The Sun.
London, England, 1861-02-07 00:00:00

METROPOLITAN CATTLE MARKET.

Although the supply of beasts here to-day was by no
means extensive, the demand for all kinds ruled very inac-
tive at Monday's currency. Sheep—the show of which
was rather on the increase—moved off steadily at full quo-
tations, the best of old Downs having sold at 6s. per 8 lbs.
Calves were quite as dear as on Monday, with a good
demand. The best veal was worth ss. Bd. per S lbs. We
have to report an improved sale for pigs at extreme rates ;
but mulch cows were very dull.

Per 81bs to sink the offal.
R. d. s. d. ' a. d. s. d.
Crse. &inf. beasts 3 0 3 4) Primeers-wool do. 4 10 .5 8
Second quality do. 3 6 4 0 i'me.S'thdown do .5 10 6 0
Prime large oxen 4 2 4 6 Largo orse. calves 4 8 5 2
Prime Scots, &c. 4 8 4 101 Prime small do 5 4 5 8
Crse. & inf. sheep 3 8 4 0 ; Large hogs 4 0 4 6
Second quality do. 4'2 4 6 Small porers 48 5 0
Lambs, Os Od to Os Od.
Suckling calves, 20s to 23s ; and quarter •eld store pigs,
23s to 335.

TOTAL SUPPLY. FOREIGN SUPPLY.
Beasts
Sheep and lambs 4,100 )Sheep
Calves
Pigs

... ,

IMPS' RIAL PARLIAMENT.

