The Press. — London, England, 1857-02-14 00:00:00

152 elucidated to the house. These are circumstances which demand our attention, and are entirely involved in the statement I made, and in the contradiction I received from the noble lord. What I complained of was that Italian policy was made a stalkiughorse by her Majesty's Govern ment. If the statement I made was a correct statement, I wanted that the Liberal party, who extenuate their lack of zeal in domestic affairs by their unlimited confidence in the foreign policy of the noble lord at the bead of the Government, should, not being yet sufficiently warned by the cases of Poland and Hungary, clearly understand that that Italy which they believed about to be regenerated, ac• cording to their ideas, by the noble lord, was the subject of very different policy and very different treatment. (Hear, hear.) The charges contained in Lord Palmerston's contra diction involved two allegations:— The first allegation of the noble lord was this,—that my statement that there was a treaty, and a secret treaty, in existence, by which France guaranteed to Austria the security of her Italian dominions, was altogether a fiction; that there was no such treaty in existence ; that there was not the slightest foundation for the statement, and that, to use the noble lord's words, "it was a romance." (" Hear," and laughter.) That was the first alleg.ttion involved in the contradiction I received from the noble lord. The second allegation involved in that contradiction was a derisive hypothesis. The noble lord said, "if there be such a treaty" (though the noble lord before stated there was none ), " and if the right hon. gentleman has seen it, all I can say is that I have not seen it nor heard of it. The Government have heard nothing of it, and, instead of advising it, if we had known anything about it, our advice would have been against making any arrangements of the kind." 'Those are the two allegations—l think I have fairly stated them—involved in the contradiction given by the noble lord ; and the rest of the noble lord's speech need not at this moment be touched upon. I will now address myself to the first allegation—that the whole thing is a romance; that there is no such treaty; that it is pure invention ; and that I either had been hoaxed or myself created the fiction in the heat of debate. Now, let me come to what my statement is, and I wish the house to do me the honour of attending at this moment to what lam about to state. My statement is, that engage. ments were negotiated between France and Austria with the object—the main object of guarareeeing on the part of France the security of the Italian dominions of Austria ; that these negotiations were carried to a successful con clusion ; that they were expressed in writing; that that form of written instrument assumed the shape of a treaty, and of a secret treaty; and that that treaty was executed on the 22nd of December, 1854. ( Hear, hear.) In answer to the first allegation the noble lord said, that there was no treaty whatever, and that it was a romance. lam here to restate that which I uttered the other night, to give the very date of the instrument, with the form, purport, and oaject of that instrument. (Hear, hear.) I now come to the second allegation contained in the contradiction which I received from the noble lord—an allegation which the house would perfectly remember was uttered in a spirit of derision. I will, however, give the advantage to the noble lord of taking it gravely. (Hear, hear.) The second allegation contained in the noble lord's denial was, that " if such treaty had been seen by the right hon. gentleman, I have not seen it and the Government have not heard of it, and instead of advising it, the Go vernment would have recommended, had they known of it, that it should not be concluded." Now I have in my possession evidence, irresistible evidence, which proves to me that throughout the whole of the negotiations of this treaty which I declare to have been executed on the 22nd of December, 1551, by which the security of the Italian dominions of Austria is guaranteed by France—l repeat that throughout the whole of the negotiations to obtain this secret treaty her Majesty's Government were priv - , to them from the first—( Hear, hear)—that the negotiations re ceived their concurrence-1 will shy .their cordial concur• rence; and that they finally advised the execution of the treaty. The house will at least agree in thinking that, as far as I am concerned, I have not avoided the issue. ( Hear, hear.) I have, as fairly as I could, placed before the house the very pith and marrow of the contradiction I re ceived from the noble lord, and his two allegations I have fairly met. (Hear, hear.) Hut I have some further state ment to make on this subject.. I state to the house now that that treaty was not only executed on the 22nd of Der cember, 1531, with the cognisance of her Majesty's Go vernment, but that it was largely and extensively acted on ; that in consequence of that secret treaty Austria withdrew a large portion of her troops from Italy, and the Italian Governments throughout the peninsula became alarmed ; and that Austria obtained from the French Government permission to communicate confidentially to the Italian Governments, in order to " tranquillise" them—and that, I believe, was the very word used on the occasion—the nature of the engagement entered into between the two countries. Now, I would make upon that point it further statement—namely, that the fact of Austria having ob tained