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

THE SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY EVENING, AUGUST 9, 1859.

gentleman opposite of the results of meddling in the affairs
of other nations, and it should be remembered that previous;
to 1850 England had interfered in the affairs of Italy. With
what result ? The Italians had been encouraged, flattered,
and betrayed, and if the hon. and learned member for Dun-
dalk was strictly correct in his statement the other night,
the name of the noble viscount was abhorred, and the name
of the noble lord was detested in Italy. (Cheers.) He had
too much respect for his noble friends to wish their names
to be abhorred or detested, and therefore he was anxious
that if possible they should keep out of the conference. If
they went into a conference, what did they intend to do ?
There was nothing very inviting in the present state of the
affairs of Italy; but if his noble friends went into a conference
upon those affairs they would go as the friends of Italy, and
in order to establish a better government in Italy. The power
which held the quadrilateral was the master of Italy. Mantua
and Verona were the keys of Italy. If they went into the
conference as the friends of Italy, and in favour of liberty,
were they prepared to abide by the programme of 1848—to
insist on the expulsion of Austria from Italy, and to join
with France to effect that purpose; or would they be satis-
fied with the compromise of an Austrian archduke, a free
constitution, and an Italian army in Lombardy ? What
would they be prepared to do with regard to the Pope
and the States of the Church? Were they prepared
to resist the Pope as the head of an Italian Confedera-
tion, or were they prepared to insist on the secularization
of the Papal States? What would they do with the
Duchies ? Were they prepared to insist on Austria and
France not being allowed to force the archdukes upon their
reluctant people ? What were they prepared to do with re-
spect to the French occupation of Rome ? Were they pre-
pared to insist upon Italy being left to the Italians, and the
French army withdrawn from Rome ? And with respect
to the Duchies there was this difficulty. It, being in the
original a,,ereement that the archdukes were to be restored,
the Grand Duke of Tuscany had abdicated in favour of his
son, and that which might have been accepted as a compro-
mise could not be accepted, as the compromise had come too
soon. Every day brought a new difficulty. The state of
Italy painted in the columns of the daily papers was as a
' seething cauldron, with more elements of evil and discord
than were ever known, and he hoped the Government would
not plunge this country into it, since it was improbable the
' result would be much for the good of Italy or of England .
(Hear, hear.) He wished to urge the Government not to
enter upon a conference on other grounds. There must be
one of two things. They either had confidence in the Em-
' peror of the French or they had not. He thought the Go-
' vernment's entering into the conference might be either
superfluous or dangerous. If they had confidence in the
Emperor of the French let them be th nkful they were not
in the Italian mess, and keep out of it ; for the interests of
Italy and the freedom of Italy would be safe in his hands.
. (Hear, hear.) But if, on the other hand, they had not
confidence in the Emperor of the French, if they dis-
, trusted him, and did not believe that he was anxious to
establish free government for Italy, how would they be
' able to attain their object ? (Hear, hear.) He asked
what the Government intended to do, supposing that in
this conference their views were not consulted. - Were
they prepared to support those views by force, or did they
onlyintend to bring their moral influence to bear ? It had
been wittily, though somewhat irreverently, said that
Providence was on the side of large armies—it might be
added, when they were well commanded; and this saying
was equally true of moral influence, which would always be
found on that elide which could support it by the greatest
physical power. He had seen one of the proclamations of
the Emperor of the French, in which he said that during the
war in Italy France had manifested her moral influence upon
this question but he wished to know whether her Majesty's
Government intended to back their views with reference to
Italy by force, or whether they would be satisfied with moral
influence ; for if the views of the Government were opposed
they might have to withdraw from the conference, and Italy
would again consider herself abandoned and betrayed. He
' thought that, upon the grounds he had stated, the Govern-
ment ought to be very cautious before they engaged in any
conference upon the affairs of Italy. He was quite aware
that the views he had expressed might not meet with much
favour in that house, so far as regarded the question be-
tween Italy and Austria; but he had stated his honest and
sincere convictions on this subject. He was prepared to hear
it said that he had no sympathy with Italy, that he was
hostile to France, sad that he was the advocate of Austrian
misrule. He might be allowed to ,say, however, that he
sympathised with Italy as much, perhaps, as any hon. mem-
ber of that house, and tha he would gladly see the people
of that beautiful country well governed, happy, prosperous,
and contented. Ho would go further, and would say that he
believed, perhaps, the best thing that could happen for the
security of the world and the good of this country was that
a united kingdom of Italy should be created, consisting of
25,000,000 people. (Hear, hear.) A right hon. friend of his
cheered that sentiment, but did any man believe that
such a thing was possible ? Was there anything in the cir-
cumstances of Italy that rendered it probable ? It was a
fairy vision and an agreeable dream, of the realisation of
which he saw no prospect. Would France allow it, or would
she aid in creating upon her frontier so powerful an empire
which would render the idea of making Italy a French
dependency an impossibility? He disclaimed any hostility
to France. So far from entertaining any such feeling, he
looked upon the French alliance as necessary not only to the
well-being of both countries, but also to the advancement of
civilisation and the advantage of mankind in general ; but
he was not prepared to sacrifice everything to that alliance.
He was no advocate of Austrian misrule. He did not deny
the misdeeds of that empire ; he was ready to admit them ;
but he was not blind to the fact that Austria was our friend
and ally as well as France, and that it was essential to the •
equilibrium of Europe, and to the safety of England, that
Austria should remain a great Power. (Hear.) It was not,
then, because he had no sympathy with Italy, because he
was hostile to France, or because he was the advocate of
Austrian misrule, that he expressed his views, unpopular
though they might be, upon this question. In his mind one
consideration was paramount to all others, and that was—
what is for the good of England ? (Hear.) He believed it
was for the advantage of this country that we should abstain
as far as possible from any intervention in the affairs of
foreign nations. (Hear.) He did not see any benefit that
could arise from our interference either to Italy or to this
country ; but he did see many dangers ahead—(hear)—and
he foresaw that by such a course we might involve our-
selves in complications and difficulties which we might have
cause to regret. It ' was on there grounds that he urged
her Majesty's Government to be cautious how they went
into any conference with reference to these questions. He
did not wish to tie up their hands, but to leave them, as
British Ministers ought to be left, to the free exericse of
their discretion upon this subject, when that discretion was
to be exercised, not upon petty details, but upon general
questions of principle. If his noble friend saw cause for
going into this conference with any prospect of doing good,
and with the certainty that no danger would accrue to this
country,—although he (Lord Elcho) confessed he could not
conceive such a state of things ; —if he would go into the
conference not in the spirit of a mrtisan, but of fairness and
impartiality;—if he would look to the interests of England as
well as to those of Italy ;—if he would engage in the confer-
ence, not as the Minister of Italy or of France, but as the Mi
nister of England, he for one would earnestly pray for 'his
success, and no one would more ardently desire that his
endeavours to give better government to Italy and greater
security to Europe might be crowned with success.
He begged to move,—" That an humble address be pre-
sented to her Majesty, stating that in the, opinion of this
house it would be consistent neither with the honour nor
dignity of this country, which throughout the late negotia-
tions had preserved a strict and impartial neutrality between
the contending Powers, and used its earnest endeavours to
prevent the outbreak of hostilities, to take part in any con-
ference for the purpose of settling the details of a peace the
preliminaries of which had been arranged between the
Emperor of the French and the Emperor of Austria.,'
Mr. HORSMAN seconded the motion.

Mr. h INGLAKE said he had undertaken to meet the
noble lord by moving the previous question ; because he
humbly conceived the proposal the noble lord had submitted
to the house was one which could not be appropriately met
either by an affirmative or by a negative. He did not desire
to lay it down broadly that the proposition the noble lord
had submitted to the house was unconstitutional, but he did
say that fir the House of Commons to advise her]Majesty
in.place of her Majesty's accustomed advisers was to ex-
press strong distrust of the Ministry. If not actually a vote
of want of confidence, the resolution was so near an ap-
proach to it that no one who could assent to it would hesi-
tate to support a direct vote of want of confidence. Possibly
the resolution was brought forward with party objects ;
but if that were so, where was the party to back it up, the
opposition benches being empty ? (Hear.) If they looked
to the merits of the proposal it seemed to him inconceiv-
ably rash to attempt to lay down the policy that should or
should not be followed—Rot at this moment, but at some
weeks, or perhaps some months hence, and to define in
total ignorance of the circumstances that might prevail
when that policy was to be :brought into operation. Three
weeks hence a state of circumstances might exist which
would induce the noble lord himself to go intothe congress;
yet if this motion were carried the hands of the Govern-
ment would b 3 tisd, and however much our taking part
in the deliberations might tend to the advantage of
Europe and the interests of peace, they would be debarred
from doing so. It appeared to him, therefore, that it would
be far better to adopt the old-fashioned constitutional
course of leaving her Majesty's ministers free to act as cir-
cumstances might require, and to hold them responsible to
parliament for the course they pursued. He concurred with
much that the noble lord had said in deprecation of the con-
gress; but, on the other hand, one of the reasons which the
noble lord had advanced against a congress—viz., the peri-
lous state of Italy—was one which might be used on the
other side of the question; because it was just possible that
by means of the congress a satisfactory solution of the diffi-
culty might be arrived at. He, however, perfectly agreed
with the noble lord when he deprecated our taking part in
the congress, on the ground that we should be likely to
enter it without authority. At the close of a general war a
congress of nations to settle territorial and other arrange-
melts was no doubt proper; but in this case England had
not been belligerent, she had taken no part in the war, and
could not, therefore, appropriately negotiate the arrange-
ments for peace or for the disposal of the spoils of war.
There was another objection which he felt to entering into
this congress, viz., that England had not been generally suc-
cessful in congresses. After the congress of Vienna, all
Europe was made merry at the blunders of the Marquis of
Londonderry; and he could not lo3k with pride or satisfac-
tion at the congress of 1856, so far as we were concerned.
No one could tell what English statesmen would say or do
on such occasions—(hear, and a laugh)—and sometimes it
happened that they would commit most fatal errors, and
commit the country to a line of policy the most injurious to
the interests of the country, without any opportunity being
given to Parliament to express any opinion upon it until it
was too late. Before the congress of Paris no man's reputa-
tion stood higher than Lord Clarendon's. But what did he
do then? He (Mr. Kinglake) saw by the protocol that one
day, apropos of nothing, the noble lord stood up and de-
nounced almost the only free press on the Continent—the
press of Belgium, and expressed the horror and indignation
with which he regarded the Marianne society, of which we
had never before heard inEngland, but which he described
as one of the greatest pests of society. He looked upon such
language coming from Lord Clarendon as derogatory to Eng-
land, because every man who heard or read it must know
that it had been put into' the mouth of our negotiator by
some foreign power. The conduct of the Italians throughout
the late war had been admirable, whether we looked to
theirif
there bra vNevra3,e- , theiron emmaond ewr ahtoi obna,
do ra
ethhieei love
oorfe ogrldo
re
yr, t
hand
another in the course of that brief but bloody war it was
General Garibaldi. (Cheers.) It was time for Austria and
or
for Europe to abandon the idea that states could bo held _
partitioned by the more purchase and the transference of
title from one reigning family to another wishout any re-
ference to the will of the people. The States of Italyhad
dhad
by
all shown
rulersexpressed their will with perfect order, and as far as we
could judge with calm determination. Tuscany, Modena,
Parma,
no and
the
longer legations,
hitherto been governed. (Hear.) Now what he (Mr. King-
lake) wanted to know was whether those rulers were to be
forced back upon them alear, hear.) If they could be
satisfied that the wishes of the do facto governmentil of Italy
w g
uld be respected, and that the foreign troops would be
bay whomtro nthey determ-
inationll
w?thdrawn, and that these terms would be offered as the
basis of the cangress, though much as he deprecated the
idea of a congress to which this country should be a party,
he thought there might be sufficient to warrant our taking •

