The Sun.
London, England, 1859-08-09 00:00:00

T 1 E SUN, rIAONDON, TUESDAY ENTNING, AUGUST 9, 1859.

that the policy of the late Government was not one of neu-
trality, would there have been any difficulty in carrying a
motion demanding the observance of neutrality ? The mo-
tion of his noble friend was one of the same kind, and it was
made because there was a distrust of the motives of the
noble lord opposite, who it was believed would enter a con-
gress with a view to afford assistance to the Emperor of the
French at this moment of difficulty. It was, therefore, de-
sired that the opinion of the House of Commons should be
expressed that such a policy was inconsistent with the
honour of this country. There never was in our history, at
a moment so important as respected our policy, conduct
like that pursued by the Government. The noble lord had
doled out scrap by scrap; and bit by bit, such information
as he thought would suit his purpose. In the first place,
they had a despatch written by our Minister at Turin and
the answer of the noble lord. He (Mr. Fitzgerald) had
asked if the noble lord could produce the despatch to Berlin
of the 22d of June, and he replied that it would not be for the
interest of the public service/that it should be produced, and
that it would give imperfect information. That despatch
shortly after appeared in some of the German journals, and
the noble lord then produced the despatch in the very form
which he said was objectionable, without any reference to a
context and without comment. In a short time the re-
mainder of the correspondence appeared in the German
Journals, and we obtained a knowledge of the despatch writ-
ten by our Minister at Berlin to the noble lord. The noble
lord produced only a solitary extract from the despatch,
without a word from which an opinion could be formed as
to our policy, and we were still ignorant as to what had been
written by the noble lord to Paris or to Turin ; we know no-
thing of what the noble lord had addressed to our Ministers
at those courts, or what answers he had received, and we
were equally ignorant of any communication which had been
made by the noble lord to the cabinet of St. Petersburg. If
We had this imperfect information it was the fault of the
noble lord, who left the house in a state of uncertainty with
egard to the policy of the Government. The speech of the
noble lord the member for Haddingtonshire had had one
good effect, for while it had elicited from the right hon. gen-
tleman(Mr. Gladstone) a speech which carefully avoided
'the main question, it enabled the house to judge what were
the opinions of the right hon. gentleman with regard to
neutrality. The noble lord (J. Russell) said the other night
sand it had been repeated by the right hon. gentleman—
that it was not to be supposed that he would go into a con-
gress merely to carry out preliminaries of peace which had
keen
settled at Villafranca. He did not say that such a
impossible
as that could be done ; but in a case like this it was
unpossible for England to stand by and remain in ignor-
ance of the measures which were proposed with regard to
'tal3r. But the noble lord said something further, which
'established the case of the noble lord the member for Had-
dingtonshire ; for the noble lord said it would be as well
not to go into a congress at all with a prospect of doing
nothing Ho (Mr. Fitzgerald) said that no subject could
'come before the congress in the shape of a proposition to
free Italy which would not involve disagreement between
all Parties. He desired to ask the noble lord one question. It
resembled a question put by the noble lord to Count Berns-
torff in one of the despatches before them. He wished to
be if he entered the congress, whether there would not
ue a difference on an essential point in which the majority
Would be against him ? If that was the view the noble lord
took of the congress it was not likely. to secure peace, but to
rekindle war. There was anotherpomt of importance. It was
Perfectly clear that the noble lord must have accepted the
terms from Count Persigny with a strong expression of
approval, or how else could the Emperor have received this
Information which would have justified him in making the
communication he did to the Emperor of Austria. It
was clear something like this must have occurred, that
Count Persigny must have informed his master that corn-
Muuications were passing between the English Govern-
Ment and the Government at Berlin, and that the pro-
torso's he had met with the sanction and approval of her
ajestv's Government. There was one other question
Which 'he wished to ask. The noble lord said he handed
the paper to the Austrian Minister without comment, and
,*aid he was not responsible for its terms. Did he say he
had nothing to do with them nor had the court of Berlin
either? Or did he, by saying "I am not responsible," lead
Count Apponyi to believe that the Government of Berlin
had cognisance of them. (Hear, hear.) This transaction
i.-td produced most important effects; he would not say it
had raised difficulties between them and their ally of
France—he had been a faithful ally; he (Mr. Fitzgerald)
believed he was sincere in his desire to cultivate the alli-
ance with England, and that he was disposed to make
Bamifices to meet the demands of public opinion in this
country. The misadventure of the noble lord may, perhaps,
not have raised difficulties
ad
with him, but he must feel that
bada at least
laced him in a false position. (Hear, hear
ide.)l
done this it had me the chasm wr be-
tween England and'Austria, it must have raised distrust
~and suspicion in the court of Berlin, and had introduced
distrust into the heart of the German Confederation. It
Was most important that the noble lord should make a clean
breast and satisfy the House of Commons how it was that
jmin a transaction apparently so trivial results so fru-
rlrlant had followed. (Hear, hear.) He had occupied the
me of the house much longer than he had intended.
(near, hear.) He had endeavoured to keep close to the
Question raised by the resolution, and he was desirous to
'Plow that on the point which the noble lord had to answer
;r had taken a course inconsistent with the honour, the
lgnifY, and the interests of this country. (Hear.) The
Noble lord admitted the time had passed when a theoretical
nd sentimental policy could be enforced by arms. He
(11/41r. Fitzgerald) wanted the house to say they would in-
augurate a new policy, not that meddling poliey which had
!narked their course for the last 25 years, and which had
.?.en repudiated by every man of influence. (Hear, hear.)
'le would be asked would he have the country remain
jttwerless in the councils of Europe ? Certainly not,
t _it was in that house her influence should be exer-

