The Sun. — London, England, 1859-08-09 00:00:00

T 1 E SUN, rIAONDON, TUESDAY ENTNING, AUGUST 9, 1859. that the policy of the late Government was not one of neu trality, would there have been any difficulty in carrying a motion demanding the observance of neutra lit y ? The mo tion of his n o bl e friend was one of the same kind, and it was made because there was a distrust of the motives of the noble lord opposite, who it was believed would enter a con gress with a view to afford assistance to the Emperor of the French at this moment of difficulty. It was, therefore, de sired that the opinion of the House of Commons should be expressed that such a policy was inconsistent with the honour of this country. There never was in our history, at a moment s o important as respected our policy, conduct like that p ursue d by the Government. The noble lord had doled out scrap by scrap; and bit by bit, such information as he thought would suit his purpose. In the first place , they had a despatch written by our Minister at Turin and the answer of the noble lord. He (Mr. Fitzgerald) had asked if the noble lord could produce the despatch to Berlin of the 22d of June, and he replied that it would not be for the interest of the public service/that it should be produced , and that it would give imperfect information. That despatch shortly after appeared in some of the German journals, and the noble lord then produced the despatch in the very form which he said was objectionable, without any reference to a context and without comment. In a short time the re mainder of the correspondence appeared in the German Journals, and we obtained a knowledge of the despatch writ ten by our Minister at Berlin to the noble lord. The noble l ord produced only a solitary extract from the despatch, without a wo r d from which an opinion could be formed as to our policy, and we were still ignorant as to what had been written by the noble lord to Paris or to Turin ; we know no thing of what the noble lord had addressed to our Ministers at those courts, or what answers he had received, and we were equally ignorant of any communication which had been made by the noble lord to the cabinet of St. Petersburg. If We had this imperfect information it was the fault of the noble lord, who left the house in a state of uncertainty with egard to the policy of the Government. The speech of the noble lord the member for Haddingtonshire had had one good effect, for while it had elicited from the right hon. gen tleman(Mr. Gladstone) a speech which carefully avoided 'the main question, it enabled the house to judge what were the opinions of the right hon. gentleman with regard to neutrality. The noble lord (J. Russell) said the other night sand it had been repeated by the right hon. gentleman— that it was not to be supposed that he would go into a con gress merely to carry out preliminaries of peace which had keen settled at Villafranca. He did not say that such a impossible as that could be done ; but in a case like this it was unpossible for England to stand by and remain in ignor ance of the measures which were proposed with regard to ' t al3r. But the noble lord said something further, which ' e stablished the case of the noble lord the member for Had dingtonshire ; for the noble lord said it would be as well not to go into a congress at all with a prospect of doing nothing Ho (Mr. Fitzgerald) said that no subject could 'come before the congress in the shape of a proposition to free Italy which would not involve disagreement between al l Parties. He desired to ask the noble lord one question. It resembled a question put by the noble lord to Count Berns torff in one of the despatches before them. He wished to be if he entered the congress, whether there would not ue a difference on an essential point in which the majority Would be against him ? If that was the view the noble lord took of the congress it was not likely . to secure peace, but to rekindle war. There was anotherpomt of importance. It was Perfectly clear that the noble lord must have accepted the terms f rom Count Persigny with a strong expression of approval, or how else could the Emperor have received this I nformation which would have justified him in making the c ommunication he did to the Emperor of Austria. It was clear something like this must have occurred, that Count Persigny must have informed his master that corn- Muuications were passing between the English Govern- Ment and the Government at Berlin, and that the pro torso's he had met with the sanction and approval of her ajestv's Government. There was one other question Which 'he wished to ask. The noble lord said he handed the paper to the Austrian Minister without comment, and , * aid he was not responsible for its terms. Did he say he had nothing to do with them nor had the court of Berlin either? Or did he, by saying "I am not responsible," lead Count Apponyi to believe that the Government of Berlin had cognisance of them. (Hear, hear.) This transaction i.-td produced most important effects; he would not say it had raised difficulties between them and their ally of F rance—he had been a faithful ally; he (Mr. Fitzgerald) believed he was sincere in his desire to cultivate the alli ance with England, and that he was disposed to make B amifices to meet the demands of public opinion in this country. The misadventure of the noble lord may, perhaps, not have raised difficulties ad with him, but he must feel that b ad a at least laced him in a false position. (Hear, hear ide.)l done this it had me the chasm wr be tween England and'Austria, it must have raised distrust ~a n d suspicion in the court of Berlin, and had introduced distrust into the heart of the German Confederation. It W as most important that the noble lord should make a clean breast and satisfy the House of Commons how it was that j min a transaction apparently so trivial results so fru rlrlant had followed. (Hear, hear.) He had occupied the me of the hou s e much longer than he had intended. (near, hear.) He had endeavoured to keep close to the Question raised by the resolution, and he was desirous to 'Plow that on the point which the noble lord had to answer ;r had t a k en a course i ncons i s t en t w ith th e h onou r, the l gnifY, and the interests of this country. (Hear.) The Noble lord admitted the time had passed when a theoretical nd sentimental policy could be enforced by arms. He (11 / 4 1 r. Fitzgerald) wanted the house to say they would in augurate a new policy, not that meddling poliey which had !narked their course for the last 25 years, and which had .?.en repudiated by every man of influence. (Hear, hear.) 'le would be asked would he have the country remain jttwerless in the councils of Europe ? Certainly not, t _it was in that house her influence should be exer- was not by the meddling of ministers or ambassa dors, but by the proud position which she held, and by the free expression of exalted sentiment, that she influenced foreign nations. By that she would do more to secure their happiness than by mysterious negotiation, and she would " e cure her.ewn, honour and her own interest. (Cheers.) L ordaf...VANE opposed the motion. Mr ..B , COCHRANE said that if he had felt any dqubt as to thy expediency of the motion now before the house, that doubt would have been set at rest after his having heard the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He had never heard a speech which betrayed so strongly the f eeling with which the Government would approach the c onference, if they were permitted to do so. There were Parts of that speech weich he regretted to hear. There were some psrts that would not have disgraced Mazzini himself. (Oh, oh.) He had been unable to follow the right hon. gentleman in his ideas with regard to isolation, for k the re were pos iti ons w hen an isolated policy was that of i t ue, greatest dignity . When the French were placsd in an gted position on what was called the Eastern question of the treaty of July, 1840, M. Guizot eloquently explained to t he Chambe rs th a t, a lth oug h isolation was not the normal state of a country, there were yet conditions in which, from not having been consulted with regard to arrangements, an is olated poli c y b ecame one o f di gn ity. The late war had „ o be en undertaken in s pit e of every effort to the contrary on "le part of the lat e G overnmen t ; and, therefore, the present Gv ernment must either go to the conference, merely to regi ster the acts of other Powers, or by mixing themselves up with the Italian question they would be assuming a respon sibility which would ultimately rest heavily upon them. The despatches of Lord Malmesbury would prove the great tact, ability, and impartiality with which that noble lord h ad approached the question, and his views had been ably carried out by Lord Cowley. But the negotiations subse quent to the contest on which it was now proposed to enter were of a Very different character. He distrusted the noble fords at the head of the Government; because from their a ntecedents they could not enter with impartiality into the congress but must attend it as the advocates of a the Particular policy. He looked back to 1848, - and found that interference of the noble lord (Lord Palmerston) bad raYs been attended with disaster to the country that was T e object of his diplomatic exertions. Naples, Sicily,lo.nd that. I were all alike and there was a prevalent feeling 't was owing to his advice that thennfortunate Charles made his ill-advised attack on Austria. Viewed as a Whole the noble lord's policy had certainly been of a cha ho~er that did no t i nsp i re con fid ence f or t h e f u t ure . The n°lli ntervention which this country was bound to adopt .but a a non-intervention not merely of arms and protocols, non-intervention. also in respect of violence of laa -411, ,age,.and. an abstinence from all expressions of strong "Pinion. (Cheers.) Mr. GILPIN believed it wou ld no t b e d es i ra bl e t o bi n d t he hands of the Government against upholding -interests teardear to the people of England, and would therefore give a to the people of England, and would therefore give a earty support to the amendment. The ODONOHIJE resented the strong remarks of the C hancellor of the EXchequer with reference to' the tempo ral authority of the Pope, and declared that he would no lo nger give his support to a Government which could enunciate such sentiments. ft ahcotilir. MILNES took an opposite view, and eulogised e o p n ee t c o h th of e t c h o e un C t ha ry n . cellor as one which would give sods 'Mr. HENNESSY reviewed the social condition and in !erne' prosperity of the Papal States, and conleded that the Government of the Supreme Pontiff had been systema tically libelled in that house. HORSMAN said he had listened with great admire ' ni to the powerful and spirited speech of the right hon. rntlenaan the Chancellor of the Exchequer. At the same Inie he had felt a little surprise at the very remarkable orniss' e y,„„ I r'ne b which it was characterised. The right hon. Spoke in glowing terms of the past and future e Austria, ; anche showed them what would be the future of bri strengthened by the new disposition of her Italian i o l gre - :: n al e l es. But he altogether omitted to show how the aPPiness of Italy or the future prosperity of Austria would advanced byjEngland going into a European con afin,• The mo ti on of hi s no b le fr i en d was a very prec i se an d c'teite application of an existing rule of policy to a case ually s ra u n b g m e i i t y ted to the Government and awaiting its de on e moment this notice was given. That was a fact the and conveniently-kept out of sight during Zdebate, It had been forgotten that the motion origi rioted in a public announcement of the Minister of the ol , 1 ; ° ;° 11 , that the proposal was actually before the Cabinet that —e • ci subject of our being parties to a conference; and ;"? Government were con t em plating . that very act the this motion deprecated and condemned. What was • i n d e alling of the terms used by the Minister, " that we enter into a conference for the purpose of improving aiciearngternents not finally concluded, but still