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

IiVIPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF I, ORD S — (YESTERDAY). ' Their Lordships assembled at a quarter past four. ROYAL COMMISSION. The Royal assent was given by commission to the fol lowing bills : The Admiralty Courts', Jury Trial (Scotland) Acif Amendment ; Diplomatic Pensions ; Criminal Justices (Middlesex Assistant-Judge) ; Speaker Pawnbrokers ; Boundaries (Ireland) ; Chief Super intendent of China ; of the Legislative C o uncil of Canada ; Militia allot Suspension ; Court of Probate and Divorce ; Local Government Supplemental ; Colonial Legislature (Power of Appftl), Barbuda Govern ment, Vexatious Indictments, Charing-cross Railway, Landellaprovement Company, Scottish Central Railway,• Sheerness Railway (additional capital), North Eastern and Beydale and Leybourne Companies Amalgamation, Finford Bridge • and Banbury Road West End of London and Crystal Palace Railway (No. 1), Eastbourne Water, North Eastern Railway (Harrowgate Branch), South Yorkshire Railway and River Dun Canal Companies, Hereford Rail way, and the Earl of Kintore's Estate Bill. THIRD READINGS. On the motion of Lord REDESDALE the following bills were read a third time :—Waveney Valley, Kensington. Station, and North and South Junction Railway Amend ment, ,ancashire and Yorkshire Railway (Rochdale and Rayton Branches,) Midland Railway, Erewash Valley Amendment, Falkirk Police and Improvement, Central Wales Railway, Mid-Sussex and Midhurst Junction Railway, Wells and Fakenham Railway, West London Railway, Bridport Railway. POLICE (BOROUGHS AND COUNTIES) BILL. Lord CRANWORTH presented a petition, complaining of certain prtivisions in this bill. Lord NORMANBBY said he had received information to the effect that the act would work unfavourably. THE TREATY OF VILLAFRANCA. The Marquis of NORMANBY rose to ask a question of her Majesty's Government as to the project of peace trans mitted to them by the Austrian Government previous to the preliminaries of Villafranca, and also to inquire whether there could be any objection to the production of any official communication from the Secretary of State to her Majesty's Ambassador at Paris on the subject. The noble lord said the information on the transaction being so scant, he was desirous of obtain ing some information on the subject, and as affairs now stood, the neutral conduct of Great Britain was not very highly applauded ; neither did he think that any evi dence of that bona/1(k neutral policy, which it had been s tated would be the guiding principle of the present Administration, had been given ; and unless the noble earl near him (Granville) could answer his question clearly and decisively by stating that he had evidence in his possession,. evidence which would show that England had no share in making the peace, he should think most certainly that the Emperor Napoleon was quite justified in bringint the war to a conclusion in the manner he had done. T e noble lord then proceeded to recapitulate the circumstances which led to the outbreak of the war between Austria and Sardinia, and read a number of extracts from the despatches written by Lord J. Russell to the Minister at Berlin, some of which, he contended, con tained errors both of fact and reasoning, and also that the noble lord throughout the whole of the negotiations had taken what he considered a one-sided view of the questiOn. The noble lord, during his short residence in Italy, had derived some information on Italian affairs, but it was obtained from small, clever, and intellectual enthusiasts, who were not altogether the persons to conduct events of such importance as had of late transpired. The noble lord next alluded to the report that the Grand Duke of Tuscany had ordered the bombardment of Tuscany, and said he was of opinion, from the informa tion he had received, that the charge was utterly false. He trusted that no steps would be taken by the noble lord the Foreign Secretary without the sanction of his colleague. The noble lord then concluded by asking his questions. Lord WODEHOIJSE observed that when the noble mar quis gave notice of his questions he certainly did not expect that he would have gone into a very interesting but very discursive discussion on the affairs of Europe in general, and the affairs of Tuscany in particular. He would answer the noble marquis's questions by a very simple statement of facts. Some days before the conclusion of peace at Villafranca the French Ambassador gave the noble lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs a statement of basesupon which the French Emperor would be willing to treat with the Emperor of Austria. His noble friend (Lord J. Russell) received those bases, and stated that he would transmit them to the Aus trian Minister ' • but at the same time he informed the French ambassador that he could not give any advice whatever or any official opinion on the part of the Government. His noble friend did not think the time had arrived for making any communication as to such terms as he might think would conduce to an arrangement; he therefore merely placed in the hands of the Austrian Government a paper which stated terms on which the Emperor of the French was willing to negotiate, at the same time stating to Count Apponyi that he expressed no opinion and gave no advice whatever to the Austrian (government. (Hear, hear.) Count Apponyi immediately transmitted those bases to the Austrian Government. The answer which he received was that they were not acceptable ; and that answer was communicated to the Secretary of State on the 10th of July. As considerable misapprehension existed he (Lord Wodehouse) might add that no communication was made to Berlin or St. Petersburg with respect to the bases which had been given to his noble friend by the French ambassa dor. It was therefore an entire mistake to suppose that those bases had been agreed to by the three mediating powers, as they were called. (Hear.) As regarded the production of the papers, it would certainly be extremely inconvenient to publish a portion of the documents which related to a transaction not yet concluded. No doubt, if there should ever be a communication of papers to Parlia ment, the papers for which the noble marquis asked would form part. The noble marquis praised the neutrality of the late Government, but if it had not been greater than that of the noble lord there could not be much said for it. (A laugh.)- The noble lord's speech was meant to be an elaborate demolition of the provisionol government of Tus cany ; but on that subject he (Lord Wodehouse) wished to be really neutral. The noble marquis blamed Lord J. Rus sell for dwelling on the extreme imprudence of Austria in crossing the Ticino, but the language of Lord J. Russell had not, after all, been so strong as that of a member of the late Government with regard to the policy of Count Cavour and his Government—(hear)—but whatever the faults of that Government, the noble marquis, who was so strongly opposed to the party of Mazzini, ought to be the last man to censure it, for there could be no doubt that it had proved the chief barrier against a faction of which the noble mar quis felt such horror. (Cheers.) The Marquis of NORMANBY offered some explanations as to what he had said with regard to Lord J. Russell, and then asked Earl Granville to answer his question, namely, whether the transmission of the bases of peace by the Foreign Secretary to the Austrian Minister had or had not been the act of the Cabinet ? Earl GRA.N VILLE denied the right of the noble mar quis to ask such a question, but stated for his satisfaction that the transaction referred to had been the united act of her Majesty's Cabinet. Her Majesty's Government had taken what appeared to them to be the only proper course for them to take when one of the belligerents proposed certain terms with a view to put an end to the war ; but it must be remarked that his noble friend did not send the proposals to Vienna, he merely placed them in the hands of the Austrian minister, telling him exactly the circumstances under which they had been communicated to himself. (Hear, hear.) ENDOWED SCHOOLS BILL. Lord CRANWORTH, having presented a petition in favour of this bill, proceeded to move its second reading, briefly recapitulating the facts of the Ilminster case, and the decision of the Lords Justices that dissenters were not eligible as trustees for that school Considering that this bill had substantially received the sanction of the House of Commons, and that the appeal was going on, he trusted their lordships would sanction the second reading of this bill. They ought to treat these as.national institutions, and there was no reason in the world why 300 years after their estab lishment they should feel bound by the exact words of the founders, who, if they had lived in thesedays, would probably have desired that the schools should be open to all. If this bill were passed before the prorog ation, it would be a great boon ; but if not, he thought that this discussion and any expression of opinion on the part of their lordships would have a good effect. Earl GRANVILLE quite agreed with the noble and learned lord that the present state of the law required amendment, bue he believed there was no chance whatever of this bill passing through the House of Commons. There were some dissenters who felt very strongly on this subject, and would prevent this bill passing. After a few words from several noble lords, Lord CRANWORTH said, after the general expression of the opinion of the house it was not his intention to ask their lordships to give the bill a second reading; but he must say, so far from this being an imaginary grievance that the dissenters complained of, it was a real grievance. The bill was then withdrawn. The Copper Coinage Bill was read a second time. The Probate and Letters of Administration Bill was read a second time. The Police (Counties and Boroughs) Bill was read a second time. The Turnpike Trusts Arrangement Bill was read a second time. The Galway Harbour and Port Act Amendment Bill passed through committee without amendments. The Fishing Vessels Passing the Nore Bill also passed through committee without amendments. The Westminster New Bridge Bill's report and amend ment was brought up and agreed to. The Military Savings Banks Bill was read a third time and he passed. T Universities Incorporation Act Amendment Bill was read a third time and passed. The Income Tax Bill was read a third time and passed. The Imprisonment for Small Debts Bill's report and amendments were agreed to . The Queen's Remembranc . er, &c., Bill was read a third time and passed. The County Cess (Ireland) Acts Contintance Bill was read a third time and p assed. The Universities ( Scotland) Bill was read a third time and passed. The Constabulary Force (Ireland) Bill was read a third time and passed. The Manufactures (Ireland) Acts Continuance Bill was read a third time and passed. The Law Ascertainment Facilities Bill passed through committee. Their lordships then adjourned. HOUSE OF COMMONS-(YESTER DAY,) The SPEAKER took the chair at four o'clock. HUDDERSFIELD ELECTION. Mr. H. HERBERT, the chairman of the committee appointed to try the merits of the petition against the re turn of Mr. Leatham announced that the committee had decided that the hon. member was duly return had b ed. They haeen d also come to the resolution tha t certain' parties bribed, but without the hon. gentleman's knowledge, and that the same persons should be struck off the register of voters. COMMISSION. The Deputy Usher of the Black Rod summoned the h ouse to attend at the bar of the House of Lords to hear t 1 ie royal assent given, by commission, to several bills (for which see Lords' report.) On the return of the Speaker the House resumed. PRIVATE BUSINESS. The Lords' amendments to the following bills were cou gh iered and agreed to :—Chichester