part in it, because the main objection, viz., tho want of
authority on the part of England, would be removed.
(Hear.) He did not desire to see England stand isolated
among the nations of Europe. He was quite aware that by
separating herself from the affairs of the continent she lost
influence and power—and he could not but think that the
position of isolation and neutrality which it was supposed
abroad that England had taken was due to the course which
that small sect, known as the peace party, pursued during
the late war. But nothing could be more erroneous than
to infer from that that England had become a nullity in
reference to the affairs of continental Europe. The im-
portance of the sect he alluded to was due not to its
numerical strength, to its influence, or to any general
adhesion to its principles, but to the great ability of one
of its members. So far from it, he believed that the
strong interest which had recently manifested itself in the
public mind on warlike affairs had arisen in something like a
spirit of opposition to those principles, and was a symptom
—and by no means an unwholesome one—of our English
pugnacity. (" Hear," and a laugh.) He was glad to find
that the Emperor Napoleon was disarming, and regarded
the fact as a happy omen for this country ; but he trusted
that in following his example, we should also imitate that
admirable system by which the Government of France was
enabled to pass so rapidly from a peace establishment to one
of preparation for all emergencies. We had seen in March
France with a peace establishment only, and in June the
Emperormetthe Austrians with one of the largest and most
efficient armies ever brought into the field, and won the
battle of Solferino. This was a point in which we might
well imitate the Emperor of the French. There was now a
cloud hanging over this country which had arisen, not
from any act on the part of the Emperor of the French, but
from certain words that had fallen from three of our most
eminent English statesmen. It must be borne in mind
that our great political acts, our military and naval arrange-
ments, our finance, must all bearsomereference to the views
or supposed views of the Emperor of the French ; but it
was impossible, on the other hand, to forget that he had
been our faithful ally at a period of considerable difficulty,
and that his fidelity had never fOr a moment been shaken.
But they had been told by the hon. member for Birming-
ham, and the statement had been re-echoed bythetwo noble
lords below him, that they ought not to indulge in a hostile
criticism on that sovereign's acts, and the hon. Member
(Mr. Bright) had gone further, and said that if we did so
a few months longer, England might find herself embroiled
in a war with France. What no alternative for a free
country like England—enforced to silence or a war with
France (Hear, hear.) If he (Mr. Kinglake) thought
that that house or any writer for the press would adopt the
words of those statesmen and withhold criticism because of
that warning, he would say that the moral subjugation of
England was complete. He contended that they were not
to allow considerations of foreign policy to interfere with
freedom of speech and of action here at home.
That was the principle upon which that house had acted
when it overthrew a popular Ministry, in order to arrest the
progress of the Conspiracy Bill, and he believed if any sem-
blance of subserviency to a foreign power on the part of the
Government were again to bring the question to the test,
the present House of Commons would notreverse the policy
of its predecessor. (Cheers.)
The question and the amendment having been put from
the chair,
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER rose and
said—Sir, the hon. and learned gentleman who has just sat
down, in the beginning of his speech gave, I think, very
conclusive reasons against the adoption of the motion which
has been made by my noble friend, and he has met that
motion by proposing what is termed the previous question.
So far as I am concerned, and I believe so far as my col-
leagues are concerned, we should have been perfectly will-
ing to deal with this motion by meeting it with a direct ne-
gative ; but if it be the pleasure of the house to treat it as a
motion which it would be unwise and imprudent to enter-
tain at all, of course the Government can have no objection
to concur in thatvote and support the proposition.which has
been made by the hon. and learned member,ginade of his
own choice and without concert with her Majesty's Govern-
ment. (Hear, hear.) But there have been matters of great
interest raised in this discussion, both by the hon. and
learned gentleman and by my noble friend who opened the
debate, and I am sure my noble friend will not be surprised
that a motion upon a subject of such immense importance
upon the affairs of Europe, challenging the attention of
Europe at a period so critical, and aiming, as he himself will
be the first to admit, in a peculiar manner at imposing limits
upon the free and responsible action of her Majesty's Mi-
nisters, should itself be subjected to discussion. If I read
aright the terms of this motion of my noble friend, the first
remark, I think, that occurs, is that it is scarcely applicable
to the position in which we stand—(hear)—because that
which it condemns is the taking part in any conference for
the purpose of settling the details of a peace the prelimi-
naries of which have been arranged between the Emperor of
Austria and the Emperor of the French. But I am not
aware of any proposal, of any suggestion, of any idea, or
even dream of taking part in a cenference for the purpose of
settling details the preliminaries of which have been ar-
ranged by the Emperor of Austria and the Emperor of the
French. The details of peace, as we all know perfectlywell
from the public journals, if not otherwise, will be settled by
the belligerents themselves—(hear)—and what will remain
to be settled are not merely details for.the purpose of giving
effect to the resolutions of the belligerents, but other great
questions of European policy, vitally affecting the interests
and happiness of Italy—(cheers)—stretching beyond the
limits of Italy itself, and aS well entitled to be termed mat-
ters of high and prime European interest as any questions
that have been discussed among the European Powers in
our time. (Cheers.) Therefore that is no matter of settling
the details of a peace, and the motion of my noble friend
does not really describe the state of things in which we
stand. (Hear, hear.) I find some discrepancy between
the motion of my noble friend and his speech. His mo-
tion is very peremptory in its terms, and so much objects
to our taking part in some coming conference, the na-
ture of which does not appear to be distinctly under-
stood, that my noble friend departs from the usage
of Parliament, and, while circumstances are immature
and as yet most imperfectly developed, invites the
House of Commons to arrive by anticipation nt the decision
that under no circumstances are we, to take part in this
coming conference. These are the terms of his motion, but
the speech of my noble friend, especially the latter part of it,
might have passed as a speech against his own motion in•
stead of for it, because, carried away by his own generous
feelings, he concluded by telling my two noble friends near
rae that if they would but enter the conference as Ministers
of England, and not as Ministers of France or Italy, he
would not object to their going. If that be so. what becomes
of his motion ? My noble friend must himself be conscious
of this discrepancy ; nor can he fail to be aware that his
motion, in its present terms, is clearly untenable. The
motion is brought forward to satisfy a great desire for
Parliamentary decision. It has appeared and reappeared
more than once. Sometimes it has been submerged in the
waves, but it has always retained its vitality, and the last
time it came before us it was mentioned in connection with
a declaration of the right hon. gentleman the member for
Buckinghamshire, who, after we had discussed for a night
or two in general terms the Italian question, said it was
become more than ever necessary that Parliament should
distinctly pronounce its opinion upon the question that was
about to be raised by the noble lord the member for Had-
dingtonshire. If Parliament is to pronounce its opinion,
we derived no indication from the speech of my noble
friend that it was his purpose to carry the question to that
mortal issue; on the contrary, his speech appeared to be
delivered for the purpose of expressing his own sentiments,
and influencing by that expression the sentiments of the
House of Commons. But that was not the slightest indi-
cation from him, and the present state of the benches would
not have favoured any such indication, that we were met
here to try a great issue, in whidh was involved not only
the fate of an Administration, but likewise the character
which England is to bear in one of the great crises of Euro-
pean history. (Hear.) I confess lam left in considerable
doubt and bewilderment under these circumstances not only
of difference between my noble friend and her Majesty's
Government, but of difference between my noble friend and
his motion, and between my noblu friend and himself. (A
laugh.) I ask myself, what is the real purpose of this mo-
tion? It certainly requires a vindication. It is not a mo-
tion within the ordinary walk of Parliamentary effort and
exertion. It is not usual to ask the House of Commons to
instruct the Government upon the course that it shall take
in difficult questions of foreign policy, and still less would it
be usual to do so in cases where the circumstances under
which Government will have to act are as yet unformed and
unknown. What, then, is the purpose of my noble friend,
and what is the purpose—l think I can answer this with
r
more confidence—of the right hon. gentleman the member
for Buckinghamshire, who was so anxious that this motion
should come on for discussion ? My noble friendhas spoken,
in warm and strong terms of his sympathy for Italy. give
him the fullest credit for entertaining that sympathy,
aymrumthyabut(Al
own I much regret the form which it has
laugh.) Still my noble friend undoubtedtlyhn'eent. entertains that
sentiment, but I donbt whether the righ
the member for Bucks was moved h
when he said it was exceedingly desrratYlemtPhaatthty for Italyheopinion
of Parliament should be expressed uponthe
as subjeh.
he thinks,
My
noble friend has spoken in just commendation,
of the strict and impartial neutrality
whichthe wparsinmaintained
t
by the late Government ; and, indeed,
in his speech has been the broad distinction he has drawn
between the neutrality of the late and
ofth etnheeultartaelitarnreovfe' the
present Government. The ne
ment, according to him, was
retsheeneGutervaelmitymoefhtanisutmhpeire;
while the neutrality of the p
af-
fected neutrality
upon the two partsef of that
in
alliatit question.
Let me say a few words
present
Beyond giving credit
to the late Government
the
intention, and for an indefatigableerson of Lord Malmesbury
,
for perfect integrity of
assiduity—indeed, a feverish, restless, overdone assiduity as
far as regards the mode of expression, but still a sound, ho-
nourable, and manly assiduity—to maintain the peace, lam
not prepared to subscribe the doctrine of my noble friend
that it meant a strict and impartial neutrality. I cannot say
that the expressions used are conformable to that principle,
and if my noble friend near me has stated his dissent from
that description of the conduct of the late Government, I am
bound to add my own testimony, such as it is, to that which
he has borne. In ono of the letters of Lord Malmesbury
he states that Austria had accepted his four points, and that
consequently England had urged France to make Sardinia
disarm. Austria never did accept the four points of Lord
Malmesbury. She never even came near the acceptance
of them, and any one who has read the document in which
she set forth what she called her acceptance with its qualifi-
cations will know that the whole force and virtue of that
document lie in the qualifications, which entirely destroyed
the
propositions of Lord Malmesbury. But let me refer to
what took place in this house, and test the strict and impar-
tial neutrality of the late Government by the public decla-
ration of the right hon. gentleman the member for Bucks
on the 18th of April. There are many here who recollect
the remarkable expressions then used. The right hon.
gentleman said there were many things in the conduct of
Sardinia that were ambiguous, perplexing, and suspicious,
while the conduct of Austria had been in the main a con-
duct of dignified conciliation. and in closing his speech he
declared that he knew of no reason why the peace of Europe
should not be preserved. I want to know whether the right
hon. gentleman was justified in those expressions with the
information which we, indeed, did not possess, but which
was at that time in his possession as a Minister. Why, that
speech, in which the right hon. gentleman, speaking with
all the authority of an organ of the Government, bestowed
upon the conduct of Austria the praise of dignified concilia-
tion, was made upon the 18th of April. But upon the 12th
of April there had been discharged from Vienna an epistle which was delivered to Lord Malmesbury on the 16th, two
days before the speech of the right hon. gentleman oppo-
site, and in that epistle Austria declared her intention of
sending that very summons to Sardinia which a week after
brought about the war. (Hear.) Count Buol, writing on
the 12th of April, says, in a perfectly intelligible paper—

