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

the alfa;rs of Italy, and you singled out the kingdom of the
two Siciaes as the object of your magnanimous interference.
What ha I. Piedmont to do with Naples? You told us
that the system of misgovernment in Naples was calcu-
lated to pr elites dangers which might disturb the peace of
Europe, so recently restored ; but will the noble earl say
on the part of her Majesty's Government, that he had the
slightest apprehension that the course of conduct pursued
by the King of Naples towards his subjects had the slightest,
chance of disturbing the peace of Europe ? Neither will
the noble lord say, for he knows it better than I do, that
there was the slightest fear of a conflict between Fence and
Austria in Italy. The plea you put forward has no substance
in it ; your interference partly arose from a sense of the
necessity of adhering to declarations previously made, and
partly from your inherent love of meddling. (Laughter.)
And what aro the demands you ma ie? If you were on
friendly truis with the Sovereign, you might represent to
him ilea friendly manner that he was not pursuing a course
which was calculated to be for his own benefit or the bene-
fit of his people. It was taking great liberty to do that
even with a most intimate friend, but yen cannot say that
your intimacy with the King of Naples was such as to jus-
tify your interfering as you did in his affairs. lam not
a supporter of the tyrannical measures of the King of Na-
ples. I am not defending the state of things in Naples or
in the Papal States, but I think matters have been made
infinitely worse in Naples, Rome, and Spain by your in-
terference. What had you to do with Naples, the Papal
Government, or Spain ? You are bound to protect your owe
subjects in those states ; but as between a sovereign and
his own subjects, to break off all friendly relations be-
cause that sovereign does not take your advice is a
monstrous proceeding, according to every principle
of international law; and no one who understands those
principles will get up and defend it. (Hear, hear.) On
what ground, then, have you withdrawn your minister
from Naples? lam not to be told that in speaking this I
am attacking the policy of France. I have a profound ad-
miration for the Emperor of the French, not only on ac-
count of his great talents and ability, but for his scrupulous
ad_ hersapg~ ei fidelity in his eugagemente with, this country.
1 do not thiai rim going too far when I say that the Eava
peror of the French is about the only cordial friend you have
in Europe ; but the Emperor of the French may fall into
errors, and I think he has done so in this case. What have
you done? You have made certain demands on the King of
Naples. He answers in a manner that you consider offensive..
But you must re eollest the language held towards the King
of Naples by that portion of the press which is supposed to
receive some of its inspirations from the noble viscount.
Was there any term of vituperation which was not applied
to him ? (Hear.) We were told that the presence of a few
ships won' i kindle a revolution in the country, and make
him a fugitive over the face of the earth. Such was the state
of your friendly relations ; and yet after suclelangnage you
say you regret the King of Naples was so ill advised
as not to listen to your friendly representations. (Hear,
and laughter.) Yoa withdrew your ambassador, and so
did the G ivernment of France, but these ambassadors of
two of the greatest nations of Europe walked down stairs,
and went away without the slightest excitement or com-
motion ou the part of any human being. No precautions
were taken, the King went openly in the streets, bat ex-
cept a miserable attempt at insurrection in Sicily, said to
be produced (but that I do not believe) at the instigation
of others, which was soon put down, and a wretched at-
tempt at ansassination which ended in the execution of the
criminal, this was the whole result of your interference,
except that England and France received, and well de-
served, the affront they met with. (Hear.) I now come
to other topics, and I cannot but regret that we are en-
gaged in two heavy wars in the east—a war with Persia
and a war with China. I admit the importance of the in-
dependence of Herat, in reference to our Indian empire,
and I ain not going to defend the tortuous and devious
policy pursued at various times with regard to Herat
by Persia. In 1852, we received a solemn assurance—an
assurance not confirmed by the fact—that no attempt
would be made on Herat. It was necessary, in conse-
quence of the falsehood of the representations of Persia,
to suspend diplomatic relations with the Persian minister
in this country ; but owing to the co-operation of Russia,
then in acuity with us, Persia abandoned her attempt upon
Herat. In 1853 as agreement was come to between Col.
Shed and the Shah, which was not very clearly expressed,
but the effect of that agreement was, I believe, that Per-
sia was to wake no attempt to occupy or invade Herat,
and we undertook, on our part, if any attempt was made
on Herat by others, to use our moral influence to prevent
such an attempt from taking place. In 1856 our new ally
and former enemy, Dust Mahomed, advanced towards
Herat, and the governor of that place, fearing the designs
of that prince, applied to Persia for assistance. Tile
Persians alvanotd, and the ruler of Herat, now fear-
ing the Persians, applied to the Affghans to defend
hiih against Persia and his own people. Thereapou
a conflict took place, in which the Affghans were signally
defeated by the Persians, who, in violation of the engage-
ments they entered into with us, made themselves masters
of Herat. It is not, however, quite clear that under such
circumstances the occupation of Herat was a violation of
the engagement she male with us. But observe what had
been the state of Persia in the intermediate time. Persia,
a comparatively weak and powerless empire, found herselt
between the pressure of two mighty states—Russia and
England. During the late war, I believe Persia offered
to take a part against Russia if England and France en-
tered into an alliance to secure her independence
against Russia. That offer was declined by England
and France, but Persia was required to maintain a strict
neutrality. She abstained from attacking Turkey, there-
fore; bat when the preponderance of Russia in the East
seemed to be secured to Russia by the siege and taking of
Kars, thinking that she had more •to fear from the hos-
tility of Russia than of England, she took no great pains
to conceal her unfriendly feeling towards this country.
