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

that the of the late Goveinn.vat was o t. ( me of non trality, would there have been ? dir",deulty carrying a motion demandine the observance of neutrality d and it was mo tion of his noble friend was one, of the sa me made because there was a distrust of the motives of the tale lord opposite, who it was believed would enter a con :tress 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 th a t suc h a policy was inconsistent with the te -honour of thi s coun t r y. There never was in our history, a moment so i m p conduct or tant as respected our policy , like that pursued by th e Government. The noble lord had doled out scrap by scrap, and bit by bit, such information al; he thought would suit his purpose. In the first place, they had a despatch written by our Minister at Turin and the an swer o f t h e no bl e l or d. He (Mr. Fitzgerald) had asked if th e no bl e l or d could produce the despatch to Berlin 1 3f the 22 d of June, and he replied that it would not be for the mtereat of the public servicelthat it should be produced, and that it wou ld give i mper f ec t i n f o rmation. That despatchsho rtly after appeared in some of the Ger man journals, and the noble lord then produced the despatch in the very form Which ,, he said was o bj e etionable, w ithout any reference to a ~u "ntext and - without comment. In a short time the re mainder of the correspond Once appeared in the Germa t n . jeurnals, and we-obtained a knowledge of the d es p a tch wri tea lord produced our Minister at Berlin to noble lord. The noble produced only a solitary extra,.'t from the despatcl2,- I jitlitrat a word from which an opinion Cenla be formed ° our policy, and we were still ignorant as to what b ee n Written by the noble lord to Paris or to Turin ; . fi c,A know no- L ng of what the noble lord had addressed to our Is.:l t tliaters at thos e courts, or what answers h e h a d rece i ve d, and we Were equally ignorant of any communication which had been Made by the noble lord to the cabinet of St. Petersburg. If w e had this imperfect information it was the fault of the :obit lord, 'who left the house in a state of uncertainty with e gard te the policy of the Government. The speech of the lo ble lord the member for Haddingtonshire had had one good effect, for while it had elicited from the right hon. gen th man (Mr. Gladstone) a epeech which carefully avoided main question, it enabled the house to judge what were e opinions of the right 'hon. gentleman with regard to e j ltr alitY. The noble lord (J. Russell) said the other night `-and it had been repeated by the right hon. gentleman— that it was not to be supposed that he would go into a con tes rnertly to carry out preliminaries of peace which had •tl a e settled at Villafrinca. He did not say that such a )„,• `' 4 g as that could be done ; but in a case like this it was ~,71 P ossibIe for England to stand by and remain in ignor f,Le of the measures which were proposed with regard to , - "Y,• But the noble lord said something further, which ,e_ . - " sa clished the case of the noble lord the member for Had 17.1tonshire ; for the noble lord said it would be as well ri S t t 0 go into a congress at all with a prospect of doing 4 , zioncr. He (Mr. Fitzgerald) said that no subject could me bel'ore the congress in the shape of a proposition to Italy - which would not involve disagreement between Parties. He desired to ask the noble lord one question. It rese mbled a ques ti on put by the noble lord to Count Berne hte'e..., in one of the despatches before them. He wished to w if he entered th, , congress, whether there would not a difference on an ess,untial point in which the majority Would be against him ? If that was the view the noble lord to ki of the congress it was not likely to secure peace, but to / idle war. There was anothe:nvintofimportance. It was t e rfectly clear that the noble muit have accepted the s from Count Persigny with strong expression of lif te val, or how else could the Empere'r have received this ee ,.. °ll nation which would have justified hlin in making the I,`"munication. he did to the Emperor of Austria. It e as clear something like this must• have occurred, that z l sa nt-l!ersigny must have informed his maswr that com xelmications were passing between the English Govern eent rand the Government, at, Berlin, and that the pro- V ial s he had met with the sanction awl approval of her w tstr e G overnment. There was one other question the paper, he wished to ask. The noble lord said he handed s ad P,aPer to the Austrian Minister without comment, and b ad 48 was not responsible for its terms. Did he say he e i th. nothin g to do with them nor had the court . of !F ; terlin C er n? Or did he, by saying " I am notresponsible, b o ot Apponyi to believe that the Government of Berlin h ad cegnisance of them. (Hear, hear.) This transaction Produced most important effects; he would not say it 1` 1 ,„ raised difficulties between thm and their ally of b e irce--he had been a faithful ally; he (Mr. Fitzgerald) a ved he was sincere in his desire to cultivate the alli eaeticeawith England, and that he was disposed to make ces to meet the demands of public opinion in this not The misadventure of the noble lord may, perhaps, it, have raised difficulties with him, but he must feel that );_,uad placed him in a false position. (Hear, hear.) It ti ;',7 at least done this : it had made the chasm wider be itaden England and Austria, it must have raised distrust d• suspicion in the court of Berlin, and had introduced ,4tsstrust into the heart of the German Confederation. It br e a n ) st important that the noble lord should make a clean t te , a st and satisfy the House of Conamons how it was that 1 )0 ;. a transaction apparently so trivial results, so im titaant had followed. (Hear, hear.) He had occupied the (I I : of the house much longer than he had intended. ttne s a t i :' hear.) He had endeavoured to keep close to the ani 'raised by the resolution, and he was desirous to h e - nhat on the point which the n oble lord had to answer ad taken a course inconsistent with the honour, the 114 4 LY, d the inerets of thi country. War. The e lord an