much more intelligible than many others which I find in
the blue-book-4,a laugh)—
" We are about to address direct to the Cabinet of Turin
a summons to reduce their army to a peace footing, and to
disband the free corps, or Italian volunteers. If this step
should produce no effect, there would be nothing left for us
but to lay upon the Cabinet of Turin the whole responsibi-
lity of the consequences which its refusal will entail, and to
declare that their persistence in an openly aggressive atti-
tude gives us back entire liberty of action by freeing us
from the pacific promises which we had previously made to
the British Government."
Yet with that paper in his possession the right hon. gentle-
man, on the 13th of April, declared that the conduct of
Austria was marked by dignified conciliation, and that he
saw no reason why the peace of Europe should not be pre-
served. (Hear, hear.) I daresay that may be consistent
with the great anxiety of the right hon. gentleman for a
discussion upon the Italian question, and consistent also
with his views of a strict and impartial neutrality; but I do
not think my noble friend the member for Haddingtonshire
will subscribe to such doctrines, and I am certain the house
will agree with me, that a Minister who could use these
words under these circumstances was not a Minister whose
conduct was governed by a strict and impartial neutrality..
(Hear, hear.) But the real desire of my noble friend seems
to be to prevent her Majesty's Government from taking
part in any congress or conference that may definitely
regulate the settlement of the Italian question, lest our
agency should there be exercised in a sense too favourable
to Italy, or so favourable to Italy as to be unfavourable to
Austria, or as to make an enemy of Austria. Let the house
consider for a moment what is meant by this imputed hos-
tility to Austria. Ido not suppose there is any statesman
in this country, or any member of this house, or any single
man in England, who has at any time made public affairs
the object of, impartial study, who can be actuated by so
senseless a motive as that of hostility to Austria. (Hear,
hear.) To disclaim that motive on the part of the Govern-
ment is needless and disparaging, because I cannot admit
that the slightest ground has ever been given for imputing
to them any idea so monstrous and absurd. England has
an immense interest in the maintenance of the European
equilibrium, and that which disorganises any one of the
great countries of Europe is necessarily menacing to the
general peace and to the interests of England. It is our
duty and interest to desire to see Austria strong, flourish-
ing, and happy. (Hear, hear.) But it does not follow
that we are not to have our own opinion upon the cir-
cumstances under which Austria is likely most usefully to
discharge the duties of her great position in Europe, and
is likely most effectually to promote her own separate,
particular, and individual interests. (Hear, hear, hear.)
This Italian question is one of which the roots lie deeply
embedded in the past. It has not grown up to-day or yes-
terday. My noble friend says Austria has not been the
aggressor in this war. He says we must look to the Sardi
dinian marriage and the Sardinian treaty, though I know
not what treaty he means, He says no reinforcements were
sent into Italy until after the speech of the King of Sardi-
nia, but this book contains sufficient evidence that reinforce-
ments were sent before that time. The statement positively
made by Count Cavour—suspicions you may say, as coming
from that source, but supported by all the collateral evi-
dence we can procure—is this :—The words addressed to
M. Hubner at Paris were uttered on the Ist of January ;
the speech of the King was on the 10th of January, but on
the 3d of January the Austrian reinforcements were ordered
to march, and therefore my noble friend is incorrect when
he says that Austria sent no reinforcements into Italy until
after the King's speech. LLord Elcho—Concurrently with
it.] Concurrently? Well, but that must mean after the
speech, for nobody could have divined it until after it was
delivered. But I have been diverted from what I was about
to say. My noble friend Teems to I hink that we have only
to consider this as a quarrel of the present and to-day,—
that the blame lies here or there accordingly. No, sir
To understand this quarrel you must go back, at any rate,
for the last five-and-forty years, and then you will find the
true lights which will show you its nature and origin. I
don't speak of it now as a matter of praise or blame, but
simply as a matter of fact. It racy have been only an un-
happy necessity of her position, but this, at any rate, is true
—that for 45 long years, wherever liberty reared its head in
Italy, wherever there was the slightest attempt to procure
even the hundredth part of those franchises which as Eng-
lishmen we hold so dear, there the iron hand of Austria has
interposed, and has re established in all their rigour the
abuses of the actually existing Governments. (Cheers.)
Well, if that be so, consider the position of Sardinia. Sar-
dinia succeeded in obtaining for herself the blessings of a free
constitution. You may rely upon it that the moment she did
so--quite irrespective of the will of her Sovereign and her
statesmen, but by the everlasting law of things which no
man can counteract-she became of necessity -a standing
danger to Austria. (Hear, hear.) It was not merely that
in Sardinia there existed a free State, and on the other side
of the border a despotic Government. Although such a
neighbourhood may not be without risks, I am not the man
to assert that it is not perfectly compatible with peace and
good relations. That, however, was not the case. It was
the exterior policy of Austria in Italy ; it was her influence
and agency which pervaded every Court and province of
Italy, and was felt there just as decisively and absolutely,
perhaps oven more so, than in Venice and Milan. What
was the consequence of this peculiar system ? It was com-
monly, and perhaps not untruly said, that the Austrian
provinces were better governed than other parts of Italy.
I say there was some truth in this. It was necessary for the
credit of Austria as a great empire that her administrative
system in Italy among a people so intelligent as the inhabi-
tants of Lombardy and Venice should be raised to a state
of considerable excellence. But while she maintained that
administrative superiority in her own provinces as compared
with the States of the Church and with Naples, she at the
same time enforced the iron yoke upon the States ,of the
Church and upon Naples without having the power to pro-
cure for them the partial compensation of those adminis-
trative improvements which she herself was so careful to
adopt. (Hear, hear.) The position of Austria and Sar-
dinia, then, does not depend upon the will of the Sovereigns
and statesmen of the present day ; it lies deep in the bad
organization of Italy, and its proper source is to be found
in the propagandism of Sardinia. Sardinia, by the very law
of nature, becomes the very centre of hope and aspiration to
every Italian who dares hope for freedom ; and her propa-
gandism is rendered formidable by that Austrian system
which pervades the Peninsula, confronting with its soldiery
every man who strives to halter the political system of
Italy, denying him all hope of freedom, and dooming him
to the perpetuity of the political servitude in which he
lives. (Cheers.) If this be so, the question whether the
Sardinian marriage was contracted in view of a crisis which
it was seen must, sooner or later, develope itself, shrinks
into small dimensions. On the side of Austria, as well as
of Sardinia, I admit that you have now for many years in
Italy laboured under a complication of political evils so
grievous and, I may almost say, so desperate, that they
seemed, in the judgment of many reflecting men, absolutely
to defy solution except through the terrible alternative of
war. Ido not think, therefore, that it is my duty to blame
the conduct of Austria so severely in this crisis as it has
been blamed by others of very high authority. I admit that
Austria has had to contend with the greatest difficulty—
nay, more, I admit that it may have been practically impos-
sible' for her to escape from that channel of evil tradition
which her former statesmen lave handed down to those of
the present day. But if the case be so serious, I think my
noble friend need not have been so severe in his condemna-
tion of Sardinia with reference to this outbreak. What are
my noble friend's ideas of neutrality ? He has used every
possible effort to assist and inform his mind. He has been
to the redoubted and almost inaccessible pages ofJohnson,that
neutrality to Vattel on the Law of Nations, in order to show
tnilunter;alihutyt
whenmeans
mtotalnoble' indi fffieizeenndc
comese. Thatte
interpretvery
t he d e cdoc-
trine which he has enforced so severely against the
own case with a very convenient latitude.e
Govern-
ment I am bound to say that he appears to(Aaplpaluygiht.)mihlies
h he has made to-night
doubt he means to exhibit the
we.come to examine further we
as a specimen of a just and impartial neutrality,
isnenueturtalirathyt,ybutwhen
he Sardinian marriage and treaty were settled
ag-
gressor ; that t
compati-
ble with a belief that Sardinia and. not Austria was theag-
f Sardinia to bring about the war; and that it
in anticipation of war; that there was a regime conclusion.
on the part o
was nothing but a blunderandanpp acciedeeintitewnheihcehepreu.) tAustria
in the position of an assailant. These
are pregnant opinions, but according to
Well, then,
noblefriten,
letend they
are compatible with a strict neutrality.
only give to others the same space and elbow-room that
himeasserts for himself, and I will venture to say that the •
strict and impartial neutrality of the Government can be
made out to a demonstration. This strict and , impartial
neutrality, it seems is not after all incompatible with .
opinions and with desires respecting the matter at issue.
(Hear, hear.) It is quite clear that the definitions of John-
son and of Vattel won't admit the license claimed by my
noble friend ; but if they do, all I can sayis, that we do not
need any more. (Hear.) It is our duty, and especially is it
the duty of my noble friends, the Foreign Secretary and
the Prime Minister in this crisis to form their opinions as
to what is best for the welfare of Italy, of Austria, and of
Europe. Is it not a perfectly conceivable opinion that Aus-
tria would be stronger if out of Italy than she would be in
it ? (Hear, hear.) You may differfrom that opinion, though
I am not quite certain that my noble friend (Lord Elcho)
does ' • but at any rate it is an opinion which may be honestly
entertained. I knew, without the least pretension to speak
with authority on the subject, I am most strongly of that
opinion. (Hear, hear.) I feel convinced that Austria never
will have a peaceful supremacy in Italy. My belief is--I
wish I may be convinced to the contrary by the future—
my fear and apprehensions are, that she will not be able to
escape from the system of extraneous action in Italy which
up to this time has been her bane, and the bane of that unfor-
tunate country. (Hear, hear.) Unless she can escape from
it, I say that notwithstanding the Quadrilateral, notwith-
standing the stone and the mortar, notwithstanding all the
cannon and the guns, her rule over human hearts and human
minds in that portion of Italy which she retains must con-
tinue to be a bane not less to her than to her subjects ; and
those who wish well to Austria may consistently wish that
she were placed within limits where she might exercise a
natural and a beneficial supremacy. (Cheers.) What are
the charges against thepresent Government with respect to
its future neutrality? My noble friend (Lord Palmerston)
quoted a precedent of neutrality so apposite I cannot help
recalling it to the memory of the house ; it is the conduct of
Mr. Canning in 1825. ••Mr. Canning was neutral in the
matter of the French invasion of Spain, because he did not
deem it a cause in which it was advisable England should
take up arms. He was neutral in that sense, and he was im-
partial in his neutrality. The impartiality of his neutrality
would have been violated if he had offered '
suggestions in
the spirit of party ; the impartiality of his neutrality would
have been violated had he interposed by any underhand
means. But retaining his liberty of opinion, ho denounced
and disapproved the French invasion of Spain. By doing
so he, in the first place, vindicated the character of Eng••
land ; and, in the secondf.he interposed by that denuncia-
tion a serious impediment to 'the repetition of such dan•
gerous experiments. (Hear, hear,) That is the neutrality
on which her 'Majesty's Government has acted. Its limit
is that we should refrain, not from entertaining our own
opinion, but from giving effect to it either by manifestations
in this house, or by diplomatic action, Otherwise than the
public law of Europe may permit, or opportunities shall be
fairly opened. The noble lord I hope will be disabused as
to certain seven points having been succeeded by certain
three points, of which the first I have heard is from my
noble friend himself. I cannot admit that the neutrality of
her Majesty's Government has been compromised by any
conduct with respect to any of these conditions. Surely it
would have been a great responsibility on the part of her
Majesty's Government to have refused to make known to
one of the belligerent Powers any terms, though they might
have been such as the other Party could not possibly grant,
unless we knew we were discharging a hostile office. Her
Majesty's Government was most anxious not to be mis-
understood with regard to those terms ; it in no respect
prejudiced our liberty of action; the Government made it
expressly known that the terms were not their terms. Tb ere
is not the least reason to suppose that their action was mis-
understood, or that they were understood, directly or indi-
rectly,
to have subscribed tq the conditions as constituting
an arrangement by which the war ought to be brought to an
end. Has my noble friend nothing else on which to support
his motion ?—because it is one that requires much proof and
support to induce the House of Commons to travel so far out
of its usual path. My noble hien d has ransacked Hansardand
searching through former debates, has 'quoted a passage
from a speech of mine in 1850. I take it as a great compli-
ment. It is delightful to find that one's words live in recol-

