The Sun. — London, England, 1860-01-25 00:00:00

l ay ay ler de ter reW all ions `t 'lit, been "ills red if B 9010 learned recently that the noble earl had been taking part in a convivial meeting of some of his supporters at Manchester, and the pith of the speech he made to them was that he would support avery substantial reform, and that the ques tion must be settled during the present session. Now, I flatter myself that the measure which her Majesty's Go vernment will shortly be prepared to bring before the house Will merit the title of a substantial reform. Earl of DERBY—I never used the word " substantial." If the noble earl is anxious to know what I really did say, I may tell him it was just this—that I thought it important that the question of reform should be settled during the Present session, and that if the Government brought for ward a fair, temperate, and reasonable measure—such as I apprehended they would—they should have no reason to anticipate hostility from those who sat opposite to them, but, on the contrary, I should be very glad to give them my support. (Hear, hear.) Earl GRANVILLE—I am delighted to hear the noble earl's resolution, and can only say that I have been de luded, like himself, by the report of a telegram. I cordially concur in the very just compliment which the noble earl next paid -to the volunteer movement in this country—a Movement which has met with the cordial encouragement and support of her Majesty's Government. (Hear, hear.) There is only one perfect test by which to measure the utility of this movement, and that is the invasion of our shores, which I trust and believe, though, of course, one cannot be certain on tnat point, would fully confirm our opinion of its value. That this movement will be of the greatest use I cannot for a moment doubt, but of how much ,use will depend on a variety of circumstances—on how the volunteers go steadily on in the same spirited, resolute way in which they began, and are now en gaged in perfecting their training for the work they have Undertaken, on the degree of organization applied, to this large force, on the discipline and obedience displayed by them, and on the readiness of officers of the regular army to avail themselves of this powerful instrument, placed ready to their hands. Though I have no doubt in my own rabid of what will be the result, this is as yet only a matter of conjecture, and has never been put to the proof ; but What is certain is, that already the spirit shown by these volunteers has had a great effect upon foreign nations. (Hear, hear.) I believe that, while it is generally acknow ledged to be a perfectly unexceptionable movement on our Part —purely and entirely defensive in its nature, and im possible to be diverted to purposes of attack,—no two things have raised the sirestige of this country more than, first of all, that marvellous resistance offered by a small number of military men and civilians in India against the millions Who had been excited to rebel against our sway; and, secondly, that sort of warlike spirit which has sprung up a mong a nation certainly net military in its nature, and Waich any power which might venture to touch or attack Our shores—as I hope and believe none think of doing at this time--would find very troublesome and disagreeable indeed. (Hear, hear.) It is, I think, a matter of congra tulation th a t th e ti me a t w hi c h this movement is going on, and an increase of our defences is being made, is one when We are on goo d t erm s with our neighbours a n d other coun tries. If such steps were being taken at a moment of great and sudden panic, such as certainly prevailed some months .ago, it wo uld stamp th em w ith qu it e a different character ; but. as it is, it leaves us clearly and unmistakeably in the attitude of merely taking those measures of permanent and reliable defence which the nation has a right to insist upon that the Government should adopt, and which are intended Merely to render us independent of any casualty which may ar ise. (Hear.) The next point referred to by the noble earl Waa, India ; and I entirely agree with what he has said on this 1311 RieCt• I am especially glad to hear such a tribute of t,., r alse accorded to the moderation and judgment of the ever Administration. The noble earl said that what -aPight have been the mind of the Government of India - t ,„ . ° . as to the proclamation as to Oude, subsequently the been ctiens of the late Government .of her Majesty had c arried out in a most conciliatory manner. But it is 0 1 1. " 1 3' Power t o s t a t e what was the mind of the Government India at that time, and that not from any private infer -3,11,,ati0n, but from that celebrated despatch m avtlich the /e vernor-General stated what his plans were with regard t o Oude, and expressly intimated that he had given the alookdars to understand that the confiscation of the land p rag not to be regarded by them as a emanent derivation, _ut merely as a means of placing in the hands of the Go -I.'l'lll3:lent the power of punishing or rewarding them aceord - Lug to whether they joined the insurgents or cosoperated with the Government in the restoration,and maintenance of P p e ace. They were to understand particularly that titles ing to them with the authority of the Government _Would be mu c h more su b s t an ti a l th an th e very i nsecure titl es Which they previously held, and that the acceptance of them nild be coupled with conditions by which some guarantee T he b e taken for their quietness and goodwill. (Hear.) of the nobl e ear l t h en reproac h e d my no bl e f r i en d on account 0 .1 „., the comm erc i a l t rea t y w ith F rance , an d won t i n t o all , sorts of assumptions and calculations in regard to it, which better acquaintance with the purport and details of the `,..'aavention wou ld , I am sure, h ave dispelled. Ix thinking i over the probable points of attack which would be made use rf against us, and bearing in mind the axiom delivered by fault oble earl last year, that when one was bound to find , ~s h e was sure to be able to do so, I had no doubt that some :7, 1 , 1 _: 4 8 in our policy would be selected as vulnerable. I W hich pretty closely the style of objection to this treaty t lach he has actually assumed, and which I might charac t!ritted as the very purism of free trade. (Hear, hear,) I m o aye really no ground for knowing what the noble earl's I . l) ,lcions may be at this moment on free trade and protection. ; believe the last speech on this question which he made , this house was one in which he deferred to public ° Pinion, although he prophesied national ruin, and even. a PPealed to the Freetraders to know how far the gratifica tion of their vanity would prompt them to carry the dasola- ' tion of the land. (Laughter.) Well, I thought we should arrive at what his principles were. He broached two prin ciples, one that laid down by the noble earl, and the other , a strict reciprocity system. The fi rs t a d m itt e d cer t a i n con - ' c asaien.s to free trade, but I remarked throughout the whole argument the old anti-frestrade principle coming out strong; , Wh enever he mentioned advantages, it meant always the °d r v antages of sending out our goods to other nations, and f what we s hould rece i ve f rom th em . (H ear .) A gr eat ts . ' o kaf what was said by the noble earl was very true. He la t ,'Lwas bad for the nations of Europe to be continually sea ii to see which could obtain the best terms, and he ilatio s uc it conceive anything more suicidal than when a Wait 7 Considered a reduction good for itself that it should f ordin,„s the pleasure of another nation to make a correspon ke?.reduction. Our great difficulty was to make a corn tweed treaty at all. No human thing is perfect, but sup- ' ar e : l T that our tariff was perfection itself, then perhaps it is ms ° be suicidal to alter it; but supposing that there are ler aveinents which can te introduced in our tariff, b e. ;1 1 . 1 it comes to be discussed it will be seen that it would as " height of pedantry to refuse to insert those amend- 1 EV, • le un 11 3. any treaty when by so doing you extend to an p oss. -4118 e amount the commercial intercourse with so im ki‘ant a country as France. Nobody doubts that there 1 4 ,_great disadvantages to theiemercantile and commercial hetarests of France under the present system, but it would , I h . s u advantage to both aides to remove them. I happened 'accident lately to read a speech of Sir R. Peel, in which France, that he favoured a better understanding with ta a i' l ee, because it would lead to a more extended commer aitz. intercourse, which would have the effect of increasing b at mutual prosperity, as well as of-promoting goodwill we en the two countries. Now we are assured that the effect of the treaty will be to introduce a more libe s,ZaYstem in France, combined with improvements in the Cueing of our tariff and and it would be a monstrous thing d.ha'ow away the oubted and immense advantage hick increased commercial intercourse would confer upon tt . h,„ nations in the increased security for the maintenance to Peace. It is true that we may have close commercial in ere and yet go to war with anothernation.; yet where thatgreat commercial intercourse there will also be fuid a large body of persons whose personal interests will I , 6 i ed them to uae their utmost efforts to avoid that which °WA destroy their profits. The other question—that of iii b. o nus—broached by the noble earl is one which of course hs limpossible for mo to enter upon now, as no one can ea r, ~ tne to anticipate the statement of the Chancellor of the Noble'q upon this difficult and important subject. The earl suggested that this treaty had been managed by " te act as a sort of firework to produce an effect at the !petting of Parliament, but I can assure him nothing of the sort is the case. There is no secret about it. A distin guis& t e • . man, Mr. Cobden, having, to my regret, declined 0., .1 . 0in the present Government, for certain reasons of his . "u• went to Paris, and I think it reflects wonderful credit t°n that gentleman, and is an extraordinary circumstance, after having by his influence and eloquence exercised h e l ati lye effect upon a free country to adopt a certain policy, fes s °O 7 l l enabled to exercise a similar influence upon a blatitW u telligent men at the head of a wholly different in this of Government. (Hear.) I do think the error adulation lul f t t r Y„ has been that sometimes there has been an g v i o t n u e p t e o ra e t i i t o h ni e Emperor of the French, and at others a him and his acts. I believe I have never taste a s we n a e ttreme, which are equally ofensive to good I think this aet—o efethe most beneficialher considerations, but I must say that be f t Emperor, which, I believe will be one one of his best acts, to the country he reigns over, has acts, and one which I have no doubt re !! ed great mo ra l courage to perform. (Hear.) The noble rquis had referred to the representations of certain Protec tionists in France, which afford a proof of the immense force Which a strong organisation offers to acts of this kind. There may at first be a feeling against reductions in favour of other nations, but the story of Sam Slick is quite appo site. He left clocks at cottages. not for sale, but when he returned he found the cottagers had become, from their use, so alive to the value of the clocks that t hey would not Part with them. A greater freedom of commercial inter course on the part of Frence would have another effect, for it would show to other nations that there was nothing Peculiar in the institutions and position of England which rendered free trade possible for it, since so great a conti nental nation a s F rance h a d t a k en th e same course. Th e 4 ,_bait subject t ouc h e d upon b y t h e no bl e earl is the su bj ect o f t he amendm en t, viz., China ; and s ,' am rather embarrassed Lhow