The Press. — London, England, 1856-07-19 00:00:00

He reminded hon. members, that if they insisted on pressing amendments to the motion that the Speaker do leave the chair, he (Mr. V. Smith) should be unable to bring forward the Indian budget at all. CIVIL SERVICE SUPERANNUATION BILL. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, in reply to Mr. Walpole, fixed Monday next for the discussion of this bill. THE AFFAIRS OF ITALY. LordJoHN RussELL rose, pursuant to notice, to move for an "address for c , pie3 or extracts of any recent communications which have taken place between her Majesty's Government and the Governments of Austria, Rome, and the kingdom of the Two Sicilies, relating to the affairs of Italy." As no discussion respecting the affairs of Italy had taken place since the address upon the treaty of peace, when protocols were on the table of the house, from which it ap peared that the affairs of Italy had been discussed at the conferences at Paris, the immediate object of his motion was to ask what had taken place in con • sequence of that discussion, and, if no satisfactory answers had been made to the representations of her Majesty and the Emperor of the French, what were the intentions of her Majesty's Government in re gard to the future ? Lord John Russell then called attention to the nature of the declarations made at the conierences, reading the statements made by Count Walewski, Lord Clarendon, Co; ant Buol, and Count Cavour, and referred especially to the occupa tion of parts of Italy by foreign troops, which, he observed, was a very modern practice, and in every Case was said to be only a temporary measure, but it had already lasted for seven years, a period without parallel in modern history. His question chiefly related to this point. If the Government of the country thus occupied was good, there was no need of foreign troops there; if bad, and the Govern ment continued so for seven years without amend ment, what prospect was there that it would be improved? Lord John Russell then read ex• tracts from the despatch of M. Drouyn de Lhuys, 17th April, 1849, addressed to M. Delacour, French Minister at Vienna, from the declaration of the Pope, April 18th, 1849, and from M. Drouyn de Lhuys to the English Government, 19th April, and from a despatch of Prince Schwarzenberg's to Count Colloredo, April 29th, in which the object of the occupation of Rome by the French troops and of Tuscany and the Legations by the Austrian troops is set forth as solely to secure the re-establishment of their social order and the restoration of the legiti mate Governments, and remarked that it was impos sible seven years could be required to attain so sim ple an object unless the system of government both in Rome and the Legations was so vicious as to render it necessary for the existence of those Go. vernments that the foreign troops should be con tinued in the States they occupied. Now, he con tended that foreign occupation was based upon an indefensible principle, and had never been sanctioned by the comity of civilised nations, except for a tem porary period, and to carry out an exceptional pur pose. Italy, however, for many years had been occupied by strange armies, who stood between the sovereigns and their subjects, and formed a source of perplexity which baffled all attempts at settlement. England, he maintained, was justified in demanding the withdrawal of these foreign troops, and was certainly bound in honour to our Sardinian ally not to leave him unaided in the midst of powerful enemies, whose efforts would inevitably be directed to crush the independence of Piedmont. We had gone too far to recede without disgrace to ourselves. After remonstrating so strongly, and censuring the conduct of Italian rulers so undisguisedly, we could not now without humiliation abstain from further action. It wits a question of honour with England and France not to abandon the affairs of Italy : I cannot but think that if France and Fngland, holding the position they do in Europe, should go to a conference of European powers, and declare that the Roman States are misgoverned, and point out a way in which that mis government can be remedied—that if they should de nounce the King of the Two Sicilies as a monarch whose rule was PO intolerable that even that general international law which forbids others to interfere in the internal affairs of foreign nations must be suspended against him—and yet in the end should allow the Austrian Government to treat them with haughty disdain, the Pope with positive denial, and the King of Naples with taunts and defiance, they would be humbled even to the dust. As a first practical step, France and England should declare that they would no longer permit the Austrian occupation. Italy was accessible at all points, and France and England would certainly be more than a match for the Emperor of Austria. Let the Italian people and their rulers settle the question of government between themselves. It might be asked how was it possible to carry these views into effect? He would reply, support the King of Sardinia, en courage the desire for an independent sovereign, conform to the growing feeling of resistance to foreign interference, and nourish the rising spirit of inde pendence : TIIE PRESS. I remember, sir, very long ago, having the honour of an interview in the Isle of Elba with the First Napoleon. The Emperor talked much of the States of Italy, and agreed in the observation which I had made that there was no union among them, and no likelihood of any effec tual resistance by them to their oppressors ; but when I asked him why Austria was so unpopular in Italy, he replied that it was because she governed, not with the sword (that was probably not a reflection which that great man would make), but that she