open to con -we ?" He (Mr. Horsman) took that to mean that . might the into a conference for the purpose of im royl, tta;teon:anttyeeiatn:hr[ details of that treaty of which the bases had took to. His noble friend (Lord Elcho) immedi • nort the alarm and gave his notice. Some days had his Ned, and some delay had taken place, for which 8 noble friend was not responsible, and it , appeared the interim the idea of a conference had been aban • _ But on what ground had it been abandoned ? On I,v.,iett-rdioaru:ntdolioofythe resolution that it would be at variance which Parliament had recently affirmed, or e only atemporary abandonment in consequence o4.bsannonmte. preliminary impediments not . being yet removed, the P r incipal im ed'ment beino. the unwillingness of Austria to of hers Pelf I to such a conference ? Under the pressure _ immediate and not remote contingency, his noble friend called upon the house to stand by the principle it had tecently affirmed of strict neutrality and above all not to be allured in the eleventh hour to plunge into a sea of Emrplications, through which th e o ld est statesman of „i u ope did n o t pretend that he eould see his way. What s our present position with regard to international policy? From the c ommencement of these Italian complications the British Cabinet clearly and positively laid down two prin , eiples of action The first was, that it was th e i r duty, repre sentingt Ting the national sentiment of E ng l an d , to make every y to avert war ; and the second, th a t it was equally their lut to ob serve strict neutrality, wheth er th ere should be Peace or war. He thought it was important for the strength of our own position that the house should acknow ledge that the late Government had maintained those two Principles honourably and consistently throughout. Their declaratio n o f neutrality was steadily adhered to—they were unw avering_ to th e c l ose ; an d v i ew i ng th e po li cy of the late tjovernment as a whole—not picking out detached passages from the Blue Book here and there—he believed it repre sented th e national sentiments and that it upheld the u ationalicharacter. (Hear, hear.) He would not take any pains to show that, because he did not wish to enter into a controversy about the despatches in the Blue Books, but it was a' question which affected them nationally far more than it affected the hon. - gentleman opposite. Such was the state of our foreign relations when the present Go vernment came into office. (Hear, hear.) There have been addresses from all parts of England—from all classes of the people—containing one universal declaration in favour of a strict and impartial neutrality. He did not know when such unanimity existed in this country be fore. (Hear, hear.) Now, they were told that this motion would fetter the Executive, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer said it was a most unusual motion. He (Mr. Horsman) did not want to , fetter the Government more than they wished to do themselves while sitting on the other side of the house ; and when he was told the motion was unusual, he might retort by saying that the conduct of the Government was unusual ; for while on the other side the principle of neutrality was upheld, now they had taken their places on this side of the house they said that neutrality ought to be turned into partisanship. (Hear, . hear.) The hon. and learned gentleman (Mr. Kinglake) said he would throw upon the Government all the responsibility of this matter; but what was the respon sibility of Ministers ? Suppose their policy was disap proved, they were merely turned out of office. (Laughter.) That was not much, for right hon. gentlemen took a high position on the other side of the house, and they might come into office again in a few days. (Hear, hear.) Respon sibility being such a very light affair, it was the duty of the house to take this precaution to prevent that which they could not afterwards rectify. (Hear, hear.) There was a mystery which had not been unravelled; but, per haps, it would be in the course of the evening by the Secre tary for Foreign Affairs. There had been a small bit of paper presented to a foreign ambassador by our Minister for Foreign Affairs, who did not approve of the contents nor disapprove of them, who did not recommend nor depre ciate them, but who simply made himself the channel of communication of the document. But the delivery by this country of that bit of paper to Austria had had the effect of bringing about the peace—a peace in which England was ignored, or there would not have been such a tardy recog nition of her position in making known to her the result of that peace. (Hear.) In a short time, however, it was found that that peace would not work, for Italy was exas perated and disgusted, and the imperial prestige was sorely perplexed. The noble lord at the head of the Government had on two occasions sacrificed power for the French alliance, and yet he now believed that he was the man who, if any man could do it, was to persuade an English House of Commons to throw to the winds the principle of neu trality, of which he had so recently become enamoured. England, then, was the Emperor's hope, and the congress was his instrument, and England would go to that con gress, and send her representative there, and she would be outvoted, outwitted, and bamboozled according to all pre cedent ; and then the result would be most satisactory, for it would relieve France of all difficulties, and saddle Eng land with new embarrassments and responsibilities. (Hear.) It was the indication on the part of the noble lord of his readiness to go into a congress which made his noble friend (Lord Elcho) give notice of his motion, and that motion would test the House of Commons, and it would be a most valuable test of the sincerity of the house as to its adhesion to the new policy on which they had lately made such strong declarations. (Hear.) There was another reason why Eng land should not take part in the intended conference. There was a law of public morality which England should be the first to respect. We had not been able to hold back the arms of the French, to save the loss of human life, and to avert carnage ; but we should not be the first to rush for ward to crown the victor and grasp the hand still reeking with the blood of 100,000 of their fellow-creatures, and he hoped the result of the motion would be to prevent Govern ment from doing so ; for however we might go into the conference as the impartial ally of France, we should come out of it as the dupe and scapegoat of the French Emperor. France was now in difficulties from which she hoped to escape by the interference of England ; but England should not interfere unless she could do so with dignity and effect, and her interference, under present circumstances, would be sure to be followed by disappointment, dishonour, and disgrace. (Cheers.) Mr. S. HERBERT said he was at a loss to know what amount of faith he should place In the history of past events when he found the history of contemporaneous events so misrepresented as they that night had been by the right hon. gentleman the member for Stroud. The right hon. gentleman stated that her Majesty's Government snatched at an offer to take part in the congress, but he (Mr. S. Her bert) was at a loss to know where he acquired that inform A.- tion. The statement of the First Lord of the Treasury had not furnished him with it. The noble lord merely stated ;hat proposals had been made to this country to join in the _ _ _ congress, not for the settlement of the details of the peace —for that was the province of the belligerents, and of the belligerents alone—but that, peace having been settled, that then we, in common with the other States of Europe, should decide what were the measures to be taken for the future of Italy. But the right hon. gentleman said that the House of Commons had information in regard to the conference which her Majesty's Government did not possess. The noble lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs had the other evening stated all th'e difficulties which attached to our going into a congress, and that it was impossible to do so un less we knew what was to be the starting-point of the negotiations ; but the right hon. gentleman was not so cautious ; for he stated that any Government which at all took part in the congress would be worthy of the reprehen sion of the country. But what he (Mr. S. Herbert) would ask were the terms of the peace they were going to settle ? (Hear, hear.) It appeared from the terms of the motion, which , had the credit of being full of original political maxims, that as England had maintained a strict neutrality in the war, she had therefore no right to meddle wit h the peace. Werei the English people for all time to keep their minds in a state of indifference and uninfluenced by sym pathy for either nation, because some months ago France and Austria had been at war ? Such a thing was not possible in human nature, and there was no such doctrine laid down in Vattel. Did either of the noble lords, either the First Lord of the Treasury or the noble lord the member for Loadon, sayone word of the d etermination on whichGovemment would go into the congress, although they stated the conditions on which alone they would do so, and yet the right hon. gen tleman charged them with having snatched at the proposal ? Bnt was there no precedent for a neutral taking part in a congress for the settlement of peace f During the Russian war Austria maintained a strict, though not an impartial, n eutrality, for she rendered to this country services which could not be fully acknowledged. During that war, too, Prussia had been neutral, although her sympathies had been with Russia, and yet both these neutral Powers shared in the settlement of the peace. But, after all, the question was not one which regarded the past , as muoh as it did the future. Was Italy to be blamed for the course she had taken ? It was, he believed, a necessary course, for as Aus tria had governed the country with a strong hand, so the evil of foreign domination increased with the pressure of the grasp, and when the war broke out there were dis covered evils of which the house and the country were not before aware. But now the war was over; while it lasted we strongly objected to it, but circumstances now were changed, and we had no longer to consider whether the war was justifiable or not. That, indeed, we had considered while it was time; we mediated, but failed—(hear, hear) — we remonstrated and scolded everybody all round—(hear, hear)—we irritated many, but influenced no one ; but now, after such sacrifices of blood and treasure as had taken place, was no attempt to be made, when the opportunity arose, to prevent any recurrence of such evils? (Hear.) The right hon. member for Bucks (Mr. Disraeli) had always been consistent on this subject. He always declared that the Austrian rule was necessary for the tranquillity of the nations of Europe, for he said the whole of Italy consisted of secret societies of the worst character and most revolu tionary designs, and therefore, for the suppression of such designs, it was necessary to rule them with a strong hand. That was not only the right hon. gentleman's opinion, but it was received throughout Europe. But, now that we had seen the fruits of that system, had it been successful ? (Hear, hear.) He did not ask whether Italy was happy, but was it tranquil ? As far back as 1856 Lord Clarendon, at Paris, discussed this question, for it was then obvious that things could not go on in the course they were then in without a European war. It was easy to say that Italy was not fit for liberty ; that had been glibly said everywhere. But what nation was fit for liberty before it attained to it? (Cheers.) it was said of the Italians that they were a turbulent, excitable, and blood-thirsty set, that was what King John might have said, before Runny mede, of the barons of England, who, he might add, would compromise the very existence of the nation ; but we tried it, and through a long series of ages it had succeeded But would any man tell him that the Italians, or any race of men