himself bound to impress on the Government of the King of Naples the necessity of displaying clemency after the successes which he had gained over his insurgent subjects. The same advice had been given at the same time by the Minister of England, and yet it had never occurred to the Minister of Naples to say that their interference was unjustifiable unless they intended that he should also interfere with the Governments of Spain and England. Lord J. Russell then explained, in terms similar to those employed by Mr. Shiel, the peculiar reasons which justified England in giving advice to the Queen of Spain. The events of the present year had been extraordinary. There was no country which could be considered safe from those convulsions which had upset thrones, destroyed constitutions, and placed large capitals in the power of violent mobs; and, under such circumstances, how could the fate of Spain fail to attract painfully the attention of Lord Palmerston? He then recapitulated the circumstances under which Lord Palmerston had written his celebrated despatch of March last, and proceeded to justify the advice which his Lordship had given the Queen of Spain to form an Administration out of the two great factions into which the country was divided, as the best means of supporting her throne against all parties. Having received his instructions from Lord Palmerston, Sir H. Bulwer saw with alarm a law passed at Madrid suspending all the privileges of the Constitution, and also saw all the leading Progressistas seized and imprisoned without even the form of a trial. Under such circumstances, after Sir H. Bulwer had presented to the Spanish Government the note of Lord Palmerston, the English Government had to consider whether he had acted properly in presenting it. It was their unanimous conclusion that he had done so. It would have been a gross abandonment of character if the Government had taken a technical advantage of Sir H. Bulwer, and had said, 66 You had no instructions to deliver that note; and, as you have done so without authority, we disavow you and your proceedings." The Government, therefore, willingly incurred the whole responsibility for Sir H. Bulwer's conduct, and now stood before the House to justify its policy; to be acquitted, if the House pleased to acquit it-to be censured, if the House pleased to censure it but not denying or evading the responsibility properly belonging to it. Lord J. Russell then proceeded to refute the argument that Lord Palmerston should have resented most deeply, and in the most pompous terms, the discourtesy of the Spanish Government in rejecting his despatch. He thought that his Lordship had done better in explaining that what we had done was done in a friendly spirit; and that, if Spain chose to be angry, we did not intend to be offended. He censured Mr. Bankes not only for asking for further information whilst negotiations were going on, but also for moving a vote of censure on Ministers at present; for he was quite convinced that, if the House were now to adopt such a vote, it would weaken the powers of the Queen's representatives, whoever they might be, in demanding reparation from the Spanish Government. With regard to our relations with Spain, he admitted that they were peculiar and delicate; but, considering our power and the weakness of Spain, he thought that we were bound to treat her with the utmost forbearance. He regretted the violent and peremptory step taken by the Spanish Government towards Sir H. Bulwer, for which he could see no justification; but he assured the House that, whilst the destinies of Spain were placed in hands wanting in temper, discretion, and regard for a generous ally, he would not forget that the interests of the Queen of Spain and of the gallant Spanish nation ought to be regarded, for the sake of old recollections, with feelings of friendship and amity on our part. Mr. Disraeli considered that a gross insult had been inflicted on the dignity of the Queen and the British Government, and asked why a full satisfaction had not been exacted from the offending Court. The House knew from the Spanish Government the reasons which had induced it to dismiss Sir H Bulwer from Madrid. Would any man venture to affirm that they formed a satisfactory justification for so unparalleled an outrage? We were powerful enough to submit to insult for a time, provided it was clear that an apology would ultimately be offered; but had the Spanish Government shown any readiness to apologize for the great and unparalleled insult which it had offered to the Crown and Ministry of Great Britain? Nothing like it. After all the delay which had taken place in the production of these papers, he believed that the Spanish Government had no other charge to prefer against Sir H. Bulwer than those ridiculous accusations which appeared in them; and, if so, next to the outrage which it had committed against us in dismissing Sir H. Bulwer was the outrage of daring to send an envoy to explain it. Mr. Disraeli then entered into a long examination of the foreign policy of which Lord Palmerston had been the exponent, for the purpose of showing that it had laid the seeds of infinite confusion in every country with which he, a partizan of non-intervention, had interfered. Of late years the plot had thickened, and our foreign policy had been directed to finding not merely constitutions for the acceptance of independent states, but statesmen to superintend their administration. tion. The expulsion of the English Minister from Madrid was the result