The Press.
London, England, 1857-02-14 00:00:00

146

On the first night of the session, the Right
Hon. Member for Bucks made certain state-
ments, to show that the foreign policy of Lord
PALMERSTON'S Administration was delusive,
inasmuch as it tended to raise the hopes of
foreign Liberalism only to disappoint them,
and to raise continental disturbance, well
knowing that no practical result could possibly
result from it, except, indeed, the restraint or
punishment of those persons who attempted
to force on the Courts of Europe a policy they
were not prepared to adopt. Mr. DisrtAx
particularly alluded to the encouragement
given to Sardinia to stand forth as the cham-
pion of Italian independence in opposition to
Austria. He called attention to the fact, that
while at the Paris Conferences Lord CLAREN-
DON had Ipietended to assume an attitude of
opposition or hostilily to Austrian supremacy
in Italy, he knew that a secret treaty was in
existence, which bound France to support
Austria in the possession of her Italian
dominions, and, consequently, enabled the
Austrian Plenipotentiaries to regard the de
monstration in favour of Sardinia as a farce
only fit to be laughed at, Sardinia being the
dupe of the piece.
The Right Honourable Member for Bucks
asserted the existence of this secret treaty as
a fact of which the British Foreign-office must
hive been aware when the Conferences were
held ; and he drew the inference that all the
sympathy manifested by Lord PALMERSTON'S
Administration in favour of Sardinia, as
opposed to Austria, and all the demonstra-
tions of the Ministerial party in favour of
Italian independence, were false and worthless.

Lord PALMERSTON denied the existence of
any such treaty. In the most express lan-
guage he declared that it was " a romance." He
said that the Leader of Opposition had been
imposed on by Paris gobemouches. There
was no foundation whatever for the assertion
of a secret treaty—except this, that in the
early part of the war there were communica-
tions between the Austrian and French
Governments, in which the latter agreed to
take no part hostile to Austria in Italy. This
exception looked suspicious. It partly justified
Mr. DISRAET.I'S statement ; but on other points
Lord PALMERSTON S contradiction was as ex-
plicit as words could make it. This pointed
and contemptuous contradiction by Lord
PALMERSTON raised a question of personal
credit between the Leaders of the Govern-
ment and of the Opposition in the House of
Commons. As we said last week, it was im-
possible for the matter to end there.
On Tuesday Mr. DISRAELI again brought
the subject before the House. He rectipitu-
lited what had passed; he showed the impor-
tance of the subject; and then he repeated his
former assertion, that a secret treaty was in
existence of the purport he had alleged, and he
named the day on which it had been signed, the
Vnd of December, 1554 Lord PALMERSTON met
the assertion this time still with ridicule, but ne-
vertheless with somewhat more reserve. To the
best of his knowledge and belief no such treaty
existed. But now the exception was wider
than it had been at first. The Noble Viscount
explained that when it was a question whether
Austria should join the Western Powers against
Russia, she manifested some anxiety for her
Italian possessions, as Russia might at-
tempt to instigate Italian insurrection, and
asked whether, supposing Austria joined
the Allies, the French forces in Italy would
join the Austrian forces to suppress any
insurrectionary movement? The Prime Mi-

nister said that Austria was assured in reply
that France under such circumstances
would act as an honourable ally—that engage-
ments were thereupon entered into between
the two Governments, and that those engage-
ments " were viilloubtedly known to the English
" Government." Now, this admission stasto.n-
tially confirmed Mr. Dime,Etfa statement;
bat the Prime Minister added, tha; that conven-
lion, as he termed it, was not, so far as the
Government knew, ever signed, and therefore
was of no effect.
Setting aside inferential conclusions, the
argument between the Prime Minister and
the Leader of Opposition was now reduced
So a simple fact. The Right Hon. Member