on the globe, were fit for the kind of government which the Italians had had ? (Cheers.) That was the present question. (Renewed cheers.) We were asked now to come to a Euro pean settlement of the future government of Italy, and why? Because the government of Italy had become a scandal throughout the world. He (Mr. S. Herbert) gave no opi nion of his own upon it. It was enough to remind the house that the scandal must have been great and the occasionseri ous before any two States would have undertaken so excep tional a course as that whieh'had been entered upon for the remedy of the evil. (Cheers.) What, then, had this peace given them ? The very fact that Lombardy had been made part of a free State wcs some guarantee for the liberty of North Italy. He did not say that liberty would work at smoothly there as it did here in a nation accustomed to it— for the house should make allowances if excess should fol low the possession of the gift ; but, after all, was it not ob vious that society would be ameliorated by the change from what it had been. The house remembered what it was. The 7 saw lately in Naples a revolutionary Government; a consti tution arbitrarily and illegally suspended by the will of the king, and the code arbitrarily and illegally suspended by the police; and that was a revolutionary Government. (Cheers.) A king might be revolutionary as well as a mob, and it was no consolation to tell a man who was dragged from his bed to a dungeon that it was a king that had revolted and not a mob. (Cheees.) He did not, however, mean to say that we must necessarily go into a congress. The noble lord (Lord J. Russell) stated all the difficulties that lay in the way of our doing so. But if these difficulties were to be removed, and there were a prospect of a lasting peace and tranquillity for Italy, what would the house say of a Government if it was sulkily to refuse because the peace of Villafranca might have been founded on broader terms ? It appeared to him that such a course of conduct would be a gross derelictionof their duty to the rest of Europe. (Cheers.) It was assumed, however, that this congress was merely to register the details of the peace of Villafranca. For his own part he knew nothing of any details in that peace. The parties to it were " favourable to a confederation in Italy;" he believed those were the very terms used; but if they had intended to agree upon something that should be conclusive and final, as they were masters of the situation, they would not have said they were favourable to it, but they would have expressed their views and given effect to them immediately. He thought the circumstances under which this motion was brought forward were most unfavour able for the noble lord's purpose. The noble lord knew nothing about • the future, and very little about the past. The treaty of Zurich was not known, or the principles on which the Powers would agree to meet in congress. They knew nothing at all, and therefore the house was asked peremptorily to decide that the Government must do no thing in time to come., The noble lord wished them to say to the Government that, come what might, let the oppor tunity be ever so favourable for the future of Italy and of Europe, they were not to act, and they wero to discuss no points. But, then, what was the object of having a Govern ment at all, if they were to be restricted from the considera tion of the great political :principles in this great political crisis oo in the world's history. To tie up the hands of the human thellTyse to tie hp his own hands—against doing any thingthHat6wacy7—nay, for the noble lord to ask in time to come did appear to be the height of he had auloai li t4d the noble lord intended believe,however, the course which was yet the e to gathered the ho u f s r e o m ; a t n h d e mheotio which believe the such a courdelf of Commons would sanction freedom of Italy; Wotild prevent them from securing the blood sucralit K :2 6*, could n not and 'save that country from evils and Mr. WIIITESIA already experienced. E controverted• • the objection to the re- In adopting it he maintained, nts to some of house would but follow established precedents, • solution that it unduly crippled ou the th which he referred, and enforce a policy of non-intervention e observed nation the r o f h T ri e d executiv e. that the in Italy. The through the whole course of the perturbationsquestion and Congress of Paris tried to settle the Italian and neutrality which had hitherto been so wisely . failed. What hope w as there of better success from a re newal of the attempt at a con g ress elsewhere? proceeded to remark upon He the peril and misch ief which would ensue if the conduct of discastelons at any such congress were en trusted to the present Mir laters as representing the iate resents and upholding the honour a England. np@i Lord J. RUSSELL—Sir, I cannot &p.y a motion worse calculated to serve the purpose it has in view than that before the house. What my noble friend (Lord Elcho) endeavours to affirm is, that the Crown should be invited to abstain from doing a thing which it has never be#n asked to do by anybody, and which it has not the smallest inten tion to do. My noble friend says, o' Don't take any part in a congress for settlftg the details of apearethepreliminaries of which were arranged by the two Emperors at Villa franca." That has never been proposed by her Majesty's Government, and never will be proposed by them; and therefore it will be a mockery to address the Crown not to do that which the Ministers of the Crown have never wd the smallest intention to do. (Hear, bear.) I really con ceive, therefore, that it would be difficult to persuade this house to affirm such a motion. I ant personally obliged to my noble friend for having postponed to this day the con sideration of this subject ; and I must admit that, before the house separates, those who take a different view from her Majesty's Government on this question shoal have an op portunity of expressing their opinions, and endeavouring to explain that their rule of conduct should be the prevail ing one. What say my noble friend and the hon, gentle man the late Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs with regard to this great subject of Italy? The noble lord says Sardinia is entirely to blame, and that if such principles as induced the King of Sardinia and his ally to enter on this war were to prevail there would be an end of civilisation altogether. The hon. member for Horsham (Mr. S. Fitzgerald) said the war in Italy was wholly owing to the promptings of Sardinia. I thought I had read in the blue-book that Austria was told, in re peated despatches, that if she went to war at the time she did she would have no moral sympathy or support from this country. T am not one of those who ever subscribed to the language used by the late Prime Minister when he said Austria was criminal in going to war. I think that was an imprudent step on the part of Austria, but to call her con duct criminal, at a time when she believed her territory was in jeopardy, is too strong a censure, and one in which I can never join. At the same time I cannot hear all this blame of the conduct of Sardinia without recalling to the recollec tion of the house what has been the state of affairs. For many years Sardinia has enjoyed a free government— (hear, hear)—and that enjoyment of a free government has rendered her the object of admiration to every State in Italy ; so much so that whenever a professor was banished from his chair for imparting knowledge in too liberal a spirit he went at once to Turin—(a laugh)—and when a great proprietor expressed opinions favourable to represen tative institutions he fled to Sardinia in order to avoid the judgment which awaited him in his own State. At length, Sardinia became the refuge of many of the best and ablest men in Italy, some of them distinguished for birth and for tune, and others for genius in art and literature. Under such circumstances it was not only excusable, but natural, that the King of Sardinia and the Minister of Sardinia, thus encouraged and thus appealed to, should feel that the emancipation of Italy rested with them, and resolve, when ever the time came, to draw their swords in defence of her liberties. At the same time, when I look to history, I find there was once a prince who, from a State not his own, re ceived men of all conditions and all professions—who fur nished some with arms and encouraged others by tokens of his favour—and who even sant a special envoy to this country desiring him to communicate with the disaffected and to hold out to them hopes of an invasion. The differ ence between the King of Sardinia and that Prince was, that, although the latter committed all the offences for which the King of Sardinia has had cast upon him's° much odium, we celebrate him as a great deliverer, and I have no doubt that the hon. and learned gentleman who has just spoken has often drank to his glorious and immortal memory. (Laughter.) With regard to the noble lord's motion, it ap pears to me that it is within the province of the House of Commons to adilse the Crown, in the exercise of its pre rogative, and that it is competent to the house to restrain the prerogative of the Crown if it so thinks fit. But what is proposed by the noble lord would be a curious and unwise exercise of the power of th.e House of Commons, for he pro poses to put no restraint on the power of the Crown with respect to any questions which may arise between France and Austria. He proposes no restriction on the conduct of the Government with regard to the foreign relations of this country, except by saying that if it is ever proposed that we should enter into a conference on whatever terms there would be serious objections to such a course. If the motion has any meaning or sense at all, that would be the amount of it. (Hear, hear.) The right hon. gentleman the mem ber for Stroud says the Ministry are evidently anxious to enter on the conference—that they are so eager to do so that they seem unwilling to wait, and he gave as a proof of this that the Foreign Secretary had stated numerous ob jections and obstacles that stood in the way of entering into a conference. Was ever so curious a proof given as this? (Hear.) I stated those obstacles and objections, because I doubted whether this country should enter into such a con ference. At present the terms on which such a conference is to meet have not been agreed on by the different powers. No one can say at this moment what invitation may come to us from Austria. I have already stated that we have an invitation from France, and I understand that the Govern ment of Austria does not interpose its absolute veto to such a meeting of conference. If France and Austria come to an understanding on every point affecting the relations of Italy —if they attempt to settle the whole question of Italy— though 1 cannot well imagine how that is to be done— I hold that it would be unworthy of this country and of its dignity and honour to go into a conference merely to add its signature to terms thus agreed to. (Hear, hear.) But 1 can suppose a very different state of affairs. The preliminaries of Villafranca do not pretend to settle absolutely the state of Italy. What they propose is the mode in which a confederation of the States of Italy may be established. It may be that Sardinia will require certain conditions, and that the Pope also will require certain con ditions, before they enter into such a confederation, and I have not heard that the King of the Two Sicilies has given an opinion favourable or unfavourable to a meeting of con ference ; but I can imagine the state of Italy to be such that the best men of that country might say, " We are between two dangers —one of these dangers is foreign intervention with the view of preserving order in the country; the other danger is that of immediate and sanguinary revolution." (Hear.) Now, there is one way of preventing these evils, and that is toconsider the terms on which a Conference of the Powers of Europe might be formed, so that through its influence foreign intervention might be stopped on the one hand, and revolution on the