that permission, and of her having communicated that secret treatv to the Italian Governments, was known to her Majesty's Government. The noble lord has said that I have had access to archives and have rental treaties of which he never hearth I will refer now to archives of which the noble lord has hearth I will refer to the archives of that Office over which he has long presided, and I tell the noble lord that if he will refer tag the corresponde nce with foreign Governments now in the archives of Downing-street, during the month of December, 18:14, and January, 1855, and if he will assist me to obtain ( which I believe would not be necessary) any evidence which might be requi s it e t o e li c i t some of the passages, I w ill undertake to prove every tittle of the asser tions that I have made. Lord PALMERSTON replied by disclaiming all inten tion of throwing any imputation upon the personal THE PRESS. character or honour of Mr. Disraeli ; all he had im puted to him was credulity in believing implicity what he had been told regarding this matter. His charge against her Majesty's Government was that while they professed great interest for the Italians, and to encourage Italian nationality, they instigated and encouraged the French Government to give a guarantee to Austria of her Italian dominions. He (Lord Palmerston) had said that, to the best of his knowledge, there was no such treaty ; nor had Mr. Disraeli, he said, given any proof of its existence. He had only hearsay evidence from some authority not named. The noble lord then continued : I have already said that the only foundation I can imagine for such a rumour is that, in the early part of the war, when there was a hope that. Austria might have joined the allies against Russia, a convention was drawn up be tween France and Austria containing an undertaking on the part of Austria that she should enter into an alliance against Russia, end that, if she did do so, France should not take advantage of that state of things to molest her Italian possessions. That, sir, I believe, is literally the only foundation for the statement of the right hon. gen tleman. Lord Palmerston having admitted the existence of a " convention," proceeded to detail the circumstances under which it originated:— In the latter part of the year 18-14 it was hoped that Austria would conclude a treaty, offensive and defen sive, with England and France, in order that her armies might enter into hostile relations with Russia. Naturally, then, it became the wish of Austria to know if Russia had pursued a course which she might have done without any great departure from the practice of belligerents in modern warfare—if she had excited insurrections in Italy—what would be the course which France would take? She wished to be sure that France would not encourage such risings and disturbances ; but, moreover, that if that state of things arose, if the arms of Austria were to join those of France and England, in case of disturbances arising, the French forces in Italy would act in concert with whatever forces Austria might have in those court tries, and protect, not Austria only, but her Italian terri tories. These intentions were undoubtedly known to her Majesty's Government, and those arrangements were em bodied in the shape of a convention. The right hon. gentleman says that the treaty of which he speaks was signed on a certain day in Paris; but we— the Government—have learned from the very best autho rity, and that no later than yesterday, that that convention never was signed. Bat the convention was as different from a treaty such as the right hon. gentleman spoke of as was possible for two things to be. Between that convention and a guarantee there is an " abyss "—an impassable barrier. What I deny is, that there exists, to our knowledge and belief, any treaty in which the French guaranteed to main tain the integrity of the Austrian possessions in Italy. I a:n inclined to believe that a temporary convention such as I have described was entered into, bat that it was never signed. And why ? Because it was intended to take effect whenever Austria should join the forces of England and France against Russia; but Austria never did join. It was her policy to remain neutral in the conflict. There fore the case never arose; and, therefore, I am inclined to believe that the information we have received is more accu rate than that received by the right hon. gentleman. The convention was limited as to the parties, limited as to space, limited in its effect, and limited as to its duration, and it never was signed by the parties. The subject then dropped. SIR .1. 31‘11EILL AND coLosr.r. Lord PALMERSTON, in reply to Mr. J. E wart as to whether it was the intention of the Government to make special recognition of the services of Sir John APNeill and Colonel Tulloch, paid a high compli ment to those gentlemen for their report, but said that it did not appear to the Government that their services were of such a nature as to call for the ex traordinary course of conferring upon them honours from the Crown. In further reply to Mr. Layard whether it was true that advancement in the army was offered to Colonel Tutloch before he went out, and that since then many of his juniors had been promoted over his head, Lord Palmerston said he was not aware of any offer of the kind having been made to Colonel Tutloch. OUR RELATION 3 WITH NAPLES. Mr. B. COCHRANE wished to ask when the papers relative t. , ) Naples would he laid upon the table? Lord PALMERSTON replied that they were in pre• paration, and