had no other means of governing except by the " stick." I believe, sir, that that is the secret of the whole disfavour with which Aus tria is viewed in Italy. Taking this to be the fact, T say that you have a means ready to your hands for rousing the feelings of the Italian people, and that if we and the Emperor of the French once declare that we shall not allow the States of the Pope to be occupied by Austria beyond a certain fixed date, the attainment of their cva• cuation will be a matter of comparative ease. One thing, indeed, I have heard, and it is a mere whisper, a sur mise—namely, that the Government of the Emperor of the French, which agreed with us so much at Paris that its Minister for Foreign Affairs took the initiative, is not prepared at present to protest any further against the foreign occupation of Italy. I, for one, sir, cannot believe—l think it is impossible to believe—that a sovereign who was so faithful an ally to this country—who during the late war proved himself so ready to aid us, and to act in every way as became a monarch true to his engage ments, would ever lead the King of Sardinia to rely on his support, and then allow that hope to be disappointed. The matter to which I allude may be one of some time—it may require the adaptation of the various means to the end in view. It is for her Majesty's Government to carry on communications on this subject. They have the time before them in which to do so; but this I will say, I can not but think that, if having done, and having proclaimed so much we are contented with the refusal of all that we propose—if we sit down quietly without obtaining any improvement in the condition of Italy, it will be to us a ground of everlasting reproach. _ _ Lord Byron had said that the cause of Italian free dom was the very " poetry of politics." He believed that it was the poetry of politics and a very practical question as well. It was one on which our credit and character depended, and that before Parliament separated the Government should make some defi nite declaration as to the steps they intended to pursue. Lord PALMERSTON said, Lord John Russell wished to know what were the intentions of her Majesty's Government with respect to the occupation of the Roman States by foreign troops—whether they meant to let the matter drop altogether, or what steps they proposed to take. He thought the house would feel that when her Majesty's Government, in conjunction with that of the Emperor of the French, were engaged in official representations, with a view of obtaining the cessation of this abnormal occupa tion, it was not an occasional disappointment which should induce them to desist from endeavouring to accomplish the object, and that it would be unbe coming in them to state what steps they might think it right to take ; but he had no hesitation in saying that he did not abandon the hope that the object of the two Governments would be ultimately accomplished. With respect to Rome, if the Pope would only put in force the limited reforms promised in his Motu proprio of '49, which professed to establish an Elective Municipal Council on an extended franchise, a Council of State, and a Council of Finance, he believed that foreign occupation would he no longer necessary. With regard to Naples, the representa tions of France and England had not hitherto been attended with any successful result. But as with Rome so with Naples,—ber Majesty's Government did not despair. Beyond that he could say nothing. Regarding Sardinia, he gave full assent to every I view expressed by Lord John Russell : My noble friend had said that the fact of the King of Sardinia having so nobly and gallantly associated himself with France and England in the war which has just been brought to a close has given him a right, a moral right, to the support and protection of those countries should any danger assail him, not brought about by provocation on his own part. I think he is too well advised to give such provocation; and, therefore, if ever he should be in circum stances of danger, the Governments of England and France would be bound by every tie of honour, as repre senting theae two great nations, to assist him to the utmost of their power. I am satisfied, however, that the know ledge of such ties existing between Sardinia and England and France will of itself be sufficient to prevent Sardinia, if not from being threatened—and I believe it will never be more than threatened—at least from being assailed with such dangers as will render it necessary for us to interpose in order to repel them. He agreed also that it would be desirable to encou rage those Soveratgns of Italy whose territories are either free, like those of the Grand Duke of Tuscany, or occupied, like those of Parma, and who wish either to retain or regain their independence; and that it would be the duty of settled Governments, like those of England and France, who object in general to these occupations, to encourage those sovereigns in maintaining their independence. In conclusion, Lord Palmerston said he could not consent to the production of the papers which related to corre spondence still going on. SATURDAY, Mr. DISRAELI said : The noble lord the member for London has called our attention to a subject of the greatest interest and im portance; but of Italy it may be said that it must either be considered in a poetical or practical point of view. ire doubt there is no gentleman in this house who does not feel the greatest sympathy with Italy and the fortunes of the Italians. When we remember how much we owe to that country, that in ancient times it gave us our laws, and in modern times our arts, it is totally impossible that its condition can ever be a subject without lively interest to the House of Commons. ( Hear hear.) But that is the