The Sun.
London, England, 1861-02-06 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, FEBIWARV g, 18614

—and it is a very serious one—either we must be eonteht to
fall back on an arrangement similar in principle to the
Treaty of Zurich, that settlement against which, for the last
12 months, her Majesty's Government have been agitating
in every Court in Europe ; or we must bo prepared to meet
that far more dangerous situation which iBOpth to us when
Italy is united—united by the sword mid Will of -'rahce—
and has necessarily placed at the disposal 'of i''ratiee all its
resources. (Hear.) As to the first ease., I think it would
be disgraceful to this country, as Yopresented by its Govern-
ment ; but the second is much more dangerous—more dan-
gerous indeed, than ono wolf,;, at this moment rttte4..tpt to
describe. (Hear, lic!?:;:) The settietttilt 'made by the pre-
liminaries pf-Villafranta Vas not one that world have

realisr;l the ro
tihful dream of—the-PeetTe:l statesman.
(Lattrhter.) That I admit ; but it secured many interests
Which this country has always consid.nrd to be most im-
portant. No doubt, it substit tired Prcnch for Austrian influ-
ence in Italy. Wi_to'd'e,nies that ? That was a most natural
consegtime of a war between France and Austria in which
FrAnce was signally victorious. We did not in tct-Nte in the

war; but the preliminaries of Ville.ft-atica secured a great

southern boundary to Germany, and that I believe is an ob-
ject which no English statesman should despise. If it did
not secure, it did not destroy the independenn of the Pope,
a consideration which the moi.tehenent English statesmen
of all parties have al reaS,n held to be important. (Hear, hear.)
It did not le.treY the independence of Switzerland--,slavoy
and Ni':_te tttnained still an appanage of the Kitgot Sardinia.
(C6ers.) There is a great responsibility on the Ministry,
who, by efforts, active efforts, influential efforts, I believe
none will deny) mainly defeated the accomplishment of that
settlemett. (Hear, hear.) Now, we ere in this position
---either we must fall back on a settlement similar to the
Treaty of Zurich, or we must encounter a state of
affairs so dangerous that before its difficulties are solved
every throne in Europe may be shaken, and which ap-
pears to me to be inevitably and logically brought about
by the policy which her Majesty's Government have
steadfastly, but, as I think, most injudiciously pur-
sued. (Hear, hear.) And, Sir, how do tre know that
it is in the power of the English and French Governments,
if they come to an understanding, to fall back on an ar-
rangement similar to the Treaty of Zurich ? Great influ-
ences have been at work during the last year—influences
more powerful than French Emperors and British Minis-
ters. They had been slumbering in chaos ; but you called
fort those anarchical elements, one of which alone may be
sufficient to produce a European war. What are these
questions which are now agitatink Europe) and from the
agitation of which men shrank f Yon have the rival claims
of priests and kings, rets have the rights of races and the
boundaries of empires—questions, one of which alone
caused a war of 30 years. All these questions have now
been called forth while her Majesty's Government have
been pursuing the phantom of a United Italy. (Hear,
hear.) You have produced all those elements of anarchy,
and ho is a bold man who would say that it is in the power
of Cabinets any longer. to control them. (Hear.) This is
a grave position of affairs, and one of which we have a right
to expect horn her Majesty's Government some real expo-
sition. They have been treated by this house on the sub-
ject of their foreign policy with, say—speaking for
both sides, and claiming no party merit—generosity. The
house has believed that the Government, on their part,
have treated it with candour. I will not deny it ; but I say
that that candour has in its effects been most unfortunate,
because it has been of a most bewildering nature.
(Laughter.) The more the Government told us the less we
knew. What was one day explained to us as the policy of
her Majesty's Government, was followed the next day by an
exactly opposite one, and with contradictory speeches and
conflicting despatches. I am using no exaggerated language
when I say that the public mind of this country is not
informed on the precise nature of our foreign relations.
(Hear.) I cannot find in the speech from the Throne any-
thing which gives us that information which I think we
have a right to expect. (Hear.) On the question of our
relations with France, it will be satisfactory to us to have
some announcement from the Government. Are we pursuing
with regard to Italy the MUM policy as is being adopted by
that Power ? And if we are not, what in the opinion of her
Majesty's Government must be the natural result ? Is
there rivalry with regard to Italy, or is there harmony?
These are questions to which the house has a right to invite
the attention of the Government. (Hear.) I think it is
idle to say that we ought to wait for the papers before we
do so. When we read those papers we shall be able to form
a judgment on the conduct in detail of Ministers with re-
gard to particular transactions ; but their policy has been
described by themselves, and it demands explanation. We
have the policy of the Government; we have despatches,
and we have Vattel the eminent jurist quoted by the noble
lord. (Laughter.) That quotation from Vattol is the basis
of the policy of the Government; and as it is only four

Lines I shall read it to the house. In October the noble lord
informed us that— •

" That eminent jurist Vattel, when discussing the law-
fulness of the assistance given by the united provinces to
the Prince of Orange, when he invaded England and over-
turned the throne of James 11., says The authority of
the Prince of Orange had doubtless an influence on the de-
liberations of the States General; but it did not lead them
to the commission of an act of injustice, for when a people
;-..pirteronor, it 18 but
an act of justice and generosity to assist brave moll' in the
defence of their liberties.' "

Now, Vattel was a Dutchman, which the noble lord is not
(laughter)—and therefore he had a right to quote Wil-
liam 111. I do not depreciate Vattel's authority. I think
that on a diplomatic instrument, or a diplomatic procedure,
or on some question of the law of natiOns, he is a high autho-
rity and a correct and lucid writer; but when it comes to a
question of the political conduct of men, I think that the
noble lord is as good an authority as Yattel, or better, and
that there are men iu this house who may use their judg-
ment, though they do not agree with Vattel. However, the
noble lord does not appear to be quite correct on this point.
This opinion of Vattel is followed immediately afterwards
by a qualifying statement, which I shall read to the house.
He says,—

" But we ought not to abuse this maxim, and make a
handle of it to authorise odious machinations against the
iiternal tranquillity of States. It is a violation of the law
of nations to invite those subjects to revolt who actually
pay obedience to their Sovereign, though they complain of
his Government."

