OBSERVATIONS.—FIRST NIGHT.

HC Deb 04 March 1861 vol 161 cc1331-84

MR. HENNESSY

—Sir, it is rather more than six years ago since an eminent statesman brought into this House a measure for the employment of foreign mercenaries in the army of the Queen. That was an unpopular measure; and to regain the popularity he had lost by introducing such a Bill this eminent statesman turned political informer against some Members of the Government to which he then belonged. On a later occasion that eminent Statesman was sent to the Congress of Vienna. The British public kept their eyes on his proceedings, and it was alleged that while there he truckled to Austria. It was alleged that he who was so bold in the House of Commons had trembled in the councils of Germany. No failure could be more humiliating and complete than the failure of this statesman in his first essay as a diplomatist and Foreign Minister. He returned to this country only to be condemned by the public and to be deserted by his Colleagues. He was received with silence by the House, he fell into political disgrace, and sought for shelter on the other side of the Alps. He went to Italy to study Italian affairs. On his return he denounced the Government of the noble Viscount because it did not interfere enough in Italian affairs, and he said the time had arrived for an active interference in Italy. It was not enough for him that the British Government, through its Plenipotentiary, Lord Clarendon, had, without the smallest pretext, dragged the Papal Government and the Administration of the King of Naples before the Paris Congress, and invited Italian subjects to revolt; the eminent statesman to whom I am referring counselled more active measures. On the 14th of July, 1856, he made a Motion on Italian affairs, and took that occasion to announce the policy which, were he in office, he would feel bound to pursue. Here are his words— If we confine ourselves to notes and paper protestations I am afraid that we shall altogether lose the confidence of the inhabitants of that peninsula. He went further; he gave a description of what might be done along the seaboard of Italy by a British squadron. Indeed so technical and elaborate was this portion of his intervention speech that old jokes were cracked as to his capacity to command the Channel fleet. His Motion was not very fortunate. After a long debate it was negatived. Thus, his second essay in Foreign Affairs proved as unsuccessful as his first. This eminent person, who became unpopular by his strenuous advocacy of foreign mercenaries, who lost public confidence still further by the trea- cherous betrayal of his Colleagues, and whose European policy had involved him in well-merited disgrace — this eminent person is now Her Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. In that capacity he has had an opportunity of carrying out his views on the Italian question. These views are now embodied in despatches which he has presented to Parliament, and on which he demands the criticism of this House. Sir, my criticism of the noble Lord's despatches is this: I find in them the old blots that characterized his foreign policy when he was not Secretary of State; the same apparent truckling to Austria, and the same morbid desire for active interference in Italy in promotion of Piedmontese policy. I believe—and I think I shall be able to show the House—that his submissive attitude to Austria is not genuine. As long as Austria is powerful he will cringe before the statesmen of Vienna; but should a moment of weakness and disaster come no one, I feel confident, will be quicker than the Secretary of State in taking advantage of that weakness and consummating the disaster. But this is a question for the future. At present we have to deal with the Piedmontese policy which he has done so much to promote. The noble Lord studied Italian affairs at Florence. There he became intimate with gentlemen belonging to the Piedmontese party, and it was mainly on what they told him that he formed his views upon Roman and Neapolitan policy. I would not complain of this Piedmontese policy if it were consistent with our interests, with the interests of the people of Italy, and with our own honour. But this is very far from being the case.

I am ready to take up the issue raised by Her Majesty's Ministers. The noble Lord has invited comparison between the results of the government of Piedmont and those of other portions of Italy. That issue I accept. This time last year the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the peroration to his financial statement, dwelt upon the connection which existed between good financial systems and good government. How far has Piedmont fulfilled the requirements of such a test? How far has Count Cavour exhibited those indications of good government which, in illustrating the progress of England, the late Sir Robert Peel so often noticed? Sir Robert Peel always held that the state of our public finances, the mode in which we raised the revenue, the various evidences furnished by trade and commerce as to the production, accumulation, and wise distribution of capital, formed the best tests of good government. The noble Viscount opposite (Lord Palmerston) and the leading members of his Administration have followed the example of Sir Robert Peel. In dealing with the question, then, I not only at once accept the issue of the Government, but I will deal with their issue according to the general method adopted by the Government in similar cases. And what is the testimony on which I am about to ask the House to decide this issue? Again, I have recourse to the Government. I will adduce the evidence of our own officers abroad, of officials employed in the office of the noble Lord (Lord John Russell), and Piedmontese evidence, to show that such a test failed in the case of Piedmont.