would be laid upon the table of the house in a few days. BEER TRADE. The house having gone into committee, on the motion of Mr. HARDY, that hon. member proceeded to ask leave to introduce a bill to amend the laws relating to the sale of beer by retail, and to regulate certain places of public resort, refreshment, and entertainment. This measure, as he explained it, was designed to provide more stringent regulations for houses in which beer was sold ; to oblige the keepers of coffeehouses and other places for refresh ments that were open at night to take out licences, and place their establishments under the surveillance of the police. The motion was seconded by Mr. 13At.t., and leave given to bring in the bill. Leave was also given to the Marquis of BLANDFORD to bring in a bill making further provisions for the mode of securing and paying fixed incomes to eccle siastical corporations, aggregate and sole. SATURDAY, On the motion of Lord PALMERSTON a select committee was appointed to consider so much of the second report of the Statute law Commissioners as relates to the proposition therein made for the adop tion of means to improve the manner and language of current legislation. The purport of this proposi tion, as the noble viscount stated, was to appoint an officer whose special function should be to prepare bills for Parliament, and to watch over them while passing through the Legislature, so as to secure the final enactment of well-expressed, consistent, and workable laws. Sir G. GREY obtained leave to bring in a bill to facilitate the appointment of chief constables of adjoining counties, and to confirm the appointments of chief constables in certain cases. Sir S. NORTHCOTE obtained leave to bring in • bill to make better provision for the care and educa tion of vagrant, destitute, and disorderly children, and for the extension of industrial schools. HOUSE OF COMMONS.—WEDNESDAY. The Merpsey Conservancy Bill was read a second time. JUDGMENTS EXECUTION DILL. ➢ir. CRAUFURD moved the second teading of the bill. Colonel FRENCH opposed the bill, especially its application to Ireland, and moved to defer the second reading for six months. This aMendment was seconded by Mr. WMArtoN. Mr. BLIND, Mr. GEORGE, and Mr. H. HUGHE3 strongly objected to the bill upon the ground that the bill wag founded upon a violation of the principle that the process of a court should only be used for the purpose of enforcing the judgments of that court. Mr. FITZGERALD defended the bill, the nature of which, he observed, had been misunderstood or mis represented, its object being to remedy a stste of things which was a disgrace to the law. The bill had gone through a select committee, where all its objectionable provisions had been expunged, and its principle had been four times sanctioned by the house. ➢lr. Nsrtrn observed that after the bill had passed the select committee, it had been discussed and rejected by the house. He admitted that there had been some misconception and exaggeration respect ing the measure, but it was by no means a perfect one, and he pointed out two main objections—first, that by some of the provisions the claim of a creditor would receive greater vitality than it possessed at present under the law ; and, secondly, that English creditors pursuing a debtor in Ireland would enjoy undue advantages over the Irish creditors. The law of judgments was a large branch of our jurispru dence, and ought to be treated as a whole. The ATTORNEY•GENER\L, in supporting the bill, observed that there were two classes of objections to it—first, that there were more Irish than English debtors; second, that there were technical detals in the bill which required amendment. These might be obviated in committee; and, as to the former objection, l►e did not believe that any Irish member would found his opposition to the bill upon the ground that it would give English creditors greater facilities for compelling a large class of Irish debtors to pay their debts. Upon a division the second reading was carried by 50 against 40. TRUST PROPERTY. The ATTORNEY-GENERALgavo notice that on Friday, the 20th of February, he should move for leave to bring in a bill to render frauds by trustees criminally punishable. HOUSE OF LORDS.—TilunspAy. GREECE. Lord CLARENDON, in reply to Lord Clanricarde, explained the circumstances which had led, during the war, to the occupation, and which, now that war had ceased, would lead to the evacuation of Greece by the allies. The allied forces had been despatched to suppress any attempt to excite insurrections in the neighbouring Turkish provinces during the late war. The war being now over the troops would be withdrawn. With respect to any proposed inter ference in the domestic government of the country, Lord Clarendon said : We do not intend to interfere beyond ascertaining what is the state of their finances, in pursuance of the sugges tion of the Greek Government. The only correspondence at this moment which I can lay on the table is that which passed between the Russian and French Governments as to the business which the commission should really under take ; and, before the commission is established, it would be premature to make that public. SECONDARY PUNISHMENTS. .... ..,..,. The Marquis of SALISBURY moved for the appoint• ment of a select committee to investigate the ques tion of secondary punishments. The noble lord enforced the necessity of finding some efficient substitute for transportation, and commented upon the deficiencies and anomalies in tho present system of prison discipline.