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

NATIONAL DEFENCES.

Sir F. SMITH asked the Secretary for War whether the
Royal Commissioners to inquire into the defences of the
country had been appointed, and whether there was any
probability of their making a report before the prorogation
of Parliament ; and, if not, whether, on the recommenda-
tion of the commissioners, her Majesty's Government would
feel at liberty to suspend any works which have been al-
ready authorised by Parliament, or to commence without
such authority, any other works which the commissioners
may represent to be of an urgent character.
Mr. S. HERBERT said that the commission had been
appointed, and would shortly present their report.
Mr. O'CONNELL asked the Secretary for War whether
he was prepared to introduce a regulation to enable Roman
Catholic soldiers to attend mass on the holidays of their
Church, when they could do so without interference with
their military duties ?
Mr. S. HERBERT said that, according to the regulations
of the service, Roman Catholic soldiers were permitted to
attend their own places of worship, when they could do so
withodt interfering with their duty.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
Lord PALMERSTON moved that the orders of the day
should be postponed until the motion of the noble lord
(Elcho), in reference to Italy, should be disposed of ; and
suggested that, in order to facilitate business, the house
should meet to-morrow at one o'clock.
The motion was agreed to.
AFFAIRS OF ITALY.—THE CONFERENCE.

Lord ELCHO said it was not without a deep sense of the
responsibility and difficulty of the task he was about to un-
dertake, as well as of his inability properly to treat so im-
portant a subject, that he had given the notice which stood
in his name on the paper. He did so because he felt strongly
upon the Italian question and on the subject of the late war,
and because he dreaded from .what he heard that, unless
some means were taken to obtain from this house an ex-
pression of opinion with reference to the conference, they
might find themselves irretrievably committed to it. He
was, however, bound to admit that a statement subse-
quently made by his noble friend the Foreign Secretary
showed that the country was not, at least at that time, com-
mitted to the conference. But there prevailed in the house
on that occasion a strong feeling of the desirability of fur-
ther discussion upon this question, and of some stronger
expression of opinion against entering into the conference,
Many persons had expressed a hope that ho woule not
withdraw his motion, and he had therefore felt it his duty
now to submit to the house. Before doing so, however, he
wished it to be clearly understood that the resolution was
brought forward without any connexion with hon. gentle-
men opposite. This should be understood, in justice to
them, because he might possibly express opinions for which
they might be sorry to be made responsible. With this
preface he would now refer the house to the motion itself.
It began by stating that throughout the late negotiations
this country had preserved a strict and impartial neutrality.
He had no wish to enter into any detailed statement as to
the conduct of the late Government in the negotiations
which preceded the outbreak of the war, but, as he should
have to touch upon the neutrality of her Majesty's present
advisers, it was desirable they should come first to some clear
understanding respecting 'the neutrality of the late
Government. He did not know whether any gentle-

man on the Treasury bench was disposed to dispute
the statement in his resolution, that the neutrality of
the late Government was strict and impartial.
His noble friend (Lord Palmerston) certainly had
in hating speeches and in this house declared that their

conduct in this respect was not impartial, and that they had
throughout been partial to Austria. Now he (Lord Elcho)
was not going to refer to the blue-book in proof of this part
of his motion, but would simply refer to what had passed in
another place on the point. Lord Stratford de Redcliffe
gave notice (Order)—
The SPEAKER—It is contrary to the rules of this
house to refer to debates in another place.
Lord ELCHO said that a notice was given in another
place of a motion to the following effect (Order)—
The SPEAKER—Such a reference is contrary to the
rules and orders of this house.

