value which we should otherwise attach to them. Sir, considering the conduct of the First Lord of the Admiralty-conduct which I will not describe, for to say that it was the result of design would be offensive, and to say that it was indiscreet would, as I observed before, be impertinent; considering the conduct of the President of the Board of Control, which, be it designed or indiscreet, or anything else, is of no matter, for no epithets can rescue him from the position he occupies; considering the programme of the First Minister, which contradicts all our previous experience and confounds all our convictions; considering the mysterious circumstances which attend the present occupation of the post of Secretary of State by the noble lord the member for London, I think I have a right to ask for what has not yet been accorded us- -some clear explanation from the Government with respect to the relations which exist between this country and France.

Sir, there is one other reason why I am bound to pursue this inquiry at the present moment, and I find that reason in the present state of parties in this House. It is a peculiar state of things; it is quite unprecedented; it is well deserving of the attention of honourable members who sit in that quarter of the House [the benches below the gangway on the ministerial side]. We have at this moment a Conservative ministry and a Conservative Opposition. Where the great Liberal party is, I pretend not to know. Where are the Whigs with their great tradition-two centuries of Parliamentary lustre, and deeds of noble patriotism? There is no one to answer. Where are the youthful energies of Radicalism-its buoyant expectation-its sanguine hopes? Awakened, I fear, from the first dream of that ardent inexperience which finds itself at the same moment used and discarded-used without compunction, and not discarded with too much decency. Where are the Radicals? Is there a man in the House who declares himself to be a Radical? (A voice: "Yes!') Oh, no! You would be afraid of being caught and changed into a Conservative minister. Well! how has this curious state of things been brought about? What is the machinery by which it has been effected the secret system

that has brought on this portentous political calamity? I think I must go to that inexhaustible magazine of political device, the First Lord of the Admiralty, to explain the present state of affairs.

The House may recollect that some two years ago, when I had the honour of addressing them on a subject of some importance, that the right honourable gentleman the First Lord of the Admiralty afforded us, as is his wont, one of those political creeds in which his speeches abound; and the right honourable gentleman on that occasion, in order that there might be no mistake in order that the House and the country should be alike undeceived, and that they should not have any false expectations from him-especially the Conservative or Protectionist party-said, in a manner the most decided, that his political creed was this: I take my stand upon Progress.' Well, Sir, I thought at the time that progress was an odd thing to take one's stand upon. I thought at the time that a statesman who took his stand upon progress might find he had got a very slippery foundation. I thought at the time, though the right honourable gentleman weighs his words, that this was a piece of rhetorical slip-slop. But I apologise for the momentary suspicion. I take the earliest opportunity of expressing to the right honourable gentleman my sincere regret that I had for a moment supposed he could make an inadvertent observation. I find that it was a system perfectly matured, and now brought into action, of which the right honourable gentleman spoke. For we have now got a ministry of 'Progress,' and everyone stands still. We never hear the word 'Reform' now: it is no longer a ministry of Reform; it is a ministry of Progress, every member of which agrees to do nothing. All difficult questions are suspended. All questions which cannot be agreed upon are open questions. Now, Sir, I don't want to be unreasonable, but I think there ought to be some limit to this system of open questions. It is a system which has hitherto prevailed only partially in this country, and which never has prevailed with any advantage to it. Let us, at least, fix some limit to it. Let Parliamentary Reform, let

the Ballot, be open questions if you please; let every institution in Church and State be open questions; but, at least, let your answer to me to-night prove that, among your open questions, you are not going to make an open question of the peace of Europe.

41

PROSECUTION OF WAR, May 24, 1855.

[In March 1855 Lord John Russell had gone out as Plenipotentiary to the Vienna Conference; and while there had offered to recommend to his colleagues terms of peace proposed by Austria, which on his return home, finding that they did not approve of them, he forbore to press, and did not divulge to Parliament. Soon after his return he delivered a most warlike speech. But Mr. Disraeli believed that on his first return from Vienna these proposals were more favourably received by the cabinet than the public had been led to believe, and that at one moment a new coalition' was meditated, on the basis of them, which would have brought to the Government the support of Mr. Gladstone, Mr. Milner Gibson and the Peace Party, without which it was liable to defeat at any moment. The Resolution therefore was intended to force the Government to declare itself. On a division being taken the motion was negatived by 319 votes to 219.]

MR.

R. DISRAELI rose, according to notice, to move the following resolution:

'That this House cannot adjourn for the recess without expressing its dissatisfaction with the ambiguous language and uncertain conduct of Her Majesty's Government in reference to the great question of peace or war; and that, under these circumstances, this House feels it a duty to declare that it will continue to give every support to Her Majesty in the prosecution of the war until Her Majesty shall, in conjunction with her allies, obtain for this country a safe and honourable peace.'

He said: In rising, Sir, to move the resolution which is now in your hands I wish in the first place to explain to the House the reasons by which I am actuated in so doing, and the object which I have in view. Sir, I have watched for some time, as I suppose every member in this House has watched, with interest and with deep anxiety, the conduct of the Government with

at question of peace or war during the recent Coclesiae at Vienna; and I have imbibed an opinion with pe the intentions of the Government which has filled

with distrust. I thought that there was on their part angge so ambiguous and conduct so uncertain that I was led to redect what might be the consequences of circumstances. which undoubtedly had filled the public mind of this country with great disquietude and great discontent, and which certainly demanded the attention and consideration of every man who felt that he had a responsible duty to perform in this House. It was impossible for me, entertaining that opinion, to ask that the sentiments of this House should be publicly declared on this subject so long as negotiations were going on. Everybody knows that the obvious and irresistible answer to me would have been, 'Her Majesty's servants are at this moment engaged in confidential communication with the representatives of foreign Powers, and it would be highly indecorous and might be injurious to the interests of Her Majesty's service if the criticisms of Parliament should interfere with the probable result of their labours.' Who can for a moment deny that such an objection would be entirely judicious and could not for a moment be resisted? At last, Sir, after some inquiry and after an unusual period of time, the protocols of the negotiations were laid on the table of this House, and I did anticipate that the minister, following the precedents which as I think ought to have regulated his conduct, would have taken the earliest opportunity of asking the opinion of Parliament upon the labours of the representative of his Government, and would have also taken the same opportunity of laying before the House of Commons-without of course committing himself to embarrassing details, but still frankly, precisely, and explicitly—what were the intentions of the Government with regard to the great question of peace or war.

Well, Sir, I more than once invited the First Minister to take that course, and I confess that even to the last I did believe that he would have reconsidered his first conclusion, and that he would have felt that he was doing his duty more satisfactorily to his sovereign, to Parliament, and to the country