MR. M'EVOY, in rising to put the Question of which he had given notice, in relation to the revolted Provinces of the Pope, said he believed the independency of the States of the Sovereign Pontiff was admitted by every statesman in Europe to be a matter of the very highest importance. As an Irish Representative of a Roman Catholic constituency, he felt he should not be doing his duty if he failed to call attention to the proceedings of the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs in relation to this subject, and to give him as early an opportunity as possible of giving the necessary explanations. There had been great agitation during the last six months in Ireland upon this question. Meetings had been held in every part of the country, and the Parliamentary Representatives who were present were 1712 all urged to insist that the Government should in no way interfere with the patrimony of the Holy Father. That this was no exaggeration would appear from a Resolution passed at a meeting attended by sixteen Members of Parliament, very many of whom were regular supporters of the noble Lord's Government. The Resolution was to this effect:—
That any Government which should attempt to interfere with or countenance any attack on the temporal sovereignty of the Holy Father is unworthy of the confidence of the Irish people and the support of their Representatives.He had endeavoured in every way he could to ascertain the real policy of Her Majesty's Government upon this subject. In this country he found that their friends and supporters were inclined to give them credit for having a cordial feeling with the revolutionary party in Italy, and for exerting themselves in their favour; on the other hand, he found that many of their Irish supporters held quite the opposite language, and denied that the Government had in any way interfered in this matter. He thought it was important to know how the Government really felt in regard to it. The noble Premier, on the vote of want of confidence in the late Government, used these words, "It is, therefore, as much on their foreign as on their domestic policy that I say the Government does not deserve the confidence of the House." What did he say immediately afterwards, when that vote had placed him in the position he now occupied? The noble Lord said, "Our foreign policy, strictly following that of our predecessors, has been a policy of strict neutrality." When the noble Lord was in office in 1857 he charged the present Foreign Secretary, the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the head of the Board of Trade with being parties to a corrupt treaty for turning him out of office. On that occasion the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary stated that the charge was both false and calumnious. He should like now to know whether Lord Derby, considering the admission of the present Prime Minister that the policy of the late Government was that of strict neutrality, could not charge the noble Lord with having given utterance previously to a statement which was both false and calumnious. But had the present Government followed in the track carved out for them of strict neutrality? No one who knew anything of the antecedents of the noble Lord 1713 could credit the probability of his not intermeddling in every conceivable way in Italy. In proof of the noble Lord's interference he would read an extract from a despatch addressed by the noble Lord to Mr. Fane, Secretary of our Legation in Austria, respecting the Treaty of Villa-franca. It is dated the 24th:—The other great leading difficulty of the Italian question is the condition of the Roman States. For ten years Austrian troops have occupied Bologna. They have presided over criminal justice; they have ordered and executed capital punishments. But they have neither subdued nor conciliated the people. The moment the Austrian barracks were evacuated the Papal authority was overthrown. In fact, the civil abuses of the Papal Government, joined with the military rule of Austria, the mixture of effete despotism with the discipline of a court-martial, had made, together, an intolerable state of things.He should like to know whether the noble Lord at the head of the Government could call that maintaining a strict neutrality. He might give many instances in which the noble Secretary had been interfering, meddling, and fraternizing with the revolutionary party in Italy, but he would confine himself to the proposition he made a few days ago. It had been entirely declined by Austria, stating that it was not at all necessary for the noble Lord to interfere, the Austrian Government knowing perfectly well how to defend their own territories. The noble Lord's third proposition was not very flattering to the French Government, for it was at variance with the treaty which that Government had made with Austria. As to the fourth and most important proposition—namely, for a direct interference in the affairs of Italy, if the noble Lord succeeded in inducing Her Majesty's Government to carry it out, those hon. Members who were pledged to resist any interference with the integrity of the Papal States would be bound in consistency to give the Government every opposition in their power. He would conclude by asking the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government has proposed to the French Government that, in the event of the revolted provinces of the Pope declaring their wish to be annexed to Sardinia (in accordance with the plan suggested by Her Majesty's Government), the two Governments in concert should bind themselves to offer no objection to the entrance of Sardinian Troops into those provinces, by which the Holy Father might be despoiled of those portions of his dominions?