admitted t the s time had s passed when ( a theoretical (k r se ntimental policy could be enforced by arms. He e a • Fitzgerald) wanted the house to say they would in tkrZate a new policy, not that meddling policy which had b ee ',Aed their course for the last 25 years, and which had IC r epudiated by every man of influence. (Hear, hear.) p o : ° ,ould be asked would he have the country remain bat tess in the councils of Europe ? Certainly not, ci s ,WAS in that house her influence should be exer dors "t was not by the meddling of ministers or ambassa - t ee , but by the proud position which she held, and by the l'or e i l'' 2Pression of exalted sentiment, that she influenced h' n ations. By that she would do more to secure their a pp pre he than by m y s t er i ous negotiation, and she would L ord .7 -"-L1: Own honour and her own interest. (Cheers.) • VANE opposed the' motion. ~ Mr B. t COCHRANE said that if he had felt any doubt tha o the expediency of the motion now before the house, h e : doubt would have been set at rest after his having head ni the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He f eelz ll6 ver heard a speech which betrayed so strongly the inference, with which the Government would approach the p as . -ter ence, if they were permitted to do so. There were of that speech weich he regretted to' hear. There b• - e 7 some ports that would not have disgraced Mazzim ti l eh e f „ I t (Oh oh.) He had been unable to follow the fo' - H s; "° ll - gentleman in his ideas with regard to isolation, the here were positions when an isolated policy was that of leg greatest dignity. When the French were placsd in an th e g t t r ed position on what was called the Eastern question of th e en eaty of July, 1840, M. Guizot eroquently explained to st n Chambers that, although isolation was not the normal not h ef ,...,a country, there were yet conditions in which, from is e h e a 'mg been consulted with regard to arrangements, an h e n policy became one of dignity: The late war had - th e ' Undertaken in suite of every effort to the contrary on 00.s p e art of the late thivernment ; and, therefore, the present ster the acts must either go to the conference, merely to regi- Wit theacts of other Powers, or by mixing themselves up eihiit.:,ltalian question they would be assuming a respell- The% W hich would ultimately rest heavily upon them. t act . , gaNatches of Lord MalmesburF would prove the great had ability and impartiality- with w3lich that noble lord eatritlProached the question, and his views had been ably ( Pleat te ca g hY Lord Cowley. But the negotiations subse- W, er e e t . ee contest on which it was now proposed to enter mrda t a „Y e erY different character. He distrusted the noble alltee: head of the Government, because from their cong ree en e ts, they could not enter with impartiality into the Parties' " 1 4 must attend it as the advocates of a th e i „,. 1..• Holooked back to 1848, and found that alw ay ,'r b r i ronce of the noble lord (Lord Palmerston) bad the e b.; attended with disaster to the country that was fort lot of his diplomatic exertions. Naples, Sicily,land th a t Were all alike and there was a prevalent feeling Albe r t ; 8. 4 13 'Ni/i t. g to his advice.that. the unfortunate Charles Whole the u lB M- advised attack on Austria. Viewed as Teet er t , e noble lord's policy had certainly been of a cha b."---in' t: rv at (l id. not inspire . confidence &nee for the future. The Was a ention which this country was bound to adopt but n ° 74- intere • a ention not. merely .of arms and protocols, guag e, af i d i nterventie n also in respect of violence of lan °Pinion, • a n abstinence frOm all expressions of strong (Cheers) t he ha „ I LPIN believed it would not be desirable to bind dear tot of the G overnmen t ag ai n st upholding interests hearty sue People of England, and would therefore give a Th e ( - . ,;11 3 ,ert to the am endment. Chance% "NOIIITE• resented the strong . remarks of the r al auth r of the E xc h equer w i t h re f erence t o - th e tempo longerc.PritY of the Pope, and declared that he would no tna tte i:t r e v e his support to a Government which could such sentiments. tlbe 8 MILNES took a n opposite view and eulogised Pcech of th e Ch ancellor as oe which we ' uld give satis -4/tc.,ti.yen......t0 the coun t ry. 1-IENNESSY reviewed the social condition and in grna tprosperity of th e P apal States, and contended that 4 .,'"e Government of the Su reme Pontiff had been systema weeny labelled in• that house. t . Mr. HORSMAN said he had listened with great admim ech of the right hon. 'lon to the nowerful and spirited s gentleman, t)3.,a Chancellor of the Exchequer. i 43;l At he remarkablesame ti me he had fen . a little surprise at the'v and d h fu t hon. ture k_ene lesions by which it was characterised. F,, I?_.tlein an spoke In glowing terms of the pastt e "Vtaly ; and he showed them what would be l the future . of r i a 4st • r ia , strengthened by the new disposition h o her Italian t how 'the D ,, ° But he a !together omitted to PPiness of Italy or the' future prosperity o;A o . w uegi:.t all advanced bylEvgJand going into a Eu lla rop ri ea a ti w c a o ul n- d The motion of his noble . friend . was a very precise and a cti l u a le y . s ptheation of an existing rule of policy to a case u tae m th itted to the Gobernraent and awaiting its de rather the ent . this' notice was given. That vas a fact tath er strang I ly and conveniently kept out of s' ht Jurin tbuttteeddebate, It had been forgotten that the m l o g tion Cr • i ° n a Public announcement of th e Mi n i ster of t h e ortt yn ii _ the proPosal was actually before the Cabinet 1 that B e ubJ dd • of our being 'parties • to a conference ; an.d Whic. Government were contemplating that very act the e t i t this motion deprecated and condemned. What pligh t of the terms used by the Minister. that w w a e s arroli eenter into a conference for the s idera g ti o n ' a r not fin ally conclude ri bi r l aa st a i e ll o o f open to improving c o- Ile (Mr, Horsnaan) took that to mean that Aro • enter into a conference for the 13urpose of im beeaviliaLC the details of that treaty of which the bases had ately Feed to. His noble- friend (Lord