The Sun.
London, England, 1860-08-03 00:00:00

Of course if the people believed that they were about to be
eaten up by a foreign invader they would not grudge two
millions more or less to save themselves from such a fate.
But the fact that the people believed—if they did believe—
that they were going to be invaded, was proof of a contemp-
tible cowardice on the part of the Cabinet. They allowed a
cry to be got up which was utterly absurd, and then they
squandered away the public money because they had not
courage to tell the people the truth of the matter: (Hear,
hear.) He (Mr. Bright) would not say which was most to
blame, the noble lord or the right hon. gentleman opposite,
for he thought they were both tarred with the same stick.
(Great laughter.) Why, what did they oh) with regard to
the Italian war? Austria had for years been stupid; Sar-
dinia was restless and ambitious ; and everybody knew that
before long there would be a collision between those powers.
France interfered, and marched into Lombardy. What to
do ? The French policy was the policy of England. Eng-
land, it was true, did not choose to intervene—and most
wisely did not—but a vast majority of the people of
England were of opinion, as the present Government were
of opinion, that it would be very desirable to see Austria on
the other side of the Alps, and Italy free from a foreign
Government. What did the Government of the right
hon. gentleman the member for Bucks do ? They created
the greatest possible alarm iii"- the country, and said
that it was necessary to be prepared for war. The French
army having marched into Italy, one would not have ex-
pected to see them march into England, for even French
soldiers could not be in two places at once. (Laughter.)
The probability was, as every man in Europe felt, that the
fact of French troops being engaged in Italy made it, if
possible, infinitely less likely that they could be engaged in
England. And yet the moment before this was begun all
kind of alarm was created. The right hon. baronet the
member for Droitwich took credit for—he was going to say
the profligacy, but he would say for the profuseness with
which he expended the money of the country in increasing
a navy to put a stop, he supposed, to the march of sol-
diers who were then probably on their way across the
Alps. But the French were triumphant, and the policy of
England succeeded in Italy. There was no hostility against
England, and yet England armed, they still armed, and
from that time to this they had continually armed, and any
excuse lad been considered sufficient to hoodwink the
people and make them content with extra taxes wrung
from them. We had a change of Government. The noble
lord the member for Tiverton came in. He always, conti-
nued the hon. member, does come in. (Loud laughter.)
Soon after the noble lord came in, we had the debate in
this house to which I have already referred. The right
hon. gentleman the member for Bucks and the Chancellor
of the Exchequer both spoke in that debate. I took the
liberty of addressing the house after him, and I recom-
mended them to enter into commercial relations with
France. I will just give the house a few extracts from the
speech of the noble lord at:the head of the Government, and
of the noble lord the Foreign Secretary, and then I ask,
whether it is fit that the great interest of the country should
be trifled with, by gross inconsistencies of this nature.
The noble lord at the head of the Government said : " I
feel assured that nobody can fairly refuse to acknowledge
that the Emperor of the Frenchlhas been the faithful, true
ally of England, both in time of peace and of war, and that
we have every reason to regard him as a monarch who feels
Personally, and upon system, desirous to cement and per-
petuate the alliance which subsistsbetween his country and
our own." What did the noble lord (Lord J. Russell) say ?
" I feel, with my hon. friend, that there is something dan-
gerous, not in the present disposition of the Emperor of the
of the French, or in the present disposition of the French
people towards this country, but in the constant endeavours
made to excite a jealousy and alarm as if some deep plot
were laid against our peace and security. That fear is
readily imbibed. The people are urged to prepare them-
selves when there is no cause, and I must say that as bad as
are wars of ambition wars of panic are equally bad. I be-
lieve that whatever reproaches may be cast upon the Em-
peror of the French as to various questions of his domestic
and foreign policy, yet that as regards this country—and I
have often repeated it—he has been a faithful ally to us ;
and I believe also that upon any great question which may
arise his wish is to obtain the concurrence and approbation
of the people of this country." (Hear, hear.) Now I don't
blame the noble lord (Lord Palmerston) for having ex-
horted the people to arm, and for creating, and, if I may so
speak, exasperating the excitement which has been occa-
sioned. But I say that while the speech of the noble lord
was a speech exactly of that character which required the
observations and condemnation which the noble lord (Lord
J. Russell) gave in the paragraph I have just read, what
can be more extraordinary than the course of the Govern-
ment on that occasion ? Both the noble lords on that occa-
sion objected to my policy of a commercial treaty. Well,
immediately afterwards, very wisely, they made a commer-
cial treaty. But at the same time, after declaring with
unanimous consent their confidence in the good intentions
not only of the French people, but of the French Emperor,
yet from that time to this they have been doing all they can
to arm against him as if he were an enemy. Therefore, as
things go by contraries, they did that which they condemned
in the case of the treaty, they have very wisely taken apolicy
with regard to that question wholly in opposition to that
which we should expect from the observations they made in
