The Express.
London, England, 1867-12-06 00:00:00

TELEGRAPHIC INTELLIGENCE.

(ziosza's
FRANCE AND ITALY.
PARIS, Ditc. 5, Nvingura.

In the Legislative Body to-day, the bureaux re-
jected the interpellations respecting the octroi
taxes at Paris and the election of the municipal
authorities at Lyons. The debate upon the Roman
question was then resumed. M. JoSrome David ap-
proved the second expedition to Borne, which was
justified by Italy's aggressive attitude against the
Papacy and her ingratitude towards France. Italy
had selected the moment to break the convention
of the 15th September when she fancied
France was on bad terms with Prussia,
and not prepared for war. France ought
to remain at Rome until there was a
complete change in the attitude and acts of the
Italian government. This did not imply that
France should be responsible for the Pontifical
government, nor for its theological declarations,
which were of interest only to the spiritual order.
M. Jdrome David ►lso spoke in favour of submit-
ting to the government a motion demanding that
the French troops should be maintained at Rome.
M. Rouher explained and justified the French in-
tervention at Borne from a moral, religious, and
social point of view. He showed what religion
Garibaldi wished to substitute for that of the
catholic church. The eonduct of Italy, he said,
had been sincere up to the 28th August. Then
she became obliging, subordinate, and an &room-
plice. France went to Rome to stop a revolution
which had three stages—one at Rome, one
at Florence, one at Paris. M. Rouher declared
that French troops would remain at Rome as long
as the safety of the Pope rendered their presence
necessary. He added—" Safety does not mean
alone material tranquillity. We must have good
guarantees from Italy. Italy shall never possess
herself of Rome. (Loud applause.) At the same
time the French government is desirous to
strengthen Italian unity ; those two things must
co-exist." M. Rouher refused to entertain the in-
terpellation of the Left. The interpellation of M.
Chesnelong deserved the explanations which had
been given. In conclusion, he said—" Does a
community of ideas exist between us and the
Chamber ? (Expressions of assent.) Then let the
Chamber give to the government' a vote of confi-
dence, and, above all things, let there not be a
split in the majority." (Applause.)
The sitting was then adjourned.
On the re-assembling of the Legislative Body M.
Rouher again ascended the tribune, and explained
that when he said the French troops would remain
at Rome as long as the safety of the Papacy re-
quired their presence, he meant by the word
Rome the integrity of the present Pontifical terri-
tory. (Applause.) M. Jules Fevre admitted that
the government this time had made a clear declara-
tion, but to endeavour to maintain at the same
time the temporal power of the Papacy and to
strengthen Italian unity was still chime-
rical ; the occupation would be for an indefi-
nite period. M. Chesnelong announced that,
considering the declarations made by the govern-
ment, the movers of the second demand of inter-
pellations withdrew their motion. M. Berryer re-

gretted that determination, and desired the
Chamber to register M. Rouher's declaration by
referring the interpellation to the government. M.
Rouher observed that the means to prove an agree-
ment between the Chamber and the government
would be to vote the order of the day upon the
interpellation of M. Jules Fevre. The discussion
was then declared to be closed, and the order of
day, pur et simple, upon M. Jules Favre's interpel-
lation was voted by 237 votes against 17. The
discussion of the interpellation in reference to the
German question has been fixed for Monday next.