(Hear.) Why, this is the conduct of Sardinia sketched by
one not at all influenced by the passions of the hour, as he
has long passed away from the earth. That is exactly what
has been done by the King of Sardinia. A great necessity
of State may, in the opinion of the King of Sardinia, and in
the opinion of the noble lord, justify the conduct he has
pursued—l will not enter into any arguments on that point
at this moment—but certainly it was a most unhappy quo-
tation from Vattel which the noble lord selected for his de-
spatch of Oct. 27. (Hear.) I have placed before the house,
without attempting to argue upon the propriety or impro-
priety of the conduct of the Kin g of Sardinia, my views
upon this subject, and looking at all the questions in con-
troversy, I have endeavoured to bring those views to a
single object :—lf the unity of Italy is to be effected, it can
be effected only by a Power which occupies Italy in great
force, not by a Power which has no force there whatever.
That unity cannot be effected under such auspices without
results dangerous, in my opinion, to the peace of Europe.
(Hear.) That unity can only be effected in such circum-
stances by placing the Emperor of the French at the head
of at least a million of armed men, and making him master
of all the resources of Italy. (Hear.) I want to know
whether, with the probability of such a result as that, with
such dangers as these impending over Euripe and more than
Europe, inquiries and explanations have passed between
the Governments of England and Franco as to the inten-
tions and policy of the French Emperor. 1 want to know
whether the Government can inform the house what is the
exact state of affairs in that respect, what are the true re-
lations of France with Italy, and what are the prospects on
this all-important question which the Government can hold
out to the people of England. (Hear.)
Lord J. RUSSELL—Though the right hon. gentleman
has a perfect right on this the first night of the session to ask
for an explanation of the views of the Government with re-
gard to its foreign policy, and to express his opinion on that
policy, yet he is not justified in complaining of want of in-
formation, when we have laid papers on the table of tho
house which to-morrow morning would enable him to settle
all those doubts and obscurities of which he complains. The
right hon. gentleman, however, having stated his views of
the foreign policy of the Government, I have no objection to
state in general terms what is the course which we have pur-
sued, and the opinions we have expressed, with reference to
the Italian question. With regard to this mystery,of which it
is curious enough the right hon. gentleman should complain,
the policy of the Government was proclaimed about a year
and a half ago by my right hon. friend the Secretary for the
Home Department at the Lord Mayor's feast, and every-
body knows that what is told to the Lord Mayor is prover-
bially told to the whole world. My right hon. friend on
that occasion said it was the policy of her Majesty's Go•.
vernment not to attempt to impose any form of government
on Italy, but to allow the Italians to settle their internal
affairs in the way they thought best. (Hear, hear.) That
principle has been declared over and over again. It was
declared iu her Majesty's speech at the end of last session.
It has been declared at the beginning of this session, and it
has pervaded all the despatches and documents that have
been laid on the table of the house. Now, I want to know
whether the right hon. gentleman considers that a right
principle or a wrong one—for the right hon. gentleman has
never given an opinion as to whether he thinks it right or
wrong that the people of Italy should be left to manage
their own internal affairs. (Hear, hear.) The right hon.
gentleman might have known that that was the principle
on whicb her Majesty's Government has all along acted,
and that the doubts and obscurities which he has conjured
up have no existence in fact. (Hear.) When, some years
ago, our views were in opposition, we declared ourselves in
favour of Italian freedom and independence, the right hon.
gentleman was always the leader of those who derided such
notions as visionary—(hear, hear)—who contended that the
best government for Italy was that of Austria, and who
wore accustomed to sound the praises of the late King of
Naples and his system of Government. (Hear, hear.) Pre-
vious to the late war in Italy the Italians saw that they
had no hope of assistance from England, but looked to
France for aid in effecting their liberation. At that time
the Government of the day,;which was:that:of Lord Derby,
did not expect war, but as soon as they gained information
which led them to expect that war was impending, they

