the majority by force of arms, and proceeded to raise troops for the purpose of resistance. Matters assumed a serious aspect. The other powers of Europe began to take an interest in the quarrel; and most of them with an evident leaning towards the Catholic cantons. The cry of the persecuted Jesuits resounded throughout Roman Catholic Europe. At this time, as an admirer of his lordship writes, Lord Palmerston, with the most consummate tact and ability, conducted both this country itself and Switzerland to an honourable solution of the difficulty. It was obviously for the advantage of Switzerland, that whichever way settled, it should be settled by her own power alone, and without external interference; and few rational Protestants could doubt that the presence of the busy, intermeddling Jesuits boded no good to the tranquillity of any state. Nevertheless, Austria, and even Prussia, were marching troops to the frontier, with a view to aid the Catholic minority; and even France had a strong party whose sympathies were with the same cause. Lord Palmerston alone stood by the Protestant cantons; and his conduct evinced that same happy union of skill, promptitude, and decision which had stood him in such stead on the Syrian question. He addressed a note to the different powers of Europe, protesting against any one of them interfering without the consent of the whole; and, accordingly, proposed a meeting of their representatives, for the purpose of settling the terms of a joint intervention, if such should be found necessary. At the same time he sent instructions to our minister in Switzerland, urging the government of the confederation to take active steps to suppress the rebellious union by force of arms, if necessary, before such an intervention could take effect. It turned out exactly as Lord Palmerston desired. The despotic powers of Europe were awed from interfering singly; and, long before the meeting was held to settle the terms of joint interference, the troops of the Catholic cantons had been scattered in a single engagement with the state army, the Jesuits had been expelled, and the country restored to tranquillity. The ministers of the different countries never met; for, when the time came, there was nothing in which they could interfere.

In Portugal his lordship's policy was equally wise and equally successful. He supported the throne of Donna Maria, but insisted that her government should conform to those constitutional principles which it professed to respect, and on which it was founded. Had the extreme Liberals triumphed, the result would have been the establishment of a military despotism. Thanks to Lord Palmerston's able guidance and advice, when the revolutionary storm swept across Europe, Portugal and Switzerland remained safe and unmoved in the terrors and commotions of the time.

In answer to the call of the Italian Liberals, in the autumn of 1847, Lord Palmerston despatched Lord Minto on a special mission to the Courts of Turin and Florence. At first this nobleman seemed to be successful throughout Italy; his counsels were requested and attended to; he advised moderate reforms and pacific measures. Under his superintendence the political movements in Italy were happily progressing. Menaced by Metternich, and avoided by Guizot, the new pope, Pius IX., asked assistance from the English Foreign Secretary. It was not the fault of the latter that, in Italy, on all sides, his hopes were disappointed; that, instead of reform, there was revolution; and that Pope Pius, having put his hand to the plough, trembled, and turned back. It has since been seen that the new pope had no settled love of freedom; that he considered it more as a thing to be talked of than as a motive for action; that, intoxicated by popular applause, he said more than he was ready by deeds to confirm.

It is time now, however, that we let Lord Palmerston speak for himself. In the general election in 1847, his lordship thus addresses his Tiverton constituents, in reply to a speech delivered to them on the hustings, by Mr. Harney, a Chartist orator :

"Mr. Harney began with Belgium. He said that I was instrumental in submitting and subjecting the Belgians to the yoke of the representative of

