The Sun.
London, England, 1866-07-24 00:00:00

THE WAR IN EUROPE.

The Marquis of CLANRICARDE wished to know if
any, awl what, steps had been taken by her Majesty's Go-
vernment in recommending negotiations for peace to any
of the belligerents in the European war. From what fell
from the noble earl opposite on Friday night, he thought
some steps had been taken ; and the noble earl on the
bench above him (Earl Russell) had expressed his regret at
a dinner which took place on Saturday evening, that the
British Government had taken the course they had.
The Earl of DERBY said the question ought to have been
addressed to the noble earl opposite, and he (Lord Derby)
now begged to ask if the report of the speech by the noble
earl with respect to the course pursued by the Government
was correct.

Earl RUSSELL said what he had stated only referred to
an armistice favourably spoken of by the Government, and
not to any terms of peace.
The Earl of DERBY—I confess I can hardly reconcile
the explanation given by the noble earl with the words as
reported, as in those words the noble earl expresses his
regret that the British Secretary of State should have given
his sanction to terms which he knew would be offensive
to the Italian people. I should not have taken any notice
of this speech under the circumstances had it not been for
the question of the noble marquis. That speech was made,
I believe, at a species of political picnic, established on
Saturday last, for, in the first instance, doing honour to the
memory of the late Mr. Cobden, and in the next place
establishing the Cobden Club; and the names of those pre-
sent, and more especially the names of those who formed
the committee, appeared, in conjunction with Mr. Gladstone
and the noble earl, to form the most advanced section of
liberal politicians. Before that audience the noble earl's
health was drank, and in returning thanks he thought it
necessary to deal with the question on which the noble
marquis had touched. The circumstances are briefly these.
Upon the first day that we accepted office, and before we
returned from Windsor, the French ambassador called at
the Foreign-office and communicated to the Under-Secre-
tary of State the arrangement made between France and
Austria, and communicated copies of letters addressed to
the Kings of Prussia and Italy, communicating the csssion
of Venetia to France. That was accompanied by no obser-
vations at all, but later in the day he again called at the
Foreign-office, and stated he had received a telegraphic
communication requesting us to unite our good offices with
those of France to stop the effusion of blood. That telegram
was communicated to us immediately on our return from
Windsor, but, in conformity with the determination we
had come to not to interfere to state any terms, we simply
complied with the application, and instructed our ministers
at Berlin and Florence to .o-operate to obtain, if pos-
sible, an armistice for the purpose of endeavouring to
ascertain whether any terms of peace could be named.
I need not say that in dealing with that proposal for an
armistice we expressed no opinion whatever upon any
political question attached to it. We did not think it con-
sistent with our duty, having simply received the intelli-
gence as un jait accompli of the cession of Venetia, to make
any representation to either France or Austria, nor did we
consider it any part of our duty to consider whether the
cession was or was not likely to be agreeable to the Italian
people. I can easily imagine that a proposal for the ces-
sion of Venetia to France would not be likely to be conci-
liatory to the people of Italy, and that they might feel con-
siderably hurt at finding they had obtained that which
they desired, not by their own arms, but by the arms of
Prussia and the diplomacy of France. But that was a
question upon which we had no right to enter. Our sole
object was to stop the effusion of blood, and if possible to
pave the way to peace. It is perfectly well known that our
endeavours and those of France failed in theif object, and
from that period the attempt at mediation has been in the
hands of the Emperor of the French. We have takep no
part whatever in negotiations ; our advice has not been
asked, and we have not given any. We have simply stood
aloof awaiting for any opportunity which might occur for
inteeposing our good offices if required towards the resto-
ration of peace, but we have had nothtegiwhatever to do
with any terms between the three belligerents. That is
the state in which the case stands at present. The Emperor
of the French has taken upon himself to mediate between
the contending parties. Certainly at one time his media-
tion did not appear to be successful, but I am happy to say
that by the last telegram, although I do not know what
the terms precisely are, preliminaries of peace have been
accepted by Austria and Prussia. I think that we may
indulge the sanguine hope that the horrors of war are over
for the present, and that diplomacy may effect, on what-
ever terms, at all events a peaceable if not altogether satis-
factory solution of a question which at ono time threatened
to involve Europe in a very long and sanguinary war.
(Hear, hear.)
Earl RUSSELL—I am of the same opinion now that I
was, namely, that the proposal of an armistice without any
preliminaries of peace was not likely to stop the King of
Prussia in his career. I understand now that preliminaries
of peace have been proposed—l hope that is so—and that
those preliminaries have already been so far accepted as to
give hoges of the restoration of peace. (Hear, hear.) No
one can rejoice more than I shall at that event.

