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

FLOGGING IN THE ARMY AND NAVY.

Mr. WILLIAMS gave notice that on an early day he
would call the attention of the house to this subject, and
also move for a return of the number of men who had
undergone the punishment of flogging in the army and
navy during the year 1859.
THE ADDRESS.

The SPEAKER having read the Royal Speech, which will
bo found in another part of our impression,

Mr. ST. AtIBYN rose to move a humble address
to her Majesty for her most gracious speech. He said
that it was more than usually necessary for him to ap-
peal to the house for that indulgence never refused to
a maiden speech. (Hear, hoar.) The first part of the
Royal Address related to a question that must
afford the greatest satisfaction to the country at large,
namely, that her Majesty had received continued assurances
of amity with foreign powers. (Hear.) With regard to the
affairs of Central Italy, he believed the policy that had
guided the Government had the general sanetion•of the
community, because they acted on the principle that having
no personal interest in the struggle going on some months
previously, they were not justified in interfering. But
it could not be denied that there was a strong feeling
of sympathy with that noble country, whichwas endeavour-
ing to obtain its just liberties, and he trusted that whether
in Congress, or in any other way, the efforts of this
country would be directed to obtaining for the
Italian people their just rights and good Government.
(Loud cheering.) In consequence of the events
which had taken place in China, it had been found necessary
to send a force there to obtain reparation for the insult
this country had sustained; but he trusted, notwithstanding,
they would make the necessary atonement and avert hos-
tilities from their country. (Hear, hear.) 0 wing to the
moderation of the British officers in San Juan evils of a
more serious character than those which had taken place
in that part of the world were avoided, and he trusted that
every difference tl ere would be amicably arranged
through the medium of negotiation. In reference to the
important question of Parliamentary reform, he believed
the measure which would be laid on the table
would prove satisfactory to both sides of the house, at the
same time that it would preserve unimpaired the constitu-
tion of the country of which they were so justly proud.
He must advert in terms of praise to the volunteer move-
ment, which showed that there still existed in the country
that old national spirit, which proved they were deter-
mined to maintain the honour and independence of England,
and, if necessary, to defend her soil from invasion. They
would perceive, from the Royal Speech, that among the
beneficial measures that might be looked forward to being
introduced during the present session would be the consoli-
dation of the statutes and desirable legal reforms. (Hear.)
In looking to the aspect of foreign affairs he thought there
was ground for congratulation ; and in France they had
proposed, by the ruler of that country, a scheme of commercial
policy which, if adopted, would do more to secure the good
feeling of the two countries to each other than any mere
professions of friendship unaccompanied by acts calculated
to inspire confidence. (Cheers.) The hon. member con-
cluded by congratulating the house on the general pro-
. sperity of the country, and reading the Address.
Lord HENLEY, in seconding the Address, said that

there was ono ground of satisfaction which the honour-
able mover did not refer to, namely, that they
were under the present Government. (Cheers and
laughter.) He eulogised in the warmest terms the con-
duct of the Emperor of the French; and he referred to the
condition of France some years ago to show the be-
nefit that had resulted to that country from his rule.
In alluding to the affairs of Italy, he certainly did not con-
sider that the Pope of Rome should be the ruler
of the Romagna. As related to reform, though per-
haps the bill to be introduced might not give the
elector all that protection against undue influence that some
desired, still he trusted that it would be found to effect .a
considerable improvement in regard to the present system
of elections of members of Parliament.
Mr. DISRAELI—Mr. Speaker, the last session of Par-
liament opened with a question of confidence, but until the
noble lord opposite rose to-night I was not aware that that
question was to be raised on the present occasion. Sir, you
read the Address not with that usual clearness which always
characterises your elocution, and I need not collect whether
the passage expressing confidence in the two noble lords,
which I suppose, in consequence of the intimation of the
noble for a, i 44 inrcrtcd in it, really is to be found there.
(Laughter and cheers.) But, although anxious on this
occasion not to move an amendment, I beg that it may be

distinctly understood on my own part, and that of 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 eontrasted 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 Address that we aro about to vote—l

