Europe to principles of despotic monarchy; but he could not be persuaded that it was the policy of England to do lightly any act which might plunge herself and all Europe into a bloody and unceasing war. Of all the wars-and, unhappily, we had experienced but too many varieties of them-of all the wars which we had seen, and which had brought desolation in their train, the wars of opinion had been decidedly the most fatal; and a single spark flashing unhappily from the hasty zeal of England, might light up a conflagration on the continent, which no after exertions could extinguish might lead to a contest of opinions and principles which would divide all the nations of Europe, and only terminate, probably, at last, with the total destruction of one of the contending factions. Was this, then, an object for England to aim at? Was this to be laid down as the intent by which ministers were to regulate their conduct? Or might they be allowed to say that their object was peace, be the components of that peace more or less perfect? To see England moving steadily in her own orbit, without looking too nicely to the conduct of the powers in alliance with her,―to see her content with her own glory, and by that glory exciting other nations to arrive at the same advantages which her peculiar system bestowed upon her; but not, by a wild crusade, or endeavouring to force those advantages upon free countries, converting blessings into curses as respected them, and courting danger and difficulty as regarded herself? It was this course which he (the right hon. secretary) took to be the true policy of England. It was with this view to peace, while peace might be maintained, that government had acted, and was pre

pared to act. But it did not follow because they forbore to seek for difference, that when it came it would not find them on the alert; or that the strength which had slumbered would be the less effective when called into action. (Hear, hear.) He did not know (Mr. Canning continued) that in what had fallen from the hon. and learned member opposite, there were any points farther on which he needed to detain the house; but he would just say a very few words, with reference to those observations about Ireland which had been made by the honourable seconder of the address at the conclusion of his speech. As to Ireland, he wished it should be understood that his sentiments were what they had ever been. He retained all his old opinions with respect to that country; and fully believed, that sooner or later, those opinions would make their way in England; but he differed from the opinions which had been laid down by the honourable and learned gentleman opposite. There was no word which, in parliamentary oratory, was more bandied about than the word "inconsistency;" and, in general, he who charged another with that offence did not measure the consistency of the accused by his own, but by some arbitrary standard that he chose to set up. Now it might be an absurd opinion to hold, that in the present state of public feeling in England, the catholic concession could not (to use the common parlance) be carried as a "government" question, and that the public men of the country did not afford material for an administration, united upon that point, and upon other questions of paramount importance. But if that opinion of his was absurd, it was not an opinion of the present day; it was the opinion which he

had

had always expressed in that house; and "inconsistency," as he took it, was the differing, not from others, but from oneself. The hon. gentlemen, however, on the opposite bench, thought it expedient to charge him with inconsistency in his conduct with respect to the catholic question; and by rather a whimsical choice, they had laid hold of that particular period of his public life in which he had enjoyed the amplest opportunity for showing what his sentiments upon that question really were. It was said of him, that in the year 1812 he was willing to become part of an administration which was to consist of the marquis Wellesley and himself, and other gentlemen on the same side of the house; that that administration would have been an administration united upon the catholic question; and that therefore it was inconsistency for him to act with any government otherwise constituted. Now, whoever might be the historian that had referred to this passage of his (Mr. Canning's) life, he had looked, by some accident, at only part of the transaction. If he had examined one side of the page as carefully as he had perused the other, he would have found (continued the right hon. secretary) "that in the year 1812, when his royal highness the prince regent intrusted to lord Wellesley and myself the task of forming a government, the stipulation of lord Wellesley was, that he should make proposals to some of the gentlemen on the opposite side; and my stipulationwhat was it? Was it to exclude the protestant faction, as it is called, altogether? No; but it was that I should be at liberty to make proposals to lord Liverpool, which, accordingly, I did." Such, then, had been his (the right hon. secretary's) expression of his opinions, not when he had

been called on to join a government, but to form one. It was true that lord Liverpool had declined taking office with that government; and also that he himself had not thought it necessary, upon that refusal, to give the thing up. But his choice had been a government composed of mixed elements; and his opinion was still, that if the catholic question was to be carried, it would be carried by an administration which made it, not a government question, but a general one. He did still hope that the prejudices of England might in time be reasoned down; and that in time the catholic question might find that support in the country which he was sorry to say he did not think it found at present. By whatever hand, or at whatever period, that question should be brought forward, it would receive from him, whether in or out of office, the best support which he could give it. But it would still find him believing that nothing was to be gained by attempting to carry the point in the way of a government question; and that (if that were necessary) there did not, moreover, exist materials at the present moment sufficient to form an administration concurring upon that subject, and upon others also on which it would be necessary for them to agree. He had said, and he meant to keep his word, that he would not travel into any part of the speech which had not been touched upon by the honourable and learned gentleman (Mr. Brougham.) There was one most important point in it, which he should therefore leave at rest, feeling that it was not because its value was underrated, that it had for the present been passed by the gentlemen on the other side. The speech of the honourable and learned member opposite had gone chiefly to mat

ters

ters of foreign policy; and he had endeavoured to explain to the house the course which, upon that head, government had pursued. The speech from the throne contained an account by ministers of their stewardship, and of the policy which they had pursued since the house had last met; and if, upon that statement, they did not come forward to challenge approbation, at least they were prepared to meet criticism without fear.