used their utmost efforts to prevent it. They were not sic.
cessful. I never blamed them for their want of success•
and I always regarded their conduct as prompted by the
best intentions and by a due regard to the poheY which
this country ought to pursue. Bat their efforts were
not successful, and the War took place. Informa-
tion at lehgth reached them that it was the intention of
the French Emperor to liberate Italy from the Alps
to the Adriatic, and that Savoy and Nice were to be teens-
,
ferred to France. Lord Ceeeleer we
,iiistructed by, Lord
MalmtintrY to inquire of the French Government it that
intelligence was true, but he obtained no answer from the
French Government. Soon after the French army was
increased and entered Italy. and those everts took plebe
which ere feeeinar to tile lioUse. dire Were then told that
the French nation expected that Savoy and Nice should be
transferred to the French Government. After this eame
the Treaty of Zurich. That treaty stipulated one We. ge,
whileehe French V.:trivet-a cicelared another thing, which,
thotigh not totally inconsistent with the teetity, was prac-
tically adverse to it. The Treaty of Zurich said that the
Duchies of Tuscany end Motleite should be riectotet to their.
former relerte The French Emperor said no troops—Aus-
trian or French----should be allowed to effect that restore;
tion, and in consequence of that declaration the treacle in
the Treaty of Zurich wee net flrlielled. Act Majesty'. s pre-
sent GoVeelPieht then declared, not that the unity of Italy
was their object—l shall show presently that from time to
time that was not our object, but that we only wished the
Italians to be free to choose their own rulers—that if the
Grand Duke of Tuscany or the Duke of Modena were ree
ceived with the torment of the people our Government
would see their restoration with pleasure, but that they
could not approve and would protest against any attempt
to impose on the Italians any governtneht by race. (Hear.)
Was that principle right or wrong ? I ask the right hon.
gentleman again whether he approves or disapproves that
policy ? (Hear.) Does he maintain that it Would be right
to force Upon /tale- a government not approved by the pee-
, ple ? (Hear.) The right hon. gentlemen knows that Aus -
tria has declared that she will not go beyond her own fron-
tier to interfere in Italian affairs—that she Will he satisfied
with the territories left to her by the Treaty of Zurich,
and that she was willing to be a party to the ancient prin-
ciple of non-intervention. This has been the policy which
her Majesty's Government has endeavoured to act upon;
and, so far as it has been in accordance with the policy of
the Government of France, it has been successful. (Hear,
hear.) But now as to the unity of Italy. We have de •
dared that we have no wish that the Grand Duke of
Tuscany and the Duke of Modena should not
return. I have stated with regard to Naples, both in this
House and in my communications with the Government of
the Emperor of the French, that in our opinion the happi-
ness of Italy would be better secured by there being two
kingdoms of Italy than one, and that if the King of Naples
would have granted a constitution we should have been glad
to see two constitutional kingdoms in Italy. But still that
was a question for the Italians themselves. (Hear.) It was
for them to consider whether the Prince having hereditary
right on his side was a Prince in whom they could trust—
(hear, hear)—and they had the perfect right to regulate
their internal affairs in such a manner as tosecure theirown
happiness. Was that a wrong principle ? We may have been
wrong in our opinion that it would be better there should
be two kingdoms in Italy, but we said that the Italians only
ought to be the judges on that point. Well, sir, other events
occurred, and the right hon, gentleman speaks of two des-
patches of mine. With regard to the first, it was published
without my knowledge. I saw it translated into the Cologne
Gazette. It was communicated by me to the Governmenleof
Sardinia, and I do not know how it obtained that notoriety.
But I must say there have been three objects which her
Majesty's Government have kept in view throughout these
negotiations. One was that Italyshould be left free to settle
her own concerns. Whether she succeeded in obtaining
two constitutional monarchies, or became one united Italy t
under one constitutional monarchy, we declared that it
would be satisfactory to us to obtain either of those results,
and that in our opinion in either case additional security
would be given to the other States of Europe. Another ob-
ject we had in view was that the peace of Villafranca, with
the conditions of which we had nothing to do, should be
maintained as a security for the peace of Europe. I am un-
able to express to this house the importance I attach to the
maintenance of the peace of Europe. (Cheers.) No one can
say how far a war once begun may extend, what changes of
Governments may not be produced, what alterations in the
position of various Powers may not be calmed, and how
difficult it may not be for any country in Europe,
and particularly this country, which we are bound to
cherish more than any other, to keep itself disengaged from
such a war. (Hear, hear.) Not only, therefore, from a
general hatred to war and unnecessary bloodshed, but for
reasons connected with the dreadful aspect of such a war,
we have been most anxious that the peace of Europe should
not be disturbed. In August, therefore, I wrote in strong
terms—some may think too strong, although I think what
I wrote was calculated to do good at the Sardinian Court—
recommending that, for the benefit of Italy herself, Sardinia
should not rush rashly and madly to war, thereby bringing
on herself great evil. It was in the interest of the Sar-
dinians, I urged, that the obligations of good faith bound
them to keep t 1 e treaty of peace that they had concluded so
lately—a treety under which they bad given up Venetia
while they had obtained Lombardy, Every consideration
of regard to their own interest prevented them from leading-
their newly-formed and not numerous legions against the
armies of .Austria. I said her Majesty's Government
trusted thee the IVng of Sardinia would not make war on 1
Naples ; without the knowledge of the Sardinian Govern- '
meat, but with the strong impulse of the people, an expe-
dition went out from Genoa to Sicily. Sicily was conquered.
The people declared in favour of Garibaldi. He had only 1
some 1,800 men to lead against 20,000 or 25,000 soldiers of
the Neapolitan army; yet he marched from one success to 1
another. Garibaldi then landed in the kingdom of Naples. '
He went to Naples in a railway carriage with ten or twelve
of his companions. He entered the town with those ten or
twelve companions, a' though there were 3,000 to 4,000
troops of the King of Naples in the city. He was welcomed
with general applause, and proclaimed himself Dictator.
Now, if I look at a statistical account of the kingdom of
Naples, I find that the king had 100,000 soldiers belonging
to the regular army, and a reserve of between 40,000 and
50,000 men; that he had two ships of 90 and 80 guns, and a
number of other ships. Here was, then, a Sovereign who,
one might have thought, would have laughed to scorn the
attempt of a chief, who has been talked of in this house
with much undeserved contempt--(cheers)—who, with
nothing but his own valour and patriotism to council him,
went with 1,800 men to assail so strong a kingdom. It
might have been thought that it was madness to make such
an attempt—that the ships, frigates, and corvettes of the
liing of Naples would enable him utterly to destroy such a
force. Yet we all know the result. Well, the inference to
which I came, and every man made himself, was that the
'King of Naples was not very strong in the affections of his
*objects, (Cheers and laughter.) I ventured to suppose,
tot that 100,000 men were not able to defeat 2,000, but that
they bad no heart for the enterprise ; that the accounts of
lay right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and
ethers of the dungeons of the King of Naples, and the de-
ecriptions given by our Consuls, were true ; and that the
tortures imposed on them had disgusted the subjects of the
ring of Naples, and had led them to welcome as a deliverer
any man who came to free them from that rule. (Cheers.)
I do not mean to defend the whole of the conduct of the
Ring of Sardinia, but it was a question for him and his
ministers to consider what they should do. The right hon.
gentleman thinks little of that potentate. I will. however,
mention an opinion to which the right hon. gentleman may
attach more importance. In 1821 the position of affairs in
Italy afforded a great contrast to its present state. The So-
ve-eigns of Europe met at Verona. They laid down certain
principles, from which no nation was allowed to depart, that
Sorermgns might introduce improvements, and that if it
pleased them to improve their laws they were at liberty to
do co ; but that if it did not occur to any Sovereign that
arb'trary imprisonment, that caps of silence, and dungeons
where prisoners might be confined without trial for several
years, were objectionable, he need not introduce any im-
proeement in those matters. It was, however, laid down
that any improvement introduced by the people was against
the divinity of Kings, and was not to be permitted. Lord
Castlereagh, on the part of England, did not think it
necessary to declare on this account an armed resist-
ance on tke part of England. This country had carried
on a very long war, and the efforts she had made had been
very costly. We had retained at a great sacrifice the an-
cient bruin, of Europe. The sovereigns who met on that oc-
casion were chiefly sovereigns in alliance with Great Bri-
tain.
They were sovereigns with whom and for whom we
had encountered these perils and incurred these costs. But
while Lord Castlereagh did not advise his country to go to
war, he protested against the principle of this general super-
vision, and be said what, if the house will permit me, I am
about to read. His words appear to me to be so sound that
it is worth the while of the house, although the extract is
not a short one, to attend to them :
" After having removed the misconception to which the
passage of the circular in question, if passed over in silence,
might give countenance, and having stated in general
terms, without, however, entering into the argument, the
dissent of his Majesty's Government from the general prin-
ciple upon which the circular in question is founded, it
should be clearly understood that no Government can be
more prepared than the British Government is to uphold
the right of any State or States to interfere, where their
own immediate security or essential interests are seriously
endangered by the internal transactions of another State.
IBut, as they regard the assumption of such right as only
to be justified by the strongest necessity—(hear, hear)—and
to be limited and regulated thereby, they cannot admit that
this right can receive a general and indiscriminate applica-
tion to all revolutionary movements, without reference to
their immediate bearing upon some particular State or
States, or be made prospectively the basis of an alliance.
They regard its exercise as an exception to general prin-
ciples, of the greatest value and importance, and as one
hat only properly grows out of the circumstances of the
fecial case; but they, at the same time, consider that ex-
ceptions of this description never can, without the utmost
(tenger, be so far reduced to rule as to be incorporated into
tee ordinary diplomacy of States, or into the institutes of
1 tie law of nations."
row, according to this opinion, in which I entirely concur,
tie question forthe King of Sardinia and his Ministers was
\tether the essential interests of Sardinia and of that part
O' Italy over which he was then the ruler were so endan-
pee by what had taken place in Naples that he could not
*main a tranquil spectator of those events. What was
oat situation ? Garibaldi, as I have said, had made himself
raster of Naples and the greater part of the country. But
Is had not been able—even if he had the talents for go-
eirnment, which he does not appear to possess—to found a
41id Government in Naples. Everything was falling into
emrelly. What would have been the consequences of that
,ate of things? Not that that :thereby would have con-
Armed, but that other Powers would then have said, " We
ere willing to allow Italy to arrange her own affairs, butleee
what a condition of anarchy exist s in Naples ? (dear.) A
king unable to maintain his authority, a military chief mas-
ter of the State, everything in confusion. Now is the time,
certainly, for Europe to interfere to establish the Pope in his
dominions, to place Austrian garrisons in several of her pro-
vinces, and to show for ever that that dream of Italian in-
dependence has been a mere illusion which can never again
be revived." (Hear, hear.) Well, in that position I really
think the Ring of Sardinia could do no other than declare
himself at once to be so deeply interested in what had hap-
pened, as well for himself and his States as for Italy, whose
champion he avowed himself to be, that he would march
with an army into Naples and establish that unity of xtey