What was the state of the Piedmontese finances under the administration of Count Cavour? The Piedmontese policy might be said to have commenced in 1848, and my remarks will be principally directed to the period subsequent to that date. On this important question of Count Cavour's financial arrangements, I will first road to the House the opinion of an ardent Piedmontese Signor Angelo Brofferio. This gentleman represented Genoa for many years in the Turin Parliament, and within the last few weeks he has been elected simultaneously for two places, Castelnuovo-nei-monti, and Castelmaggiore. He is known to many Members of this House, and his authority will not be questioned either here or in Turin as far as it derives weight from great honesty and ample information. He says in a work just published— Count Cavour's financial arrangements were of the worst kind. He exhausted the tax-pavers without enriching the treasury. He levied enormous taxes on all petty industry, retail trade, and small properties. He put odious duties on the chief necessaries of life; he taxed thirst, hunger, cold, fever, and death; by means of his inheritance duty, he found out the way of mulcting oven debts, the tears of the orphan, and the grief of the widow; while leaving untaxed the measureless wealth of the exchange, and the bank notes, and bills of exchange, &c, he levied a duty on debt, which is poverty; without extorting a farthing from credit, which is wealth. His tax on patents, or permission to exercise industry, trades, and professions, pressed most heavily on the struggling poor, while unfelt by the rich. In the tax on paper factories, for example, the first machine paid 400 francs yearly, every other only 100. This valuable testimony of a Piedmontese Member of Parliament is well sustained by the official agents employed under our own Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. I beg leave to refer the House to a very valuable and interesting Report made in 1860, by Mr. West, the British Secretary of Legation at Turin, in which he called the attention of Her Majesty's Government to the state of Piedmontese finances. For the special object I have now in view, the rate at which the national debt of Piedmont has grown will be best understood by considering the increase of the total interest in two periods—namely, from the year 1819 to 1848, and from 1848 down to the present period. During the first period the interest on the national debt amounted to 8,400,000f.; and in the second period, during which the Piedmontese policy had been at work, the addition made to the interest of the debt was 71,000,000f., and the interest on the national debt at present is 80,000,000f. The actual figures are instructive, as showing the rapid increase year by year after 1848:—Before the revolutionary period the amount of interest on perpetual debt, 5 per cent (1819), was 2,416,032f. 31c.; terminable debt, 5 per cent, 2,867,327f. 17c.; ditto, ditto (1831), 1,500,000f. State obligations, 4 per cent (1834), 1,620,000f. After the revolutionary period, the amount of interest on terminable debt, 5 per cent (1848–51), was 3,044,036f. 23c; ditto, ditto, 4 per cent State obligations (1849), 1,194,120f.; terminable debt, 5 percent (1849), 43,430,398f.; State obligations, 4 per cent (1850), 1,080,000f.; terminable debt, 5 percent (1851), 5,416,250f.; ditto, ditto, 3 per cent (1853), 2,310,386f.; interest of debt on Island of Sardinia, 959,347f.; 59c.; interest on British loan (1855), 2,000,000f.; interest on otherdebts, 286,278f.; Treasury bonds, 1,000,000f.; interest on deposits, 23,000f.; life annuities (debito vitalisio), 10,157,411f. 59c. Mr. West had further stated that in the space of three years the interest payable on the national debt had been nearly doubled: and he added— In a financial point of view, therefore, the policy which actuated the Piedmontese Government in entering into the late war was a desperate policy, as it could only be by the acquisition of lucrative provinces that it could hope to restore the shattered condition of its finances. May I ask the attention of the House to this important statement? The noble Lord's Secretary of Legation at Turin (a well-informed gentleman and an English official) tells us that the finances of Piedmont are in a "shattered condition." But, more than this, he speaks of the "desperate policy" of the Piedmontese Government. He tells us, as plainly as language can convey it, that the late war was not undertaken, as the noble Lord and as Count Cavour would make us believe, through pure patriotism, but was undertaken as a piece of public robbery to repair, by the acquisition of lucrative provinces, the broken fortunes of Piedmont. On the subject of national burdens, Mr. West in the same Report says— An increase of taxation will be necessary, because money must be found to meet the ever increasing scale of expenditure, and that recourse will eventually be had to an income tax seems probable. The pressure of taxation is chiefly felt by the landed proprietor. The house tax and land tax, which amount to more than one-sixth of the whole revenue, are severely felt, and more especially the latter, as far as Piedmont is concerned, by the small proprietor. The equal distribution of property tends greatly to impoverish the large estates, and although the value of land for purchase may not have decreased, still its division amongst so many proprietors causes a want of capital for agricultural purposes, which increases the burden of taxation. These remarks, however, apply to Piedmont Proper. Now, as the challenge of Her Majesty's Government was to compare the results of government in Piedmont with those of any other parts of Italy, he would accept that challenge, and draw the attention of the House first to the government of the Grand Duke of Tuscany. Up to the year 1852 the public debt of Tuscany amounted to £2,470,000; but that amount had been accumulating for years. It now amounted to nearly £4,000,000; showing, therefore, an increase of nearly £1,500,000 in two years. But these two years have been years of annexation. Even in that brief period the poison of Piedmontese policy has been able to corrupt the Tuscan finances.