their speeches. What have they done during the autumn
and winter ? I am not going to quibble with the committee
about a fort more or a fort less. lam speaking now upon
the groat policy the Government aro pursuing, and which
they are constantly asking Parliament to unite with them
in pursuing. Very soon after they came into office, that
unfortunate transaction happened in China. They imme-
diately entered into partnership with the Emperor for the
purpose of restoring—l think they called it—the prestige
of English arms in the Chinese waters. They invite the
French Emperor to send a large force to the East. I should
have thought that it was the object of the English Govern-
ment, having, as they say, great influence in the East,
partly political and partly commercial, not to invite any of
the European forces to send forces into that quarter of the
world. But they invited the French Emperor to send
forces to the East ; they sent an hon. friend of mine for the
purpose of negotiating a great treaty of amity, and at the
same time they arm with the greatest vigilance and energy
against the very man with whom they are in such intimate
affiance in the East, and with whom they are negotiating a
treaty of amity at home. I say nothing can be more grossly
inconsistent, more hypocritical and insulting at once to the
people of England and to the people of France. Let us take
a short and impartial review of the transactions which have
taken place between this country and France within the
last few years; and I tell the committee frankly that I use
the same language, and I feel the same sentiments as I
should if it was not a Bonaparte, but Louis Philippe, who
was at this moment on the throne of France. When the
republic was overthrown the news was received almost with
acclamation by many members of this house, and especially
those on the other side. The noble lord at the head of
the Government rushed with hot haste to congratulate
the Emperor of the French, then the president of the
republic, upon what had taken place. He applauded
it, he .supported it, and he gave all the support
that could be given in this country to that act and
to that policy. In 1853 the Government of this country
broke with Tamale, and dissolved an alliance of long dura-.
tion. They entered into a new alliance with France, for
purposes connected with what was called the Oriental ques-
tion. In 1854 they declared war against Russia, in alliance
with France. I recollect the noble lord at the head of the
Government at that time telling us that extraordinary har-
mony existed between the Governments of France and Eng-
land. lie used this expression—" In point of fact, there is
but one Government and one Cabinet." So united were
they together,:that:some people said the union was too hot to
last. In 1856 there came the termination of the war—a war
into which people said the noble lord and his colleagues had
dragged the Emperor of the French, and that the Emperor
of the French dragged us out of it.. That I believe was not
denied. (Cries of" Oh, oh," from the Opposition.) Well,
I understand many hon. gentlemen opposite, and many
others, thought that the peace was made too soon. (Near,
hear.) In the autumn of 1856.-1 want to show how closely
we have been allied, and, therefore, how false must be our
• conduct, whether in our alliance or in our armaments—we
had a joint quarrel with Naples, and both France and Eng-
land withdrew their Ministers from that country. In 1857
we had the China war agqin, and we were united in opera-
tions there. In 1859 we had the Italian war, and the
opinion of Europe was entirely against Austria, and the
English policy was supported by the French arms. Then
we come to the peace of Villafranea, and English policy has
since prevailed in Italy. It must be obvious to everybody
that the course which the Emperor marked out for himself
at that peace has not been followed. But the policy of the
noble lord at the head of the. Foreign-office has been fol-
lowed in-Italy; and state after state, Parma, Modena, Tus-
cany, and the Legations, have been added to Sardinia, con-
trary to the wish of the Emperor of the French. Well,
that does not show that the Emperor of the French was
bostile to this country, but rather that ho endeavoured in
everything he could to meet the views of the English Go-
vernment and to carry out apolicy in accordance, to a large
extent, with the policy of England. I will not go into that
question of Savoy which our Government endeavoured to
make a great question, but which all Europe was unani-
mous in deciding was 'a very small question. But, big or
little, the English Government knew the conditions on
which Savoy was to be annexed to France. (Hear.) They
insisted on the conditions of the cession of certain states to
Sardinia, and they thought they could prevail on the Em-
peror to give up the annexation of Savoy. (Hear.) But it
was folly to expect that, after a monarch :had carried on a
war, and had been successful in it, he could surrender every
portion of his policy. He allowed you to make the annexa-
tion to Sardinia, but he did not allow you to frighten him
from the annexation of a petty, province to his empire.
Well now we have this questionof lyria, in regard to which
the noble lord gave us the other' night a frank and proper
explanation, as far as we know, anything about ft, and it
led to this conletthion, that the .Emperor of the French had
behaved with 'the greatest possible Moderation and frank-
ness towards the English Government.' (" Hear," from
Lord J. Russell.) , The noble lord assents to that—that
the first thing he did when the necessity of intervention
presented itself to his mind, was to ask the counsel and con-
currence of the Government of England. That does not
show any hostility or treachery, or any anxiety to aggrau-
tglhimse.lf, or to take a position, isolated ti.ndindepen" dent
yr...0.1117d abffeintrustofEurope: Then I say, that being so, it
fair that we should act as if we thought there

p~~~