to deal with it. It appears to me that the question of Whether wo were right or wrong in not calling Parliament Nether upon that subject has been so completely answered ahby the noble duke near me (the Duke of Newcastle) and by e noble earl a p pos it e (th e E a rl of De r by) th a t I nee d no t ~Itenapt to repeat their arguments. But then comes the ""'"eral question of China, upon which both the noble earls Professed their intention not to enter, but using the usual eti'latorical figure, said they would not say the thing which th ?3',lmeant to say, and which they did say nevertheless. I 1 41 : 1 ; however, I judge rightly the feeling of the house if _ Postpo ne my remarks upon the subject until a future and nere fitting occasion, and I hope the noble earl, having Ett opportunity of expressing his sentiments, will not a tZEfs the amendment he has moved. I next come to the .i :,ty.lect of the Congress. The noble earl has spoken of the rfect information he possessed upon the subject, but a " friend near me assures me that further details will be speedily laid before the house. The noble earl referred to cariousaat statements gathered from various sources, and (4 ,4? me for an answer to them. I must say the whole eOrea absolutely without foundation. (Hear, hear.) i„'tta aware of any sort of negotiation or proposition ,aslugust such as he alluded to. I have no official s'utuannunication as to any offensive or defensive treaty, ti ot .P e ,rhaps the best way of answering all these ques fette"a bY stating that the Government is perfectly to ered' free from any pledge or engagement, or guarantee eonZ:Sh any nation sshatever. (Hear, hear.) Then there the noble question of our going into Congress at all, which w ere earl deprecates. I will state shortly what the reasons cae..l7"s• t nich I n du refused, the Government to consent to go into the lkapi; en w had one of two things would have an„, ed—either the Conorress would not have me, and then rcoeflnylication. s which arose would have been imputed to ai ssat .aaal ; or the Congress would have met, and whatever h ave efaction Italy might entertain as to its results would no t _eel?, brought home to us. I believe it will be found that, W.,u,ations as with individuals, in political opinions there is to them thing as a secession from duties natural y belonging and ar . SnPposing that_the Congress had met without us, t ) . ) , td conclusions respecting the Italian people opposed add res ` se e c ilngs, what ans wer could we have made to reproaches to us that we had neglected to use the influence /k W at e a l:l 4lly belonging to usupon so interesting a subject ? And We are asked under couditions we would go into Congress there is the simple answer in her Majesty's Speech which has made known to Europe that the condition was non interference by arms in the affairs of the Italian people. (Hear.) We thought it necessary to preserve perfectly free action in the Congress, so that we might either retire or take any other line we thought proper ; but to say that other na tions had got into a difficulty, and they might get out of it as they could, would have been a selfish sort of policy, accompa nied with great discredit and fatal effects to this country. (Cheers.) With regard to the future, I believe that our policy is very simple. I do not believe that the settlement of Italy is a very simple one. The various interests and feelings in Italy make the settlement a very difficult subject (hear, hear) —but the policy of this Government is, I think, as clear and simple as noonday. Indeed, I agree with all the noble earl has said as to using our influence to prevent armed interference with a country dealing with her own inter nal concerns. (Hear, hear.) As long . as we do that our influence will have a great effect, and it we obtain the result we seek, we shall obtain that which is the real in tdrast of England, and also consistent with the real interest of Europe—viz., the maintenance of a condition of things likely to insure lasting peace. (Cheers.) With regard to separate negotiations it is clear that.if we move at all and there is no congress, it must be by separate negotiations; but I can assure the noble earl that the interpretation of that paint which he has suggested is entirely without foundation. The noble earl has put to me questions which I do not feel called upon to answer. He has asked me to explain what is the necessity of the temporal power of the Pope. In a great deal which fell from the noble earl I entirely , concur. lam sorry to see a tendency among Catholics, and even among some Protestants, to treat it as a religious question. Ido not think it is a religious question. (Hear, hear.) I think it is a purely political question, and I am sure that, as far as the Government is concerned, it is their duty to treat it as a purely poll Heal question. (Hear, hear.) At the same time I think it very natural the Catholics should feel an interest in the state of their spiritual head, and wish to see what guarantee there is of his independence of lay sovereigns. But, from the sort of accusations made against the Government by some of these gentlemen, one would suppose that the I'ope was in peaceful possession of large States, with a perfectly cont e t‘d popula'ion, and that her Majesty's Government were about to deprive him of some portion of those States. The case is exactly the reverse. All that we do ask, free from any re ligious feeling, but in accordance with the political feeling of an enormous majority of the people of this country, is what has been eloquently laid down by the noble earl— viz., non-intervention in the internal affairs of other countries ; and all that we wish is to leave the inha bitants of those countries to settle among themselves what form of government they choose and what sort of administration they wish to adopt. (Hear, hear.) I be lieve these principles will be shown by the debate to night to be very generally adopted in this house. (Hear, hear.) I was very much struck with the feeling manner in which the noble lord alluded to the death of one among us. It is one of the melancholy incidents of each meeting of Parliament that we miss faces we have known, either the faces of political friends or of respected opponents, and tais year has been no exception to the rule. It is very difficult not to allude to the fact that of the four perhaps most eminent modern historians of Europe and America, whose deaths we have seen within a year, one of them should have been a member of your lordships' house. It singularly illus trates the elasticity of our constitution, and while I know he felt proud to belong to this house, I believe few among us do not feel pride that his name should be upon the roll of peers. (Hear, hear.) I know that in accepting a peerage it was his intention to take part in our debates, and it was only that malady which prematurely cut him off which prevented his adding much distinction to our discussions. All know his writings ; many know his private conversation, and I believe you will agree with me there were no greater characteristics of that poble lord than his pride in the past history and his faith in the future destiny of his country. (Cheers.) With these feelings I am sure all here will agree to this Address, more particularly that portion of it which refers to the con tentment, loyalty, improvements in social life and diminu tion of mime which year by year must add so much not only to the material prosperity but the moral force of this country. (Loud cheers.) The Earl of DERBY asked whether the Government could give any information as to the period when the French troops were likely to be withdrawn from Rome, or if they remained, upon what terms they would remain. Earl GRANVILLE said it was impossible to give an answer. Earl GREY said he would not withdraw his amendment, but he would not give their lordships the trouble to divide. He had listened in vain for any instances of an expedition like this to China being fitted out upon the simple sanction of the Government, without the early concurrence or authority of rarliament The Duke of NEWCASTLE said he had given the instances of Portugal and Greece. Earl GREY said they were not precedents, and repeated that this was the first time such an expedition had been fitted ou .... without the concurrence of Parliament. The amendment was put and negatiyed. The motion for an Address was agreed to. A committee was appointed to draw up the Address, and their lordships adjourned at 11 o'clock until Thursday. HOUSE OF COMMON—(YESTERDAY.) The home resumed at a quarter to four o'clock. NEW MEMBERS. Several new members took the oaths and their seats. MEMBERS OF THE JEWISH PERSUASION. Lord J. RUSSELL moved the adoption of the usual re solution in accordance with the act of Parliament for the admission of Jews into Parliament, which was agreed to. Sir FRANCIS HENRY GOLDS3IIDT then took the oaths, and his seat for Reading. LORD CANNING. The CLERK of the Ho USE read letters of acknowledg ment from Lord Canning and the Governors in the dif ferent Presidencies is India, of the resolutions agreed to by the house commendatory of the services they had rendered in that country. SESSIONAL ORDERS. The usual sessional orders were read by the Speaker, and agreed to. NEW WRITS. On the motion of Mr. BRA.ND, writs wore ordered for Forfar, in the room of Viscount Duncan, called to the House of Peers; and for Beverley, is the room of Mr. Orerend, who had accepted the stewardship of the Chiltern Hundreds. A now writ was also ordered for the borough of Beverley, in the room of Ralph Walters, Esq., whose election was declared void. WAKEFIELD AND GLOUCESTER. _ _ _ Sir G. C. LEWIS gave notice that he would lay before the house on Thursday next the report of the Com missioners appointed to inquire into the alleged corrupt election practices that prevailed in those boroughs, and that new writs for the same should not be issued for a week subsequently. MOROCCO AND CHINA. Lord J. RUSSELL laid on the table a communication re lative to the Spanish occupation of Tangiers, and also from Mr. Bruce relative to China. PARLIAMENTARY REPRESATATION. Mr. BRAND gave notice that on Monday, the 20th of February, he would lay on the table a bill for the better regulation of the election of members of Parliament. NAVAL RETURNS. Sir C. NAPIER gave notice of his intention to more for various returns in connection with the naval service,. THE CONVICT SMETHURST. • Mr. E. JAMES gave notice of motion in reference to James Smethurst, and stated that he would ask whether it was the intention of Government to introduce any bill on the subject of courts of appeal, for persons convicted of criminal acts. FLOGGING IN THE ARMY AND NAVY. Mr. WILLIAMS gave notice that on an early day he would call the attention of the house to this subject, and also move for a return of the number of men who had undergone the punishment of flogging in the army and navy during the year 1859. THE ADDRESS. The SPEAKER having read the Royal Speech, which will bo found in another part of our impression, Mr. ST. AtIBYN rose to move a humble address to her Majesty for her most gracious speech. He said that it was more than usually necessary for him to ap peal to the house for that indulgence never refused to a maiden speech. (Hear, hoar.) The first part of the Royal Address related to a question that must afford the greatest satisfaction to the country at large, namely, that her Majesty had received continued assurances of amity with foreign powers. (Hear.) With regard to the affairs of Central Italy, he believed the policy that had guided the Government had the general sanetion•of the community, because they acted on the principle that having no personal interest in the struggle going on some months previously, they were not justified in interfering. But it could not be denied that there was a strong feeling of sympathy with that noble country, whichwas endeavour