Harbour Embankment; Co, Ina Valley and Halstead Railway ; Herne Bay and Fa verb sham Railway (Margate Extension) ; Lancashire and Yorl 'tshire and East Lancashire Railway Companies ; Leeds, Brad, ford, and Halifax Junction Railway ; Maltraeth and Cora& trugan Marsh ; Norwich and Spalding Railway ; Nunea ton and Hinckley Railway ; Tendring Hundred Raft : pi, and Victoria Station and Pimlico Railway. The amendments to the following bills were also agreed to jerks and Hants Extension. Railway, British and Canadian Telegraph Company, South Staffordshire Rail w Robin's Estate Bill (Lords) was considered. PETITIONS. Petitions were presented in favour of the adoption of the design of Mr. Scott, for the New Foreign-offices, and the sale of Gas Bill. THE BUILDERS' STRIKE. Mr. EDWIN JAMES gave notice that he would ask the Secretary of State for the Hom 9 Department, if he would have any objection to state what occurred to-day in reference to a deputation of metropolitan builders who waited on him with respect to the present strike. -- -- - OFFICERS IN THE INDIAN ARMY. In reply to Col. STxxs, Sir C. WOOD, who was most imperfectly heard, was understood to say that there were some inequalities in the service alluded to, and that the subject would be consi dered 'ESE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, AUGUST 9, 1859. gentleman opposite of the results of meddling in the affairs of other nations, and it should be remembered that p; revious to 1850. England had interfered in the affairs of Italy. With what result? The Italians had been encouraged, fla Ittered, and betrayed, and if the hon. and learned member fo r Dun dalk was strictly correct in his statement the other night, the name of the noble viscount was abhorred, and th,3 name of the noble lord was detested in Italy. (Cheers.) l 3 to had too much respect for his noble friends to wish their :names to be abhorred or detested, and therefore he was at ixious that if possible they should keep out of the conferene e. If they went into a conference, what did they intend I o do ? There was nothing very inviting in the present state of the affairs of Italy; but if his noble friends went into a conft 3rence upon those affairs they would go as the friends of Ital. y, and in order to establish a better government in Italy. The , power which held the quadrilateral was the roaster of Italy. Pd antua and Verona were the keys of Italy. If they went in: to the conference as the friends of Italy, and in favour of liberty, were they prepared to abide by the programme of 11;4 . :8—to insist on the expulsion of Austria from Italy, and to join with France to effect that purpose ; or would they bet satis fied with the compromise of an Austrian archduke,. a free constitution, and an Italian army in Lombardy? 'What would they be prepared to do with regard to thet Pope and the States of the Church ? Were they pr spared to resist the Pope as the head of an Italian Con! klera tion, or were they prepared to insist on the seculari; za of the Papal States ? What would they do wit:. the Duchies? Were they prepared to insist on Austria. and France not being allowed to force the archdukes upon their reluctant people? What were they prepared to do with re spect to the French occupation of Rome ? Were they pre pared to insist upon Italy being left to the Italians, and . the French army withdrawn from Rome ? And with respect to the Duchies there was this difficulty. It being in. ihe original agreement that the archdukes were to be restored, the Grand Duke of Tuscany had abdicated in favour of Ids son, and that which might have been accepted as a compro mise could not be accepted, as the compromise had come too soon. Every day brought a new difficulty. The state of Italy painted in the columns of the daily papers was as a seething cauldron, with more elements of evil and discord than were ever known, and he hoped the Government would not plunge this country into it, since it was improbable tho result would be much for the good of Italy or of England . (Hear, hear.) He wished to urge the Government not to enter upon a conference on other grounds. There must be one of two things. They either had confidence in the Em peror of the French or they had not. He thought the Go vernment's entering into the conference might be either superfluous or dangerous. If they had confidence in the , Emperor of the French let them be thankful they were not, in the Italian mess, and keep out of it ; for the interests of Italy and tfie freedom of Italy would be safe in his hands. (Hear, hear.) But if, on the other hand, they had not confidence in the Emperor of the French, if they dis trusted him, and did not, believe that he was anxious to establish free government for Italy, how would they be able to attain their object? (Hear, hear.) He asked what the Government intended to do, supposing that in this conference their views were not consulted. Were they prepared to support those views by force, or did they only intend to bring their moral influence to bear ? It had been wittily, though somewhat irreverently, said that Providence was on the side of large armies—it might be added, when they were well commanded ; and this saying was equally true of moral influence, which would always be found on that side which could support it by the greatest physical power. He had seen one of the proclamations of the Emperor of the French, in which he said that during the war in Italy France had manifested her moral influence upon this question; but he wished to know whether her Majesty's Government intended to back their views with reference to Italy by force, or whether they would be satisfied with moral influence ; for if the views of the Government were opposed they might have to withdraw from the conference, and Italy would again consider herself abandoned and betrayed. He thought that, upon the grounds he had stated, the Govern ment ought to be very cautious before they engaged in any conference,,upon the affairs of Italy. He was quite aware that the views he had expressed might not meet with much favour in that house, so far as regarded the question be tween Italy and Austria ; but he had stated his honest and sincere convictions on this subject. He was prepared to hear it said that he had no sympathy with Italy, that he was hostile to France, aad that he was the advocate of Austrian misrule. He might be allowed to 'say, however, that he sympathised with Italy as much, perhaps, as any hon. mem ber of that house, and tha he would gladly see the people of that beautiful country well governed, happy, prosperous, and contented. Ho would go further, and would say that he believed, perhaps, the best thing that could happen for the security of the world and the good of this country was that a united kingdom of It tly should be created, consisting of 25,000,000 people. (Hear, hear.) A right hon. friend of his cheered that sentiment, but did any man believe that such a thing was possible ? Was there anything in the cir cumstances of Italy that rendered it probable ? It was a fairy vision and an agreeable dream, of the realisation of which he saw no prospect. Would France allow it, or would she aid in creating upon her frontier so powerful an empire which would render the idea of making Italy a French dependency an impossibility ? He disclaimed any hostility to France. So far from entertaining any such feeling, he looked upon the French alliance as necessary not only to the well-being of both countries, but also to the advancement of civilisation and the advantage of mankind in general ; but he was not prepared to sacrifice everything to that alliance. He was no advocate of Austrian misrule. He did not deny the misdeeds of that empire ; he was ready to admit them ; but he was not blind to the fact that Austria was our friend and ally as well as France, and that it was essential to the equilibrium of Europe, and to the safety of England, that Austria should remain a great Power. (Hear.) It was not, then, because he had no sympathy with Italy, because he was hostile to France, or because he was the advocate of Austrian misrule, that he expressed his views, unpopular though they might be, upon this question. In his mind one consideration was paramount to all others, and that was— what is for the good of England? (Hear.) He believed it was for the advantage of this country that we should abstain as far as possible from any intervention in the affairs of foreign nations. (Hear.) He did not see any benefit that could arise from our interference either to Italy or to this country; but he did see many dangers ahead—(hear)—and he foresaw that by such a course we might involve our selves in complications and difficulties which we might have cause to regret. It was- on these grounds that he urged her Majesty's Government to be cautious how they went into any conference with reference to these questions. He did not wish to tie up their hands, but to leave them, as British Ministers ought to be left, to the free exericse of their discretion upon this subject, when that discretion was to be exercised, not upon petty details, but upon general questions of principle. If his noble friend saw cause for going into this conference with any prospect of doing good, and with the certainty that no danger would accrue to this country,—although he (Lord Elcho) confessed he could not conceive such a state of things;—if he would go into the conference not in the spirit of a partisan, but of fairness and impartiality;—if he would look to the interests of England as well as to those of Italy ;—if he would engage in the confer ence, not as the Minister of Italy or of France, but as the Mi nister of England, he for one would earnestly pray for his success, and no one would more ardently desire that his endeavours to give better government to Italy and greater security to Europe might be crowned with success. He begged to move,—" That an humble address be pre sented to her Majesty, stating that in the opinion of this house it would be consistent neither with the honour nor dignity of this country, which throughout the late negotia tions had preserved a strict and impartial neutrality between the contending Powers, and used its earne s t en d ea vo u rs to prevent the outbreak of hostilities, to take part in any con ference for the purpose of settling the details of a peace the preliminaries of which had been arranged between the Emperor of the French and the Emperor of Austria.,' Mr. HORSMAN seconded the motion. Mr. h INGLAKE said he had undertaken to meet the noble lord by . moving the previous question ; because he humbly 'conceived the proposal thenoble lord had submitted to the house was one which could not be appropriately vet either by an affirmative or by a negative. He did not desire to lay it down broadly that the proposition the noble lord bad submitted to the house was unconstitutional. but he did say that fir the House of Commons to advise herjMajesty in place of her Majesty's accustomed advisers was to ex press strong distrust of the Ministry. If not actually a vote of want of confidence, the resolution was so near an ap proach to it that no one who could assent to it would hesi tate to support a di r ect vote of want of confidence. Possibly the resolution was brought forward with party objects ; but if that were so, where was the party to back it up, the opposition benches being empty ? (Hear.) If they looked to the merits of the proposal it seemed to him inconceiv ably rash to attempt to lay down the policy that should or should not be followed—not at this moment, but at some weeks, or perhaps some months hence, and to define in total ignorance of the circumstances that might prevail when that policy was to be brought into operation. Three weeks hence a state of circumstances might exist which would induce the noble lord himself to go intothe congress; yet if this motion were carried the hands of the Govern ment would be