poetry of politics, as the noble lord has reminded us :And I cannot think, notwithstanding the high authority he quoted on the subject of poetry, that the house t) night will feel, on a discussion that may involve immediate consequeneesof the utmost importance to the people of this country, that we should indulge merely in the poetry of politics on the one hand, or of satisfaction on the other, with that vague explanation which we have just heard from the lips of the First Minister. ( Hear hear.) The noble lord the member for the city of London compensated us for dwelling on the poetry of the ques tion, and in a very businesslike manner, becoming the importance of the subject, reminded us of what occured at the recent conference at Paris, and of the important State papers to which, at that conference, the plenipotentiary of England had affixed his signature. The noble lord intro &aced the question to us with business details which the house clearly understood, and made us feel that, by the con duct of the English Minister at I'aris, this country had entered into engagements, according to the version and interpretation of the noble lord, which had placed this country in a position of grave responsibility. I cannot understand from the observations of the Minister who has just sat down that her Majesty's Minis ters have done, or are intending to do, anything which could have justified those protocols or the position which the plenipotentiary of this country assumed on that occa sion. ( Hear hear.) If all that the Ministry have done or intend to do are merely these routine representations to which the noble lord has just referred, and which he has promised, it does not appear to me that, at a conference called to settle questions of a very different character, it was necessary, or expedient, or politic, to have introduced the question of Italy as it was introduced at Paris—( Hear) —to have drawn up and signed these protocols, if all that hes been done, or is to be done, is, in fact, merely that diplo- matic action which, as I humbly conceive, might have taken place without so much ceremony, and without having, as the noble lord the member for London said, roused the passions of the population of Italy. ( Hear.) I want to know what is the deduction we are to draw from the inquiries of one member of this house, who has been First Minister of the country, and from the answer of another member of this house, who is the First Minister now, on a question that is indeed truly described as one interesting and important from its social character, but one in the treatment of which are involved urgent, perhaps immediate, consequences to the people of this country — to the state of their industry and the state of their com merce, the question of peace and war, and all the most vital subjects that can possibly engage the attention of this house or the consideration of statesmen. _ When I first listened to the observations of the noble lord I thought he was about to counsel action of the most decisive and energetic character. The noble lord said it was the duty of this country not to abandon the affairs of Italy. He laid down that position with the utmost pre cision. Now, I can hardly suppose that the noble lord, by declaring that it was the duty of this country not to abandon the affairs of Italy, could, after all that has oc curred on the subject, have confined his meaning merely to the communication of a note from a Minister to the Court of Naples or of Turin. ( Hear, hear.) The noble lord, indeed, stated there were circumstances which might demand the most decided conduct on the part of this country. He said, if Austria, for example, required the sup pression of the liberty of the press on the pai t of Piedmont, then there is no step which be should not be prepared to take on such an occasion. (Hear.) But, strange 1^ say, the only formal proposition tha" I find in the papers upon which the noble lord founded all his observations — that for repressing the liberty of the press—does not emanate from the Austrian plenipotentiary, but from the representative of our great ally, the Emperor of the French, by whose &A and whose aid alone these magni ficent visions of Italian regeneration are to be realised. Now, sir, if I look to the papers to which the noble lord has referred, I find language of a very precise elm racte• upon the subject of interference. The house will recollect that when the protocols of the conferences at Paris were first laid on the table, it appeared that upon the Bth of April it was Count Walewski, the French Secre tary of State for Foreign Affairs, who, when the treaty was signed for the settlement of the Eastern question, and when all those points were arranged which had given rise to the conferences, introduced in a formal manner to the consideration of the plenipotentiaries questions which had no immediate reference to the principal cause of their assembling. The house will recollect that, so far as the protocols would show us when they were laid on Our table, the responsibility of that introduction, which many thought not very adroit, rested with the French Minister. But there were subsequent papers placed on the table of the house which threw considerable light upon this point, and proved that it was not Count Walew ski who really was the cause of the subject being brought forward. It was upon the Bth of April that Count Wales , - ski, after the settlement of the main question, said:— It was desirable that the plenipotentiaries, before they sepa- rated, should interchange their ideas on different subjects which required to be settled, and which it might be advanta- geous to take up in order to prevent fresh complications. Then Count Walewaki went on with that remarkable exposition—fresh, I am sure, in the memory of every