iSE OF COMMONS.—(YESTERDAY.)
FOREIGN AFFAIRS.
Mr., S.. FITZGERALD said—l am deeply sensible of
the Inc' )nveniecnce of making observations on what passed
last e ight in the absence of the noble lord who presides
over foreign affairs, but I learn from the Secretary to the
Trausury that the noble lord is on his way to the house,
end as this is the only opportunity, and as probably the
imolai° lord will arrive before I am very far advanced in the
sobservations which I have to make, I trust the house will
grant me its indulgence. lam also sensible of the incon-
vonienco of reviving a discussion to-day which might have
more fitly been taken last night; but the fact is that the
horA. member for Birmingham by his speech, devoted to a
&abject of paramount domestic interest, so entirely
changed the tenour of the discussion that I abstained from
reverting to the subject of foreign policy. The tone of the
hon. member for Birmingham was so earnest and so fairly
indignant at the course of the Government that I felt it a
very difficult matter for me to recall the attention of the
house to less exciting topics. limey say in passing that I
can well understand the curt and indignant feeling with
which the hon. member forßirminghara spoke, because the
noble lord the member for the city net only ,dried reform,
but had not the delicaey to apply his handkerchief to his
face to conceal the smile which was upon it as he stood in
the position of chief mourner. (Hear.) I wish to recall
the attention of the noble lord to the answer which he gave
my right hon. friend the member for Bucks with reference
to two despatches addressed to the British Minister at
Turin on the 31st of August and 27th of October. With
reference to the Speech which her Majesty has been coun-
selled to address to the house, I was inclined, until I heard
the speech of the noble lord, to complain of a grave omis-
sion. I believe that if there is any one subject upon which
the heart of the people is set it is the maintenance of gene-
ra peeee—(hear, hear)—not merely from economic and
prndentia/ motives, not only from a sense of the burdens
which a state of war imposes Upon all who are included in
it or have to prepare against it, but I believe from higher
motives, springing from a conviction that war, not rendered
necessary by the honour and interests of the country, is a
high moral crime. (Hear, hear.) What I thought the
Speech ought to have contained was an assurance on the
part of the Government that they were alive to the dangers
which menaced the peace of Europe, that no efforts would
be spared and that no stone would be left unturned to
secure the maintenance of general peace. The Speech says
that her Majesty trusts that the moderation of the Powers
tti Europe will contribute to the maintenance of the public
peace ; but whether her Majesty's advisers mean that they
trust the Powers of Europe All be moderate, or that if they
are moderate general peace will to secured, seems on the
face of the Speech doubtful. In reply to the right hon.
gentleman the member for Bucks the noble lord made a
very satisfactory statement—namely, that at the present
moment, in concert with our allies, they are using every
exertion in their power, and directing the whole energy
and the whole weight and interests of this country to the
maintenance of the general peace of Europe. I believe
that if the Government sincerely work for that object peace
may possibly be maintained, but at the same time 1 am
sure that it is impossible those efforts can be successful if
the noble lord and his colleagues publish to the world such
documents as those of the 31st of August and the 27th of
October. The noblelord, in reply to my right hon friend,
was certainly more adroit than candid, and his reply in
reference to the second of those papers—if I may use the
word, not in an offensive sense—was almost evasive. The
great claim which the present Government has on the con-
fidence of the house in the guidance of foreign politics is
that they hold fast by the principle of non-intervention.
Certainly, members on the Opposition side will not com-
plain of the adoption of such a policy, because I always re-
member with satisfaction that the Government to which I
had the honour to belong in a subordinate capacity was the
first Government which proclaimed and adhered to the prin-
ciple that we ought not to pursue —as for years we have pur-
sued—a meddling policy in every petty as in every great affair
in which nations with whom we have communication become
involved. Gentlemen on the Opposition side are not likely,
therefore, to complain of the present Government adopting
and thinly adhering to the policy of non-intervention.
(Hear, WO The contrary is the fact. The complaint
against the present Government is that, proclaiming them
selves adherents to the doctrine of non-intervention, in the
first place they do rot practise it, and in the next that they
publish documents wholly inconsistent with it. The noble
lord, who is now the champion of non-intervention, wrote a
letter upon the 31st August in not very courteous terms. I
think the letter was unnecessarily offensive, and that it
mixed up subjects in a manner far more likely to irritate
than to conciliate, to estrange than to influence, the per-
sons to whom it was addressed. At the same time I think
the noble lord was perfectly justified in writing that de-
spatch, because it is clear there was a great ferment and
crisis in Italy at the time, and therefore, although the lan-
guage was unnecessarily strong, the object was good—viz.,
to throw the whole weight of the Government into the
scale for the maintenance of peace. The letter sent to the
Xing of Sardinia was to the effect that if Sardinia stirred
in a certain direction she would have England against her,
and that the noble lord had reason to think that the great
Powers of Europe would also interfere. The words menaced
