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

part in it, because the main objection, viz., the want of
authority on the part of England, would be removed.
(Hear.) He did not desiie 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
refer,ence to the affairs of continental Europe. The im-
portance of the sect ho 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. (d Hear," and a laugh.) He was glad to find
that the Emperor Napoleon was disarming, and regarded
tho fact as a happy omen for this countrr, 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 ono
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 bear somereference 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 by thetwo 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. Cinglake) 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 not reverse 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 that vote and support the proposition which has
been made by the hon. and learned member, made 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 lam 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 betwean 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 conference 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 at the decision
that under no circumstances are we to take part in this
coming conference. These are the terfns 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
me 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 .f 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 Savoured any such indication, that we were met
here to try a great issue, in which 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 noble 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 fr
iend.
and what is the purpose—l think I can answer this with
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 friend has spoken
in warm and strong terms of his sympathy for Italy. I give
him the fullest credit for entertaining that sympathy, but
it
own I much regret the form which it has assumed.
laugh.) Still my noble-friend undoubtedly
,entertains that
sentiment, but I donbt whether the right hon. gentleman
the member for Bucks was moved by sympathy for Italy
when he said it was exceedingly desirable that the opinion
of Parlianient shouldabe expressed upon the subject. My
noble friend has spoken in just commendation, as he thinks,
of the strict and impartial neutrality which_ was maintained
by the late Government ; and, indeed, the principal point
in his speech has been the broad distinction he has drawn
between the neutrality of the late and the neutrality of the
present Government.
The neutrality of the late Govern-
ment, according to him, was the neutrality of an umpire;
while the neutrality of the present Government is the af-
fected neutrality of e, partisan. Let me say a few words
upon the two parts of that question. Beyond giving credit
to the late Government in the person of Lord Malmesbury
for perfect integrity of intention, and for an indefatigable
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 te 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 one 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
docmhent 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 tae 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—