in the United Kingdom, and the state of the law relating to Jointstock Banks.

"Her Majesty commands us to express the gratification which it affords her to witness the general well-being and contentment of her people; and to find that, notwithstanding the sacrifices unavoidably attendant upon such a war as that which has lately terminated, the resources of the country remain unimpaired, and its productive industry continues unchecked in its course of progressive development. "Her Majesty commits with confidence the great interests of the country to your wisdom and care; and she fervently prays that the blessing of Almighty God may attend your deliberations, and prosper your councils for the advancement of the welfare and happiness of her loyal and faithful people."

The Address to the Throne, in answer to the Royal Speech, was moved in the House of Lords by the Earl of Cork. After briefly referring to the success which had attended the diplomatic efforts of Her Majesty's representatives at the Peace Conferences, and mentioning in terms of congratulation the failure of the attempt to disturb the peace of Europe by the Neuchâtel émeute, his Lordship proceeded to refer to the Persian war. That extreme step had been forced upon Her Majesty's Government, not only by Persia's systematic duplicity, but by the reckless spirit of aggression which had characterized that State's attack upon the city of Herat. The despatches which had recently arrived showed the vigour and success with which Her Majesty's Government had punished this unjust infraction of their international

treaties. To almost the same causes, and the exclusive spirit of the people, the disputes with the authorities of Canton might be traced. In spite of the heavy taxation which had pressed upon the resources of this kingdom, their Lordships must be glad to observe the general industrial prosperity which prevailed, and which was indicated by the export returns. He could speak more particularly with regard to the sister country, with which he was immediately connected, and which showed a greater diminution of the poor-rates than had existed for some time past.

The Address was seconded in brief terms by the Earl of Airlie.

The Earl of Derby regretted that he could not agree with the encomiums which had been lavished upon the Speech which Her Majesty's advisers had presented to Parliament. It was, in fact, most vague, shadowy, and unsubstantial. The reference to the other House of Parliament was meagre, and unsatisfactory in the last degree; in fact, they were merely requested to make the formal financial arrangements which might be necessary for the public service; but in making those arrangements he thought Parliament would be wanting in its duty if it did not demand the fulfilment of its solemn pledge, that the income tax should cease and determine in 1860, and on the faith of which the public had consented to its imposition. But, meagre as was the Speech, it did not contain that formerly wellknown paragraph in which the Sovereign congratulated the Parliament on the steady maintenance of peace. On the contrary, now, the only Sovereign so alluded to

was the King of Siam. The other parts of the Speech were almost equally unsatisfactory. It was mentioned with much satisfaction that, in concert with our august ally, we had put the Neuchâtel question in a fair way of being adjusted, whereas he quite believed that if we had not interfered with our august ally at all the whole matter would have been settled more speedily and amicably. But Lord Palmerston had such a peculiar skill in getting out of a difficulty that he seemed to seek such situations. Turning to another portion of the Speech which referred to our relations with Naples, did this country, he asked, always act uprightly? Did it never keep the "promise to the ear and break it to the hope?" Had we not played with the question of Italian liberty, while the principal result of the Paris Conferences was to make the Austrian rule in Italy more fixed and more permanent than ever? What was the object, and what result had been achieved by the Neapolitan difficulty, except that England and France had received at the hands of that petty State a deliberate and well-deserved affront? He certainly believed our policy of late had deprived this country of every friend in the world, except France. After dwelling at length upon each step which had produced the Persian war, he proceeded to comment upon the conduct of the Government in not calling Parliament together when that struggle became inevitable. It was useless to call it an Indian war; it was British, and as such should have been declared by the Sovereign of this country, with the consent and approbation of the Parliament. But such remarks

applied with still greater force to the proceedings in China, which had filled him with amazement. Was the bombardment of the great commercial city of Canton, -the indiscriminate slaughter of innocent and guilty in one common doom,-an act of forbearance, as it was termed in the Speech? He confessed he could not look upon the state of our foreign relations without distrust and misgiving. If he did not then move an amendment to the Address, it was in the hope that the opinions which he now undoubtedly entertained would be modified by reading the protocols, which the Government were of course prepared to lay before their Lordships.

