The Dorset County Express and Agricultural Gazette.
Dorchester, Dorset, England, 1859-08-16 00:00:00

FRIDAY.
The House of Lords met yesterday at 4 o'clock, and
having advanced several Bills a stage, adjourned at 7
o'clock.

HOUSE OF (X)ILMONS-110NDAY.

Lord ELCHO moved an Address to Her Majesty,
stating that in the opinion of this House it would be
consistent neither with the honour nor the dignity of
this country to take part in any Conference for the
purpose of settling the detaile of a peace the prelimi-
naries of which have been arranged between the Em-
peror of the French and the Emperor of Austria.
Neutrality WU defined to be a state of indifference, of
neither friendship nor hostility; but the neutrality of
the present Government was not of that indifferent
character. What they had sought in Ift4B tic y sought
now—the exclusion of Austria from Italy. Ile sym-
pathized with Italy, and believed that it would be for
the good of that country that we should abstain as far
as possible from interference in its affairs.
Mr. KINGLAKE moved the "previous question," be-
cause he conceived, he timid, that Lord i.:lcho'e proposal
could not be appropriately met by either an affirmative
or a r.egative vote. Holding the Ministers answerable
for tie conisequences, he was prepared to concede to
thorn
the confidence which was an indiepensahle con-
dition of all true responsibility. He admitted that his
objections to our joining in the Conference were very
strong, and he enumerated some of those objections, and
England's going into a `ongrems to settle the details of
the conditions under which he would not disapprove of
the territorial arrangements of Italy.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, so far as
he and his colleagues were concerned, they were pre-
pared to meet the motion with a direct negative; but if
the Heim was of opinion that it was inconveniert to
entertain the motion at all, they were ready to concur
in the tion which Mr. Kinglake had made without
any concert with them. The original motion spoke of
taking part in a Conference for the purpose of Nettling
the details of the peace between the two Em Heperors.
was not aware of any such intention. The details of
of Italy. The object of
the pe.oe would be settled by the belligerents them-
selves, and what remained would be, not the details of
happiness
the Government
the but greet questions of European policy.
was no foundation for such a
oferetme, lest they should he
hoguiyukenauf:fainectii.u...npkt:h.tineic.niath:::::c
supposition. It was the desire of the Government to
see Austria strong, flourishing, and happy • but it did
not follow that they might not have their Own feeling
and conviction that she might, by another policy, better
discharge her duties and consult her own aspirate and
individual Intorests. To underrtand the present posi-
tion of Austna. it was necessary to go back for the last
45 years During that interval, wherever liberty raised
its head HI Italy, it was lambed by the iron hand of

Austria, and abuses were re-established in all their
r;gunr. The pootion of Sardinia, with her improved
institutions, became of necessity • *tending danger to
Austria. It was necesury that the British Govern-
ment should consider what, in the present state of eir-
citutstames, was best for Italy, for Austria, and for
Europe. Might not Austria be stronger out of Italy
than in it? lie agreed that if we had not ountidence,
and were essentially at variance with France, it would
he a question of prodence how far we should enter into
the Conference; but be could nut understand the other
branch of the dilemma. whielt would come to
that, whatever be the liberal sentiment* of the Em-
peror of the French, we aliould refuse to assist him, but
leave hint to atroae with his difficulties. This was a
recommendation which he earnestly entreated the Ileu.se
to discountenance.
Mr. S. Ft riamtatn denitxl that the motion of Lord
Etch° was open to objection as to its form. its object,
'or its wording. lie ilektalcd the policy of the late
Govennueut, and pointed out the hazard to which the
taking part in the Conference would expose. England if
the majority were to euforce its decisions by anus, or to
enter into gitai•antees.
Lord if. VANE did not see that any good would arise
front our presence in the Conference at present.
Mr. IL COCHRAN!: said, if he had any doubt of the
expediency of Lord Elchu'a motion, it would have ken
set at rest by the vetch of the Chancellor of the Exche-
quer, which betrayed t:n: (cling with which the (lover:i-
ntent woubt approach the Conference. The whole ante-
cedents of Lord Palmerston and Lord J. Russell proved
to him that they could not cuter it la a neutral
spirit, but could take only cue cuur,e. If we were to
be, as we ought to be, neutral, the neutrality utu..t
be honestly carried out; end this had not ken done by
such • speech as that of the Chancellor of the Exche-
quer, which WILY a partisan one.
Mr. C G•tmo ou,erved that the question before the
.. . . . .

liousc was whether it was desirable to bind the hands
of the Covernment not, tuukr possible circumstances,
to have anything to du with any Conference. It would
be must objectionable, he said, so to bind any I foveni-
mint supposed to have the confidence of the House of
COlllllllOlll% . .