hope unanimously—to the gracious Queen. But that Ad-
dress adverting to many topics of v.ely groat interest, trie
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 mo 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 these 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 inflaence. 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 ono point on which I would make
also an observation, and that is the congratulation which this
house has received on what 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 new 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, Woo, 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 Parliament 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 the 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, 1 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
bo 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 tho determina-
tion of proving on all occasions that it is totally indepen•
dent of reciprocal assistance from any quarter. (near,
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 wo should not have increased thoso 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
have; 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 Franco_(hear, hear)— -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
ago 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 not 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 settled 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 *pertain 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, eveinad there been 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 duo regard to the state
of the revalue, 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-
ples recognised by your own commercial system, not on the
principle of reciprocity, thus creating a precedent that may
prove embarrassing, and for which thore is not the least ne-
cessity. (Hoar.) All that France engages to do is that in July,
1861, the system of prohibition shall cease, and protective
duties bo substituted for it, or some arrangements of an aim-
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
bo contrary to the principles of that commercial system you
have so long
ask some e and so successfully pursued. (Hear, hear.)
On these two points, then, I think the house has a right toNilanations from her Majesty's Government;
wo 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 far
what must have been done without any treaty whatever ?
(Hear, hear.) Sir, I think it inconvenient to enter into
any discussmn. on the subject of China, notwithstanding
the strong, opinion expressed by the noble lord on the unfor-
tunate occurrences in that country. I hope, however, the
noble lord will not 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 ladvei-t to it now it is only because
I wish to express my satisfaction that her Majesty has been
wisely recommended to refer to the bravery of the troops
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 silen?e—(cheers)—for
was characterised by singular gall= .ry. (Cheers it
.) I
think we can hardly remember the conduct of the
Admiral who on that occasion commanded our forces
without feeling that it was that of a man Eng-
land may bo proud to own as one of her war-
riors—(cheers—unfortunate as the termination of that day
might have been. Let 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 Speach. But I confess, after having read it with
great attention, there is in the treatment of this theme so
much ambiguity and perplexity of phrase that I shoulal 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 soarcely bo 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 thecloso 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. Wo were not 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
my 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—the soundness of 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 met' on
according to his notice. It was not till the last night of the