had, aid however much our taking part in the deliberations might tend to the advantage of Europe and the interests of peace, they would be debarred from doing so. It appeared to him, therefore, that it would be far better to adopt the old-fashioned constitutional course of leaving her Majesty's ministers free to act as cir cumstances might require, and to hold them responsible to parliament for the course they pursued. He concurred with much that the noble lord had said in deprecation of the con gress; but, on the other hand, one of the reasons which the noble lord had advanced against a congress—viz., the peri lous state of Italy—was one which might be used on the. other side of the question ; because it was just possible that by means of the congress a satisfactory solution of the diffi. culty might be arrived at. He, however, perfectly agreed with the noble lord when he deprecated our taking part in the congress, on the ground that we should be likely to enter it without authority. At the close of a general war a congress of nations to settle territorial and other arrange ments was no doubt proper ; but in this case England had not been belligerent, she had taken no part in the war, and could not, therefore, appropriately negotiate the arrange ments for peace or for the disposal of the spoils of war. There was another objection which he felt to entering into this congress, viz., that England had not been generally suc cessful in congresses. After the congress of Vi enn a, all Europe was made merry at the blunders of the Marquis of Londonderry; arid he could not lo)k with pride or satisfac tion at the congress of 1856, so far as we were concerned. No one could tell what English statesmen would say or do on such occasions —(hear, and a laugh) —and sometimes it happened that they would commit most fatal errors, and commit the country to a line of policy the most injurious to the interests of the country, without any opportunity being given to Parliament to express any opinion upon it until it was too late. Before the congress of Paris no man's reputa tion stood higher than Lord Clarendon's. But what did he do then? He (Arr. Kinglake) saw by the protocol that one day, apropos of nothing, the noble lord stood up and de nounced almost the only free press on the Continent —the press of Belgium, and expressed the horror and indignation with which he regarded the Marianne society, of which we had never befort heard in England, but which he described as one of the greatest pests of society. He looked upon such language coming from Lord Clarendon as derogatory to Eng land, because every man who heard or read it must know that it had been put into the mouth of our negotiator by some foreign power. The conduct of the Italians throughout the late war had been admirable, whether we looked to th e ir bravery, their moderation or their love of order , and if there was one man who had achieved more glory than another in the course of that brief but bloody war it was General Garibaldi. (Cheers.) It was time for Austria and for Europe to abandon the idea that states could be held or partitioned by the mere purchase and the transference of title from ono reigning family to another wishout any re ference to the will of the people. The States of Italy had expressed their will with perfect order, and as far as we could judge with calm determination. Tuscany, Modena, Parma, and the legations, had all shown a strong determi nation no longer to be ruled by the rulers by whom they had hitheato been governed. (Hear.) Now what he (Mr. King lake) wanted to know was whether those rulers were to be forced back upon them ? (Hear, hear.) If they could be satisfied that the wishes of the de facto governments of Italy would be respected, and that the foreign troops would be withdrawn, and that the s e terms would be offered as the basis of the congress, though much as he deprecated the idea of a congress to which this country should be a party, he thought there might be sufficient to warrant our taking ~~', NATIONAL DEFENCES. Sir F. SMITH asked the Secretary for War whether the Royal Commissioners to inquire into the defences of the country had been appointed, and whether there was any probability of their making a report before the prorogation of Parliament ; and, if not, whether, on the recommenda tion of the commissioners, her Majesty's Government would feel at liberty to suspend any works which have been al ready authorised by Parliament, or to commence without such authority, any other works which the commissioners may represent to be of an urgent character. Mr. S. HERBERT said that the commission had been appointed, and would shortly present their report. Mr. O'CONNELL asked the Secretary for War whether he was prepared to introduce a regulation to enable Roman Catholic soldiers to attend mass on the holidays of their Church, when they could do so without interference with their military duties ? Mr. S. HERBERT said that, according to the regulations of the service, Roman Catholic soldiers were permitted to attend their own places of worship, when they could do so withodt interfering with their duty. BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE. Lord PALMERSTON moved that the orders of the day should be postponed until the motion of the noble lord (Elcho), in reference to Italy, should be disposed of ; and suggested that, in order to facilitate business, the house should meet to-morrow at one o'clock. The motion was agreed to. AFFAIRS OF ITALY.—THE CONFERENCE. Lord ELCHO said it was not without a deep sense of the responsibility and difficulty of the task he was about to un dertake, as well as of his inability properly to treat so im portant a subject, that he had given the notice which stood in his name on the paper. He did so because he felt strongly upon the Italian question and on the subject of the late war, and because he dreaded from .what he heard that, unless some means were taken to obtain from this house an ex pression of opinion with reference to the conference, they might find themselves irretrievably committed to it. He was, however, bound to admit that a statement subse quently made by his noble friend the Foreign Secretary showed that the country was not, at least at that time, com mitted to the conference. But there prevailed in the house on that occasion a strong feeling of the desirability of fur ther discussion upon this question, and of some stronger expression of opinion against entering into the conference, Many persons had expressed a hope that ho woule not withdraw his motion, and he had therefore felt it his duty now to submit to the house. Before doing so, however, he wished it to be clearly understood that the reso l u tion was brought forward without any connexion with hon. gentle men opposite. This should be understood, in justice to them, because he might possibly express opinions for which they might be sorry to be made responsible. With this preface he would now refer the house to the motion itself. It began by stating that throughout the late negotiations this country had preserved a strict and impartial neutrality. He had no wish to enter into any detailed statement as to the conduct of the late Government in the negotiations which preceded the outbreak of the war, but, as he should have to touch upon the neutrality of her Majesty's present advisers, it was desirable they should come first to some clear understanding respecting 'the neutrality of the late Government. He did not know whether any gentle- man on the Treasury bench was disposed to dispute the statement in his resolution, that the neutrality of the late Government was strict and impartial. His noble friend (Lord Palmerston) certainly had in hating speeches and in this house declared that their conduct in this respect was not impartial, and that they had throughout been partial to Austria. Now he (Lord Elcho) was not going to refer to the blue-book in proof of this part of his motion, but would simply refer to what had passed in another place on the point. Lord Stratford de Redcliffe gave notice (Order) — The SPEAKER—It is contrary to the rules of this house to refer to debates in another place. Lord ELCHO said that a notice was given in another place of a motion to the following effect (Order) — The SPEAKER—Such a reference is contrary to the rules and orders of this house. Lord ELCHO—Notice was given of a motion to the effect that the conduct of the late Government had been impar tial, and in reply the Ministerial leader there stated (Order, order) — The SPEAKER—The noble lord is entirely out of order in the course he is taking, in continuing observations which point immediately to discussions that have taken place re cently in the other House of Parliament. Lord ELCHO regretted that he was out of order because had he been allowed to allude to this statement he thought it would have proved that in the opinion-of the Govern ment this portion of the motion was correct, and that the conduct of the late Ministry had beeti strictly impartial. He would, however quote a passage from a recent publication which gave a speech delivered by Lord Normanby on that occasion, with an appendix. Lord Normanby, who had perhaps been more mixed up in these Italian questions, and who was more conversant with their intricacies, than any other person, said in this appendix : "With respect to the correspondenceol believe that those who had before most vehemently imputed partiality to the late Government have since avowed their conviction that nothing could be more creditable than their general tone, or more obvious than their boha fine neutrality." As we had been neutral during the negotiations which pre ceded the war, and also through the war itself, so it ap peared to him desirable that that neutrality should be con tinued. There was no Englishman who did not sympathise with Italy in her past sufferings and her hopes for the future. The danger, indeed, was lest Englishmen should be run away with by their sympathies and should look to Italy alone, and not to England. But respecting the late war two sets of opinions prevailed. In the first place, there were men anxious for the well-being of Italy, and anxious that she should be better governed, who nevertheless be lieved that this war was not justified by the circumstances of the case, who could not help feeling suspicion when a despotic Government professed to give free institutions to Italy, and who regarded with alarm any interference with the balance of power as settled by the treaties of 1815. There were those again, who, looking only to the deliver 'knee of Italy from a foreign yoke, cared not by whom this deliverance was effected, and therefore approved the crusade by France for the establishment of free institu tions in the Peninsula. Those who maintained such an opinion had been rather disappointed by the event, and had been induced, indeed, to de some injustice to the Emperor of the French, because the fact that his Majesty had con cluded peace was, under the circumstances, no necessary proof of his insincerity. (Hear, hear.) It only showed that the difficulties which confronted him were greater than he anticipated, and the utmost that could be said was, that he had shown a want of foresight. (Hear.) He (Lord Elcho) confessed that he shared the opinions of the first class of persons to whom he had referred. He could not consider the war as justified, and he could not regard Austria as having, morally speaking, been the aggressor. He knew it was of no use to talk in the hope of convincing his noble friend Lord Palmerston. In a debate which took place in 1850, his right hon. friend Mr. Sidney Herbert said, that the noble lord apparently looked upon Austria as the cause of every ' evil and of every insurrection which occurred in every part of the world. Referring to the despatch which his noble friend had suppressed for eight months, the Secretary-at- War added : " That he purposely suppressed the Austrian note deny ing the intention of invading Piedmont, because he did not think the professions of Austria worthy of credence." He had no hope, therefore of changing the views of his noble friend with respect to the misdeeds of Austria ; but he must at the same time contend that, although Austria, literally speaking, was the first to break the peace of Europe by the crossing of the Ticino—a step which must be re garded as worse than a crime, because it was a mistake,— she could not be held responsible for that previous state 01 things of which the war was the result. He happened to have been in Italy in the course of last winter, and he could state from his personal knowledge that up to the month of December there had been exhibited on the part of Austria no signs of movement indicating a preparation of hostilities, and that not a single soldier had up to that time crossed the Alps to join the Austrian army in Italy. 