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

THE SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY: EVENING, FEBRUARY 1, 1861.

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 within. And
when that happens the aggressive Sovereign will find a
pretext ready shaped for him in the words of the noble lord.
He nee only point to the disorders which he has fomented,

assert that the people alone possess the right of judging
whether they have any ground for their complaints, and
protest that he has assisted them against their ruler, notin
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 as3istance
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 ests•

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 given 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 1 that it is an English Minister who thus makes else-

where constitutional fiction impossible, revolution almost

inevitable." _
It is remarkable that the doctrine of the noble lord has no

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 Convention 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 Vattel, 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 hon. friend the
member for Bucks was an Austrian in sympathy, and had
spoken in high eulogium of the King of Naples. My right
hon, 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
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
sudh 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. 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 politics, 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 means,by 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 net 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 existence of the Turkish
Empire, 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 youagest 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 Wat Tyler,
that because I approve the brave conduct of William the
Silent I must therefore approve of Masaniello 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-
surrection 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 bo 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
not very long after, in which my noble friend took a
very conspicuous and distinguished part—l mean the in-
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 them. Their grievances in regard to the distri-
bution of patronage were, no doubt, very considerable; but
they enjoyed freedom of repre,entation, 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
with 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 document 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
name was attached to it believed he was justified in publish-
ing it. On that occasion France and England interfered
not only by counsel, but by arms and by action. The Prince of

Orange was sent by his Lather, the King of the Netherlands,
to quell_ the rebellion. I believe he would have taken
Brussels, and for the time, at least, quenched the insur-
rection in blood had he not been checked by the information
that a French army was on its way to occupy Brussels, and
to encounter the Dutch troops. An English fleet went
nearly at the same time to establish a blockade, so as to
prevent the King of the Netherlands from making any
fartaer effort to recover his sway over his revolted subjects.

Does the hon. gentleman say that that was a wrong inter-
ference ? He can hardly do so. But there are other in-
stances of intervention. There is that upon which, as I
have said, our constitutional liberties rest, viz., the inter-
ference—and that without an insurrection, but merely upon

the suggestion that the people of this country were discon-
tented—of the Dutch Stadtholder, at the head of Dutch
forces, to invade the kingdom of England, and dethrone the
Sovereign who then ruled it. That, I suppose, the hon.
gentleman can hardly say is an event whieh we ought to re-
pudiate, because, although I have heard a noble lord in this
house call King William 111. our glorious deliverer, by no
other name than thatof the DutchStadtholder,l suppose that
we all now acknowledge that to him we owe it that that
real liberty and that Constitution which had been matter
of doubt and of contest for fifty or a hundred years was at
last established. (Hear, hear.) Take also an instance
further back, which has lately been recalled to our recol-
lection. Those who have read the interesting volumes of

Mr. Motley, in which with great research and with great
ability he has explained the causes which led to the rise
and the establishment of the Republic of the Netherlands,
know that he shows that, notwithstanding the for-

midable nature of the war in which the adoption of such a
course would involve her, the lion-hearted Queen who
then ruled over England did not scruple to give her assist-
ance to the Dutch, but that in order to enable them to
establish their independence of their legitimate Sovereign,
she encountered all the perils of a great war, and all the

dangers which were threatened by.the formidable armada
prepared by Philip 11. (Hear, hear.) Perhaps, after hear-
ing of these instances, the hon. gentleman will allow that
there maybe cases in which intervention is legitimate, and
may be justified by the interests of the country or the im-
portance of the object; but then he may take issue upon
. .