session that the diseussion took place; and, had the reselu
' tion boon pressed to a division, it was not doubtful that i
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—bemuse I do not know any gentleman among
my colleagues, or on this aide 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. Wo
clearly may interfere in the affairs 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, hear.) 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 aro 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 danger—makes a sigeal 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 as 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, hoar.) 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 the possibility of
England being humiliated by not taking a leading 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 P
(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-intecference 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 purining that
course. I make no charge on that head ; I am speaking
from information, and I shall make the statement
which I have to make on what I believe to be facts, and I
shall give the Government a fair opportunity of ex-
plaining what may new 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 were made in order to ascertain
whether her Majesty's Government would sonds 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 ism 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 then that 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 Governraent received
that induced them to consent to going into congress. (Hoar.)
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 Sedrotary of State
made overtures 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, witk this elaborate notice in her Majesty's
gracious Speech of the condition of Italian affairs, I think it
is necessary—it is only reasonable, at, least, that we should
expect to receive from her 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 are no promises
he 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 great
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 laugh.) 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, hear.) 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 the 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 infer-
mation,from the noble lord ? I know that the noble lord
I 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•
septa it as abjection 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
ctahtei electricns dated
January,country
January, and the 16th of January. In the communication
of the 9th of January it is stated that Lord Cowley had re-
paired to .theThleithareef
paired to England in order to revive negotiations whieh 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 havebeen assured from a quarter which leaves it
impossible for me to doubt that these are communicated from
the French Government. And what aro these communica•
tions P 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 ins hero refer to the telegram
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 a 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 his resig-
nation, and that he was successful was shown by the note
which appeared in the Moniteur in September relative to the
recognition of the old-Governments of the Duchies. Then
comes the second telegram to which I have to refer, and
which is in these words :—" 'The object of Lord Cowley's
mission to London was to resume negotiations between
England and France, which welre 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 to a 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 yams 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 I consider to be an authentic and authoritate state-
ment, was mainly refused by the English Government be-
cause "the British Cabinet, while 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 eaves bell, 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 aro 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 aro 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-
nat;ons 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 to this country was not connected with the
subject I have mentioned, viz., to arrange a joint action be-
tween France and England ; if he moans to say there never
wasa proposal to join with France in acts offensive and de-
fensive, making it a ea-sus 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 cintradicting 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
haying 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 arc told that the
question of the meeting of congress is revived. (Hear, hear.)
My objections to a congress are the same as then. Ido 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 congress. The
time that has elapsed might furnish arguments for 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—wo 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 halo made it a condition that the
object of that congress shoulU be clearly understood. And
if that object is to be expressed by so vague a phrase as
"to prevent others from interfering in the affairs cf Italy,"
I recommend the Government and the house to isidT
into what an embarrassing and dangerous 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 importanT3
and developes at such length a matter en 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 Tuscany 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-
pnblicane. We look, above all things, to the unity of Italy,
and it is only by annexation to Sardinia that Venice can bo
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 Confederation is establiehe,d in Italy, the Milt-
nese have as much right to an independent place in a nat
tienal federation as the Sardinians. Some persons will tell
you that Naples is in such a state that a spark is only re-
quired to make a revolutian, while others affirm that if con-
spiracies should be attempted there is ne Sovereign who
has so strong a hold upon his subjects, or who would bo
better able to put down a revolution, than the King of the
Two Sicilies. Opinions equally differ with respect to Sar-
dinia, for while ono 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 morel}, 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
sottloment of Courto, Cabiuets, 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 offspring. 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. Wel 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,
ambiguity, and perplexity. It was a year ago that the com-
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.) I am sure that if we do now interfere it will be to
theilasting dishonour of this country. But if by our coun-
sels and by the position we have assumed we find OUT influ-
ence increasing, we shall be doing the Italians great good
by laying down principles of sound policy, which will ope-
rate, I do 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 to
give an 'opinion upon that policy. It is a policy recom •
mended to the Pope 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 possessions, and I will ask
my
.allies to do the same." Ho 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 Popo. 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 French 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. (Ilear,hear.) I have no doubt that the
papers promised, which in duo 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 are
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 compliant k I trust the noble lord will tell us whe-
ther in August hrdid 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-
wski, 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 he 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 ire to be legitimate Parliamentary in-
quiries, which if I did not make I should feel that I was not
doing my duty. I do 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 ehoi4clhave a clear comprehension of what is

their political position. The Speech of her Majesty from
the Throne is full of topics, no doubt of no mean character,
but every man in this house knows that there is really only
one subject of which the people of this country are thinking,
and that is what will be the position of England with re-
gard to this Italian question, and whether the course we
shall pursue will be such as will at the same time redound
to our honour, and yet secure the blessings of that peace
which every year we learn more and more to value. I in-
vite the answer of the noble lord, or the head of the Govern-
ment, to these inquiries. (Cheers.)
Lord PALMERSTON said—l am glad that the right
hon. gentleman has announced that on this occasion there
will be no interruption to that unanimity with Which it is
so becoming that on the first night of the session this house
should return .a respectful answer to the communication
from the Throne. (Hear.) I must in the first place con-
gratulate the noble lord and my hon. friend behind me on
the ability with which they have respectively moved and
seconded the Address; and I am sure the house has lis-
tened to them with pleasure on this the first time they have
been heard within its walls. The right hon. gentleman
(Mr. Disraeli) thinks that without going into the details of
the measure of Parliamentary Reform which we shall have
very shortly to propose to Parliament, we have been incon-
sistent at least in regard to form, inasmuch as it was made

