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

VIE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, JANUARY 25, 1860.

learned recently that the noble earl had been taking part in
a convivial meeting of some of his supporters alt Manchester,
ancj the pith of the speech he made' to them was that he
would support every 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-
i-erlunent 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
pretient 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
ntY 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
neat 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
°Pillion 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
4_theol, and on the readiness of officers of the regular army
to avail themselves of this powerful instrument, placed
ssread yto their hands. Though I have no doubt in my own
'mnd of what will be the result, this is as yet only a matter
eonjecture, 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.
, Wear, hear.) I believe that, while it is generally acknow-
'edged to be a perfectly unexceptionable movement on oar
Darts—purely and entirely defensive in its nature, and itn-
lessible to be diverted to purposes of attack,—no two things
'lave raised the prestige of this country more than, first of
all, that marvellous resistance offered by a small number
of
_litary men and civilians in India against the millions
ass-m° had been excited to rebel against our sway; and,
iss-u'andlY, that sort of warlike spirit which has sprung up
,„--":,?ng a nation certainly not military ite nature, and
'Lich any power which might venture to touch or attack
't),IF shores—as I hope and believe none thinof doing at
,„•utsa time—Would find very troublesome and disagreeable
s,..,—"eed. (Hear, hear.) It is, I think, a matter of congra-
tulation that the time at which this movement is going on,
rden increaseof our defences is being made, is one when
ss? are ou good terms with our neighbours and other coma-
.s"4,ll. If such steps were beingtaken at a moment of great
seed sudden panic, such as certainly prevailed some months
Zg• °, it would stamp them with quite a different
antre ;
nt. as it is, it leaves us clearly and unmistakeably the
attitudereliable defence which the nation has a right to insist upon
„1"t the Government should adopt, and which are intended
mere•
ly to render us independent of any casualty which may
In (Hear.) The next point referred to by the noble earl
sub 's 'adia ; and I entirely agree with what he has said on this
, ?ed. lam especially glad to hear such a tribute of
rtZte accorded to the moderation and judgment of the
4. Administration. The noble earl said that what-
everpresiraoulgsllt have been the mind of the Government of India
31184 u 0 the proclamation as to Oude, subsequently the
been sses_stiens of the late Government of her Majesty had
„'"'"Tled out in a most conciliatory manner. But it is
of PcS,Power to state what was the mind of the Government
at that time, and that not from any private infer-
if• oon, but from that celebrated despatch m which the
soarernor-General stated what his plans were with regard'
Oude, and expressly intimated that he had given the
Nriaookdars to understand that the confiecation of the land
butnot to be regarded by them as a permanent deprivations
✓ the
as a means of placing in the hands of the Go-
iteinlinent the power of punishing or rewarding them accord -
stiVo whether. they joined the insurgents or co-operated
kali. the Government in the restoration and maintenance of
sealeP• They were to understand particularly that titles
sts 421ii' to them with the authority of the Government
which I,se much more substantial than the very insecure titles
wouldthe previously held, and that the acceptance of them
vtosis , coupled with conditions by which some guarantee
The oe taken for teir reproached and goodwill. (Hear.)
• tirioble earl then my noble friend on account
sertatte commercial treat with , and went into all
better assumptions andcalculateons in regard to it, which
es. er acquaintance with tke purport and details of the
et,,els.ention would, lam sure, have dispelled. In thinking
. the probable points of attack which would be made use
sti‘g us, and bearing in mind the axiom delivered by
ltolsle earl last year, that when one was bound to find
:2_II%IMS sure to be able to do so, I had no doubt that some
esti; ln our policy would be selected as vulnerable. I
whit pretty pretty closely the style of objection to this treaty
terin Ile has actually assumed, and which I might charac-
-14,7e7 as the very purism of free trade. (Hear, hear.) I
oisaLreally no ground for knowing what the noble earl's
believe 2 maY be at this moment on free trade and protection.