was not by the meddling of ministers or ambassa-
dors, but by the proud position which she held, and by the
free expression of exalted sentiment, that she influenced
foreign nations. By that she would do more to secure their
happiness than by mysterious negotiation, and she would
"ecure her.ewn, honour and her own interest. (Cheers.)
Lordaf...VANE opposed the motion.
Mr..B,COCHRANE said that if he had felt any dqubt
as to thy expediency of the motion now before the house,
that doubt would have been set at rest after his having
heard the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He
had never heard a speech which betrayed so strongly the
feeling with which the Government would approach the
conference, if they were permitted to do so. There were
Parts of that speech weich he regretted to hear. There
were some psrts that would not have disgraced Mazzini
himself. (Oh, oh.) He had been unable to follow the
right hon. gentleman in his ideas with regard to isolation,
fork there were positions when an isolated policy was that of
itue, greatest dignity. When the French were placsd in an
gted position on what was called the Eastern question of
the treaty of July, 1840, M. Guizot eloquently explained to
the Chambers that, although isolation was not the normal
state of a country, there were yet conditions in which, from
not having been consulted with regard to arrangements, an
isolated policy became one of dignity. The late war had
„o been undertaken in spite of every effort to the contrary on
"le part of the late Government ; and, therefore, the present
Gvernment must either go to the conference, merely to regi-
ster the acts of other Powers, or by mixing themselves up
with the Italian question they would be assuming a respon-
sibility which would ultimately rest heavily upon them.
The despatches of Lord Malmesbury would prove the great
tact, ability, and impartiality with which that noble lord
had approached the question, and his views had been ably
carried out by Lord Cowley. But the negotiations subse-
quent to the contest on which it was now proposed to enter
were of a Very different character. He distrusted the noble
fords at the head of the Government; because from their
antecedents they could not enter with impartiality into the
congress but must attend it as the advocates of a
the Particular policy. He looked back to 1848,-and found that
interference of the noble lord (Lord Palmerston) bad
raYs been attended with disaster to the country that was
Te object of his diplomatic exertions. Naples, Sicily,lo.nd
that. I were all alike and there was a prevalent feeling
't was owing to his advice that thennfortunate Charles
made his ill-advised attack on Austria. Viewed as
a Whole the noble lord's policy had certainly been of a cha-
ho~er that did not inspire confidence for the future. The
n°llintervention which this country was bound to adopt
.but a a non-intervention not merely of arms and protocols,
non-intervention. also in respect of violence of laa-
-411, ,age,.and. an abstinence from all expressions of strong
"Pinion. (Cheers.)
Mr. GILPIN believed it would not be desirable to bind
the hands of the Government against upholding -interests
teardear to the people of England, and would therefore give a
to the people of England, and would therefore give a
earty support to the amendment.
The ODONOHIJE resented the strong remarks of the
Chancellor of the EXchequer with reference to' the tempo-
ral authority of the Pope, and declared that he would no
longer give his support to a Government which could
enunciate such sentiments.
ft ahcotilir. MILNES took an opposite view, and eulogised
eopn
eetcohthofetchoeunCtharyn.cellor as one which would give sods-
'Mr. HENNESSY reviewed the social condition and in-
!erne' prosperity of the Papal States, and conleded that
the Government of the Supreme Pontiff had been systema-
tically libelled in that house.
HORSMAN said he had listened with great admire-
' ni to the powerful and spirited speech of the right hon.
rntlenaan the Chancellor of the Exchequer. At the same
Inie he had felt a little surprise at the very remarkable
orniss'
ey,„„ Ir'ne b which it was characterised. The right hon.
Spoke in glowing terms of the past and future
e
Austria, ; anche showed them what would be the future of
bri strengthened by the new disposition of her Italian
iolgre-::naleles. But he altogether omitted to show how the
aPPiness of Italy or the future prosperity of Austria would
advanced byjEngland going into a European con-
afin,• The motion of his noble friend was a very precise and
c'teite application of an existing rule of policy to a case
ually sraunbgmeiityted to the Government and awaiting its de-
on e moment this notice was given. That was a fact
the and conveniently-kept out of sight during
Zdebate, It had been forgotten that the motion origi-
rioted in a public announcement of the Minister of the
ol,1;°;°11, that the proposal was actually before the Cabinet
that—e •
ci subject of our being parties to a conference; and
;"? Government were contemplating .that very act
the this motion deprecated and condemned. What was
• indealling of the terms used by the Minister, " that we
enter into a conference for the purpose of improving
aiciearngternents not finally concluded, but still open to con-
-we ?" He (Mr. Horsman) took that to mean that
. might
the into a conference for the purpose of im-
royl, tta;teon:anttyeeiatn:hr[ details of that treaty of which the bases had
took to. His noble friend (Lord Elcho) immedi-
• nort the alarm and gave his notice. Some days had
his Ned, and some delay had taken place, for which
8 noble friend was not responsible, and it, appeared
the interim the idea of a conference had been aban-
• _ But on what ground had it been abandoned ? On
I,v.,iett-rdioaru:ntdolioofythe resolution that it would be at variance
which Parliament had recently affirmed, or
e only atemporary abandonment in consequence
o4.bsannonmte. preliminary impediments not
.being yet removed, the
Principal im ed'ment beino. the unwillingness of Austria to
of hers Pelf Ito such a conference ? Under the pressure
_ immediate and not remote contingency, his noble
friend called upon the house to stand by the principle it
had tecently affirmed of strict neutrality and above all not
to be allured in the eleventh hour to plunge into a sea of
Emrplications, through which the oldest statesman of
„iu ope did not pretend that he eould see his way. What
s our present position with regard to international policy?
From the commencement of these Italian complications the
British Cabinet clearly and positively laid down two prin-
, eiples of action The first was, that it was their duty, repre-
sentingt Ting the national sentiment of England, to make every
y to avert war ; and the second, that it was equally their
lut to observe strict neutrality, whether there should
be Peace or war. He thought it was important for the
strength of our own position that the house should acknow-
ledge that the late Government had maintained those two
Principles honourably and consistently throughout. Their
declaration of neutrality was steadily adhered to—they were
unwavering_ to the close ; and viewing the policy of the late
tjovernment as a whole—not picking out detached passages
from the Blue Book here and there—he believed it repre-
sented the national sentiments and that it upheld the
u
ationalicharacter. (Hear, hear.) He would not take any

pains to show that, because he did not wish to enter into a
controversy about the despatches in the Blue Books, but it
was a' question which affected them nationally far more
than it affected the hon.- gentleman opposite. Such was
the state of our foreign relations when the present Go
vernment came into office. (Hear, hear.) There have
been addresses from all parts of England—from all classes
of the people—containing one universal declaration in
favour of a strict and impartial neutrality. He did not
know when such unanimity existed in this country be-
fore. (Hear, hear.) Now, they were told that this
motion would fetter the Executive, and the Chancellor of
the Exchequer said it was a most unusual motion. He
(Mr. Horsman) did not want to, fetter the Government
more than they wished to do themselves while sitting
on the other side of the house ; and when he was told
the motion was unusual, he might retort by saying that
the conduct of the Government was unusual ; for while on
the other side the principle of neutrality was upheld, now
they had taken their places on this side of the house they
said that neutrality ought to be turned into partisanship.
(Hear, . hear.) The hon. and learned gentleman (Mr.
Kinglake) said he would throw upon the Government all
the responsibility of this matter; but what was the respon-
sibility of Ministers ? Suppose their policy was disap-
proved, they were merely turned out of office. (Laughter.)
That was not much, for right hon. gentlemen took a high
position on the other side of the house, and they might
come into office again in a few days. (Hear, hear.) Respon-
sibility being such a very light affair, it was the duty of
the house to take this precaution to prevent that which
they could not afterwards rectify. (Hear, hear.) There
was a mystery which had not been unravelled; but, per-
haps, it would be in the course of the evening by the Secre-
tary for Foreign Affairs. There had been a small bit of
paper presented to a foreign ambassador by our Minister
for Foreign Affairs, who did not approve of the contents
nor disapprove of them, who did not recommend nor depre-
ciate them, but who simply made himself the channel of
communication of the document. But the delivery by this
country of that bit of paper to Austria had had the effect of
bringing about the peace—a peace in which England was
ignored, or there would not have been such a tardy recog-
nition of her position in making known to her the result of
that peace. (Hear.) In a short time, however, it was
found that that peace would not work, for Italy was exas-
perated and disgusted, and the imperial prestige was sorely
perplexed. The noble lord at the head of the Government
had on two occasions sacrificed power for the French
alliance, and yet he now believed that he was the man who,
if any man could do it, was to persuade an English House
of Commons to throw to the winds the principle of neu
trality, of which he had so recently become enamoured.
England, then, was the Emperor's hope, and the congress
was his instrument, and England would go to that con-
gress, and send her representative there, and she would be
outvoted, outwitted, and bamboozled according to all pre-
cedent ; and then the result would be most satisactory, for
it would relieve France of all difficulties, and saddle Eng-
land with new embarrassments and responsibilities. (Hear.)
It was the indication on the part of the noble lord of his
readiness to go into a congress which made his noble friend
(Lord Elcho) give notice of his motion, and that motion
would test the House of Commons, and it would be a most
valuable test of the sincerity of the house as to its adhesion
to the new policy on which they had lately made such strong
declarations. (Hear.) There was another reason why Eng-
land should not take part in the intended conference. There
was a law of public morality which England should be the
first to respect. We had not been able to hold back the
arms of the French, to save the loss of human life, and to
avert carnage ; but we should not be the first to rush for-
ward to crown the victor and grasp the hand still reeking
with the blood of 100,000 of their fellow-creatures, and he
hoped the result of the motion would be to prevent Govern-
ment from doing so ; for however we might go into the
conference as the impartial ally of France, we should come
out of it as the dupe and scapegoat of the French Emperor.
France was now in difficulties from which she hoped to
escape by the interference of England ; but England should
not interfere unless she could do so with dignity and effect,
and her interference, under present circumstances, would
be sure to be followed by disappointment, dishonour, and

disgrace. (Cheers.)
Mr. S. HERBERT said he was at a loss to know what
amount of faith he should place In the history of past events
when he found the history of contemporaneous events so
misrepresented as they that night had been by the right
hon. gentleman the member for Stroud. The right hon.
gentleman stated that her Majesty's Government snatched
at an offer to take part in the congress, but he (Mr. S. Her-
bert) was at a loss to know where he acquired that inform A.-
tion. The statement of the First Lord of the Treasury had