a reproach to tho late Government that in their Speech at
the opening of last session they put reform at the very tag
end, and now wo have ourselves failed to put it in that pro-
minent position which the right hon. gentleman thinks it
ought to occupy. I cannot admit the justice of that re-
mark. According to practice, the first part of the Royal
Speech is devoted to foreign transactions, then comes the
address to the House of Commons in regard to the estimates
and matters of finance, and questions of internal legislation
are reserved for the third department of the Speech. On
the present occasion we thought it fitting that the
Queen should take the earliest opportunity when she came
to the domestic portion of her Speech to express the pride
and gratification with which she accepted the offers of
voluntary military service from her subjects; but imme-
diately after that we have placed the question of Parliamen-
tary reform, which thus takes precedence of all other topics
of domestic legislation. (Hear, hear.) I am very glad to
hear the remarks of the right hon. gentleman in regard to
the distinguished bravery exhibited by our forces in that
unfortunate conflict at the mouth of the Peiho ; and I quite
agree with the right hon. gentleman that there may be as
much merit displayed, as much honour gained, and as great
credit reflected upon the country by exertions not attended
with success as by those upon which fortune smiles. It
well said that nunquam successu erescit Itonestunt. It is nal'

the success of an achievement which ought to be the mea-
sure of the merit of those who were engaged in it; and

there certainly never was an occasion on which those in
command and all concerned exhibited more devotion and
bravery than in that unfortunate contest. (Hear.) As to
the commercial negotiations between this country and
Fraace, I am happy to be able to say that yestdrday a con-
vention or treaty was, I believe, signed between the two
Governments at Paris. Wo have not yet received the
document, and there may have been some technical infor-
mality which rendered it necessary that a fresh document
should bo signed to-day. The right hon. gentleman has
stated opinions on this point in the abstract of which I en-
tirely concur. As a general principle it is certainly not de-
sirable that a country should enter into any conventional
agreement with other countries as to her tariff and custom
duties ; on the contrary, it is most desirable that we should
keep in our own hands full discretion to legislate, from
time to time, in regard to these matters, in such a way as
the interest of the country may seem to demand. But
there was this unusual feature in the present nego-
tiations—that, owing to a peculiarity in the
French constitution and mode of legislation, we
could not obtain from the French Government that security
for future arrangements which it was essential we should
obtain, unless the transaction assumed the character cf a
convention between the two countries. It is, therefore, an
entirely exceptional arrangement, and not one which at all
implies that we have altered our opinion as to the general
principle on which commercial matters of this kind should
be governed. lam not going at present to enter into any
details as to the arrangement proposed. When ratified the
convention will be laid before the house, but this much I
will say now in answer to the question of the right hon.
gentleman as to what would be the function of this house
in regard to that convention, that the arrangements stipu

lated to be made on the part of hal. Majesty are Made condi-
tional on the consent of Parliament to them. (Hear, hear.)
Unless we have the consent of both Houses of Parliament
we are free from any engagement that has been contracted.
I must also remark generally that, as a commercial question,