other. If, then, that is a fit then, that is a fit thing for Italians to observe, am I to say that I see how the evils which they dread may be prevented, and the good which they desire may be done, but I have a vow in Heaven against joining any conference, and I must not think of such a course. (Hear.) I ask, then, is it not reasonable to leave important questions like these to the consideration of the advisers of the Crown, subject to that resposibility which I do not believe is a mere shadow. Let the house, then, leave the question as to a conference to the consideration of the Ministers of the Crown, and when the time comes that they will know all the circumstances of the case, and the propositions that have been brought forward, they will be able to say Yes or No_to those propositions, according as they have been wise or unwise—according as they shall turn out successful or unsuccessful, and they will be able to give their judgment upon the conduct of the Ministry_ at some future meeting of the house. I wish to arrogate no undue power or assumption of authority on behalf of the Government, but that appears to me to be the plain common-sense mode of proceeding. (Hear, hear.) The hon. member for Horsham has warned me against cer tain vices and sins which he appears to think I am liable to fall into, and, profiting by his own experience (I may say it without personal disresp ect to him), he has, after the man nerwarned me against acts of vice which I may be apt to commi t. ( A laugh.) lie says, " Beware of a guarantee. Nothi n g is so dangerous to y of an old sinner , this country, nothing is so open to objecti on as a guarantee . Now, I had some recollection of what ha d been done by the late Govern ment in this respect; but I consulted the blue-book to re freshaseady to give bury, with the consent of h is collea g ues, w f th tee to Sardinia — (a laugh)—a guarantee or e my memory, and there I found that Lord Malmes a guarantee is the most Now, it appears to me that such a guaranteetanother dangerous that any Minister could offer to integrity of Sardinia for a period of five years. (Hear.) would have have been no end to the protection which you st monthly, weekly, and daily to extend to it, and . Au ri st this coun try. (Hear, hear.) In the case of Sar ia there would would have said, '• I am unable to bear up a n army into by the conduct of Sardinia, and I must march an that country to put an end to it." Then, though i y protection. My subjects are excited to rebellion against gal me ou might admit Sardinia to be in the wrong, you would be bound, on the ground of your guarantee, to send your fleets and armies to protect her. (Hear, hear.) It was a .col league of the hon. member for Horsham by whom this guarantee was proposed, an how the hon. gentleman can come and preach to me about a guarantee and the dangers into which I may fall, and give to me such imprudent and rash advice, I am unable to explain. The hon. and learned gentleman who has just spoken spoke of the reforms in the Roman States. Now, in the despatch which I sent to Vrussia I stated that all parties—l ought perhaps to have excepted the hon. member for Dundalk—were at one on this subject, and, it reforms were to take place in Italy, a reform in the Roman States was particularly called for. (Hear, hear.) Did I say anything that the Sovereigns of Europe would find fault with ? 'the Emperor of the French said virtually the same thing. When he proposed to secularize the Roman States and in troduce the Code Napoleon, he did not approve the mode of trying a man without confronting him with the witnesses against him, or of using torture to ext or t a con f ess ion, and a ccordingly he recommended to the Pope the introduction of the Code Napoleon. The Emperor of Austria has also required the introduction of reforms into the Roman States; and where , then, is the harm of my saying that if the state of Italy is to be improved a reform in the Government of the Papal States is especially required? The hon. gentle man who spoke last said that when I spoke of the Italians being free citizens, it must mean as a consequence the esta blishment of a republic. The words I employed were used by the Emperor of the French in his proclamation at Milan, and surely he is not so violent in his political views as to promulgate republicanism in the States of Italy. (Hear.) But what have been the facts of the case ? We know what occurred in 1849, but during 1858 to 1859 have the Italians shown themgelves guilty of any unworthy excesses ? So far from that, their conduct has attracted the admiration of all Europe—(hear)—because, though they wished to reform their Governments, and hough at some places they even proclaimed the Code Napoleoh, anything more temperate ' anything less like violent re publicanism, no country has ever shown. (Hear.) The hon. gentleman wishes to know something with regard to the Duchies. All I can say on that subject is to repeat what I formerly said,—that there is an ambigno Rald pm9what obsenre article regarding it in the A 6 preliminaries of peace. Perhaps it may be explained by What takes place in the conference at Zurich. But we have reason to believe that neither the Emperor of the French nor the Emperor of Austria means to use force in order to obtain the restoration of the Grand Duke of Tuscany. The Emperor of the French has more than once intimated this view of the case, and from a despatch I have re ceived to-day it appears that the Austrian Minis ' ter for Foreign Affairs declares his belief that with some ipatience the people of Modena and Tuscany will be g 1 44 of their own accord to receive their former Sove reigns, Well, if they do so, her Majesty's Government can have no objeotions ; but I must say, on the other hand, that if a change of purpose were to take place, and the Sovereigns were to attempt to use force, it wenicl ho the 60 4rtio of liTif9111 111 tt? troubles -t Italy-1 it would be the commen,ce • Mpt Of '4 new Struggte, and no one cou ld say what would be the evils, the outrages, that might b e corn mitted in Krell cireumstflUe§. 'VA m a course the Go vern weirld most cieciffPalY 0 eet i but it would not be necessary to enter into a conference for that purpose, becanse objections could be 6t0 t 0.. iR formal communica tions to the governments concerned; It is not necessary that we should have ,a Conference for that purpose, and the honse knows that so far from being Pt irieetcl to a cautrence, I see more elo.frPflPll agniilo it trail ,er , it i but we are not to bar ourselves against the use 0 any means by which the p: ace of Italy may he nreservod. (Hear, hear.) The hon. member for If ors4are 'has asked me some 15 or 20 Ines tions as to what passed between me and gig rfonclA Am bassacier before 1-119 0 0 11cIllf.liC311 4 Wtt , t 4 . With regard to all these le§OPP§ 4'n answer will be 4-it COANSTed by stating what happened. The if mlOl, Arnhasseclor had fre quently woke;} to me of terme ef pmee which he thought, after a censlderahlii erred Q war, it fortune should favour the arals of France, night be proposed. I listened to those , statements, and T Ftt . it wog not liliPlY P Austria would be that eAtUe; the Em peror pf the PrPlOl or the EPAPPPOT prepared to make peace at that time, an d th a t th ere f ore any consideration of set terms of Mee eheill4 be postponed. But N he brought to me one day a written woo of paper contain ing certain articles, and said it was the wish of his Govern ment that those articles or terms should be submitted, under the sanction of the British Government, to the Emperor of Austria; and he said he felt assured, though he could not give official assurance o'4, that those were the terms proposed by the Emperor of the French. However, he said enough to show that if th e s e t erms there' accepted by Austria the :Emperor a the French would be ready to sanction theta, I was going to a Cabinet Council at the time, and there I communicated to my col leagues what he had said. They one and all agreed that we could not make a formal communication of any such terms— that the period had not arrived when we could prefer our good offices. But as those terms were more moderate than, from the proclamation of the French Emperor, we could have expected he would offer, they thought it would not be right to conceal them from the Austrian Government, and therefore they commissioned me to give the paper contain ing the terms to the Austrian Minister, and I communicated them tohim on the same night, The hon. gentleman asks what Prussia said. Nothing whatever, for I never spoke to Prussia on the subject. (A laugh.) He also asked what Rus sia said. To that I have to give the same answer. Nothing whatever, for I had no communication with the Minister of Russia on the subject. (A laugh.) The Austrian Minister said it would be his duty to send the term' to his Government but wished to know my idea with regard to it. I said " The British Government transmit them to you to be sent to the Emperor of Austria, but as to offering any advice, we dis tinctly declare that we offer no advice or opidaion regarding them. Austria may accept them or reject tlTem them as it may deem best." He said afterwards to me " I do not believe my Government will accept those terms ; but supposing they were accepted, and I got an answer saying that Austria was ready to treat on those terms, what then ?" I said if that happened—if we once knew that Austria was ready to treat on those terms, then we would offer ourselves as me diators, or in any other character Austria might prefer; and I said " If you would prefer that I should speak to the Mi nisters of Prussia and Russia, and inform them of the terms, and that there would be no difficulty in proposing them as a basis of a peace, I am ready to do so. , ' (Hear, hear. I think it was cur duty not to conceal from Austria that mace might be obtained on the terms proposed. (Hear, hear:) If we had refused to communicate these terms, and if Verona and Perachiera and Venice had fallen, and Aus tria had bean obliged to make worse terms than those which we had been asked to transmit, we would have exposed our selves. I think, to severe animadversion. (Hear, hear.) This was on the Wednesday. On the Sunday I received a note from Count Apponyi saying that his Government con sidered these propositions quite inadmissible. I do not find fault with the hon. gentleman for making a confusion in the story, because he probably has heard it very inaccu r itelv, and has only repeated it as he heard it ; but at that time, on that very day, a further proposal was made to my noble friend on a smaller number of articles, I think four, which the French Government requested us to communi cate to Austria, and to communicate with a view is recom mend them. My noble friend and I considered that ques otipoinnloann d o f w t e h r a e t p solved ropo s t i o t i o a n s . k o o u n r c t o h l l e e a s g a e t s n e w e h ‘ a . e t n i w n g a , s h t h o w e i r . ever, I received from Count Apponyi the note to which I have referred, and accordingly the next day there could be no doubt or difficulty in the Cabinet, because we w w h er i e ch all sh a e greed not t was not willing opo ill p in r gt s t to treat. tr o ea Aust t. These terms hese on terms did net differ in substance though they might in degree, from those which we had seen before, and we could never recommend to Austria terms upon which she had already declared she would not treat. That was our conduct towards the Austrian Government. I think in this statement the hon.' gentleman will find an answer to all his questions. • It is a very plain story, and it is one upon which the Govern ment is prepared to stand. Well, Sir, there is much difß culty attending communications by telegram, and it is like wise very difficult for belligerent Powers to know what is side the e bu E t m it p c e e ro r r ta o inl f A y u d s id tr s ia o h go a r p 'n p g en on th in at t w he hile on councilsthe ef one neutrals, said that the neutral powers were considering terms of me diation which would probably have been more unfavourable to him than those which he obtained directly from the Em peror of the French, at the