not furnished him with it. The noble lord merely stated

;hat proposals had been made to this country to join in the
_ _ _

congress, not for the settlement of the details of the peace
—for that was the province of the belligerents, and of the
belligerents alone—but that, peace having been settled, that
then we, in common with the other States of Europe, should
decide what were the measures to be taken for the future of
Italy. But the right hon. gentleman said that the House
of Commons had information in regard to the conference
which her Majesty's Government did not possess. The
noble lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs had the other
evening stated all th'e difficulties which attached to our
going into a congress, and that it was impossible to do so
unless we knew what was to be the starting-point of the
negotiations ; but the right hon. gentleman was not so
cautious ; for he stated that any Government which at all
took part in the congress would be worthy of the reprehen-
sion of the country. But what he (Mr. S. Herbert) would
ask were the terms of the peace they were going to settle ?
(Hear, hear.) It appeared from the terms of the motion,
which, had the credit of being full of original political
maxims, that as England had maintained a strict neutrality
in the war, she had therefore no right to meddle with the
peace. Werei the English people for all time to keep their
minds in a state of indifference and uninfluenced by sym-
pathy for either nation, because some months ago France and
Austria had been at war ? Such a thing was not possible in
human nature, and there was no such doctrine laid down in
Vattel. Did either of the noble lords, either the First Lord
of the Treasury or the noble lord the member for Loadon,
sayone word of the d etermination on whichGovemment would
go into the congress, although they stated the conditions on
which alone they would do so, and yet the right hon. gen-
tleman charged them with having snatched at the proposal ?
Bnt was there no precedent for a neutral taking part in a
congress for the settlement of peace f During the Russian
war Austria maintained a strict, though not an impartial,
neutrality, for she rendered to this country services which
could not be fully acknowledged. During that war, too,
Prussia had been neutral, although her sympathies had
been with Russia, and yet both these neutral Powers shared
in the settlement of the peace. But, after all, the question
was not one which regarded the past, as muoh as it did the
future. Was Italy to be blamed for the course she had
taken ? It was, he believed, a necessary course, for as Aus-
tria had governed the country with a strong hand, so the
evil of foreign domination increased with the pressure of
the grasp, and when the war broke out there were dis-
covered evils of which the house and the country were not
before aware. But now the war was over; while it lasted
we strongly objected to it, but circumstances now were
changed, and we had no longer to consider whether the
war was justifiable or not. That, indeed, we had considered
while it was time; we mediated, but failed—(hear, hear)—
we remonstrated and scolded everybody all round—(hear,
hear)—we irritated many, but influenced no one ; but now,
after such sacrifices of blood and treasure as had taken
place, was no attempt to be made, when the opportunity
arose, to prevent any recurrence of such evils? (Hear.)
The right hon. member for Bucks (Mr. Disraeli) had always
been consistent on this subject. He always declared that
the Austrian rule was necessary for the tranquillity of the
nations of Europe, for he said the whole of Italy consisted
of secret societies of the worst character and most revolu-
tionary designs, and therefore, for the suppression of such
designs, it was necessary to rule them with a strong hand.
That was not only the right hon. gentleman's opinion, but
it was received throughout Europe. But, now that we had
seen the fruits of that system, had it been successful ?
(Hear, hear.) He did not ask whether Italy was
happy, but was it tranquil ? As far back as 1856 Lord
Clarendon, at Paris, discussed this question, for it was
then obvious that things could not go on in the
course they were then in without a European war. It was
easy to say that Italy was not fit for liberty ; that had been
glibly said everywhere. But what nation was fit for liberty
before it attained to it? (Cheers.) it was said of the Italians
that they were a turbulent, excitable, and blood-thirsty set,
that was what King John might have said, before Runny-
mede, of the barons of England, who, he might add, would
compromise the very existence of the nation ; but we tried
it, and through a long series of ages it had succeeded But
would any man tell him that the Italians, or any race of men
on the globe, were fit for the kind of government which the
Italians had had ? (Cheers.) That was the present question.
(Renewed cheers.) We were asked now to come to a Euro-
pean settlement of the future government of Italy, and why?
Because the government of Italy had become a scandal
throughout the world. He (Mr. S. Herbert) gave no opi-
nion of his own upon it. It was enough to remind the house
that the scandal must have been great and the occasionseri-
ous before any two States would have undertaken so excep-
tional a course as that whieh'had been entered upon for the
remedy of the evil. (Cheers.) What, then, had this peace
given them ? The very fact that Lombardy had been made
part of a free State wcs some guarantee for the liberty
of North Italy. He did not say that liberty would work at
smoothly there as it did here in a nation accustomed to it—
for the house should make allowances if excess should fol-
low the possession of the gift ; but, after all, was it not ob-
vious that society would be ameliorated by the change from
what it had been. The house remembered what it was. The 7
saw lately in Naples a revolutionary Government; a consti-
tution arbitrarily and illegally suspended by the will of the
king, and the code arbitrarily and illegally suspended by the
police; and that was a revolutionary Government. (Cheers.)
A king might be revolutionary as well as a mob, and it was
no consolation to tell a man who was dragged from his bed
to a dungeon that it was a king that had revolted and not
a mob. (Cheees.) He did not, however, mean to say
that we must necessarily go into a congress. The noble
lord (Lord J. Russell) stated all the difficulties that lay
in the way of our doing so. But if these difficulties were
to be removed, and there were a prospect of a lasting peace
and tranquillity for Italy, what would the house say of a
Government if it was sulkily to refuse because the peace of
Villafranca might have been founded on broader terms ? It
appeared to him that such a course of conduct would be a
gross derelictionof their duty to the rest of Europe. (Cheers.)
It was assumed, however, that this congress was merely to
register the details of the peace of Villafranca. For his
own part he knew nothing of any details in that peace.
The parties to it were " favourable to a confederation in
Italy;" he believed those were the very terms used; but if
they had intended to agree upon something that should be
conclusive and final, as they were masters of the situation,
they would not have said they were favourable to it, but
they would have expressed their views and given effect to
them immediately. He thought the circumstances under
which this motion was brought forward were most unfavour-
able for the noble lord's purpose. The noble lord knew
nothing about • the future, and very little about the past.
The treaty of Zurich was not known, or the principles on
which the Powers would agree to meet in congress. They
knew nothing at all, and therefore the house was asked
peremptorily to decide that the Government must do no-
thing in time to come., The noble lord wished them to say
to the Government that, come what might, let the oppor-
tunity be ever so favourable for the future of Italy and of
Europe, they were not to act, and they wero to discuss no
points. But, then, what was the object of having a Govern-
ment at all, if they were to be restricted from the considera-
tion of the great political :principles in this great political
crisisoo in the world's history. To tie up the hands of the
human
thellTyse to tie hp his own hands—against doing any-
thingthHat6wacy7—nay, for the noble lord to ask
in time to come did appear to be the height of
he had auloailit4d
the noble lord intendedbelieve,however,
the course which was yet the
eto gatheredthe ho
ufsreo m;
atnhde mheotio which
believe the
such a courdelf of Commons would sanction
freedom of Italy; Wotild prevent them from securing the
blood sucralit K:26*, couldn not
and 'save that country from evils and
Mr. WIIITESIA already
experienced.
E controverted• •
the objection to the re-