it must be for the interest of the two countries to enter into
any arrangement calculated to promote commercial inter-
course between them. No great increase in the exchange
of commodities can take place without giving an increased
stimulus to the productive energies of tho two countries.
An increase of commerce must be an advantage to both, and
cannot be an advantage to ono alone. Therefore, if we in
this country should reap any advantage from the arrange-
ments contemplated, Franco must participate in it also.
If, on the other hand, the French nation are to obtain ad-
vantages, it is impossible they can enjoy them without our
recei ring corresponding benefits. (Hear, hear.) Taking it in
its political bearing, it must be obvious to every man, that
whereas it is for the interest of the two countries that they
should remain together in a state of friendly intercourse, it
is manifest also that the more they are connected together
by the ties of mutual interest and commercial intercourse,
the more like it is that neither will cn light grounds suffer
an interruption in their political relations to each other.
(Cheers.) The right hon. gentleman has asked questions as
to our policy with respect to Italy. The right hon. gentle-
man is fully entitled, when Parliament meets after a recess,
to call upon her Majesty's Government to explain what has
been the course of their policy upon a great question, upon
which he justly says the attention, the feelings, and the
opinion of this country are more particularly concentrated
than upon any other question now pending. But I think
the right hon. gentleman need not have rested his right to
put these questions upon the grounds upon which ho was
pleased to put them. He seems to me an example of a man
reasoning rightly, but upon wrong premises. The grounds
upon which he put these questions are a certain number of
anonymous telegrams which he picked out of a number of
newspapers. " Here is a telegram," ho says, " stating that
in August you made a proposal to France to come to a clear
understanding and agreement for mutual action in Italy.
You tell me it is anonymous. Ah I but I have an answer.
I asked the editor of the newspaper whether the article was
correct, and he told me it was." (No.) I cannot be mis-
taken. The right hon. gentleman said he made in'quiries
whether those articles were correct, and was told they were.
It reminds me of the Italian proverb, that you ought not to
ask an innkeeper if he has got good wine. (A laugh.) You
ought not to ask the author of an anonymous telegram
whether he acted on good authority. Of course he will tell
you he did, but the assertion is of no more value than the
paragraph to which it applies. (Hear, hear.) I admit the
right of the right hon. gentleman to make his inquiries. But
he had much better put it on his right as a member of Par-
liament to interrogate than to found it on such flimsy and
frivolous grounds as ,these which he has used. (Cheers.) I
have no hesitation in saying that the telegram upon which he
mostly relied—viz., that some time in the month of August
this Government applied or proposed to the French Govern-
mentto enter into a specific engagement with regard to the
affairs of Italy—is:totally unfounded ; that there is no truth
whatever in that statement—(hear)--and I can also say
that at the moment at which I sin speaking her Majesty's
Government is totally free from any engagement whatever
with any foreign Power upon the affairs of Italy. (Cheers.)
The right hon. gentleman admits that we were right in
consenting to enter into the congress, but he thinks that
the communication made at the end of last session and that
now made are somehow or another inconsistent, and he
wishes explanations upon that point. At the end of last
session the crown informed Parliament that overtures had
been made for the purpose of ascertaining, if conferences
were to be held, whether her Majesty would send a plenipo-
tentiary. It had not been determined that a congress or
conferences should take place, because the holding such
congress or conferences must be, and was, contingent upon
the conclusion of a definitive treaty to carry out the engage-

ments at Villafranca. At that time no such treaty had
Been concluded. All that passed was that we were told it
was the intentionof the Frenchand Austrian Governments,
whenever that treaty should be concluded, to propose a
congress to take cognisance of the treaty, and to consider
the affairs of Italy. The treaty was not concluded until
late in the autumn, and the actual invitation to join a con-
gress did not reach us until the month of November, It
was not, therefore, until then that her Majesty's Govern-
ment were able to ad rise the Crown to give an answer, aye
or no, whether the Crown would send a plenipotentiary.
In the intermediate time na doubt communications fre-
quently passed. There were constant communications be-
tween the two Governments. Lard Cowley came once or
twice to this country. Of course, when an ambassador
comes from a foreign court to communicate with his Go-
vernment, the communications are not confined to what
sort of weather it is at the place from which he comes.
(Laughter.) He gives all the information he possesses,
and receives instructions which can often bo given ver-
bally in more detail than in despatches, When the dis-
tance is so short and the communication so easy as be-
tween Paris and London, it is exceedingly natural that,
without any particular or important convention in view,
her Majesty's Government should, from time to time, find
it desirable to have personal communication with the Am-
bassador at Paris. It is very probable that on those occa-
sions the Ambassador combined private convenience with
public duty. But no overture was received from the
French Government of the nature of that:of which the
right hon. gentleman has been informed—that is, the
French Government did not propose the separate engage-
ment which the right hon. gentleman thinks was pro-
posed, and, I believe he said, declined by her Majesty
Government. (Hear, hear.) No doubt, in the interval
which elapsed between the preliminary intimation and
the actual announcement that a treaty
and a congress was to be held Tier Maj Y
mucht clearness
French
ht was our
ment endeavoured to ascertain, with
" of the French
was
s concludedvern-
its they. could, what were the views
._
Government with regard to Italioafr
'he knowledgewhich
we to ;de so. (Hear, hear.) I
we might acquire of the views nthaefraFirrBe.
ment might very much influence Gover-
nment
as to whether the proposal when Her
it Majesty's
came ought to be
accepted or declined, because, although there were many
reasons why it was undesirable we should decline to
join a congress, yet if we had reason to think that in that
congress there would be a wide difference of opinion be-
tween England and France—that We should find our-
selves quite at variance with France on the great
question to be discussed—that knowledge would be a
considerable element in the decision as to wliether we

