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

form snd in substance, in time and occasion.. (A laugh.) ,
The right hon. gentleman was, however, not quite so sue. 2';
cessful iu answering the observations of my right hen. •
friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer upon the same pas-
sage of a speech that he made in the last session of Parlia- oil
ment. My right hon. friend, adverting to the interpretation
endeavoured to be put by some hon. membus on the term
"neutrality P—an interpretation which, not confining the `,
word to its ordinary acceptatiOn of an abstinence from tak-
bnienesugtt
forp between belligerents, but extending it
from action to thought, and from thought to expression—
and acacritisin a war
Governmentng:present of departing from
neutrality
ybbemc,aaufasree tohfeyt,be peoplehaveopi noifons Italy;a s t omwyhariotmtay,
hon.be
Gfrioezdrn, say,lment t
sotawtebditchh be belongedattheri had sinned,
ght hban. ge
f it
gentleman and
a
dethe
sin, still more in that direction than we have been.accused
dissolbuytito hne o right igFhatrl hon.iam Parliament,
gentleman of doing. As an example of that, he quoted the expressions
used
lbemenanbeo, on nthfueu prep
_da
Yparercaettn, preceding
gpthree-
fessed to give to the house a statement of the condition
of our foreign relations. The -righton.gentleman then
commented
commented on the ambiguous ,and 'suspidious 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-
. meat Nacsencling to Turin that very summons 'with a eon-
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 dis-
arm only as a preliminary to the congress," and he added
that he received a few seconds before he rose a communica-
tion 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 Governments recommended that
which Austria was demanding, namely, that Sardinia
should accept thelgeneral principle of disarmament as a
process to be gone through by all the Powers concerned
previmis 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 -aught• to. bays known., at the moment he made that
statement thiii 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 Government 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. He de-
sires to know whether when the French Ambassador gave
the memorandum which was afterwards conveyed by my
noble friend to the Austrian Minister any appadtation of its
terms was expressed by my noble friend to hit' Excellency,
because, he says, if the British Government expressed to
:he 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 (necesssary 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 imaginethe 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 questien was put to me some time ago. At this
late hour of the night I shall not go into the general ques-
tion—(hear, hear)—but I must be allowed to say to my
noble friend who made the motion theillaie is the most ex-
traordinary composition I ever res. aughter.) He
proposes that this house shall resolve at 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 Tut an end to it, should be followed out
on proper occasions when the terms of peace were not com-
plete, and arrangements of importance were not settled.
I should have, on the contrary, inferred that it would be
useful 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 totake any part in settling the
details of the treaty concluded by the two Emperors at
Villafranca. 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 je•la 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 settlement of 1815.
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.
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 scene and
the cause if war naturally passed from the worsted to the
I more triumphant party. (Hear.) It is evident that those
who have spoken on the other side imagine that the British
view of
Government would go into a conference with some v
altering still farther the territorial possessions of Austria
to driveler out of Venetia, which
Italy, of endeavouring
the war has still left in her hands. Now,
I have always
maintained—and I maintain still—that think Austria
' would be stronger if she had no possessions in Italy. (Hear.)
Her possessions there, like the heel of Achilles, arc her
vulnerable point ; they do not add to her strength, but ex-
pose her to only of military
weakness, ; they are a source not
weakness, but of moral injury. In order to maintain a cer-
tain . k 8
kind of government in her own territories, she thinks
herself compelled to favour the same and even a worse
kind of government in every other part of Italy, at d
she has consequently placed herself in the odious light of
being believed
to be the real cause of all the misgovernment
and misery to which the different peoples of Italy are ex-
posed. This is not an 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 asconference, if by their advice
and suggestions they should be able to confer lasting bene-
fits upon the Italian people, and thereby add security to the
peace of Europe—in that case, they would not be justifiable
if they refused to join in a conference with the other powers.
(Hear, hear.) The right hon. gentleman the member for
Bucks asks us whether we are going to deal with the Pope
and the King of Naples. It is not likely that questions of
that sort would be discussed in a conference. We know that
advice has already been given to the Pope to reform his Go-
vernment, and so remove that discontent the existence of
which compels him to maintain in Rome and elsewhere
foreign troops to support his authority. A statesman whose
name I forget once remarked that it is an unpleasant thing
for a Sovereign to sit upon bayonets. (A. laugh.) 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, tending to fetter
the discretion of the advisers of the Crown on some
future occasion, and under circumstances which
•
are at present unknown, because they are not
i
th the hon. and
in existence • but I am content to vote
learned menribea for Bridgewater for the previous question.
(H
Lord ear, hear
ELCH .)
O, who rose amidst -cries of "divide," said
the best answer he could give to theo and substance, was First Minister, who
rm
thought his motion wrong both
in
f to refer to the expressed opinion e,f the Foreign Secretary,
that the motion was, in fact, a ftr in= , and that no man in
his senses could say it would be consistent n ith the honour
or dignity of England to g csinto a conference merely to
settle the details of the Treat f of Villafranca. The only
complaint
o y
complaint he could make wa 1, not t'nat the Chancellor of
the
Exchequer had exhibited any runt of courtesy towards
him, but that he had never: read *le motion. That motion
applied simply to the deta'ils 'the peace. It was said to
be- irrelevant. So pen Aasrse
it was now, but three weeks
ago, when notice of it v (as riven, he had reason to believe
that the Government Ne.,:e4)about to commit the country to
a conference, and to Si Ott'
e the details of the peace. He had
11 carefully guarded ',lni
;elf from the supposition that if cir-
cumstances arose • v.
tch he could not anticipates he wished
to preclude the tsa ernment from goirmisito a conference
respecting the air
airs of Italy. He as willing in that
case to leave the er iscretion of entering such a eonference in
the hands of the lover nmen f• And now what had been
.