In adopting it he maintained,
nts to some of
house would but follow established precedents,
• solution that it unduly crippledoutheth
which he referred, and enforce a policy of non-intervention
e
observed
nation
the ro fh
Tried executive.that
the
in Italy. The
through the whole course of the perturbationsquestion and
Congress of Paris tried to settle the Italian
and neutrality which had hitherto been so wisely.
failed. What hope was there of better success from a re-
newal of the attempt at a congress elsewhere? proceeded
to remark uponHe
the peril and mischief which would ensue
if the conduct of discastelons at any such congress were en-
trusted to the present Mir laters as representing the iate-
resents and upholding the honour a England.
np@i
Lord J. RUSSELL—Sir, I cannot &p.y a motion
worse calculated to serve the purpose it has in view than
that before the house. What my noble friend (Lord Elcho)
endeavours to affirm is, that the Crown should be invited
to abstain from doing a thing which it has never be#n asked
to do by anybody, and which it has not the smallest inten-
tion to do. My noble friend says, o' Don't take any part in
a congress for settlftg the details of apearethepreliminaries
of which were arranged by the two Emperors at Villa-
franca." That has never been proposed by her Majesty's
Government, and never will be proposed by them; and
therefore it will be a mockery to address the Crown not to
do that which the Ministers of the Crown have never wd
the smallest intention to do. (Hear, bear.) I really con-
ceive, therefore, that it would be difficult to persuade this
house to affirm such a motion. I ant personally obliged to
my noble friend for having postponed to this day the con-
sideration of this subject ; and I must admit that, before the
house separates, those who take a different view from her
Majesty's Government on this question shoal have an op-
portunity of expressing their opinions, and endeavouring to
explain that their rule of conduct should be the prevail-
ing one. What say my noble friend and the hon, gentle-
man the late Under-Secretary of State for Foreign
Affairs with regard to this great subject of Italy? The
noble lord says Sardinia is entirely to blame, and that
if such principles as induced the King of Sardinia and
his ally to enter on this war were to prevail there would
be an end of civilisation altogether. The hon. member
for Horsham (Mr. S. Fitzgerald) said the war in Italy was
wholly owing to the promptings of Sardinia. I thought
I had read in the blue-book that Austria was told, in re-
peated despatches, that if she went to war at the time she
did she would have no moral sympathy or support from this
country. T am not one of those who ever subscribed to the
language used by the late Prime Minister when he said
Austria was criminal in going to war. I think that was an
imprudent step on the part of Austria, but to call her con-
duct criminal, at a time when she believed her territory was
in jeopardy, is too strong a censure, and one in which I can
never join. At the same time I cannot hear all this blame
of the conduct of Sardinia without recalling to the recollec-
tion of the house what has been the state of affairs. For
many years Sardinia has enjoyed a free government—
(hear, hear)—and that enjoyment of a free government has
rendered her the object of admiration to every State in
Italy ; so much so that whenever a professor was banished
from his chair for imparting knowledge in too liberal a
spirit he went at once to Turin—(a laugh)—and when a
great proprietor expressed opinions favourable to represen-
tative institutions he fled to Sardinia in order to avoid the
judgment which awaited him in his own State. At length,
Sardinia became the refuge of many of the best and ablest
men in Italy, some of them distinguished for birth and for-
tune, and others for genius in art and literature. Under
such circumstances it was not only excusable, but natural,
that the King of Sardinia and the Minister of Sardinia,
thus encouraged and thus appealed to, should feel that the
emancipation of Italy rested with them, and resolve, when-
ever the time came, to draw their swords in defence of her
liberties. At the same time, when I look to history, I find
there was once a prince who, from a State not his own, re-
ceived men of all conditions and all professions—who fur-
nished some with arms and encouraged others by tokens
of his favour—and who even sant a special envoy to this
country desiring him to communicate with the disaffected
and to hold out to them hopes of an invasion. The differ-
ence between the King of Sardinia and that Prince was,
that, although the latter committed all the offences for
which the King of Sardinia has had cast upon him's° much
odium, we celebrate him as a great deliverer, and I have no
doubt that the hon. and learned gentleman who has just
spoken has often drank to his glorious and immortal memory.
(Laughter.) With regard to the noble lord's motion, it ap-
pears to me that it is within the province of the House of
Commons to adilse the Crown, in the exercise of its pre-
rogative, and that it is competent to the house to restrain
the prerogative of the Crown if it so thinks fit. But what
is proposed by the noble lord would be a curious and unwise
exercise of the power of th.e House of Commons, for he pro-
poses to put no restraint on the power of the Crown with
respect to any questions which may arise between France
and Austria. He proposes no restriction on the conduct of
the Government with regard to the foreign relations of this
country, except by saying that if it is ever proposed that we
should enter into a conference on whatever terms there
would be serious objections to such a course. If the motion
has any meaning or sense at all, that would be the amount
of it. (Hear, hear.) The right hon. gentleman the mem-
ber for Stroud says the Ministry are evidently anxious to
enter on the conference—that they are so eager to do so
that they seem unwilling to wait, and he gave as a proof of
this that the Foreign Secretary had stated numerous ob-
jections and obstacles that stood in the way of entering into
a conference. Was ever so curious a proof given as this?
(Hear.) I stated those obstacles and objections, because I
doubted whether this country should enter into such a con-
ference. At present the terms on which such a conference
is to meet have not been agreed on by the different powers.
No one can say at this moment what invitation may come
to us from Austria. I have already stated that we have an
invitation from France, and I understand that the Govern-
ment of Austria does not interpose its absolute veto to such
a meeting of conference. If France and Austria come to an
understanding on every point affecting the relations of Italy
—if they attempt to settle the whole question of Italy—
though 1 cannot well imagine how that is to be done—
I hold that it would be unworthy of this country and
of its dignity and honour to go into a conference
merely to add its signature to terms thus agreed to.
(Hear, hear.) But 1 can suppose a very different state of
affairs. The preliminaries of Villafranca do not pretend to
settle absolutely the state of Italy. What they propose is
the mode in which a confederation of the States of Italy may
be established. It may be that Sardinia will require certain
conditions, and that the Pope also will require certain con-
ditions, before they enter into such a confederation, and I
have not heard that the King of the Two Sicilies has given
an opinion favourable or unfavourable to a meeting of con-
ference ; but I can imagine the state of Italy to be such that
the best men of that country might say, " We are between
two dangers—one of these dangers is foreign intervention
with the view of preserving order in the country; the other
danger is that of immediate and sanguinary revolution."
(Hear.) Now, there is one way of preventing these evils,
and that is toconsider the terms on which a Conference of
the Powers of Europe might be formed, so that through its
influence foreign intervention might be stopped on the one
hand, and revolution on the other. If, then, that is a fit
then, that is a fit thing for Italians to observe, am I to say
that I see how the evils which they dread may be prevented,
and the good which they desire may be done, but I have a
vow in Heaven against joining any conference, and I must
not think of such a course. (Hear.) I ask, then, is it not
reasonable to leave important questions like these to the
consideration of the advisers of the Crown, subject to that
resposibility which I do not believe is a mere shadow. Let
the house, then, leave the question as to a conference to the
consideration of the Ministers of the Crown, and when the
time comes that they will know all the circumstances of the
case, and the propositions that have been brought forward,
they will be able to say Yes or No_to those propositions,
according as they have been wise or unwise—according as
they shall turn out successful or unsuccessful, and they will
be able to give their judgment upon the conduct of the
Ministry_ at some future meeting of the house. I wish
to arrogate no undue power or assumption of authority on
behalf of the Government, but that appears to me to be the
plain common-sense mode of proceeding. (Hear, hear.)
The hon. member for Horsham has warned me against cer-
tain vices and sins which he appears to think I am liable to
fall into, and, profiting by his own experience (I may say it
without personal disrespect to him), he has, after the man-
nerwarned me against acts of vice which
I may be apt to commit. (A laugh.) lie says, " Beware
of a guarantee. Nothing is so dangerous toy
of an old sinner,
this country,
nothing is so open to objection as a guarantee. Now, I
had
some recollection of what had been done by the late Govern-
ment
in this respect; but I consulted the blue-book to re-
freshaseady to give
bury, with the consent of his colleagues, w
f th
tee to Sardinia—(a laugh)—a guarantee or e
my memory, and there I found that Lord Malmes-
a guarantee
is the most
Now, it appears to me that such a guaranteetanother
dangerous that any Minister could offer to integrity of Sardinia for a period of five years. (Hear.)
would have
have been no end to the protection which you
st
monthly, weekly, and daily to extend to it, and.Au ri
st this
coun-
try. (Hear, hear.) In the case of Sar ia there would
would have said, '• I am unable to bear up a n
army into
by the conduct of Sardinia, and I must march an
that country to put an end to it." Then, thoughi y
protection. My subjects are excited to rebellion againstgal me
ou
might admit Sardinia to be in the wrong, you would be
bound, on the ground of your guarantee, to send your fleets
and armies to protect her. (Hear, hear.) It was a
.col-
league of the hon. member for Horsham by whom this
guarantee was proposed, an how the hon. gentleman can
come and preach to me about a guarantee and the dangers
into which I may fall, and give to me such imprudent and
rash advice, I am unable to explain. The hon. and learned
gentleman who has just spoken spoke of the reforms in
the Roman States. Now, in the despatch which I sent
to Vrussia I stated that all parties—l ought perhaps to
have excepted the hon. member for Dundalk—were at
one on this subject, and, it reforms were to take place in
Italy, a reform in the Roman States was particularly
called for. (Hear, hear.) Did I say anything that
the Sovereigns of Europe would find fault with ?
'the Emperor of the French said virtually the same thing.
When he proposed to secularize the Roman States and in-
troduce the Code Napoleon, he did not approve the mode of
trying a man without confronting him with the witnesses
against him, or of using torture to extort a confession, and
accordingly he recommended to the Pope the introduction
of the Code Napoleon. The Emperor of Austria has also
required the introduction of reforms into the Roman States;
and where, then, is the harm of my saying that if the state
of Italy is to be improved a reform in the Government of
the Papal States is especially required? The hon. gentle-
man who spoke last said that when I spoke of the Italians
being free citizens, it must mean as a consequence the esta-
blishment of a republic. The words I employed were used
by the Emperor of the French in his proclamation at Milan,
and surely he is not so violent in his political views as to
promulgate republicanism in the States of Italy. (Hear.)
But what have been the facts of the case ? We know what
occurred in 1849, but during 1858 to 1859 have the Italians
shown themgelves guilty of any unworthy excesses ? So far
from that, their conduct has attracted the admiration of all
Europe—(hear)—because, though they wished to reform
their Governments, and hough at some places they even
proclaimed the Code Napoleoh, anything more temperate'
anything less like violent republicanism, no country has
ever shown. (Hear.) The hon. gentleman wishes to know
something with regard to the Duchies. All I can say on that
subject is to repeat what I formerly said,—that there is an
ambigno Rald pm9what obsenre article regarding it in the A 6