would go into congress or not. (Hear, hear.) Upon
the general questisn the right hon. gentleman seems
not to have any doubt that our decision was right. When
the proposal came we might either have accepted or
declined it. Suppose we had declined. Su
W ppose we ha 1,
ilt
" e anticipate that a majority of the Powers who he
parties to the congress will differ with us upon an essential
point upon which we have a strong and decided opinion.
We make; no secret that it is our intention in con-
gress to assert the principle—(to which I am glad
to find the right hon. gentleman agree)—that it is right
the people of Italy should be left to settle their own affairs
—tnat the people of Italy should be left, as the right
hon. gentleman says, by their own will, opinion, and energy
to settle the question of government between themselves
and their rulers, or between themselves and their allies,
neighbsuring States. We anticipate a majority of the
Powers will differ with us, and we decline." We made no
secret ; we took plans to make known that such was our
principle, and that we should maintain it in congress. If
we had found that it was likely a majority of the other
Powers would have differed inopinion, and a moment would
have arrived in congress in which we should have been
compelled either to acquiesce in silence in a principle of
which we did not approve, or withdraw, it would have been
an element in our decision. It was, therefore, of the utmost
importance that we should ascertain as accurately as we

would what were the opinions and feelings of the French
Government in regard to this question, and it was upon it
that communications took place between us and the Govern-
ment of France. When the invitation came, if we had met
it with a refusal, one of two things would have happened.
It was possible, in the first place, that Prussia and Russia
might have said, " If England, one of the great Powers in
the congress of 1815, does not choose -to go into congress,
neither do we." It was possible that our refusal might
have prevented the congress assembling. If that had re -
suited in disturbances in Italy, we should have been called
the cause of those calamities, and that was a responsibility
which I think we ought not lightly to have incurred. If, on
the other hand, congress met without us, England, by its
own act, would have excluded itself from a great transaction
in which all the other Powers of Europe were engaged.
That was a position which it did not become the Govern.
ment of this country to take. Moreover, in abstaining from
going into congress we should have run the risk of seeing
conclusions adopted opposed t 3 our convictions, and which
we might have prevented from being adopted had we been
there to give our reasons against them. We. therefore, were
perfectly right, I think, in accepting the incitation, and we
should have been very blameable if we had held aloof from
the congress, if congress there had been. (Hear, hear.) We
were prepared to go into congress free from all engagements,
but having announced fully what our opinions were as to
the propriety of leaving the Italians to settle their own af-
fairs, without any foreign interference by force of arms, I
am quite persuaded that if that policy is adhered to, if the
Italians are left free to settle their own affairs, the result
would probably be more satisfactory ; and if it is not the
Italians alone will be to blame. (Hear, hear.) Then, the
right hon. gentleman, quitting 111 r. Reuter'e telegrams,
took higher ground, and quoted the letter of the Emperor
of the French to the Pope—though I think ho did not
read it quite correctly, which, he contends, contains an en-
gagement that, if the Pope would agree to allow the Ro-
magna to remain independent, the powers of Europe, (in-
cluding England, as the right hon. gentleman conceived),
would guarantee him the secure possession of the rest of
his territories. Speaking from recollection, though, pro-
bably, as the right hon. gentleman has the paper before
him he may be right after all—(Mr. Disradi—l spoke from
recollection.) Well, then, my recollectionldiffers from that
of the right hon. gentleman. The phrase, I think, is that
in that case the Pope might address himself to the other
Powers, and ask —demander— for such a guarantee,
which I think the Emperor said they would very likely
give. All I can say is that we were no parties to such an
engagement. (Hear, hear.) It is not a guarantee, I think,
which this country would be at all disposed to enter into.
(Hear, hear.) I trust that I have given the right honour-
able gentleman an answer on this point which will be per-
fectly satisfactory to him. I quite agree with him in say-
