The Sun.
London, England, 1860-03-14 00:00:00

circumstances the Government of England remained silent.
Ho (Mr. Kinglake) had promised that he should only make
a few comments on the observations, and he had now only

,o thank the house for their attention.

Mr. S. FITZGERALD had found the speech of the First
Minister more satisfactory than that of the Secretary of
State, because the former had given up the position that
discussions on this question might lead to serious conse-
quences, and that no one should commence them unless he
was prepared to bring forward a vote of censure. The noble

lord now admitted ihat:they :might discuss this question
without any very dangerous consequences. He found, how-
ever that they could not have any discussion likely to in-

fluence the result, as that before the motion of the hon.
member for Bridgewater came on the annexation trans-

action would have been completed. The correspondence
which had been laid on the table seemed to place the noble
lord the member for London in a falso position; for whilst

nobody believed that the noble lord would wilfully mislead
the house, yet the manner in which private letters and pub-
lic correspondence were mixed up was such that it had been
impossible for the noble lord to answer the question put to
him at the commencement of the session by the right hon.
member for Buckinghamshire. Tho noble lord, then, re-
ferring to the cummuuication of July, said that the annexa-
tion project had been given up ; whilst the private letter
which had since transpired hinted strongly and frequently
at annexation. He (Mr. Fitzgerald) hoped that for the
future no private letters would bemired up with official cor-
respondence. Inother respects he thought that the Govern-
ment had by their conduct earned strong disapprobation.
First of all as to the position in which they had put us
with regard to France. France was so placed as to be al.-
most in the right, and our Government in the wrong.
France had always said that in certain contingencies it
would be necessary for her to possess Savoy, and further
that we gave our implied consent to the annexation by
urging on the aggrandisement of Sardinia, which was the
contingency contemplated. The First Minister had that
night expressed a sanguine hope that the projected annexa-
tion would not be persisted in, but it must be observed that
from the commencement her Majesty's Government had
expressed an extraordinary facility of conviction. The Fo-
reign Secretary was convinced that the great Powers would
be consulted, and the First Lord had made the same state-
ment, but since then they had found that the transaction
was only to be explained to them. Nobody now believed that
their consent was to be asked. So it was with other cases—
. with the municipality and the Sardinian Parliament—all
allusion to which was left out in the despatch published in
the ltroniteur. The noble lord the member for London, in
his despatch to Lord Bloomfield, gave the latter little en-
couragement to obtain a remonstrance from the court of Ber-
lin, whilst to Sir J. Crampton or Lord A. Loftus there were
no letters at all. He (Mr. Fitzgerald) had only further to
express his hope that nobody would say that the expressions
which had been used that night were calculated to irritate
the French people, or to insult their Government. He could
only say that he had never used a term expressive of other
than respect, and as to the policy of the Government his
language had never been half so rtrong as that of the noble
lord opposite. He did not think, therefore, that it lay in the
mouth Of the noble lord to say that irritating language had
been used on that side of the house.
Mr. B. OSBORNE said that if the language used to-
night by the noble lord the First Minister was more satisfac-•
tory to the hon. member for Horsham, the language of the
hon. member must also be considerably more satisfactory to
the noble lord. (Hear, hear.) But he (Mr. Osborne) could not
permit the hon. member to take advantage of so short a