of that pernicious system of Liberalism which had prevailed so long in that House; and, as a check upon it, it was their first duty to express their sense of the unparalleled outrage committed against the dignity of the Sovereign; their next, not to allow a diplomatic servant of the country to be made a scapegoat for Ministers; and their third, to show that this was not an attack on an individual Minister, but on a system which he had too long been forced to develope, but from which he had departed in 1840, in obedience to the dictates of his own genius, and had so conferred great benefits on his country. Sir R. Inglis condemned the dismissal of Sir H. Bulwer from Madrid by the Spanish Government as an unparalleled outrage on the dignity of Great Britain, and, at the same time, considered the interference of Lord Palmerston in the affairs of Spain as very unjustifiable. Sir R. Peel had heard with the greatest satisfaction the determination of Government to adopt the conduct of Sir H. Bulwer as their own, and to assume the full responsibility of it. It was but just that they should do so; one of the causes alleged for the removal of Sir H. Bulwer from Madrid by the Spanish Government was that public opinion was averse to him, not only in Spain but also in England. He then stated that Sir H. Bulwer had been placed in his diplomatic situation in Spain by the Earl of Aberdeen, not from any political predilection or connexion, but from a conviction of his superior skill and ability. Looking at these despatches, he saw no ground for finding fault with his conduct at Madrid. The question then arose, how the House was to dispose of this motion. Mr. Disraeli had stated that there were three objects for which it had been brought forward; the first to manifest the intention of the House to exempt Sir H. Bulwer from blame; secondly, to maintain the honour of England, which had been outraged by Spain; and, thirdly, not to condemn Lord Palmerston, but that system by which Liberalism had been made triumphant. Now, the resolution then before the House would not allow any of those three objects to be accomplished, as he showed at considerable length. Though he could not concur in the resolution of Mr. Bankes, which was a vote of censure on the Government, he must not be considered as giving his full approbation to the conduct of Lord Palmerston. He did not object to his Lordship's giving advice to the Spanish Government, but to his mode of giving it. There was an assumption of superiority in his despatch which was calculated to give offence to a proud nation like that of Spain. It contained a recordatio which was very like an exprobatio beneficii, and which ought to have been avoided. He objected, however, to the vote, be cause he was unwilling to place on record that his country was in a humiliating position. He also thought that the time of bringing it forward was premature; for, if the House needs must express an opinion upon it, it would be better to wait until the whole drama was before it, and not to condemn the first act without knowing how it might work upon the dénouement. Because he thought the penalty now proposed to be inflicted too heavy for the offence, because it was unwise for the House of Commons to declare its own humiliation, because such a declaration would paralyse the arm of the Government, and would lead the Spanish Government to entertain false expectations of support from that House, he should give on this occasion a vote which, though it would not imply censure on the Government, would enable the House to go without delay into a Committee of Supply. Lord Palmerston, after showing the inexpediency of the motion at the present time, as affirming the humiliation of the country, proceeded to declare that he and he alone was responsible for the communication of his approbation to Sir H. Bulwer as an agent in the department over which he had the honour to preside, and that, if any person were censurable for that approbation, upon him, and upon him alone, that censure ought to fall. But he contended, that no censure ought to fall even upon him, for Sir H. Bulwer had, in his opinion, behaved admirably, and he had felt it to be his duty to communicate to him that opinion. At the same time, he must say that his (Lord Palmerston's) despatch of the 16th of March was not writ ten to be communicated to the It was Spanish Government. hardly necessary for him, after the speech of Sir R. Peel, to justify himself for having tendered the advice of the British Government to the Queen of Spain; but, as Sir Robert had found fault with the mode of conveying that advice, he thought it right to say that, when the Queen of Spain was endeavouring to establish in that country the despotism which England had assisted her in overthrowing, we had a right, arising out of the treaty by which we guaranteed her crown, to give our advice in the most explicit terms. In writing the despatch of the 16th of March he did no more than the British Government had a right to do; and, when Sir R. Peel asserted that that despatch was not calculated to conciliate or persuade, his (Lord Palmerston's reply was that it was a confidential despatch, not intended for communication to the Spanish Government. He then vindicated himself with great force and ability from the attacks of Mr. Bankes, and, after adverting to the dismissal of Sir H. Bulwer from Madrid, observed that communications were now going on with the Spanish Government as to their reasons for sending that gentleman his passports. When the communications-for