Lord ELCHO—Notice was given of a motion to the effect
that the conduct of the late Government had been impar-
tial, and in reply the Ministerial leader there stated
(Order, order)—
The SPEAKER—The noble lord is entirely out of order
in the course he is taking, in continuing observations which
point immediately to discussions that have taken place re-
cently in the other House of Parliament.
Lord ELCHO regretted that he was out of order because

had he been allowed to allude to this statement he thought
it would have proved that in the opinion-of the Govern-
ment this portion of the motion was correct, and that the
conduct of the late Ministry had beeti strictly impartial. He
would, however quote a passage from a recent publication
which gave a speech delivered by Lord Normanby on that
occasion, with an appendix. Lord Normanby, who had
perhaps been more mixed up in these Italian questions, and
who was more conversant with their intricacies, than any
other person, said in this appendix :
"With respect to the correspondenceol believe that those
who had before most vehemently imputed partiality to the
late Government have since avowed their conviction that
nothing could be more creditable than their general tone,
or more obvious than their boha fine neutrality."
As we had been neutral during the negotiations which pre-
ceded the war, and also through the war itself, so it ap-
peared to him desirable that that neutrality should be con-
tinued. There was no Englishman who did not sympathise
with Italy in her past sufferings and her hopes for the
future. The danger, indeed, was lest Englishmen should
be run away with by their sympathies and should look to
Italy alone, and not to England. But respecting the late
war two sets of opinions prevailed. In the first place, there
were men anxious for the well-being of Italy, and anxious
that she should be better governed, who nevertheless be-
lieved that this war was not justified by the circumstances
of the case, who could not help feeling suspicion when a
despotic Government professed to give free institutions to
Italy, and who regarded with alarm any interference with
the balance of power as settled by the treaties of 1815.
There were those again, who, looking only to the deliver-
'knee of Italy from a foreign yoke, cared not by whom
this deliverance was effected, and therefore approved the
crusade by France for the establishment of free institu-
tions in the Peninsula. Those who maintained such an
opinion had been rather disappointed by the event, and had
been induced, indeed, to de some injustice to the Emperor
of the French, because the fact that his Majesty had con-
cluded peace was, under the circumstances, no necessary
proof of his insincerity. (Hear, hear.) It only showed that
the difficulties which confronted him were greater than he
anticipated, and the utmost that could be said was, that he
had shown a want of foresight. (Hear.) He (Lord Elcho)
confessed that he shared the opinions of the first class of
persons to whom he had referred. He could not consider the
war as justified, and he could not regard Austria as having,
morally speaking, been the aggressor. He knew it was of no
use to talk in the hope of convincing his noble friend Lord
Palmerston. In a debate which took place in 1850, his
right hon. friend Mr. Sidney Herbert said, that the noble
lord apparently looked upon Austria as the cause of every
' evil and of every insurrection which occurred in every part
of the world. Referring to the despatch which his noble
friend had suppressed for eight months, the Secretary-at-
War added :
" That he purposely suppressed the Austrian note deny-
ing the intention of invading Piedmont, because he did not
think the professions of Austria worthy of credence."
He had no hope, therefore of changing the views of his
noble friend with respect to the misdeeds of Austria ; but
he must at the same time contend that, although Austria,
literally speaking, was the first to break the peace of Europe
by the crossing of the Ticino—a step which must be re-
garded as worse than a crime, because it was a mistake,—