intervention on the part of this country, and all the remark
I will make on that despatch is that it was not one on
which the Government could rest its claim of acting on the
principle of non-intervention. (Hear.) But with regard to
the second despatch the noble lord did not deal frankly
with my right hon. friend. The noble lord detailed the cir-
cumstances under which the first despatch was written. He
referred to its terms, and hejustified its principles. He ad-
hered to all it contained, and he so far dealt candidly with
my right hon. friend. But when the noble lord came to deal
with the second despatch his answer was not satisfactory.
He adverted to its terms, to the circumstances under which
it was written, and to the comae taken by the King of
Sardinia, but he did not justify that course on the ground
stated in the despatch, but on another ground totally
different and absolutely inconsistent with it. I regret ex-
tremely that the noble lord is not yet in his place, but as the
despatch in question is one for which the Cabinet must have
been collectively responsible, I have, at least, the satisfac-
tion of addressing the noble viscount at the head of the
Government and two other members of the Cabinet. My
right hon. friend the member for Bucks seems to have been
not the only person who has been bewildered as to the policy
of the Government; for the Government of one of our allies
was thrown into a state of even greater confusion and per- I
plexity on the subject. Nor is this to be wondered at; for I
I defy the ingenuity of man to reconcile two such contra- I
dictory documents as the two despatches of the noble lord,
or to discover how they could have been written by the same
hand. The noble lord, as we know, attended her Majesty
upon her visit to Germany. He there had an interview
with Baron Schleinitz, the Foreign Minister of Prussia,
immediately after which the Prussian Government, desir-
ous of reassuring their own people, published the following
statement in their official Gazette :
" The cordial relations which have ever existed between
England and Prussia will continue to exist if the two coun-
tries do not mutually misunderstand their true interests.
These relations have become more deeply rooted, and have
acquired increased firmness and extension by the conference
at Coblentz, and by the ready exchange of views which
then took place between the leading statesmen of the two
countries. In view of the.present great complications in
the European political system, the more satisfactory it is to
be enabled to state that there was a coincidence between the
views and opinions of England and Prussia on the great
and important questions of the day."
I can readily conceive the surprise and bewilderment of the
Prussian Minister when, after having come to the above
conclusion, he read, only five days after, in the journals the
letter of the noble lord, the special object of which was to
find fault with the important step which the Government
of Prussia had taken in regard to the affairs of Italy, and to
express, on the put of her Majesty's Government, not ac-
cord of opinion with that of our ally, but utter and entire
disapproval of everything that had been done. A document
of more dangerous tendencies than that despatch of the
noble lord had never issued from the pen of arty statesman
in any country of Europe. The doctrine of non-interven-
tion is popular in this country, not merely because it tends
to keep us out of war, but from our conviction that the adop-
tion of that principle is a great gain to intejronational law
and international morality. [Here Lord hnlle
entered the' house.] T pass by the reference of the itobl n
lord, whom lam glad now to see in his place, to Vattel,
because in the present day the opinion of a British Minister
is of a great deal more weight than the dictum of a writer
who has been dead more than a century. The position of
the noble lord, as I-understand it, is that a foreign State
has the right to 'interfere In support of a people against
their reef; when thepeopte have good cause of complaint.
But, as he holds that the people are not only the best, but
the SOle judges of the jastiCe of their complaints, and as
no insurrection; ever takes place without the insurgents
believing they are very Matted, I do not think I ever-
state the dottrine -of the. nobht lord when I say that it
°clean& to this-e-that,in every insurrection that occurs, it
tithe part, of a eountry wishing to pursue a liberal and
Ileneroas course to lerid the rebels the support of their arms.
tl'4 doctrine consistent with the doctrine of non-inter-
v°l4°ll T V'jfk exactly the reverse. There is no State in
Europe, there is no conceivable circumstances in which, ac-
cording to ties nob% lord, it would not be the duty of a libe-
ral 4add
,ge,t,tr-devermneitt to interfere by force of arms.
(Hear.) at 'toilet be the result of such a principle?
lase noble hull:* 1,4,13, of too logical a mind not to per-
ceive that it cats two ways, and that it may be adopted
equally in fa,,or of a peoph; struggling for liberty and a
disiosscSsed severa,,, struggiino.gtgo
regainn his throne.
Wear') It is a PTh'ciPla '9"l4'da justifies an absolute sove-
reignn in helping a brother aestait rs eissress no less than a
liberal sovereign in helping thepeople of anornes State to
acquire free(Toirti.", The noble lord, who has the means or
informinihirreielf as to the state of affairs all over Europe,
cannot fail to be aware that at the present time nothing is
easier for a Sovereign with aggressive designs upon his
neighbours than to stir up an insurrection in their domi-
pions.-(Hear, hear.) I believe the noble lord iswellaware
that at this very moment there are present in many cowl:
tries of Europe the emissaries of foreign Powers who are
certainly not engaged in maintaining peace or promoting
ilargiOny, He must know that Laaainations are in progress