The Earl of DERBY— The authority upon which I stated
that the preliminaries of peace had been accepted by the
Governments of Austria and Prussia is a telegram received
from Lord Cowley yesterday after communication with the
Emperor of the French. With regard to the observation
of the noble lord, I confess I do not understand its force,
bpcause I do not understand how, if it were commendable
on the part of the Emperor of the French to offer these pro-
positions, it can be matter of regret that the English Sec-
retary of State 'should have endeavoured to give effect to
the views of the Emperor. (Hear, hear.)

Earl RUSSELL—The noble earl will allow me to ex-
plain somewhat further what I said. The Emperor of the
French, having made this proposal for an armistice, re-
ceived, as I understand, an answer from the King of Prus-
sia which, I think, was very natural and fair under the cir-
cumstances, the purport of that answer being, "I cannot
accept this armistice, which is a scheme to give time to my
enemy to recruit his forces and repair his strength ; but if
it was coupled with proposals that might serve as prelimi-
naries of peace, then I should be willing to agree to an ar-
mistice." I just read as I came into the house an account
of the proceedings of the Emperor Napoleon the First after
the battle of Austerlitz, which states that the two princes,
the Emperor of Austria and the Emperor of the French,
met, and after some conversation agreed at once to an ar-
mistice and to the preliminaries of peace ; and the account
ends by saying that preliminaries of peace having been
agreed to, peace may be concluded in a few days. It is
Perfectly conceivable that preliminaries of peace having
been agreed to, an armistice was likely to be accepted , but
it is not conceivable that two belligerents, one being.vic-
torious over the other, should agree to an armistice merely,
to give hope of the establishment of peace.
Lord ST. LEONARDS drew attention to the present
state of the law upon sales of estates by auction, and gave
notice that he should once more introduce a bill for its
amendment. •
The National Gallery Enlargement Bill passed through
committee, and several other measures having been ad-
vanced a stage, their lordships adjourned.

MOUSE OF COMMONS--LAST EVENING.
The Speaker took the chair at 4 o'clock.
ROYAL COMMISSION.
The Royal assent was given by commission to several
bills, for which see Lords' report.
The Cattle Insurance Diseases Prevention Act (1866)
Amendment Bill was read a second time.

T
Ile Facilities Act (1864) Amendment Bill was also read
a second time. ,

AMAZON AND THE COLLISION IN THE

' CHANNEL.
Mr. SAMUDA asked the First Lord of the Admiralty,
in reference to the collision of her Majesty's sloop Amazon
and the screw steamer Osprey, and the foundering of both
vessels, to explain how it had happened that the Amazon,
apparently built with the view to be used as a ram, should
have caused her own destruction by striking a vessel in a
smooth sea, that vessel being smaller than herself, and not
built with any powers of resistance beyond those ordi-
narily adopted in merchant vessels; and, if the Amazon
was not intended to be used as a ram, to explain why the
cutwater was constructed in a form only to be justified if
it were intended to be so used?
Sir J. PAKINGTON said that it was not intended to
make the Amazon a ram vessel, which statement might
do away with a great deal of misunderstanding on this
subject.