France. What is the fact? The Belgian people had been united, in 1815, to Holland; they had great complaints to make against the way in which they had been governed: their religion had been interfered with; the education of their children had been taken out of their hands; taxes had been imposed on them, which they thought illegal; their native language was forbidden in law-suits and courts of justice. What was the course the government with which I was then associated took? We obtained for them all these objects. The end of the matter was, that after long negotiation-after difficulties which, at one time, threatened a European war-Belgium was acknowledged as an independent country; and I will venture to say, a more prosperous; happy, contented, and patriotic nation than the Belgians have become, does not exist on the face of the earth. They have a king of their own choosing. I am astonished that their case should be brought forward as a proof of our desire to crush and trample upon the liberties and freedom of a nation. We then come to Spain; and it is said we were there parties to the establishing a government more tyrannical than any that had ever existed before in that country. Now I deny the assertion. The governments that had previously existed had the Inquisition. Perhaps some of you do not know what that was. So much the better for you. It was a tribunal which inquired into the religious opinions of every man: if they were not of the proper cut which the Inquisition thought expedient, the man was thrown into prison; or, in former times, he was burnt alive. Before the period to which I refer, there was no parliament in Spain. The great bulk of the people said-'We will have a parliament, and we will have no Inquisition; and we choose to have for our sovereign Donna Isabella, and not this old gentleman, Don Carlos, whom we consider identified with oppression and the Inquisition.' We took part with the people of Spain-with those who wanted constitutional liberty, equal laws, a parliament, justice, no Inquisition-against those who were for having no parliament, no justice, but much Inquisition. We succeeded, and by means of a very trifling assistance, which could not possibly have determined events if the Spanish people had not been on that side. We enabled them to work out their liberties with smaller sacrifices than they must otherwise have submitted to, and with less suffering than they must otherwise have encountered. This is charge the second against me, for having overthrown the liberties of foreign nations, and of having established despotism and tyranny. Really, those who make that charge seem to be as little read in history as they are in the elementary rudiments of political economy. Then we come to Portugal. There was a struggle in Portugal very similar to that which I have mentioned as taking place in Spain. There was a contest between despotic and tyrannical government on the one hand, and parliament and popular freedom on the other. Don Pedro fought for the popular side. Don Miguel, who had usurped the throne, and ousted his niece, fought for tyranny and despotic government. What did we do? Did we set up Don Miguel? No; we put him down. We threw our influence into the scale of liberty, freedom, and constitutional rights; and, by our assistance, that cause conquered, and the Portuguese nation became possessed of a parliament, and of all those rights which are essential for securing the liberties of a nation. We next come, I think, to Syria. I do not expect all who support my opponent to know anything about this matter. He knows very little about it himself. How can you expect his supporters to know more than he does? Well, gentlemen, Mr. Harney says we made a great mistake in Syria; he tells us that there was a most excellent, worthy old gentleman, called Mehemet Ali, who ruled in Egypt, and who had conquered Syria, and that we ought to have left him quietly there. Mr. Harney says we fought the battle for the rights of kings by driving Mehemet Ali out of Syria, and restoring that country to the sultan. Why, this old gentleman, Mehemet Ali, was a subject of the sultan's; he was to the sultan what the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland is to the Queen of England; but he had a mind to set up for himself; and if he had kept Syria he would have done so.

You may say, what would it have signified to us if he had set up for himself? I reply it was the object of England to keep Turkey out of the hands of other powers, who, if they obtained possession of it, would use it for no advantage of ours; and if Mehemet Ali had set up for himself, he would have so weakened Turkey, that it could no longer have remained independent, but must have become the vassal of some foreign power. This was our reason for driving Mehemet Ali back to his house at Alexandria. But it is said this worthy old gentleman was so much beloved in Syria, that his rule formed a perfect Paradise, compared with the hell-upon-earth that has existed there since he was driven out. Now how was it we did drive him out of Syria? Merely by giving a few thousand muskets to the people of the country-by sending a few hundred marines to aid them, and saying-Go it, boys! if you want to get rid here of Mehemet Ali, here we are to back you; if you intend to act, now's your time.' They took us at our word; they kicked him out, neck and crop-and his army too. They hailed us as their deliverers; and whatever may be said of some small and trifling quarrels that have arisen between two different sects in that country, it is now peaceable, contented, and happy; and there is a striking contrast between the present state of things, and that which formerly existed there."