lwe ca tei obrie aefgt e
done
esnoe
with oy
renaly Esd.
at
the circumstances then existing. No doubt
t 61'
tr
Le. ingd
orielleprfe nslci -1;1
u,so _
giwehhot
dowas
not right
but it is a different question whether,
atremember the t immye . w
eMr
dye e e
well
recollectiona s theis not
noblets. o
idl
asr
lord
ot. e
does.;if
something in
e
British
Governmentth a has
toil oat
certainbeen
course yo
u am thing
nobleing b e
friende n done? Nh
wishes
; tto h
anticipate
Government
the
future. has of
done d pin.e
nothing.eheHas suchttlih
e
l be
(acwnhi
tehe
airy r (Cheers.)
i)s.
phantom..s
withinewni dl
will
oh fa thevthe
et
os
edsossessionoann nawehpa
probably
ot atbma
bhy
laynnowdb,
noble
the
friendndo
ob
doing,
whenrdd w
hrte,s
nht Palmerston)to do
lord is engaged in a very different manner. H
sa
true
pn
odn ldapeuengl
eihee laughter.) rf
t)
veT
hlhayet
e( nobleeGtr r
nno lord says
thees yos
Government),
blue
-tb non-intervention
tt.e(s ft.(hceheie irrorsur
e.
)
Here is speculation, and persuasion, and admonition,es.positive
some-
times even a little spice of menace There is no prniet:4,°_
gunpowder in these pages, but the noble lord coin
been-published
this correspondence greatly; he says had it
va
efrenwmwe
ne
te weeks
wouldbefore,not theha
vveo vote
been which
given. overthrew
I don't t the latethink
thatGo
itsengtuiaitlemcoaror an'd thethpinicretewr-apinluapyerfsepcwataekaladf,theat r
sense—(laughter)—
as something that might, could,
Lv ae ut
voted
r favour. ) The
of
the
motion says
e
, if
is
But I know a man who voted favourably to the late u
bhbeeoreonkWhha(ad been published, would have voted against.iet.
,eh,..aNbtettoemekceahls,iad,o)n,
twlhhewioinicboneuleandninepomatbyhl
imaevhaeendte(e.nrinoteatnha.ret:
sonblut
and cries of
nvvooerntbelemifelotnhirtd names the gentleman who, he says,
In
md
haevaeatigimevenl
rheiq'suess'ottehiteteotbheerewataieyfi.
assur-
ance that the person I allude to is a bona fide individual,
whether bl o o d,
we andare
tnoteed
existingßa t
the
ih fleshquestion
these questions are in the future, and not even in t
whether we are prepared. to admit' this, or reject thhaletn,vules
go into a congres,;
r
into a congress or conference, or act by diplomatic
near future. The question is not whether we shouldente
total
corre-
spondence, which is much the same, but whether, in
ignorance of the future, and the state of things it may pro-
duce,
of thethe H oEuxseee
aotfivCeoGmenivoernnsmweialltrkemoneairt, hear.) Is
func-
tions Ia
it
itnat Eng-
landier
po
is
ssibleptrhepeanroebd to lelorrdeeecrand
ittheinuknetehaadtiatitetnhEid this
radeatmermen
not to meddle with the affairs of Italy in this crisis of her
_ t
a.
fortunes ? In this country we are much disposed to look
precedents, and to walk in the way of those who have gone
before us, and to have good reasons shown before we depart
from it. Has this country in former times been
accustomed to make the affairs of Italy foreign
to its intervention and sympathy ? Is not all our history
full of proofs to the contrary: (Hear, hear.) Hardly a
serious question has ever been raised in Italy in which.
England has not interfered; and even where the principles
involved were such that you could not interfere directly
you have Chosen an agent to maintain your policy. I re-
member the course tafen by the noble l'rd at the head of
the Government in 1831 (Lord Grey.) The question then
did not affect the whole of the Italian peninsula, but only
the States of the Church. The great Powers of Europe
then united in recommending the Government of the Pops
to adopt and facilitate measures of reform. Does the noble
lord think that England ought to have abstained.from act-
ing with those European Powers, though the Pope did not
see fit to adopt their suggestione ? _When Austria, Prussia,
and France made an appeal to the Papal Government,
was the representative of England to hold aloof ? Were
we to refuse to act with despotic Powers for such an object?
Take another precedent from the year 1856—the Congress
of Paris. At that congress no objection was made to
the principle of interference on the part of England
with the affairs of Italy. But (striking the bluebook)
here is the great and crowning precedent the
rich result of the labours of the late Administra-
tion. (Cheers.) Here is a standing witness crying aloud
against the principle advocated by the noble lord—the prin-
ciple of absolute and unconditional refusal to interfere hi
the affairs of Italy, which is contrary to the uniform course
of the history of this country. The real question, no doubt,
is not whether it is desirable that England should enter into
European negotiations--for all these are but expedients for
the removal, or, if not for the removal, at all events forthe
mitigation of the great and overpowering ills that afflict
mankind. Nor is it an idle passion to figure in either a
congress or a conference that would ever lead an English
statesman to consent to be a party to such transactions.
The hon. and learned gentleman behind me, indeed, hats
opened a peculiar chapter in this• discussion. He raises
two objections to our going into a congress ; one being that
we 'should enter it without authority, inasmuch as we were
not one of the belligerent Powers. That would be a very
strong objection if we could enter it under any circum-
stances as the only power which was not a belligerent. But
the case would be entirely changed if an appeal were made
to all the neutral Powers as a body, and that in the name
of Europe England should, as one of those PowerOake
part in a conference or congress in the hope and with thb
object of effecting good. (Hear, hear.) The authority of
England as a non-belligerent might be slight, but as a part
of the collective authority of Europe it would be most valu-
able. But the hon. and learned gentleman goes on to argue
that there exists on the part of English statesmen an, indo-
lence and incapacity which ought to lead us to eschew
taking part in a congress as far as possible. That, indeed,
is an argument with which it is difficult to deal. 1, for
one, have no interest in the matter, inasmuch asno combina-
tion of circumstances is likely to place me in the position of
the representative of England in such an assembly. I am,
nevertheless, extremely sorry to learn that the English
nation, which has been so lavishly endowed and gifted in
other respects by Providence, cannot furnish a man
capable of holding his own at a congress or a con-
ference with the representatives of the other PoWers
of Europe. The conviction that such is the case
must necessarily be a source of deep regret in an
assembly where so many persons are at all times found pre-
pared to take part in the discussiouof foreign affairs. {Cheers
and laughter:) The presence of such men, at all events, leads
us to hope that England will not remain long without au
adequate and sufficient organ to give expression to her
views. (Renewed laughter.) The hon. andlearned gentle-
man has, however, I must admit, urged these objections to
our entering into a congt. ss calmly, and has, upon the whole,
arrived at a satisfactory conclusion, inasmuch as he states it
to be his belief that although he deems the objectioni he
has advanced to be of a veryserious nature, yet he does not
look upon them as being insurmountable. It no doubt oc-
curred to the mind of the hon. and learned gentleman that •
what we have to consider, after all, is not the abstract ques-
tion of whether diplomatic negotiations or conferences are
desirable or not, but whether there is a clear prospect or a
reasonable hope that the social position of a large portion
of our fellow men would be benefited by the adoption of
such a course. (Hear.) That is the real question for our
consideration, and it is in order that we may have free
arrive
advantageouss uc h a
respect3iajee
Majesty's
yt,os ito eayse r
nw we
may mostoe
umleanyt entreat the House of Commons to leave their hands
unshackled in the matter. (Hear, hear.) The hon. and
learned gentleman, casting an eye over the States of Italy,
saw that many questions were raised by the peace which it
failed to settle. What does the declaration made at Villa-
franca, for instance, that certain Sovereigns should return.
to their territories, mean ? It has received no authoritative
construction, and I do not understand what it necessarily
conveys beyond this—that the parties subscribing the
terms of peace are perfectly willing that those Sovereigns
should return to their territories, other circumstances per-
mitting. (Hear, hear.) If it means that they are to, be
restored by force—which interpretation, be assured, the
Emperor of the French does not mean to put upon it
—then there is another reason furnished why the hands
of her Majesty's Government should not be tied up,
and why they should not- be prevented from protest-
ing with all the energy which the Government of a
free State can command against a doctrine that would
treat the inhabitants of the territories in question as the pro-
perty of so many ducal houses who might dispose of them,
their families, their fortunes, and those of their posterity as
they pleased, without any regard to that independent will
andjudgment which, as human beings, they are entitled
to exercise. (Cheers.) I shall not trouble the house by
entering into details with respect to those other portions of
Italy to dilate on whose condition is the peculiar province
of the hon. and learned member for Dundalk (Mr. Bowyer),
whom I see here, and who knows so well how to supp/Y
us with sound Roman doctrine on the subject. (Laughter.)
No doubt there are many things which one is tempted to
as: rgf
theteas
tou
rps s
0, thatpaere, with
hei
ete
ph
lwy theh
do
el
eevmomet
eeapds st
to his
ietsfhpe
aapt
ee
froenpwal e under
say on this interesting topic when my hon. and learned
et h friende
ue e ruletrassures
s
rity, and when one bears in mind at the same time that—
for that the fact is so nobody will dispute, though perhaps
it is of a nature which does nstadmit of explanation—when-
ever the foreign force which is maintained there disappears
from the estates of the Church, the throne of the Pope dis-
appears along with it. (Renewed laughter.) But to speak
seriously, I must say, in reference to the Pope—quite apart
from all sectarian differences—as a Personage occupying an
eminent station and possessing distinguished authority, as
the head of a great body of Christian believers, that my wish
would be to look upon him with all the respect which is due
to those united titles. I, however, lament, as cordially as I
could lament if I had the nearest interest in all that con-
cerns him, when I see a Sovereign who makes pretensions
to represent in a peculiar sense the majesty of Heaven re-
duced to become a mendicant at foreign Courts—a mendi-
cant, too, not for the purpose merely of obtaining the means
of subsistence, but with the object of procuring military
armaments whereby to carry the ravages of fire and sword
over the fair provinces which he governs, and to
rivet chains on the necks of men every one of
whom it is his direct personal interest to defend.
(Loud cheers.) That is a policy which is unworthy
of a civilised nation. (Hear, hear.) But I shah
dwell no longer on the subject. I have to apologise to the
house for having detained them so long. To sum up the
argument of my noble friend who brought forward this
motion in a few words, he says he reduces the whole ques-
tion at issue to this dilemma—" Either you have confidence
in the Emperor of the French or you have not. In neither
alternative ought you to enter into a conference." Now I
at once admit that if we placed no confidence in the Em-
peror of the French, I could, to a great extent, understand
the justice of the view to which my noble friend has given
expression. I can very well understand, for instance, how,
if unhappily England and France should prove to be essen-
tially at variance with respect to Italian affairs, it would,
become a grave question of policy and prudence whether
we should enter into a congress with no more hopeful
prospect than that of dragging out day after day wearisome
discussions with the representatives of a power with which
we ought to be most anxious to be on terms of concurrence
and alliance. I can, however, by no means understand the
force of the other branch of the dilemma to which my noble
friend has directedoEuromuptraeakrteitnregnetfpioan.
nconfidencenecessity
yin f
ethe
y
n a
uahErsemge wdap Le:
rtleondrsote.
ora 1 lif
seriously.
ahsh
reayt.
Fay
tor3euainyrl
ceehneqeou
ibti
srel require."
underk'
friend
ieewTn ah whethercai t s
thei French scnahg
congress,
inasmuch
seyrmaeaue hexhiasvi
th difficulty,epew realisationegr oe going gh
oet
fro e enterwthe icehet
nhitese
nc
di
contend
dear
ree
rotfootbirhynic. m y
henoble
could friend'shav have
objects
fftntsehsi ct
circumstances
igeaomeryu
reeps
a—oothfr
importance,.
anTr
Euro-
peantchse
great The
therefore give him no assistance whatever. (Cheers.)
Yes, that is the argument of my noble friend, and if he
house adopts this resolution it will be recording it to bet its
deliberate determination—whatever may be the disposition
of France to give effect to the fair and temperate longings
of the Italian States for constitutional freedom, and to
grant them institutions more liberal even than she herself
possesses at this moment—that we ought steadily to
refuse to assist France in the endeavour, and leave
her to struggle with the difficulties of her position,
and, if needs be, sink under their pressure. (Ilea'',
hear.) That is the recommendation of m noble
y
friend, although—and I gladly admit it—it is not a
recom-
mendation which is borne out by the whole of his speech.
It is, nevertheless, the advice which is embodied in his
resolution, and I earnestly entreat the house, 'whether by
means of a direct negative, or by following the course pro-
posed by the hon. and learned gentleman behind me, to
dispose satisfactorily and finally of this motion this even-
ing. (Loud cheers.) s:
Mr. S. FITZGERALD said this was a question of vital
importance to England, to Italy, and to Europe. If in the
beginning of the present session the Government had found'