The trlloNoctirr thought if the Government con-
sulted their own interests, they would support the
&notion of Lord Eleho. _ _

Mr. M. MiLNEM believed that the speech of Mr. Glad-
stone expressed the feelings of the people of this country,
sod interpreted their understanding of what a neutral
position meant, which should not impel: the expression
of their sentiments un questions of right and justice.
A refusal to take part in a Conference might be not only
impolitic but unmannerly towards other Powers of
Europe.
Mr. HENNERSET cited authorities to show that agri-
culture, manufactures, commerce, all the elements of
national prosperity, had made greater progress in the
Papal States and those under the rule of Austria in
Italy than in Sardinia, where taxation had increased so
as to cripple trade and commerce.
Mr. HORSIIAN observed that the motion involved a
very important principle, which in the speeches opposed
to it had been evaded or misrepresented. The motion
was not, as represented by Mr. Gladstone, an unquali-
fied assertion of an abstract principle, but a very precise
and definite application of a rule of policy affirmed by
the country. The motion originated in an announce-
ment by Lord Palmerston to the effect that the Govern-
ment would be ready to enter into the Conference for
the purpose of improving the details of the Treaty of
Villa:moue The motion, therefore, grappled at once
with the object. He hoped the House would forbid
the Government from going into the Conference, by
which we could not serve Italy, but might lower our-
selves.
Mr. S. HxnSIRT denied that Lord Palmerston had
said anything &boat going into Conference to settle the
details of the Treaty of Villafranca. He did not say
they were going to the Conference, but if difficulties
were removed and objections at an end, • refusal to do
so would be • dereliction of duty on the part of the
Government.
Mr. WHIT[I4III)K defended the motion.

Lord J. R1.1861[1.L observed that the motion proposed
an address to the Crown not to do a thing which it was
never asked to do by anybody, and which there was
not the sinallest intention to do. The preliminaries of
Villafranca did not propose to regulate definitively the
settlement of Italy. That country might be threatened
by a bloody revolution or a foreign intervention ; and if
Itu.ia, Prussia, and England, by joining the Congress,
could agree to the terms upon which • confederation
might be formed, were we to say we had registered •
vow in Heaven against entering into • Conference? As
other questions were left to the advisers of the Crown
subject to their responsibility, so this question should
be left to thew. W hen the time came. and they knew
all the eircunistanees, they would be able to say "aye'
or "no" to the proposition; though at present, so far
froin being an advocate for a Conference, he saw more
objections against it than reasons for it. He gave full
details of the circumstances attending the propositions
received from M. de Persigny, referred to by Mr. Fits.
gerald, observing that,although the Government claimed
no credit m the matter, ho did rejoice that peace had
been the result. . . . .

Mt. DISRSICLI having replied to accusations made
against him by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, ob-
served that he had evaded the practical question under
consideration. With reference to the communication
from the French Ambassador, Lord J. Ilussell'a expla-
nation, he aaid, had been ample, except upon the most
material point, whether he had generally approved of
the proposal, and whether that approbation was com•
municated to the Emperor of the French. lie objected
to the motion that it called upon the House to give an
opinion upon the iluestioa on what was practically the
last night of the session, and he trusted that lard Etch°
would not press it to a tiivirion.
Lori PALLEnsTuN commented upon the remarks
made by Mr. Disraeli in the laid Parliament upon the
conduct of the Austrian and the harilinian Govern-
ments respectively, when he characterized that of the
latter as ambiguotui, and eulogized the spirit of digni-
fied conciliation manifested by Austria. He denied that
any approbation had been expreaed of the paper re•
(aired from the French Atubas,ader, and, with respect
to the Conference, the Govennuent, he said, were not
proposing to go into a Conference at all. but, if they
did, it would not be to upset the arrangements of 1815.
He waa of opinion that Austria would be stronger if
she had no Italian pouiessions ; but it w.ii one thing to
hold this opinion, and another to enter into measures
to clisdige arrangements founded upon treaties tlnat wore
the basis of a great European settlement.
Lord Ei.cao, in reply, defended his motion, which,
satisfied with the discussion, be did not press, and the
question was not put.
The House then proceeded to the orders of the day,
and adjourned at • little before 3 o'clock.