Elcho) immedi • eok the alarm and gavre his notice. Some days had si nce el his a Psed, and some delayr• had taken place, for which ti,... l° lde friend was not responsible, and it appeared in ti. l , interim. the idea of a conference had been aban the nut on what ground ha,l it been abandoned ? On witc°mid , of the resolution that it would be at variance the • _ lt to be l Was • - pokey which Parliament 1 ad recently affirmed, or °I . sor tie PI atemporary aband on_ment in consequence Principal preliminary impediments not b9.l'eg , yet removed, the Nit impediment being the unwillingn ens of Austria to sub herself to such a conferenc e ? Unu',sr the pressure fed l" immediate and not . called upon the remote contingency, his noble t :.? rece n tl y affirmed f house to stand by th e p'iwi-iple it De allured in th •etZtnPications, throe clove ) strict neutrality, and above aLI, not nt t h hour to plunge into a set , of Z .B 4r !Pe did not pret u end that he the oldest . statesman ,cif Pr o n t h eresent posit' co see . way. What ion with regard t o international policy? Britista .mmencement of these Italian complications the e i,, a k-; binet clearly and positively laid down set;:nof action The first was, that it 'was theirdu t t w y o , repro effort national sentiment of England, to make effort to the be° a vert 'war • and the second, that ever y to observe . was equally their Peace or strict neutrality, whether there should war.str He thought it was important for the pes• 4 °- of our own position that the house should ackn ow tb; at the l a t e G overnment had maintained thos e t wo d,,,_ APtee hon oura b ly and consistently throughout. Their harctic el of neutrality was steadily adhered to—they were p a Verii to the cl ose; et and vieffing the policy of the late whole - -not picling out detached passages 'tented. the B hue Book here and there—he believed it repro 'tented. th national sentiments. natioatalek'a and that, it upheld the meter. (Hear, hear.) He wo4ald not take any Books, but beein the Blue s,it eentr , versy about the despatc . ook pains to show that, because he did not wish to enter into a S h was than it affected the hon. gentleman opposite. uc G was a question which affected them nationally far morn There have vernment came into office. (Hear, hear.) the state of our foreign relations when the present o been addresses from all parts of England—from all classes f av our of a strict and im p art i al neutrality. He did ne of the people --con t a i n ing one universal declaration in know when such unanimity existed in this c old that oun y this - fore. (Hear , he ar.) Now, they were t motion would fetter the Executive, and the Chancellor of th e Exchequer said it was a most' un usual motion. He (M r . Yi.ersman) did not wa nt to fetter the Government m ore than they wished to do themsel ve s while stttlfig on the other sj a re tort by saying that the motion was unietse.4, he might the house • and wh en he was told the conduct of the Governuaeiret the other side t#i.® principle Oflleutreit4 ',Yds tilt -id, now ; b ees unusual ; for s rile on sanship. they had taken their plages on the le ,of 4Pe they said that neutrality ought to LP tei kia,r4.2 rUe (Hear, hear.d in g th ei): 4;4.4 tleman ( Mr, Ike hon. and , 0 _ _ disap proved, said he would throw upon the u eernreent all the responsibility of this !flatlet' '? bi whatl 7 ___sz the respon sibility of Ministers? Suppose their t rey was, of o ce. (Laughter.) proved, they were merely turned eu- That was not much, for right hen, gentlemen took a high position on thd other side of the house ; and they might come into office again in a few days, (Hew, 3?R0..) itespon eibility being such a very light affair, it wes the duty of the house to take this precaution to prevent that which they co Lid not afterwards rectify. (Hew., hear.) There was a mysidry which had not been un ravelled ; but, per haps, it would be i n the course of the evening by the Secre tary for Foreign Affairs. There had been a small bit of -roper presented to a foreign ambassador by ou r M inister L r. ,7oreign Affairs, who did not approve Gf the contents -e mce e of them, who 444 got recommend nor depre nor disap elate them, by this Lit who simply mit.-e Ilimeelf the channel of communication 0: the document. 13 ' 4 * l s d ' a r erY country of that bit - .naper to Austria had ha the °act of bringing about he n since—.' peace In which En ge intil was ored, or there would not hi.:Ye been such a taw recog nitionto her the result of of her position in making known that peace. (Hear.) In a short time, however, it wag r found that that peace would not work , k Italy was stigeexas perated and disgusted, and the imperial pre was sorely perplexed. The noble lord at the head of the ProYenlanent 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 Muse 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 satisthetory, 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- I 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 contemporaneoui 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 inforsa tion. The statement of the First Lord of the Treasury had not furnished him with it. The noble lord merely stated that 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 the difficulties which attached to our going into a congress, and that it was impossible to do so , unless 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 /notion, 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 with the , peace. Were 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 London, sayoneword of the determinationonwhichGovernment 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 ? During the Russian war Austria maintained a strict, though not an impartial, neutrality, 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 much 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 net 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 ornot. 