„ the last speech on this question which he made
New; house was one in which he deferred to public
although he prophesied national ruin, and even
If t'aled to Freetraders to know how far the gratifies •
ti(:,11 of the rivenity would prompt them to carry the desola-
e4 of the land. (Laughter.) Well, I thought we should
ve at what his principles were. He broached two prin-
g
„4s, one that laid down by the noble earl, and thf, other
ei'Lllet reciprocity system. The first admitted certain con-
ii&a,3 to free trade, but I remarked throughout the whole
sit :%elit the old anti-freetrade principle coming out strong;
arksZThv he mentioned advantages, it meant always the
ass I,s'ages of sending out our goods to other nations, and
said we should receive from them. (Hear.) A great
it *...44t was said by the noble earl was very true. He
,ggisea`asbad for the nations of Europe to be continually
uld sus,a see which could obtain the best terms, and he
'Won conceive anything more suicidal than when a
wait s°usidered a reduction good for itself that it should
din for
th •
losd e pleasure of another nation to make a correspen-
nsolection. Our great' difficulty was to make a coin-
Pstins treaty at all. No human thing is perfect, but sup-
NZ that our tariff was perfection itself, then perhaps it
lta be •
~prov. suicidal to alter it; but supposing that there are
snee irnellts which can le introduced in our tariff, and
Ze heolnes to be discussed it will be seen that it would
rata eight of pedantry to refuse to invert those amend-
stakes:, any treaty when by so doing you extend to an
amount the commercial intercourse with so im-
arSt a
- country as France. Nobody doubts that there
I,tssrst: disadvantages to their-mercantile and commercial
at
ad et France under the present system, but it would
heseep vantage-to both sides to remove them. I happened
s,ent lately to read a speech of Sir R. Peel, in which
Nag that he favoured a better understanding with
because it would lead to a more extended commer-
tla. ai-Zreourse, which would have the effect of. increasing
uetl• esnal prosperity, as well as ofspromoting goodwill
'es .ssn the two countries. Now! we are assured that
he tact of the treaty will be to introduce a more libe-
eYsts
!cellosu in France, combined with improvements in the
tsZY of our tariff; and it would be a monstrous thing
both -"Treased commercial intercourse would confer upon
f
-ns in the increased security for the maintenance
"04,74 It is true that we may have close commercial in-
-4terel"Bs and yet go to war with anothernation ; yet where
&said that great consmercial intercourse there will also be
leSd hag large body of' persons whose personal interests will
ponied °la to use their utmost efforts to avoid that which
tevessaestroy their profits. The other question—that of
lies ,:"Le---broached by the noble earl is one which of course
N',,,Mtloasible for me to enter upon now, as no one can ex-
siegui,esto anticipate the statement of the Chancellor of the
gebl(;7oter upon this difficult and important subject. The
et to earl suggested that this treaty had been managed by
°Pt lisact as a sort of firework to produce an effect at the
Wit of Parliament, but I can assure him nothing of the
gteshsedine ease. There is no secret about it. A distin-
e diaan, Mr. Cobden, having, to my regret, declined
the an,
Government, for certain reasons of his
tpottMenat to Paris, and I think it reflects wonderful'credit
that gentleman, and is an extraordinary circumstance,
a Cloche after having by his influence and eloquence exercised
he hastbveerect upon a free country to adopt a certain policy,
few very ins la.ahled to exercise a similar influence upon a
institution sAZent men at the head of a wholly different
in this country Varllment. (Hear.) Ido think the error
adulation of the r been that sometimes there has been an
vituperation of him Peror of the French, and at others a
gone toas either eatse and his acts. I believe I have never
ti a.. we las toot which. are
.equally offensive to good
;Oink this act of the
r considerations, but I must say that
Zt the most beneficial llsperor, which, I believe will be one
been one of h' to the country he reigns over, has
11140 18 best aete, and one which I have no doubt re-
ti moral courage to perform (Hear ) The noble
tiellintlisilliiaFd referred to the representaiions of eitrtain Protec-
q;s, ranee which afford a proof of the immense force
.sh'esrO It strong organisation offers to acts of this kind.