'lt was not, indeed, until after the celebrated speech which had been addressed to M. Hubner that any reinforcements had been sent to that army, and he had good reason to believe that Austria did not determine to take the final step of passing the Ticino, until she had become positively aware that the French preparations had been so far advanced that all the different expeditions which had since been carried into execution had been organised, the number of,troops of which each was to be composed settled, and not only that, but the commanders and generals of brigade who were It be at the head of the different divisions of the French army named. Indeed, any man who would read the blue• books could not fail to perceive that war had become a foregone conclusion with the French Emperor, and that Sardinia was in reality b u t th e a d vance d guar d o f France in the contest. (Hear.) To F rance an d S ar di n i a , then, and nut to Austria, must the c auses w hi c h h a d l e d t o hostilities, in his hadsaid aew nightsopinion,beattri before thatbuted.Anhonse.nap friend liie his u o st f ehad indeed been done to Sardinia in the matter ; but while he (Lord Elcho) Italian admired, as everybody must admire, her persevering efforts in the ca use of freedom e in 1848 as well as at the present day,—while h States as the was ready to admit that she had shone ou t to those j beacon -light of that liberty from the w hich they were debarred, he could n forgeto e t njoy m e that t f ever s i nc e 1849 Sardinia had pursued inreference t r ia a policy of provoc ation and of insult. He had thoeen in • Italy in 1 857 , when the Emperor of Austria a nd his youth ful bride had visited their Italian possessions, and he recol lected that the Piedmontese press was then rife with insults towards Austria —with everything that could be thought of to incite Lombardy to insurrection, and with articles j ust i_ fying regicide and assassination, the sentiments which they contained being upheld by Scriptural illustration. From what he had stated it would, he thought, appear pretty evi • dent that Sardinia was bent upon going to war with Aus- ;ria ; and if further proof were wanting that such was the case, that proof was to be found in the address which was presented to King Victor Emmanuel on the occasion of his triumphant entry into Milan, in which he was congratu lated on the success of a project which he had been so long engaged in preparing. These facts, coupled with the French and Sardinian treatyand the French and Sardinian marriage, afforded tolerably conclusive evidence, he thought, of the justice of the view which he sought to impress upon the house. So far as the part which France had taken in the matter was concerned we were, of course, bound to be lieve that she was unprepared for hostilities, since she had stated such to be the case. But then there were the treaty and the marriage to which he had just alluded, as well the Hubner speech, besides thefact that a portion of the French army had• —even before the Austrians crossed the Ticino — passed the Alps and reached the waters of Genoa, to be taken into consideration before implicit credence could be given to that statement. (Hear.) It must also be borne in mind that within three weeks after Austria had crossed the Ticino 200,000 French soldiers were drawn up in line on the plains of Piedmont. (Hear, hear.) With those facts staring him in the face, all he should say was,—lf France can do all this when she is unprepared for war. God help the nation against whom she wages hostili- ties when she is ready for the struggle ! (Cheers.) Now, he for one could not sympathise with France and Sardinia in the contest which had just terminated, be cause he did not think it eould be shown that a sufficient justification on their part for entering into that contest had been proved to exist. He thought such an interference on the part of France established a most dangerous precedent —a precedent against which it was both the interest and the duty of England to protest. For his own part, he could see no difference whatsoever between the position of the French in Lombardy and that which they might have occupied in Ireland in 1848, if, when a deputation from that country waited on M. Lamartine, who was at the time President of the French Republic, he had, instead of declining to accede to the wishes of the deputation, married his cousin to Mr. S. O'Brien—(a laugh)—and landed a French army in the harbour of Cork. (Hear.) The prin ciple of armed intervention in favour of suffering nation alities was, in short, one against which we ought to protest, inasmuch as if any one nation were to arrogate to herself the position of acting upon the doctrine that might was right, there would be an end to the public law 'of Europe, and we should be returning to the old days of the German faustrecht. Those were the reasons why he could not sympathise with France and Sardinia in the recent struggle. But as there were two views of the war, so there were also two views to be taken of the peace to which it had led. Everybody must, he thought, rejoice that that peace had been brought about, inasmuch as it put an end to hostili ties, and relieved us from those daily details of sickening slaughter upon which no one could dwell without a feeling of horror. But while that was the case, and while there were those who were delighted to find that there was to be no more bloodshed—who hoped Italy had benefited by the war, though they were disposed to doubt that such a result had been obtained, and who also were glad to find that Austria still remained one of the great Powers of Europe, and that thus the balance of power was main tained, there were others who, led away by, their sym pathy with Italy—a sympathy in which he cordially concurred—regarded the peace with disappointment, inasmuch as Austria still ruled on the Italian side of the Alps. As to the views of the Government on the sub ject, he must say that he could not help thinking that they regretted that Austria had not been driven across the Alps, and that they were desirous to effect by means of negotiation and the pen that which force and the sword had failed to accomphsh. He had spoken with respect to the neutrality of the late Government, he now adverted to the neutrality of the present. It appeared to him that, instead of being similar, the neutrality of the latter was rather that of the advocate and the partisan than that of persons who wished to assume an attitude of strict impartiality. What, let him ask, was the meaning of the word neutrality ?" The de finition which Johnson gave of the word he found to be, " a state of indifference, of neither friendship nor hosti lity." He had likewise turned to the pages of Vattel to learn the correct import of the term, which was explained by that eminent writer in the following words : "Neutral nations are those who in time of war do not take any part in the contest, but remain common friends to both parties. A neutral nation must in all things show a strict impartiality towards the belligerent Powers." Now, if that were the true meaning of the word, would it, he should like to know, be said that the present Government had maintained an attitude of neutrality in the case of the recent European contest ? It was unnecessary to refer to the speeches of his noble friendson the Treasury bench, whether made on the hustings or within the walls of that house, in order to supply an answer to that question. Those who had perused them would, he thought, admit that such a neu trality as that which he had described had not been the ob ject of their lives. (" Hear, hoar," from Mr. Whiteside.) He should leave 1848 to be dealt with by his right hon. and learned friend who had cheered that sentiment. What they had sought then, and what they now sought, was the bona fide expulsion of Austria from Italy. As he had said before, he need not refer to their speeches to prove the justice of that view. Every line which had been penned by his noble friend the Secretary for Foreign Affairs in his despatches went to support the opinion of his policy which he (Lord Elcho) entertained ; he should go further, and con tend that when thosedespatches were compared with those of the Prussian Government it would be found the latter indicated the maintenance of a more impartial and dignified position on - her side as the friend of both parties in the con test than that which the noble lord seemed desirous to up hold. The fact, indeed, of his noble friend having acted the part of the French commissionare, in communicating the French seven points to the Austrian Government, clearly showed the animus by which he was influenced. That was in reference to the seven points, but he would like to know what was done in reference to the three points. He would like to know whether there was anytruth in what he heard that the seven points were subsequently reduced to threeor four; that those three or four points were submitted to his two noble friends by the French Minister • that they were accepted by his noble friends without the Liowledge of the Cabinet, and that the Cabinet was summoned to meet the following day to consider those points, but in the Meantime peace was concluded between the Emperor of the French and the Emperor of Austria. Lord J. RUSSELL.