same time the Emperor of the French said the German Powers were so hostile to him, that if he had not made peace, he would in a short time have had to make war upon-the Rhine. These were rather statements of apprehension than of fact. It might never have happened that the neutral Powers would pro pose any terms of mediation at all. They had never agreed upon any basis of mediation, they had never even had any serious discussion of the terms of mediation. Prussia had made a proposal, to which the hon. gentleman al luded, and for not communicating which he finds fault with me. The fact was that the Prussian Minister took away his dispatch, and particularly desired that it might be considered a confidential despatch and one of which he did not wish a copy to be left in the office or communicated to the Government. To revert again, however, to the state of things which existed when peace was made. The Emperor of the French thought that war was impending on the Rhine, and that that was the future which he had to meet. The Em peror of Austria thought that the neutral Powers were considering terms of mediation, and these apprehensions, not any certain knowledge, because there were no facts upon which that knowledge could be founded—did operate upon their minds, and they used them as justifica tions for the peace which they made. I must say, sir, that so far from thinking that we are deeply responsible if we in any way unintentionally contributed to this result, I should greatly rejoice if our position was such—if our attitude was such, that it induced those great Powers to make peace, and not to prolong that sanguinary war which, had it been con tinued would, I am persuaded, have had no result, either for the benefit of Italy or of mankind, which would have made amends for the blood shed and the mischief done in its course. Therefore, although we can claim no credit for the peace—although our mediation did not produce it, and al though I think that the right hon. gentleman is mistaken in supposing that the transmission of those terms induced the Emperor of Austria to conclude the treaty, and give iw Lombardy, I do rejoice that peace was made, and I thirty that the future of Italy and the future of Europe will be far better provided for by councils of peace, whether they are the councils of Governments or the councils of peoples— whether they are conducted by diplomatic correspondence or by conference than could have been accomplished by the continuance of the late war. (Hear, hear.) Now, sir, with regard to that future, the hon, gentleman the member for Horsham says that while I spoke of the rights of the peo ples of Tuscany and Modena, I omitted to notice the rights of the Sovereigns who reign over them. I am afraid that in the eyes of the hon. gentleman I am a great heretic in that respect, because, although I have a great respect for, Sovereigns who have for generations maintained themselves on their thrones, and received the loyal respect of their sub jects, I have no belief in the doctrine, such as the Univer sity of Cambridge once affirmed, which gives to the Sove-, reign an inherent right to reign that no fault can alter or diminish. (Hear, hear.) I cannot subscribe to a doctrine of thatkind, and if I look to the Sovereigns of Europe I see many of them who could never subscribe to the doctrine that a people have no right upon fault or upon offence to declare that they will no longer give their obedience to a Sovereign who has not afforded them protection and who has rightly forfeited their allegiance. To take the latest instance first, the King of the Belgians owes his crown to a popular revolution. such too, though at a more remote date, is the foundation of the right of the King of Holland, who owes his throne to a popular revolt against the Crown of Spain. Such is the foundation of the right of the King of Sweden, to whose crown there is even now a pretender. Such, in fact, is the right of the Emperor of the French to his throne. (Hear, hear.) If the right of legitimacy were to prev a il, who but the Duke of Bordeaux could cle , 4n the allegiance of the people of France ? and yet they pay to allegiance to him, but yield their willing sub mission to the Emperor who now rules over them. Such, likewise, is the foundation of the right of our own dynasty. (Cheers.), Our Sovereign can claim no right superior to that derived from the decision of the Parliament and peo ple, of 6 rent Britain that the Throne was forfeited by the House of Stuart, in consequence of their violation of the rights of the people and their withdrawing from the coun try over whi c h th ey re i gne d. If such is the case, is Italy to be the o n ly country t h e peop l e of which are not to exer cise this power? (Hear, hear.) Are the people of Italy, who as I have said have been so moderate and so just in their proceedings, who have committed no outrages, who have taken part ill no violence, to be deprived of that right, of that power which had been exercised in Belgium, in Hol land, in Sweden, in France, and -in Great Britain ? I I cannot be a party to denying them that right. (Hear, hear.) On the contrary, I believe that if you allow the people of Italy to se ttl e t h e i r own concerns —(hear, hear) — and that is the doctrine which my noble friend and myself have always held in this house, especially during the whole course of the present session—if you allow the people of Italy, whether they have hitherto lived under the rule of the King of Sardinia or of the Grand Duke of Tuscany, or of the Duke of Modena, under the Pope, or under the King of the Two Sicilies, to settle with their Sovereigns on what terms they shall pay their alle giance, there will no longer exist the irritation and dis content which has so long prevailed, but they will proceed w ith peace and order t o es t a bli sh the foundations of good government. With respect to our conduct in these matters, I have no wish to interfere prematurely or to keep up a constant intervention in the affairs of other nations, but at the same time I cannot forget the history of my country. I cannot be blind to her greatness nor can I for get her duties. She has duties to E urope as she has duties to her own people. I cannot believe in that at which my right hon. friend-the member for Stroud seemed to hint—a new fantastic policy by which this country should separate herself, as it was supposed to do in Roman times, from the whole world, and attend merely to her internal affairs. I believe that if she did that, if she forgot her duties, if she refused her advice and her counsels, when that advice and those counsels were required, while in the first instance her conduct would be injurious to other nations, while in the second place it would lead to the preponderance of some great Power, and to the consequent injury and detriment of the people of Europe, it would end in the loss of that very independence which by such selfish means we had en deavoured to maintain. (Cheers.) Mr:. DISRAELI—Having been alluded to by more than one hon. gentleman in the Course of the debate, it is hardly possible for me to be altogether silent ; but at this late hour I shall not detain the house at any length by the few ob servations I have to offer. And to touch in order on the allusions which haue been made to me I will commence with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The ,right hon. gentleman charges me with htiving violated neutrality in two distinct forms, and with having made an intimation in my place in Parliament as a respon sible Minister of the Crown of a most important character, which he then proceeds to prove I was not justified in making. He says that while we professed to be the advo cates of strict and impartial neutrality, it was, I myself who gave the first evidence of a violation of it, because I spoke in terms of great respect of Austria, while, on the other hand I spoke of Sardinia in language which con veyed a far different sentiment. I have not referred to the authentic record of what took place on that occasion, but the time that bas elapsed is so brief, that I think I may trust to my own memory, and pet haps to the recol lection of the house—for though it was in a different Parliament, many members who were then present are pre sent now, and will be able to testify to the accuracy of my statement. It was on the night when it was my duty to ,lay before the house, in compliance with the engagement of the late Ministry, a statement of the exact position in which this country was placed with respect to our relations with. Maria and Sardinia, and with respect to the prospect of maintaining the peace between France and Austria, which was then threatened. In giving an account of the negotiations, I had occasion to speak of Sardinia, and I re member that I ',pogo of the gallant and interesting efforts made by 1:100 caanntry to establish representative govern- ment, and what are called liberal institutions in Italy. I ' said that - vas an Wart which had enlisted the fi:kod feelings of all ©lasses of her Majesty's subjects, and, that her subse quent conduct as our gallant ally in the Crimea had in creased that feeling, and sealed the sympathy which this country entertained far her. I then went on to say that during the interval which had elapsed between the Crimean war and the period at - which I was then speaking much perhaps had happened in her conduct which was perplexing and ambiguous, but that nevertheless I felt convinced that this country would place upon those passages the most generous interpretation, as her Majesty's Government had. (Hear,) `Vas that an attack upon Sardinia ?. Is there any man here who will for a moment pretend that in -the interval which elapsed between the capture of Sebas tocol and the negotiations which preceded the war there was nothing perplexing or ambiguous in the conduct of Sardinia ? At any rate, among the hon. members present there is one who cannot say so, and that is the noble lord the Secretary for Foreign Affaire,,,who himself has acknow ledged and deplored those very passages in the conduct of Sardinia in festering dissensions in the dominions of her neighbour to which I referred. That, I think, is a com plete answer to the charge of the Chancellor of the Ex chequer with regard to the want of impartiality in the late Government towards Sardinia. Cheers.) With regard to the expressions on which the Chancellor of the Exchequer founded another charge of partiality towards Austria in speaking of the late negotiations, it was my duty to say that Austria had behaved "in a spirit of dignified concilia tion." Can anybody read the papers laid on the table and deny the accuracy of that statement ? It is the sentiment of Lord Cowley, only expressed in much stronger language, reiterated by her Majesty's Plenipotentiary at Vienna on every occasion, and it is a fair description of theconduct of an ally who in almost every instance deferred to our opinion and who was mainly guided by our advice. And though I myself have never ceased to regret, and have never at tempted to conceal my regret at the act by which Austria practically commenced the war, still that act had not oc curred when I was addressing the house, and a fair and accurate description of the conduct of Austria towards the English Government was given by the phrase of which I made use, " a spirit of dignified conciliation." (Cheers.) So much for those expressions which, quoted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer without the context and without refer ence to the facts, do not, I think, furnish a very sub stantial basis for the charge which he has made. (Hear, hear.) But, says the Chancellor of the Exchequer, you on that night absolutely told the house that you still believed that peace would be maintained, while shortly after wards war was declared. What were the circumstances under which I addressed the house ? It was one of the most critical passages of the negotiations. Austria, had insisted on the preliminary disarmament as a condition of maintaining peace. That was generally thought an unreasonable request ; it Was not favoured by the British Government ; but Austria insisted upon it, and we made use of our