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. gentteman'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 along series of ages it had succeeded. But would any man tell him that the Italians, or any race of men en 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 which had been entered upon for the remedy of the evil. (Cheers.) What, then, tad this peace given them ? The very fact that Lombardy had been made part of a free State wits some guarantee for the liberty of North Italy. He did not say that liberty would work as 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. They 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 revoluti(.nary 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 dereliction of their duty to the rest of Europe. (Cheer s.) 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 i n 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 at'airteo poz . nt r , they then, were whatn o t t to aa was act t t , h a e n e d h j t e h e e t y ef m h •e a 7 to g discuss ru n men.t at all, if they were to be restricted from the considera teirionsisofhithtehegreawet political ;principles in this great political history. 10 tie up the hands of the Government in that way—nay, h for the noble lord to ask thing in time to n e r .:ome ls , did ow appear to hands—against he the doin g height a any-, y e - f the house to tie u the noble ord intended human only meaning to beth ce d ild not believe, however, that submitted to would () gath th er e e ru fr rs em e t , h h e ich rae w ti a e s h yet the f it hhs such hadlcihevee nurset hei tp :re : n u t s t e i!aem an f d rom he se c c o uri ul n d g not the freedom of Italy, and save d that P C: , 1111 8 experienced. bloid r. s w ueh m as T i E t shiadDEalreeemancountry ywofrulodm evils e ct e i n on d controverted the objection to the re tbheee n o t s l 3. 0 e r w s a e : y d , observed v t e h d e 'solution that it unduly Grip ,'l.):leedu'rphoelincaytioofnnoofnt..hineteearveceuntitivon and hitherto e. In ad house would but folio* eat Wished precedents, to some of maintamt opting it he through the whole eft; rse of the perturb a ti ons i n I taly. The C ongre ss of Paris tried to settle the Italian questi on an d w hic it h eu la t e rfi r i e i f t e y rr w et ic a li n t l i m enf a failed. What hope was there of better success from a re newal of the attempt at It congress elsewhere P He proceeded to remark upon the peril and mischief which would ensue if the conduct of discussions at any tittich congress were en trust,g4 f„,a the present iqiniSterS tie representing the jute resents and hiding the hAnot4 pf Lord J, RUSSELL--Sir s I tailat edheelvo a motion wor "o . vo the turbel s e it has IS Tiff than that Wore tip house, What Illy noble friend (Lord Elcho) endeavour's to affirm is, that the Crown should be invited abstain from doing a tiling WhiPh it MP payer been asied to do by anybody, anu vitit. lias not the smallest inten tion to 4R, 4y Roble friend says ? ." Don't tak,e any part in a congTeS4 fqr Fettling4otoijo pf apex o the preliminaries! of which were arranged by the two Emperors at Vill uy her Majesty franca ? ?? Th,-4 41 14 never been proposed. s, ' ' Government, eta elver 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 had the smallest intention to do. (Hear, bear.) I really con ceive, thPrftfore, tigtt it would be difficult to persuade this house to affirm such a motion, lam personally obliged to my noble friend ftg 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'; Govern Input on this question should have an op. Porillnity of expressing their opinions, and endeavouring to explain that their rnip of eondnot should be the prevail ing one. What say my noble friend and the hon, gentle man the late Under-Secretary of State fbr Foreign Affairs with regard t tilts great subject of Italy? The noble lord says Sardinia is entirely to blame, tmcl that _ _ if such 1341440 es 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 (Igr, S. Fitzgerald said the war in Italy was wholly owing to the promptings of Sardinia. 'I thOught I hr 4 read in the blue-book that Austria was told, in re peated doepatehes, that if shO Went to War at t4p, time she did she would have no moral sympathy or snout from this country. I ant 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 eon duct criminal, at, a time when she believed her territory was in jeopardy, is tee 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 sent 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 so 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 advise 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 the 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 tha 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 c d t n i d o n i t s i n b s e f , o a n r e d t h t h e y a t e the nte rP intoope a I s u s c o h w i a l c r o e n q f u i e d r e e r certain a c n o d n I have not heard that the Ki ng be established. It may be that Sardi n ia will requir e certain of the Two Sicilies has given an opinion favourable or unfavourable to a meeting ofeon tthweobdeanstgmeresn_oofnthe aotfeotunhesterY d m a n i g g h e t r s s r, is f r " e i W g n e i a n r te e r v b e e t n w t e i o e n n con ference ; but I can imagine the state of Italy to be such that with the vie* 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 to consider 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 conferenee, 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 disrespect to him), he has, after the man ner of an old sinner, wa rned me against acts of vice which I may be apt to commit. (A laugh.) He says, "Beware of a guarantee. Nothing is so dangerous to this country, nothing is so open to objection as a guarantee." Now, I had some recollection of what had been done by the late Govern ment in this respect ; but I consulted the blue -book to re fresh my memory, and there I found that Lord Malmes bury, with the consent of his colleagues, was ready to give a guarantee to Sardinia . —(a laugh)—a g uarantee for the integrity of Sardinia for a period of five years. •( Hear.) Now, it appears to me that such a guarantee is the most dangerous that any Minister could offer to another coun try. (Hear, hear.) In the case of Sardinia there would have been no end to the protection which you would have monthly, weekly, and daily to extend to it, and Austria would have said, " I am unable to bear up against this protection. My subjects are excited to rebellion against me by the conduct