The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1860-03-21

him again. II seems to tha. this extreme zeal on tho
part Of the honorable member for Horsham-a ne Dor
zeal because he showed none Of II when In oicepoes
beyond what just end tends endaneer peaceabe re-
ations between this country and France ffear hear
wish 70 maintain the honor and dignity of the Queen and
OF the Parliament OF this country but does not seem to
that this 10 be done by
or by mputaons against the good faith Of ally Hear
hear hear) read with pleasure the various sneachss
which said To have been made in ano,he pias On this
questions day or two think the other house took
q grave, solemn and decided way Of expressing their
opinions on the subject and that this House t wishes
10 express its opinion ought do so In similar man
] listened with delight, the other evening IN the
speech OF the honorable baronet the member for Tam.
worth For my own part, do object theec teasing and
futile discussions on the subject nasmuch as they add
nothing to the dignity Of the House and nothing to tho &C.
curity Of the two nations, (Cheers)
Lord J|sANNxRs thought that the noble lord had NOT
done Justice TO his predecessor in the office which he
held Internationally, the noble lord had misststed
material fact The French Minister did not evade the
question put to him, but gave positive contradc.
iion to the rumor which Lord Cowley was instructed
a loss TO reconcile the speech OF the noble lord
70 nen' with the remarks OF the noble lord on
Fri last On F.ioay the nosle lord invoked
teetpg against the annexation Of Savoy but now he da
precated what he called prccpitae judgment on the
question After the declarati IN made by the nob,e Ina
ne did not See how they could separate tn, con
OF tne oommerc. treaty from that Of the crtical state
Q, some paris Oh Earspe 70 which he had referred nc
thought, ouoM TO precede that Of TIE treaty ~
LORD j. RUSSELL in answer to these questions sad tina.
should be laid on the table There was no eesnatchfro
LORD CONVEY on the subject OF the annexation OF SAVOY
but in some private letters he had stated tho ~
come loose communications With Count wAewski n which
the question was referred 70, but which from their ns
ture were not thought fitting TO DC introduced in ocs
dispatches ~''''''
In the House OF Lords, the eth instant the Earl Of
tIESBoRorGH said wish to put question the noble duke
opposite relative TO an omission from the CORES
pondence OF our government with the governments on Rae
siA Prussia and Austria the subject OF the an
Savoy az contained In the papers recently presented to
Paramene appears that on the tn Of Janu,ry Lord
Cowey wrote home for instructions the mst,s which
were sent TO him BY Lord John Russe on the SS Jana
ary in despatch In which be gives cxcelcr reasons
against the annexation of Savoy That despatch vas
muncasd TO Lord bloomfield q Berlin, and he vas de-
sired, when be saw Baron Scheinz, not to read II 10
him, much less to leave him copy The same letter WAS
sent TO Sir James Hudson for bis information and no
other traces OF any communication having been made 10
any Minister Of ours at any OF these three Courts
but ind Is Is reported that Lord John Russell has
made use OF these worcs" Ia my persuasion-I may be
totally mistaken because other may to
preyen, -but my persuasion Is that the language Of
disapproval be held al Berlin Vienna aud ST PETERSBURG
this prcect Of annexation will not be persevered 10 Ia
hN entirely concur, but is not SUN sent TO that
VA WI b: ihs e0sat these seysgM Powers hala -