ing to obtain its just liberties, and he trusted that whether in Congress, or in any other way, the efforts of this country would be directed to obtaining for the Italian people their just rights and good Government. (Loud cheering.) In consequence of the events which had taken place in China, it had been found necessary to send a force there to obtain reparation for the insult this country had sustained; but he trusted, notwithstanding, they would make the necessary atonement and avert hos tilities from their country. (Hear, hear.) 0 wing to the moderation of the British officers in San Juan evils of a more serious character than those which had taken place in that part of the world were avoided, and he trusted that every difference tl ere would be amicably arranged through the medium of negotiation. In reference to the important question of Parliamentary reform, he believed the measure which would be laid on the table would prove satisfactory to both sides of the house, at the same time that it would preserve unimpaired the constitu tion of the country of which they were so justly proud. He must advert in terms of praise to the volunteer move ment, which showed that there still existed in the country that old national spirit, which proved they were deter mined to maintain the honour and independence of England, and, if necessary, to defend her soil from invasion. They would perceive, from the Royal Speech, that among the beneficial measures that might be looked forward to being introduced during the present session would be the consoli dation of the statutes and desirable legal reforms. (Hear.) In looking to the aspect of foreign affairs he thought there was ground for congratulation ; and in France they had proposed, by the ruler of that country, a scheme of commercial policy which, if adopted, would do more to secure the good feeling of the two countries to each other than any mere professions of friendship unaccompanied by acts calculated to inspire confidence. (Cheers.) The hon. member con cluded by congratulating the house on the general pro . sperity of the country, and reading the Address. Lord HENLEY, in seconding the Address, said that there was ono ground of satisfaction which the honour able mover did not refer to, namely, that they were under the present Government. (Cheers and laughter.) He eulogised in the warmest terms the con duct of the Emperor of the French; and he referred to the condition of France some years ago to show the be nefit that had resulted to that country from his rule. In alluding to the affairs of Italy, he certainly did not con sider that the Pope of Rome should be the ruler of the Romagna. As related to reform, though per haps the bill to be introduced might not give the elector all that protection against undue influence that some desired, still he trusted that it would be found to effect .a considerable improvement in regard to the present system of elections of members of Parliament. Mr. DISRAELI—Mr. Speaker, the last session of Par liament opened with a question of confidence, but until the noble lord opposite rose to-night I was not aware that that question was to be raised on the present occasion. Sir, you read the Address not with that usual clearness which always characterises your elocution, and I need not collect whether the passage expressing confidence in the two noble lords, which I suppose, in consequence of the intimation of the noble for a, i 44 inrcrtcd in it, really is to be found there. (Laughter and cheers.) But, although anxious on this occasion not to move an amendment, I beg that it may be distinctly understood on my own part, and that of my friends, that if that passage is introduced it is under pro test. (Laughter.) The noble lord has addressed the house to-night in rather an unusual tone. (Hear, hear.) Indeed, as I listened to the noble lord it appeared to me an address suited rather to the atmosphere of a French Senate than to that of an English House of Commons—hear, hear) —and the noble lord will allow me to say that I do not think it favourably eontrasted with that graceful and ingenuous speech with which the mover of the address —(loud cheers) —introduced his sentiments and observations to the con sideration of the house. Sir, it is not my intention to night, and I have heard of no such intention, to offer any amendment to the Address that we aro about to vote—l hope unanimously—to the gracious Queen. But that Ad dress adverting to many topics of v.ely groat interest, trie house will, perhaps, excuse me if on some of them I make a very few observations ; because I think that there are pas sages in that Speech—passages referring to matters of great gravity and import—on which the house even to night has a right to expect some explanation on the part of her Majesty's Government. (Hear, hear.) I remember last year that the noble lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs found great fault with mo that a paragraph which referred to that which in common parlance is termed the Reform Bill was placed in so very low a position—(laughter) —but on turning to the gracious Speech which has been de livered to-day, I find that the passage in the composition of which, from the notice that has been given this evening, I doubt not the noble lord has the vested interest of a parent —(laughter)--does not occupy a more prominent position than it did in the Speech of last year. And this shows how much easier it is to be critical than correct—(laughter)— and that the noble lord, though himself so alive to the im portance that the " Reform" paragraph should take an early and prominent position in her Majesty's Speech, still found, with all his solicitude, that it was inevitably necessary it should occupy the position which it now fills. I will at least augur this from the similarity of the circumstances under which that notification has appeared in these two speeches. I will hope that the measure which the noble lord is about to bring forward, though it may of coursediffer in detail from that which was introduced by gentlemen sit ting on this side of the house, will at least have this resem blance with it, that its tendency will be to strengthen and confirm our Parliamentary institutions, and not to change their character or impair their inflaence. I can assure the noble lord that if such a measure is brought forward it will receive from us that calm and candid consideration which was promised from the Throne some years ago to a similar topic, and if necessary we shall offer such assistance as we can bring to render it a measure such as the exigencies of the country may.require, and such as the public opinion of the country may sanction. Sir, there is ono point on which I would make also an observation, and that is the congratulation which this house has received on what I may consider the successful ne gotiation of a commercial treaty with France. Although the technical title is not included in the Speech, I apprehend from the language that it is inevitable that the form of the instrument in which the new commercial relations of the country are described must be a treaty—even if we had not heard to-day, I believe, from authority, that that is the case, and that such an instrument is signed. Now, the mere fact that there is a prospect of increased commercial relations with France is one undoubtedly of much gratifica tion; and taken, Woo, as we are bound to take it, as a sign of cordial good feeling subsisting between the Governments of the two countries, no one for a moment can deny that it is a circumstance not only of a gratifying but of an im portant character. (Hear, hear.) Nevertheless, I must inquire from her Majesty's Government on this subject re specting the mode in which the attention of Parliament is to be brought to bear upon it. I want to know what is to be the duty of the House of Commons if a commercial treaty is laid on the table for our examination and approval. I certainly did not expect to live to see another commercial treaty introduced into the House of Commons. I associated, from all that had passed, that form of instrument with those ancient modes of conveyance which have disappeared, and which, though the traveller may perhaps have found them more interesting than those at present in vogue, certainly have yielded without much chance of revival to the rapid means which are now at our command. Assuming, as of course we have a right at present to assume, that it is con venient to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, for example, to reduce the duties on wines, 1 can easily understand why her Majesty's Government may have felt that, by a re• duction of such duties, the commercial relations between the two countries might have been considerably and ad vantageously increased ; and that being the case, 1 cannot understand why they should not have proceeded, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer found it in his power to reduce those duties, without having recourse to a commer cial treaty. Because, as a House of Commons, what is our business in examining this commercial treaty ? Are we to bo called on to decide whether the terms of the bargain are advantageous or adequate? If we do that we must admit that the principle of reciprocity is the principle which must guide us in our decision; but if we admit that the principle of reciprocity is the principle which ought to guide us in our commercial relations, it appears to me that we are shaking to its centre that new commercial system which has of late years been established with so much zeal, especially by gentlemen opposite, and with tho determina tion of proving on all occasions that it is totally indepen• dent of reciprocal assistance from any quarter. (near, hear.) But, if reciprocity be not the principle that we are to acknowledge in the present instance as the one which is to determine the merits of this instrument, then I should like to know why we have recourse at all to such a form, and why wo should not have increased thoso commercial relations, which all of us most highly value, with our neigh bours without at the same time asking them to make an equivalent, if indeed an equivalent has been made. Sir, we have; all been told that a distinguished member of this house, the hon. member for Rochdale, is the individual to whom we are indebted for this prospect of increased com mercial relations with Franco_(hear, hear)— -but I am quite sure the hon. member for Rochdale is not the person .who ever would have counselled the adoption of a commer cial treaty founded on the principle of reciprocity, in order to increase the commercial relations of the two countries (Hear, hear.) There is another circumstance connected with this commercial treaty which requires, I think, some explanations from her Majesty's Ministers. We live in an ago of such rapid events that what occurs, however impor tant,is easily and soon forgotten ; but I observe that in the year 1856, only four years ago, the Emperor of the French made a similar public communication, similar in character and very similar in expression to that which he has recently addressed to the Minister of State in that country; and he then proposed the entire extinction of the prohibitive system, and an adoption of measures similar in character to those which are intimated in the State paper which has recently created such a sensation in Europe. But in that case, in 1856, a Bill was absolutely introduced to the Legislative Assembly of France ; and although the bill was not on that occasion passed, probably from the late ness of the session, the Emperor of the French considered that it was of such importance that this question of com mercial freedom should be settled and acknowledged by the country—based as his recommendations were on the ac knowledged superiority in the Great Exhibition of all articles of French industry—that his Imperial Majesty ordered that these propositions should be again referred