of Sardinia, and I must march a n arm y into that country to put an end to it." Then, though you might adroit 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 orsham by whom this guarantee was proposed, and 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 ain 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 t'russia I stated that all partie—l ought perhaps to 1 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 Cock , Napoleon, he did not approve the mode of trying a man without confronting him with the witnesses against him, or of using torture to extort a confession, and accordingly 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 sa y in g 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 ho is not so violent in his political views as to promulgate republicanism in the States of Italy. (H ear .) But what have been the facts of the case? We know what occurred in 1849, but during 1858 to 1859 have the Italians shown themselves guilty of any unworthy excesses ? So far froth that, their conduct has attracted the admiration of all Burope—(hear)—because th ou gh they wished to reform their Governments, and ;hough at some places they even proclaimed the Code Napoleon, anything more temperate, any/thing loss like violent republicanism, no country has evqr 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 ambiguous and somewhat obscure article fegardatE it in the gttorelw p habre r ihadts e afsa l oio i ton m vi i etaFt n hwkto a oheer r i esreoi eei place Foreign tss believet 0 00 t f hwr p aeAl ffhi e noa a caanit e aterh e ssoc . eenofd, erteidPahte conference rtae r oGr b e s from ar the e d i a t t may Zurich, b e e Butxp explained a w i nee have a v b by E Da m udk pe eesp r o o af r teT o h f usl t c h aha e nyy ;e aT n te ; f Emperor of the French has remhcoeisriveebettlhaihe nor the Emperor of Austria means to use force in order to theirr thatof ormerne e wi will with ' s s o re ceived to-day it appears that the Austrian Minis ter the people of Modena and Tuscany °be can have no objections ; but I ' must say, on the o ( t ) h purpose were to take pls reigns. Well, if they do so, her Majesty's G v that if . e Oiling° of ent hand, Sayerexgns were to attempt to use force, -a, and the Source of unfertunat e t rou b les in would be the commencement of a new strugri- ..y; it would be the what would be the evils, the -- and no one could say Ir.lited in such eironalat9- . .4itrages, that might be com verunient waulcl w' -.aces. To such a course the Go be necessary - , st decidedly object; but it would not becan.- I enter into a con f erence f or t h at purpose, ° ...lections could b e s t a t e d i n formal communica us the Governments concerned. It is not necessary that we should have a conference for that purpose, and the house knows that so far from being a friend to a conference, I see more objectioni against it than for it; but we are not to bar ourselves against the use of any means by which the peace of Italy may be preserved. (Hear, hear.) The hon. member for Horsham has asked me some 15 or 20 ques tions as to what passed between me and the French Am bassador before the conclusion of peace. With regard to all these questions an answer will be best conveyed by stating what happened. The French Ambassador had fre quently spoken to me of terms of peace which he thought, after a considerable period of war, if fortune should favour the arms of France, might be proposed. I listened to those statements, and I said it was not likely that either the Em peror of the French or the Emperor of Austria would be prepared to make peace at that time, and that therefore any consideration of set terms of peace should be postponed. But he brought to me one day a written piece of paper contain ing certain articles, and said it was the wiali 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 of it, , that those were the terms propeaed by the Emperor of t%elrench. However, he said enough to show that if these terms were accepted by Austria the Emperor of the French would be ready to sanction them. I was going to a Cabinet Council at the tune, and the I communicated to my col leagnes what he had said, They one and all agreed that we could not make a final communication of any such terms— that the period had not arrived when we could prefer our good offiees. But as those tern were more moderate than, from the proclamation of the French Emperor, we could have expected he Wettld offer, they thought it would not be right to conceit 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 en the same night. The hon. Inver asks what Prussia said. Nothing whate ver , for spoke to Prussia on the subject. (A laugh,) He also asked what Rus sia said. To that 1 have to give the same answer. Nothing whatever, for I hod communication with the Minister of Russia on the subject. (A laugh.) The Austrian Minister said it would be his duty to send the terms to his Government but wished to know my idea wit* regard to it. I sa id "Th e British Governnica24 transmit them to you to be sent to the Emperor of Austria, but as to offering any advice, we dis tinctly declare that we eller no advice or opinion regarding theln. Aostriii may accept them or reject them them as it may deem best." He said afterwards to me " Ido 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 en 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 prelbr that I should speak to the Mi nisters of PrgaSl4 and Russia, and inform them of the terms, and that there would be no difficulty in proposing them as a basis of a peace, lam ready to do so." (Hear, hear. I think it was our duty not to conceal from Austria that a new might be obtained on the terms proposed. (Hear, hear.) If we had refused to communicate these terms, and if Verona and Perschiera and 'Venice had fallen, and Aus tria had besn 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 .A.pponyi saying that his Government con sidered these propositions quite inadmissible. Ido not find fault 'with the hon. gentleman for making a confusion in the story, because he probably has heard it very inaccu ritelv, and has only repeated it as he heard it; but at that time, on that very clay, 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 