that the of the late Goveinn.vat was ot.(me of non-
trality, would there have been ? dir",deulty carrying a
motion demandine the observance of neutrality
d and it was
mo-
tion of his noble friend was one, of the same
made because there was a distrust of the motives of the
tale lord opposite, who it was believed would enter a con-
:tress 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
te
-honour of this country. There never was in our history,
a moment so imp conductortant as respected our policy,
like that pursued by the Government. The noble lord had
doled out scrap by scrap, and bit by bit, such information
al; 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
13f the 22d of June, and he replied that it would not be for the
mtereat of the public servicelthat it should be produced, and
that it would give imperfect information. That despatchshortly after appeared in some of the German journals, and
the noble lord then produced the despatch in the very form
Which,, he said was objeetionable, without any reference to a
~u
"ntext and -without comment. In a short time the re-
mainder of the correspond Once appeared in the Germatn.
jeurnals, and we-obtained a knowledge of the despatch wri
tea
lord produced
our Minister at Berlin to noble lord. The noble
produced only a solitary extra,.'t from the despatcl2,-
Ijitlitrat a word from which an opinion Cenla be formed
° our policy, and we were still ignorant as to what been
Written by the noble lord to Paris or to Turin ; .fic,A know no-
Lng of what the noble lord had addressed to our Is.:lttliaters
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
:obit lord, 'who left the house in a state of uncertainty with
egard te the policy of the Government. The speech of the
lo ble lord the member for Haddingtonshire had had one
good effect, for while it had elicited from the right hon. gen-
th man (Mr. Gladstone) a epeech which carefully avoided
main question, it enabled the house to judge what were
e opinions of the right 'hon. gentleman with regard to
ejltralitY. The noble lord (J. Russell) said the other night
`-and it had been repeated by the right hon. gentleman—
that it was not to be supposed that he would go into a con-
tes rnertly to carry out preliminaries of peace which had
•tlae settled at Villafrinca. He did not say that such a
)„,• `'4g as that could be done ; but in a case like this it was
~,71PossibIe for England to stand by and remain in ignor-
f,Le of the measures which were proposed with regard to
,-"Y,• But the noble lord said something further, which
,e_.-"saclished the case of the noble lord the member for Had-
17.1tonshire ; for the noble lord said it would be as well
riSt t 0 go into a congress at all with a prospect of doing
4,zioncr. He (Mr. Fitzgerald) said that no subject could
me bel'ore the congress in the shape of a proposition to
Italy -which would not involve disagreement between
Parties. He desired to ask the noble lord one question. It
resembled a question put by the noble lord to Count Berne-
hte'e..., in one of the despatches before them. He wished to
w if he entered th,, congress, whether there would not
a difference on an ess,untial point in which the majority
Would be against him ? If that was the view the noble lord
toki
of the congress it was not likely to secure peace, but to
/idle war. There was anothe:nvintofimportance. It was
terfectly clear that the noble muit have accepted the
s from Count Persigny with strong expression of
lifteval, or how else could the Empere'r have received this
ee,..°llnation which would have justified hlin in making the
I,`"munication. he did to the Emperor of Austria. It
eas clear something like this must• have occurred, that
zlsant-l!ersigny must have informed his maswr that com-
xelmications were passing between the English Govern-
eent rand the Government, at, Berlin, and that the pro-
Vials he had met with the sanction awl approval of her
wtstre Government. There was one other question
the paper,
he wished to ask. The noble lord said he handed
sadP,aPer to the Austrian Minister without comment, and
bad 48 was not responsible for its terms. Did he say he
eith.nothing to do with them nor had the court. of !F;terlin
Cern? Or did he, by saying " I am notresponsible,
boot Apponyi to believe that the Government of Berlin
had cegnisance of them. (Hear, hear.) This transaction
Produced most important effects; he would not say it
1`1,„ raised difficulties between thm and their ally of
beirce--he had been a faithful ally; he (Mr. Fitzgerald)
aved he was sincere in his desire to cultivate the alli-
eaeticeawith England, and that he was disposed to make
ces to meet the demands of public opinion in this
not The misadventure of the noble lord may, perhaps,
it, have raised difficulties with him, but he must feel that
);_,uad placed him in a false position. (Hear, hear.) It
ti;',7 at least done this : it had made the chasm wider be-
itaden England and Austria, it must have raised distrust
d• suspicion in the court of Berlin, and had introduced
,4tsstrust into the heart of the German Confederation. It
bre an)st important that the noble lord should make a clean
tte,ast and satisfy the House of Conamons how it was that
1)0;. a transaction apparently so trivial results, so im-
titaant had followed. (Hear, hear.) He had occupied the
(II: of the house much longer than he had intended.
ttnesati:' hear.) He had endeavoured to keep close to the
ani 'raised by the resolution, and he was desirous to
he-nhat on the point which the n oble lord had to answer
ad taken a course inconsistent with the honour, the
1144 LY, d the inerets of thi country. War. The
e lordan admittedt thes time hads passed when( a theoretical
(kr sentimental policy could be enforced by arms. He
ea • Fitzgerald) wanted the house to say they would in-
tkrZate a new policy, not that meddling policy which had
bee',Aed their course for the last 25 years, and which had
IC repudiated by every man of influence. (Hear, hear.)
po:°,ould be asked would he have the country remain
bat tess in the councils of Europe ? Certainly not,
cis
,WAS in that house her influence should be exer-
dors "t was not by the meddling of ministers or ambassa -
tee , but by the proud position which she held, and by the
l'oreil''2Pression of exalted sentiment, that she influenced
h' nations. By that she would do more to secure their
app
pre he than by mysterious negotiation, and she would
Lord .7
-"-L1: Own honour and her own interest. (Cheers.)
• VANE opposed the' motion.
~MrB.
t COCHRANE said that if he had felt any doubt
thao the expediency
of the motion now before the house,
he: doubt would have been set at rest after his having
headni the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He
feelzll6ver heard a speech which betrayed so strongly the
inference,
with which the Government would approach the
pas.-terence, if they were permitted to do so. There were
of that speech weich he regretted to' hear. There
b•-e 7 some ports that would not have disgraced Mazzim
tilehef „It (Oh oh.) He had been unable to follow the
fo' -Hs; "°ll- gentleman in his ideas with regard to isolation,
the here were positions when an isolated policy was that of
leg greatest dignity. When the French were placsd in an
thegttred position on what was called the Eastern question of
the eneaty of July, 1840, M. Guizot eroquently explained to
stn Chambers that, although isolation was not the normal
not hef,...,a country, there were yet conditions in which, from
isehea 'mg been consulted with regard to arrangements, an
hen
policy became one of dignity: The late war had
-the' Undertaken in suite of every effort to the contrary on
00.speart of the late thivernment ; and, therefore, the present
ster the acts
must either go to the conference, merely to regi-
Wit
theacts of other Powers, or by mixing themselves up
eihiit.:,ltalian question they would be assuming a respell-
The% Which would ultimately rest heavily upon them.
tact., gaNatches of Lord MalmesburF would prove the great
had ability and impartiality- with w3lich that noble lord
eatritlProached the question, and his views had been ably
(Pleat tecag hY Lord Cowley. But the negotiations subse-
W, ere e t. ee contest on which it was now proposed to enter
mrda ta„YeerY different character. He distrusted the noble
alltee: head of the Government, because from their
congreeene ts, they could not enter with impartiality into the
Parties' "14 must attend it as the advocates of a
the i„,. 1..• Holooked back to 1848, and found that
alway,'rbrironce of the noble lord (Lord Palmerston) bad
the eb.; attended with disaster to the country that was
fort lot of his diplomatic exertions. Naples, Sicily,land
that Were all alike and there was a prevalent feeling
Albert ;8.413'Ni/it. g to his advice.that. the unfortunate Charles
Whole the ulB M- advised attack on Austria. Viewed as
Teeter t, e noble lord's policy had certainly been of a cha-
b."---in' t:rvat (lid. not inspire. confidence &nee for the future. The
Was a ention which this country was bound to adopt
but n°74-intere •
a ention not. merely .of arms and protocols,
guage, afidinterventien also in respect of violence of lan-
°Pinion, • an abstinence frOm all expressions of strong
(Cheers)
the ha
„ ILPIN believed it would not be desirable to bind
dear tot of the Government against upholding interests
hearty sue People of England, and would therefore give a
The (-.,;113,ert to the amendment.
Chance% "NOIIITE• resented the strong. remarks of the
ral auth r of the Exchequer with reference to- the tempo-
longerc.PritY of the Pope, and declared that he would no
tnattei:treve his support to a Government which could
such sentiments.
tlbe 8 MILNES took an opposite view and eulogised
Pcech of the Chancellor as
oe which we' uld give satis-
-4/tc.,ti.yen......t0 the country.
1-IENNESSY reviewed the social condition and in-
grna tprosperity of the Papal States, and contended that
4.,'"e Government of the Su reme Pontiff had been systema-
weeny labelled in• that house.
t. Mr. HORSMAN said he had listened with great admim-
ech of the right hon.
'lon to the nowerful and spirited s
gentleman, t)3.,a Chancellor of the Exchequer.i43;lAt he
remarkablesame
time he had fen. a little surprise at the'v
and
dhfut hon.ture
k_ene lesions by which it was characterised.
F,, I?_.tlein an spoke In glowing terms of the pastte
"Vtaly ; and he showed them what would bel the future. of
ria4st•ria, strengthened by the new dispositionho her Italian
thow 'the
D,,°
But he a !together omitted to
PPiness of Italy or the' future prosperity o;Ao.w
uegi:.t all advanced bylEvgJand going into a Eullaroprieaatiwcaouln-d
The motion of his noble. friend. was a very precise and
actilualey.sptheation of an existing rule of policy to a case
utaemthitted to the Gobernraent and awaiting its de-
rather the ent.this' notice was given. That vas a fact
tather strang
Ily and conveniently kept out of s' ht Jurin
tbuttteeddebate, It had been forgotten that the mlogtion
Cr • i
° n a Public announcement of the Minister of the
orttynii_ the proPosal was actually before the Cabinet 1
that BeubJ dd
• of our being 'parties • to a conference ; an.d
Whic. Government were contemplating that very act
the etit this motion deprecated and condemned. What
plight of the terms used by the Minister. thatwwaes
arroli
eenter into a conference for the
sideragtion'ar not fin ally concluderibirlaastaielloof open to improving c o-
Ile (Mr, Horsnaan) took that to mean that
Aro • enter into a conference for the 13urpose of im-
beeaviliaLC the details of that treaty of which the bases had
ately Feed to. His noble- friend (Lord Elcho) immedi-
• eok the alarm and gavre his notice. Some days had
since el
his aPsed, and some delayr• had taken place, for which
ti,...l°lde friend was not responsible, and it appeared
in ti.l, interim.
the idea of a conference had been aban-
the nut on what ground ha,l it been abandoned ? On
witc°mid
,of the resolution that it would be at variance
the •
_ lt to be l
Was • - pokey which Parliament 1 ad recently affirmed, or
°I. sortie PI atemporary aband on_ment in consequence
Principal preliminary impediments not b9.l'eg, yet removed, the
Nit impediment being the unwillingn ens of Austria to
sub herself to such a conference ? Unu',sr the pressure
fed l" immediate and
not . called upon the remote contingency, his noble
t:.? recently affirmed f house to stand by the p'iwi-iple it
De allured in th
•etZtnPications, throe clove
) strict neutrality, and above aLI, not
ntth hour to plunge into a set, of
Z.B4r!Pe did not pretuend that he the oldest. statesman ,cif
Pro n theresent posit' co
see. way. What
ion with regard t o international policy?
Britista
.mmencement of these Italian complications the
ei,, a k-; binet clearly and positively laid down set;:nof action The first was, that it 'was theirduttwyo, repro-
effort
national sentiment of England, to make
effort to the
be° avert 'war • and the second, that ever
y to observe . was equally their
Peace or strict neutrality, whether there should
war.str He thought it was important for the
pes• 4°- of our own position that the house should ackn ow-
tb; at the late Government had maintained those two
d,,,_ APtee honourably and consistently throughout. Their
harctic el of neutrality was steadily adhered to—they were
paVerii to the close;et
and vieffing the policy of the late
whole--not picling out detached passages
'tented. the B hue Book here and there—he believed it repro-
'tented. th
national sentiments.
natioatalek'a and that, it upheld the
meter. (Hear, hear.) He wo4ald not take any