~..._~

in many countries of Europe, by means of which, if war
breaks out, it is possible an aggressive Sovereign may find
his attacks from without assisted by disorders w bln. And
when that happens the aggressive Sovereign will find a
pretext ready shaped for him in the words oft noble lord.
He neel only point to the disorders which he ' as fomented,
assert that the people gone possess the r. ht of judging
whether they have any ground for their complaints, and
protest that he has assisted them against their ruler, not in
a spirit of ambition or aggression, but in a spirit of gene-
rosity and liberality. But there is another and more serious
danger to be apprehended from the doctrine of the noble
lord. Nothing, lam satisfied, is so calculated to interfere
with the progress of the constitutional cause as this unfor-
tunate declaration on the part of a liberal Government.
Instead of promoting the spread of constitutional freedom,
it will stimulate insurrection and revolution by encourag-
ing the leaders of such movements to expect assistance
from abroad. I can give the house a curious illustration of
this. I had the pleasure of spending a considerable time in
Hungary, and there became acquainted with all those illus-
trious men who are, at the present time, struggling to esta-
blish constitutional freedom in that land. Shortly after the
appearance of the noble lord's despatch, I received a letter
from one of the most distinguished of that party. The noble
lord will see, from the sentiments contained in the passage
I am going to read, that it is impossible to make public the
name of the writer. I will only say that he is one who is
now engaged heart and soul in the struggle for constitu-
tional liberty in his country. He writes as follows :
"You who have been among us and know the difficulties
of our position, can well understand how they are increased
by this wonderful letter of your incomprehensible Lord
Russell. It has already in effect gives such courage to the
Separatists that we, who hate the Austrians as much as
they do, must either side with the Government or see our
country the prey to anarchy and insurrection. Alas, in-
deed I that it is an English Minister who thus makes else-
where constitutional action impossible, revolution almost
inevitable."

