effort of eloquence and mental power, insufficient to
justify his course of foreign policy. The motion was
also opposed by Sir Henry Verney.—Sir Robert INGLIS
would have felt more difficulty as to his vote had the
question been confined to our policy with regard to
Greece, but he was compelled to withhold his support
from a resolution which gave unqualified praise to the
foreign policy of the government.—The Marquis of
GRANBY opposed the motion. The talents and patriotism,
he said, of Lord Palmerston were admitted and admired;
but the greater those talents the greater the danger of
their misapplication. Admit his desire to promote the
interests, dignity, and honour of England, still his
mode of effecting his object had insulted every nation,
alienated all our allies, and left us without a friend on
the continent of Europe.—Sir William MOLESWORTH
reminded the house that it was sitting as a court of
solemn appeal to confirm or reverse the Judgment of
the Peers. If the vote of confidence were given, the
ministers would be required to persevere in the present
policy and the people would be pledged to support them.
He held it to be a vague and dangerous principle that
the protection and shield of England is to be extended
to her wandering sons who are carried by commerce,
pleasure, or necessity, over the world. The true rule
rather was, that if a British subject think proper to
wander where pleasure or profit may tempt him, he
must take the consequences, and the more despotically,
or the worse governed a country might be, the less
entitled should the British subject be to expect that the
Secretary for Foreign Affairs should be at hand to protect
him. Sir W. Molesworth objected to interference with
the internal affairs of foreign states; he objected to
instructing ambassadors to become the chiefs of foreign
political parties, to sending envoys as wandering lecturers
on the principles of constitutional government. Such
things caused us to be looked on as an officious meddling
nation, and to be hated by all parties in all nations
alike. Many condemned the foreign policy, but feared
that if the motion were lost the ministry would resign.
If they did resign, he did not believe that men qualified
to take their places could not be found among the
liberal party; but, supposing the disagreeable alternative
of the gentlemen opposite coming into power, he
did not believe that they who have so large a stake in
the prosperity of the country—that the landed gentlemen
under leaders of the abilities of Lord Stanley and Mr.
D'Israeli, would pursue a policy leading to confusion,
revolution, and destruction of property. Liberal opinions
were not to be upheld by sacrificing convictions to avert
a political inconvenience. If there was a dissolution of
of parliament, why not? Many of them desired triennial
parliaments, and the three years had expired. But some
of them would lose their seats: so much the better, the
assumption being that they did not represent their
constituents. Sir William concluded by avowing himself
a cordial supporter of the domestic policy of the government;
but he had protested ten years ago against their
foreign policy. His views were unchanged, and, therefore,
without hesitation though with regret, he should
vote against the motion.—Mr. ADAIR supported the
motion, and affirmed that our foreign policy, from its
beneficial effects, was agreeable to the commercial,
manufacturing, and middle classes generally, and that
if there was any one point on which the movement
party would support the government, it was their foreign
policy.—Mr. Sidney HERBERT, in opposing the motion,
dwelt chiefty on the affairs of Italy; ascribing the
violent and revolutionary scenes in that country to the
mission of Lord Minto, and other propagandist
proceedings of the English government.—Mr. GLADSTONE
blamed the prime minister for sitting down under the
censure of the House of Lords, and leaving to Mr.
Roebuck the task of vindicating the policy of government.
He discussed in great detail the various points of the
Greek question, and objected to the course pursued by
Lord Palmerston in that dispute, and in the transactions
connected with the mediation of France. On the
subject of our conduct towards other nations, he affirmed
that Lord Palmerston's policy had been that of constant
interference. No one could deny that on fit occasions
British influence might be beneficially used to extend
institutions from which we derive so much advantage;
but we were not to make occasions and become
propagandists of political doctrines, even though they might
be sound. Adverting to Lord Palmerston's allusion to
the condition of a Roman citizen—to the triumph with
which he could say, "Civis Romanis sum," Mr.
Gladstone asked, what was a Roman citizen?  A Roman
citizen was the member of a privileged caste, of a
victorious and conquering nation, of a nation that held
all others bound down by the strong arm of power—
which had one law for him and another for all the rest
of the world, which asserted in his favour principles
which it denied to all others. Was such the view of
the noble lord as to the relation of the English towards
all the rest of the world? Did he claim for us that
we are to stand on a platform, as it were, high above
all other nations? It was clear from the whole, not
merely expression, but spirit, of the noble viscount's
speech, that such is his impression; that he thinks we
are to be the censor of the vice and follies of all the
peoples of the world, the teacher of the nations, and
that all who do not think proper to admit the assumption,
must have diplomatic war declared against them.
And certainly, if the business of a Foreign Secretary
was merely to carry on diplomatic war, all must admit
the perfection of the noble lord in the discharge of his
functions. But it was not the duty of a Foreign
Minister to be like a knight-errant, ever pricking forth,
armed at all points, to challenge all comers, and lay
as many adversaries as possible sprawling, or the noble
lord would be a master of his art; but to maintain
that sound code of international principles which is
a monument of human wisdom, and a precious
inheritance bequeathed by our fathers for the preservation
of the future brotherhood of nations.—Mr. Henry
DRUMMOND disapproved equally of the foreign policy
of Lord Palmerston, and of his immediate predecessors,
but he would not join in a run against him to serve
the purpose of a faction. He would not vote against
the motion, to gratify Lord Stanley and Sir James
Graham.—The debate was then adjourned.

On Friday the 28th the debate was resumed.—Mr.
COCKBURN said that the question consisted of two
parts, the interference of government in the affairs of
Greece, and their policy with regard to other foreign
states. They interfered with Greece to obtain redress
of certain wrongs admitted to have been sustained by
British subjects, and it was their bounden duty to
do so. In the cases of Messrs. Finlay and Pacifico
it had been found impossible to obtain redress from the
Greek authorities, and under such circumstances the
British government would have failed in its duty had
it not insisted on justice being done.—Mr. COCKBURN
then adverted to Lord Palmerston's policy in relation
to Spain, Italy, Austria, and other states, following
up the arguments previously urged by Lord Palmerston
himself. He referred to the evident compromise
between Sir R. Peel and the Protectionists, observing,
that whatever honesty there was in it belonged rather
to them than to him, and concluded by saying, "I
believe the policy which Her Majesty's government
have hitherto carried on to be essential to the prosperity
of commerce and trade—essential to the best interests
of the country, to the welfare of the people, and, above
all, essential to secure a steady and abundant supply
of the food which preserves the famishing; and that
if I were to oppose the resolution of the honourable and
learned member for Sheffield, I would be betraying
the best interests of the people of this realm, and
betraying the best interests of the nations of Europe—
believing that I would be retarding the progress of
civilisation, of humanity, and the best interests of
mankind, I shall cheerfully and unhesitatingly vote in
favour of the resolution."—Mr. Walpole opposed the
resolution, and Mr. M. Milnes supported it.—Mr.
COBDEN denied the charge of a cabal against the
government, and denied that he had more sympathy
with Russia, or less sympathy with the Italians and
Hungarians than the warmest supporters of the government.
—Sir R. PEEL, said that Mr. Cockburn, in speculating
upon his motives, seemed to have forgotten that a
vote might be given conscientiously, and without reference
to political combinations. So far from his having made
any compromise with the protectionists, he was every day