the case itself which is stated in the despatch, lie, like the

right honourable gentleman who spoke last night (Mr.
Disraeli), who also wished to fix my attention to that
despatch, has evidently paid no attention to it himself,
Both he and the right hon. gentleman evade and avoid all
its arguments. They evade the statement of facts which it
contains, and they say, "Here is a general declaration in
favour of insurrection, and an assertion that it is an act of
liberality and generosity to assist it." I am almost ashamed
to read any part of the despatch ; but it begins with stating
these questions :—" Were the people of Italy justified in
asking the assistance of the King of Sardinia to re-
lieve them from Governments with which they were
discontented ?" and, " Was the King of Sardinia justified
in furnishing the assistance of his arms to the people of
the Roman and Neapolitan States ? " These questions
are argued in the despatch. Shortly, indeed, but as com-
pletely as I could within the limits of such a document.
I state in it all the principal reasons which in this instance
justified the people of the kingdom of Naples in asking for
the assistance of the King of Sardinia, and the circumstances
which justified that Sovereign in complying with their re-
quest. Ala Ito go over that ground again ? I have no
objection to do so, and I will state again that in the
year 1821 Austria, in compliance with a decree of
the principal Powers of Europe—happily England ex-
cepted—sent a very considerable army into the kingdom of
Naples, where the people, under their legitimate Sovereign,
under a Bourbon King, had established a regular repre-
sentative Constitution, and whore we know by the undis-
-puted testimony of Lord Colchester, who was there at the
time, and who, sir, was ono of your predecessors in that
chair, the Parliamentary discussions were then conducted
in a most orderly and most decorous manner. The wish
of the people was to establish under their legitimate Sove-
reign a Government somewhat resembling that of this
country, under which people might speak freely of
their own affairs, and under which any one who was
arrested should have a right to an immediate trial, and
should either be proved guilty of some crime or be at once
declared to be innocent. Such were the desires of the people
of Naples, and it was to suppress such a system, it was
upon the declaration that it was impossible that Lombardy
should continue to be governed as it then was if there was
anything like freedom or constitutionalism in Naples, that
a large army was sent into that country, and that 40,000
men were left for, I think, three years in Naples and Sicily,
and re 'established a system of unjust imprisonment, of the
suppression of all freedom of opinion, and of the applica-
tion of torture to political offenders. (Hear.) Another at-
tempt to obtain free institutions was made by the people
under apparently favourable circumstances in the year
1848. The King solemnly swore to the Constitution, and
it was apparently established on a firm basis. I have seen
some of the men who took part in the establishment of
that Constitution, and one who was a Minister under it.
At that time the King made one reservation. It was that
the National Guard should have no artillery, and the Mi-
nister, thinking that this was only a Royal whim, agreed
that none but the regular troops should have that arm.
There came a fatal day, however, when this reservation
made by the King had its effect, when his oath was set
aside, when all its obligations were scorned, when the artil-
lery of the regular troops was used to destroy those who
were struggling for the Constitution, and when the men
who had endeavoured to carry it out, and who as members
of Parliament had been among the most Conservative,
were arrested and imprisoned for having relied upon the
good faith of the Sovereign. (Hear.) One of them told
me that he, at the personal desire of the King, accepted a
seat in the Chamber of Deputies. He wished not to sit
there, but he had been elected, and the King prevailed
upon him to accept the seat. A Committee of Public
Safety was appointed. He said that he could not approve
it ; but he was asked by the friends of the Sovereign to take
the chair of that committee. He took the chair, and he
told the members that a Committee of Public Safety could
have no good effect; that their operations would be danger-
ous; and ho begged them to dissolve, and to report to the
Chamber that they could not act with advantage to the
country. They took his advice, they dissolved, and he re-
ceived the thanks of the King for what he had done. As
he retired from the closet, after having an audience of his
Majesty, one o f the King's chamberlains said to him,
" Did the King receive you very graciously ?" " Yes, he
did." " Did he praise you very much ?" " Yes," replied
the Minister, " I never before received such words and such
assurances of favour as I have received this day from the
King." The chamberlain said, "Well, take care; I was
in the closet this morning when the Minister of Justice was
present, and I saw the King sign an 'order for your arrest."
( [Tear.) The Minister knew the man with whom he had
to deal. He had before been 12 or 13 years in prison in
consequence of a breach of faith on the part of the King.
He immediately went to the English mission, and thence
on board ship, and thus avoided the dungeon which had,
no doubt, been prepared for him by his Sovereign. (Hear.)
It came to be a question the other day whether or not the
son of that King was to be entirely believed when he de-
clared that he was in favour of a Constitution, and that he
would observe it, and it was said that he had sworn to it.
"To be sure," said one of these Ministers, Poerio, in the
Sardinian Chamber of Deputies—" To be sure he swears,
for how else could he be foresworn ? He must swear first,
in order that he may be foresworn afterwards." These
were bitter words, but they were not without justification,
because all those who in 1848 trusted the promises or be-
lieved in the oaths of the Sovereign were condemned by
him by virtue of his superior force to expiate their cre-
dulity by 10 years' imprisonment. (Hear, hear.) Well,
sir, I ask, are not these circumstances which may induce a
people to rise against a Sovereign, and to declare that they
would rather be under the sway of a King who, what-
ever may be his faults—and that he has many faults
I am ready to admit—has, at all ev3nts, been true to his peo-
ple—(hear, hear)—who has never made a declaration in
favour of their constitutional liberties which he has not ob-
served—(hear, hear)—and who has taken no oath that he
has not kept ? (Hear, hear.) What reason is there for won-
der or surprise that the millions of people who were under
the Neapolitan sway should declare that they could bear the
burden no longer, and should ask the assistance of the King
of Sardinia in order that they might enjoy the benefits of
constitutional government, without suffering from a con-
stant fear of Royal perjury ? (Hear.) The hon. gentleman
has put me upon the defence of this despatch. I have not
gone into details, but I have suggested certain topics, and
I think that the reasons that I have adduced were such as
'justified the Neapolitan people in the course which they
took. Had not the hon. gentleman forced me to do so, I
should not have recurredto these subjects, because the suc-
cessor of the late King has expiated these faults and crimes
of his predecessor. These, however, were the causes to
which I attributed the insurrection of the Neapolitans aid-
ing the invasion of Garibaldi, and I will say that they hav-
ing so risen, and having called upon the King of Sardinia
for aid, he was, for the reasons which I gave last night,
justified in going to their assistance and placing himself at
their head. Because, as I said, had he not done so, there
would have been no restoration of the King of Naples, but
there would have been in that kingdom such a state of
anarchy and confusion that it is very likely there would
have been other intervention—an intervention hostile to
the objects which the people of Italy had in view. (Hear,
hear.) I likewise stated in the despatch which has been
referred to, that beside what had taken place in the Papal
States and in the kingdom of Naples, there had
during the last five or six years been growing in
the minds of Italian patriots a conviction—l know not
whether Mazzini or who may have been its author—
that there was no chance of ;defending Italy against those
who wished to prevent its being independent except by its
being an united State; and how was it to become an united
State, except by the King of Sardinia taking up arms to
make it so ? It was not a republic tUey sought to set up ;
it was a constitutional monarchy. And let me here observe
that there are now in Europe, as there have been at various
periods, three parties. There are those who are for despotism,
there are those who are for disorder, and there are those who
are for constitutional monarchy ; and I say that it is not
unbefitting the English Government to declare that when
there is a contest among these principles they cannot favour
despotism, they cannot show any countenance to disorder;
but that with the cause of constitutional monarchy and of