influence to recommend it to the consideration of France. That evening—l will not say concurrently with my speaking, because that word has been severely criticised to-night—l will not say a few minutes— but absolutely a few seconds before I rose, my hon. friend the member for HorshaM came into the house and placed in my hands a telegram to this effect from Lord Cowley— " Count Walewski has written in the most- urgent terms to impress upon Count Cavour the acceptance of the principle of preliminary disarmament, and he is most sanguine of the result." I certainly think I was justified, on the receipt of the telegram, bound as I was to speak with the utmost frankness, to say to the house that there was still more than a fair prospect of maintaining peace. (Hear.) That was on the 18th—as the Chancellor of the Exchequer more than once reminded us—and on the 19th a second telegram came from Count Walewski to the Duke of Malakhoff an nouncing that Sardinia, in deference to the urgent en treaties of France, had acceded to the preliminary principle of disarmament. Was there not then more than a fair prospect of maintaining peace, and did not these things fully justify the expressions which I used ? (Hear.) The Chancellor of the Exchequer to-night has not addressed himself to the question really before the house. He has made one of his most eloquent and able speeches, but he entirely evaded the practical question which is under our considera tion, to which my hon. friend near me and the right hon. gentleman opposite have strictly addressed themselves. ' The Chancellor of the Exchequer has considered every point connected with Italy except just that point which now occupies our attention. He has poured forth a stream of romantic rhetoric over a subject which is certainly sus ceptible of that style of treatment, but that is not the ques tion we have to consider. He has indeed frankly placed his Italian policy before the house. (Hear, hear.) T admit that the right honourable gentleman entirely disapproves the settlement made 45 years ago. I cannot venture now to go into such a question. It would be really absurd to , attempt to treat that question on what is practically the last night of the session, but it is of great importance that we should learn to-nigh that a Minister of the Crown, and a Minister of great authority, entertains upon this subject views so large and so decided, and which must, of course, influence him in the counsel which he offers to his sove reign. (Hear.) If these views are shared by his colleagues, if that is the predominant opinion of the Cabinet, we should have arrived at the very question which is before us. (Hear, hear.) Is it to carry that policy into effect, to put an end to the consequences of the settlement of 45 years ago, that you are now proposing to enter into this Con gress P If that be your policy, if you are now convinced, after long and mature deliberation, prompted and stimu lated by the vast and startling events which have recently happened, that the time has come when you must erase from the political table that settlement of 45 years ago, let me ask you, are you going to carry your ,intended result into effect in a manner which is likely to lead to a profitable and satisfactory settlement ? (Hear, hear.) You are going to put an end, as far as Italy is concerned, to the arrange ment made at the Congress of Vienna, by availing your selves of the basis of the preliminaries of Villafranca, and that appears at once to be a weak if not perilous course. (Hear, hear.) Do you believe that the preliminaries of Villafranca can be moulded_ and modified under your fiuence, in a manner that will carry your now avowed policy into effect ? That is the practical question. The noble lord, the First Minister, who has often addressed us on this subject, recently speaking in opposition, and in a guarded manner, admitted, before the war commenced, that, as far as Austria was concerned, the treaties of Vienna ought to be observed. Since then he has freed himself from the trammels of that tradition, and I believe I am but fairly re presenting the general policy of the Government as to Italy when I describe its tendency to be the cancelling the set tlement made 45 years ago. Now, we have the right hon. gentleman the third Minister of the Crown, speaking in unison with the noble lord on this subject. Their policy with i egard to Italy is now distinctly announced. Well, if a congress is held, what with these views pursued by the Government are the prospects of this country? We must consider first the supposition that the two Emperors who have signed the preliminaries of peace at Villafranca, may have succeeded in carrying them substantially into effect ; our presence to assist them in that result—our presence to help to restore the expelled princes to their dominions—our presence to interfere in some arrangement in the Papal States, and aid in creating a confederation of which His Holiness is to be the head—our presence in the congress for these objects and with such results would not tend to in crease our reputation, or promote the just interests of the country—(hear)—and if any failure occurred we should have to bear a share of the disappointment and disgrace. But suppose your policy insisted on ; suppose we, with a high hand, recommend that decided course which the French Emperor in his first proclamation appeared to have adopted, what should we be prepared to do to carry that policy into effect ? Are we prepared to go to war to free Italy from Austria, " from the Alps to the Adriatic ?" If you are not prepared to go to war what are you prepared for ? Is it to be this—that we are to protest against the preliminaries of Villafranca being carried into effect, and, while you protest against them, urge the policy you appear to recommend ? These views I have no doubt have occurred to members on both sides of the house and to the public and have caused that feeling of uneasiness with which the meeting of a Congress is contemplated, because there is a probability that it may end by leaving us at war either with France or Austria, or perhaps with both parties. (Hear, hear) It is the fear of such a result that makes men uneasy at the possibility of this contetn plated Congress. The noble lord says, it is not for us to speak of hazardous engagements into which this country may enter, as we had committed ourselves to a guarantee so rash as that by which we offered to secure Sardinia, fo•• a term of years, against any attack by Austria. That the noble lord described as a most rash and dangerous engage ment. (Hear.) Well, only the other night the First Minister of the Crown described it as the most futile engagement that any Government ever offered to enter into ; as one in which we should bear nothing of the burden of the danger; that we intended to throw all the burden on France, and he was not surprised France refused to enter into such a guarantee. Now, these two descriptions of our intended policy do not tally. After all, what was the danger of the guaiantee we proposed ? It was a joint guarantee by which France and Great Britain, the two most powerful military and maritime countries in the world, were to engage to secure Sardinia for a limited term of five years from any attack by Austria. Can anyone suppose that this was a guarantee we should ever have been called on to fulfil ? (Hear.) Can we doubt that Austria would have been prudent enough to keep within her boundaries ? " But," says the noble lord, "what can belmore impolitic than this P Does it not stand to rea son that if you guarantee Sardinia from attack for five years Sardinia will take advantage of the immunity and cause Austria every possible annoyance ?" But the noble lord forgot one most important point of the guarantee—that Sardinia should disarm. (Cheers.) That is all the ques tion. It was the only condition by which the peace of Italy could be preserved. The noble lord ap pears to have entirely misconoeived the character of the engagement, and ascribed to it a character quite different from that given to it by the First Minister of the Crown, speaking a few nights ago. The uohle lord also addressed himself to the speech of the hon. member for Horsham (Mr. Fitzgerald) ; that - hon. member made a speech to-night, following the Chancellor of the Exchequer, of a different character. from that , of' the right hon. gentleman. The right hon. gentleman has almost astounded us by his eloquence, to which We are accustomed, but which burst forth to-night with unusual brilliancy. (Hear, hear.) It is unfortunate that he did not throw the coruscations of his genius on the subject under discussion. (Laughter.) But the hon. member for Horeham did address himself t that subject with a precision and power which showed that he not only thoroughly understood the question he was treating, but the points upon which the house has a right to require information from, her Majesty's Govern ment. (Hear.) He has told us of a great number of ques tions the noble lord has found it convenient not to remem ber. (Laughter,) But it was impossible for the noble lord not to allude to the important despatch of the 7th of July ; he went into that point with an exuberance of. detail; his description was of unexpected interest. On a former even ing the First Minister of the Crown 'gave a curt relation of how the small written piece of paper was received , in silence and without comment offered. But to-night the noble lord has entered into a great deal of interesting detail, ample, full, and quite explan a t ory o f every point except the one on which the house requires information. (Laughter.) The noble lord now tells us that, instead of the'docurnent having been given without any comment to the Austrian Minister, considerable conversation and some discussion took place. He did not tell us whether it was not received with some ercpression o f a pp ro b at i on t h at, when reported; might have given rise to that singular misconception that took place at Villafranca and had such a momentous effect on the destinieS of the world. (Hear, hear.) What we still want is some explanation of the mysterious conduct that led to the sudden peace of Villafranca and the present position of all other countries in relation to Italy. (Hear, hear.) Did the Govezament give any ap proval to the project contained in that piece of paper, and was that approval communicated to the Emperor of the French ? That was the point, on which we required infor mation, and obtained none, though on certain points of his narrative the noble lord became even garrulous. Now, the question the house has before it is really the most important question it can consider. It is this: Is it, or is it not, the interest of this country to enter into any Congress .te con sider the affairs of Italy ? Don't answer us by saying it is passible the two Emperors may meet at Turin and come,to seine definite arrangement that will render a Congress, unnecessary. 