• Which had long been the wish of so many of the people in
all Parts of that country; Put, Sir, this act of his did not
pass unnoticed. The right hon. gantlet ete saws that on the
27th of October I wrote a despatch justifying-that pinned -
ing. But that was hot the first thing that had taken place.
The Powers of Eitrope *era, frefirteritl§ when it suits them
adopt that practice which the right hon. gentleman says
was so new in this instance—namely, although their affairs
are generally conducted with the utmost secrecy, they put
forth declarations of principles signed by their Minister
of Foreign Affairs, and Wiriah are intended to have
an influence on the events of Europe. In this Cage Russia
and Prussia had both thought it necessary to admiaistet
lectures to the King of Sardinia—to point out to him that
he had departed from the law of nations, and that such an
outrage had never been known in the history of Europe.
Well, these preteedinge were calculated to have a great
enect. The Limper-or of Ofa trench ak.the same time had
withdrawn his Minister from Turin. Well.; l certainly felt
myself, and I found that her Majesty's Government were
also of opinion, that the King of Sardinia was defending
a feet, titat9 Whett he had so taken up arms ; and it was im-
possible, I think, with any tegifel o the dignity of Eng-
land, that we should maintain entire sileiaCa: eNte. Russia,
Prussia, Austria, and France were doing all in their Feeket, '
tie fee as their /morel influence would extend, to extinguish
the freedoin and inclaPeilileteet of the new Italian State.
(Hear, hear.) That, therefore, wee hi etietton for not only
writing the despatch to our Minister at the Court of Turin,
brit; as the Raeseiet peper bad,bocrenimlittiistleiashieikde,
wfoir•soa!lolevt.
tinhge
it.iligulidtelasopnat.cgbenithle4mdawnhcb' isays tbial; the Italians °tee tis ho gta-
titude, I believe their own feeling is very different. (Hear,
hear.) I believe their feeling is that the moral influence of
England in their favour, while they had the moral influence
of almost ever; r other Power in Europe against them. was
of great *eight and iinportante. (Ifear, heat.) Sir, I have
already said that we never put forward the principle of the
unity of Italy; but if this unity, if one constitutional
monarchy Is the forth of government which the Reliant
think best fitted to secure their independence, we should be
the last persons to say ire would ittei:ete to prevent them
from aceoteplishing theit wishes. (Hear, hear.) The right
hon. gentlemen tells ifs ite'ate how between two dangers ;
those dangers are either that the meaty of Zurich should
be carried into effect, or that, on the other hand, the
sword of 'ranee
deride
in favour of the unity
of Italy, and thereby gtettt results will follow—
results so great that he does hot Venthre to specify
what they may be. But he is now talking, natio' the
actual state of things, not of anything that is appa-
rent on the face of Europe, but ho is berroseing from his
imagination schemes and designs which he tbinks Will be
serried into effect. Now, I disagree ea:th him on that sub-
ject. The danger against which we wish to provide is the
breaking out of war in Europe. Wo may suceed in this.
If we are fortunate enough to succeed, we shall be most
happy. We may fail; and then I only hope we may be
treated by the right hon. gentleman with the same candour
with which we treated him and his colleagues when they
failed 'in maintaining the peace of Europe in 1859. But
now
as to those two alternative contingencies of which he
speaks one is, that a confederation should be formed in
Italy; that the King of the Two Sicilies should be restored,
that the Pope should get back ell his dominions except, I
believe, Romagna; and that an Austrian Archduke should
reign in Tuscany. Well, if there be any truth in what we
hear, this would be very inconsistent with Italian feeling.
It is not likely that this could be done except by force of
arms, and against doing it by force of arms the Emperor of
the French, as well as ourselves, is most deeply pledged.
He has renewed that pledge no longer ago than yesterday.
(Hear.) He has said, what is perfectly true, that acting on
the principle of non-intervention may not exactly give rise
to, but may allow of excesses which those who confine
themselves to looking on may deeply deplore ; but that,
notwithstanding these excesses, notwithstanding the re-
sponsibility which may be thrown on other Powers, he
means to keep steadfast to that policy. Well, then, on this
high point Great Britain is entirely agreed with the Emperor
of the French. The right hon. gentleman quesions us as
to our policy. I will say at once, in one word, that we
are not now divided upon any great question, such as the
war of 1793, or the war of 1804. On a main principle
of policy, then, we are entirely agreed with the Empe-
ror of the French. We are at the same time in close
alliance and intimacy with the ether great Powers of
Europe, and if there is any other question en which it
should appear to us that France was in the wrong, or was
acting in that spirit of encroachment which has some-
times actuated a great military nation, then weshould form
an alliance with them to combat her designs. And so I
believe that the second alternative which the right hon.
gentleman has mentioned is not likely to come to pass. The
Emperor of the French has declared his strong disapproval
of any attempt on the part of Sardinia to break the treaty
of Zurich and attack Venetia. I believe the French people
will entirely support him in that declaration. I believe he
has no intention of marching an army into Italy with the
view of aiding the Italians in that attempt. But, if a war
were made, it is impossible to say at this moment what
part France might take as new events arose. But let me
state, in regard to this same question, that while I wrote
that despatch of the 31st of August which the right hon.
gentleman saw in the Cologne Gazette, I wrote about the
same time a despatch to our Minister at Vienna to say that
we should entirely disapprove in attack by Sardinia on the
Austrians in Venetia. We should entirely disapprove any
aid given by France to such an attack; we should take
care to have our opinion known at Turin and at Paris ; we
trusted our influence would have its due effect, combined
with other considerations which must be in the minds of
the sovereigns of those countries ; but, mind this, we can
go no further ; it is not our intention to take part in such
a war if it should arise • we confine ourselves to what we
have stated. (Hear, hear.) Now, sir, the right hon. gen-
tleman has asked me what are our relations with France.
Sir, I agree with my hon. friend who seconded the Address
with so much good sense and so much practical sagacity.
(Hear.) The hon: gentleman said that the Commercial
Treaty would have this effect—that it• would make an
alliance not only between the Governments of France and
England, but between the people of France and England.
(Hear, hear.) I believe that will be the case, and I render
due homage to an hon. friend not now in the house,—l
mean Mr. Cobdon—(hear, hear)—who has devoted so much
labour and, I am sorry to say, so much of his valuable
health, in order to complete that work, and to unite
these two 'nations in commercial relations which may
tend to future peace and future alliance, and which.
I trust may be an enduring memorial to future genera-
tions. (Hear, hear.) Such, then, are our general relae
tions with France. But I stated in this house we did not
mean to keep apart from other Powers, and, that declara-
tion, I remember well, was received with great favour on
the other side. (Hear.) We have acted on that declare-
tier'. We have always communicated confidentially with
Austria, Prussia, and Russia with regard to :any affairs of
Europe that arose. We have communicated our opinions
to them; they have communicated theirs to us. On some
questions we were in entire accordance ; on others we had
various opinions. But there is nothing in our relations with
any of these Powers that should make any of them enter-
tain any feeling of restraint, far less of hostility, to this
country. (Hear.) Sir, I can only end this part of the
subject by saying that my hope and my belief is that, not-
withstanding the dangers that menace us—and affairs wore
a far more dark aspect some time ago—notwithstanding
these dangers, the peace of Europe may at this time be pre-
served. (Hear.) It will be for Austria to settle her affairs
with Hungary, as it is for other Powers to settle their own
internal affairs; it will be for Prussia and for Russia to
settle the difficult internal questions which are now occupy-
ing their attention, but I do trust that none of the dangers
which menace us may lead to actual conflict in arms.
(Hear.) For, although some are sanguine enough to be-
lieve there might be a great war in Europe, in which we
could not take part, yet I have the melancholy conviction
that although war might be begun without us—although
we might declare we had no concern in it—yet, in the
course of that war events might take place which wouldiso
seriously menace the independence of nations in which we
take the deepest interest that we should hardly be able to
be free from its complications and dangers. (Hear.) For
this reason, therefore, I pray most earnestly that peace
may be preserved ; and, whatever the right hon. gentleman
may think of the inutility or utility of my exertions, I can
only say, such as they are, they shall be devoted to that
purpose—that almost sacred purpose in my eyes. (Hear,
hear.) Sir, I will now say a few words as to the amend-
ment. With regard to the question of reform, I will state
at once that I think it is perfectly clear no measure could
have been brought forward with a chance of its being car-
ried, except a measure of a very trifling character; and I
believe, for my own part, that it is better for the Govern-
ment to leave that question entirely untouched than to
bring forward a measure which would create great disap-
pointment among its supporters, many taunts on the part
of its opponents, and which, whether carried or not, would
occupy a great deal of valuable time without any valuable
result. There is another consideration, which is, that on
this question of reform I have always had considerable
dread of what persons might be induced to do by way of
compromise. NVe had franchises by the Reform Act which
are secured to us so long as that Reform Act is not touched ;
but if, by way of getting certain provisions, you give up
certain other provisions, your loss is certain, while it is not
so certain you would gain anything equivalent to it on the
other side. Therefore, sir, I come to the opinion—we have
had eight years now to arrive at that judgment—that in
order to carry a Reform Rill that dual bo actually of eiee
to the country, and I should call no Reform Bill of use that
did not admit great numbers of the working classes—
(hear)—in order to carry such a Reform Bill there must be
a great and favourable breeze of public opinion that will
enable us to carry it in this house, and with a swelling tide
over the bar of the House of Lords. (Hear.) Now I come
to consider what has been the state of opinion during the
last year. The right hon. gentleman has said truly that a
great part of the opposition against the bill we brought
forward came from gentlemen who sat on this side of the
house, and who represented great bodies of constituents.
There-was one hon. gentleman, a friend of mine, the Chair-
man of Ways and Means, who, addressing his constituents
at Salford, said he was in favour of a £5 franchise. I
thought if I produced a £6 franchise there Wia one gentleman
in the House of Commons who would not think I had gone
too far ; but my hon. friend made a speech entirely against
it. Then there was the hon. gentleman the member for
Edinburgh—he made a speech almost against the extension
of the franchise. There was clearly an indisposition of
members of the House of Commons on this subject. If these
speeches had been made in 1831 by members representing
great bodies of constituents, there would have been what
the Americans call " indignation meetings" among their
constituents, protesting that they had been misrepresented.
But not a bit of it ; the country was quite dead on the sub-
ject. (A laugh.) My hon. friend the member for Edinburgh
had to undergo some severe schooling from his constituents,
but scarcely anything was said about the Reform Bill, their
attention being almost entirely confined to the Annuity Tax
Repeal Bill. (A laugh.) Well, then, I say if such is the
state of public opinion—if the Governments of Lord Aber-
deen, Lord Derby, and my noble friend, haVe brought for-
ward different plans of reform, and they have failed, from
the general dislike that seems to affect them, I must come
to the conclusion that for the present time, and I speak only
for the present time—there is no such disposition in favour
of the further amendment of the representation as ought to
induce the Government, I might say to justify Government
in proposing a measure for the reform of the representation.
(Hear, hoar.) However, the country has the matter in its
own hands. It is not too late for indignation meetings.
(A. laugh.) If nothing will satisfy the country but a reform
bill which, to use the language of the hon. gent,liemooani IL
ey
have only to insist that 1 . -
satisfy the just expectationsie loito'nthe,peneotpiolroe ialeonlTlnio
moved,: t':
thisl
ut
n'imodenoilble, letelv the state of
tion. (A laugh.) That would show corn p
curry
rtyaki
heethi
teeptol place noble friend, ferotetnirdo,saainitslUlrxe,
f the people.
right, and justly judge
the case ; and till that is done . believe we am in the
ith regard to these motions
(Hear, hear.) Well,
emxamliBnal9t,ionl amin
thsoisrrybetnosesaywitli
form Bills I have had enough I may be allowed. to imtiotnoloinduce m
insaStryoirdo'nuweciwngord.
them. With respect
wtoitßhea-
began not
to be very eager in h of th°se
regard to the corruption at Grampound. Everybody agreed
. I
the case was proved. It was proposed to give the two mem-
ymeoatriso motion
goon. this
badsubject
an
mem-
bers to Leeds, with a £lO suffrage. " What," it was said,
"only think of giving the representation to a new place!"
Well, sir, I was glad to find that opinion became more,