preliminaries of peace. Perhaps it may be explained by
What takes place in the conference at Zurich. But we have
reason to believe that neither the Emperor of the French
nor the Emperor of Austria means to use force in order to
obtain the restoration of the Grand Duke of Tuscany. The
Emperor of the French has more than once intimated
this view of the case, and from a despatch I have re-
ceived to-day it appears that the Austrian Minis-
' ter for Foreign Affairs declares his belief that with some
ipatience the people of Modena and Tuscany will be
g 144 of their own accord to receive their former Sove-
reigns, Well, if they do so, her Majesty's Government
can have no objeotions ; but I must say, on the other hand,
that if a change of purpose were to take place, and the
Sovereigns were to attempt to use force, it wenicl ho the
604rtio of liTif9111111tt? troubles -t Italy-1 it would be the
commen,ce•Mpt Of '4
new Struggte, and no one could say
what would be the evils, the outrages, that might be corn-
mitted in Krell cireumstflUe§. 'VA
m a course the Go-
vern weirld most cieciffPalY 0 eet i but it would not
be necessary to enter into a conference for that purpose,
becanse objections could be 6t0t0.. iR formal communica-
tions to the governments concerned; It is not necessary
that we should have ,a Conference for that purpose, and the
honse knows that so far from being Pt irieetcl to a cautrence,
I see more elo.frPflPll agniilo it trail ,er, it i but we are not
to bar ourselves against the use 0 any means by which the
p: ace of Italy may he nreservod. (Hear, hear.) The hon.
member for If ors4are 'has asked me some 15 or 20 Ines-
tions as to what
passed between me and gig rfonclA Am-
bassacier before 1-119 0011cIllf.liC311 4 Wtt,t4. With regard to
all these le§OPP§ 4'n answer will be 4-it COANSTed by
stating what happened. The if mlOl, Arnhasseclor had fre-
quently woke;} to me of terme ef pmee which he thought,
after a censlderahlii erred Q war, it fortune should favour
the arals of France, night be proposed. I listened to those ,
statements, and T Ftt . it wog not liliPlY PAustria would be
that eAtUe; the Em-
peror pf the PrPlOl or the EPAPPPOT
prepared to make peace at that time, and that therefore any
consideration of set terms of Mee eheill4 be postponed. But
N
he brought to me one day a written woo of paper contain-
ing certain articles, and said it was the wish of his Govern-
ment that those articles or terms should be submitted,
under the sanction of the British Government, to the
Emperor of Austria; and he said he felt assured, though
he could not give official assurance o'4, that those were the
terms proposed by the Emperor of the French. However,
he said enough to show that if these terms there' accepted
by Austria the :Emperor a the French would be
ready to sanction theta, I was going to a Cabinet
Council at the time, and there I communicated to my col-
leagues what he had said. They one and all agreed that we
could not make a formal communication of any such terms—
that the period had not arrived when we could prefer our
good offices. But as those terms were more moderate than,
from the proclamation of the French Emperor, we could
have expected he would offer, they thought it would not be
right to conceal them from the Austrian Government, and
therefore they commissioned me to give the paper contain-
ing the terms to the Austrian Minister, and I communicated
them tohim on the same night, The hon. gentleman asks
what Prussia said. Nothing whatever, for I never spoke to
Prussia on the subject. (A laugh.) He also asked what Rus-
sia said. To that I have to give the same answer. Nothing
whatever, for I had no communication with the Minister of
Russia on the subject. (A laugh.) The Austrian Minister
said it would be his duty to send the term' to his Government
but wished to know my idea with regard to it. I said " The
British Government transmit them to you to be sent to the
Emperor of Austria, but as to offering any advice, we dis-
tinctly declare that we offer no advice or opidaion regarding
them. Austria may accept them or reject tlTem them as it
may deem best." He said afterwards to me " I do not believe
my Government will accept those terms ; but supposing
they were accepted, and I got an answer saying that Austria
was ready to treat on those terms, what then ?" I said if
that happened—if we once knew that Austria was ready to
treat on those terms, then we would offer ourselves as me-
diators, or in any other character Austria might prefer; and
I said " If you would prefer that I should speak to the Mi-
nisters of Prussia and Russia, and inform them of the
terms, and that there would be no difficulty in proposing
them as a basis of a peace, I am ready to do so., ' (Hear,
hear. I think it was cur duty not to conceal from Austria
that mace might be obtained on the terms proposed. (Hear,
hear:) If we had refused to communicate these terms, and
if Verona and Perachiera and Venice had fallen, and Aus-
tria had bean obliged to make worse terms than those which
we had been asked to transmit, we would have exposed our-
selves. I think, to severe animadversion. (Hear, hear.)
This was on the Wednesday. On the Sunday I received a
note from Count Apponyi saying that his Government con-
sidered these propositions quite inadmissible. I do not find
fault with the hon. gentleman for making a confusion in
the story, because he probably has heard it very inaccu-
r itelv, and has only repeated it as he heard it ; but at that
time, on that very day, a further proposal was made to my
noble friend on a smaller number of articles, I think four,
which the French Government requested us to communi-
cate to Austria, and to communicate with a view is recom-
mend them. My noble friend and I considered that ques-
otipoinnloann do
fwtehraet
p solvedropo
stiot i
oans.k oou
nr c
tohl lee a
sgaetsn
ew
eh‘a.
et n
iwn
ga
,s
ht ho
we i r.
ever, I received from Count Apponyi the note to which I
have referred, and accordingly the next day there could
be no doubt or difficulty in the Cabinet, because we
wwheriechallshaegreed not t
was
not
willing
opoillpinrgts t
to treat.
troeaAust
t.
These
terms
hese on
terms
did net differ in substance though they might in degree,
from those which we had seen before, and we could never
recommend to Austria terms upon which she had already
declared she would not treat. That was our conduct towards
the Austrian Government. I think in this statement the
hon.' gentleman will find an answer to all his questions. • It
is a very plain story, and it is one upon which the Govern-
ment is prepared to stand. Well, Sir, there is much difß-
culty attending communications by telegram, and it is like-
wise very difficult for belligerent Powers to know what is
side the
ebuEtmitpceerorrtaoinlf
Ay
udsidtrsiao
hgoarp'npgenonthinattwhehile
on councilsthe ef
one neutrals,
said that the neutral powers were considering terms of me-
diation which would probably have been more unfavourable
to him than those which he obtained directly from the Em-
peror of the French, at the same time the Emperor of the
French said the German Powers were so hostile to him,
that if he had not made peace, he would in a short time
have had to make war upon-the Rhine. These were
rather statements of apprehension than of fact. It might
never have happened that the neutral Powers would pro-
pose any terms of mediation at all. They had never agreed
upon any basis of mediation, they had never even had any
serious discussion of the terms of mediation. Prussia
had made a proposal, to which the hon. gentleman al-
luded, and for not communicating which he finds fault
with me. The fact was that the Prussian Minister took
away his dispatch, and particularly desired that it might
be considered a confidential despatch and one of which he did
not wish a copy to be left in the office or communicated to the
Government. To revert again, however, to the state of
things which existed when peace was made. The Emperor of
the French thought that war was impending on the Rhine,
and that that was the future which he had to meet. The Em-
peror of Austria thought that the neutral Powers were
considering terms of mediation, and these apprehensions,
not any certain knowledge, because there were no
facts upon which that knowledge could be founded—did
operate upon their minds, and they used them as justifica-
tions for the peace which they made. I must say, sir, that
so far from thinking that we are deeply responsible if we in
any way unintentionally contributed to this result, I should
greatly rejoice if our position was such—if our attitude was
such, that it induced those great Powers to make peace, and
not to prolong that sanguinary war which, had it been con-
tinued would, I am persuaded, have had no result, either for
the benefit of Italy or of mankind, which would have made
amends for the blood shed and the mischief done in its
course. Therefore, although we can claim no credit for the
peace—although our mediation did not produce it, and al-
though I think that the right hon. gentleman is mistaken in
supposing that the transmission of those terms induced the
Emperor of Austria to conclude the treaty, and give iw
Lombardy, I do rejoice that peace was made, and I thirty
that the future of Italy and the future of Europe will be far
better provided for by councils of peace, whether they are
the councils of Governments or the councils of peoples—
whether they are conducted by diplomatic correspondence
or by conference than could have been accomplished by the
continuance of the late war. (Hear, hear.) Now, sir, with
regard to that future, the hon, gentleman the member for
Horsham says that while I spoke of the rights of the peo-
ples of Tuscany and Modena, I omitted to notice the rights
of the Sovereigns who reign over them. I am afraid that
in the eyes of the hon. gentleman I am a great heretic in
that respect, because, although I have a great respect for,
Sovereigns who have for generations maintained themselves
on their thrones, and received the loyal respect of their sub-
jects, I have no belief in the doctrine, such as the Univer-
sity of Cambridge once affirmed, which gives to the Sove-,
reign an inherent right to reign that no fault can alter or
diminish. (Hear, hear.) I cannot subscribe to a doctrine
of thatkind, and if I look to the Sovereigns of Europe I see
many of them who could never subscribe to the doctrine
that a people have no right upon fault or upon offence to
declare that they will no longer give their obedience to
a Sovereign who has not afforded them protection and
who has rightly forfeited their allegiance. To take
the latest instance first, the King of the Belgians owes his
crown to a popular revolution. such too, though at a more
remote date, is the foundation of the right of the King of
Holland, who owes his throne to a popular revolt against
the Crown of Spain. Such is the foundation of the right
of the King of Sweden, to whose crown there is even now
a pretender. Such, in fact, is the right of the Emperor of
the French to his throne. (Hear, hear.) If the right of
legitimacy were to prevail, who but the Duke of Bordeaux
could cle,4n the allegiance of the people of France ? and yet
they pay to allegiance to him, but yield their willing sub-
mission to the Emperor who now rules over them. Such,
likewise, is the foundation of the right of our own dynasty.
(Cheers.), Our Sovereign can claim no right superior to
that derived from the decision of the Parliament and peo-
ple, of 6 rent Britain that the Throne was forfeited by the
House of Stuart, in consequence of their violation of the
rights of the people and their withdrawing from the coun-
try over which they reigned. If such is the case, is Italy
to be the only country the people of which are not to exer-
cise this power? (Hear, hear.) Are the people of Italy,
who as I have said have been so moderate and so just in
their proceedings, who have committed no outrages, who
have taken part ill no violence, to be deprived of that right,
of that power which had been exercised in Belgium, in Hol-
land, in Sweden, in France, and -in Great Britain ? I
I cannot be a party to denying them that right. (Hear,
hear.) On the contrary, I believe that if you allow the
people of Italy to settle their own concerns—(hear, hear)—
and that is the doctrine which my noble friend and myself
have always held in this house, especially during the whole
course of the present session—if you allow the people of
Italy, whether they have hitherto lived under the rule of
the King of Sardinia or of the Grand Duke of Tuscany,
or of the Duke of Modena, under the Pope, or under
the King of the Two Sicilies, to settle with their
Sovereigns on what terms they shall pay their alle-
giance, there will no longer exist the irritation and dis-
content which has so long prevailed, but they will proceed
with peace and order to establish the foundations of
good government. With respect to our conduct in these
matters, I have no wish to interfere prematurely or to keep
up a constant intervention in the affairs of other nations,
but at the same time I cannot forget the history of my
country. I cannot be blind to her greatness nor can I for-
get her duties. She has duties to Europe as she has duties
to her own people. I cannot believe in that at which my
right hon. friend-the member for Stroud seemed to hint—a
new fantastic policy by which this country should separate
herself, as it was supposed to do in Roman times, from the
whole world, and attend merely to her internal affairs. I
believe that if she did that, if she forgot her duties, if she
refused her advice and her counsels, when that advice and
those counsels were required, while in the first instance her
conduct would be injurious to other nations, while in the
second place it would lead to the preponderance of some
great Power, and to the consequent injury and detriment
of the people of Europe, it would end in the loss of that
very independence which by such selfish means we had en-
deavoured to maintain. (Cheers.)
Mr:. DISRAELI—Having been alluded to by more than
one hon. gentleman in the Course of the debate, it is hardly
possible for me to be altogether silent ; but at this late hour
I shall not detain the house at any length by the few ob-
servations I have to offer. And to touch in order on the
allusions which haue been made to me I will commence