to the 86 Councils General, the departmental Parliaments of France ; and it is a fact that with the exception of six of these councils, the proposition was adopted with an under standing that a *pertain period of time should be permitted to elapse before the action of the new system should be brought into play. Consequently, the Emperor, agreeing with all these propositions, published an ordinance, or some public document of that character, in which he treated their decision as final, expressed his firm resolution to carry this system into effect, and appointed July, 1861, as the period at which it should begin. And that is the reason why the provisions cf a commercial treaty for the relaxa tion of her system on the part of France cannot come into operation till the month of July, 1861. But then the house will see that, eveinad there been no commercial treaty at all, this abolition of the prohibitive system on the part of France would have occurred, having been provided for by course of law. If, therefore, you are making concessions to the French you are making concessions for that which you would have obtained otherwise and without them. (Hear.) If you can conveniently, and with duo regard to the state of the revalue, make such concessions, you should make them on a scientific principle, not in a way that may here after embarrass you ; you should make them on the princi ples recognised by your own commercial system, not on the principle of reciprocity, thus creating a precedent that may prove embarrassing, and for which thore is not the least ne cessity. (Hoar.) All that France engages to do is that in July, 1861, the system of prohibition shall cease, and protective duties bo substituted for it, or some arrangements of an aim logous kind. But all this France has engaged shall be done in 1861; what then, can you expect to gain by a treaty ? All you can do to encourage an i ncrease d comm ercial exchange with France you can do at once by reducing your own duties, without placing on this table a document you may find very awkward and embarrassing hereafter, and raising claims of recip roc it y on th e part of other interests that may bo contrary t o th e pr i nc i p l es o f t h at commerc i a l s ystem you have so lon g ask some e and so succ ess f u lly pursued. (Hear, hear.) On these two p o i n t s, t h en, I th i n k t h e h ouse h as a right to Nilan a ti ons f rom h er M a j es t y ' s G o vernment; wo have a right to ask why th e y have negotiated a treaty with France on the principle of reciprocity, which has been absolutely rejected in our own commercial system ? Why have they ostensibly endeavo ure d t o o btain a result which must inevitably have occurred at the very period the treaty stipulates for ? Why have they engaged us by treaty far what must have been done without any treaty whatever ? (Hear, hear.) Sir, I think it i nconven i en t to enter into any discussmn. on the subject of China, notwithstanding the strong, opinion expressed by the noble lord on the unfor tunate occurrences in that country. I hope, however, the noble lord will not assume that our silence on that subject argues that we agree with the version he has given of what has occurred in China. In due cou rse o f ti me , I have no doubt, our Chinese policy will become a subject of discus. sion in this house. If ladvei-t to it now it i s only because I wish to express my satisfaction that her Majesty has been wisely recommended to refer to the bravery o f the troops engaged in the operations in China. (Ch eers .) It is too much our habit to sympathise only with the successful. (Hear, hear.) But there are occasions of adversity in which the most signal cou ra g e ma y be displayed—(hear, hear)—and I do not think the c onduct of our troo p s, disas trous as were the consequences of the onset, should, when Parliament meets, and the subject is brought before . us, be passed over entirely in silen?e—(cheers)—for was characterised by singular gall= .ry. (Cheers it .) I think we can hardly remember the conduct of the Admiral who on that occasion commanded our forces without feeling that it was that of a man Eng land may bo proud to own as one of her war riors —(cheers—unfortunate as the termination of that day might have been. Let him at least feel that his country men regard his sufferings with pity, and his conduct with admiration. (Cheers.) I have now referred to the two points that I preferred to mention before touching on that theme which undoubtedly engages most—perhaps I might fairly say concentrates all—the attention of the country at this moment. That subject is the condition of Italy, and the relations of our Government with that country. (Hear.) Sir, that subject is treated at considerable length in her Ma jesty's Speach. But I confess, after having read it with great attention, there is in the treatment of this theme so much ambiguity and perplexity of phrase that I shoulal be totally at a loss to gather from this document what is the real state of our diplomatic relations with Italy—and with France in respect to Italy—had it not happened that we have been favoured from a foreign source with some infor mation on the subject. The terms employed in her Ma jesty's Speech render it my duty to-night—one which her Majesty's Ministers will soarcely bo surprised at my intend ing- to fulfil—to ask some explanation from them of what has taken place in the interval since the prorogation of Par liament, of how far this country stands committed to any engagements,' and what prospects may exist as to any en gagements into which her Majesty may have been advised to enter on this important subject. I would recall to the house the temper in which, towards thecloso of last session, this subject was entered on and discussed. About three weeks before Parliament was prorogued there was a gene ral expectation that a congress of the great Powers and other States would be held, by which the affairs of Italy would be settled. That was the expectation throughout the country, and in this house it was accompanied with some distrust and suspicion. Wo were not responsible for the condition of Italian affairs. It was felt that if we were called on to participate in any way in their settlement, it was highly expedient this country should not interfere, unless the object of that interference was satisfactorily detetermined. In the house this feeling was strong even stronger than in the country, I expressed my hope that her Majesty's Ministers would not be in duced to take part in a congress on this subject. I did so for this reason—the soundness of which time and experience has confirmed—that if we went into the congress it would be asking England to assist in carrying into effect the Treaty of Villafranca—an office that, in my mind, England ought not to be called on to perform. On the other hand, if the Treaty of Villafranca were to be set aside, then it would be asking England to commence in the dark the task of recon structing Italy, a task that might embroil us seriously with other Powers. That opinion was not unpopular in this house. A noble lord not now present (Elcho) gave notice of a motion on this subject. An accidental circumstance prevented the noble lord from bringing forward the met' on according to his notice. It was not till the last night of the session that the diseussion took place; and, had the reselu ' tion boon pressed to a division, it was not doubtful that i would have been carried. But had it been carried in a thin house, and at the end of the session, it would have greatly embarrassed the Government, a circumstance that would have beenmuch to be deplored. I endeavoured to induce the noble lord to withdraw that motion. But, then, the feeling of the house was opposed to going into the congress, and in favour of the policy popularly known as the policy of non intervention—l say, popularly known as the policy of non interference—bemuse I do not know any gentleman among my colleagues, or on this aide of the house, who has ever maintained the monstrous proposition that under no cir cumstances ought England to interfere in the affairs of foreign States. (Hear, hear.) There are conditions under which it may be an imperative duty to interfere. Wo clearly may interfere in the affairs of foreign countries when the interest or the honour of England is at stake, or when. in our opinion, the independence of Europe is menaced. (Hear, hear.) But a great responsibility devolves on that Minister who has to decide when those conditions have arisen ; and he who involves his country in interference or in war under the idea that the interests and the honour of the country aro concerned when neither are substan tially involved—he who involves his country in inter ference or in war, when he believes the independence of Europe is menaced, but when in fact that independence is not in danger—makes a sigeal mistake. The general prin ciple that we ought not to interfere in the affairs of foreign nations unless there is a clear necessity, and that generally speaking it ought to be regarded as a political dogma that the populations of different countries ought to settle their own affairs without foreign interference, is one which, I think, the house has not only accepted, but to which, I trust, it will cordially adhere. (Hear, hoar.) It was the policy which the late Government maintained. Six months ago there was some wavering in their faith in that policy. Some persons of high authority spoke of the possibility of England being humiliated by not taking a leading part in the settlement of foreign questions; I ask those persons who then might have wavered, or who then indulged in those observations, to contrast the position of England now with that of any other country in the world. has there ever been a period when England occupied a prouder or more powerful position than she fills at this moment P (Hear, hear.) I trust that as the House of Commons on the last night of the past session gave such an expression of their opinion in favour of that policy, they will at the be ginning of this session show to her Majesty's Government that if they continue in this policy they will receive the support of the house ; but if they diverge from that policy they must offer to the house reasons far graver than any that have reached my ears, and arguments of more weight and import than I believe will be introduced into this de bate. I mention these circumst inces because while the House of Commons in the month of August was express ing in so unequivocal a manner its opinion —sustained by the common sentiment of the country—that the policy of non-intecference in the affairs of Italy was the one this country should follow, it appears to me, from what I learn, that her Majesty's Ministers were not purining that course. I make no charge on that head ; I am speaking from information, and I shall make the statement which I have to make on what I believe to be facts, and I shall give the Government a fair opportunity of ex plaining what may new seem to be ambiguous,' and of refuting statements which may not be founded on truth. The house will recollect that upon its prorogation we were informed that overtures were made in order to ascertain whether her Majesty's Government would sonds represen tative to a congress on the subject of the affairs of Italy. It seems to me somewhat surprising that when in the last night of debate we were speaking on that' subject her Majesty's Government gave us no information that that overture had arrived. But that matter is of little import. It is of more importance to remember that inthe Speech ism the Throne at the prorogation we were informed that overtures for a congress had been made, but that we were not informed that they had been accepted. On the contrary, if I recol lect rightly the language used, we were told then that until her Majesty received information she could net give any answer on the subject. I should like much to know