. •
favourable to relati; mid that Mr. Canning, although he
opposed me in an eloquent altd brilliant speech in 1822, yet
at the end of that speech gave nee great hopes and encourage-
ment that if I went on I should succeed itt my endeavours.
Attotdingly, in the course of time, Lord Grey wag placed at
the head of the 4olernment, and, being an old Refornier,
he desired those who Were associated with him to frame a
bill, which should be introduced into Parliament. My right
hon. ftiefid the member for Carlisle, Lord Durham, Lard
Beasborough, and myself were named for that purpose. We
prepared a bill, and after a great struggle we were enabled
to carry it in 1832. Am fto be told that, it is any mortiii-
Cation to me to find at the end of 36 yeare that the country
is so Well satisfied with the bill of 1832 that it does not ask
for anything else? (A laugh.). Surely it can be no great
hrimiliation to me that the amendment which I then in •
trodneed into the Constitution has been 50 successful, has
produced such contentment, hag given so much fairer a re-
presentation to the great seats of industry, that at the pre-
sent moment the people think of other objects—of foreign
riol;tics of commercial trestles, of church-rates, of various
questitiha aldetail—rather than lend their support to any
plan of organic Change. All I can say, tharelbre, is that
I when anytirrther aniatidracnt is proposed I lie it will go,
as all the bills I have had the honour, to introduce have
gone;ttpon the principle of making a supplement to the
bill of lBn father than of attempting to disturb the
foundations of an afrdngesnent which was then established
with the approbation of the reale. (Hear- hear.) At
all events, for this year I certainly ifcii9ve our best course
will be to give' our attention to those a'arious amend -
ruents which her Majesty has referred to in her' Speech.
They will occupy most usefully the time of this House;
and if the tight hon. gentleman opposite, after' hay-
ing read the papers upon foreign affairs, wishes further• ex-
planations from me I shall be always ready to give them,
feeling for myself that it is a great security for the people
of this country that the Government should be their organ
in foreign politica. and that it is a great security for the
GoVertimettt to know that they have the support of the
people in the sentiments which they express and the prin-
ciples which they uphold. (Cheers.)
Mr. BRIGHT said lie would thank his hon. friend the
member forßrighton for the course he had taken in bringing
that question to which the noble lord had so recently al-
luded before the hottse. His hon. friend did it in a speech
which was fain of matter, and which had very favourably
impressed the hotitie, He (Mr. Bright) was glad, too, that
that speech had drawn front the noble lord the true confes-
sion—he presumed the latest war the true confession—of
his sentiments on that question. He would, however, rather
good deal not have heard that speech from tha noble lord,
and he felt a grief he could not express in being compelled
to understand the table lord meant precisely what he said.
The noble lord reminded him of cases often exhibited in
the commercial world, where men whq had borne for many
years obligations and pecuniary burdens which they were
unable to satisfy, finally called their creditors together, ac-
knowledged a state of bankruptcy, and felt a perfect happi-
ness in having got rid, in some way or other, of the obliga-
tions they had incurred. (Hear, and laughter.) That
seemed precisely the tone in which the noble lord had ad-
dressed the house to-night. He (Mr. Bright) would admit
there was some force in the statement as to the difficulties
of the noble lord's position in handling this queation and
bringing it to a sucessful issue. He had seen the noble lord
shed tears on that very spot when withdrawing a Reform
Bill, when that evening he had pursued precisely the same
course with a jocularity—(a laugh)—that was absolutely
contemptuous to those who had placed him in that very
seat in order that he might advocate that very mea-
sure. (Hear, hear.) He (Mr. Bright) should not, because
he felt it utterly beneath the feeling he had with regard to
this question, attempt to lay hold of the noble lord, and
show him when he thought the noble lord had failed with
regard to this question in a hostile and unfriendly spirit,
because, notwithstanding what the noble lerdhad said that
evening, he might again find that question of use to his
political objects. But ho would turn rather to the house,
and ask them what was their position with regard to this
question, for that mattered more to England, and to the
people of England, than the consistency of any particular
member of the house, however old in the public service or
eminent he might be. The noble lord had taken up that
subject as far back as the year 1819. He would not ask
the house to go back so far. He would only take, them
back to the year 1851, just ten years ago. That was a period
when the noble lord the Foreign Secretary first, announced
to the house his intended depariure from that principle
which he was supposed to have avowed—that the Reform
Bill was a final measure with regard to the representation
of the people. In 1351 the noble lord stated, in answer
to Mr. Hume, then a distinguished member of the house,
that he was prepared to consider the question with the view
of introducing some bill for extending the provision of the
Reform Act. In 1552 the noble lord did introduce such a
bill; but it happened then, as it constantly happened, that
there was a quarrel and an estrangement between him aid the
noble lord the first minister, and that mainly, together with
other difficulties, caused the noble lord to retire from bffice,