Books, but
beein the Blue s,it
eentr, versy about the despatc . ook pains to show that, because he did not wish to enter into a
S h was
than it affected the hon. gentleman opposite. uc G
was a question which affected them nationally far morn
There have
vernment came into office. (Hear, hear.)
the state of our foreign relations when the present o
been addresses from all parts of England—from all classes
favour of a strict and impartial neutrality. He did
ne
of the people--containing one universal declaration in
know when such unanimity existed in this cold that oun y
this
-
fore. (Hear, hear.) Now, they were t
motion would fetter the Executive, and the Chancellor of
the Exchequer said it was a most' unusual motion. He
(Mr. Yi.ersman) did not want to fetter the Government
more than they wished to do themselves while stttlfig
on the other sj a retort by saying that
the motion was unietse.4, he might
the house • and when he was told
the conduct of the Governuaeiret
the other side t#i.® principle Oflleutreit4 ',Yds tilt -id, now
;bees unusual ; forsrile on
sanship.
they had taken their plages on the le ,of 4Pe they
said that neutrality ought to LP teikia,r4.2rUe
(Hear, hear.dingthei):4;4.4tleman (Mr,
Ike hon. and , 0 _ _
disap-
proved, said he would throw upon the u eernreent all
the responsibility of this !flatlet' '? bi whatl7___sz the respon-
sibility of Ministers? Suppose their
trey was,
of o ce. (Laughter.)
proved, they were merely turned eu-
That was not much, for right hen, gentlemen took a high
position on thd other side of the house; and they might
come into office again in a few days, (Hew, 3?R0..) itespon-
eibility being such a very light affair, it wes the duty of
the house to take this precaution to prevent that which
they co Lid not afterwards rectify. (Hew., hear.) There
was a mysidry 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
-roper presented to a foreign ambassador by our Minister
Lr.,7oreign Affairs, who did not approve Gf the contents
-emcee of them, who 444 got recommend nor depre-
nor disap
elate them, by this
Lit who simply mit.-e Ilimeelf the channel of
communication 0: the document. 13'4 *ls d'arerY
country of that bit - .naper to Austria had ha the °act of
bringing about hen since—.' peace In which Engeintil was
ored, or there would not hi.:Ye been such a taw recog-
nitionto her the result of
of her position in making known
that peace. (Hear.) In a short time, however, it wag
r
found that that peace would not work,
k Italy was
stigeexas-
perated and disgusted, and the imperial pre was sorely
perplexed. The noble lord at the head of the ProYenlanent
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 Muse
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 satisthetory, 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-I
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 contemporaneoui 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 inforsa
tion. The statement of the First Lord of the Treasury had
not furnished him with it. The noble lord merely stated
that 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 the 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 /notion,
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. Were 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 London,
sayoneword of the determinationonwhichGovernment 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 ? 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 much 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 net
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 ornot. 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. gentteman'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 along series of ages it had succeeded. But
would any man tell him that the Italians, or any race of men
en 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 which had been entered upon for the
remedy of the evil. (Cheers.) What, then, tad this peace
given them ? The very fact that Lombardy had been made
part of a free State wits some guarantee for the liberty
of North Italy. He did not say that liberty would work as
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. They
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 revoluti(.nary 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 dereliction of 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
at'airteo
poz.ntr, they
then, were
whatn o t t to aa
was act tt,
haenedh
jteheetyefmh•ea7 tog discuss
run
men.t at all, if they were to be restricted from the considera-
teirionsisofhithtehegreawet political ;principles in this great political
history. 10 tie up the hands of the
Government in that way—nay,h for the noble lord to ask
thing in time toner.:omels, didow appear
to hands—against
he
the doing
height a any-,
ye -f
the house to tie u
the noble ord intended human
only meaning to beth cedild not believe, however, that
submitted to
would()
gaththereerufrrseme
t,hheichraewtiaesh yet the
f it
hhs
such
hadlcihevee
nurset
hei
tp:re:nutstei!aemanfdromheseccouriulndg notthe
freedom of Italy, and saved that PC:,11118
experienced.
bloidr.swuehmasTiEt
shiadDEalreeemancountry
ywofrulodm
evils
ecteinond
controverted the objection to the re-

tbheee
no tsl 3.0 e rw
sae:
yd ,
observed
vtehde
'solution that it unduly Grip ,'l.):leedu'rphoelincaytioofnnoofnt..hineteearveceuntitivon
and hitherto
e.
In ad
house would but folio* eat Wished precedents, to some of
maintamt
opting it he
through the whole eft; rse of the perturbations in Italy. The
Congress of Paris tried to settle the Italian question and
whicitheulaterfirieifteyrrweticalintlimenfa
failed. What hope was there of better success from a re-
newal of the attempt at It congress elsewhere P He proceeded
to remark upon the peril and mischief which would ensue
if the conduct of discussions at any tittich congress were en-
trust,g4 f„,a the present iqiniSterS tie representing the jute-
resents and hiding the hAnot4 pf
Lord J, RUSSELL--Sirs I tailat edheelvo a motion
wor "o.vo the turbelse it has IS Tiff than
that Wore tip house, What Illy noble friend (Lord Elcho)
endeavour's to affirm is, that the Crown should be invited
abstain from doing a tiling WhiPh it MP payer been asied
to do by anybody, anu vitit. lias not the smallest inten-
tion to 4R, 4y Roble friend says?." Don't tak,e any part in
a congTeS4 fqr Fettling4otoijo pf apex o the preliminaries!
of which were arranged by the two Emperors at Vill
uy her Majesty
franca??? Th,-4 4114 never been proposed.s, ' '
Government, eta elver 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 had
the smallest intention to do. (Hear, bear.) I really con-
ceive, thPrftfore, tigtt it would be difficult to persuade this
house to affirm such a motion, lam personally obliged to
my noble friend ftg 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'; Govern Input on this question should have an op.

Porillnity of expressing their opinions, and endeavouring to
explain that their rnip of eondnot should be the prevail-
ing one. What say my noble friend and the hon, gentle-
man the late Under-Secretary of State fbr Foreign
Affairs with regard t tilts great subject of Italy? The
noble lord says Sardinia is entirely to blame, tmcl that
_ _

if such 1341440 es 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 (Igr, S. Fitzgerald said the war in Italy was
wholly owing to the promptings of Sardinia. 'I thOught
I hr 4 read in the blue-book that Austria was told, in re-
peated doepatehes, that if shO Went to War at t4p, time she
did she would have no moral sympathy or snout from this
country. I ant 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 eon-
duct criminal, at, a time when she believed her territory was
in jeopardy, is tee 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 sent 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 so 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 advise 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 the 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 tha 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
cd
tni do
ni t
si nb se
f,
oa nr e dt
ht he
ya t e thente
rP
intoope a Is
us
co
hw ial
cr
oe
nq
fu ie
dr ee
rcertain a cnodn
I
have not heard that the King
be established. It may be that Sardinia will require certain
of the Two Sicilies has given
an opinion favourable or unfavourable to a meeting ofeon-
tthweobdeanstgmeresn_oofnthe
aotfeotunhesterY dma
ni gghetr
ss r,
is f
r"e
iWg
ne
ianrtee r
vb eetnwtei
oe
nn
con-
ference ; but I can imagine the state of Italy to be such that
with the vie* 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 to consider 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 conferenee, 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-
ner of an old sinner, warned me against acts of vice which
I may be apt to commit. (A laugh.) He says, "Beware
of a guarantee. Nothing is so dangerous to 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-
fresh my memory, and there I found that Lord Malmes-
bury, with the consent of his colleagues, was ready to give
a guarantee to Sardinia.—(a laugh)—a guarantee for the
integrity of Sardinia for a period of five years. •(
Hear.)
Now, it appears to me that such a guarantee is the most
dangerous that any Minister could offer to another coun-
try. (Hear, hear.) In the case of Sardinia there would
have been no end to the protection which you would have
monthly, weekly, and daily to extend to it, and Austria
would have said, " I am unable to bear up against this
protection. My subjects are excited to rebellion against me
by the conduct of Sardinia, and I must march an army into
that country to put an end to it." Then, though you
might adroit 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 orsham by whom this
guarantee was proposed, and 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 ain 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 t'russia I stated that all partie—l ought perhaps to 1
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 Cock, 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 ho 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 themselves guilty of any unworthy excesses ? So far
froth that, their conduct has attracted the admiration of all
Burope—(hear)—because though they wished to reform
their Governments, and ;hough at some places they even
proclaimed the Code Napoleon, anything more temperate,
any/thing loss like violent republicanism, no country has
evqr 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
ambiguous and somewhat obscure article fegardatE it in the