to recom- mend them. My noble friend and I considered that ques tion, and we resolved to ask our colleages what was their opinion of that proposition. On the same evening, how ever, I received from Count Apponyi the note to which I have referred, alai accordingiy the next day there could be no doubt or difficulty in the Cabinet, because we were all agreed not to propose to Austria terms on which she was not willing to treat. These terms did nct 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 diffi culty attending communications by telegram, and it is like wise very diffidult for belligerent Powers to know what is going on in the councils of neutrals, but it certainly did so happen that while on the one side the Emperor of Austria 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 ho 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 m a d e . The Emperor of the French thought that war was impending on the Rhine, and that that was thefuture which he had to meet. The Em peror of Austria thcught 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 up Lombardy, I do rejoice that peace was made, and I think 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 om i tted 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 sae 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 prevail, who but the Duke of Bordeaux could claim the allegiance of the people of France ? and yet they pay no 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 G 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 which they reigned. If such is the case, is Italy to be the only country the people 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 in 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, believe that if y ou a ll ow th e people of Italy to settle their 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 with peace and order to establish the foundations of good government. With respect to our c on d uct i n t h ese m atters, 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 Europe as she has duties to her own people. I cannot believe in that at which my ri g ht hon. friend the member for Stroud se eme d t o hi n t— a new fantastic policy by which this country should separate Ciafunshseelfao,rgwohtenhetrhadtutadievslcief and herself, as it was supposed to do in Roman times, from the whole world, and attend merely to her internal affairs. r e t ei t required, irt while in the first instance her unous tc, other nations, while in the second place it would lead to the preponderance of some ould end in the loss of that and to the consequent injury and detriment great Power, etzhni.ch(beyneseurcah.)selfish means we had en deavoured hafe refusednl o t i those counsels ec people her would if d v i f s b h v E c e e e ir:e a nr n o o d one hon. gentleman in the course of the debate, it is hardly Mr. DISRAELI—Having been alluded to by more than not detain the house at any length by the few possible for me to be altogether silent ; but at this late hour I shall d v e erY tivo i ur nd e e d pe t n o d m en am 9 allusions which. have been made to me I will commence ob servations I have to offer. And to touch in order on the - .mama with the Chancellor of the Ex:chequer. The right hon. gentleman charges me t vith having violated neutrality in two distinct form is, and with having made an intimation in my place in I 'arliament as a respon sible Minister of the Crown of a mos rt inaportant character, which he then proceeds to prove 7 I was not justified in making. He says that while we pr efessed to be the advo cateP, .of strict and impartial neutr ulity, it was I myself who gave the first evidence of a *Won of it, because I spoke in terms of great respect of A ustria, while, on the other hand I spoke of Sardinia ire. language which con veyed a far different sentiment. Iha ye not referred to the authentic record of what took plaoe •on that occasion, but the time that has elapsed is so "brief, that I think I may trust to my own memory, and . - perhaps to the recol lection of the house—for though it was in a different Parliament, many members who w- 3re then present are pre sent now, and will be able to testif y to the accuracy of my statement.. It was on the night dICU it was my duty to lay before the house, in 'compile nee with the engagement of the late Ministry ; a statement ol: the exact position in which this country was placed with respect to our relations with Austria 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 ;net I spoke of the gallant; and interesting efforts made by that country to establish representative govern ment, and what are called liberal institutions in Italy. I said that was an effort which had (malls ted the good feelings of all classes 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 for 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 If felt convinced that this country would place upon those passages the most generous interpretation, as her Majesty's Government had. (Hear.) Was that an attack upon Sardinia P Is there any man here who will for a mom ant ' pretend that in the interval which elapsed between the capture of -Sebes 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 Affairs, who himself has acknow ledged and deplored those very passages in the conduct of Sardinia in fostering dissensions lin 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 the conduct 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 fur 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 wore the circumstances under which I addressed the house ? It was -one of the most critical passages of the negotiation 4. 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.) I 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-night 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 ? 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 in fluence, 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 regard to Italy is now di s ti nc tl y announce d. 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 shere 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 contem 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, fog 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 guarantee 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 ? 