In the H0USE OF COMMONS, on Tuesday, the 31st of
January, the Address in answer to her Majesty's speech
was moved hy Lord CASTLEROSSE, and seconded by
Mr. Thompson HANKEY.—Mr. BAILLIE regretted that
the government had not adopted a more decided course
towards Russia after the mission of Prince Menschikoff,
and contended that, although they had now adopted a
war policy, their half measures had damaged the
character and the position of this country. He likewise
deprecated the agitation at this crisis of the question of
parliamentary reform.—Mr. BLACKETT protested against
the secresy in which the government had shrouded
the negociations respecting foreign affairs.—Colonel
SlBTHORP believed that more political cowardice had
never been exhibited by any government than by the
present; and that a bolder course would have secured
peace and saved bloodshed.—Sir R. PEEL expressed his
disapprobation of the mean and subtle policy which had
characterised the proceedings of Russia. The aim of
that power had always been to separate France and
England, in prosecution of her designs upon Turkey,
and to lull England into apathy and indifference.
While there was a chance of preventing hostilities by
negociation, the government were justified in resorting
to this expedient; but the time had passed when Russia
could be permitted to put forth exclusive claims over
the Ottoman empire. After touching upon a few
domestic topics, Sir Robert declared that he was
prepared to support the policy of the government. The
people of this country, he thought, were satisfied that
the apparent delay which had marked their proceedings,
so far from sacrificing one iota of the national dignity,
was only an evidence of that temperate judgment and
wise discrimination which afforded a favourable test of
their capacity for government.—Mr. HUME said he
should wait for the documents before he formed his
opinion upon the Eastern question, and regretted that
the government had not already made them public.
He hoped that if war was inevitable, no loans would be
contracted, but that the cost of our armaments would
be defrayed within the year.—Mr. H. T. LIDDELL,
after briefly adverting to the state of the shipping trade,
and to the project of opening that of the coast, proceeded
to give, with reference to our foreign relations, some
details of the military resources of Russia; first, to
show that it must be the policy of that power to seek
time to bring up her forces; and secondly, to warn
the country of the vast amount of those forces. In
the prospect of an expensive war, he thought the
government would have done wisely in postponing
the question of parliamentary reform, which might
involve the country in a painful and acrimonious
domestic struggle at a moment when unanimity was
so desirable.—Mr. Sergeant SHEE complained of the
omission in the speech from the throne of any allusion
to the remaining grievances of Ireland, especially the
state of the law regulating the relations of landlord and
tenant.—Sir J. YOUNG replied that it was the intention
of the government to renew the attempt made last
session to legislate wisely, safely, and he hoped beneficially,
upon this subject.—Mr. FAGAN claimed, on behalf of
Ireland, that the University of Dublin should not be
excluded from the projected measures of collegiate
reform.—Mr. Hadfield was very thankful that a
reform was to take place in the ecclesiastical courts
system, and regretted that these courts were still to be
permitted to exist.—Mr. J. PHILLIMORE protested
against language which the last speaker had applied to
practitioners in the courts in question. He also regretted
that education had no place in the speech, and that
Convocation was to be allowed to do twelve hours'
mischief.—Mr. DISRAELI compared the tone adopted by
the government when parliament was prorogued, and the
expectations held out of an immediate and satisfactory
conclusion of the difference between the Porte and
Russia, with the language in the speech from the throne,
which still spoke of negociations going on, and of hopes
of success; and contended that the government were
bound, after what had happened, to assure the house
that the object of the negociations was not in the spirit
of the Vienna note, though that note had been held out
as not derogatory to the Ottoman Porte. He thought,
that if her Majesty was acting in cordial co-operation
not only with the Emperor of the French, but with the
Emperor of Austria and the King of Prussia, the
language used in the address was not so firm and explicit
as the circumstances of the case required. He thought
that some reference should have been made in the
speech to certain unsettled questions to which the
President of the United States had formally referred.
Looking at the threatening aspect of our foreign
relations, he condemned as unwise and unstatesmanlike the
policy of introducing reforms not only of the civil service,
the ecclesiastical courts, and the poor laws, but even of
the House of Commons, which would distract and
dissipate the energies of the country when about to
embark in a war. The present ministers, however, had
unhappily pledged themselves to bring in a large
measure of parliamentary reform, and, mad as such a
measure might be at this time, they must redeem that
pledge. He was ready to support the most stringent
measure for putting an end to bribery and corruption,
but he would not connect such a measure with one for
reconstructing the electoral body, and why was
intimidation to be passed over? He repeated that it was
unwise at the present time to introduce any measure of
parliamentary reform; but, if such a bill should be laid
upon the table, He would attempt to bring about a better
adjustment of the manner in which the different classes
of the country were represented in that house.—Lord J.
RUSSELL, reserving a particular justification of the
course pursued by the government until the papers were
in the hands of members, offered a general vindication
of their proceedings, and, with regard to the Vienna
note, he observed that it was framed, not by the English
government, but by the governments of England and
France, with additions by the Austrian government, and
the note was accepted as a means by which it was hoped
that the interests of Turkey might be reconciled with
the pretensions of Russia. He could not, he said,
indulge a very confident expectation that the offers now
made would be acceded to by Russia; and, however
desirous the government might be to preserve peace,
they were not disposed to let that government so far
profit by delay as to take us totally unprepared.
Considering the relative position of the different powers,
they had thought it would be an immense advantage if
Austria and Prussia would combine with us in
preventing war ensuing from the aggression of Russia; and,
although their endeavours, had not been yet successful,
he had great hopes that the government of Austria
would see how much her interests (which were greater
than those of England and France), as well as those of
Europe, were involved in the settlement of this question;
and, if both Austria and Prussia should ultimately act
with England and France, there could be no doubt of
an immediate result. Time, therefore, had not been
lost in endeavouring to persuade the government of
Austria to take a more enlightened view of the subject.
Lord John then called the attention of the house to a
matter of great importance, namely the calumnies
which had been spread regarding the Prince Consort.
While the charge, he remarked, was generally that of
an unconstitutional interference on the part of his Royal
Highness, it was generally admitted that there never
was a sovereign who acted more strictly within the
spirit of the constitution, or who gave her confidence
and support more fully to the ministers of the Crown.
Was it not incredible then, that while her Majesty's
conduct had been so thoroughly constitutional, her
royal consort should have been all the while acting
unconstitutionally? Lord John described the mode in
which official intercourse had been carried on with the
Queen before and after her marriage; the legal status
of the Prince Consort (who was authorised to sit in the
privy council), and the nature and extent of his Royal
Highness's cognisance of public despatches and of state
affairs. Her Majesty's communication and consultation
with the Prince had been fully authorised by Lord
Melbourne; but the most constitutional attention had
always been paid to the advice of her ministers, whose
tenure of office depended upon the vote of that house.
The late Duke of Wellington had been desirous that
Prince Albert should succeed him in the cominand-in-chief
of the army; but his Royal Highness declined the post,
declaring that his place was to be always near the Queen