with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The
,right
hon. gentleman charges me with htiving violated
neutrality in two distinct forms, and with having
made an intimation in my place in Parliament as a respon-
sible Minister of the Crown of a most important character,
which he then proceeds to prove I was not justified in
making. He says that while we professed to be the advo-
cates of strict and impartial neutrality, it was, I myself
who gave the first evidence of a violation of it, because I
spoke in terms of great respect of Austria, while, on the
other hand I spoke of Sardinia in language which con-
veyed a far different sentiment. I have not referred to the
authentic record of what took place on that occasion, but
the time that bas elapsed is so brief, that I think I

may trust to my own memory, and pet haps to the recol-
lection of the house—for though it was in a different
Parliament, many members who were then present are pre-
sent now, and will be able to testify to the accuracy of my
statement. It was on the night when it was my duty to
,lay before the house, in compliance with the engagement
of the late Ministry, a statement of the exact position in
which this country was placed with respect to our relations
with. Maria and Sardinia, and with respect to the prospect
of maintaining the peace between France and Austria,
which was then threatened. In giving an account of the
negotiations, I had occasion to speak of Sardinia, and I re-
member that I ',pogo of the gallant and interesting efforts
made by 1:100 caanntry to establish representative govern-
ment, and what are called liberal institutions in Italy. I
' said that -vas an Wart which had enlisted the fi:kod feelings
of all ©lasses of her Majesty's subjects, and, that her subse-
quent conduct as our gallant ally in the Crimea had in-
creased that feeling, and sealed the sympathy which this
country entertained far her. I then went on to say that
during the interval which had elapsed between the Crimean
war and the period at -which I was then speaking much
perhaps had happened in her conduct which was perplexing
and ambiguous, but that nevertheless I felt convinced that
this country would place upon those passages the most
generous interpretation, as her Majesty's Government had.
(Hear,) `Vas that an attack upon Sardinia ?. Is there
any man here who will for a moment pretend that in
-the interval which elapsed between the capture of Sebas-
tocol and the negotiations which preceded the war there
was nothing perplexing or ambiguous in the conduct of
Sardinia ? At any rate, among the hon. members present
there is one who cannot say so, and that is the noble lord
the Secretary for Foreign Affaire,,,who himself has acknow-
ledged and deplored those very passages in the conduct of
Sardinia in festering dissensions in the dominions of her
neighbour to which I referred. That, I think, is a com-
plete answer to the charge of the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer with regard to the want of impartiality in the late
Government towards Sardinia. Cheers.) With regard to
the expressions on which the Chancellor of the Exchequer
founded another charge of partiality towards Austria in
speaking of the late negotiations, it was my duty to say
that Austria had behaved "in a spirit of dignified concilia
tion." Can anybody read the papers laid on the table and
deny the accuracy of that statement ? It is the sentiment
of Lord Cowley, only expressed in much stronger language,
reiterated by her Majesty's Plenipotentiary at Vienna on
every occasion, and it is a fair description of theconduct of
an ally who in almost every instance deferred to our opinion
and who was mainly guided by our advice. And though I
myself have never ceased to regret, and have never at-
tempted to conceal my regret at the act by which Austria
practically commenced the war, still that act had not oc-
curred when I was addressing the house, and a fair and
accurate description of the conduct of Austria towards the
English Government was given by the phrase of which I
made use, " a spirit of dignified conciliation." (Cheers.) So
much for those expressions which, quoted by the Chancellor
of the Exchequer without the context and without refer-
ence to the facts, do not, I think, furnish a very sub-
stantial basis for the charge which he has made. (Hear,
hear.) But, says the Chancellor of the Exchequer, you on
that night absolutely told the house that you still believed
that peace would be maintained, while shortly after-
wards war was declared. What were the circumstances
under which I addressed the house ? It was one of the
most critical passages of the negotiations. Austria, had
insisted on the preliminary disarmament as a condition
of maintaining peace. That was generally thought
an unreasonable request ; it Was not favoured by the
British Government ; but Austria insisted upon it, and
we made use of our influence to recommend it to the
consideration of France. That evening—l will not say
concurrently with my speaking, because that word has been
severely criticised to-night—l will not say a few minutes—
but absolutely a few seconds before I rose, my hon. friend
the member for HorshaM came into the house and placed
in my hands a telegram to this effect from Lord Cowley—
" Count Walewski has written in the most- urgent terms to
impress upon Count Cavour the acceptance of the principle
of preliminary disarmament, and he is most sanguine of the
result." I certainly think I was justified, on the receipt
of the telegram, bound as I was to speak with the utmost
frankness, to say to the house that there was still more
than a fair prospect of maintaining peace. (Hear.) That
was on the 18th—as the Chancellor of the Exchequer more
than once reminded us—and on the 19th a second telegram
came from Count Walewski to the Duke of Malakhoff an-
nouncing that Sardinia, in deference to the urgent en-
treaties of France, had acceded to the preliminary principle
of disarmament. Was there not then more than a fair
prospect of maintaining peace, and did not these things
fully justify the expressions which I used ? (Hear.) The
Chancellor of the Exchequer to-night has not addressed
himself to the question really before the house. He has made
one of his most eloquent and able speeches, but he entirely
evaded the practical question which is under our considera-
tion, to which my hon. friend near me and the right hon.
gentleman opposite have strictly addressed themselves.
' The Chancellor of the Exchequer has considered every
point connected with Italy except just that point which now
occupies our attention. He has poured forth a stream of
romantic rhetoric over a subject which is certainly sus-
ceptible of that style of treatment, but that is not the ques-
tion we have to consider. He has indeed frankly placed
his Italian policy before the house. (Hear, hear.) T admit
that the right honourable gentleman entirely disapproves
the settlement made 45 years ago. I cannot venture
now to go into such a question. It would be
really absurd to , attempt to treat that question
on what is practically the last night of the
session, but it is of great importance that
we should learn to-nigh that a Minister of the Crown, and
a Minister of great authority, entertains upon this subject
views so large and so decided, and which must, of course,
influence him in the counsel which he offers to his sove-
reign. (Hear.) If these views are shared by his colleagues,
if that is the predominant opinion of the Cabinet, we should
have arrived at the very question which is before us.
(Hear, hear.) Is it to carry that policy into effect, to put
an end to the consequences of the settlement of 45 years
ago, that you are now proposing to enter into this Con-
gress P If that be your policy, if you are now convinced,
after long and mature deliberation, prompted and stimu-
lated by the vast and startling events which have recently
happened, that the time has come when you must erase
from the political table that settlement of 45 years ago, let
me ask you, are you going to carry your ,intended result
into effect in a manner which is likely to lead to a profitable
and satisfactory settlement ? (Hear, hear.) You are going
to put an end, as far as Italy is concerned, to the arrange-
ment made at the Congress of Vienna, by availing your-
selves of the basis of the preliminaries of Villafranca, and
that appears at once to be a weak if not perilous course.
(Hear, hear.) Do you believe that the preliminaries of
Villafranca can be moulded_ and modified under your