The Earl of Clarendon was sorry that Lord Derby had not adhered to the usual practice, and refrained from any allusion to foreign topics until he was in possession of the full information which would be shortly laid before the House. Had he waited for these documents it would have saved him from the erroneous impression he appeared to entertain with regard to the Neuchâtel question. Neither the English

nor French Government was concerned in any way with the resistance with which the Swiss Government had met the demands of Prussia. It was, indeed, true that Her Majesty's Ministers had taken advantage of the Paris Conferences to consider the question of the state of Italy; but the course which they had adopted, in conjunction with the Emperor of the French, had met with the cordial approval of the principal governments of Europe. With regard to the Persian war, it was very far from being the groundless quarrel which the public seemed quite to believe.

The capture of Herat, a city of much importance, and surrounded by a territory of unexampled fertility, was one which could not be regarded with indifference when such a conquest threatened at once the neutrality and independence of Affghanistan, both of which were necessary to the security of our Indian empire. He regretted much to hear the terms in which Lord Derby had spoken of the conduct of the English authorities in China. The course which had been taken there was one which had only been resorted to when all other steps failed-when, in fact, the refusal of the Chinese to hold communication with our officials had left the latter no other remedy.

Earl Grey said he could not characterize the war with Persia as other than unjust and impolitic. It could scarcely be contended that we had the right to dictate the course which an independent nation should pursue in vindicating its interests. Yet such, in fact, was the right claimed by this country in the quarrel between Persia and Herat, without our Government even taking the trouble to ascertain which was in the wrong. If it was the bugbear of Russian influence which our Government professed to dread, the late war showed to every man of sense the groundlessness of such a plea.

At the same time, while fearing Russia, we seemed as if bent on working out her ends, for what was more likely to throw Persia into the arms of that power than the present unjustifiable invasion of her territory and destruction of her little standing army? To counteract Russia, Persia should be strong and attached to our alliance, and not forced into regarding

us as her most dangerous and subtle foe. Ministers sought to evade responsibility because they had made no formal declaration of war. But this was far from excusing them, and if Parliament was to maintain its authority over the advisers of the Crown it must not pass over this omission. Lord Grey concluded by moving an amendment, to the effect that it was the duty of Her Majesty's advisers to have summoned Parliament together and inform them of the state of affairs with Persia before declaring war.

JJ

Lord Granville replied, and defended the course which the Government had taken in the negotiations with Persia, and in the declaration of war through the Governor-General of India instead of at home. Though Her Majesty's Government were quite prepared to meet Earl Grey upon any question he might raise, he trusted that the noble Earl was not serious in pressing his amendment at the present juncture.

Lord Brougham spoke strongly against the further continuance of the income tax. In 1816 he, in conjunction with Mr. Baring, carried a reduction of 6,000,000l. or 8,000,0007. in the amount of the income tax, upon which the Chancellor of the Exchequer withdrew his estimates and framed new ones, on the principle of cutting his coat according to the cloth. His Lordship then reverted to the necessity for legal reform, espe cially in those laws relating to secondary punishments.

The Lord Chancellor agreed with what had fallen from the noble and learned Lord as to the necessity for law reform. He had himself given notice that evening of his intention to bring forward

at an early period three Bills, for the purpose of amending the laws relating to marriage and divorce, testamentary jurisdiction, and ecclesiastical law. In the other House a Bill would also be brought in to meet those crimes of breach of trust which had lately shocked the public confidence. His Lordship indicated several other reforms of a similar nature to which the Government intended directing their earliest attention: among others a Bill which would be brought in by Sir George Grey, having peculiar reference to secondary punishments.

Earl Grey's amendment was then put, when there appearedContents. Non-contents

Majority.