'Don't tell us that these are matters of detail that may be require to be considered in a manner that will open new political speculations. We do not mean to say that her, Majesty's Government should be expected to pledge itself not to enter into a Congress on the subject of these preliminary articles. What we want to know from the Government is this : Is it part of their policy to en courage and favour the meeting of a European congress to take into consideration the affairs of Italy generally, with the view of interfering in those affairs in a manner, which may bring about the changes that are avowed and recom mended in the Italian policy of the Chancellor of the Ex chequer. That is the, interference which the country fears. (Hear, hear.) The Chancellor of the Exchequer says— " You have no right to declaim against interference, look at this 'book, it is a memorial of your interference." Well, that observation only prcves to me that the Chantiellor of the Exchequer does not ascribe an accurate idea to the word " non-interference." That phrase does not mean that a great State at a moment of European disquietude and trouble should refrain from giving its counsels and exer cising its moral influence to prevent war, and, if possible, to restore tranquillity. No one supposes for a moment that when a country objects to a policy of interference it in tends to say that its Sovereign is never to have recourse to those means which may prevent public disaster and generaFdanger. In objecting to a policy of interference we protest against the use of our arms in order to settle the in ternal dissensions of other countries. If the Ministers say, " Well, but attending the congress is doing exactly what you recommend ; it is using our moral influencer;" my an swer is, " If you recommend a certain course of diplomacy, and give certain counsels, the result of which, if followed, will be to secure the tranquillity of Europe, you are not in terfering is an objectionable manner, but are only doing your duty as statesmen; but if you go into a congress in the circumstances under which, from the articles of Villa franca or from the Treaty of Zurich, such a congress must take place, you must be prepared for action or for nothing. If you go into the congress for nothing—only to give good ad vice—you may as well give it in a despatch ; but, if you enter that congress to recommend a policyyou are prepared to enforce, you are engaging in aninterference in the inter nal concerns of a foreign country that will necessarily in volve great risk, and that may lead to large expenditure, and perhaps to a war, the/ termination; of which it is sot very easy to foresee." I cannot therefore, agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer that, because we have carried on negotiations with the object of preserving peace, we have been acting against that principle of non-interference which I say may be violated, or seriously endangered, by attending a congress. Now, with regard to the motion before the house, I was very much surprised to hear from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that a great party debate or a great party struggle was to take place this evening ; and I was the more surprised when I observed in the first place a motion, and secondly an amendment, bothof which appeared to have been proposed without any consultation and without , the knowledge of those whose opinion when party struggles and debates occur are generally supposed to be taken on the subject. With respect to the motion of the noble lord (Elche), I can truly say that I never heard of it until some time after it had been announced in this house, for I was not present when the notice was given. I cannot say that even when the motion was shown to me I approved it. I considered that there were objections to its form. I thought the vin dication of the-form and language of the resolution which we have heard from the hon. and learned member for Stroud were very effectual. When he stated, however, that had we been on the other side of the house, and had the question of neutrality been at stake, the noble lord at the head of the Go vernment and the noble Secretary for Foreign Affairs would not have hesitated to adopt such a policy,. I confess I was a little shaken in my opinion upon the subject, because I had considered that when in Opp .sition there had uniformly been in their conduct a tendency to faction, from which I trust we shall always be exempt. (Hear, hear, and a laugh) I must say, therefore, that the objections I felt to the form of the motion havenot been altogether removed. I entertain, however, much stronger objections to the motion of the noble lord than those merely with regard to its form. The motion is one of the most important—if not the most im portant—that can well be framed. It really touches the whole foreign policy of the country, and if discussed as it deserves it would require some nights of very earnest and protracted debate. The result, if the motion was carried, would have a very serious effect upon the position of the Ministry. I agree with the right hon. gentleman who treated the motion as one which might even affect the exist ence of the Government, and it seems to me that, from its nature and possible consequences, it is not a theme which ought to be introduced to the notice of the house on what is practically the last night of the session. It does not appear to me that a question of such a nature should have been brought forward at a moment when the house, even if it were in a position, either in regard to inclination or numbers, to do justice to the subject, must necessarily arrive at a most hurried and precipitate conclusion. I objected to the form of the motiof when it was first proposed, and it was quite possible that if an amendment had been suggested, or if the noble lord had been applied to, he might have modified his motion as to expression and form in such a manner as might have secured for it general assent. The motion was, how ever, postponed. owing t o causes w hi c h we a ll regre t ; and we are now asked to pronounce an opinion upon it on what is practically the last night of the session. I trust the noble lord will not press his motion to a division. The noble, lord has obtained an object of the utmost importance. It would, I think, have been very unfortunate, and perhaps injurious, had there not been a discussion upon the present position of the country with respect to its external relations before the prorogation of Parliament. The discussion which has taken pace has, at all events, elicited the opi nions of many of the leading members of the Government, and although it would be folly to conceal from ourselves that the general bias of the Government is evidently in favour of a congress em the state of Italian affairs, if it can be brought about, I am still bound to say that they have frankly admitted the difficulties which present themselves. I tremble myself at what may happen during the interval that must elapse between the prorogation and the meeting of the house again, if, unfortunately, my expectations on this subject should be disappointed. I confess that, even if there were no other cause, I am most anxious that the Government should leave the Pope alone. (A laugh.) From the determined policy upon that subject of the noble lord opposite I look forward to an autumn, and, perhaps, a win ter, of the most disagreeable character, (Laughter.) I re member the confusion which the noble lord created on a former occasion. I remember how our hopes of the tran quillity which we looked forward to with joy in the bosom of our families—(a laugh)—and the change of pursuits which we had a right to anticipate after a long Parlia mentary campaign —were disappointed. I remember the numerous county meetings that took place, and the memo rials and petitions that were adopted. I look back to the disquietude which we experienced during that contem plated epoch of relaxation almost with horror—(a laugh) —and I do trust that the noble lord will deem it much better to leave his Holiness in the position he at present occupies, with the articles of Villafranca to arrange his future position, than to take in hand that great measure of reformation which he has so often recommended. What has alarmed me most upon this subject is, however, the zealous and the somewhat unex pected adhesion which has been given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the anti-Papal crusade. (Laughter.) The right hon. gentleman seems to me to have endeavoured to impress upon Parliament, upon the country, and upon Europe, that the Pope would really exercise a much greater influence if we should deprive him by a 'congress of his do minions. I would remind the Chancellor of the Exchequer that that is the argument which the Dissenters always use when they propose to despoil the Church of England. Only take away all her endowments, and depend upon it the in fluence of the Church will so greatly increase that she will never for a moment suffer. (A laugh.) I am sorry thate we have heard that expression from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because I feel convinced, considering, in this house he sits beside the noble lord, and thatto°bOtthhoatf to destroyhema are men Popeof ard i e n n t t h t e e minpteerarvmalenbetiwteheant the e theyprorogation raottempt a time andt of it as his in herea ssembliHngolofePss himself.arliame (L Parliament we re aasuhsgoanhll,tethhraitetahlst hard is e con templated to be desired, then, for this if for no othe r congress may sig natories of the preliminary articles palatcve.inaLfreatnethaemteweot with their Ministers at Zurich. Let us see sketch. Let us have the finis hed t t i i n o n n . wh An ich d N i v f e it m b a e y p t ic in ti t re er . est lt a i n s necessaryif we exhibit a proper and dig that we should put our hand now exhibit it, depend upon it, t f view with great nified reserve, we shall i France e er an e d w A ith ust i r n i r a m , einf they selymfaotrle effect when the rulers of, not to extricate them from th e con o which they have seci nte a r e e n d e have confessed thetiar us a abdity to make a settlement, a n d when they appeal ar d t o g ag em e n secure tsinto t the peace of Europe and that general ca use of civilization which will I t rus t enlist the best feeling s of all the Powers of Europe. (Cheers e,ebauetfttohseterasp forward engagements Lord PALMERSTON—Sir, I am not going to dispute with the right hon. gentleman on the part of my noble friend and myself as to who has the merit of having been the least factious while sitting on the Opposition benches At the same time I am bound to acquit the right hon. gen tleman of anything like factious opposition on the present occasion, because he has very fairly state I the insurmount able objections he entertains to the motion of the noble lord. I congratulate the right hon. gentleman on his candour, be cause those who have preceded him in the debate on his own side of the house—the hon. member for Horsham and the right hon. and learned gentleman—took a very different view of the question. They, and especially the late Under- Secretary, said, "We think this a proper resolution to be carried. We are of opinion that it is essential to prevent the Government from going into any conference." But the course of the debate and his reflection on the speeches of my right h on . an d noble friends have worked such conviction ad.sss in his miml that he gets up at the close of the t l discuss io n, throws it) throws over his friends, negatives the motion of he lord, and is perfectly satisfied that it is improper alike in form snd in substance, in time and occasion.. (A laugh.) , The right ho n . ge ntl eman w as , however, no t qu i te so sue. 2'; cessful iu answering the observations of my right hen. • friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer upon the same pas sage of a speech that he made in the last session of Parlia- oil ment. My right hon. friend, adverting to the interpretation endeavoured to be put by some hon. membus on the term "neutrality P—an interpretation which, not confining the `, word to its ordinary acceptatiOn of an abstinence from tak bnienesugtt for p between belligerents, but extending it from ac ti on t o t h oug h t, and from thought to expression— and acacritisin a war Governmentng:present of departing from neutrality y b be m c ,a au fa s r e e tohfeyt,be peoplehaveopi noifons Italy;a s t omwyhariotmtay, hon.be G fri o ezd rn , say,lment t sotawtebditchh be belonged attheri had sinned, ght hb a n. ge f it gentleman and a d e the sin, still more in that direction than we have been.accused dissol b u y ti t o h n e o right ig F h a t rl hon.iam Parliament, gentleman of doing. As an examp l e of that, he quoted the expressions used lbemenanbeo, on nthfueu prep _da Yparercaettn, preceding gpthree fessed to give to the house a state men t o f th e con di t i on of our foreign relations. The - righton.gentleman then commented commented on the ambiguous , and 'suspidious conduct of Sardinia on the one' hand, and on the dignified conciliation of Austria on the other. Now, about the time when he thus praised the dignified conciliation of Austria our Go vernment was in possession of a communication from the AuStrian Minister informing them that the Austrian Govern . meat Nacsencling to Turin that very summons 'with a eon ditionAl threat Of hostilities, which a week 'afterw ar d s L or d , • Derby, at the Lord Mayor's dinner, declared put Austria in the position of a "criminal." But the right hon. gentleman says " Oh, no ; the intimation was that Sardinia was to dis arm only as a preliminary to the congress," and he added that he received a few seconds before he rose a communica tion from Paris stating that the French Government were enforcing that recommendation and that there were good grounds for expecting that Sardinia would give way, and that the peace of Europe would be maintained—that the French and the British Governments recommended that which Austria was demanding, namely, that Sardinia should accept thelgeneral principle of disarmament as a process to be gone through by all the Powers concerned previmis to entering the congress. Well, but what was it that Austria demanded ?