Immediately afterwards came in that wonderful appaOtion,
at which the country was much surprised, the first Gefrern-
.
ment of Lord Derby. They did not commit themselves
upon the question at all. Lord Derby said—he (Mr. Bright)
was quoting from recollection' only—that he censideredit was
a part of his great duty to "stem the tide of democriacy."
Whether he stemmed it or not time would show; but the go-
vernment which undertook that fearful task was overthrown,
because the house disapproved of a not very skilful bud,get
introduced by the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Disraeli),
There then followed what was called the government o
coalition, over which presided a man of singular moderation,
singular love of justice, and singular liberatlity—thi late"
Lord Aberdeen. That Government comprised the oble
lord (Lord J. Russell) ; and he brought in a bill to extend
the right of suffrage, and to give an amended representation
to the people. That bill was not withdrawn from any doubt
being entertained by the house as to is principles or entails,
but because two Roble lords, at present seated together on
that bench, had succeeded with their colleagues in involving
the country in a war with Russia, and it was though
better; during the excitement of that contest, not to prOceed
with a reform bill, and it was accordingly withdrawn. Well,
by and bye the Government of Lord Aberdeen was lover-
thrown, and was followed by that of the noble lord new at
the head of the administration ; and not long after the ter-
mination of the Russian war, the noble lord, in reply, he
(Mr. Bright) believed, to his hon. friend the member for
Finsbury, admitted that the time was come for amending
the representation of the people, and he promised that in
the succeeding session the Government would be prepared
to introduce a bill. But in that succeeding session ;there
happened something, as frequently did happen, which was
not expected in the preceding session. In the year 1858,
almost immediately after the house met, the noble lord made
a stumble in a matter connected with the French Govern-
ment, and on a motion brought forward byhis (Mr. Bright's)
right hon. friend the member for Ashton, the noble lord
was ejected from office. The house did not complain that
_ .

