The Sun.
London, England, 1861-04-20 00:00:00

identified with the interests of the nation. The jea-
lousies of others cities which have been the residence
of Sovereigns would naturally be roused, and no con-
fidence would be placed in the Government ; but
once in Rome those jealousies would be extin-
guished. One general feeling would then unite
the whole people of Italy, and they would indeed
become a nation."

And what hinders ?—an army of 20,000 French-
men. And what hinders their withdrawal? The fear
that the POPE would be insulted, and that Catholic
Powers would hold France responsible for such a
result, But there can be no difficulty in making
arrangements with the Government of the King of
ITALY for the independence of the POPE, and for
his most generous and liberal treatment. The
Italians are Catholics. They would be proud of
their Bishop but for the unhappy consequences
flowing from his temporal rule; and they would
willingly concede him all that the Catholics of
Europe and of the world could ask, if he would
spontaneously resign a kind of power which eccle-
siastics ought never to possess. It is the Prince,
not the POPE, they hate, and released'from his tem-
poral yoke, they would instinctively bow the knee
for his spiritual benediction. England, however,
cannot easily interfere, not, at least, in arrange-
ments for the POPE'S spiritual position. That is no
concern of ours. Our Government has remonstrated
respecting the continued intervention at Rome, in
face of the EMPEROR'S spontaneous avowal of non-
intervention
doctrines, and we cannot easily do
niore.

Unlike Mr. ROEBUCK, Lord ELLENBOROUGH
regarded the fortresses of Venetia as of less strate-
gical value than ever ; but even that was a subordi-
nate consideration. He held that it was for the
interest of Austria herself, in regard to any danger
from France, that Italy should be strong ; so strong
as to act independently of France, which she never
can do while Austria keeps her present position
in Venetia. Italian policy must now aim to
retain the aid of France. " But once in possession
of the Italian peninsula, Italy will no longer have
any object to gratify. It is impossible she can de-
sire to occupy a foot of ground beyond the
Italian soil. Her policy, in conjunction with
Switzerland, with which she will then be most
intimately allied, will be to preserve an armed
permanent neutrality, to protect the ba-
lance of power in Europe, and to forbid any
State, German or French, from passing the Rhine,
both banks of which will then be in the possession
and under the command of the Italian army. If
Italy be constituted so that it will be able to do
this, its true line of policy, observe the advantage
which it will prove to Austria. Her left flank will
be entirely protected in any operations which she
may hereafter be required to conduct against France,
and united with Germany she would at all times
be enabled to protect her dominions. My lords,
these are the views which I entertain with respect
to the Venetian question. I do earnestly hope a
time will come when Austria will take a more cor-
rect view of her own real ultimate interests than
perhaps she can be induced to do at present." We
commend these observations to the attention of the
hon. member for Sheffield.

From the Tory point of view nothing could be
better than the light in which Lord ELLENBOROUGri
placed the Venetian question. From the treaty of
Vienna up to the present time, he could easily
praise the conduct of Austria and justify her posi-
tion ; her political position, we mean, for we pre-
sume, that even he would not attempt to justify
the brutalities and oppression of her Italian admi-
nistration. But having said the best for the past,
" I must venture," he said, "to offer an opinion
which may not be acceptable to her. I think it is
necessary to the safety of Austria that she should
reconcile herself to the Italian people. I recollect
hearing at the time of the Congress of Vienna, that li
Austria said, "Italy is our budget, and we must
cling to her." It is now, however, her deficit, and
the main source of her financial difficulties."
On the whole, we may hope that this debate will
have its influence on the continent. The difficulties
of the Emperor of the FRENCH were no doubt much
exaggerated by Lord DERBY—for a boldly honest
policy is a self-sustaining one ; still he will see that
the English House of Lords affirms the necessity
of Rome to Italy, and expects of him, having got
into a false position, to find his way out of it. They
bear witness to his adroitness in past difficulties,
they expect him to show the same adriotness in
regard to Rome.

Mr. GLADSTONE'S answer last evening to Sir
STAFFORD NORTHCOTE'S inquiries in respect to
the vote for the China war, gives us another plea-
sant glimpse of—the way the money goes ! The
vote of credit referred to is a vote of £3,800,000
altogether. And Sir STAFFORD NORTHCOTE, in
respect to this particular vote of credit, was on
Thursday evening not unnaturally desirous of elicit-
ing from the Chancellor of the Exchequer two or
three little scraps of information. In the first place,
he wanted to know precisely if the "proportion
of the vote of credit taken for the expense of the
Chinese war had been actually expended and paid
out of the Exchequer ?"
In answer to which inquiry, Mr. GLADSTONE
contented himself with regard to this interrogation,
by referring to what had just been placed on
the table of the house, viz., the balance-sheet
of income and expenditure. Secondly, Sir STA'''.
FORD NORTHCOTE was desirous of learning " What
proportion is estimated to be still payable out of
the balances in the Exchequer in respect of expen-
diture chargeable to that vote ? " The answer
here too, to begin with, but only to begin with,
Promises to be quite as curt as the one already par-
ticularised. " The whole remaining portion of that
vote," said Mr. GLADSTONE, "is still payable out
of the balances in the Exchequer." But the Chan-
cellor of the same immediately goes on to add,
,4 There might have arisen here a very nice legal
question. The language used by the Legislature in
respect to votes of credit has not been uniform. In
the acts relating to votes of credit for the Russian
( war the language was obviously large enough to
carry on any vote of credit once given by the house
from year to year until the whole 'sum had been ex-
hensted, and quite irrespective as to what particular
I charge might have been incurred. Under the act
of last year there may perhaps be a doubt as to the
effect of the language, but I think the vote of credit
that was given by the house last year was not ap-
plicable in respect of any charge except a charge
incurred during the last year. However, the dis-
tinction is immaterial, but there can be no doubt
whatever that the charge incurred during the last
year, although not a charge payable out of the Ex-
chequer during the last year, will run even some-
what beyond the total amount of the vote of credit
taken last year ; therefore no legal point arises,
and I have no hesitation in answering that
the entire balance of the vote of credit is not
exhausted, while that payable out of the Ex-
chequer, in respect of the Exchequer, is strictly
chargeable to that vote, The next part of the
question, I think, falls to the ground, because
that could only assume a particular character in
case it was found that the whole of the vote of
last year was applicable under the terms of the
1 ,r
Iv. Satisfactory—isn't it ? The meaning of all