be acceptable at Alexandria rather than to what would be secure and honourable at Constantinople. With reference to the operations which had taken place since the conclusion of the treaty, the noble lord, after highly extolling the gallantry of the exploit, tock occasion to express his satisfaction that those events would completely refute the imputations which it had been lately the fashion to make against the existing efficiency of the navy. He had predicted that, if an opportunity

was afforded, that force would confound by their deeds all those who ventured to doubt their efficiency. Such an occasion had been given, and had fully verified his predictions.

Such was the substance of the noble lord's defence of the policy of his colleagues with reference to the eastern question, of which our space forbids us to furnish a longer detail. With respect to matters of domestic policy he added a few words, which, as they were considered of some importance at the time as an authoritative declaration of the spirit and intentions of the existing government, we shall subjoin entire:

"I shall not trespass upon the house by entering at all upon matters of domestic policy, unless it be to state to the honourable member for London that he is completely mistaken in saying that the government were in any sense enemies to improvement. He (lord J. Russell) held that a continual progress in improvement had been made in the commercial affairs, in the judicial institutions of the country, and in other matters of domestic concern; that continual progress and improvement formed the principles by which he (lord J. Russell) and the government would be anxious to abide; but while he would not mistake abuses for institutions-while he would not give to abuses that defence he would afford to institutions, so, on the other hand, he would not mistake institutions for abuses, and attack institutious as abuses in the political system. He wished to maintain the institutions of the country; he wished not to undertake any reform, though called improvement, which might be incompatible with those institutions;

he wished to maintain the established church, the hereditary house of lords, and the hereditary monarchy, and if any plans should be proposed inconsistent with those institutions they would have his most decided opposition. If any plans should be brought forward which, as he thought, tended to the establishment of a republic, to overturn the church, or to destroy the hereditary peerage, he should state his sentiments upon them in his place, and the grounds of his opposition to them; but it was not just to contend that resistance to the innovation of dangerous changes of this kind was a resistance to all improvement. (Hear, hear.) To any improvements that could be effected without the disturbance of the political system of the country he wished to be considered as the friend, and to such he would gladly lend his aid in carrying them into effect. He had now stated all he thought necessary at present as to the general views of the foreign and domestic policy of the government-there would be many other occasions upon which the opinion of the house would be taken upon those views. The government was ready to have the responsibility of all these matters, and while they continued ministers of the crown they would serve the crown faithfully and to the best of their ability." (Loud cheers.)

Mr. Milnes expressed his great disappointment at the omission of any expressions of regret on the rupture which had occurred between this country and France. He protested against the assumption that by the treaty of July the integrity and independence of the Ottoman empire had been secured. The word "integrity," as it was

used, was a mere diplomatic fallacy. The independence of no state could be secured by foreign interference. No person could see in the recent transactions any thing more than a transfer of the Ottoman empire from the protectorate of the five powers to the protectorate of England and Russia. He did not believe that the noble lord (Palmerston) had really contemplated any accession of territory, or any exclusive advantages to England, but for that very reason he objected to the great expense and risk which had occurred without any compensating advantage. What had England gained by what had taken place since last year? No advantage whatever had been acquired, but the anger and jealousy of France had been aroused, and they had been brought to the verge of an European war. He accused the ministers of shortsightedness, of disregard of French history, and ignorance of the feelings of the French people. He thought, if France and Russia had combinedto the exclusion of England, as Russia and England had now combined to the exclusion of France, the people of this country would have risen as one man, and no ministry who submitted to such a combination could have maintained their power. They were now in a state of armed peace, which was peace without its profits, and war without its stimulants, than which nothing was more trying to a country. France was arming, and England, with all the embarrassments arising from the present state of her finances, would be obliged to arm also. He called on the government for some expression of regret on account of our present position towards France. He called on them to calm the effervescence of France,

so as to prepare the way for her readmission into the European coalition, which was the only security for peace and the safety of England. There was no animosity in this country towards France, and therefore he hoped that every member who spoke after him would make up for the omission in the speech, by expressing individually his regret for what had occurred, and his hopes of a speedy adjustment with that country.

Mr. Hume considered the policy of the noble viscount to have been not only bad but wicked, for it carried desolation and ruin into the Syrian provinces, and for no purpose that he knew of connected with the interest of England. He blamed the noble viscount for persevering in a policy in which he stood alone. It was well known that the majority of the cabinet were against him. Mehemet Ali had never threatened the independence of the Turkish empire: he defied the ministers to produce a single document to show that there was any disposition on his part to move against Constantinople. If England desired to secure peace, all she had to do was to allow Me hemet Ali and the sultan to make their own terms, and settle their own differences. He disbelieved that the emperor Nicholas seriously desired to maintain the integrity of the Ottoman empire. All the mischiefs which had occurred had been caused by the abandonment of the principle of non-intervention. He called the attention of the house to the dilapidated state of the revenue, which, he said, less productive since the recent taxes than before them. There was no notice in the speech of the state of the revenue-no notice of the subject of education, nor

was

of the present state of our commercial regulations, nor of the condition of the working classes. The honourable member concluded by proposing an amendment of his own, condemning the war with Syria and the expense occasioned by it, and deploring the rupture with France, and regretting that the attention of the house had not been called to the state of the revenue and the distress and discontent of the labouring classes.

Sir Robert Peel then addressed the house. He commenced by animadverting on the omissions of the speech-the state of Canadathe boundary question-Ireland and the repeal agitation-the war in India, and the inconsequent allusion to China. It was a most successful speech, if the merit of such documents consisted in saying as little as possible. Applying himself then to the subject of our foreign policy, he expressed his deep regret and despondency at the altered state of our relations with France, and at the menacing din of military preparation. With respect to France he had never held but one language and one opinion

that a cordial understanding between France and England was essential to the peace and welfare of Europe. He did not see so fully as some did the advantages of an intimate alliance of an exclusive nature between the two states, giving offence to what were called the great military and despotic powers of Europe, but he felt most strongly that the best interests of humanity were involved in the maintenance of cordial good will and amity between_this_country and France. The French nation entertained a false conception of the feeling of the people of this country towards them. It was not