—It is not true (Hear, hear.) Lord ELCHO said that he had then been misinformed, but he thought his noble friend would be very glad that he should have given him an opportunity of contradicting a statement which had gained currency upon the subject. If he were wrong in stating that as an instance of a want of neutrality on the part of the Government there could be no mistake in a despatch of the French Minister, dated Paris, the 20th of June. Count Walewski, at the close of it, said— " Without yet having official information of the disposi tion of the now British Ministy, we are authorised to info r from the debate which preceded their coming into power conclusions mostfavourableto the independence of Italy, and we are under the firm persuasion that the English Govern ment is in its views, as well as in the support of its influence, favourable to the solution that we ourselves seek." In the opinion of the French Minister for Foreign Affairs there was identity of object and sentiment between the French Government and the Government now in power and he had yet to learn that the French Government had been neutral in the Italian question. (Hear.) He main tamed that the conduct of the Government sho wed that that were not neutral ; that they were rather partisans, and that if, therefore, they went into a conference, it would not be in an impartial spirit, but in the spirit of partisans. (Cheers.) That was important, and must necessarily influ ence the views which the house would take of the confer ence. He thought the house would agree with him that it was desirable that any Government which went into the conference should go into it without any prejudices, and with a determination to do impartial justice. He was sure that such was the view of his right hon. friend the Chan cellor of the Exchequer • for, although they might object to the definitions of neutrality! which he had given from Dr. Johnson and Vatel, the following was the opinion of his right hon. friend in 1850 : " The more we may be tempted topympathise with Sicily, the less we admire Neapolitan institutions and usages of Government, the more tenacious, I contend, we should be of our duty to do them full justice. I say, therefore, that the noble viscount (Lord Palmerston), when he thus anti cipated the dismemberment of the Two Sicilies, did an act which breathed a spirit of hostilitytowards a friendly Power —an act at variance with duty—an act ill adapted to ad vance the true interests of freedom in that or any other country." He thought the house saw how curiously appo site the quotation was at the present moment, and how clearly it would apply if, instead of Naples, they read Aus tria, and instead of Sicily, Italy. (Hear, hear.) He had already said that he gave notice of his motion because he did not think it consistent with the honour, dignity, or in terests of England to go into a conference to settle the mere details of the peace. The Government had told them that it 'was not their intention to go into the conference for that purpose, but that they were pre pared to go into the conference on the general affairs of Italy. The justification for his motion was to be found in the ambiguity as to what were to be considered principles and what details. What one Power might consider a question of detail, the other might consi der a question of principle. But, with reference even to the great principles upon which the Government were ready to go into detail, in the general affairs of Italy he hoped they would be very cautious before committing themselves. (Hear.) He believed that the true policy of this country was the policy of non-intervention. (Cheers.) He did not mean that England was to roll herself up like a hedgehog and take no note of affairs in the outer world, but only to intervene in the affairs of other nations when the interests or treaties which bound this country compelled. (Hear.) That was the policy which was advocated by the late Sir It. Peel with his latest breath. In, the speech which he deli vered on the night before the melancholy accident which terminated in his death he left a noble legacy to English statesmen as to what their line of conduct should be with regard to intervention. Sir R. Peel said— " Which is the wisest policy—to attempt to interfere with the institutions and measures of other countries not border ing upon our own, out of an abstract love of constitutional government, or to hold the doctrine maintained by Mr. Fox, Mr. Pitt, Lord Grenville, Mr. Canning, and Lord Castlereagh, that the true policy of this country is non• intervention in the affairs of others ?" In the same debate the same views were ably advocated by the right hon. gentleman whom he now saw on the Trea sury bench, and by the apostle of non-intervention, the hon. member for Rochdale. Mr. Cobden said— " I say if you want to benefit nations struggling for their freedom, establish as one of the maxims of international law the principle of non-intervention." - When the English Government had departed from the principle were the results satisfactory ? (Hear.) In the same debate the consequences of a departure from this sound and wise principle were thus described by the right hon. gentleman the member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Walpole) : "The result of Palmerston's policy was to be seen in the summary dismissal of our Minister from Madrid, in the sudden w ithdrawal of the Austrian Ambassador from the Court of St. James's, in the deep humiliation of the King of Sardinia, in the degradation of the Pope, in disappointed Italy, in offended Russia, in estranged Austria, in alienated Germany, in the averted looks with which our former most valued allies now regarded us ; and to sum up all in ohe brief sentence, we might mark it everywhere in the partial hatred, in the general disquietude, in the universal distrust with which our policy was now received by every nation upon earth." (Cheers.) Such was the summary given by the right.hon. part in it, because the main objection, viz., the want of authority on the part of England, would be removed. (Hear.) He did not desiie to see England stand isolated among the nations of Europe. He was quite aware that by separating herself from the affairs of the continent she lost influence and power—and he could not but think that the position of isolation and neutrality which it was supposed abroad that England had taken was due to the course which that small sect, known as the peace party, pursued during the late war. But nothing could be more erroneous than to infer from that that England had become a nullity in refer,ence to the affairs of continental Europe. The im portance of the sect ho alluded to was due not to its numerical strength, to its influence, or to any general adhesion to its principles, but to the great ability of one of its members. So far from it, he believed that the strong interest which had recently manifested itself in the public mind on warlike affairs had arisen in something like a spirit of opposition to those principles, and was a symptom —and by no means an unwholesome one—of our English pugnacity. (d Hear," and a laugh.) He was glad to find that the Emperor Napoleon was disarming, and regarded tho fact as a happy omen for this countrr, but he trusted that in following his example, we should also imitate that admirable system by which the Government of France was enabled to pass so rapidly from a peace establishment to ono of preparation for all emergencies. We had seen in March France with a peace establishment only, and in June the Emperormetthe Austrians with one of the largest and most efficient armies ever brought into the field, and won the battle of Solferino. This was a point in which we might well imitate the Emperor of the French. There was now a cloud hanging over this country which had arisen, not from any act on the part of the Emperor of the French, but from certain words that had fallen from three of our most eminent English statesmen. It must be borne in mind that our great political acts, our military and naval arrange ments, our finance, must all bear somereference to the views or supposed views of the Emperor of the French ; but it was impossible, on the other hand, to forget that he had been our faithful ally at a period of considerable difficulty, and that his fidelity had never for a moment been shaken. But they had been told by the hon. member for Birming ham, and the statement had been re-echoed by thetwo noble lords below him, that they ought not to indulge in a hostile criticism on that sovereign's acts, and the hon. member (Mr. Bright) had gone further, and said that if we did so a few months longer, England might find herself embroiled in a war with France. What no alternative for a free country like England—enforced to silence or a war with France (Hear, hear.) If he (Mr. Cinglake) thought that that house or any writer for the press would adopt the words of those statesmen and withhold criticism because of that warning, he would say that the moral subjugation of England was complete. He contended that they were not to allow considerations of foreign policy to interfere with freedom of speech and of action here at home. That was the principle upon whiCh that house had acted when it overthrew a popular Ministry, in order to arrest the progress of the Conspiracy Bill, and he believed if any sem blance of subserviency to a foreign power on the part of the Government were again to bring the question to the test, the present House of Commons would not reverse the policy of its predecessor. (Cheers.) The question and the amendment having been put from the chair, The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER rose and said—Sir, the hon. and learned gentleman who has just sat down, in the beginning of his speech gave, I think, very conclusive reasons against the adoption of the motion which has been made by my noble friend, and he has met that motion by proposing what is termed the previous question. So far as I am concerned, and I believe so far as my col leagues are concerned, we should have been perfectly will ing to deal with this motion by meeting it with a direct ne gative ; but if it be the pleasure of the house to treat it as a motion which it would be unwise and imprudent to enter tain at all, of course the Government can have no objection to concur in that vote and support the proposition which has been made by the hon. and learned member, made of his own choice and without concert with her Majesty's Govern ment. (Hear, hear.) But there have been matters of great interest 'raised in this discussion, both by the hon. and learned gentleman and by my noble friend who opened the debate, and lam sure my noble friend will not be surprised that a motion upon a subject of such immense importance upon the affairs of Europe, challenging the attention of Europe at a period so critical, and aiming, as he himself will be the first to admit, in a peculiar manner at imposing limits upon the free and responsible action of her Majesty's Mi nisters, should itself be subjected to discussion. If I read aright the terms of this motion of my noble friend, the first remark, I think, that occurs, is that it is scarcely applicable to the position in which we stand—(hear)—because that which it condemns is the taking part in any conference for the purpose of settling the details of a peace the prelimi naries of which have been arranged betwean the Emperor of Austria and the Emperor of the French. But I am not aware of any proposal, of any suggestion, of any idea, or even dream of taking part in a conference for the purpose of settling details the preliminaries of which have been ar ranged by the Emperor of Austria and the Emperor of the French. The details of peace, as we all know perfectlywell from the public journals, if not otherwise, will be settled by the belligerents themselves—(hear)—and what will remain to be settled are not merely details for the purpose of giving effect to the resolutions of the belligerents, but other great questions of European policy, vitally affecting the interests and happiness of Italy—(cheers)—stretching beyond the limits of Italy itself, and as well entitled to be termed mat ters of high and prime European interest as any questions that have been discussed among the European Powers in our time. (Cheers.) Therefore that is no matter of settling the details of a peace, and the motion of my noble friend does not really describe the state of things in which we stand. (Hear, hear.) I find some discrepancy between the motion of my noble friend and his speech. His mo tion is very peremptory in its terms, and so much objects to our taking part in some coming conference, the na ture of which does not appear to be distinctly under stood, that my noble friend departs from , the usage of Parliament, and; - while circumstances are immature and as yet most imperfectly developed, invites the House of Commons to arrive by anticipation at the decision that under no circumstances are we to take part in this coming conference. These are the terfns of his motion, but the speech of my noble friend, especially the latter part of it, might have passed as a speech against his own motion in. stead of for it, because, carried away by his own generous feelings, he concluded by telling my two noble friends near me that if they would but enter the conference as Ministers of England, and not as Ministers of France or Italy, he would not object to their going. If that be so, what becomes of his motion ? My noble friend must himself be conscious of this discrepancy ; nor can he fail to