separate last year without information having been given to it of the events then in progress. If such conduct were to become a precedent, it would undermine the authority of parliament. He agreed with those who had expressed regret at the omission of all mention of France in the speech. Such an expression would have involved no concession, and could not have been ascribed to any but the real cause. He sincerely hoped that the clouds which now overhung Europe would soon disperse. He deprecated war as the most mischievous of all calamities; it would be attended by the addition of taxation, the waste of capital, the revival of bad passions, and other most disastrous consequences. It was said that the eastern question was settled, but he considered that a thousand questions might yet arise and create difficulties, and that no settlement could be efficacious unless they could still prevail upon France to become a party to it. He thought that there was nothing to prevent our now taking fresh steps, and inviting the interference of France. Their recent success afforded a favourable opportunity, without involving any derogatory concessions, for again appealing to France to join with us, and enter into our plans for the interests of the Porte, and for the peace of Europe. Sir Robert Peel then referred to a letter written by marshal Soult on 17th July, 1839, in which he laid great stress upon the importance of serving the integrity of the Ottoman empire as an essential element of the balance of power; and concluded by saying, that he was convinced that if there were any two men who would desire to shun an unnecessary conflict with England, they were marshal Soult and M.

pre

Guizot. He ran some risk of doing them an injury by the compliment he was now paying them; but he could not refrain from expressing his hope that these two distinguished men might be successful in maintaining peace, and rescuing both France and England from the calamity of renewed hostilities.

Viscount Palmerston said, that in the concluding part of sir Robert Peel's speech he fully concurred; indeed, he had gone further than the right honourable baronet on this question, and had had, on former occasions, to stand up and justify himself against the charge of attaching too much importance to the connection. He was persuaded, when the French people came to regard this subject with cooler temper and more deliberate reflection, that they would see there had been no disposition to treat them with unfairness, and that they would come round to that better frame of feeling towards England which was so ardently to be desired. He was ready to admit and to declare, that France, possessed as she was of vast naval and military power, and placed as she was geographically in the centre of Europe, could not be excluded from the great affairs of Europe, and that no transaction could be completely or securely settled unless she were in one way or other a party to it. With respect to the allegation of sir Robert Peel, that sufficient court had not been paid to France, in consequence of the omission to apprise her minister that the treaty was about to be completed, the noble lord contended that there was no ground for such a charge-that every endeavour had been made to obtain the co-operation of France

that concessions had been offered, and that, after the repeated refusals

which she had given to be a party to the arrangement, it would have been a mere mockery to have again called upon her to revoke her refusal that it would have implied that our former answer to her was not sincere, and would have been, in fact, an act of incivility instead of a measure of conciliation. More over, it must be obvious to all who had read the French debates, that if such a course had been pursued, it would have defeated the success of the measures. The avowed object of the French government was to gain time by means of negotiation; and if the four powers had acted in the manner suggested, and lost time by submitting the treaty for the consent of France, her ob ject of procrastination would have been answered, and all operations for that year effectually prevented. The right honourable baronet had said that Parliament ought not to have been allowed to separate last year without having had the engage

ments laid before it into which the country was about to enter. To have laid the treaty itself before parliament, before its ratification by the contracting parties, was impossible; but as to the general nature of the treaty, it had become matter of public notoriety before parliament separated, and had been twice the subject of discussion in that house. Any member, therefore, had it in his power to pass an opinion either of censure or approval upon these arrangements. It would be the duty of the government hereafter to lay before the house such facts as would enable it to form a deliberate conclusion upon these matters. His noble friend lord John Russell had stated, in so able and impressive a manner, the general outline of the grounds on which their policy had rested,