On another occasion, in a speech to his constituents at Tiverton, his lordship enlarged on the blessings of free trade, and the evils of slavery. His talent in popularising difficult questions, and reducing them to the level of the commonest understanding, was very great. After referring to the peace and order prevailing in Great Britain, his lordship stated that "that resulted from the improved legislation of modern times. The first step in the career of improvement was the repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts. Then the parliament repealed the laws which imposed penalties and disabilities upon the Catholics; then came Municipal Reform and the Commutation Tithe Act, by which the farmer was no longer liable to have payments taken from him in kind, and by which he was enabled to make improvements, without being subjected to increased taxation. Then came the repeal of the navigation laws." Speaking of the corn-laws, his lordship continued-" "Now I am aware, gentlemen, that upon one of the points to which I have just alluded, there is not that unanimity of opinion in the country which may by this time be said to be established with regard to the others, because there are still some persons, and I am bound to say, I believe a very considerable number, who, with respect to the law which repealed the import duty upon corn, think that that was an injury rather than a benefit; and who look to the reimposition of that duty under the general term of protection to agriculture.' Gentlemen, in all human affairs it is a great point of wisdom to be able to distinguish between that which is only difficult, and that which is absolutely impossible. To encounter that which is difficult is a very noble pursuit-it excites the faculties; it develops the energies of man; and it is by struggling against difficulties, and by overcoming them, that everything that is great and glorious has been achieved. But when men attempt that which is impossible, they only lay up in store for themselves disappointment, and waste their energies upon a fruitless pursuit. With regard to the reimposition of import duties on corn for the purpose of protection-that is to say, for the purpose, the specific and avowed purpose, of raising the price of food, for the purpose of increasing the profits of the owners and occupiers of landI venture, with all humility, to say, that when you see the river Exe running up from the sea to Tiverton, instead of running down from Tiverton to the sea, you may then look upon it that protection is near at hand. Gentlemen, in saying that I feel that I am foreseeing and expressing an opinion of the continuance of that which is for the benefit of all classes of the community. No man can deny that the cheapness and abundance of food is eminently advantageous to the labouring classes. The labouring classes are the most numerous portion of the population. No man, I think, who looks with any judgment to the construction of the social edifice, but must see that the labouring classes are the foundation of the fabric; and

that unless that foundation is solid, and firm, and stable, the fabric itself cannot be expected to last. Nobody can hope to make the poor rich; that is not the dispensation of Providence in the formation of the world-in the creation of the human race. There may be some other planet, or there may be some land in this planet hitherto undiscovered, like that lubber land—that fabulous land of which we have heard, where it is said that pigs run about ready roasted, with knives and forks sticking in their backs, crying Come and eat me.' But unless in some favoured region of that kind, it is plain that men must labour for their existence; that those who begin only with their physical labour cannot expect to rise high in the scale of wealth; and that there must be a very unequal distribution of the goods of this world among the people of this world. You may, by very bad laws, or by internal convulsions, impoverish the rich, but I defy you by any laws to enrich the poor. But although you cannot enrich the poor, you may at least do a great deal to make their poverty comfortable, by giving them the command of as great a portion of the necessaries of life as the dispensations of Providence, and the state of society, will enable them to have within their reach. That is precisely what has been done by the repeal of the corn-laws. An instance of the manner in which it has benefited the poorer classes, was stated by my right honourable friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in a late debate in the House of Commons. He stated that he had sent to him, from that part of Yorkshire to which he belongs, a comparative statement, showing the wages of an agricultural labourer some fourteen or fifteen years ago, with the number of loaves of bread which he could then purchase with those wages; and then the present wages of the same class of men, and the command which those reduced wages now give him. It appeared that, about fourteen or fifteen years ago, the wages in that part of the country, where wages are high from being near manufacturing places, were 158. a week; and with that a man could then buy twelve loaves of bread: the wages this year were 128. a week; but with that 12s. the man could buy twenty-four loaves a week. But he would not want twenty-four loaves of bread; and that left him, therefore, a surplus for other conveniences and comforts, which tended much to cheer the poverty of his existence. I say, then, that those who feel that the comfort, and well-being, and contentment of the labouring classes must be a foundation for the welfare of those above them, must feel that the repeal of the corn-laws, and the cheapness of food, are really a benefit to all. But let us take the farmer. I myself am, in a very small and unscientific way, a farmer. I do not profess to put my knowledge in competition with that of many of you-of many whom I represent. But the farmer and the landlord, the producers of the corn, run away with the fact that corn-wheat we will say-has greatly fallen in price; and then they say they have lost all the difference between the former price and the present low price. But they ought to take into account the other side of the balance, and to see how much the cost of production and their outgoings have diminished at the same time that the price of wheat has fallen. Now, will any man look, on the one side, how much he has lost upon an acre of wheat at market, and, on the other, how much he has gained in producing that acre of wheat. First of all, the cost of his seed is less; the wages of labour are less; he gets manure cheaper, and of better quality, and has a greater command of it; all his machinery is cheaper than it was, and better in its quality his poor-rates are less; his composition for tithes is gradually diminishing in proportion as the averages of the cheap years are beginning to tell upon the amount which he has to pay. His rent, in most cases, where it was not very low indeed, has been diminished. And then, besides that, there is that increased skill, which, I am happy to say, is extending rapidly over the whole country; and by attending to the progressive development of science, as bearing upon agriculture, he is enabled to produce a greater quantity out of the same extent of land than he produced before. And therefore, when we look at all these things, I think the farmer will even find, that if he strikes a fair and accurate balance, his loss is far less than he imagines it to have been. But, after all, in the