the noble lord did not bring in a bill, because no sufficient
time had been allowed for the purpose ; but when the
hon. member for Finsbury put the question whether the
the measure had been Considered, and a bill prepared, it
came out at last, as the noble lord was frank enough to
say, that no bill was ready to be laid upon the table. So far
the noble lord did not seem quite to have acted up to his
promise. Then came the second apparition of Lord Derby's
Government. Well, so convinced were Lord Derby and
the right hon. gentleman of the necessity of the measure,
that they announced their intention, in the next session, to
bring in a bill to amend the representation of the people.
Assuming that altering was amending they did so; and
the right hon. gentleman taunted the noble lord with the
small number of supporters his bill received ; whereas no-
body upon his (Mr. Disraeli's) side of the house was in
favour of his measure. (Hear, hear.) It passed to a second
reading, no doubt, but had it gone further the right hon.
gentleman would have gone out into the lobby with his own
official supporters only. It was a bill which altered the
constituency and created confusion, but it did not mate-
rially extend the franchise. The right hon. gentleman
said, indeed, that it would add 500,000 new borough elec-
tors to the list. That was a monstrous exaggeration; but
tho oyotorn of government which was to stem the tide of
democracy, on its second accession to office, was prepared,
' according to its own showing, to introduce into the elec-
toral .body twice the number proposed by the bill of the
noble lord. So that he (Mr. Bright) must say the second
Government of Lord Derby must in the eyes of hon. gentle-
men opposite have been something far worse than the first.
(Laughter.) There was this, however, to be said about

