10 ANNUAL RE 
sentlemen at the head of administra- 
tion, could not subscribe to all the 
statements of our prosperity in the 
speech. At least he was sure they 
were not borne out by the situation 
of the district in which he happened 
to reside, He should however be 
happy to find the assertions of mi- 
nisters verified, although they were 
not agreeable to his own. individual 
experience. He feared ministers 
had been equally mistaken in the 
views of France, when they per- 
mitted themselves to be lulled into 
a fatal security by the professions 
of that government. We had now 
seen all the powers of the continent 
reduced to a state of subjection; 
we had seen the virtuous and unof- 
fending Swiss nation prostrated be- 
fore the feet of France,without even 
a remonstrance on the part of this 
country—and perhaps many of the 
bravest Swiss patriots would soon 
share the fate and dungeon of 
Toussaint. He joined the hon. mem- 
ber who spoke last, in regretting the 
secession of those great talents, 
which conducted the affairs of this 
country through the vicissitudes of 
the late war ; and hoped they would 
again come fcrward in the defence 
of the country, should war now 
become necessary, 
Mr. Pytches opposed not only 
this address, but the whole spirit cf 
addresses presented on similar occa- 
sions, which he conceived were no- 
thing but servile echoes of ministerial 
sentiments into which the house had 
been cajoled year after year, under 
pretence of payingacustomary com- 
pliment to his majesty. ‘The present 
address was so heterogeneous in its 
composition, and embraced so many 
diflerent objects, that it appeared to 
him a sort of political salmagundi. 
GISTER, ©1863. 
He disapproved of the practice of 
speeches from the throne, which, 
with the addresses that followed, he 
considered a piece of bad machinery 
and of servile adulation,which every 
good monarch should execrate and 
forbid. As to the particular parts 
of this speech he should for the pre- 
sent decline to observe upon them, 
as they were topics which must be 
discussed in the course of the ses 
sion. 
Mr. Fox said, he should not have 
risen so early in the debate, if it had 
not been for some expressions 
which had fallen from other gentle- 
men, which had made it necessary 
for him to explain the grounds on 
which he gave his. cordial assent 
to the address. There was how- 
ever one expression in his majesty’s 
speech, respecting the blessings 
which were to be dertved from a 
legislative union with Ireland, which 
he never could approve of, although 
since that event had taken place 
he must wish every success and 
advantage might attend it. There 
was another material part of the 
address to which he had no objec- 
tion, but would conceive highly 
objectionable if he understood it 
in the sense in which it had been 
explained by the honourable mover, 
who supposed his majesty had re+ 
commended generally the extends 
ing our military establishments ; 
whereas the speech made mention 
“of no particular establishment, but 
only of such establishment as might 
be most calculated to give security 
to the country. When the question 
should come before the consider- 
ation of the house, those who 
thought large military establish= 
ments the most likely to obtain this 
object, would state their reasons: 
those, 