gttorelwphabrerihadtseafsal
oioi
tonmvi ietaFtnhwktoaoheerr iesreoi eei
place
Foreign
tss believet 000 t fhwr paeAl
ffhienoaacaaniteaterhessoc.
eenofd,
erteidPahte
conference
rtaeroGrbe
s from ar the
e d i
at t may
Zurich, b e e
Butxp explained a
wi nee
have
a vb by
EDamudkpeeesprooafrteTohfusltchahaenyy;eaTnte;
f
Emperor of the French has
remhcoeisriveebettlhaihe
nor the Emperor of Austria means to use force in order to
theirr thatoformerne e
wi
will
with 's
so
re-
ceived to-day it appears that the Austrian Minis-
ter
the people of Modena and Tuscany °be
can have no objections ; but I'must say, on the o(t)h
purpose were to take pls-
reigns. Well, if they do so, her Majesty's G v
that if.e Oiling° of ent
hand,
Sayerexgns were to attempt to use force, -a, and the
Source of unfertunate troubles in would be the
commencement of a new strugri- ..y; it would be the
what would be the evils, the -- and no one could say
Ir.lited in such eironalat9-. .4itrages, that might be com-
verunient waulcl w' -.aces. To such a course the Go-
be necessary -,st decidedly object; but it would not
becan.- I
enter into a conference for that purpose,
°...lections could be stated in formal communica-
us the Governments concerned. It is not necessary
that we should have a conference for that purpose, and the
house knows that so far from being a friend to a conference,
I see more objectioni against it than for it; but we are not
to bar ourselves against the use of any means by which the
peace of Italy may be preserved. (Hear, hear.) The hon.
member for Horsham has asked me some 15 or 20 ques-
tions as to what passed between me and the French Am-
bassador before the conclusion of peace. With regard to
all these questions an answer will be best conveyed by
stating what happened. The French Ambassador had fre-
quently spoken to me of terms of peace which he thought,
after a considerable period of war, if fortune should favour
the arms of France, might be proposed. I listened to those
statements, and I said it was not likely that either the Em-
peror of the French or the Emperor of Austria would be
prepared to make peace at that time, and that therefore any
consideration of set terms of peace should be postponed. But
he brought to me one day a written piece of paper contain-
ing certain articles, and said it was the wiali 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 of it, , that those were the
terms propeaed by the Emperor of t%elrench. However,
he said enough to show that if these terms were accepted
by Austria the Emperor of the French would be
ready to sanction them. I was going to a Cabinet
Council at the tune, and the I communicated to my col-
leagnes what he had said, They one and all agreed that we
could not make a final communication of any such terms—
that the period had not arrived when we could prefer our
good offiees. But as those tern were more moderate than,
from the proclamation of the French Emperor, we could
have expected he Wettld offer, they thought it would not be
right to conceit 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 en the same night. The hon. Inver
asks
what Prussia said. Nothing whatever, for spoke to
Prussia on the subject. (A laugh,) He also asked what Rus-
sia said. To that 1 have to give the same answer. Nothing
whatever, for I hod communication with the Minister of
Russia on the subject. (A laugh.) The Austrian Minister
said it would be his duty to send the terms to his Government
but wished to know my idea wit* regard to it. I said "The
British Governnica24 transmit them to you to be sent to the
Emperor of Austria, but as to offering any advice, we dis-
tinctly declare that we eller no advice or opinion regarding
theln. Aostriii may accept them or reject them them as it
may deem best." He said afterwards to me " Ido 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 en 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 prelbr that I should speak to the Mi-
nisters of PrgaSl4 and Russia, and inform them of the
terms, and that there would be no difficulty in proposing
them as a basis of a peace, lam ready to do so." (Hear,
hear. I think it was our duty not to conceal from Austria
that
anew might be obtained on the terms proposed. (Hear,
hear.) If we had refused to communicate these terms, and
if Verona and Perschiera and 'Venice had fallen, and Aus-
tria had besn 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 .A.pponyi saying that his Government con-
sidered these propositions quite inadmissible. Ido not find
fault 'with the hon. gentleman for making a confusion in
the story, because he probably has heard it very inaccu-
ritelv, and has only repeated it as he heard it; but at that
time, on that very clay, 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 to recom-

mend them. My noble friend and I considered that ques-
tion, and we resolved to ask our colleages what was their
opinion of that proposition. On the same evening, how-
ever, I received from Count Apponyi the note to which I
have referred, alai accordingiy the next day there could
be no doubt or difficulty in the Cabinet, because we
were all agreed not to propose to Austria terms on
which she was not willing to treat. These terms
did nct 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 diffi-
culty attending communications by telegram, and it is like-
wise very diffidult for belligerent Powers to know what is
going on in the councils of neutrals, but it certainly did so
happen that while on the one side the Emperor of Austria
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 ho 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 thefuture which he had to meet. The Em-
peror of Austria thcught 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 up
Lombardy, I do rejoice that peace was made, and I think
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 sae
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 claim the allegiance of the people of France ? and yet
they pay no 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 G 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 in 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, 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
Ciafunshseelfao,rgwohtenhetrhadtutadievslcief
and
herself, as it was supposed to do in Roman times, from the
whole world, and attend merely to her internal affairs. r
etei t
required,irt while in the first instance her
unous tc, other nations, while in the
second place it would lead to the preponderance of some
ould end in the loss of that
and to the consequent injury and detriment
great Power,
etzhni.ch(beyneseurcah.)selfish means we had en-
deavoured hafe refusednl oti those counsels ecpeopleher
would
if
d v ifs
bhvEc
eeeir:eanr no od
one hon. gentleman in the course of the debate, it is hardly
Mr. DISRAELI—Having been alluded to by more than
not detain the house at any length by the few possible for me to be altogether silent ; but at this late hour
I shall
dveerYtivoiurndeedpetnodmenam9
allusions which. have been made to me I will commence
ob-
servations I have to offer. And to touch in order on the

-.mama
with the Chancellor of the Ex:chequer. The right
hon. gentleman charges me t vith having violated
neutrality in two distinct form is, and with having
made an intimation in my place in I 'arliament as a respon-
sible Minister of the Crown of a mos rt inaportant character,
which he then proceeds to prove 7 I was not justified in
making. He says that while we pr efessed to be the advo-
cateP, .of strict and impartial neutr ulity, it was I myself
who gave the first evidence of a *Won of it, because I
spoke in terms of great respect of A ustria, while, on the
other hand I spoke of Sardinia ire. language which con-
veyed a far different sentiment. Iha ye not referred to the
authentic record of what took plaoe •on that occasion, but
the time that has elapsed is so "brief, that I think I
may trust to my own memory, and . -perhaps to the recol-
lection of the house—for though it was in a different
Parliament, many members who w- 3re then present are pre-
sent now, and will be able to testif y to the accuracy of my
statement.. It was on the night dICU it was my duty to
lay before the house, in 'compile nee with the engagement
of the late Ministry; a statement ol: the exact position in
which this country was placed with respect to our relations
with Austria 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 ;net I spoke of the gallant; and interesting efforts
made by that country to establish representative govern-
ment, and what are called liberal institutions in Italy. I
said that was an effort which had (malls ted the good feelings
of all classes 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 for 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 If felt convinced that
this country would place upon those passages the most
generous interpretation, as her Majesty's Government had.
(Hear.) Was that an attack upon Sardinia P Is there
any man here who will for a mom ant '
pretend that in
the interval which elapsed between the capture of -Sebes-
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 Affairs, who himself has acknow-
ledged and deplored those very passages in the conduct of
Sardinia in fostering dissensions lin 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 the conduct 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 fur 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 wore the circumstances
under which I addressed the house ? It was -one of the
most critical passages of the negotiation 4. 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.) I 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-night 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 ? 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 in-
fluence, 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 regard 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 shere 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 contem-
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, fog 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 guarantee 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 ? 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 misconceived 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
noble 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 Horsham did address
himself to 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 document 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
expression 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.l (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 Government give any ap-
proval. to the project contained in that piece of paper, and
was that approval communicated to the Emperor of the
French P 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
.to con-
sider the affairs of Italy? Don't answer us by saying it is
possible the two Emperors may meet at Turin and come to
some definite arrangement that will render a Congress
unnecessary.. Don't tell us that these are matters of detai
that may be require to be considered in a manner that wi

open near 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 proves to me that the Chancellor 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
general danger. 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 influence ;" my dn-
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 not
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-N. 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, both of 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
Qubject. With respect to the motion of the noble lord (Elcho),
,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 the form of
the motion bayonet 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
)ustice to the subject, must necessarily arrive at a most
hurried and precipitate conclusion. I objected to the form
of the motion 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 conntry with respect to its external relations
before the prorogation of Parliament. The discussion
which has taken place 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 on 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 Perna-
mentary campaign—were disappointed. I remember the
numerous county meetings that took place, and the memo-
rials and petitions that were adopted. r 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 that
we have heard that expression from the Chancellor of the
Exchequer, because I feel convinced, considering,
toO that
in this house he sits beside the noble lord, and that both of
themt o
destroy
s
artroeylnthene Pope in ienntthteeminpteerarvmalenbetiwteehant
It is to
thei f they
pattemptrem g
n
a time of it as his Holiness himself. (Laughter.)reasn,
reason, that the con-
templatedand the reassembling of Parliament we shen have as hard
be desired, then, for this if for noe otheree.
Let
the
two congress may not . la
sig-
natories of the
them work out their
their Ministers at Zurich. Let us see
It •
sketch. Let us have the finished picture. is an opera-
tionpreliminary articles at Villafranca meet with
which we may vie
greatshould put our hand
tion. And if it be necessary that we
• w with interest and instruc •
exhibit a proper and to it, depend upon it, if
wenow
w with immenselydig-
nifiedinterfere more
effect when the rulers of France and Austria, if they fail,
have confessed their inability to make a settlement, and
when they appeal to us not to extricate them from the con-
sequences of the rash engagements into which they have
entered, but to step forwardtosecure the peace of Europe
and that general cause of civilisation which will I trust
enlist the best feelings of all the Powers of Europe. (Cheers.)
Lord PALMERSTON—Sir, I am nGt 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 a conviction
in his mind that he gets up at the close of the discussion,
throws over his friends, negatives the motion of the noble
lord, and is perfectly satisfied that it is improper alike in

form and in -substance, in time and occasion. (A laugh.)
The right hon. gentleman was, however, not quite so sue •
cessfnl in answering the observations of my right hon.
friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer upon the same pas-
sage of a speech that he made in the list session of Parlia-
ment. My right hon. frientVadyerting tcahe interpretation
endeavoured to be put by some hon..Menibers on the term
"neutrality"—an interpretation whierk not confining the
word to its ordinary acceptation of aflintinence from tak-
ing part in a war between belligerents, but extending it
from action to thought, and from thought to expression—
and accusing :the present Government of departing from
neutrality because they have opinions as to what may be
best for the welfare of the people of Italy; my right hon.
friend; I say, stated that the right hon. gentleman and the
Government to which he belonged had sinned, if it were a
sin, still more in that direction than We have been accused
of doing. As an example of that, he quoted the expressions
used by the right hon. gentleman on ,the day preceding the
dissolution of. Parliament; when he, on full preparation, pro-
fessed to give to the house a statement of the condition
of our foreign relatiens._ The, right hon. gentleman then
commented on the ambiguous and suspicious conduct of
Sardinia on the one hand, and on the dignified conciliation
of Austria on the other. Now, about the time when he
thus praised the dignified conciliation of Austria our Go-
vernment was in possession of a communication from the
Austrian Minister informing them that the Austrian Govern-
ment was sending to Turin that very summons with a Con-
ditional threat of hostilities, which a week afterwards Lord
Derby, at the Lord Mayor's dinner, declared put Austria in
the position of a " criminal." But the right hon. gentleman
says " Oh, no ; the intimation was that Sardinia was to
arm only as a preliminary to the congress," and he added
that he received a few seconds before he rose a communica-

