compounded of two considerations—­the first, what the country may owe to others; the second, what she owes to herself.  I do not know whether any gentleman on the other side of the House has thought it worth while to examine and weigh these considerations, but Ministers had to weigh them well before they took their resolution.  Ministers did weigh them well; wisely, I hope; I am sure, conscientiously and deliberately:  and, if they came to the decision that peace was the policy prescribed to them, that decision was founded on a reference, first, to the situation of Spain; secondly, to the situation of France; thirdly, to the situation of Portugal; fourthly, to the situation of the Alliance; fifthly, to the peculiar situation of England:  and lastly, to the general state of the world.  And first, Sir, as to Spain.

The only gentleman by whom (as it seems to me) this part of the question has been fairly and boldly met, is the honourable member for Westminster (Mr. Hobhouse), who, in his speech of yesterday evening (a speech which, however extravagant, as I may perhaps think, in its tone, was perfectly intelligible and straightforward), not only declared himself openly for war, but, aware that one of the chief sinews of war is money, did no less than offer a subsidy to assist in carrying it on.  He declared that his constituents were ready to contribute all their means to invigorate the hands of Government in the war; but he annexed, to be sure, the trifling condition, that the war was to be a war of people against kings.  Now this, which, it must be owned, was no unimportant qualification of the honourable member’s offer of assistance, is also one to which, I confess, I am not quite prepared to accede.  I do not immediately remember any case in which such a principle of war has been professed by any Government, except in the decree of the National Convention of the year 1793, which laid the foundation of the war between this country and France—­the decree which offered assistance to all nations who would shake off the tyranny of their rulers.

Even the honourable member for Westminster, therefore, is after all but conditionally in favour of war:  and, even in that conditional pledge, he has been supported by so few members that I cannot help suspecting that if I were to proceed on the faith of his encouragement, I should find myself left with the honourable gentleman, pretty nearly in the situation of King James with his bishops.  King James, we all remember, asked Bishop Neale if he might not take his subjects’ money without the authority of Parliament?  To which Bishop Neale replied, ’God forbid, Sire, but you should; you are the breath of our nostrils.’  The King then turned to Bishop Andrews, and repeated the same question; when Bishop Andrews answered, ’Sire, I think it is lawful for your Majesty to take my brother Neale’s money, for he offers it,’ Now, if I were to appeal to the House, on the hint of the honourable gentleman, I should, indeed, on his own terms, have an undoubted right to the money of the honourable gentleman; but if the question were put, for instance, to the honourable member for Surrey (Mr. Holme Sumner), his answer would probably be, ’You may take my brother of Westminster’s money, as he says his constituents have authorized him to offer it; but my constituents have certainly given me no such authority.’