oves may at first be a' feeling against redactions in favour
"el' nations, but the story of Sam Slick is quite appo-
sets He left clocks at cottages not for sale, but when he
isae'rusd•he found the cottagers had become, from their
ao alive to the value of the clocks that t hey would not
tear With them. A greater freedom of commercial inter-
it s.ne,n the part of France would have another effect, for
pecilurct
.show to other nations that there was nothing
tesdele_ the institutions and position of England which
conti-
nental free trade possible for it, since so great a conti-
-141i% nation. as France had taken the same course. The
the BabjeCt touched upon by the noble earl is the subject of
hewaMendment, viz., China ; and I am rather embarrassed
vsLo deal with it. It appears to me that the question of
together We were right or wrong in not calling Parliament
Ly th'Aer upon that subject has been so completely answered
t4s e
114b1 noble duke near me (the Duke of Newcastle) and by
k
-ttek !earl opposite (the Earl of Derby) that I need not
gene pt to repeat their arguments. But then comes the
trek_ question of China, upon which both the noble earls
esstarst their intention not to enter, but using the usual
thev "'eel figure, said they would not say the thing which
thiek" meant, to say, and which they did say nevertheless. I
/ /10,4 however, I judge rightly the feeling of the house if
lassrtpe Illy remarks upon the subject until a future and
hs4 fitting occasion, and I hope the noble earl, having
Prete tOPPortunity of expressing his sentiments, will not
sitibjeonatn, endment he has moved. I next come to the
alesrfCongress. The noble earl has spoken of the
1414 act in he possessed upon the subject, but a
aPeee friend
..codify near me assures me that further details will be
tttvario: taxi before the house. The noble earl referred to
stked nialatements gathered from various sources, and
• has, _ or an answer to them. I must say the whole
' A:l_are absolutely without foundation. (Hear, hear.)
u aware of any sort of negotiation or proposition
teat Viet such as he alluded s I have
.no official
,t„?tilripleiritication as to any offensive or defensive treaty,
ass ia'saPs the best way of answering all these ques-
eoieototerevied.iirYeestating that the Government is perfectly un-
from any pledge or engagement, or guarantee
theles tee any nation whatever. (Hear, hear.) Then there
obl e !tuestion of our going into Congress at whioh
• lvhiV deprecates. I will state shortly what theireasons
ktuzross.
.p,iduced the Government to consent to go into the
a4Dened_elltae had refused, one of two thins would have
%or
rec,,nplioatio r the Congress would not have me', and then
4'4 eiusai; 0 ns which arose would have been imputed to
hapeaiisfae„ r the Congress would have met, and whatever
• natty
sroonau Italyht might entertain as to its results would
home to us. I believe it will be found that,
,11-07tt_ s with individuals, in political opinions there is
445hein. "rg as a secession from duties natural y belonging
tkoios•rdroepetle:it gis °sing that the Congress had met without us,
elusions respecting the Italian people opposed
aateteseed to u that we
could we have made to reproaches
rallY 1)61 at we had neglected to use the influence
ell 1,. (urgin to us upon so interesting a subject ? And
• •;,- are Ask-. vaunder what conditions 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 if we obtain the result
we seek, we shall obtain that which is the real in-
terest 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 negaiations ; but
I can assure the noble earl that the interpretation of that
point 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 deal 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 Pope was in
peac4ul possession of large States, with a perfectly cout • .tml.
population, and that her Majesty's Government were about to
deprive him of sonic 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 anown 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 politics! friends or of respected opponents,
and tats 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 noble 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,
mere particularly that portion of it which refers to the con-
tentment, loyalty, improvements in social life and diminu-
tion of clime 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 wh?n 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 fittel out upon the simple sanction of the
Government, without the early concurrence or authority of
Parliament.
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 negatived.
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 house 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 GOLDSMIDT then took the oaths,
and his seat for Reading.