be aware that his motion, in its present terms, is clearly untenable. The motion is brought forward to satisfy a great desire for Parliamentary decision. It has appeared and reappeared more than once. Sometimes it has been submerged in the waves, but it has always retained its vitality, and the last time it came before us it was mentioned in connection with a declaration of the right hon. gentleman the member for Buckinghamshire, who, after we had discussed for a 'night or two in general terms the Italian question, said it was become more than ever necessary that Parliament should distinctly pronounce its opinion upon the question that was about to be raised by the noble lord the member for Had dingtonshire. If Parliament is to pronounce its opinion, we derived no indication from the speech of my noble friend that it was his purpose to carry the question to that mortal issue ; on the contrary, his speech appeared to be delivered for the purpose .f expressing his own sentiments, and influencing by that expression the sentiments of the House of Commons. But that was not the slightest indi cation from him, and the present state of the benches would not have Savoured any such indication, that we were met here to try a great issue, in which was involved not only the fate of an. Administration, but likewise the character which England is to bear in one of the great crises of Euro pean history. (Hear.) I confess lam left in considerable doubt and bewilderment under these circumstances not only of difference between my noble friend and her Majesty's Government, but of difference between my noble friend and his motion, and between my noble friend and himself. (A laugh.) I ask myself, what is the real purpose of this mo tion ? It certainly requires a vindication. It, is not a mo-. tion within the ordinary walk of Parliamentary effort and exertion. It is not usual to ask the House of Commons to instruct the Government upon the course that it shall take in difficult questions of foreign policy, and still less would it be usual to do so in cases where the circumstances under which Government will have to act are as yet unformed and unknown. What, then, is the purpose of my noble fr iend. and what is the purpose—l think I can a nswer this with more confidence—of the right hon. gent l e man the member for Buckinghamshire, who was so an xious that this motion should come on for discussion ? My noble friend has spoken in warm and strong terms of his sympathy for Italy. I give him the fullest credit for entertaining that sympathy, but i t own I much regret the form w hich it has assumed. laugh.) Still my noble - friend undoubtedly , entertains that sentiment, but I donbt whether the ri g ht hon. gentleman the member for Bucks was moved by sympathy for Italy w h en h e sa id it wa s e xceedingly desirable that the opinion of Parlianient should a be expressed upon the subject. My noble friend has spoken in just commendation, as he thinks, of the strict and imparti al neutr a lit y which_ was maintained by the late Governmen t ; and, indeed, the principal point in his speech has been the broad distinction he has drawn between the neutrality of the late and the neutrality of the presen t Government. The neutrality of the late Govern ment, according to him , was the neutrality of an um p ire ; while the neutrality of the present Government is the af fected neutrality of e, partisan. Let me say a few wo r d s u pon the two parts of tha t question. Beyond giving credit to the late Government in the person of Lord Malme s b ury for perfect integr it y of intention, and for an indefatigable assiduity—indeed, a feverish, restless, overdone assiduity as far as regards the mode of expression, but still a sound, ho nourable, and manly assidu it y —to m a i ntain the peace, lam not prepared te subscribe the doctrin e of my noble friend that it meant a strict and impartial neutrality. I cannot say that the expressions .used are conformable to that principle, and if my . noble friend near me has stated his dissent from that description of the conduct of the late Government, I am bound to add my own testimony, such as it is, to that which he has borne. In one of the letters of Lord Malmesbury he states that Austria had accepted his four p o i n t s , an d th at conse quently England had urged France to make Sardinia disarm. Austria never did accept the four points of Lord Malmesbury. She never even came near the acceptance of them, and any one who has read the document in which she set forth what she called her acceptance with its qualifi cations will know that the whole force and virtue of that docmhent lie in the qualifications, which entirely destroyed the propositions of Lord Malmesbury. But let me refer to what took place in this house, and test the strict and impar tial neutrality of the late Government by the 'public decla ration of the right hon. gentleman tae member for Bucks on the 18th of April. There are many here who recollect the remarkable expressions then used. The right hon. gentleman said there were many things in the conduct of Sardinia that were ambiguous, perplexing, and suspicious, while the conduct of Austria had been in the main a con duct of dignified conciliation, and in closing his speech he declared that he knew of no reason why the peace of Europe , should not be preserved. I want to know whether the right hon. gentleman was justified in those expressions with the information which we, indeed, did not possess, but which was at that time in his possession as a Minister. Why, that speech, in which the right hon. gentleman, speaking with all the authority of an organ of the Government, bestowed upon the conduct of Austria the praise of dignified concilia tion, was made upon the 18th of April. But upon the 12th of April there had been discharged from Vienna an epistle, which was delivered to Lord MalmesburY on the 16th, two days before the speech of the right hon. gentleman oppo site, and in that epistle Austria declared her intention of sending that very summons to Sardinia which a week after brought about the war. (Hear.) Count Buol, writing on the 12th of April, says, in a perfectly intelligible paper— much more intelligible than many others which I find in the blue-book—(a laugh)— " We are about to address direct to the Cabinet of Turin a summons to reduce their army to a peace footing, and to disband the free corps, or Italian volunteers. If this step should produce no effect, there would be nothing left for us but to lay upon the Cabinet of Turin the whole responsibi.- lity of the consequences which its refusal will entail, and to declare that their persistence in an openly aggressive atti tude gives us back entire liberty of action by freeing us from the pacific promises which we had previously made to the British Government." _ Yet with that paper in his possession the right hon. gentle man, on the 18th of April, declared that the conduct of Austria was marked by dignified conciliation, and that he saw no reason why the peace of Europe should not be pre- I served. (Hear, hear.) I daresay that may be consistent with the great anxiety of the right hon. gentleman for a discussion upon the Italian question, and consistent also with his views of a strict and impartial neutrality ; but I do not think my noble friend the member for Haddingtonshire will subscribe to such doctrines, and I am certain the house will agree with me, that a Minister who could use these words under these circumstances was not a Minister whose conduct was governed by a strict and impartial neutrality. (Hear, hear.) But the real desire of my noble friend seems to be to prevent her Majesty's Government from taking part in any congress or conference that may definitely regulate the settlement of the Italian question, lest our agency should there be exercised in a sense too favourable to Italy, or so favourable to Italy as to be unfavourable to Austria, or as to make an enemy of Austria. Let the house consider for a moment what is meant by this imputed hos tility to Austria. I do not suppose there is any statesman in this country, or any member of this house, or any single man in England, who has at any time made public affairs the object of impartial study, who can be actuated by so senseless a motive as that of hostility to Austria. (Hear, hear.) To disclaim that motive on the part of the Govern ment is needless and disparaging, because I cannot admit that the slightest ground has ever been given for imputing to them any idea so monstrous and absurd. England has an immense interest in the maintenance of the European equilibrium, and that which disorganises any one of the great countries of Europe is necessarily menacing to the general peace and to the interests of England. It is our duty and interest to desire to see• Austria strong, flourish ing, and happy. (Hear, hear.) But it does not follow that we are not to have our own opinion upon the cir cumstances under which Austria is likely most usefully to discharge the duties of her great position in Europe, and is likely most effectually to promote her own separate, particular, and individual interests. (Hear, hear, hear.) This Italian question is one of which the roots lie deeply embedded in the past. It has not grown up to-day or yes terday. My noble friend says Austria has not been the aggressor in this war. He says we must look to the Sardi &than marriage and the Sardinian treaty, though I know I not what treaty he means. He says no reinforcements were I sent into Italy until after the speech of the King of Sardi nia, but this book contains sufficient evidence that reinforce ments were sent before that time. The statement positively made by Count Cavour—suspicious you may say, as coming from that source, but supported by all the collateral evi dence we can procure—is this :—The words addressed to M. Hubner at Paris were uttered on the Ist of January ; the speech of the King was on the 10th of January, but on the 3d of January the Austrian reinforcements were ordered to march, and therefore my noble friend is incorrect when he says that Austria sent no reinforcements into Italy until after the King's speech. [Lord Elcho—Concurrently with it.] Concurrently P Well, but that must mean after the speech, for nobody could have divined it until after it was delivered. But I have been diverted from what I was about to say. My noble friend seems to think that we have only to consider this as a quarrel of the present and to-day,-- that the blame lies here or there accordingly. No, sir To understand this quarrel you must go back, at any rate, for the last five-and-forty years, and then you will find the true lights whieh will show you its nature and origin. I don't speak of it now as a matter of praise or blame, but simply as a matter of fact. It m ty have been only an un happy necessity of her position, but this, at any rate, is true —that for 45 long years, wherever liberty reared its head in Italy, wherever there was the slightest attempt to procure even the hundredth part of those franchises which as Eng lishmen we hold so dear, there the iron hand of Austria has interposed, and has re established in all their rigour the abuses of the actually existing Governments. (Cheers.) Well, if that be so, consider the position of Sardinia. Sar dinia succeeded in obtaining for herself the blessings of a free constitution. You may rely upon it that the moment she did so—quite irrespective of the will of her Sovereign and her statesmen, but by the everlasting law of things which no man can counteract—she became of necessity a standing danger to Austria. (Hear, hear.) It was not merely that in Sardinia there existed a free State, and on the other side of the border a despotic Government. Although such a neighbourhood may not be without risks, I am not the man to assert that it is not perfectly compatible with peace and good relations. That, however, was not the case. It was the exterior