• Why, that Sardinia singly should disarm in the first place, and trust to her generosity after wards to abstain from attacking her—that abstinence, how ever, to continue only as long as the negotiations continued. Her threat was that _unless within three days the acquies cence of Sardinia was given, Austria would declare war against her. The right hon. gentleman must have known, or -aught• to. bays known . , at the moment he made that statement thiii such a notice had been given by Austria to the Sardinian Government, and with such knowledge, to say that the conduct of Austria was that of dignified conciliation implied such a partisanship with Austria that it is impossible, according to his own doctrine of neutrality, to maintain that his Government was neutral in the sense of a strict and impartial neutrality. The right hon. 'gentleman asks further questions in addition, to those which my noble. friend has answered. He de sires to know whether when the French Ambassador gave the memorandum which was afterwards conveyed by my noble friend to the Austrian Minister any appadtation of its terms was expressed by my noble friend to hit' Excellency, because, he says, if the British Government expressed to :he French Government approbation of those terms, then we are answerable for the result, and for the Peace of Vil lafranca. Now, 'in the first pla ce m y no bl e friend made no such statement. He said to the French ambassador, "I will take the paper and communicate it to the Austrian Minister, but I will give no advice and no opinion; I will simply be the channel of communication." But if the British Government .had expressed an opinion strongly in favour of those conditions, and had undertaken to support them at Vienna, the natural and (necesssary consequences would have been that the Emperor of the French would not have been disposed at Villafranca to propose to the Em peror of Austria more favourable terms than those which he had been led to imaginethe British Government would sup port and would induce Prussia and Russia to support in conjunction with her. Therefore, with regard to that, the statement is perfectly consistent with that which I made when the questien was put to me some time ago. At this late hour of the night I shall not go into the general ques tion—(hear, hear)—but I must be allowed to say to my noble friend who made the motion theillaie is the most ex traordinary composition I ever res. aughter.) He proposes that this house shall resolve at whereas the Government of Great Britain did all it could to prevent war, and during the war did all'it could to bring about a peace, on that account it should abstain from taking any part in the negotiations after the peace for the purpose of making that peace more satisfactory, more durable, and better for the interests of the party concerned. (Laughter.) That appears to me to be what I should call a non sequitur. I should have argued just in the opposite way. and should have maintained that the same spirit which had led the 'Government of Enhland to endeavour to prevent the war, and when it was commenced. to Tut an end to it, should be followed out on proper occasions when the terms of peace were not com plete, and arrangements of importance were not settled. I should have, on the contrary, inferred that it would be useful to take part under such circumstances in arrange ments of that kind when we were invited to .do so by other great Powers. Then, my noble friend says that that being the case—the British Government having been anxious to prevent war and afterwards to put an end to it, it would be contrary to the' honour and dignity of England—to do what? Why, to endeavour totake any part in settling the details of the treaty concluded by the two Emperors at Villafranca. The only inference to be drawn from the mo-: tion is that the Emperor of Austria and the Emperor of the French are persens with whom the British Government ought to have no transactions whatever. (A laugh.) My , noble friend has said that he drew the resolution himself. I am sorry if it be so. and I think that if he had taken the advice of the right hon. member for Stroud, or of some of those who sit opposite, he would have presented to the house a motion a little better shaped and more calculated, at all events, to receive the support of those who agree with him in his general views. (Hear, hear.) But we are told by the right hon. gentleman the member for Bucks that we are proposing to go into a conference for unsettling the ar rangements of 11815. Why, in the first place, we are not proposing to go into a conference at all. (Cheers.) It has simply been intimated to us that we may receive a proposal to go into a conference, provided the other Powers con cerned are ready to do so, and would like us to je•la them. (Hear, hear.) To upset the arrangements of 1815 is also an object which it is impossible to imagine that the Powers who might concur with us in a conference would unite to accomplish. No doubt there have been in the course of years great alterations made in the settlement of 1815. The annexation of the kingdom of Poland to the em pire of Russia was a great change in the arrangement of Vienna. So also was the annexation to Austria of the republic of Cracow. Ido nit say that on that ac count other changes should be adopted, because we protested both in regard to Poland and in regard to Cracow. No doubt, moreover, the transfer of Lombardy, through France, to Sardinia is a change in the terms of the treaty of Vienna. The right hon. gentleman the member for Bucks makes it a reproach to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he thinks that the arrangement of Vienna has not tended to the happiness and welfare of the Italian peninsula. entirely share that opinion. I think that though the set tlement of Vienna in regard to Italy was devised at the time for a purpose which was deemed important, its object in that respect has not been accomplished, and other evil consequences have arisen which .have produced years of misery and wretchedness to the - unfortunate nations who inhabit that fair and fertile district — (Hear.) Before the war began, we said that the Government ought to have persuaded Austria to go into a congress, and that one of the objects of that congress ought -to have been to maintain, in regard to the Austrian possessions in Italy, the arrange ment of 1815. So long as peace was unbroken the provi sions of the treaty of Vienna were to be' respected by all the Powers of Europe ; but when war put an end to treaties, as between belligerents, the territories that were the scene and the cause if war naturally passed from the worsted to the I more triumphant party. (Hear.) It is evident that those who have spoken on the other side imagine that the British view of Government would go into a conference wit h some v altering still farther the territorial possession s of Austria to driveler out of Venetia, which Italy, of endeavouring the war has still left in her hands. Now , I have always maintained—and I maintain still—that think Austria ' would be stronger if she had no posse ssions in Italy. (Hear.) Her possessions there, like the heel of Achilles, arc her vulnerable point ; they do not add to her strength, but ex pose her to only of military weakness, ; they are a source not weakness, but of moral injury. In order to maintain a cer tain . k 8 kind of government in her own territories, she thinks herself compelled to favour the same and even a worse kind of government in every other part of Italy, at d she has consequently placed herself in the odious light of being believed to be the real cause of all the misgovernment and misery to which the different peoples of Italy are ex posed. This is not an opinion of to - day or yesterday. A foreign friend reminded me the other day that 15 years ago I told him that the Italian possessions of Austria were a source of weakness and not of strength. I believe that opi nion to be a sound one, but it is one thing to hold an opi nion, and another for a Government to enter into measures for the purpose of violently changing arrangements which are the foundation of treaties that form the basis of the European system. (Hear, hear.) Still, if an opportunity should be presented to the British Government of doing good to Italy by means of a s conference, if by their advice and suggestions they should be able to confer lasting bene fits upon the Italian people, and thereby add security to the peace of Europe—in that case, they would not be justifiable if they refused to join in a conference with the other powers. (Hear, hear.) The right hon. gentleman the member for Bucks asks us whether we are going to deal with the Pope and the King of Naples. It is not likely that questions of that sort would be discussed in a conference. We know that advice has already been given to the Pope to reform his Go vernment, and so remove that discontent the existence of which compels him to maintain in Rome and elsewhere foreign troops to support his authority. A statesman whose name I forget once remarked that it is an unpleasant thing for a Sovereign to sit upon bayonets. (A. laugh.) The Pope is now in that disagreeable position, but I hope he will of his own accord select a more soft and solid support for his person and Government. (Cheers and laughter.) I trust, then, that the house will not support the motion which my noble friend has submitted to its consideration. The hon. and learned member for Bridgewater has met it in a Most indulgent manner. I should have been perfectly prepared to give it a direct negative, for it is wrong in its form , its substance, and its opportunity, tending to fetter the discretion of the advisers of the C ro wn on some future occasion, and under circumstances which • are at present unknown, because t h e y are not i th the hon. and in existence • but I am content to vote learned menribea for Bridgewater for the previous question. (H Lord ear, hear ELCH .) O, who rose amidst -cries of "divide," said the best answer he could give to theo and substance, was First Minister, who rm thought his motion wrong both in f to refer to the expressed opinion e,f the Foreign Secretary, that the motion was, in fa ct, a ftr in= , and that no man in his senses could say it w ould be consistent n ith the honour or dignity of Englan d to g csinto a conference merely to settle the details of the Treat f of Villafranca. The only complaint o y com plaint he could make wa 1, not t'nat the Chancellor of the Exchequer had exhibited any runt of courtesy towards him, but that he had never: read *le motion. That motion applied simply to the deta'ils 'the peace. It was said to be - irrelevant. So pen Aa s r se it was now, but three weeks ago, when notice of it v (as riven, he had reason to believe that the Government Ne.,:e4)about to commit the country to a conference, and to Si Ott' e the details of the peace. He had 11 carefully guarded ', lni ;elf from the supposition that if cir cumstances arose • v. tch he could not anticipates he wished to preclude the tsa e rnment from goirmisito a conference respecting the air airs of Italy. He as willing in that case to leave the er iscretion of entering such a eonference in the hands of the lover nmen f• And now what had been . an leeio leads a as her ride' the eigro pe r. to be the on it lands th e tlll4