representative institutions, under the regis of a king who
can keep his word, they do feel sympathy, and that they
are glad to see such a cause flourishing in a country which
is so glorious for its ancient recollections, and so distin-
guished for the ability, industry, and activity of its sons as
is Italy. (Hear, hear.) Therefore it was that when Russia
and Prussia, and impliedly Austria and France, expressed
their disapprobation of any attempt to establish an inde-

pendent Italy, I thought that the voice of this country
might be heard on the other side, and that it might be
shown that one constitutional monarchy at least would be

glad to see the Italians free themselves by their own exer-
tions. Not that we meant to interfere to promote that
cause, but that we were ready to favour with our approba-

Lion the meritorious and glorious efforts which were then

being made in its favour. (Hear, hear.) Does it follow that
because we approve these efforts in Italy we are there
f )re, like the French Convention, to declare that
wherever a people rise, wherever they are discontented with
their rulers, we are in their favour? Cn the contrary, as
I have said before, if such an instance is a case of real dis-

order, if it is a case of causeless discontent, breaking out in
riot, we are not the least bound to favour or to express
admiration of such an event. Every case must be treated

upon its own merits. That is the purport of the whole of my
despatch, which, as I have said, was an answer to the con-
tinual repetition of the statement that the conduct of the
King of Sardinia was against the law of nations, and that
such a thing had never been heard of before. " The law of
nations," it was said, "has been violated by the King of
Sardinia, and we, Austria, Russia, and Prussia," a little for-
getting the old story of Poland and the more recent story of
Cracow, (hear), are the sole interpreters of international law.
We are the only doctors who know what is right and just,
and we deolare from our supreme tribunal, from our high
court of appeal, that he has offended, and is therefore con-
demned." In my despatch, therefore, I stated the case of
the King of Sardinia and that of the Italian people ; and,
at the same time, I stated that the severance of the ties
which bind together a sovereign and his subjects is in itself