what was the fnformation her Majesty's Governraent received that induced them to consent to going into congress. (Hoar.) But what I want to know from her Majesty's Government still more is this. Why, in the month of August—the very month Parliament was sitting and prorogued—the very month that the House of Commons had expressed in debate, scarcely with any exception, its belief that the maintenance of a policy of non-interference in the affairs of Italy was ne cessary and politic—the noble lord tho Sedrotary of State made overtures to the French Government in order to enter into a special agreement for the settlement of the affairs of Italy ? (Cheers.) I say, on the first night of the meeting of Parliament, witk this elaborate notice in her Majesty's gracious Speech of the condition of Italian affairs, I think it is necessary—it is only reasonable, at , least, that we should expect to receive from her Majesty's Government some ex planation of the reasons that induced them to take a step so important and definite. We are, indeed, promised that papers on this subject will soon be laid before us. Now, on that point I would make two observations. I would say to the noble lord the First Minister, that there are no promises he has made so frequently as promises for the production of papers to this house, and of all the Ministers there is no one than the noble lord of whom it can be alleged that so great an interval was allowed to elapse between the promise of papers and their actual production (A laugh.) Papers are promised at the beginning of a session and produced at the end of it. (A laugh.) And when the noble lord says papers will be laid on the table, let me remind " the two noble lords"—to use the language of the seconder of the address (a laugh)—that there has been a formal account published of all the negotiations that have taken place between the Government of the Queen and the Government of the Emperor cf the French, (Hear, hear.) Is it to be our lot—our humiliation—that we are not to receive information from the Ministers of our own Sovereign respecting our own affairs, but that ;we are to be indebted for it to the condescending candour of any foreign potentate ? (Hear, hear.) I think, therefore, that on this subject it is becoming that her Majesty's Government should afford us some distinct information to-night. In this very month of January an intimation of important negotiations has been authoritatively published on the other side of the water, or communicated fro m th e ot h er s id e o f the water ; and I did believe that the Secretary of State would, on the fisst night of the session, have placed the papers relating to those negotiations on the table of the house. (Hear.) It appears that in August last her Majesty's Government made overtures to the Emperor of the French to enter into a spe cial agreement for the settlement of the affairs of Italy. I should like to know what was the character of those over tures, and what was the natnre of the agreement which the noble lord the Secretary of State contemplated. Is it un reasonable in the House of Commons to expect that infer mation,from the noble lord ? I know that the noble lord I may say that the source from which I obtained this infor mation is anonymous. (" Hear, hear," from Lord J. Russell.) The noble lord cheers that observation, and of course ac• septa it as abjection to the information. I take it for granted he means to say that the information is not authentic. (" Hear, hear," from Lord J. R usse ll , an d a l aug h . ) All I can say is that three com mun i cat i ons h ave appeare d b y c t a h t e i electricns dated January,country January, and the 16th of J anuary. In the commun i cat i on of the 9th of January it is s t a t e d t h at L or d C ow l ey h a d re paired to .theThleithareef paired to England in order to revive negotiations whieh were commenced in August by the English Government for the settlement of the affairs of Italy with France by way of spe cial agreement, The noble lord seems to deny the authen ticity of that statement. I can only say that before I availed myself of it in the house I took those steps which I thought would be satisfactory under the circumstances. I did not presume to follow the example of the four ingenious gentlemen of Liverpool—(a laugh)—but I took adequate steps, and I havebeen assured from a quarter which leaves it impossible for me to doubt that these are communicated from the French Government. And what aro these communica• tions P Lord Cowley arrived in England in the course of this month, and there was immediately a rumour, which came from the other side of the water, that his lordship had arrived on matters of great importance. There were imme diately issued seemingly official notices contradicting this, and stating that Lord Cowley had arrived solely and purely on personal business. But let ins hero refer to the telegram of the 9th of January, which stated that " in the month of August last, when the congress at Zurich was intended to be dissolved, the English Cabinet proposed to the French Government to come to a specific agreement between France and England for the settlement of the affairs of Italy." It then goes on, in diplomatic language, which I will not read, to state that Count Walewski, in order to prevent the pro posals of Lord J. Russell being accepted tendered his resig nation, and that he was successful was shown by the note which appeared in the Moniteur in September relative to the recognition of the old-Governments of the Duchies. Then comes the second telegram to which I have to refer, and which is in th ese wor d s :—" 'The object of Lord Cowley's mission to London was to resume negotiations between England and France, which welre initiated by the former Power (Engl an d), but interrupted by the resignation of Count Walewski ;" and it goes on to say that the principle of this negotiation was non-intervention in the affairs of Italy ; that Lord Cowley's mission was to obtain the consent of England to a joint note, signed by England and France, and addressed to all the Powers, announcing that interference in Italian affairs would be looked on by France and England as a yams belli. I have to ask the noble lord whether that is, as I am informed it is, an authentic and authoritative state ment. I have not read these documents at full length. as I wish to save the time of the house, but gentlemen have it in their power to consult them for themselves. I beg the house very narrowly to watch this proceeding. It was nothing more nor less than a proposition to form an alliance offen sive and defensive between France and England to prevent interference by any Power in the affairs of Italy; and I dare say from the language of the Speech from the Throne, that a renewed effort may be made for the same object— that object being at the first blush an innocent, and as some might think a praiseworthy one, because the Speech says, " Her Majesty will endeavour to obtain for the people of Italy freedom from foreign interference by force of arms in their internal concerns." (Hear.) But let us look at what might have been the consequence to this country if that alliance had been entered into, and which I am assured, on what I consider to be an authentic and authoritate state ment, was mainly refused by the English Government be cause "the British Cabinet, while expressing their ;readi ness to support the principle of non-intervention, either at the congress or in their communications with foreign Powers, pointed out the impossibility of the Cabinet pledg ing- itself without the consent of Parliament to a course of policy that might involve hostilities." (Hear.) Now Par liament has assembled, and we have in the Royal Speech the ambiguous sentences which I have read, and which would have been to me altogether obscure had I not a cog nisance of the preceding events to which I have referred. (Hear.) If the freedom of the Italian people, to which that sentence refers, is to be secured by a joint note be tween France and England making interference by other Powers a eaves bell, observe what might happen. When you enter inio a treaty you are not to look merely to the obvious and probable engagements which you may be called on to fulfil ; you aro to contemplate every possible liability that you may incur. (Hear.) I hold that to be the rule of prudence universally acknowledged and which has always been pursued. Now, suppose such a treaty as I have referred is adopted ; consequences might follow not contemplated by France itself, and, of course, not at all contemplated by the English Government. Is it not pos sible that at some future time the French might establish a dynasty in Etruria, that the regality of Rome might be revived, and that the boundaries between Sardinia and France might be considerably changed ? (Hear, hear.) Is it not probable that the other Powers would become alarmed at circumstances which, in their opinion, would shake the political equilibrium and en danger the political independence of Europe ; and yet would we not be bound by that treaty with our fleets and armies to uphold that French dynasty, and the changes which might have taken place at Rome? (Hear, hear.) Are these results that this house would approve ; and is that a position in which we should be placed ? (Hear, hear.) These aro among the gravest questions that can be brought under the consideration of this house; and yet, if the docu ments before me are authentic, as I am assured they are, the propositions I have stated have been made, and, to the cre dit of the English Government, have been refused. (Hear.) But they have been refused by the English Government because it was too great a responsibility to enter into en gagements that might lead to hostilities without consulting Parliament. They might, however, have made such an alliance with Parliament sitting, and therefore it is of im portance that we should be made acquainted with our actual and probable position, and get full and frank expla nat;ons on the subject. (Hear.) If the noble lord means to say that these communications are sheer inventions— and I am sure he will not equivocate on the subject, but meet me fairly; if he means to say that in the month of August he did not propose to the French Gouernment to come to a special agreement between England and France as to the affairs of Italy; if he means to say that the visit of Lord Cowley to this country was not connected with the subject I have mentioned, viz., to arrange a joint action be tween France and England ; if he moans to say there never wasa proposal to j o i n w ith F rance i n ac t s o ff ens i ve an d de fensive, making it a ea-sus bell for any power to interfere in the affairs of Italy; if the noble lord says so, then I am sure I shall not feel mortified by the noble lord cintradicting me in the matter—he will give information satisfactory to the house and encouraging to the country. (Hear.) But I can assure the noble lord that I would not have made this state ment unless I believed that the information which has reached me is accurate, exact, and authentic. (Hear, hear.) We have been informed that " the British Cabinet having thus declined the proposition to enter into arrangements haying such an important bearing, the question of an early meeting of congress is again revived." (Hear.) Therefore, when Parliament meets in 1860, so far as Italy is concerned, we have to debate the very topics that occupied us on the last day of the last session, as again we arc told that the question of the meeting of congress is revived. (Hear, hear.) My objections to a congress are the same as then. Ido not for a moment lay down the principle that because England did not interfere originally in the affairs of Italy during the war, therefore she ought not to appear in the congress. The time that has elapsed might furnish arguments for doing so that were not equally valid ; but if we are to go to the congress