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 misconceived 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 noble 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 Horsham did address himself to 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 explanatory of every point except the one on which ,the house requires information. (Laughter.) The noble lord now tells us that, instead of the document 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 expression of approbation that, 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.l (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 Government give any ap proval. to the project contained in that piece of paper, and was that approval communicated to the Emperor of the French P That was the point on which' we required infor mation, and obtained none, though on certain po ints of hi s 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 . to con sider the affairs of Italy? Don't answer us by saying it i s possible the two Emperors may meet at Turin and come to some definite arrangement that will render a Congress unnecessary.. Don't tell us that these are matters of detai that may be require to be considered in a manner that wi open near 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 ar e avowe d an d 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 proves to me that the Chancellor 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 general danger. 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 influence ;" my dn 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 not 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-N. 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, both of 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 Qubject. With respect to the motion of the noble lord (Elcho), ,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 f e lt the form of the motion bayonet 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 incli na ti on or num b ers , t o d o )ustice to the subject, must necessarily arrive at a most hurried and precipitate conclusion. I objected to the form of the motion 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 to causes whi c h we a ll regret; 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 conntry with respect to its external relations before the prorogation of Parliament. The discussion which has taken place 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 on 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 Perna- mentary campaign —were disappointed. I remember the numerous county meetings that took place, and the memo rials and petitions that were adopted. r 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 that we have heard that expression from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because I feel convinced, considering, toO that in this house he sits beside the noble lord, and that both of themt o destroy s ar tro e y ln th en e Pope in i e n n t t h te e m in p te era rv m al en be t iw t ee ha n t It is to thei f they p attempt rem g n a time of it as his Holiness himself. (Laughter.) reasn, reason, that the con templatedand the reassembling of Parliament we shen have as hard be desired, then, for this if for no e other ee. Let the two congress may not . la sig natories of the them work out their their Ministers at Zurich. Let us see It • sketch. Let us have the finished picture. is an opera tionpreliminary articles at Villafranca meet with which we may vie greatshould put our hand tion. And if it be necessary that w e • w with interest and instruc • exhibit a proper and to it, depend upon it, if wenow w with immenselydig nifiedinterfere more effect when the rulers of France and Austria, if they fail, have confessed their inability to make a settlement, and when they appeal to us not to extricate them from the con sequences of the rash engagements into which they have entered, but to step forwardtosecure the peace o f E urope and that general cause of civilisation which will I trust enlist the best feelings of all the Powers of Europe. (Cheers.) Lord PALMERSTON—Sir, I am nGt 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 th e d e b ate and his reflection on the speeches o f my right hon, and noble friends have worked such a conviction in his mind that he gets up at the close of the discussion, throws over his friends, negatives the motion of the noble lord, and is perfectly satisfied that it is improper alike in form and in - substance, in time and occasion. (A laugh.) The right hon. gentleman was, however, not quite so sue • cessfnl in answering the observations of my right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer upon the same pas sage of a speech that he made in the list session of Parlia ment. My right hon. frientVadyerting tcahe interpretation endeavoured to be put by some hon..Menibers on the term "neutrality" —an interpretation whierk not confining the word to its ordinary acceptation of aflintinence from tak ing part in a war between belligerents, but extending it from action to thought, and from thought to expression— and accusing :the present Government of departing from neutrality because they have opinions as to what may be best for the welfare of the people of Italy; my right hon. friend; I say, stated that the right hon. gentleman and the Government to which he belonged had sinned, if it were a sin, still more in that direction than We have been accused of doing. As an example of that, he quoted the expressions used by the right hon. gentleman on ,the day preceding the dissolution of. Parliament; when he, on full preparation, pro fessed to give to the house a statement of the condition of our foreign relatiens._ The, right hon. gentleman then commented on the ambiguous and suspicious 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 ment was sending to Turin that very summons with a Con ditional threat of hostilities, which a week afterwards Lord 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 arm only as a preliminary to the congress," and he added that he received a few seconds before he rose a communica- Lou 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 