an insurrection. I have to-day said that if Belgium was
justified in severing the ties which bound her to her
sovereign because undue partiality was shown to the sub-

jects of the King of the Netherlands—if she was jus
fled in setting at nought the Treaty of Paris and the Treaty
of Vienna, by which Belgium was given to the Nether-
lands, ten times more, I might say 100 times more, were
the people of Naples and those of the Two Sicilies justi-
fied in severing the ties which bound them to a sovereign
from whom they got no justice, and from whom they re-
ceived none of the protection which a Government owes to
its subjects. (Hear.) Towards the end of his speech the
hon. gentleman said that he would say nothing about the
rights or wrongs of the Italian question ; but the rights or
wrongs of the Italian question form the whole matter in
dispute. (Hear, hear, and expressions of dissent from Mr.
Fitzgerald.) If the Italians have been right in their• revo-
lution, in their insurrection, they and the King of Sardinia
must be absolved together. If they have been in the wrong
then they must be condemned for destroying Governments
so excellent and so worthy of support as those which they
have lately overthrown. (Hear.) I have sometimes had
in this house to find fault with a Government which I have
not mentioned to-day—viz., the temporal government of
the Pope. Now, while Ido not think that that Govern-
ment provided for temporal good of his subjects, I cannot
but see in the Pope himself a Prince animated by the most
benevolent designs, warm-hearted and kind, and with an
Italian heart in his breast, feeling for the Italian people. It
remains for him now—and more for him even than for the
Emperor of the French—to solve this Italian question. At
the commencement of his reign he showed—and showed
most amply—his desire to govern his States in unison with
the wishes and in unison with the wants and interests of
his subjects. I trust that the feelings which then inspired
him will recur to his mind, and I do not at all despair of
seeing him again show his sympathies for Italy, and make
some agreement with the King of Sardinia, who has been
chosen by the almost unanimous voice of the Italians
to be their temporal sovereign, by which, while resign-
ing his secular power, he shall retain the homage which
is due to him even from those who are not members of the
Roman Catholic Church, and the spiritual authority which
must belong to one who is the head of a faith which is pro-
fessed by so many millions of Christians. If he takes such
a course he will not only preserve his dignity as a sovereign
prince, but will at the same time establish a claim to be con-
sidered the first of Italian patriots, preceding even those
men who have done so much for the liberation of Italy. We
all know that it is constantly said by Roman Catholics who
are in favour of the maintenance of the temporal sove-
reignty of the Pope, that it was assumed in days of diffi-
culty and trial ; that it was not sought for as an object of
ambition, but that it was undertaken by a Pope who was
respected by the people of Rome in order to preserve that
city and a great part of Italy from the evils of the anarchy
which would otherwise have resulted from the desertion of
the Emperors of the East and the incursions of the bar-
barians of the North. If such was the case, and if it is true,
as it is also alleged, that that temporal sovereignty was for
centuries useful, not only to the people of Rome, but to the
rest of Europe, and if a time has now come when it: can no
longer usefully be exercised, let it be laid aside, and I am
convinced that all Europe will admire such a noble and dis-
interested relinquishment of authority, (Hear, hear.) The
hon. gentlemanlikewise asked me some questions with regard
to our relations with France; and I must, I confess, decline
to enter into the particulars of relations which are going on
from day to day. He asks me with regard to Syria, and upon
that subject I have to tell him that the French Government
have said, and have said, I think, not unreasonably, that it was
at the request of Europe that they sent their troops to occupy
a part of Syria, that alarms have reached them that the
massacres may be renewed, and that, as the occupation was
begun at the instance and with the consent of Europe, it
ought to finish at the same instance and with the same con-
sent. They have made that declaration at Constantinople,
and the Sultan has said that, although a Conference is not,
in his opinion, necessary, and although he has no doubt
that the occupation may cease, without any danger to the
people of Syria or the Lebanon, whom he is willing to pro-
tect, yet that he has no unwillingness to send a representa-
tive to a Conference at Paris. Our consent was dependent
upon that of the Sultan, We have said that we would go
into no Conference at which a representative of the Sultan
should not be present, and we say now that the Sultan
having given his consent we shall be ready to go into a Con-
ference. The practical thing to be considered in that Con-
ference will, in my mind, be what is the disposition of the
