The Sun.
London, England, 1857-02-04 00:00:00

_ .
cf the Government, and in the assuraece that the tax was
essentially es, war tax, a vast instalment, of vast effect,
which should exhibit to foreign countries the resources aid
power of this country in time of war,' but which ought
never to be allowed to remain in tintie of peace—to be
resorted to as an instrument of dasgerous fa dilly in the
hands of a minister. This, my lords, is a subject in which
you have a strong personal interest, in addition to your
regard for the public welfare • and I ealnot pass on
without expressing a confident' hope that Parliament
will insist on a full and entire carrying out of the pledge
—that in 1860 the income tax should cea'e to be imposed.
(Hear, hear, hear.) I now, my lords; proceed to a
far more unsatisfactory portion of the speech. I
cannot but regret the good old days in who t a stereotyped
paragraph of the Royal speech assured us tnat " his or her
Majesty continued on the most friendly terms with all
foreign Powers." I venture to say that that single par-
graph would afford more satisfaction to the people of this
country, and more security for the peace of Europe, than
the multitudinous references to disputes more or less near
a satisfactory termination. The only subject to which her
Majesty could refer with unmixed satisfaction is the im-
portant fact of the treaty with the King of Siam. Ido
•not wish to speak with any disrespect of the present mo-
narch. I believe he is of great intelligence, and fully im-
pressed with the advantages to be derived from an inter-
course with this country; and I am always rejoiced at an
extension of our commercial transactions, and the open-,
ing of a new outlet for the products of 'our industry.
Her Majesty has also referred to the difficulties which
have arisen with regard to some of the conditions of the
treaty of Paris ; and she has told us that these difficul-
ties have been overcome, and the intentions of the treaty
fully attained. My lords, as we are now at peace—and I
trust in Go 1 that peace will long remain—l cannot but
regret that the noble earl should have indulged in some
'remarks not very complimentary to the good faith of the
potentate with whom we have lately been at war. ; have
always thought, and 'always said, that when engaged in
war we were bound to prosecute it with the utmost energy
and-Stigoar.' I Was not satisfied • with- the results of the
war, nor with the peace which appears to give so much
satisfaction to the noble earl and to her 'Majesty's Governs
ment; but now that peace has been definitively concluded,
let me remind the noble earl, who, I hope, is now com-
mencing a long career of public usefulness, that 'from the
time peace is made not one word of bitterness to our late
enemy should come from him. lam told, but I can
hardly credit it till I hear it from the noble earl himself,
that the main difficulty in the carrying out of the treaty
of Paris did not arise upon the interpretation of souse
doubtful phrase as to the delineation of the boundary,
but from the fact that the m,p which was to be the
authoritative 'record of the future boundary of the terri-
tory was not made a part of the instrument itself, or re-
ceived the signature of any one of the plenipotentiaries.
Why, if it was a contract for the purchase of a field, you
would make the map by which the boundaries were defined
as a portion of the instrument itself. Yet, on a question
which was to settle the boundaries of empires,, it does not
appear that there was any authoritative instrument on
which the plenipotentiaries had to rely for their interpreta-
tion. If this be so, I do not think it creditable to the fore
sightedness or the business-like habits of the Government.
1 recollect the tone and language not of that portion of
the; press which is supposed to be under the influence of
the Government—bat the tone and language of the First
Lord of the Treasury himself—the language which he held
at Manchester with regard to compelling the Emperor of
Russia to maintain his good faith, to fulfil the treaty to
the very letter, and saying that he would a low no discus-
sion of the treaty, which must be fulfilled in the sense
in which England understood it, (Hoar, hear.) He
alluded to the fleet in the Black Sea, and told his
hearers that he would insist on a liberal fulfilment of the
terms of the treaty. But, acting it der the advice and per-
haps something more, of, his allies, the noble viscount, who
would not abate a hair's-breadth of his demand, was coin-
palled to refer the question to a conference,'and though he
obtained his own construction at the treaty, he only di.l
so at the expense of a further cession of territory beyond
that proposed in the original conference. (Hear.) I hope
this treaty may be satisfactory; but I trust that peace
having been restored, there will be a faithful adherence to
the letter and spirit of the treaty, and that we shall not
have, either from public men, or in the journals, intempe-
rate language or violent abuse of those who were lately
opposed to us, and thereby interpose serious obstacles to
the maintenance of friendly relations. (Hear.) I, cannot
but regret also that the noble earl should characterise as
paltry add miserable the insurrection of those misguided
men—for misguided I think they were—who rose to sup-
port what they considered the rights of their lawful sove-
reign in the canton of Neuchatel. Misguided and erroneous
as I think they were, and unfortunate as have been their
efforts, I never heard any one throw doubt on the purity of
the motives or the sense of loyalty by which these men were
actuated—(hear, hear)—and even though there were faults
and errors, I think that feeling of loyalty should not be
spoken lightly of in any country. (Hear) Nos only was
there the expectation that this dispute was about being
brought to a satisfactory conclusion, but that it had been
&ready satisfactorily concluded, but 1 regret to find that it
is not altogether settled. With regard to the claim of the
King of Prussia, I may be permi,ted to say a few words,
because I had. the honour of being the Minister of the
Crown when the protocol on the question of Neuchatel was
signed. I beg of your lordships to look back to the state of
Europe at the time of the signature of that protocol.