Goveniments recommended that which Austria was demanding, namely, that Sardinia should accept theigeneral principle of disarmament as a process to be gone through by all the Powers concerned previous 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 ought to have known at the moment h e ma d e th at statement that 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 Govermnent 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.. p de sires to know wh e th er w h en th e F renc h A m gav e ba4 the memorandum which was afterw ar d s conve y ' - by my noble friend to the A us t r i an Mi n i s t er any approbation of its terms was expressed by my noble friend to his Excellency, because, he says, if the British Government expressed to the French Government approbation of those terms,' then we are answerable for the result, and for the Peace of Vil lafranca. Now, in the first place my noble 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' g i ve 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 inecesssary 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 imagine the 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 question was put to me some time ago. At this late hour of the night I shall not go into the general ques tion—(heat, hear)—but I must be allowed to say to my noble friend who made the - motion - that this is the most ex— traordinary composition I ever read. (Laughter.) He proposes that this house shall resolve that 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 put an end to it, should be followed out on proper occasions when the terms of peace were tot vom plete, and arrangements of importance were not settled. I should have, on the contrary, inferred that it would be useftid 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 to take any part in settling the details of the treaty concluded by the two Emperors at Villa'&anca. 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 join 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 settleinent of 1816. The annexation of the kingdom of Poland to the em pire of Russia was a great, change in the arrangem en t '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. I 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 Govern men t oug ht t o h ave 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 te and e the cause tot war naturally passed from the worsted to t the w ria b or o e b t i r t i v um e sp p o h k an en t those Government would go into a conference with some view . . r on otli (H er ea s r id . which her out of Venetia, ) e i m I t e i g i s n e evident.that t the tha ß n h t 0 _ Italy, of endeavouring to drive have always the war has still left in her hands. Now, I . . altering still further the territorial possessions of Austria in Italy. (Hear.) would be stronger if she had no possessions in . ' like the heel of Achilles, are her Her possessions there, maintained—and I maintain still—that I think Austria vulnerable point; they do not add to her strength, but ex pose her to attack ; they are a source not only of military weakness, but of moral injury. In order maintain a cer tain kind of government in her own territories, she thinks to herself compelled to favour the same and even a worse kind of government in every other part of Italy, and she has consequently placed herself in the odious light of and misery to which the different peoples of Italy are being believed to be the real cause of all the Misgovernment ex posed. This is net d 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 conference, if by their advice and suggestions they should be able to confer lasting bene fits upon the Italian people, and thereby add sec imt ur t t h y bee to pr the r . us ds p tewoT—hjhi whether hnr t ie h igrn a hw t at c eeh al e t rg h geone e i ynne conference withetowouldm gentleman deal nbt the t weo b t b e e rpowers. justifiable 1 13 B( f H ea u t they refused frabesEefkua hear.) Europe—in s thatwv adviceehrni cmh so would e r chn t oatman elds alreadysh him em removedb to nie givense t that maintainiantt oa discontent t conference, P e , t r o e op ne e to o . t and the King of Naples. It is not likely that questions of the ea . W enfae e r k nmel existence shoewiwshtGheoareoti supportrarhkiesdatuhtahtoirtitiys.anA unstapteeasasmanntwtbihz fnoarmeiegnl forget s onee for a Soverei gn t o s it upon b ayonets. (A laugil .) 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 s h ou ld h ave b een per f ec tly prepared to give it a direct negative, for it is wrong in its form, its substance, and its opportunity, the discretion of the advisers of the Crown on _ future occasion, and under circumstances which they are not are at present unknown, because with the hon. and, in existence ; but I am content to vote question. learned membei for Bridgewater for the previous q tending to fetter (Hear, hear.) to the First Minister, who the best answer he could g ive oth in form and substance, wee thought his motion wrong . . of the Foreign Secretary, to refer to the expressed opinion . Lord ELCHO, who rose amidst cries of "divide," said be consistent et ith the honour his senses could say it would . that the motion was, f England to go into a conference merely to or dignity e in fact t a truism, and that no man in settle the w of as the Treaty of Villafranca. The only Exchequer had exhbted•any want of c our t esy t owar d s the ii complaint he could mak ewas, not that the Ch ance ll or o f him, but that he had never read the motion. That motion. applied simply to the details of the peace.. It w as said tG be irrelevant. So perhaps it was note, but three weeks ago, when notice of it was given, he had, reason 'to believe that the Government were about to con emit the count to a confe ranee and to settle the d e t a il s o f t h e peace. Head carefully guarded himself from the su ppositiorethat itair cumstances arose which he could not anticipate he wiplod to preclude the Government from 'go ing into a confer-me , respecting the affairs of Italy. II e was willing ii, that case to leave the discretion of enterin€ ; such a confers' ape in the hands of the Government. And now what hal L been , TUESDAY EVEPIIIN TAB BUN, LONDON G, AU4IETST 9 1859. " -r",rrr!