long run, it is perfectly certain that it is a question between landlord and tenant. The farmer hires the land of the owner; he employs a certain amount of capital in working it; he must make interest upon his capital, or he cannot live; and therefore the bargain must ultimately so adjust that he can make his fair interest out of his capital, under the new and altered circumstances in which he is placed."

Having thus discussed domestic matters, his lordship next referred to foreign affairs. He continued-"I think our functions are, first of all, to set an example to the world, of humanity, of enlightenment, of order, and of good conduct, both in public and private. I think, in the next place, that it is our duty-the duty, I mean, of this nation-to employ that influence which a great and powerful country like this always possesses, for the purpose of promoting and securing peace among the other nations of the world, and endeavouring, as far as we can with propriety do so, to persuade other governments to extend to other countries as much as possible of those civil and political blessings of which we ourselves are so proud. I think, gentlemen, that the people of this country have nobly performed their part of that duty; and I can assure you that it is the anxious desire of her majesty's government not to be backward in performing what belongs to them. The people of this country did nobly perform that duty in the course of the last year, when they supported, unanimously and enthusiastically, the government of England in exerting its influence to prevent a foreign sovereign from being compelled to violate the laws of hospitality by sacrificing the men who had thrown themselves upon him for protection. Those efforts were successful; and I am happy to say that the last of those exiles are now on their way either to the shores of England or to the shores of the United States, according to their own choice and wishes. That, however, was but a momentary difficulty. It was one, however, which called forth the most honourable expression of generous feeling on the part of the people of this country. But there has been another subject, far longer in duration, requiring far greater and more determined exertions, far more considerable sacrifices, in regard to which the people of this country have performed their duty in a manner which will make their name honoured to the latest ages. I am adverting now to the question of slavery and the slave-trade. The crimes committed in regard to African slavery and the African slave-trade, if they could be put together, are, I am sure, greater in amount than all the crimes that ever were committed by the human race from the beginning of the world to the present time. I am satisfied that, if you put together all the individual crimes which the most guilty men ever committed, they would not occasion such an amount of human misery as has been created by that detestable and infernal traffic. We ourselves-rather, our forefathers, those who went before us-were stained with the same guilt; and it required a great sense of right, and great exertions on the part of good men who lived in those days-Wilberforce and Clarkson, and others-to wean this country from the course to which it had been wedded, and to induce the people of this country to abandon the slavetrade themselves. They succeeded. We began by washing our hands of this guilt. Then we did that which was a great and noble deed; we emancipated our slaves at a great pecuniary sacrifice to this country. Never was a sacrifice made with more cheerfulness and more willingness, however small it might be, than that great sacrifice which the people of this country then made. Gentlemen, our example has been of great value. I do not mean to say that the people of France, who very early took a strong interest in that cause, would not, possibly, of their own accord have done what they have done; but it was not till after we had begun that they pursued the same track. They have now pursued it. They have abolished their own slave-trade, and they have emancipated their own slaves. This, then, is an additional bond of union between two great nations. Some nations are united in the bonds of mutual injustice; here the union consists in a community of humanity and noble benevolence. Gentlemen, we have laboured long in this course-the present government most anxiously and sincerely; but we