It is remarkable that the doctrine of the noble lord has not
the mark of originality. It is dangerous, but it is not new.
Not much more than half a century ago the same language
was held by the National Contention of France. (Hear,
hear.) They, too, declared, just before the establishment of
the Republic, that France, as a liberal and generous nation,
offered the assistance of her arms to any people who were
struggling against a tyrant. There was this difference,
however, between the Convention and the noble lord, that
they were ready to back their words by deeds, and the noble
lord is not. (Hear, hear.) That is an essential difference,
I grant, but the principle is the same. And now, after the
lapse of somewhat less than 70 years, we have the Minister
of an English Sovereign, a member of a constitutional Go-
vernment, adopting the sentiments, and almost the very
language of the National Assembly of 1793. (Hear, hear.)
It is worthy of remark that the noble lord last night did
not justify the conduct of the King of Sardinia on the
ground that he pursued a liberal and generous policy, but
on the ground that it was an exceptional case, and that
the continuance of anarchy and disorder in the South of
Italy menaced the peace and security of Sardinia, He re-
ferred not to the authority of Mattel, but to the authority
of Lord Castlereagh. (Hear, hear, and a laugh.) He
never attempted to justify the dangerous doctrine con-
tained in his despatch. By the way, I may refer to the
charge of the noble lord that my right hen. friend the
member for Bucks was an Austrian in sympathy, and had
spoken in high eulogium of the King of Naples. My right
hbn, friend has said that, at a distant period of time, he
may have spoken as the noble lord and others have
spoken, of the importance of maintaining Austria as one
of the Powers of Europe, but that the idea that he ever
I praised the King of Naples is a mere hallucination on the
part of the noble lord. Ido not wish to go into the general
bearings of the Italian question. I will only say that I can
well understand the cordial sympathy entertained in this
country towards the illustrious man who has shown com-
mendable moderation, singular purity of conduct and cha-
racter, and the most distinguished bravery, even although
the course he has pursued in Italy may have been some-
what irregular. I can well understand also the feeling of
disgust which prevails at the falsehood and treachery which
have characterised the other party. Ido not yield to the
noble lord in my sympathy for those who are struggling for
freedom, nor in my attachment to the cause of constitu-
tional liberty. I hope and trust the time will come when
it will be enjoyed by all nations of Europe as freely and
fully as by ourselves ; but there is a wide difference between
such feelings and the doctrine of the noble lord, the
ten-
dency of which must be to check the progress of constitu-
tional States, and to render them as much objects of sus-
picion and apprehension to their neighbours as States of a
despotic character. (Hear, hear.) My right hon. friend
last night endeavoured in vain to elicit from the noble lord
a clear explanation of our relations with France. 4 I have
always held that a cordial understanding between France
and England was essential to the peace and happiness, not
only of the two countries themselves, but of Europe at
large. That was an axiom in European polities, but I want
to know what the present Government mean by a " cordial
understanding." If the noble lord can assure us that her
Majesty's Government had the cordial assistance of France
n her laudable efforts to preserve peace, he will make a
most satisfactory announcement. (Hear, hear.) But if
the noble lord meanslby cordial understanding such rela-
tions as we had an example of last session, when at the first
the noble lord assured us of the most friendly intimacy be-
tween the two States, and afterwards informed us that we
must look for an alliance elsewhere, then I say it is not a
ground of security, but a cause of disquiet and alarm. In
the first despatch the noble lord stated that an engagement
had been received from Piedmont nee to cede to France any
further territory. It is clear that the noble lord would not
have required that assurance unless he believed that a
cession was about to be made. I wish, therefore, to ask
him whether he is satisfied at the present time that no
compact exists between France and Piedmont for the
cession of the island of Sardinia or other territory to
France in return for assistance rendered by the arms of the
latter. I wish also to know something as to the state of
affairs in Syria. The time is fast expiring in which the
French troops should evacuate the district. I believe that
the entrance of those troops into Syria is not only dangerous
to the peace of Syria and the eliatence of the Turkish
umpire, but is also one of the greatest obstacles to the main-
tenance of the peace of Europe. I fear if a concession is
once made on this subject, and the occupation of Syria by
French troops is prolonged, the youngest man among us
will not live long enough to see them withdrawn. (Hear,
hear.) It is therefore the duty of the noble lord not merely
to tell us that the subject will come under the consideration
of the European Powers, but to inform us distinctly what is
the opinion of the British Government with regard to the
matter. (Hear, hear.)
Lord J. RUSSELL.—I do not rise at all for the purpose
of complaining of the course the hon. gentleman has fol-
lowed. I could have wished, perhaps, that he had given
me some notice of his intention to make the observations he
has done to-day ; but as to the substance of his remarks I
think it is an advantage to the Government, as well as due
to this house, that if a despatch has been totally miscon-
strued—if an interpretation has been put on it which is
totally foreign to its purport and to its words—full expla-
nations on the subject should be given by the Government.
The hon. gentleman condemns the despatch of the 27th of
October as affording a general countenance to people who
are in insurrection, and as entitling them to expect the
support of foreign Powers who are imbued with liberality
and generosity. I think the hon. gentleman must choose one
of two courses—either he must deny that there should
be any power of interference by a foreign Power, or
ho must show that in this particular case of Italy the in- ,
tervention of Sardinia was unjustifiable. As far as the
general question is concerned, it would be the greatest ab-
surdity to lay down a rule that those who rise against a
Government are in all cases to be placed in the same cate-
gory, that they are all guilty or all meritorious, all deserv-
ing of the cross or the diadem. To tell me that because I
admire Washington I must therefore admire Tat Tyler,
that because I approve the brave conduct of William the
Silent I must therefore approve of Maaaniello would be ut-
terly absurd. All I contend for is that each case must be
judged by its own merits. (Hear, hear.) You cannot say
that there should never be any intervention by a foreign
Power at any time without condemning our own conduct in
various instances, and without sapping the very foundation
of the constitution we now enjoy. (Hear.) Take the cases
that have happened since the peace of 1815. There was an in-
surrectien in Greece against the Sultan which lasted for four
or five years. Three of the Powers of Europe interfered to put
an end to the struggle. Were those Powers of a revolutionary
democratic character akin to the Jacobin Convention of
France? The first of them was the Emperor of Russia, who
interfered to protect the rebels•from the vengeance of the
Sultan. The other two were the constitutional Powers of
France and England. They agreed that a force which the
Sultan had despatched under Ibrahim Pasha, one of his
Generals, to suppress the insurrection, should not be al -
lowed to continue its operations, and, though the instruc-
tions given were not very precise, they were pretty sure to
end as they did, in the forces of 'the three Powers, under
Admiral Codrington, totally destroying the Turkish fleet
and preventing the Sovereign of the country from reduc-
ing his subjects to obedience. Does the hon. gentleman
mean to say that intervention was there unjustifiable ;
and that the people of Greece should not have been sup-
ported in their insurrection ? Another instance occurred
part--I
fmrteeennd
tthoeoktna_
not very long ,
very conspicuous and
diinstiwnhguicihshenY
dpt
surrection Which ;took place in Belgium. The people
.
of that country were discontented with the rule of
the Dutch Sovereign under whom the Congress of Vienna
had placed then. Their grievances in regard to the distri-
bution:of patronage were, no doubt, very considerable; but
they enjoyed freedom of repreqentation, and if I were to
compare their wrongs with those which the people of Naples
and Sicily have suffered they would appear as nothing.
(Hear.) The whole people of Belgium rose. A gentleman
-e-tth whom we are all acquainted, and who by his concilia-
tory manners, great acquirements, and experience in diplo-
macy is generally respected In English society,—l mean M.
Van.de. Weyer, the present Belgian representative, signed
a doentnent on the subject commencing with the words " To
arms, to arms, to arms"--a document which must be called
of a. revolutionary character; but the gentleman whose
11 ata ;I vette attached to it believed he was justified in publish-
inglte 'On that occasion France and England interfered
not °WY by ecemsel, but by arms and by action I no Prince of I