ing that it would be trespassing needlessly on the time of
the house to go into the detailed communications which
have taken place on the subject on the present occasion.
What they are will be shown by the papers which are to
be laid on the table; and though I do not recollect the in-
stances to which the right honourable gentleman referred
of papers promised at the beginning of the session being
delayed until the end, I can assure him that my noble
friend has no intention of delaying until the end of the
session the production of the papers which ho is anxious
to see, and which I trust will be perfectly satisfactoryto him
and to the house. Our policy with regard to Italy has been
the simplest possible. It is fully explained in the Speech
from the Throne, which I cannot admit to be ambiguous or
unintelligible on this point. Our policy has never varied.
We said in the beginning, and we say still, that no foreign
force should be exerted to control the people of Italy in the
arrangement of their own affairs. Our opinion is that they
should be left to settle their affairs among themselves be-
tween people and government; that they should be free to
adopt teat form of government and such an arrangement of
states they might think best for their own interests, and
that ne foreign power ought to interfere by force of arms to
privent them from arriving at the result which is most sa •
tisfactory to their owa feelings and interests. (Hear, hear.)
The right hon. gentleman says that if you ask the opinion
of different people, all of whom are respectively and indivi-
dually good authorities on the subject of Italy, one will tell
you one thing, and another another ; that whether it is about
the Romagna, Tuscany, or Sardinia, or Naples, or Lom-
bardy, every one you consult gives you a different opinion.
Is that peculiar to Italy? (Hear, hear.) Without going
further than the walls of this house, I should like to know
whether you won't find gentlemen here who will give you
the most opposite opinions about any question of domestic
interest you like to name. (Hear.) Aak my hon. friend oppo-
site (Mr. Spooner) his opinion about Maynooth, and then go
to some Irish member below the gangway. (Laughter.) Ask
about parliamentary reform, or any other question on which
public attention is fixed, and I will venture to say that within
the walls of this house you will find as many discordant
opinions as the right hon, gentleman says exist among Italian
authorities with regard to the state of Italy. -Well, then,
adopt the same course withregard to Italy as you do with re-
gard to questions of domestic policy. In this house a ques-
tion is settled according to what the majority thinks about
it; let the people of Italy settle their own questions in the
same way. (Hear, hear.) If it be true that Tuscany
wishes to be a separate nationality, se be it. If it be true
that the King of Naples is the most beloved of monarchs
—(laughter)—let his subjects remain united to him in the
bonds of affection. If it be true that the people of the Ro-
magna are enamoured of the Government of the I'ope, let
them return to the happiness from which they are tempo-
rarily separated. (Laughter.) All that we want is that the
Italians should be left to judge of their own interests—to
shape their future arrangements according to their own
opinions of that which was most likely to contribute to
their happiness and most in unison with their feelings and
opinions. (Hear, hear.) I quite concur with the right hon.
gentleman that there is no question which has arisen for
some time upon which the people of this country feel more
decidedly than on this. and I am persuaded that the policy
which we, recommend is most in consonance with their
wishes. It is founded upon the same principle as that on
which the Throne of this country now rests, and therefore,
in advocating it, I feel that the Government are backed and
supported by the feelings of the people at large, by the his-
torical traditions of our own country, and by the principles
on which that constitution is founded under which we are
so happy to live. I trust, therefoio. that when the papers
aro produced the House will find in them nothing to cen-
sure, but much to approve ; and that in pursuing the course
which it is our intention to pursue, that in endeavouring by
negotiation, whether in congress or out of congress, it no
congress should meet, to secure to the people of Italy free-
dom from the control of foreign interference, we shall meet
the wishes and receive the approbation of the country.
(Cheers.)
The motion for an address was then egrecd to, and a
committee nominated to draw it up.
The house adjourned at half-past 7 o'clock.