policy of Austria in Italy ; it was her influence and agency which pervaded every Court and province of Italy, and was felt there just as decisively and absolutely, perhaps even more so, than in Venice and Milan. What was the consequence of this peculiar system ? It was com monly, and perhaps not untruly said, that the Austrian provinces were better governed than other parts of Italy. I say there was some truth in this. It was necessary for the credit of Austria/as a great empire that her administrative system in Italy among a people so intelligent as the inhabi tants of Lombardy and Venice should be raised to a state of considerable excellence. But while she maintained that administrative superiority in her own provinces as compared with the States of the Church and with Naples, she at the same time enforced the iron yoke upon the States of the Church and upon Naples without having the power to pro cure for them the partial compensation of those adminis trative improvements which she herself was so careful to adopt. (Hear, hear.) The position of Austria and Sar dinia, then, does not depend upon the will of the Sovereigns and statesmen of the present day ; it lies deep in the bad organization of Italy, and its proper source is to be found in the propagandism of Sardinia. Sardinia, by the very law of nature, becomes the very centre of hope and aspiration to every Italian who dares hope for freedom ; and her propa gandism is rendered formidable by that Austrian system which pervades the Peninsula, confronting with its soldiery every man who strives to better the political system of Italy, denying him all hope of freedom, and dooming him to the perpetuity of the political servitude in which he lives. (Cheers.) If this be so, the question wllether the Sardinian marriage was contracted in view of a crisis which it was seen must, sooner or later, develope itself, shrinks into small diniensions. On the side of Austria, as well as of Sardinia, I admit that you have now for many years in Italy laboured under a complication of political evils so grievous and, I may almost say, so desperate, that they seemed, in the judgment of many reflecting men, absolutely to defy solution except through the terrible alternative of war. I do not think, therefore; that it is my duty to blame the conduct of Austria so severely in this crisis as it has been blamed by others of very high authority. I admit that Austria has had to contend with the greatest difficulty— nay, more, I admit that it may have been practically impos sible for her to escape from that Channel of evil tradition which her former statesmen have handed down to those of the present day. But if the case be so serious, I think my noble friend need not have been so severe in his condemna tion of Sardinia with reference to this outbreak. What are my noble friend's ideas of neutrality ? He has used every possible effort to assist and inform his mind. He has been to the redoubted and almost inaccessible pages of Johnson, and to Vattel on the Law of Nations , in ord er to show that neutrality means total indifference. That is a very rigid doc trine; w b h u i t e h w hen he h m a a y e u n f o o b r l e e e d f nor id v comes t a e g i a n i u t e a r pt there e t G t h o e v d e r n o c -- o m w e n n t c as l a e m w itboundh avery e t r y o s c a o y n v that eni e h n e t a a p t i p t appears to ( A . apply laua i h t n .) Nhis doubt he means to exhibit the'speech ho has made to-night as a specimen of a just and impartial neutrality, but when neutraliwtyascompati blecomewith a te b e el m i a e ni f t i h n a e t fu S rt ar h d e ini r waeanfinddhis not Austria ag gressor ; that the Sardinian marriage and treaty were settled in anticipation of war; that there was a foregone conclusion on the part of Sardinia to bring about the war; and that it was nothing but a blunder and an accident which put Austria in the position of an assailant. (Opposition cheers.) These are pregnant opinions, but according to my noble friend they are compatible with a strict neutrality. Well, then, let him only give to others the same space and elbow-rooir that he asserts for himself, and I will venture to say that the strict and impartial neutrality of the Government can be made out to a demonstration. This strict and impartial neutrality, it seems, is not after all incompatible with opinions and with desires respecting the matter at issue. (Hear, hear.) It is quite clear that the definitions of John son and of Vattel won't admit the license claimed by my noble friend ; but if they do, all I can sayis, that we do not need any more. (Hear.) It is our duty, and especially is it the duty of my noble friends, the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister in this crisis to form their opinions as to what is best for the welfare of Italy, of Austria, and of Europe. Is it not a perfectly conceivable opinion that Aus tria would be stronger if out of Italy than she would be in it? (Hear, hear.) You may differ from that opinion, though I am not quite certain that my noble friend (Lord Elcho) does ; but at any rate it is an opinion which may be honestly entertained. I knew, without the least pretension to speak with authority on the subject, I am most strongly of that opinion. (Hear, hear.) I feel convinced that Austria never • will have a peaceful supremacy in Italy. My belief is—l wish I may be convinced to the contrary by the future — my fear and apprehensions. are, that she will not be able to escape from the system of extraneous action in Italy which up to this time has been her bane, and the bane of that unfor tunate country. (Hear, hear.) ' Unless she can escape from it, I say that notwithstanding the Quadrilateral, notwith standing the stone and the mortar, notwithstanding all the cannon and the guns, her rule over human hearts and human minds in that portion of Italy which she retains must con tinue to be a bane not less to her than to her subjects ; and those who wish well to Austria may consistently wish that she were placed within limits where she might exercise a natural and a beneficial supremacy. (Cheers.) What are the charges against thepresent Government with respect to its future neutrality? My noble friend (Lord Palmerston) quoted a precedent of neutrality so apposite I cannot help recalling it to the memory of the house ; it is the conduct of Mr. Canning in 1825. Mr. Canning was neutral in the matter of the French invasion of Spain, because he did not deem it a cause in which it was advisable England should take up arms. He was neutral in that sense, and he was im partial in his neutrality. The impartiality of his neutrality would have been violated if he had offered suggestions in the spirit of party ; the impartiality of his neutrality would have been violated had he interposed by any underhand means. But retaining his liberty of opinion, he denounced e a o n d h disapproved r t a h t e p F l a r e e e n , dch i in i v e a a s t i e o d li t h . e t. c S h P a a r i s i t t e rBoYf doing so he, in the first place, vindicated the charscter of Eng land ; and, in the second, he interposed by that denuncia tion a serious impediment to 'the repetition of such dan• gerous experiments. (Hear, hear.) That is the neutrality on which her Majesty's Government has acted. Its limit is that we should refrain, not from entertaining our own opinion, but from giving effect to it either by manifestations in this house, or by diplomatic action, otherwise than the public law of Europe may permit, or opportunities shall be fairly opened. The noble lord I hope will be disabused as to certain seven points having been succeeded by certain three points, of which the first I have heard is from my noble friend himself. I cannot admit that the neutrality of her Majesty's Government has beon compromised by any conduct with respect to any of these conditions. Surely it would have been a great responsibility on the part of her Majesty's Government to have refused to make known to one of the belliYerent Powers any terms, though they might have been suclias the other party could not possibly grant, unless we knew we were discharging a hostile office. B er Majesty's Government was most anxious not to be mis understood with regard to those terms ; it in no respect prejudiced our liberty of action; the Government made it expressly known that the terms were not their terms. There is not the least reason to suppose that their action was mis understood, or that they were understood, directly or indi rectly, to have subscribed to the conditions as constituting an arrangement by which the war ought to be brought to an end. Has my noble friend nothing else on which to support his motion?—because it is one that requires much proof and support to induce the House of Commons to travel so far out of its usualpath. My noble friend has ransacked Hansardand searching through former debates, has quoted a passage from a speech of mine in 1850. I take it as a great compli ment. It is delightful to find that one's words live in recol lwe c a t s i o b n e i a u f g t e d r e s u o e m w a t h y r y e e g a a r r s d . t e l t s h p e o k k i g n d e r m e ference; of scd t y o , the circumstances then existing. No doubt I unwhdl thoughtl was right at the time. My recollection is not so distinct. eart do not remember my words so well as the noble lord does : f but it is a different question whether, in an ticipatio d en the something that has not been done, you should p e g British Government to a certain course of action. 3 a thing noble friend don done? e N h ; to theanticipate Governmenthas thefu tu done re. i such nothing. o i n o7d e• oo . end of the session near at hand, the noble lord wants within, ° 1) 11 1 wiilha t v h e e te se d s e s t io what an n d .preb my ablynowbliellfrbieendediu(Lgo, rwdhPeiailtmheeruste ear, a lor nd laughter.) l i a s u e g n h g t a e g r . e ) d in il ea noblevery corre spondence oiir of the late Government), what is this ? (C some times true policy. Why (striking rd the says blue-book'rannl2ienrt.er non-intervention te t ja h : e n, h i e ls e l Here is speculation, and persuasion, and admonition,positive even a little spice of menace! There is no t g h l i n s pow correspondencederin tes e greatly; pages, h b e u but says e e h n a o d b e t lord commends published few v a erwould not have been given. I don't think weeks before, the vote which overthrew the Go nmentthat is quite certain. I think we may speak of that in tential mood and the preter-pluperfect sense-41au the sense--(laughter)— a bb s ee er n. ( something aught t e h r a .) t m T i h g e ht u , eb c l o e u l l u d rd , would, or he who voted in favour of the motion who, if this u . o k r u s e h w o s ul a d ru h_ e a m v e e : book had been published, would have voted blue againstt But I know a man who voted favourably to the late. Go vernment on that occasion who could not have given vote if this blue-book had then been published.lC thatt and cries of " Name 1") I will name my noble lord names the gentleman who, he says, w the have given his vote the other way. (Cheers.) In meantime, I request him to be satisfied with the assur ance.. that person I allude to is a bona fide individuald . existing in flesh and blood, and not an airy phanto mars whenotla But the question whether we are to go into a congress. whether we are prepared to admit this, or reject that, very u th e e a s r e fu qu tu e r s e ti . questions h are e q i u n e t a h ti e en fu i t a u u re e , t a w n h d et n h o e t r e w v e en ah i no should enter into a congress or conference, or act by diplomatic corre spondence, which is much the same, but whether, in total .! ignorance of the future, and the state of things it may func tions o t f h t e h il e o E u x se ecu o t f iv C e o G m o in v o e n n s am wl Government? ake (H on ea i r t , h sel e f a t r h .) e fr s q t possible the noble lord can think that at this moment