LORD CANNING.

The CLERK of the HOUSE read letters of acknowledg-
ment from Lord Canning and the Governors in the dif-
ferent Presidencies in 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. BRAND, writs were ordered for
Forfar, in the room of Viscount Duncan, called to the

House' of Peers ; and for Beverley, is the room of Mr.
Overend, who had accepted the stewardship of the
Chiltern Hundreds. A new writ was also ordered for the
borough of Beverley, in the room of Ralph Walters, Es fl. ,
whose election was declared void.

distinctly understood on my own 'part, and that bf 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 contrasted 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 Addrese that we are about to vote—l
hope unanimously—to the gracious Queen. But that Ad-
dress adverting to many topics of very great interest, the
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 me 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 thise 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 inflitence. 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 one point on which I would make
also an observation, and that is the congratulation which this
house has received onwhat 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 now 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, also, 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 Parliatnent 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. he 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, I 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
be 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 the determina-
tion of proving on all occasions that it is totally indepen-
dent of reciprocal assistance from any quarter. ("Lear,
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 we should not have increased those 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
haves, 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 France—(hear bear)—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
age 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 net 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 Bottled 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 certain 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, even had there boon 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 due regard to the state
of the revenue, 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-
plesrecognised by your own commercial system, not on the
principle of reciprocity, thus creating a precedent that may
prove embarrassing, and for which there is not the least ne-
cessity. (Hear.) All that France engages to do is thatin July,
1861, the system of prohibition shall cease, and protective
duties be substituted for it, or some arrangements of an ana-
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 increased commercial 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 reciprocity on the part of other interests that may
be contrary to the principles of that commercial system you
have so long and so successfully pursued. (Hear, hear.)
On these two points, then, I think the house has a right to
ask some explanations from her Majesty's Government;
we have a right to ask why they 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 endeavoured to obtain a result which
must inevitably have occurred at the very period the treaty
stipulates for? Why have they engaged us by treaty for
what must have been done without any treaty whatever ?
(Hoar, hear.) Sir, I think it inconvenient to enter into
any discussion on the subject of China, notwithstanding
the strougopinion expressed by the noble lord on the unfor-
tunate occurrences in that country. I hope, however, the
noble lord will net 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 course of time, I have no
doubt, our Chinese policy will become a subject of discus-
sion in this house. If I advert to it now it is only because
wI
iwiseslyh troeoeoxinpmressus
dmedy
tsoatrif
esfearcttioonththeaht
rhaevr Majesty
oryoft hhou been
a
engaged in the operations in China. (Cheers.) 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 courage may be displayed—(hear,
hear)—and I do not think the conduct of our troops, 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 silence—(cheers)—for it
was characterised by singular gallantry. (Cheers.)
the
think we can hardly remember the conduct of t
Awidtmhoiruatl wtehoolinogn
thatthatit
occaswiaosn
tchoamtmoafndead
mouanr forces
without feeling that it was that of a man Eng-
Eng-
land may be proud to own as one of her war-
riors—(cheers—unfortunate as the termination of that day
might have been. Lot 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 Speech. But I confess, after having read it with
great attention, there is in the treatment of this themb so
much ambigvity and perplexity of phrase that I should 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 scarcely be 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 theclose 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. We were net 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
airy
.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—thesoundnessof 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 motion
according to his notice. It was not till the last night of the
session that the discussion took place; and, had the resolu-
tion been pressed to a division, it was not doubtful that it
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—because I do not know any gentleman among
my colleagues, or on tl;is side 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. We
clearly may interfere in theaffairs 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, hoar.) 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 are 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 nanger—.nakei a s'gcal 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 at 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, hear.) 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 tho possibility of
England being humiliated by not taking a loading 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 ?
(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-inteeference 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 pursuing that
course. I make no charge on that head; lam speaking
from information, and I shall make the statement
which I have to make on what I believe to bo facts, and I
shall give the Government a fair opportunity of ex-
plaining what may now 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 wore made in order to ascertain
whether her Majesty's Government would senda 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 'ma 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 thenthat 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 Government received
that induced them to consent to going into congress. (Hear.)