she could not be held responsible for that previous state 01

things of which the war was the result. He happened to
have been in Italy in the course of last winter, and he
could state from his personal knowledge that up to the
month of December there had been exhibited on the part of
Austria no signs of movement indicating a preparation of
hostilities, and that not a single soldier had up to that time
crossed the Alps to join the Austrian army in Italy. 'lt was
not, indeed, until after the celebrated speech which had
been addressed to M. Hubner that any reinforcements had
been sent to that army, and he had good reason to believe
that Austria did not determine to take the final step of
passing the Ticino, until she had become positively aware
that the French preparations had been so far advanced that
all the different expeditions which had since been carried
into execution had been organised, the number of,troops of
which each was to be composed settled, and not only that,
but the commanders and generals of brigade who were It
be at the head of the different divisions of the French army
named. Indeed, any man who would read the blue• books
could not fail to perceive that war had become a foregone
conclusion with the French Emperor, and that Sardinia
was in reality but the advanced guard of France in the
contest. (Hear.) To France and Sardinia, then, and nut
to Austria, must the causes which had led to hostilities, in
his
hadsaid
aew nightsopinion,beattri before thatbuted.Anhonse.nap
friendliiehisuostfehad
indeedbeen
done to Sardinia in the matter ; but while he (Lord Elcho)
Italian admired, as everybody must admire, her persevering
efforts in the cause of freedome in 1848 as well
as at the present day,—while h
States as the
was ready to admit
that she had shone out to those
j beacon-light of that liberty from the
which they were debarred, he could n forgetoetnjoy m e
thatt f
ever since 1849 Sardinia had pursued inreference
tria a policy of provocation and of insult. He had
thoeen in
•
Italy in 1857, when the Emperor of Austria and his youth-
ful bride had visited their Italian possessions, and he recol-
lected that the Piedmontese press was then rife with insults
towards Austria—with everything that could be thought of
to incite Lombardy to insurrection, and with articles justi_
fying regicide and assassination, the sentiments which they

contained being upheld by Scriptural illustration. From

what he had stated it would, he thought, appear pretty evi •
dent that Sardinia was bent upon going to war with Aus-

;ria ; and if further proof were wanting that such was the

case, that proof was to be found in the address which was
presented to King Victor Emmanuel on the occasion of his
triumphant entry into Milan, in which he was congratu-
lated on the success of a project which he had been so long
engaged in preparing. These facts, coupled with the
French and Sardinian treatyand the French and Sardinian
marriage, afforded tolerably conclusive evidence, he thought,
of the justice of the view which he sought to impress upon
the house. So far as the part which France had taken in
the matter was concerned we were, of course, bound to be-
lieve that she was unprepared for hostilities, since she had
stated such to be the case. But then there were the treaty
and the marriage to which he had just alluded, as well the
Hubner speech, besides thefact that a portion of the French
army had• —even before the Austrians crossed the Ticino—
passed the Alps and reached the waters of Genoa, to be
taken into consideration before implicit credence could be
given to that statement. (Hear.) It must also be borne in
mind that within three weeks after Austria had crossed the
Ticino 200,000 French soldiers were drawn up in line on
the plains of Piedmont. (Hear, hear.) With those
facts staring him in the face, all he should say was,—lf
France can do all this when she is unprepared for war.
God help the nation against whom she wages hostili-

ties when she is ready for the struggle ! (Cheers.)
Now, he for one could not sympathise with France and
Sardinia in the contest which had just terminated, be-
cause he did not think it eould be shown that a sufficient
justification on their part for entering into that contest had
been proved to exist. He thought such an interference on
the part of France established a most dangerous precedent
—a precedent against which it was both the interest and