Eng land is prepared to record its unconditional determinatio n not to meddle with the affairs of Italy in this crisis of her, fortunes ? In this country we are much disposed to look at precedents, and to walk in the way of those who have gone before us, and to have good reasons shown before we depart from it. Has this country in former times been accustomed to make the affairs of Italy foreign to its intervention and sympathy ? Is not all our history full of proofs to the contrary? (Hear, hear.) Hardly 1 ' serious question has ever been rai s ed i n It a ly in which England has not interfered; and even where the principles involved were such that you could not interfere directly I re; u have chosen an agent to maour policy. member the course taken by the intain noble lord at the head or the Government in 1831 (Lord Grey. The question then, did not affect the whole of the Italian peninsula, but onlY the States of the Church. The great Powers of Europe then united in recommending the Government of the Foe to adopt and facilitate measures of reform. Does the noble lord think that England ought to have abstained from act_ ing with those European Powers, though the Pope did not see fit to adopt their suggestione ? When Austria, Prussise and France made an appeal to the Papal Government, er S a was the representative of England to hold aloof ? W we to refuse to act with despotic Powers for such an object r Take another precedent from the year 1856—the Con gress of Paris. At that congress no objection was made to the principle of interference on the part of England with the affairs of Italy. But (striking the bluebook) here is the great and crowning precedent the rich result of the labours of the late Administra tion. (Cheers.) Here is a standing witness crying aloud against the principle advocated by the noble lord—the prim" ciple of absolute and unconditional refusal to interfere in the affairs of Italy, which is contrary to the uniform course of the history of this country. The real question, no doubt, is not whether it is desirable that England should enter int° European negotiations—for all these are but expedients for the removal, or, if not for the removal, at all events' for the mitigation of the great and overpowering ills that afflic t mankind. Nor is it an idle passion to figure in either a congress or a conference that would ever lead an English statesman to consent to be a party to such transactions. The hon. and learned gentleman behind me, indeed, has opened a peculiar chapter in this discussion. He raises two objections to our going into a congress ; one being that we should enter it without authority, inasmuch as we were not one of the belligerent Powers. That would be a veil' strong objection if we could enter it under any circutu: stances as the only power which was not a belligerent. But the case would be entirely changed if an appeal were made to all tae neutral Powers as a body, and that in the name of Europe England should, as one of those Powers, take part in a conference or congress in the hope and with the . object of effecting good. (Hear, hear.) The authority o _, l . England as a n on -b e lli geren t mig ht b e slight; but as a par' : of the collective authority of Europe it would be most valu able. But the hon. and learned gentleman goes on to argils that there exists on the part of English statesmen an indo lence and incapacity which ought to lead us to eschew taking part in a congress as far as possible. That, indeed, is an argument with which it is difficult to deal. I, for one, have no interest in the matter, inasmuch as no combine - . ti on of circ ums t ances i s lik e l y to place me in the position of the representative of England in such an assembly. I alto nevertheless, extremely sorry to learn that the English nation, which has been so lavishly endowed and gifted in other respects by Providence, cannot furnish a man capable of holding his own at a congress or a eon" ference with the representatives of the other Powers of Europe. The conviction that such is the eas e must necessarily be a source of deep regret in en assembly where so many persons are at all times found pre pared to take part in the discussionof foreign affairs. (Cheer° and laughter,) The presence of such men, at all events, leads us to hope that England will not remain long without en adequate and sufficient organ to give , expression to he r views. (Renewed laughter.) The hon. and learned gentle man has,. however, I must ad m it, urge d these objections to n ourenteng into a congress calmly, and has, upon the whole, arrived at asatisfactory conclusion, inasmuch as he states it to be his belief that although he deems the objections he has advanced to be of a veryserious nature, yet he does not look upon them as being insurmountable. It no doubt oc curred to the mind of the hon. and learned gentleman that what we have to consider, after all, is not the abstract ques tion of whether diplomatic negotiations or conferences ars desirable or not, but whether there is a clear prospect or reasonable hope that the social position of a large portion,. of our fellow men would be benefited by the adoption et such a course. (Hear.) That is the real question for our consideration, and it is in order that we may have free scope to arrive at such a decision with respect to it as We may deem most advantageous that her Majesty's Govern ment entreat the House of Commons to leave their hands unshackled in the matter. (Hear, hear.) The hon. and learned gentleman, casting an eye over the States of Italy, saw that many questions were raised by the peace which it failed to settle. What does the declaration made at Villa' franca, for instance, that certain Sovereigns should return to their territories, mean ? It has received no authoritativ e construction, and I do not understand what it necessarily conveys beyond this—that the parties subscribing th e terms of peace are pe r f ec tl y w illi ng that those Sovereigns should return to their territories, other circumstances mitting. (Hear, hear.) If it means that they are to ou restored by force—which interpretation,' be assured, th e Emperor of the French does not mean t o pu t upon. 1t —then there is another reason furnished why the hands of her Majesty's Government should not be tied n?' and why th e y s h ou l d not be prevented from, protest ing with all the energy which the Government of s, free Stat e can command against a doctrine that wonit'. treat the inhabitants of the territories in question as the Pre perty of so many ducal houses who might dispose of than' their families, their fortunes, and those of their posterity S,, they pleased, without any regard to that independent Will and judgment which, )ds d a ed wtmo s h chy:membhumaner hmnknds nbapieeltrespect goocwfnsutuoserttwi beings, otshspohet unthi trcswoheuhdsueeb ealjboplletl Dundalk peculiar teth e h(u y moi ehswir(eaari (Laughter No ea e thßopmourter entitl ed ooxpusiwhtousviedynetpoevs bre e:if. of ta t naht o hndee ( d der C ere e uhlet Romane aaewriearlershnns o iwo et N l l °li f t s ho a t t e w i l e oh x y d r me ei ot n t r huh o c l g be l s d s stuo ie e ei into 1 . say on this interesting topic when my hon. and • learns" t riend assures us that the whole mass of the people un der he rule of the Pope, with the exception of a few linos , ' country agitators, a re d eep l y devoted to his paternal autho rity, and when one bears in mind at the same time that for that th e f ac t i s so nobody will dispute, though perhsP' it is of a nature which does notadmit of explanation—when' ever the forei gn f orce w hi c h i s ma i nta i ne d there disaePe a- from the e s t a t es o f t h e Ch urc h , the throne of the Pope ' 4l-- appears along with it. (Renewed laughter.) But to spes'j t seriously, I must say, in refe r en ce t o th e Pope—quite err, from all secta r i an diff eren ces--as a pers onage occupying', eminent station and posse ss i ng di st i nguished author i t y al the head of a great body o f Ch r i s ti an b elievers, that my w il '" would be to look upon hi m w ith all the respect which is dl to those united titles. I, h owever, lament, as cordially a s could lament if I had the nearest interest in all that eon; terns him, when I see a Sovereign who makes pretensi° ll to represent in a peculiar sense the majesty of Heaven rr duced to becom e a men di cant at foreign Courts—a rne!,„,„- cant, too, not for the purpos e mere l y o f o bt a i n i ng the fue'f"; of subsistence, but with the object o f p rocur i ng milits',A armaments whereby to carry the ravages of fi re an d svis,„ over the fair provinces which he governs, a nd rivet chains on th e nec k s o f men every one ed. whom it is his direct personal intere s t t o defer (Loud cheers.) That is a policy which is unmoor' of a civilised nation. (Hear, hear.) But I sh a , o dwell no longer on the subject. I have to apolose to I ', o house for having detained them so long. To sum up t a % argument of my noble friend who brought forward tw„„ motion in a few words, he says he reduces the whole sr e co ' tion at issue to this dilemma—" Either you have conflael l or in the Emperor of the French or you have not. In neit° alternative ought you to enter into a conference." NV: a at once admit that if we pl ace d no con fid ence i n t h e peror of the French, I could, to a great extent, understano the justice of the view to which my noble friend has 'i v y( expression. I can very well understand, for instance, 51° „' if unhappily England and France should prove to be ess e „3l tially at variance with respect to Italian affairs, it avcZ,, a become a grave question of policy and prudence whet we should enter into a congress with no more hope prospect than that of dragging out day after day wearis, ; ° ",h awn e discussionsdalo ughtlia n ct ue.be I h me t ea h an e t representativesahuoxwiueuv anxious however, tbbye neou o l f nt ee a rau p ni o sa w ue e nf r dee wi erns t et h aunrr vl de l: oo; force of the other branch of the dilemma to which nay 0 , 0 friend has directed o ur a tt ent i on. He says—. If you ha ts confidence in the Emperor of the French then there 40 ` s no necessity for you r t a ki ng part in a congress, inasnane' , ' ‘ e as he wig do all that y ou requ i re. " That is nay noble frien-.,0 argument. lam a t a l oss to know whether he could 10 useddEimffi peueirltteyrs, go seriously, thegoinsnl Frenchyt.oenMteyrntohibeale friend in effect says.--." T at contendcu ir n e l d feo e r r uf c o i tb r hi c . eeuemet other of r n m e r circumstances r pean Powers, the re t o a g ., 11 r e c the realisation o f w hi ch is dear to you in your he',.rtss .) therefore gi ve hi m no assistance whatever. (Chlibe Yes, that is the argument of my noble f r i en d, and ' l ' its house adopt s this resolution it will be recording it to bl ot , deliberate determination —whatever may be the disPos l . n gs of Franc e t o g i ve effect to the fair and temperate long l i to of the Itali an S tates for constitutional freedom, a ll olf grant them institutions more liberal even than she he,,, r to possesses at this moment--that we ought steadiJ oi re refuse to assist France in the endeavour, a nd : t r io , her to struggle with the difficulties of her Pt eo r, and, if needs be, sink under their pressure. ('', - o ble hear,) That is the recommendation of any l'ao friend, although —and I gladly admit it—it is not are 1 ,. mendation whi c h i s b orne out b y the whole of hi s sPee bit; It is, nevertheless, the advice which is embodied in hi resolution, and I earnestly entreat the house, whethe r ro means of a direct negative, or by followi ng the course P to posed by the hon. and learned gentleman behind °Vol dispose satisfactorily and finally of this motion this e ing. (Loud cheers.) f °1 Mr. S. FITZGERALD said this w as a qu estion 0 t o importance to England, to Italy, and to Europe. If fot> beginning of the present session the Government had