we should go for a specific purpose and with a defined position. (Hear.) When we unwillingly acceded to a congress before we quitted office—it was before war occurred, and we acceded to a congress as the last hope of peace—wo limited and defined in a most exact manner the objects and duties of that congress, and only on this condi tion did we accede to it. There were four grounds which we laid down, and which limited and defined the conduct of the congress to a specific purpose. My noble friend in the other House of Parliament and I in this house communicated those bases to Parliament. If the result of the deliberations of the Government was a belief that it was wise to attend the congress, they should halo made it a condition that the object of that congress shoulU be clearly understood. And if that object is to be expressed by so vague a phrase as "to prevent others from interfering in the affairs cf Italy," I recommend the Government and the house to isidT into what an embarrassing and dangerous position this country may be led by agreements of that kind. (Hear, hear.) On the first night of Parliament assembling, when her Majesty's Speech embraces topics of such importanT3 and developes at such length a matter en which public opinion has been so long concentrated, I think I have a right to ask her Majesty's Government for a full explana tion of what has taken place during the recess respecting Italian affairs. For my part, the only conclusion that I can come to is that the less we meddle with this business the better. (Cheers.) I defy any man, be he Monarch or be he Minister; to form an accurate conception of the real opi nions and feelings of the various populations of the Italian Peninsula. One man will tell you that Tuscany is pre pared to be annexed to ;Sardinia. Another, who. has had means of observation quite as good, will tell you that, if there is one point upon which the mild and peaceful people of Tuscany are agreed, it is the nationality of that country, and that the Tuscans will agree to anything rather than agree to cease to be Tuscans. Then you are told that the Romagna is also desirous to be annexed to Sardinia Another inhabitant of that country will say, " We are ready to be annexed to Sardinia only because we are Re pnblicane. We look, above all things, to the unity of Italy, and it is only by annexation to Sardinia that Venice can bo free, but if it is your intention to make the Romagna part of a central kingdom it would be in a blaze to-morrow." Another person will tell you that Lombardy is prepared to send members to the Sardinian Parliament, but if the prin ciple of a Confederation is establiehe,d in Italy, the Milt nese have as much right to an independent place in a nat tienal federation as the Sardinians. Some persons will tell you that Naples is in such a state that a spark is only re quired to make a revolutian, while others affirm that if con spiracies should be attempted there is ne Sovereign who has so strong a hold upon his subjects, or who would bo better able to put down a revolution, than the King of the Two Sicilies. Opinions equally differ with respect to Sar dinia, for while ono person will tell you that Sardinia is the only security for the freedom and national independence of Italy, another will assert that the whole thing is illusory, and that the Government of Sardinia is morel} , a Govern ment of force and fraud. What is the moral that I draw from these conflicting opinions ? It is that Italy is at the present moment in a state far beyond the management and sottloment of Courto, Cabiuets, and Congresses. It is ut terly impossible to create a national independence by proto cols and to guarantee public liberty by a congress. All this has been tried before, and the consequence has been sickly and short-'ived offspring. Never mind what faults or pre vious errors may have been committed. I say that what in going on in Italy can only be solved by the will, the en ergy, the sentiment, and thought of the populations them selves. (Cheers and counter cheers.) The whole question, in my mind, is taken out of the sphere of Congresses and Cabinets. Wel are at this moment pure from any circum stances of previous interference in these affairs, and it is of the utmost importance that we should remain so. (Cheers.) The process of emancipation is one of considerable length, ambiguity, and perplexity. It was a year ago that the com mencement of the freedom of Italy took place. There was then one French army there. The freedom of Italy has been going on for a year, and there are now two French ar mies there. It must be a source of satisfaction and pride to us that we have held aloof from any interference. (Hear, hear.) I am sure that if we do now interfere it will be to theilasting dishonour of this country. But if by our coun sels and by the position we have assumed we find OUT influ ence increasing, we shall be doing the Italians great good by laying down principles of sound policy, which will ope rate, I do not doubt, for their benefit. It is, however, of the last importance that this country should not enter into en gagements which may have the plausible pretext of pre venting any interference in Italy, but the consequence of which will be, not the freedom of the Italians, but an ag gravation of the circumstances that have produced their previous degradation. (Hear, hear.) I hope the noble lord will throw some light on these questions. I hope we shall know from an English Minister—from the Minister of the Queen—what the conduct of the Government has been, and that our information will no longer be derived from fo reign sources published in this country. (Hear, hear.) The noble lord seemed to think that because the document I quoted was anonymous, that therefore it was not correct. I will now refer to a document which is not anonymous, and which justifies my asking for some explanation, and that is the letter addressed to the Pope of Rome by the Emperor of the French. (Hear.) It has been published through Eu rope, and signed by the Emperor. There is a policy upon which I will give no opinion, because I am rather making inquiries of the Government than calling upon the house to give an 'opinion upon that policy. It is a policy recom • mended to the Pope by the Emperor of the French, who says " Renounce your rights to certain provinces not now under your authority, and the Powers of Europe will guarantee the rest of your possessions." The Emperor does not say, " I will guarantee the rest of your possessions, and I will ask my . allies to do the same." Ho does not say, " I will use my influence with the Powers of Europe." Nothing of the kind. He says, " Accede to my terms, and the Powers will guarantee the rest of your possessions." Surely, it is not an unreasonable request —even the noble lord who seconded the Address will hardly call it a factious inquiry—if I ask her Majesty's Government whether among these Powers England is included. (Cheers.) Who are the Powers to whom the Emperor refers ? Ido not at all wish by this in quiry to raise any odium against the Government, as I might do with some, upon the point of guaranteeing the possessions of the Popo. lam dealing with the question simply as a political question ; but I think we have a right to ask the noble lord whether the Government has autho rised the Emperor of the French to make that offer. I think if the Government has taken that course, they have taken one which is extremely impolitic ; but I deem it in convenient at this moment to enter into any discussion upon a subject that would bring about a very lengthened debate, as its importance naturally requires ; and therefore I do not want any erroneous inference to be drawn from my ques tion. It is a simple, honest, and legitimate question; and after the publication of so important a document as the letter of the Emperor of the French to the Pope of Rome, making that assertion, it is our first duty to request infor mation from the Government. I hope, therefore, the noble lord, or the head of the Government, upon this question of Italian politics and the diplomatic conduct of her Majesty's Government during the recess, will enter into frank explana tion to the house. (Ilear,hear.) I have no doubt that the papers promised, which in duo time we may receive, will give us much information which the noble lord would find it inconvenient and embarrassing—being such a mass of details—to enter into to-night ; but I think that there are questions which the noble lord ought to and will answer. I think he will tell us what were the reasons which induced her Majesty to enter into the congress in August, when on the invitation first being made to her she was evidently dis inclined to do so, not deeming the occasion one that would justify compliant k I trust the noble lord will tell us whe ther in August hrdid or did not offer to enter into any spe cial agreement with France for the settlement of the affairs of Italy. If he did I hope he will tell us the nature of that special treaty; and whether it is true that Lord Cowley came over here merely on his own private business, or to revive the special agreement which was commenced in August, and which, from the opposition of Count Wale wski, was then prevented from proceeding, and to propose that England and France should sign a joint note addressed to the Powers of Europe, declaring that interference in the affairs of Italy would be looked upon by both as a casus belli. I hope the noble lord will also tell us whether he and his colleagues refused to enter into such an engagement, whe ther they did so merely or mainly because Parliament was not sitting, and whether now that Parliament has resumed they are prepared to propose and recommend that course. And lastly, I hope the noble lord will inform us whether he really has, on the part of her Majesty's Govern ment, authorised the French Emperor to say that Eng land was prepared to join with him in guaranteeing the States of the Pope other than the province of the Romagna. These appear to ire to be legitimate Parliamentary in quiries, which if I did not make I should feel that I was not doing my duty. I do not want upon these inquiries to raise any controversy as to the state of Italy, or as to the course which we may think it wise to take. Subsequent occasions, when we are better informed, will no doubt be afforded to us for that purpose; but upon the first night of the session it is, to my mind, most important that the House of,Commons ehoi4clhave a clear comprehension of what is their political position. The Speech of her Majesty from the Throne is full of topics, no doubt of no mean character, but every man in this house knows that there is really only one subject of which the people of this country are thinking, and that is what will be the position of England with re gard to this Italian question, and whether the course we shall pursue will be such as will at the same time redound to our honour, and yet secure the blessings of that peace which every year we learn more and more to value. I in vite the answer of the noble lord, or the head of the Govern ment, to these inquiries. (Cheers.) Lord PALMERSTON said—l am glad that the right hon. gentleman has announced that on this occasion there will be no interruption to that unanimity with Which it is so becoming that on the first night of the session this house should return . a respectful answer to the communication from the Throne. (Hear.) I must in the first place con gratulate the noble lord and my hon. friend behind me on the ability with which they have respectively moved and seconded the Address; and I am sure the house has lis tened to them with pleasure on this the first time they have been heard within its walls. The right hon. gentleman (Mr. Disraeli) thinks that without going into the details of the measure of Parliamentary Reform which we shall have very shortly to propose to Parliament, we have been incon sistent at least