Sultan with respect to his own territory ? Syria belongs to
no Power of Europe but the Sultan ; it belongs to no Con-
ference, it is a dominion of the Sultan. (Hear, hear.)
Therefore, though it is perfectly seasonable that the Powers
in Conference should ask the representative of Turkey,
" Has the Sultan provided means for preserving tranquillity
in Syria ?" still, if the Sultan said, " I am willing to un-
dertake the responsibility of governing Syria without the
occupation of foreign troops, and I can answer for the
means which I have taken to secure its tranquillity,"
I believe that not one of them would wish to press
the continuance of foreign occupation. That, how-
ever, is a matter into which we cannot enter, because it
is to be the subject of a Conference, and our Ambassador
must, of course, hear what is said by the representatives of
other Powers in that Conference. When anything is decided
I shall be ready to inform the house of the determination
which has been come to. With regard to our general rela-
tions with France, with reference to which a question was
put by the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Disraeli) last night,
that right hon. gentleman made, as I have heard him do
upon former occasions, allusions which were hardly appro-
priate to his argument. Ho has more than once alluded to
the close connexion and alliance which we maintained with
France in the time of Elizabeth, in the time of Cromwell,
and in the time of Sir R. Walpole. In the time of Eliza-
beth and in the time of Cromwell, and more especially in
the time of Elizabeth, there was another danger to the
independence of the States of Europe, and in the opinion
of these great and wise sovereigns a more formidable danger
than that which arose from the preponderance of France—
it was the danger naturally arising from the immense pos-
sessions and the ambition of Spain, and they sought to
counteract that ambition, and to meet the schemes of
supreme dominion over Europe and the danger of the extinc-
tion of the Reformation by looking to France, many of
whose subjects were then Protestants, as a counterpoise to
the ambition and the preponderance of Spain. That reason
for an alliance with France has, at all events, disappeared.
Sir R. "Walpole likewise most wisely maintained a close
alliance and connexion with Frarce ; but with whom did he
maintain that alliance and that connexion ? He maintained
it with Louis XV., the most unambitious of Sovereigns,
and Cardinal Fleury, the most peaceable of Ministers. I
say give me again the days of Louis XV. and Cardinal
Fleury—(a laugh)—and my noble friend will be ready to
act the part of Sir R. Walpole, to write the most amiable
letters to the Court of France, and to be in most
intimate correspondence with it. But the days are not
similar, the Sovereigns are not similar. We must do all
we can to keep on the best terms with France, and we
have this satisfaction, that our objects can always be
avowed; they are perfectly legitimate; they are to main-
tain the peace of Europe, and to secure that every Power
should be allowed its independence as at present enjoyed.
We ask nothing more than that. This house, this coun-
try, asks nothing more than that. We have no projects
of ambition. We wish not to annex any country or any
part of any country in Europe—(hear, hear)—and, there-
fore, we can boldly avow our meaning and can constantly
maintain it. That is all that I can say with regard to our
own position. The Emperor of the French also knows the
value of peace, and I trust that he will despise the coun-
sels of those who tell him that the greatness of France
must be promoted by any projects of war or of ambition.
(Hear, hear.) It was the opinion of the Powers who
entered France in 1814 that for the security of Europe
France ought to be great—Franco ought to be strong.
Since that time she has increased in greatness and in
force. Her territory is large, her population intelligent.
Ihe works of ber industry and those of her intellect
are appreciated in Europe, and I may say in all the
countries of the world. It appears to me that a Sove-
reign of France cannot better consult her interests than
by following the paths of peace—(hear, hear)—and by
maintaining that great and glorious country in the
position which she holds—a position which we need not
envy, but which we must all admire as that of a country
' containing a population as brave and as intelligent as any

that has ever existed. With all these advantages, I see no
reason why we and all the other Powers of Europe may
not act together in peace with France. I certainly do not
share the apprehensions which have been expressed by a
Sovereign who has lately come to the throne, that we are
immediately on the eve of great convulsions. I trust
that such evils may be aNerted ; I trust that peace may be
maintained ; but under any circumstances I hope that this
country will always be prepared to maintain its own
dignity and independence. (Cheers.)
QUALIFICATION FOR OFFICES.

Mr. HADFIELD obtained leave to bring in a bill to
render it unnecessary 0 make and subscribe certain de
clarations as a qualification for offices and employments.
The house then adjourned.