Nothing was more natural at that time than that Russia
should stimulate Persia to this course. We would do the
same if we were in the position of Russia, But I am pew
suaded of this, that at the present time it is the sincere de-
sire of Russia not to be involved in any further war with
this country, and that for that reason she would exert the
whole of her influence in Persia to make that Government
comply with the demands of this country, and keep on
friendly terms with eta And for the benefit of both England
and Russia, not at the present time only, but in all times,
there cannot be anything more advantageous for both coun-
tries than that, with regard to the countries that intervene,
whether Persia or any other country, between our respec-
tive territories, there should be a perfect underatending.
That is an object to be aimed at by every statesman, and the
more we are exposed to the encroachments of Russia, the
more should it be our object to maintain between the two
as large a space of territory, bound neither to the one nor
the other, but which, preventing the le isibility of contact,
may prevent the chance of collision. I believe Russia to
be deeply impresed with that truth ; and though she may
have stimulated Persia to harass and insult you when she
was your enemy, I believe her efforts now to be in a dif-
ferent direction ; and I believe that if Persia ever does
come into your terms, it will be much more due to the re-
presentations of Russia than to the effect of that expedition
which you have sent against her shores. Ido not wish in
the slightest degree to depreciate the skill, gallantry, and
valour displayed by that small expedition which has so
signally succeeded in the Persian Gulf. 1 think it reflects
the highest credit on the Indian Government; audit mast
be a source of sincere satisfaction to my noble and gallant
friend behind me, and others who like him, on the ground
of age and infirmity, have been placed on the retired list, to
know that there are some of them who aro still capable of
active service and brilliant exploits. (Hear.) I must say
I heard at first with dismay of the advance, and then with
great satisfaction of the retrograde movement of the body
of troops which bad been sent to co-operate with Dost Ma-
homed on the other side of Persia.
The Earl of CLARENDON gave some explanation
across the table. He was understood to say that that force
Wald ouly sent for a local object.
The Earl of DERBY—I certainly look with anxiety to
any movement on that side. However, the papers to be
laid on the table will probably throw some light on that
and other subjects. Among other points, there is one of
the deepest importance in a constitutional point of view
—the authority by which this war with Persia was under-
taken. I have seen undoubtedly a proclamation of the
Governor-General of India, in which he declares war against
Persia in consequence of various grievances ; but I have
yet to learn that the Governor-General of India has any
constitutional power of proclaiming war upon the part of
this country. I have always understood that the declara-
tion of war was a pert of the prerogative of the Crown—
(hear, hear)—that it must be proclaimed by the Crown,
with certain formalities; and if it had been so pro-
claimed in this instance, I think it would have been
the duty of the Minister of the Crown to have
called Parliament together at the earliest possible
moment, and have made known to them the circumstances
under which her Majesty had been induced to enter upon
this war. I can quite understand that when our Indian
empire was entirely governed by the East India Company
wars undertaken against native princes, arising out of In-
dian quarrels, stood on quite a different footing, and did
not require the sanction of the Crown. But, observe, the
royal speech speaks of " British troops" having been sent
on this occasion. It treats it, not as an Indian, but as a
British war ; and unless I am greatly misinformed, the
people of this country are pledged by the acts of the Go-
vernment to every portion of the expenditure of this war,
beyond a certain given proportion to be charged upon the
resources of India. lam told, also, whatever may be the
opinion of the Governor-General of Innis, or the Court of
Directors, about the policy of this war, that it is a war en-
tered into by direction of the Government at home—that
it is not an Indian war, but a British war ; and if so, it
ought to have been proclaimed in the ordinary way, and
announced at the very earliest moment to Parliament.
te.
know not what, answer the noble earl has to this statebmuetnat
I hope that he will be enabled to undeceive e
is unconstitu-
tional, itself, so the manner of its proclamation .
present my impression is, that as the war unfortunatem
it is ten times my
with regard to the war with. Persia,
ic we are engaged in
tional, almost unjust. (Hear, hear.? If that is my opinion
opinion with regard to that in
lost in astonishment at the
China. (Hear, hear.)
proceedings
et accompanied by proceedings
courtesy it may be called, y
which havechaarmacterised that war—a War by
.shment characterised by the noble earl opposite
unknown in civilised warfare, and which I heard with \
usstterastumnsi
being mark' by great forbearance. (Hear, hear.) What
do not say that the Chinese have not vio-
but I consider it exceedingly doubtful
ilsysahtteehdtehteeh;restethlaetaltlyor;cha, the Arrow, was under the protection
of the flag of this country. If not, the whole case falls
to the ground. Sir John Bowring admits that the time
e meys the Chinese did not know that ii heel
ear which it was licensed to carry that flag had expired ;
but
expired.he
But what then ? He says again that, by virtue of
entitledaysoyaz e
Nto o
Now,
e bey
very fi
greatly•f h
i
h e
her was
thesg colonialtil
hor returni•eiat rfyr,o
from
doubt the legal validity of the colonial • ovat register on which
Sir John Bowring relies. (Hear.) lam sure that there is
infinite danger in permitting to authorities at a very great
distance an unlimited power of granting
and thereby enabling the parties enjoying it to claim the in-
terveutiou of the British power in their B
is that that colonial registry is of
very dtlopupbotrflu.l
ibed.ltie f
inasmuch as it, is ineossistent with, and repugnant to,
law of England; and no principle is more clearly laid down
mu/tents than
with regard to colonial goythis—that their
acts must not be repugnant to the general law of England.
(hear, hear.) This colonial registry gives the privilege of
British vessels to those whose owners are not British
subjects, not naturalised but who upon the payment of
a very heavy fine have been allowed to take on board
hands in Hong Kong, and have thereby become pro-
tected, and entitled to the privileges of the British flag. I