in regard to form, inasmuch as it was made a reproach to tho late Government that in their Speech at the opening of last session they put reform at the very tag end, and now wo have ourselves failed to put it in that pro minent position which the right hon. gentleman thinks it ought to occupy. I cannot admit the justice of that re mark. According to practice, the first part of the Royal Speech is devoted to foreign transactions, then comes the address to the House of Commons in regard to the estimates and matters of finance, and questions of internal legislation are reserved for the third department of the Speech. On the present occasion we thought it fitting that the Queen should take the earliest opportunity when she came to the domestic portion of her Speech to express the pride and gratification with which she accepted the offers of voluntary military service from her subjects; but imme diately after that we have placed the question of Parliamen tary reform, which thus takes precedence of all other topics of domestic legislation. (Hear, hear.) I am very glad to hear the remarks of the right hon. gentleman in regard to the distinguished bravery exhibited by our forces in that unfortunate conflict at the mouth of the Peiho ; and I quite agree with the right hon. gentleman that there may be as much merit displayed, as much honour gained, and as great credit reflected upon the country by exertions not attended with success as by those upon which fortune smiles. It well said that nunquam successu erescit Itonestunt. It is nal' the success of an achievement which ought to be the mea sure of the merit of those who were engaged in it; and there certainly never was an occasion on which those in command and all concerned exhibited more devotion and bravery than in that unfortunate contest. (Hear.) As to the commercial negotiations between this country and Fraace, I am happy to be able to say that yestdrday a con vention or treaty was, I believe, signed between the two Governments at Paris. Wo have not yet received the document, and there may have been some technical infor mality which rendered it necessary that a fresh document should bo signed to-day. The right hon. gentleman has stated opinions on this point in the abstract of which I en tirely concur. As a general principle it is certainly not de sirable that a country should enter into any conventional agreement with other countries as to her tariff and custom duties ; on the contrary, it is most desirable that we should keep in our own hands full discretion to legislate, from time to time, in regard to these matters, in such a way as the interest of the country may seem to demand. But there was this unusual feature in the present nego tiations—that, owing to a peculiarity in the French constitution and mode of legislation, we could not obtain from the French Government that security for future arrangements which it was essential we should obtain, unless the transaction assumed the character cf a convention between the two countries. It is, therefore, an entirely exceptional arrangement, and not one which at all implies that we have altered our opinion as to the general principle on which commercial matters of this kind should be governed. lam not going at present to enter into any details as to the arrangement proposed. When ratified the convention will be laid before the house, but this much I will say now in answer to the question of the right hon. gentleman as to what would be the function of this house in regard to that convention, that the arrangements stipu lated to be made on the part of hal. Majesty are Made condi tional on the consent of Parliament to them. (Hear, hear.) Unless we have the consent of both Houses of Parliament we are free from any engagement that has been contracted. I must also remark generally that, as a commercial question, it must be for the interest of the two countries to enter into any arrangement calculated to promote commercial inter course between them. No great increase in the exchange of commodities can take place without giving an increased stimulus to the productive energies of tho two countries. An increase of commerce must be an advantage to both, and cannot be an advantage to ono alone. Therefore, if we in this country should reap any advantage from the arrange ments contemplated, Franco must participate in it also. If, on the other hand, the French nation are to obtain ad vantages, it is impossible they can enjoy them without our recei ring corresponding benefits. (Hear, hear.) Taking it in its political bearing, it must be obvious to every man, that whereas it is for the interest of the two countries that they should remain together in a state of friendly intercourse, it is manifest also that the more they are connected together by the ties of mutual interest and commercial intercourse, the more like it is that neither will cn light grounds suffer an interruption in their political relations to each other. (Cheers.) The right hon. gentleman has asked questions as to our policy with respect to Italy. The right hon. gentle man is fully entitled, when Parliament meets after a recess, to call upon her Majesty's Government to explain what has been the course of their policy upon a great question, upon which he justly says the attention, the feelings, and the opinion of this country are more particularly concentrated than upon any other question now pending. But I think the right hon. gentleman need not have rested his right to put these questions upon the grounds upon which ho was pleased to put them. He seems to me an example of a man reasoning rightly, but upon wrong premises. The grounds upon which he put these questions are a certain number of anonymous telegrams which he picked out of a number of newspapers. " Here is a telegram," ho says, " stating that in August you made a proposal to France to come to a clear understanding and agreement for mutual action in Italy. You tell me it is anonymous. Ah I but I have an answer. I asked the editor of the newspaper whether the article was correct, and he told me it was." (No.) I cannot be mis taken. The right hon. gentleman said he made in'quiries whether those articles were correct, and was told they were. It reminds me of the Italian proverb, that you ought not to ask an innkeeper if he has got good wine. (A laugh.) You ought not to ask the author of an anonymous telegram whether he acted on good authority. Of course he will tell you he did, but the assertion is of no more value than the paragraph to which it applies. (Hear, hear.) I admit the right of the right hon. gentleman to make his inquiries. But he had much better put it on his right as a member of Par liament to interrogate than to found it on such flimsy and frivolous grounds as ,these which he has used. (Cheers.) I have no hesitation in saying that the telegram upon which he mostly relied—viz., that some time in the month of August this Government applied or proposed to the French Govern mentto enter into a specific engagement with regard to the affairs of Italy—is:totally unfounded ; that there is no truth whatever in that statement—(hear)--and I can also say that at the moment at which I sin speaking her Majesty's Government is totally free from any engagement whatever with any foreign Power upon the affairs of Italy. (Cheers.) The right hon. gentleman admits that we were right in consenting to enter into the congress, but he thinks that the communication made at the end of last session and that now made are somehow or another inconsistent, and he wishes explanations upon that point. At the end of last session the crown informed Parliament that overtures had been made for the purpose of ascertaining, if conferences were to be held, whether her Majesty would send a plenipo tentiary. It had not been determined that a congress or conferences should take place, because the holding such congress or conferences must be, and was, contingent upon the conclusion of a definitive treaty to carry out the engage- ments at Villafranca. At that time no such treaty had Been concluded. All that passed was that we were told it was the intentionof the Frenchand Austrian Governments, whenever that treaty should be concluded, to propose a congress to take cognisance of the treaty, and to consider the affairs of Italy. The treaty was not concluded until late in the autumn, and the actual invitation to join a con gress did not reach us until the month of November, It was not, therefore, until then that her Majesty's Govern ment were able to ad rise the Crown to give an answer, aye or no, whether the Crown would send a plenipotentiary. In the intermediate time na doubt communications fre quently passed. There were constant communications be tween the two Governments. Lard Cowley came once or twice to this country. Of course, when an ambassador comes from a foreign court to communicate with his Go vernment, the communications are not confined to what sort of weather it is at the place from which he comes. (Laughter.) He gives all the information he possesses, and receives instructions which can often bo given ver bally in more detail than in despatches, When the dis tance is so short and the communication so easy as be tween Paris and London, it is exceedingly natural that, without any particular or important convention in view, her Majesty's Government should, from time to time, find it desirable to have personal communication with the Am bassador at Paris. It is very probable that on those occa sions the Ambassador combined private convenience with public duty. But no overture was received from the French Government of the nature of that:of which the right hon. gentleman has been informed—that is, the French Government did not propose the separate engage ment which the right hon. gentleman thinks was pro posed, and, I believe he said, declined by her Majesty Government. (Hear, hear.) No doubt, in the interval which elapsed between the preliminary intimation and the actual announcement that a treaty and a congress was to be held Tier Maj Y much t clearness French h t was our ment endeavoured to ascertain, with " of the French was s concludedvern its they. could, what were the views ._ Government with regard to Italioafr 'he knowledgewhich we to ;de so. (Hear, hear.) I we might acquire of the views nthaefraFirrBe. ment might very much influen ce Gover nment as to whether the proposal when Her it Majesty's came ought to be accepted or declined, becaus e, although there were many reasons why it was undesirable we should decline to join a congress, yet if we had reason to think that in that congress there would be a wide difference of opinion be tween England and France—that We should find our selves quite at variance with France on the great question to be discussed—that knowledge would be a considerable element in the decision as to wliether we would go into congress or not. (Hear, hear.) Upon the general questisn the right hon. gentleman seems not to have any doubt that our decision was right. When the proposal came we might either have accepted or declined it. Suppose w e h a d d ec li ne d . Su W ppose we ha 1, ilt " e anticipate that a ma j or it y o f the Powers who he parties to the congress will differ with us upon an essential point upon which we have a strong and decided opinion. We make; no secret that it is our intention in con gress to assert the principle—(to which I am glad to find the right hon. gentleman agree)—that it is right the people of Italy should be left to settle their own affairs —tnat the people of Italy should be left, as the right hon. gentleman says, by their own will, opinion, and energy to settle the question of government between themselves and their rulers, or between themselves and th e i r a lli es, neighbsuring States. We anticipate a majority of the Powers will differ with us, and we decline." We made no secret ; we took plans to make known that such was our principle, and that we should