he could not call them negotiations-were concluded, he would communicate to Parliament the correspondence; but, whilst they were in progress, it was impossible for him consistently with public duty to reveal what had passed, or to state their precise nature. Mr. Hume expressed his opinion that both Sir H. Bulwer and Lord Palmerston had been fully justified in the conduct pursued by them, and he recommended Mr. Bankes to withdraw his Motion. Mr. Urquhart attempted to address the House, but the clamour and interruption were so great as to prevent his obtaining a hearing. Mr. Bankes, in reply, said that his object was attained by the discussion which had been elicited, and allowed his resolution to be negatived without a division. On the 30th of August, Mr. Disraeli reviewed the transactions of the expiring Session in a speech distinguished by his usual caustic humour and felicitous illustration, in which he rallied the Government in a most entertaining manner upon the abortive results of their measures, and dwelt with peculiar effect on the inconsistencies of their financial policy. He began by some observations on the unexampled length of the present Session. After having sat now for nearly ten months, Parliament was about to be prorogued with a vast number of important Bills not only not passed, but also very little advanced. One of the most plausible reasons assigned for that unsatisfactory state of affairs was, that our system of government was inadequate to pass those measures which were required for the public welfare, or, in other words, that there was too much discussion and too much talk in the House of Commons. Another reason assigned for it was that the forms of the House were so cumbersome and antiquated as to offer a great obstacle to the efficient and speedy transaction of public business. He believed that this was the feeling of the Government, and, as a proof of the correctness of his belief, quoted a newspaper paragraph, attributing the postponement of the Ministerial whitebait dinner to the "vexatious discussions" in the House of Commons. He denied that there was any justifiable cause for attributing to either of these two causes the fact that the Legislature, after having sat for nearly ten months, had done very little, and that very little not very well, and he referred to the report of the Committee on Public Business to show how much of the time of the Session had been occupied by the employment of Members in Public Committees, in Election Committees, in Railway Committees, and in Committees on Private Business. Mr. Disraeli, having finished his statement upon that point, proceeded to call the attention of the House to the circumstances under which this Parliament had assembled. There was then famine in Ireland, and commercial distress in England of unprecedented severity; but he thought that no man would contend that, when the House met in November last, there was too much discussion on those subjects. He contended that the motion of Mr. Herries on the management and constitution of the Bank of England, and on the conduct of Her Majesty's Ministers during the crisis of October, was neither of an intrusive nor of an impertinent character. After alluding to the unsatisfactory result of the Parliamentary discussions on banking, and expressing his belief that sounder principles could only be established by another pressure and another panic, he referred to the discussions in the House on the financial question. On the 18th of February, the first financial statement was made to the House, not by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but by the Premier himself. The country was to be defended as well as the taxes to be paid. There was to be an increase, not only of the Miscellaneous, but also of the Military Estimates, and the Income Tax was to be doubled. The feel ing of the House, after hearing that budget, was one of considerable dissatisfaction; and, in the country, a menagerie before feeding-time could alone give an idea of the unearthly yell with which it was received. On the 21st of February, with the view of lulling the storm, the Minister proposed the immediate reference of the Army, Navy, and Ordnance Estimates to a Select Committee, and of the Miscellaneous Estimates to a similar ordeal. On the 28th of February, as the storm was still raging, and Mr. Hume had given notice of a motion for the reduction of expenditure, the Chancellor of the Exchequer came down and presented the House with another budget, and promised to bring the expenditure and income to a balance without doubling the Income Tax. On the 30th of June, in the midst of a Colonial debate, the Chancellor of the Exchequer suddenly threw a third budget on the table of the House. They had, then, three budgets between the 18th of February and the period to which he had traced the proceedings of the Session, and yet they did not advance one jot. All this time, the Estimates were before the Select Committees up-stairs, which were really Select Committees of Supply: and Ministers could do nothing but obtain a vote on confidence to pay wages or dividends. They had been treated with the greatest forbearance and indulgence; yet, from the 18th of February to the 30th of June, all they did was to produce three financial projects, all of which were inefficient. The Estimates did not come down to the House till August; by which delay, Members were deprived of their constitutional privilege of discussing and criticizing the Supply. "We have had three budgets, two Committees, |