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 Sedretary of State
made overtares 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, with this elaborate notice in her Majesty's
gracious Speech of the condition of Italian affairs, I think it
is necessary—it is only reasonable, ab least, that we should
expect to receive fromher 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 aro no promises
ho 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 groat
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 hiugh.) 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, hoar.) 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 from tho other side of 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 infor-
mation from the noble lord P I know that the noble lord
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 •
cepts it as objection to the information. I take it for granted
he means to say that the information is not authentic.
(" Hear, hear," from Lord J. Russell, and a laugh.) All I
can say is that three communications have appeared by
means of the electric telegraph in this country. They are
communications dated the 9th of January, the 12th of
January, and the 16th of January. In the communication
of the 9th of January it is stated that Lord Cowley had re-
paired to England in order to revive negotiations which 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 have been assured from a quarter which leaves it
impossible for me to doubt that these aro communicated from
the French Government. And what are these communica-
tions 1' 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 me here refer to the telegrata
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 it 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 hie resig-
nation, and that he was successful was shown by the note
which appeared in the lioniteur in September relative to the
recognition of the old Governments of the Duchies. Then
cornea the second-telegram to which I have to refer, and
which is in these Weirele:—" The object of Lord Cowley's
mission to London was ate, resume negotiations between
England and France, which were initiated by the former
Power (England), 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 toe 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 vases 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
tc he Britishensider
ab
be an
natuthentic and authoritate state-
ment, was mainly refused by the English Government be-
causewhile 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 cants belli, 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 are 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 are 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-
nations 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 to6this country was not connected with the
subject I have mentioned, viz., to arrange a joint action be-
tween France and England ; if he means to say there never
was a proposal to join with France in acts offensive and de-
fensive, making it a cants 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 contradicting 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
having 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 are told that the
quest ion of the meeting of congress is revived. (Hear hear.)
My objections to a congress are the same as then. lido 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 confrr ess. The
time that has elapsed might furnish arguments forb 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—we 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 have made it a condition that the
object of that congress should be clearly understood. And
if that object is to be expressed by so vague a phrase as
"to prevent others from interfering in the afairs of Italy,"
I recommend the Government and the house to cmsidet

into what an embarrassing and dangerou9r 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 importance
and developes at such length a matter on 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 Tnscany 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-
publicans. We look, above all things, to the unity of Italy,
and it is only by annexation to Sardinia that Venice can be
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 ConfederaCen is established in Italy, the Mila-
nese have as much right to an independent place in a nat
tignal federation as the Sardinians. Some persona will tell
you that Naples is in such a state that a spark is only re-
qaired to make a revolutian, while others affirm that if con-
spiracies should be attempted there is no Sovereign who
has so strong a hold upon his subjects, or who would be
better able to put down a revolution, than the King of the
Two Sicilies. Opinions equally differ with respect to Sar-
dinia, for while one 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 merely 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
settlement of Courts, Cabinets, 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 ofkpring. 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. WeJ 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,
amb.guity, and perplexity. It was a year ago that the cone-
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.) lam sure that if we do now interfere it will be to
the:lasting dishonour of this country. But if by our coun-
sels and by the position we have assumed we find our influ-
ence increasing, we shall be doing the Italians great good
by laying down principles of sound policy, which will ope-
rate, Ido 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 tob
give an 'opinion upon that policy. It is a policy recora •
mended to the Popo 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 possciesions, and I will ask
my
.allies to do the same." He 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 Pope. 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 I reach 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. (Hear, hear.) I have no 'doubt that the
papers promised, which in due 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 aro
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 compliance. I trust the noble lord will tell us whe-
ther in August he did 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-
weki, 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 ho 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 me to be legitimate Parliamentary in-
quiries, which if I did not make I should feel that I was not
doing my duty. Ido 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 should have a clear comprehension of what is