12

45

33

In the House of Commons the Address was moved by Sir John Ramsden, who reviewed the principal topics referred to in the Royal Speech, noticing the omission of any reference to our convict criminal population, and expressing his hope that the attention of the Legislature would soon be directed to the defects of a system at once grievous to the community and discreditable to the Legislature. Adverting to foreign affairs, Sir John dwelt at some length on the negotiations rendered necessary by the Russian misconstruction of the treaty of Paris; on the conduct of Lord Clarendon, who, although he could not prevent that miscon struction, had shown that he could defeat its object; and on the courage of Lord Palmerston in proclaiming that, although this country values her alliances, she is not dependent on them. Passing lightly over the ruptures with Persia and China, he spoke of domestic affairs,

pointing to reduction in expenditure and taxation, and to the resumption of legal and other reforms. Sir Andrew Agnew seconded the motion.

Mr. Disraeli delivered a long speech, in which he commented with caustic severity on the foreign policy of Lord Palmerston. He described the condition of the great Powers at the termination of the late struggle as affording a fair prospect of permanent tranquillity for this country; and he wanted to know, he said, why we were disappointed of this expectation-why wars and rumours of wars should pervade the whole Speech? He proceeded to argue that the seeds of difficulties in our diplomatic relations were sown immediately after the treaty of peace; first, with reference to Italy, our intermeddling with the affairs of which country had, he observed, for six months diverted the mind of England from the consideration of its domestic interests, at that very time a secret treaty being in existence guaranteeing to Austria, with the assent of the British Government, the whole of her Italian dominions. Was a Minister, he asked, justified in holding out to Italy and to Europe, under these circumstances, that he was determined to change the aspect of social and political life in Italy? He insisted that this was an imposture practised upon the people of this country, while time wasted and expense unnecessarily incurred. Then came the Russian difficulty. What, he asked, was the reason why we were on the point of losing one of the very objects for which we went to war? He contended that it was owing to a blunder of our own negotiator, who was a principal member of the

was

Cabinet. Yet, instead of an avowal of the mistake, every means were used to excite the passions of the people of this country against Russia, as if she desired to recede from the treaty. All these difficulties in foreign affairs, which occupied nearly a year, were attributable, he argued, to Ministers, who, when the question about Bolgrad and the Isle of Serpents was adjusted, had advised a course in the Neuchâtel dispute calculated, but for the prudence of the Swiss, to involve them in war and to embroil the Continent. The tranquillity of Europe was, however, so well established that even a firebrand Minister could not subvert it; but in another quarter of the globe we had, not rumours of wars, but actual war; and he thought it was the duty of that House to inquire what was the cause of these perpetually-recurring difficulties. Recollecting the case of the war in Affghanistan, he should, when the papers were before the House, scrutinize very closely the real causes of the war with Persia; and, with regard to the Chinese difficulty, he believed it was the consequence of instructions from home, sent out some time ago. The House, he thought, would do well to curb and control the power of the Minister to pursue such a system as he had sketched, so dangerous to the interests of the country. Turning his attention to domestic topics, Mr. Disraeli adverted to finance, and especially to the income tax. All the topics of controversy which we thought settled in 1853 were re-opened. Recapitulating the circumstances under which Mr. Gladstone's budget was accepted, Mr. Disraeli contended that the Opposition at that time was silenced by the terms offered by Mr. Glad

stone, between whom and the Opposition "a compact was entered into." The proposition of a succession duty was intimately connected with the settlement of the income tax. The promise that the income tax should cease in 1860 was accepted as an equivalent for the succession duty. If the settlement of 1853 were disturbed, the questions respecting the difference between precarious and permanent incomes, and of exemptions, were raised, and also the old bitter quarrel as to the peculiar burden of taxation on the holders of real property. His conclusion was that we "ought to adhere to the settlement of 1853." There ought to be no doubt as to what Government intended. The question should be brought forward by some one who undoubtedly spoke the feelings of a large party in the House, and should be brought forward early. "I should have been glad that some gentleman who sits near me should have undertaken the task; but it has been thought by many that I ought not to shrink from it; and on this day fortnight, if it be convenient and agreeable to the House, I will ask their opinion upon this subject. My course will be to move for a Committee of the whole House, in order that I may introduce resolutions. My first resolution will be to express the opinion of this House, that taxes which have been granted in time of war for the purpose of carrying on hostilities, by way of income tax, should not be levied in a period of what we are assured by the honourable mover of the Address is one of profound peace. My second resolution-of course I am not pretending to give the language I shall lay upon the table of the House-will be, that