that it was only necessary to refer to his speech for its justification. The object of that policy was to avert events which would have involved the great powers in the most serious difficulties; its success was more rapid and complete than those who were best informed on such matters could have ventured to expect. With respect to the omission of all mention of France in the address, it was not because the government did not feel sincere regret at her not being a party to the treaty, but because it would have been unusual, and inconsistent with the ordinary principle on which speeches from the throne were framed, to have expressed regret at the interruption of a good understanding which had not been marked by any diplomatic event. If either country had withdrawn its minister, or taken any distinct step interrupting the diplomatic relations of the two countries, that would have been a public act of which the crown might have taken notice; but to have noticed the mere existence of an irritation which had been manifested in various ways, would have been inconsistent with the usual rules on which such documents were framed. The debate here terminated, Mr. Hume withdrew his amendment, and the address was agreed to, and referred to a committee.

It has probably rarely happened of late years that the debate on the opening of parliament has been marked by so complete an omission of all topics of domestic concern, as on this occasion. Foreign politics engrossed the entire attention of both houses, and the ministers completely succeeded in what we think was obviously their design in framing the royal speech--that

of avoiding any issue which might have involved a trial of strength with the opposite benches, and choosing for their battle-field a question on which little hazard of a conflict could be anticipated. Desiring to secure a favourable and auspicious opening for the new campaign, they prudently took their stand upon that branch of their policy of which the present results at least had been confessedly brilliant and decisive. The consciousness of numerical weakness prompted them, on the other hand, to observe a cautious silence in the speech upon topics nearer home, a discussion upon which might have led to a less favourable result, and might have weakened the precarious tenure on which they held their power. With respect to that question which thus formed the almost exclusive subject of debate the treaty of July, and the operations which followedwe think it will be generally agreed, upon a candid review of the arguments by which lord Brougham and Mr. Grote on the one side attacked, and viscounts Melbourne, and Palmerston, and lord John Russell on the other defended, the ministerial policy, that the justification of the measures of the government was on the whole satisfactory and complete. It was clearly shown, we think, that while no exclusive advantages for England were aimed at by the measures pursued, her interest, as identified with those of the great commonwealth of European powers, had been wisely consulted, and that her interference had been imperatively required to preserve the independence and in tegrity of the Ottoman empire, an object which, by the common consent of the great powers of Europe, and in the opinion of the wisest

statesmen, was an essential element to the balance of European power, under the peculiar circumstances in which Turkey and Russia were relatively situated. Nothing was established which could justly impeach the sincerity and good faith of the latter power in these transactions, and though it was objected, with some show of plausibility, that it was absurd to suppose that any additional security against the designs of Russia could be gained by operations in which Russia herself was a leading agent, yet, on the other hand, there is irresistible force in the reasonings by which lord John Russell and sir Robert Peel demonstrated the formidable consequences which might have resulted to the other powers of Europe if, while they remained passive, the sultan had been driven by the terror of his encroaching vassal to throw himself upon the exclusive support of Russia, which would have led to the establishment of that power in the exclusive protectorate of the Turkish empire. We think it will be equally clear, in the judgment of those who may hereafter peruse the history of these transactions, that France had really no just cause for complaint or angry feeling on account of her exclusion from a share in the arrangements of the other powers. That exclusion was entirely her own act, and her conduct from first to last, in these transactions, only deserves to be characterised as petulant, selfish, and inconsistent; while the attempt to excite the sensitive feeling of nationality among her people against England, as having wounded her honour and thrown slight upon her dignity, was justly condemned by some of the speakers in this debate, as in the highest degree unworthy of her govern