fiuence, in a manner that will carry your now avowed policy
into effect ? That is the practical question. The noble
lord, the First Minister, who has often addressed us on this
subject, recently speaking in opposition, and in a guarded
manner, admitted, before the war commenced, that, as far
as Austria was concerned, the treaties of Vienna ought to
be observed. Since then he has freed himself from the
trammels of that tradition, and I believe I am but fairly re-
presenting the general policy of the Government as to Italy
when I describe its tendency to be the cancelling the set-
tlement made 45 years ago. Now, we have the right hon.
gentleman the third Minister of the Crown, speaking in
unison with the noble lord on this subject. Their policy
with i egard to Italy is now distinctly announced. Well,
if a congress is held, what with these views pursued by the
Government are the prospects of this country? We must
consider first the supposition that the two Emperors who
have signed the preliminaries of peace at Villafranca, may
have succeeded in carrying them substantially into effect ;
our presence to assist them in that result—our presence to
help to restore the expelled princes to their dominions—our
presence to interfere in some arrangement in the Papal
States, and aid in creating a confederation of which His
Holiness is to be the head—our presence in the congress for
these objects and with such results would not tend to in-
crease our reputation, or promote the just interests of the
country—(hear)—and if any failure occurred we should
have to bear a share of the disappointment and disgrace.
But suppose your policy insisted on ; suppose we, with a
high hand, recommend that decided course which the
French Emperor in his first proclamation appeared to have
adopted, what should we be prepared to do to carry that
policy into effect ? Are we prepared to go to war to free
Italy from Austria, " from the Alps to the Adriatic ?" If
you are not prepared to go to war what are you prepared
for ? Is it to be this—that we are to protest against the
preliminaries of Villafranca being carried into effect, and,
while you protest against them, urge the policy you
appear to recommend ? These views I have no doubt have
occurred to members on both sides of the house and to the
public and have caused that feeling of uneasiness with
which the meeting of a Congress is contemplated, because
there is a probability that it may end by leaving us at
war either with France or Austria, or perhaps with both
parties. (Hear, hear) It is the fear of such a result
that makes men uneasy at the possibility of this contetn-
plated Congress. The noble lord says, it is not for us to
speak of hazardous engagements into which this country
may enter, as we had committed ourselves to a guarantee so
rash as that by which we offered to secure Sardinia, fo•• a
term of years, against any attack by Austria. That the
noble lord described as a most rash and dangerous engage-
ment. (Hear.) Well, only the other night the First Minister
of the Crown described it as the most futile engagement that
any Government ever offered to enter into ; as one in which
we should bear nothing of the burden of the danger; that
we intended to throw all the burden on France, and he was
not surprised France refused to enter into such a guarantee.
Now, these two descriptions of our intended policy do not
tally. After all, what was the danger of the guaiantee we
proposed ? It was a joint guarantee by which France and
Great Britain, the two most powerful military and maritime
countries in the world, were to engage to secure Sardinia for
a limited term of five years from any attack by Austria.
Can anyone suppose that this was a guarantee we should
ever have been called on to fulfil ? (Hear.) Can we doubt
that Austria would have been prudent enough to keep
within her boundaries ? " But," says the noble lord, "what
can belmore impolitic than this P Does it not stand to rea-
son that if you guarantee Sardinia from attack for five years
Sardinia will take advantage of the immunity and cause
Austria every possible annoyance ?" But the noble lord
forgot one most important point of the guarantee—that
Sardinia should disarm. (Cheers.) That is all the ques-
tion. It was the only condition by which the peace
of Italy could be preserved. The noble lord ap-
pears to have entirely misconoeived the character of
the engagement, and ascribed to it a character
quite different from that given to it by the First
Minister of the Crown, speaking a few nights ago. The
uohle lord also addressed himself to the speech of the hon.