France was in a most restless and unquiet state. The
—words " l'empire o'est la pain" were not yet uttered. The
public mind of Europe was greatly agitated. Piedmont,
S .vitzerland, and Belgium were in great alarm about the de-
mands for the expulsion of the refugees, which'they consi-
dered to be inconsistent with national honour and inde-
pendence. The time was critical for the peace of Europe,
and I must say it was a matter of satisfaction to the (in-
vert:meat with which I was connecte.i that by their good
offices, and. I must say by the moderation of the parties
on both sides, this question was satisfactorily settled. But
just:at that time we were called on by the King of Prussia
—not to take active steps in his behalf, not to enforce his
rights as Prince of Neuchatel—but to recognise the exist-
ence, dejure, of certain rights, not well donned. which he
claimed over Neuchatel. Ooserve that these rights were
guaranteed and secured to the King of Prussia as Prince of
Neuchatel—for Prussia, as a kingdom, was not in the
slightest degree interested in the question by the treaty
of 1815, a treaty which it was of the utmost importance
to the peace of Europe at the time to preserve from the
possibility of beinginfringed in the slightest degree. The
arrangement with the King of Prussia was, that if we ad-
mitted on the one hand the existence of his dejure rights, he
on the other haud was to enter into an engagement not to
disturb the peace of Europe by the enforcement of those
rights. No arrangement could be more harmless in itself, and
none was more likely to tend, first, to the immediate preser-
vation of peace, and next, to an ultimate settlement of the
question. Ido not blame the Government that from that
time to this they have taken no steps towards a complete
settlement of that question, though I think that when they
were dealing" with other questions in the Conference of Paris
it might have been well to have considered this. Bat they
did not do so, and the present complication has resulted.
I believe that the King of Prussia was willing-to place the
question unreservedly in the hands of the Emperor of the
French, and that Switzerland was on the poiut of accepting
his mediation if it were not for the representations whims
were made by the British Government. it I aai correct in
assuming, as I believe I am, that Switzerland was encou-
raged to demand higher terms than were proposed, and
to refuse the arbitration of the French Government, by
the act of our Minister, I cannot but think, though her
Majesty may rejoice that in concert with her august ally
the question is on the point of being settled, if her Majesty's
Government had not interfered with her august ally, the
question would have been much earlier and more satisfac-
torily settled. ('' Hear," and laughter.) With regard
to the question of Central America, I am glad to find it is
on the point of being honourably and satistaAorily settled.
We have but few interests there. We have to fulfil our
honourable engagements to the Mosquito Indians, what-
ever they may amount to, and to secure the neutrality of
that passage which may ultimately turn out to be the
mode of communication through the isthmus ; but be-
yond these we have no interest whatever, and need not be
jealous of the advance of others. The sacrifice of Ruataa
and the other islands in that quarter is, I thick, well com-
pensated by the advantages of a general arrangement.
That arrangement, I presume, will be concluded, as it
only awaits the ratification of thCaenate of the United
States. Bat in the improbable, sfeepossible, case of the
senate refusing to ratify that treaty, I hope the Govern-
ment will be able to inform me that the surrender of Ruatan
is to form part of the general arrangement— that the two
treaties—the one for the surrender of the islands, and the
other respecting the protection of the Mosquito Indians
and the passage of the Isthmus—are to stand or fall to-
gether, and that we are not to he bound by the one if we
are not to obtain the advantage of the other. (Hear.) I
now turn to other topics of difficulty which crowd upon
us, and will continue to crowd upon us as long as the
noble viscount is at the head of affairs—(laughter)—be-
cause, "admitting as I do the extraordinary adroitness
by which he gets oat of difficulties, I cannot but ima-
gine that the fact of his getting out of difficulties with
adroitness inspires him with the desire of getting into
as many as possible. (Hear, and laughter.) I cannot
account for the fact in any other way that, whether as the
Minister for Foreign Affairs or as the head of the (lsovern-
ment, he has embroiled the Government first with one
country and then with another, not indeed in great wars,
but in little difficulties, which the country gets out of
with credit or advantage; or with loss or discredit. (Hear,
hear.) With regard to Naples, I shoes ld be glad
al= to see the
papers on that subject before coming ais 'actu ; but
as far as any judgment can be formed from the means of
information we possess, I cannot conceive on whst plea her
Majesty's Government can justify their course of proceed-
ing and interference in Naples. Are we quite sure that
our own conduct on all questions has been straightforward
—that we have always held the same language to different
nations--that we have not held the word of premiss to the
ear, and broken it to the hope. Have the good faith and
promises we held out to Sardinia been kept ? Are we cer-
tain that we have not obtained valuable support from that
brave and noble people by holding out expectations of
our interference, if not by action, at least by moral per-
suasion, towards .the improvement of their condition with
regard to the other countries of Italy ? Are we sure that
when we obtained the benefit of their co-operation we
gave them that assistance and material support which
they calculated on receiving at our hands? I greatly
doubt it. (Hear.) I have not forgotten the language of
the Sardinian commissioner —I have not forgotten the
evasive answer (I don't use the term offensively) with which
the noble earl, after six weeks' delayswas compelled to reply
to that remonstrance of the Sardinian Government. (Hear.)
It is true that the conference of Paris kept the word of pro-
mise to the ear by introducing souse vague and unmeaning
passages as to the occupation of the Papal States,
but did
youke a single step, did you make the slightest effort to
Ca
press on the Governments of France and Austria to put an
end to that abnormal state of things ? (Hear.) I am me
of those who think that it is no
part of our business to te-
terfere in the relations between Austria arid her Ita rtau
subjects— to
revolt, it is no part of our business to encourage .o
revolt, that it is no part of our business to disturb her
weln
her possessions: (Hear.) Good faith required that
should abstain from any such course. But I ask the noble
earl to answer me this—has not Austria, by the acts of her
allies in the course of these negotiations,ob tamed greater se-
curity for the maintenance of her Italian possessions than
she ever had before? I doubt if the noble earl will answer
in the negative. But, whilst abstaining from taking such
steps as might really meet the views of P.iedmont, you
satisfied the letter of your engagement of interfering in