Lord Derby's Government, that they had prepared their
eßeform Bill; and when the House of Commons rejected it
on the special invitation of the noble lard the member for
the City of London, the Government of Lord Derby did
one of the two things, which, according to constitutional
practice, they were enabled to do; they did not resign,
which they were not bound to do, bit they advised the
Queen to dissolve Parliament, and Parliament was dis-
solved. They appealed to the one million electors of the
United Kingdom—that million whose votes were
obdistri-
buted and maniion
pulated in such a curious and antique.fia.
He
that their real opinions could not be takeltled.
" kingdom
had been told . that in the new
of Italy a representative system
returned for every
under which one member was to be weas
re: be established,
hiding, or
would be no
50,000 inhabitants, and undo or one of our
great constituencies like
Ltihverpool, Glasgow, or Birming-
ham, Isidt
metropolitan districts, or
the representatives of constitu-
encies to be neutralysedernY
handful of people who taken
encies consisting
would of some
form a single ward in those great
altogether I said the right hon. gentleman opposite and
populations.
I op
.rby did what was the honourable thing
his chief, Lord ,
—they lissolvod the Parliament in order to see whether
tcountry would support their Reform Bill. The coun-
tryte h
did not do so, and a motion was brought forward, and
Whether it was felt by the house that the question of re-
form was at issue or not, the house was against the Govern-
ment, and they resigned office, and then the noble lord the
member for the City of London was once more a member of
the Cabinet, and the noble lord the:member for Tiverton
the chief. Well, the reform question was considered, and
there were.public and private pledges given of the most
explicit character—(hear)—to members of this house prt
the subject. The Government were not called upon during
that session of Parliament to introduce a bill, but the noble
lord the member for London very fairly described what
would be character of the measure which he would pro-
pose. The noble lord had, previously, on the very night
the Government of Lord Derby announced a dissolution,
described the principle of his measure, and consequently it
was left to the whole electoral body to discuss, and the re-
sult was that after the returns were made the right hon.
gentleman (Mr. Disraeli) and his friends were sent to the
other side of the house, and the noble lords were restored
to the Minist9rial bench. It could not be said that he (Mr
Bright) had treated the noble lord unfairly. He did not
condemn the bill of last session, but he told the house that
it merely touched the fringe of the question as to the die-
. position of seats, So far as he could he spoke in favour