The address was then put from the chair, and carried; and the house adjourned at twenty minutes past seven o'clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, February 4. -Mr. Rowland Hill appeared at the bar with the report of the address to his majesty.

Mr. Hobhouse said he would take that opportunity of proposing one or two questions to the right honourable secretary for foreign affairs. He must enter his protest, as his honourable and learned friend had last night done, against being supposed to concur with the sentiments contained in the address, so far as regarded the foreign policy of the government. He should think that he disgraced himself by approving of the foreign policy of ministers, for, in his opinion, they had been totally unmindful of the renown of their country. He had attended with the utmost attention to every word which dropped from the right honourable secretary opposite, last night. It was not surprising that he should do so, for all Europe was attending to what he said, conscious that on his words, in some degree, depended its very fate. There was one point upon which he thought the right hon. gentleman was not sufficiently explicit in his explanation,—namely, the South American states. The right hon. gentleman

66

appeared to be aware of the difficulty of the subject, and touched upon it so lightly as to satisfy no person, except, perhaps, his colleagues, who might have reasons for wishing to preserve secrecy on that topic. The right hon. secretary had said that he considered it a grace and favour done to Old Spain, to allow her an opportunity of attempting to recover possession of her colonies." He would admit that if the king of Spain were capable of governing his kingdom without foreign assistance, he should be allowed an opportunity of employing the resources of the once mighty monarchy of Spain in the attempt to re-conquer his transatlantic colonies. But did the right hon. gentleman mean to say, that whilst the king of Spain was only kept on his throne by the presence of 70,000 French troops, whilst Barcelona, Cadiz, and every important fortress in his territory were in possession of the French, Ferdinand was to be suffered to employ his armies in an expedition against South America? It could not surely be said that because the constitutional system had been put down in Spain, and there was at present no appearance of a re-action, Ferdinand was therefore to be called a free king. If he was before a prisoner to the constitutionalists, what was he now? He was hemmed round with foreign bayonets; and every body who was acquainted with the state of Spain, knew that if the French army was to withdraw from that country to-morrow, the unfortunate kingunfortunate he meant only with respect to his bad character, and not for his misfortunes-would be driven from his throne. He wished, then, to know from the right honourable gentleman, whether, while the French troops were in possession of Spain,

the

the government of this country would allow any attempt to be made on the part of a merely nominal king to recover possession of the South American states? He might allude to an important omission in his majesty's speech. The house had heard a great deal during last session about a positive guarantee on the part of the French ministers, and that there should be no permanent occupation of Spain by the French troops. The right hon. gentleman had not told the house whether he had asked Monsieur Chateaubriand how long his master meant to keep possession of that country. He (Mr. Hobhouse) dared to say that the right hon. gentleman had asked the question, and he thought that the house of commons had a right to know what answer had been returned. He hoped that the right honourable gentleman would not take the word of the French king for a guarantee. The word of no king was a guarantee, much less of that king who had pledged his sacred word of honour and the sceptre which he wielded, that what he called the army of observation should not cross the Pyrenees. After that shameless breach of promise-after that falsehood which would have disqualified a private individual for the society of gentlemen-he trusted that the right honourable gentleman would not attach much weight to the word of the king of France, or of his minister Chateaubriand. (Hear, hear.) He would now take the liberty to allude to another matter not unconnected with the foreign policy of government. He would wish to know whether the colonial secretary had been informed of the reasons for the issuing of a recent proclamation in the Ionian Islands. (Hear.) The proclamation was so very extraordinary, that he should suppose it to be 1824.]

the result of a drunken frolic, did not the high situation which sir Thomas Maitland held, render it impossible for him to suppose that that officer could so far forget himself as to be guilty of such folly. But when they knew that sir Thomas Maitland had issued such a proclamation as this, putting two of the Ionian islands under quarantine for thirty days, and when they recollected that this same governor had committed one of the most flagrant breaches of quarantine in his own case, one could not help feeling astonishment at the occurrence of which he (Mr. Hobhouse) now complained. The reason assigned by sir Thomas Maitland was also singular: he states that prince Maurocordato having approached too near the islands, the quarantine became necessary, lest the British government should appear in any way involved, or as partakers, in the cruelties elsewhere inflicted—and inflicted by whom? By the Greeks; for he appeared in every instance to attack the Greeks, and to overlook the Turkish share of the atrocities which had been committed.

Now

he could assure the house, and on the authority of an eye-witness of what had occurred, that the affair off the shore of Ithaca had been much misrepresented. The facts were these a small Greek squadron having chased three Turkish armed vessels off that coast, mastered one of them, the crew of which, however, escaped on shore; and then, while the Greeks were rowing to the captured vessel, poured from the land upon them a murderous fire. The Greeks immediately landed in their turn, and took some revenge upon their opponents. But so far from the Greeks standing upon their justification for this retaliation, prince Maurocordato made on their part the Ꭰ

humblest