memory and to make an apologetic speech. The. hon. mem-
ber was the man who, only a few nights ago, wanted no
figures of rhetoric ; ho was for re-animating the Holy Alli-
ance. (No, no.) He had been that night thrown over and
discarded by his backers, but on a former night ho had de-
nounced the French Empror by name. (No, no.) The
fact was that the Irish element was much too strong in the
ex-Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, but he had been
put aside by the right hon. gentleman of his party who had
spoken that evening, and now was overflowing with respect
for the Emperor of the French. He took the view in con-
tradistinction to that taken the other night by the hon.
member for Horsham. He regretted that the hon. gentle-
man had brought forward the subject in this manner. He
thought the Emperor of the French stood acquitted of any
deceit in these transactions. He thought no man could read
these despatches and have any right to accuse the Em-
peror of playing any deceit—(hear)—and if there had been
any deceit in these transactions, he thought our good friends
the Sardinians were to blame for it. He thought that the
priiciple of intervention, which he was sorry to see we were
rather rashly rushing into, was the cause of that little epi •
sode. But when they talked of disrespecting the treaty of
1815, he asked who had ever treated it with greater disre-
spect than the noble lord (Lord Palmerston)? The noble lord
committed the greatest outrage on that treaty, for he re-
joiced on every occasion that Lombardy was taken from
Austria. The right hon. gentleman the member for Bucks
mentioned the annexation of Cracow, but that was a great
mistake, for the annexation of Cracow took place so far
back as 1836.
Mr. DISRAELI—No • in 1840.
Mr. OSBORNE—At all events a debate on it took place
in 1836. The annexation of Cracow was clearly a disruption
of the treaty of 1815. Every nation, for its own purposes,
had put its foot on this treaty of 1815. He did net think
this country had any right to interfere in the annexation of
Savoy. He believed the real thing was that they were afraid
of France going to the Rhino. If they had no confidence in
the Emperor why did they enter into such intimate alliances
with him ? (Hear, hear.) He believed the whole mistake
was this—we had a ceetain number of statesmen in this
country who have an ardent desire to raise up a great king-
dom in Central Italy. He (Mr. Osborne) had the greatest
admiration for the Italians, but he was not blind to the dill-
culties of our statesmen interfering in the cause of the Ita-
lians. If the Italians could build up their own indepen-
dence well and good, but the more we interfered the greater
handle we were giving to the French Emperor far ag-
grandisement. He was surprised at noble lords and hon.
gentlemen believing in Emperors issuing proclamations on
going to war for an idea. To be sure language was of great
importance, especially when you were addressing soldiers.
He never supposed it could be for the interest of France,
which was not a constitutional country, to erect a consti.•
tutional kingdom at her own4gate without some strategic
compensation. (Hoar, hear.) But he should never suppose
that England was going to play her game by erecting a
kingdom in Central Italy. He could not help remarking
the change of opinion upon the opposite benches, and most
wisely too, because, from the language indulged in the other
night by hon. member for Horsham—
Mr. S. FITZ GE RALD—Ropeat it. (A laugh.)
Mr. OSBORNE could repeat both the language and the
manner, too. No man in that house who heard that speech
but must know that it was the speech of a man who wets
following the instructions of his party, and took it with all
his heart. He was glad the right hon. member for Bucks
had disowned the language of his under-secretary ; and he
hoped that in future discussions the same wise and states-
manlike spirit would be observed as that which characterised
the leader of the opposition on this occasion. (Hear.)
Lord J. RUSSELL—I have a few words to say at the
end of this debate. I cannot but remark that the hon. gen-
tleman the member for Horsham has made a statement this
evening very different to that he made the other night, be-
cause then I understood him to say there ought to be a
solemn protest addressed on the part of the powers of Eu-
rope, and that that protest should be collective.
Mr. FITZGERALD—I never said anything of the
kind.
Lord J. RUSSELL—I recollect the hon. gentleman
using the words, "A solemn protest on the part of Eng-
land."
Mr. FITZGERALD—Hear, hear.
Lord J. RUSSELL—I could not help expressing then, as
I express now, an opinion that if the powers of Europe were
to make a solemn protest it would be very difficult for them
tfoarrrtyhine
Eg..minpteoroerffetoctywiehldattothaeypropterospot
tsheadt,
annocit tvoeirnysidsitfaugpulont
would look very much like a threat. (Hear, hear.) That
was the view he took then; but he has now changed his
tone. It seems to me the right hon. gentleman the member
foofrdßecuecikvisnhgausst.ransformed this question very much. I never
heard that her Majesty's Government had brought any
charge against the Government of the Emperor of the French
A statement appears in Lord Cowley's de-
spatches, in which he said he had often heard Count Walevr.
ski express an opinion, that if this plan—which he thought
impossible—could ever succeed, in that case Savoy would
be annexed. Lord Cowley goes on to say—" I never said
such a proposal would be approved by her Majesty's Go-
Vernment.' There is certainly no charge in Lord Cow-
ley's despatches of desert on the part of French Go-
vernment. On the contrary Lc Cowley did receive com-
munications from Count Walewski, but he did not think it
prudent to write despatches about them.. We might have
written despatches week after week, and I might have been
saying to the French Government that if the annexation
were proposed we would object to it, and the French Govern-
ment might have gone on replying that if a certain event
happened he would require Savoy. Ido not think if we had
done so it would have made any difference at all, because the
question was a practical one, and our- opinions were known.
If the congress had met it would have been discussed, or
would have been soon afterwards. The hon. member for
Horsham says,we ought to have sent copies of the despatches
to Berlin,Vienna, and St. Petersburg. Well, that is the very
course. I have taken. (Hear, hear.) If th e hon. gentleman
had waited till to •morrow, he would find I have done what he
says I ought to have done; but he is too quick at censur-
ing, and blames me for not doing the thing that I have
done. But what have I not thought proper to do is, to ask
those powers to conform their language to ours, and to
enter into anything like an alliance or combination which
might seem hostile to the Emperor. With regard to the
French despatch, I certainly cannot inform him what it
contains. It has arrived to-day, but it has not yet been
put into my hands, and I cannot say what form it may take.
But there is another thing which the right hon. gentleman
the member for Bucks goes upon, and is always repeating,
although he carefully veils his meaning. 'He says that this
"reposed annexation of Savoy is brought on because we will
persist on the policy of making a great kingdom in Central
Italy, and annexing Tuscany to Sardinia. I endeavoured to
explain tothe right hon. gentleman that we endeavoured to
prevent force being used, and that there is but one pry'
tical way by which, if successful, wemight prevent annex'
tion altogether, and that was by saying to the Emperor of
the French that ho made very unreasonable objections.
When you oppose the us a of force in Central Italy, let
your troops withdraw, and let the Austrians enter, and they
will be able to restore the Grand Dukes and the Romagna°
to the Pope, and then there would be no question of an-
nexation. That is the real meaning of the right hon. gen-
tleman's proposition, though he does not avow it as his
opinion. We have preferred to let the Italians take their
own course as to annexing themselves to Sardinia. They
have done so ; and they have chosen to annex themselves
to Sardinia.

PETERBOROUGH ELECTION,
Mr. GEORGE, chairman of the Peterborough Election
Committee, declared Mr. G. H. Whalley to be duly elected
for that city.

THE INDIAN ARMY.
Col. SYKES moved for certain returns connected with
the re-organisation of the army in India.
An HON. MEmßEßhere moved that the house be counted'
There being only 37 members present,
The house adjourned at a quarter past 10 o'clock.

LONDON : Printed and Published by MURDO YOUNG
of No. 112, Strand, Printer, at The Sun Office, No. 112;
Strand, in the Precinct of the Savoy, in the mail
Middlesex, Wednesday, March 14,1860,