Lou from Paris stating that the French Government were
enforcing that recommendation, and that there were good
grounds for expecting that Sardinia would give way, and
that the peace of Europe would be maintained—that the
French and the British Goveniments recommended that
which Austria was demanding, namely, that Sardinia
should accept theigeneral principle of disarmament as a
process to be gone through by all the Powers concerned
previous to entering the congress. Well, but what was it
that Austria demanded ? Why, that Sardinia singly should
disarm in the first place, and trust to her •generosity after-
wards to abstain from attacking her—that abstinence, how-
ever, to continue only as, long as the negotiations continued.
Her threat was that unless within three days the acquies-
cence of Sardinia was given, Austria would declare war
against her. The right hon. gentleman Must have known,
or ought to have known at the moment he made that
statement that such a notice had been given by Austria'
to the Sardinian Government, and with such knowledge,
to say that the conduct of Austria was that of dignified
conciliation implied such a partisanship with Austria
that it is impossible, according to his own doctrine of
neutrality, to maintain that his Govermnent was neutral
in the sense of a strict and impartial neutrality. The
right hon. 'gentleman asks further questions in addition
to those which my noble friend has answered.. p de-
sires to know whether when the French Am gav e
ba4
the memorandum which was afterwards convey ' - by my
noble friend to the Austrian Minister any approbation of its
terms was expressed by my noble friend to his Excellency,
because, he says, if the British Government expressed to
the French Government approbation of those terms,' then
we are answerable for the result, and for the Peace of Vil-
lafranca. Now, in the first place my noble friend made no
such statement He said to the French ambassador, " I
will take the paper and communicate it to the Austrian
Minister, but I will' give no advice and no opinion; -I will-
simply be the channel of communication." But if the
British Government had expressed an opinion strongly in
favour of those conditions, and had undertaken to support
them at Vienna, the natural and inecesssary consequences
would have been that the Emperor of the French would
not have been disposed at Villafranca to propose to the Em-
peror of Austria more favourable terms than those which he
had been led to imagine the British Government would sup-
port and would induce Prussia and ' RUssia to support in
conjunction with her. Therefore, with regard to that, the
statement is -perfectly consistent with that which I made
when the question was put to me some time ago. At this
late hour of the night I shall not go into the general ques-
tion—(heat,
hear)—but I must be allowed to say to my
noble friend who made the-motion-that this is the most ex—
traordinary composition I ever read. (Laughter.) He
proposes that this house shall resolve that whereas the
Government of Great Britain did all it 'could to prevent
war, and during the war did all it could to bring about a
peace, on that account it should abstain from taking any
part in the negotiations after the peace for the purpose
of making that peace more satisfactory, more durable,
and better for the interests of the party concerned.
(Laughter.) That appears to me to be what I should
call a non sequitur. I -should have argued just in the --
opposite way. and should have maintained that the
same spirit which had led the Government of Enhland
to endeavour to prevent the war, and when it was
commenced to put an end to it, should be followed out
on proper occasions when the terms of peace were tot vom-
plete, and arrangements of importance were not settled.
I should have, on the contrary, inferred that it would be
useftid to take part under such circumstances in arrange-
ments of that kind when we were invited to do so by other
great Powers. Then, my noble friend says that that being
the case—the British Government having been anxious to
prevent war and afterwards to put an end to it, it would be
contrary to the honour and dignity of England—to do
what ? Why, to endeavour to take any part in settling the
details of the treaty concluded by the two Emperors at
Villa'&anca. The only inference to be drawn from the mo-
tion is that the Emperor of Austria and the Emperor of the
French are persens with whom the British Government
ought to have no transactions whatever. (A laugh.) My
noble friend has said that he drew the resolution himself. I
am sorry if it be so, and I think that if he had taken the
advice of the right hon. member for Stroud, or of some of
those who sit opposite, he would have presented to the
house a motion a little better shaped and more calculated,
at all events, to receive the support of those who agree with
him in his general views. (Hear, hear.) But we are told
by the right hon. gentleman the member for Bucks that we
are proposing to go into a conference for unsettling the ar-
rangements of 11815. Why, in the first place, we are not
proposing to go into a conference at all. (Cheers.) It has
simply been intimated to us that we 'may receive a proposal
to go into a conference, provided the other Powers con-
cerned are ready to do so, and would like us to join them.
(Hear, hear.) To upset the arrangements of 1815 is also
an object which it is impossible to imagine that the Powers
who might concur with us in a conference would unite to
accomplish. No doubt there have been in the course of
years great alterations made in the settleinent of 1816.
The annexation of the kingdom of Poland to the em-
pire of Russia was a great, change in the arrangement
'of Vienna. So also was the annexation to Austria of
the republic of Cracow. Ido nit say that on that ac-
count other changes should be adopted, because we
protested both in regard to Poland and in regard to Cracow.
No doubt, moreover, the transfer of Lombardy, through
France, to Sardinia is a change in the terms of the treaty
of Vienna. The right hon. gentleman the member for Bucks
makes it a reproach to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that
he thinks that the arrangement of Vienna has not tended
to the happiness and welfare of the Italian peninsula. I
entirely share that opinion. I think that though the set-
tlement of Vienna in regard to Italy was devised at the
time for a purpose which was deemed important, its object
in that respect has not been accomplished, and other evil
consequences have arisen which have produced years of
misery and wretchedness to the unfortunate nations who
inhabit that fair and fertile district. (Hear.) Before the
war began, we said that the Government ought to have
persuaded Austria to go into a congress, and that one of the
objects of that congress ought to have been to maintain, in
regard to the Austrian possessions in Italy, the arrange-
ment of 1815. So long as peace was unbroken the provi-
sions of the treaty of Vienna were to be respected by all the
Powers of Europe ; but when war put an end to treaties, as
between belligerents, the territories that were the scenete ande
the cause tot war naturally passed from the worsted to t the
wriaboroebtirtivume
sppohkanent
those
Government would go into a conference with some view. . r
on otli(Hereasrid.
which
her out of Venetia,
)e i
mI teig
is
n e evident.that
t the thaß nht 0 _
Italy, of endeavouring to drive
have always
the war has still left in her hands. Now, I . .
altering still further the territorial possessions of Austria in
Italy. (Hear.)
would be stronger if she had no possessions in .
' like the heel of Achilles, are her
Her possessions there,
maintained—and I maintain still—that I think Austria
vulnerable point; they do not add to her strength, but
ex-
pose her to attack ; they are a source not only of military
weakness, but of moral injury. In order maintain a cer-
tain kind of government in her own territories, she thinks
to
herself compelled to favour the same and even a worse
kind of government in every other part of Italy, and
she has consequently placed herself in the odious light of
and misery to which the different peoples of Italy are being believed to be the real cause of all the Misgovernment
ex-
posed. This is netdan opinion of to-day or yesterday. A
foreign friend reminded me the other day that 15 years ago
I told him that the Italian possessions of Austria were a
source of weakness and not of strength. I believe that opi-
nion to be a sound one, but it is one thing to hold an opi-
nion, and another for a Government to enter into measures
for the purpose of violently changing arrangements which
are the foundation of treaties that form the basis of the
European system. (Hear, hear.) Still, if an opportunity
should be presented to the British Government of doing
good to Italy by means of a conference, if by their advice
and suggestions they should be able to confer lasting bene-
fits upon the Italian people, and thereby add secimturtthybeetopr the
r
. us
dsp
tewoT—hjhi
whether
hnrt
iehigrnahwt
at ceehale trghgeoneei ynne
conference
withetowouldm gentleman
deal nbt
the
tweobt
be
e rpowers. justifiable
113 B( fHeaut they refused frabesEefkua
hear.)
Europe—in
s
thatwvadviceehrni cmhso woulderchntoatman elds alreadysh
him
em removedb
to
nie givense t
that
maintainiantt oa
discontent t conference,
Pe,
tro eopne e
to
o.t
and the King of Naples. It is not likely that questions of
the
ea.Wenfaeerk nmel existence
shoewiwshtGheoareoti
supportrarhkiesdatuhtahtoirtitiys.anA
unstapteeasasmanntwtbihz
fnoarmeiegnl
forget
s oneefor a Sovereign to sit upon bayonets. (A laugil .) The Pope
is now in that disagreeable position, but I. hope he will of
his own accord select a more soft and solid support for his
person and Government. (Cheers and laughter.) I trust,
then, that the house will not support the motion which my
noble friend has submitted to its consideration. The hon.
and learned member for Bridgewater has met it in a most,
indulgent manner. I should have been perfectly prepared
to give it a direct negative, for it is wrong in its form,
its substance, and its opportunity,
the discretion of the advisers of the Crown on _
future occasion, and under circumstances which
they are not
are at present unknown, because
with the hon. and,
in existence ; but I am content to vote
question.
learned membei for Bridgewater for the previous q
tending to fetter
(Hear, hear.)
to the First Minister, who
the best answer he could give
oth in form and substance, wee
thought his motion wrong . .
of the Foreign Secretary,
to refer to the expressed opinion .
Lord ELCHO, who rose amidst cries of "divide," said
be consistent et ith the honour
his senses could say it would .
that the motion was,
f England to go into a conference merely to
or dignity e in factta truism, and that no man in
settle the wofasthe Treaty of Villafranca. The only
Exchequer had exhbted•any want of courtesy towards
the
ii
complaint he could mak ewas, not that the Chancellor of
him, but that he had never read the motion. That motion.
applied simply to the details of the peace.. It was said tG
be irrelevant. So perhaps it was note, but three weeks
ago, when notice of it was given, he had, reason 'to believe
that the Government were about to con emit the count to
a confe ranee and to settle the details of the peace. Head
carefully guarded himself from the su ppositiorethat itair-
cumstances arose which he could not anticipate he wiplod
to preclude the Government from 'go ing into a confer-me ,
respecting the affairs of Italy. II e was willing ii, that
case to leave the discretion of enterin€ ; such a confers' ape in
the hands of the Government. And now what hal L been