ment. The objection suggested by sir Robert Peel, that more regard might have been shown to the situation and personal feelings of M. Guizot, by apprising him be forehand of the intended completion of the treaty, seems to us, if not entirely cleared up by the explanation of viscount Palmerston, yet not materially to alter the merits of the case, far less to vindicate the spirit with which these transactions were resented by the French naBut in whatever light the conduct of France may be viewed, we cannot but regard the language used with reference to her, by the leading speakers in both houses, as both admirably prudent and welltimed in their pacific effect, and as exhibiting a spirit of forbearance and magnanimity truly worthy of British statesmen. The anxious regard for the honour and true interests of our ancient rival manifested by such men as the duke of Wellington and sir Robert Peel, could not but produce a most tranquillising and beneficial result on the public mind on both sides of the channel, while the earnest desire which they expressed for her restoration to her rightful share in the counsels and operations of the powers of Europe, was peculiarly dignified and becoming, both as uttered in the flush of a success achieved without her assistance, and as a striking contrast to the petulant and irritable spirit which a large portion of the French nation had so recently displayed towards Great Britain. Practically such expressions as these made ample amends for the omission, so much commented on, of all aliusion to France in the royal speech, for which the very unsubstantial technicality pleaded by viscount Palmerston will probably be scarcely deemed

a valid apology, as indeed there can be little doubt that it was not the operative reason. To soothe the wounded feelings of our neighbour was, therefore, a task which devolved upon, and was certainly most adequately discharged by, the statesmen in opposition to the go

vernment.

Another omission in the royal speech was afterwards made the subject of observation. On the bringing up of the report on the address, sir R. H. Inglis called the attention of the government to the recent alarming agitation of the repeal question in Ireland, and to the inflammatory language held by Mr. O'Connell on that subject. Large meetings had been held in some of the principal towns of Ireland, at which hundreds of thousands had been present. The Irish government had thought it necessary to move troops to the support of the civil power, in consequence of these proceedings. Mr. O'Connell had recently said, that the repeal of the union was now become a vital question, and that every man henceforth must take his stand as a conservative or a repealer. He wished to know if the noble lord (lord John Russell) was prepared to adopt this alternative; if so, to which division he meant to attach himself.

Lord John Russell answered, that though, in his opinion, a notice of subjects of this kind was in some cases called for in the royal speech, there were others in which such mention served only to give additional weight and importance to the agitators of popular feeling, and was consequently better avoided. His noble friend the lordlieutenant of Ireland had recently spoken out in very plain terms on this subject, and that might be

of the sentiments of the government. He did not accept the dictum of the honourable member for Dublin, nor feel bound to his alternative of conservatism or repeal.

The subject was then dropped. In the house of lords, on the 4th of February, the earl of Minto moved the thanks of the house to admiral sir Robert Stopford, G.C.B., and the officers and men under his command in the late operations on the coast of Syria. His lordship paid a just tribute to the merits of that portion of the British fleet which had been employed on this occasion. After a few words of approbation from lord Colchester, the duke of Wellington, in terms of the most earnest and cordial nature, expressed his admiration of the services performed by those engaged in the glorious expedition under discussion. He considered the present achievement one of the greatest deeds of modern times, but thought it his duty to warn their lordships that they must not always expect that ships, however well commanded, or however gallant their seamen might be, could be capable of engaging successfully with stone walls. The vote was then carried unanimously, and on the following day lord John Russell moved the thanks of the house of commons to the same gallant individuals. He gave a short narrative of the reduction of Acre, and bestowed a warm eulogy on

it. The political questions connected with the Syrian war did not arise upon the present occasion. But, referring to the improvements of modern times in the arts and machinery of war, he wished to observe that their successful results were owing in a great degree to the character of the men who had applied and directed them-a character formed and exalted by the institutions of a great and free country, and combining in a remarkable degree the qualities of valour and of prudence.

Lord Stanley seconded the motion. He agreed that the political merits of the contest were not now in discussion; the present duty of the house was only to record their high opinion of the officers and men who had done so much honour to their country. He was anxious, on the part of his own side of the house, to express, that whatever might be the differences of party, there was but one feeling among men of all politics on the subject of the country's success, and of the gallantry of her forces.

Viscount Ingestre, sir R. H. Inglis, and other members, warmly supported the motion, which was carried unanimously.

On the 6th of April, a letter from sir Robert Stopford, acknowledging in suitable terms the vote of thanks, was read to the house by the speaker, and ordered to be entered on the journals.