the duty of England to protest. For his own part, he
could see no difference whatsoever between the position of
the French in Lombardy and that which they might have
occupied in Ireland in 1848, if, when a deputation from
that country waited on M. Lamartine, who was at the
time President of the French Republic, he had, instead of
declining to accede to the wishes of the deputation, married
his cousin to Mr. S. O'Brien—(a laugh)—and landed a
French army in the harbour of Cork. (Hear.) The prin-
ciple of armed intervention in favour of suffering nation-
alities was, in short, one against which we ought to protest,
inasmuch as if any one nation were to arrogate to herself
the position of acting upon the doctrine that might was
right, there would be an end to the public law 'of Europe,
and we should be returning to the old days of the German
faustrecht. Those were the reasons why he could not
sympathise with France and Sardinia in the recent struggle.
But as there were two views of the war, so there were also
two views to be taken of the peace to which it had led.
Everybody must, he thought, rejoice that that peace had
been brought about, inasmuch as it put an end to hostili-
ties, and relieved us from those daily details of sickening
slaughter upon which no one could dwell without a feeling
of horror. But while that was the case, and while there
were those who were delighted to find that there was to be
no more bloodshed—who hoped Italy had benefited by the
war, though they were disposed to doubt that such a
result had been obtained, and who also were glad to find
that Austria still remained one of the great Powers of
Europe, and that thus the balance of power was main-
tained, there were others who, led away by, their sym-
pathy with Italy—a sympathy in which he cordially
concurred—regarded the peace with disappointment,
inasmuch as Austria still ruled on the Italian side of the
Alps. As to the views of the Government on the sub-
ject, he must say that he could not help thinking that they
regretted that Austria had not been driven across the Alps,
and that they were desirous to effect by means of negotiation
and the pen that which force and the sword had failed to
accomphsh. He had spoken with respect to the neutrality
of the late Government, he now adverted to the neutrality
of the present. It appeared to him that, instead of being
similar, the neutrality of the latter was rather that of the
advocate and the partisan than that of persons who wished
to assume an attitude of strict impartiality. What, let him
ask, was the meaning of the word neutrality ?" The de-
finition which Johnson gave of the word he found to be,
" a state of indifference, of neither friendship nor hosti-
lity." He had likewise turned to the pages of Vattel to
learn the correct import of the term, which was explained
by that eminent writer in the following words :
"Neutral nations are those who in time of war do not
take any part in the contest, but remain common friends to
both parties. A neutral nation must in all things show a
strict impartiality towards the belligerent Powers."
Now, if that were the true meaning of the word, would it,
he should like to know, be said that the present Government
had maintained an attitude of neutrality in the case of the
recent European contest ? It was unnecessary to refer to the
speeches of his noble friendson the Treasury bench, whether
made on the hustings or within the walls of that house, in
order to supply an answer to that question. Those who had
perused them would, he thought, admit that such a neu-
trality as that which he had described had not been the ob-
ject of their lives. (" Hear, hoar," from Mr. Whiteside.)
He should leave 1848 to be dealt with by his right hon. and
learned friend who had cheered that sentiment. What they
had sought then, and what they now sought, was the bona
fide expulsion of Austria from Italy. As he had said before,
he need not refer to their speeches to prove the justice of
that view. Every line which had been penned by his noble
friend the Secretary for Foreign Affairs in his despatches
went to support the opinion of his policy which he
(Lord Elcho) entertained ; he should go further, and con-
tend that when thosedespatches were compared with those
of the Prussian Government it would be found the latter
indicated the maintenance of a more impartial and dignified
position on-her side as the friend of both parties in the con-
test than that which the noble lord seemed desirous to up-
hold. The fact, indeed, of his noble friend having acted the
part of the French commissionare, in communicating the
French seven points to the Austrian Government, clearly
showed the animus by which he was influenced. That was
in reference to the seven points, but he would like to know
what was done in reference to the three points. He would
like to know whether there was anytruth in what he heard
that the seven points were subsequently reduced to threeor
four; that those three or four points were submitted to his
two noble friends by the French Minister • that they were
accepted by his noble friends without the Liowledge of the
Cabinet, and that the Cabinet was summoned to meet the
following day to consider those points, but in the Meantime
peace was concluded between the Emperor of the French
and the Emperor of Austria.
Lord J. RUSSELL.—It is not true (Hear, hear.)
Lord ELCHO said that he had then been misinformed,
but he thought his noble friend would be very glad that he
should have given him an opportunity of contradicting a
statement which had gained currency upon the subject. If
he were wrong in stating that as an instance of a want of
neutrality on the part of the Government there could be no