member for Horsham (Mr. Fitzgerald) ; that-hon. member
made a speech to-night, following the Chancellor of the
Exchequer, of a different character. from that , of' the right
hon. gentleman. The right hon. gentleman has almost
astounded us by his eloquence, to which We are accustomed,
but which burst forth to-night with unusual brilliancy.
(Hear, hear.) It is unfortunate that he did not throw the
coruscations of his genius on the subject under discussion.
(Laughter.) But the hon. member for Horeham did address
himself t that subject with a precision and power which
showed that he not only thoroughly understood the question
he was treating, but the points upon which the house has a
right to require information from, her Majesty's Govern-
ment. (Hear.) He has told us of a great number of ques-
tions the noble lord has found it convenient not to remem-
ber. (Laughter,) But it was impossible for the noble lord
not to allude to the important despatch of the 7th of July ;
he went into that point with an exuberance of. detail; his
description was of unexpected interest. On a former even-
ing the First Minister of the Crown 'gave a curt relation of
how the small written piece of paper was received,in silence
and without comment offered. But to-night the noble lord
has entered into a great deal of interesting detail, ample, full,
and quite explanatory of every point except the one on
which the house requires information. (Laughter.) The
noble lord now tells us that, instead of the'docurnent having
been given without any comment to the Austrian Minister,
considerable conversation and some discussion took place.
He did not tell us whether it was not received with some
ercpression of approbation that, when reported; might have
given rise to that singular misconception that took place
at Villafranca and had such a momentous effect on the
destinieS of the world. (Hear, hear.) What we still
want is some explanation of the mysterious conduct
that led to the sudden peace of Villafranca and the
present position of all other countries in relation to
Italy. (Hear, hear.) Did the Govezament give any ap-
proval to the project contained in that piece of paper, and
was that approval communicated to the Emperor of the
French ? That was the point, on which we required infor-
mation, and obtained none, though on certain points of his
narrative the noble lord became even garrulous. Now, the
question the house has before it is really the most important
question it can consider. It is this: Is it, or is it not, the
interest of this country to enter into any Congress
.te con-
sider the affairs of Italy ? Don't answer us by saying it is
passible the two Emperors may meet at Turin and come,to
seine definite arrangement that will render a Congress,
unnecessary. 'Don't tell us that these are matters of detail
that may be require to be considered in a manner that will
open new political speculations. We do not mean to say
that her, Majesty's Government should be expected to
pledge itself not to enter into a Congress on the subject of
these preliminary articles. What we want to know from
the Government is this : Is it part of their policy to en-
courage and favour the meeting of a European congress to
take into consideration the affairs of Italy generally, with
the view of interfering in those affairs in a manner, which
may bring about the changes that are avowed and recom-
mended in the Italian policy of the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer. That is the, interference which the country fears.
(Hear, hear.) The Chancellor of the Exchequer says—
" You have no right to declaim against interference, look
at this 'book, it is a memorial of your interference." Well,
that observation only prcves to me that the Chantiellor of
the Exchequer does not ascribe an accurate idea to the word
" non-interference." That phrase does not mean that a
great State at a moment of European disquietude and
trouble should refrain from giving its counsels and exer-
cising its moral influence to prevent war, and, if possible,
to restore tranquillity. No one supposes for a moment that
when a country objects to a policy of interference it in-
tends to say that its Sovereign is never to have recourse
to those means which may prevent public disaster and
generaFdanger. In objecting to a policy of interference we
protest against the use of our arms in order to settle the in-
ternal dissensions of other countries. If the Ministers say,
" Well, but attending the congress is doing exactly what
you recommend ; it is using our moral influencer;" my an-
swer is, " If you recommend a certain course of diplomacy,
and give certain counsels, the result of which, if followed,
will be to secure the tranquillity of Europe, you are not in-
terfering is an objectionable manner, but are only doing
your duty as statesmen; but if you go into a congress in
the circumstances under which, from the articles of Villa-
franca or from the Treaty of Zurich, such a congress must
take place, you must be prepared for action or for nothing.
If you go into the congress for nothing—only to give good
ad vice—you may as well give it in a despatch ; but, if you
enter that congress to recommend a policyyou are prepared
to enforce, you are engaging in aninterference in the inter-
nal concerns of a foreign country that will necessarily in-
volve great risk, and that may lead to large expenditure,
and perhaps to a war, the/ termination; of which it is sot
very easy to foresee." I cannot therefore, agree with the
Chancellor of the Exchequer that, because we have carried
on negotiations with the object of preserving peace, we
have been acting against that principle of non-interference
which I say may be violated, or seriously endangered, by
attending a congress. Now, with regard to the motion before
the house, I was very much surprised to hear from the
Chancellor of the Exchequer that a great party debate or a
great party struggle was to take place this evening ; and I
was the more surprised when I observed in the first place a
motion, and secondly an amendment, bothof which appeared
to have been proposed without any consultation and without ,
the knowledge of those whose opinion when party struggles
and debates occur are generally supposed to be taken on the
subject. With respect to the motion of the noble lord (Elche),
I can truly say that I never heard of it until some time after
it had been announced in this house, for I was not present
when the notice was given. I cannot say that even when
the motion was shown to me I approved it. I considered
that there were objections to its form. I thought the vin-
dication of the-form and language of the resolution which
we have heard from the hon. and learned member for Stroud
were very effectual. When he stated, however, that had we
been on the other side of the house, and had the question of
neutrality been at stake, the noble lord at the head of the Go-
vernment and the noble Secretary for Foreign Affairs would
not have hesitated to adopt such a policy,. I confess I was a
little shaken in my opinion upon the subject, because I had
considered that when in Opp .sition there had uniformly
been in their conduct a tendency to faction, from which I
trust we shall always be exempt. (Hear, hear, and a laugh)
I must say, therefore, that the objections I felt to the form of
the motion havenot been altogether removed. I entertain,
however, much stronger objections to the motion of the
noble lord than those merely with regard to its form. The
motion is one of the most important—if not the most im-
portant—that can well be framed. It really touches the
whole foreign policy of the country, and if discussed as it
deserves it would require some nights of very earnest and
protracted debate. The result, if the motion was carried,
would have a very serious effect upon the position of the
Ministry. I agree with the right hon. gentleman who
treated the motion as one which might even affect the exist-
ence of the Government, and it seems to me that, from its
nature and possible consequences, it is not a theme which
ought to be introduced to the notice of the house on what is
practically the last night of the session. It does not appear to
me that a question of such a nature should have been brought
forward at a moment when the house, even if it were in a
position, either in regard to inclination or numbers, to do
justice to the subject, must necessarily arrive at a most
hurried and precipitate conclusion. I objected to the form
of the motiof when it was first proposed, and it was quite
possible that if an amendment had been suggested, or if the
noble lord had been applied to, he might have modified his
motion as to expression and form in such a manner as might
have secured for it general assent. The motion was, how-
ever, postponed. owing to causes which we all regret; and
we are now asked to pronounce an opinion upon it on what
is practically the last night of the session. I trust the noble
lord will not press his motion to a division. The noble,
lord has obtained an object of the utmost importance. It
would, I think, have been very unfortunate, and perhaps
injurious, had there not been a discussion upon the present
position of the country with respect to its external relations
before the prorogation of Parliament. The discussion
which has taken pace has, at all events, elicited the opi-
nions of many of the leading members of the Government,
and although it would be folly to conceal from ourselves
that the general bias of the Government is evidently in
favour of a congress em the state of Italian affairs, if it can
be brought about, I am still bound to say that they have
frankly admitted the difficulties which present themselves.
I tremble myself at what may happen during the interval
that must elapse between the prorogation and the meeting
of the house again, if, unfortunately, my expectations on
this subject should be disappointed. I confess that, even
if there were no other cause, I am most anxious that the
Government should leave the Pope alone. (A laugh.) From
the determined policy upon that subject of the noble lord
opposite I look forward to an autumn, and, perhaps, a win-
ter, of the most disagreeable character, (Laughter.) I re-
member the confusion which the noble lord created on a
former occasion. I remember how our hopes of the tran-
quillity which we looked forward to with joy in the bosom
of our families—(a laugh)—and the change of pursuits
which we had a right to anticipate after a long Parlia-
mentary campaign—were disappointed. I remember the
numerous county meetings that took place, and the memo-
rials and petitions that were adopted. I look back to the
disquietude which we experienced during that contem-
plated epoch of relaxation almost with horror—(a laugh)
—and I do trust that the noble lord will deem it much
better to leave his Holiness in the position he at present
occupies, with the articles of Villafranca to arrange his
future position, than to take in hand that great measure
of reformation which he has so often recommended.
What has alarmed me most upon this subject is,
however, the zealous and the somewhat unex-
pected adhesion which has been given by the Chancellor
of the Exchequer to the anti-Papal crusade. (Laughter.)
The right hon. gentleman seems to me to have endeavoured
to impress upon Parliament, upon the country, and upon
Europe, that the Pope would really exercise a much greater
influence if we should deprive him by a 'congress of his do-
minions. I would remind the Chancellor of the Exchequer
that that is the argument which the Dissenters always use
when they propose to despoil the Church of England. Only
take away all her endowments, and depend upon it the in
fluence of the Church will so greatly increase that she will
never for a moment suffer. (A laugh.) I am sorry thate
we have heard that expression from the Chancellor of the
Exchequer, because I feel convinced, considering,
in this house he sits beside the noble lord, and thatto°bOtthhoatf
to destroyhema are men
Popeof ardienn tt
htee minpteerarvmalenbetiwteheant
the
e theyprorogation
raottempt
a timeandt of it as his in
herea ssembliHngolofePss himself.arliame (L
Parliament were aasuhsgoanhll,tethhraitetahlst hardis e
con-
templated to
be desired, then, for this if for no other
congress may
sig-
natories of the preliminary articles
palatcve.inaLfreatnethaemteweot
with
their Ministers at Zurich. Let us see
sketch. Let us have the finished
ttiinonn.whAnichd Nivfeitmbaey pticintitreer.estltains
necessaryif we exhibit a proper and dig
that we should put our hand
now exhibit it, depend upon it, t f
view with great
nified reserve, we shall i
France
eerane
dwAithustirniram, einf
they selymfaotrle
effect when the rulers of,
not to extricate them from the con-
o which they have
secinteareende
have confessed thetiar
us
aabdity to make a settlement, and
when they appeal
ar d t o g ag
em
e n
securetsinto
t the peace of Europe
and that general cause of civilization which will I trust
enlist the best feelings of all the Powers of Europe. (Cheers
e,ebauetfttohseterasp forward engagements

Lord PALMERSTON—Sir, I am not going to dispute
with the right hon. gentleman on the part of my noble
friend and myself as to who has the merit of having been
the least factious while sitting on the Opposition benches
At the same time I am bound to acquit the right hon. gen-
tleman of anything like factious opposition on the present
occasion, because he has very fairly state I the insurmount-
able objections he entertains to the motion of the noble lord.
I congratulate the right hon. gentleman on his candour, be-
cause those who have preceded him in the debate on his own
side of the house—the hon. member for Horsham and the
right hon. and learned gentleman—took a very different
view of the question. They, and especially the late Under-
Secretary, said, "We think this a proper resolution to be
carried. We are of opinion that it is essential to prevent
the Government from going into any conference." But the
course of the debate and his reflection on the speeches of my
right hon. and noble friends have worked such convictionad.sss
in his miml that he gets up at the close of the
tl discussion,
throws it)
throws over his friends, negatives the motion of he
lord, and is perfectly satisfied that it is improper alike in