maintain it in congress. If we had found that it was likely a majority of the other Powers would have differed inopinion, and a moment would have arrived in congress in which we should have been compelled either to acquiesce in silence in a principle of which we did not approve, or withdraw, it would have been an element in our decision. It was, therefore, of the utmost importance that we should ascertain as accurately as we would what were the opinions and feelings of the French Government in regard to this question, and it was upon it that communications took place between us and the Govern ment of France. When the invitation came, if we had met it with a refusal, one of two things would have happened. It was possible, in the first place, that Prussia and Russia might have said, " If England, one of the great Powers in the congress of 1815, does not choose -to go into congress, neither do we." It was possible that our refusal might have prevented the congress assembling. If that had re - suited in disturbances in Italy, we should have been called the cause of those calamities, and that was a responsibility which I think we ought not lightly to have incurred. If, on the other hand, congress met without us, England, by its own act, would have excluded itself from a great transaction in which all the other Powers of Europe were engaged. That was a position which it did not become the Govern. ment of this country to take. Moreover, in abstaining from going into congress we should have run the ri s k of s eei ng conclusions adopted opposed t 3 our convictions, and which we might have prevented from being adopted had we been there to give our reasons against them. We. therefore, were perfectly right, I think, in accepting the incitation, and we should have been very blameable if we had held aloof from the congress, if congress there had been. (Hear, hear.) We were prepared to go into congress free from all engagements, but having announced fully what our opinions were as to the propriety of leaving the Italians to settle their own af fairs, without any foreign interference by force of arms, I am quite persuaded that if that policy is adhered to, if the Italians are left free to settle their own affairs, the result would probably be more satisfactory ; and if it is not the Italians alone will be to blame. (Hear, hear.) Then, the right hon. gentleman, quitting 111 r. Reuter'e telegrams, took higher ground, and quoted the letter of the Emperor of the French to the Pope—though I think ho did not read it quite correctly, which, he contends, contains an en gagement that, if the Pope would agree to allow the Ro magna to remain independent, the powers of Europe, (in cluding England, as the right hon. gentleman conceived), would guarantee him the secure possession of the rest of his territories. Speaking from recollection, though, pro bably, as the right hon. gentleman has the paper before him he may be right after all—(Mr. Disradi—l spoke from recollection.) Well, then, my recollectionldiffers from that of the right hon. gentleman. The phrase, I think, is that in that case the Pope might address himself to the other Powers, and ask —demander— for such a guarantee, which I think the Emperor said they would very likely give. All I can say is that we were no parties to such an engagement. (Hear, hear.) It is not a guarantee, I think, which this country would be at all disposed to enter into. (Hear, hear.) I trust that I have given the right honour able gentleman an answer on this point which will be per fectly satisfactory to him. I quite agree with him in say ing that it would be trespassing needlessly on the time of the house to go into the detailed communications which have taken place on the subject on the present occasion. What they are will be shown by the papers which are to be laid on the table; and though I do not recollect the in stances to which the right honourable gentleman referred of papers promised at the beginning of the session being delayed until the end, I can assure him that my noble friend has no intention of delaying until the end of the session the production of the papers which ho is anxious to see, and which I trust will be perfectly satisfactoryto him and to the house. Our policy with regard to Italy has been the simplest possible. It is fully explained in the Speech from the Throne, which I cannot admit to be ambiguous or unintelligible on this point. Our policy has never varied. We said in the beginning, and we say still, that no foreign force should be exerted to control the people of Italy in the arrangement of their own affairs. Our opinion is that they should be left to settle their affairs among themselves be tween people and government; that they should be free to adopt teat form of government and such an arrangement of states they might think best for their own interests, and that ne foreign power ought to interfere by force of arms to privent them from arriving at the result which is most sa • tisfactory to their owa feelings and interests. (Hear, hear.) The right hon. gentleman says that if you ask the opinion of different people, all of whom are respectively and indivi dually good authorities on the subject of Italy, one will tell you one thing, and another another ; that whether it is about the Romagna, Tuscany, or Sardinia, or Naples, or Lom bardy, every one you consult gives you a different opinion. Is that peculiar to Italy? (Hear, hear.) Without going further than the walls of this house, I should like to know whether you won't find gentlemen here who will give you the most opposite opinions about any question of domestic interest you like to name. (Hear.) Aak my hon. friend oppo site (Mr. Spooner) his opinion about Maynooth, and then go to some Irish member below the gangway. (Laughter.) Ask about parliamentary reform, or any other question on which public attention is fixed, and I will venture to say that within the walls of this house you will find as many discordant opinions as the right hon, gentleman says exist among Italian authorities with regard to the state of Italy. - Well, then, adopt the same course withregard to Italy as you do with re gard to questions of dome s tic p o li c y. I n this house a ques tion is settled according to what the majority thinks about it; let the people of Italy settle their own questions in the same way. (Hear, hear.) If it be true that Tuscany wishes to be a separate nationality, se be it. If it be true that the King of Naples is the most beloved of monarchs —(laughter)—let his subjects remain united to him in the bonds of affection. If it be true that the people of the Ro magna are enamoured of the Government of the I'ope, let them return to the happiness from which they are tempo rarily separated. (Laughter.) All that we want is that the Italians should be left to judge of their own interests—to shape their future arrangements according to their own opinions of that which was most likely to contribute to their happiness and most in unison with their feelings and opinions. (Hear, hear.) I quite concur with the right hon. gentleman that there is no question which has arisen for some time upon which the people of this country feel more decidedly than on this. and I am persuaded that the policy which we, recommend is most in consonance with their wishes. It is founded upon the same principle as that on which the Throne of this country now rests, and therefore, in advocating it, I feel that the Government are backed and supported by the feelings of the people at large, by the his torical traditions of our own country, and by the principles on which that constitution is founded under which we are so happy to live. I trust, therefoio. that when the papers aro produced the House will find in them nothing to cen sure, but much to approve ; and that in pursuing the course which it is our intention to pursue, that in endeavouring by negotiation, whether in congress or out of congress, it no congress should meet, to secure to the people of Italy free dom from the control of foreign interference, we shall meet the wishes and receive the approbation of the country. (Cheers.) The motion for an address was then egrecd to, and a committee nominated to draw it up. The house adjourned at half-past 7 o'clock. T1II? LATE CAPTAIN HARBISON. The calamitous accident which occurred at South ampton on Saturday last, and which threw a gloom over the town, is still exciting much sympathy. Captain Lay (the superintendent purser) has quite recovered, but Mrs. Harrison is still in great mental distress. An inquest was held on the body of Charles Ogden, the coxswain of the boat which capsized, when some little additional evidence to that on the former inquiry was taken. A verdict of " Accidentally drowned" was returned. A meeting of the Southampton Town Council was held at the Audit-house yesterday afternoon, to con sider what steps should be taken to testify the respect of the corporation to the memory of Capt. Harrison, and to record their sympathy and con dolence with his bereaved widow and family. The mayor, Mr. F. Perkins, opened the proceedings with a most feeling address. In reference to the mode in which the inhabitants of Southampton may testify their feelings upon that melancholy occasion, he said it was intended that the corpse should be conveyed from the residence at Fremantle on Thurs day, at 1 o'clock, passing through the town to the railway station, from whence it will be conveyed to London, and onwards to Liverpool, where the mor tal remains of the deceased will be interred. It was proposed that the shops in Southampton shall be closed during the time the body passes through the town. Muffled peals will be rung on the bells of the various churches, and minute-guns will be fired from the platform battery. Mr. E. Talk (the ex-mayor) read an address, which it wasunanimously agreed should be presented to Mrs. Harrison, re cording the unfeigned sorrow and regret of the council at the loss the town and country at large and as sustained by tho lamentable death of her hu sban d, conveying to her and her family its most sinLeasion. - ere and unaffected sympathy on the melanch oly any further for the purpose of carrying into effectith reference to It was arranged that a committee shou ld be formed suggestions that might be made w t na of p r r e a s y p e e o r a t the subject. Almost all the clergy hCaptainllar. t o the dea t h of - r a a y t i l o a n swt O n u a, an d dissenting ministers of Southampton alluded been offered up at the publi c daily prayer me etin g s for the family hav e held in the to rison in their thatsermonas deofinS_ounnsdt It is expected to the mem or y of the deceased will take place on the day of the funeral. Captain Harrison was, we believe, a native of Maryport, but - had not resided there for many years. His mother, who by his death has been deprived of a good son—of her only support—is at present staying at the Angel Hotel, Liverpool, the proprietor (Mr. Towers) being the father-in-law of the deceased captain. Two chil dren by the deceased's first wife are buried in Liverpool, and the remains of their father will be laid beside those of his children. [A.DvEßTlsnatEx.r.] ...Holloway's Pills and Ointment.— Debility—Consumption.—ln no diseases aro the alterative and tonic influence of these invaluable remedies more appa rent or more gratifying than in that feeble condition of the body which precedes consumption. The pills should be cautiously taken according to the printed directions, aid the ointment should, at the same time, be rubbed most effectually twice a day between the shoulders and over the whole chest. The dose of pills should be regulated so as to act as gentle aperients, not as purgatives ; the effect is won derful. A change for the better is observed ere this treat ment has been followed for a week ; the improvement steadily progresses. The melancholy emaciation gives place to 4ealth, strength, and cheerfulness.