mistake in a despatch of the French Minister, dated Paris,
the 20th of June. Count Walewski, at the close of it, said—
" Without yet having official information of the disposi-
tion of the now British Ministy, we are authorised to info r
from the debate which preceded their coming into power
conclusions mostfavourableto the independence of Italy, and
we are under the firm persuasion that the English Govern-
ment is in its views, as well as in the support of its influence,
favourable to the solution that we ourselves seek."
In the opinion of the French Minister for Foreign Affairs
there was identity of object and sentiment between the
French Government and the Government now in power
and he had yet to learn that the French Government had
been neutral in the Italian question. (Hear.) He main-
tamed that the conduct of the Government sho wed that
that were not neutral ; that they were rather partisans, and
that if, therefore, they went into a conference, it would not
be in an impartial spirit, but in the spirit of partisans.
(Cheers.) That was important, and must necessarily influ-
ence the views which the house would take of the confer-
ence. He thought the house would agree with him that
it was desirable that any Government which went into the
conference should go into it without any prejudices, and
with a determination to do impartial justice. He was sure
that such was the view of his right hon. friend the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer • for, although they might object to
the definitions of neutrality! which he had given from Dr.
Johnson and Vatel, the following was the opinion of his
right hon. friend in 1850 :
" The more we may be tempted topympathise with Sicily,
the less we admire Neapolitan institutions and usages of
Government, the more tenacious, I contend, we should be
of our duty to do them full justice. I say, therefore, that
the noble viscount (Lord Palmerston), when he thus anti-
cipated the dismemberment of the Two Sicilies, did an act
which breathed a spirit of hostilitytowards a friendly Power
—an act at variance with duty—an act ill adapted to ad-
vance the true interests of freedom in that or any other
country." He thought the house saw how curiously appo-
site the quotation was at the present moment, and how
clearly it would apply if, instead of Naples, they read Aus-
tria, and instead of Sicily, Italy. (Hear, hear.) He had
already said that he gave notice of his motion because he
did not think it consistent with the honour, dignity, or in-
terests of England to go into a conference to settle the
mere details of the peace. The Government had told
them that it 'was not their intention to go into the
conference for that purpose, but that they were pre-
pared to go into the conference on the general
affairs of Italy. The justification for his motion was
to be found in the ambiguity as to what were to be
considered principles and what details. What one Power
might consider a question of detail, the other might consi-
der a question of principle. But, with reference even to the
great principles upon which the Government were ready to
go into detail, in the general affairs of Italy he hoped they
would be very cautious before committing themselves.
(Hear.) He believed that the true policy of this country
was the policy of non-intervention. (Cheers.) He did not
mean that England was to roll herself up like a hedgehog
and take no note of affairs in the outer world, but only to
intervene in the affairs of other nations when the interests
or treaties which bound this country compelled. (Hear.)
That was the policy which was advocated by the late Sir It.
Peel with his latest breath. In, the speech which he deli-
vered on the night before the melancholy accident which
terminated in his death he left a noble legacy to English
statesmen as to what their line of conduct should be with
regard to intervention. Sir R. Peel said—
" Which is the wisest policy—to attempt to interfere with
the institutions and measures of other countries not border-
ing upon our own, out of an abstract love of constitutional
government, or to hold the doctrine maintained by Mr.
Fox, Mr. Pitt, Lord Grenville, Mr. Canning, and Lord
Castlereagh, that the true policy of this country is non•
intervention in the affairs of others ?"
In the same debate the same views were ably advocated by
the right hon. gentleman whom he now saw on the Trea-
sury bench, and by the apostle of non-intervention, the
hon. member for Rochdale. Mr. Cobden said—
" I say if you want to benefit nations struggling for their
freedom, establish as one of the maxims of international
law the principle of non-intervention." -
When the English Government had departed from the
principle were the results satisfactory ? (Hear.) In the
same debate the consequences of a departure from this sound
and wise principle were thus described by the right hon.
gentleman the member for the University of Cambridge
(Mr. Walpole) :
"The result of Palmerston's policy was to be seen in the
summary dismissal of our Minister from Madrid, in the
sudden withdrawal of the Austrian Ambassador from the
Court of St. James's, in the deep humiliation of the King
of Sardinia, in the degradation of the Pope, in disappointed
Italy, in offended Russia, in estranged Austria, in alienated
Germany, in the averted looks with which our former most
valued allies now regarded us ; and to sum up all in ohe
brief sentence, we might mark it everywhere in the partial
hatred, in the general disquietude, in the universal distrust
with which our policy was now received by every nation
upon earth."
(Cheers.) Such was the summary given by the right.hon.