It was not enough, however, merely to show the shattered state of the public finances in Piedmont. According to the return of our own Board of Trade, the computed value of the merchandize imported into the United Kingdom from Sardinia was, in 1855, £247,000; in 1856, £238,000; in 1857,206,000; in 1858, £135,000; showing a progressive decline. But the reverse was the case with respect to the Two Sicilies. Taking the same return and the same years,— in 1855 the imports into the United Kingdom, were £1,281,000; in 1856, £1,500,000; in 1857, £1,597,000; and in 1858, £1,700,000; showing a progressive increase. This is the account given, be it remembered, in the returns of the British Board of Trade. What would the late Sir Robert Peel, who so often expatiated on such facts as these in describing the progress of England, what will his great pupil (Mr. Gladstone) say of this evidence? I hope living statesmen will do what I have no doubt Sir Robert Peel would have done; I hope they will frankly acknowledge its conclusiveness and its value. In preparing this evidence as regards Piedmont, our officials complain that they labour under a difficulty, arising from the extraordinary neglect of public statistics by the Government of King Victor Emmanuel. Indeed that Government, in this respect, is one of the most backward in Europe. Members of this House who get their Board of Trade returns every month will appreciate the complaints of our officials in Sardinia. In 1858 Mr. Erskine complained that "every branch of statistics was neglected by the Sardinian Government," and Mr. Brown made the same complaint in 1860. He says— For the information in my Report I am indebted to the kindness of merchants and other persons versed in commercial and industrious affairs, since, with the exception of the little pamphlet published this year under the care of the Chamber of Commerce, Genoa, nothing has been published on the trades and manufactures of this place since 1818. Turning to that part of Mr. Consul Brown's Report which describes the shipping trade in the most important—in fact, the only important—seaport in Piedmont, I find that the number of British vessels which entered the harbour of Genoa in 1853, were 312; in 1854, 290; in 1855, 260; in 1856, 231; and in 1857, 234; showing a serious decline. Of Sardinian vessels the number appeared to have been, in 1853, 1,484; 1854, 1,424; 1855, 1,446; 1856, 1,283; and 1857, 1,222; also showing a steady decline. A similar declension was shown in the quantity of the cargoes year by year. On this decline in British trade the consul remarks— The arrivals of English vessels have considerably diminished in number, and the tonnage has not increased. The proportion of British sailing vessels arriving from England is smaller compared to the number of ships arriving under foreign flags. I can easily conceive that the Genoese merchants, preferring to encourage the shipping of their own country, would charter Sardinian ships in preference to British; but I regret to say that I am informed by some of them that they find it answer better to take up vessels of some other foreign flags, especially Swedish and Norwegian, rather than employ British ships. The cargoes most generally brought by foreign vessels coming from England are iron, coals, and coke. Taking the principal articles exported to England or British possessions from Genoa in 1855, the total amount in francs was 6,800,000, but in 1857 it was reduced to 5,500,000. Mr. Gray had also delivered a valuable report regarding the island of Sardinia. It resembled the account given of that island by M. Thouvenel in one of his conversations with Lord Cowley, only that Mr. Gray entered into more detail. M. Thouvenel, it would be recollected, said the French Government could not think of taking the island of Sardinia, because it was "in a state of barbarism which was a disgrace to its Government." Now, Mr. Gray gave statistics, and from those it appeared that the number of vessels from all nations arriving was 803 in 1854, but had fallen to 574 in 1857. Of course, by far the largest trade of the island of Sardinia was with the main land, of Piedmont. In 1854 the coasting vessels entering Sardinia numbered 531; in. 1857 they had fallen to 331. The tonnage in 1854 was 56,000, but it had fallen in 1857 to 46,000; showing again, therefore, throughout a steady decline. In former times this island carried on an extensive trade with Tunis, Hanover, Turkey, Belgium, and Portugal; but the whole of this trade was now extinct. Our own exports thither of cottons, woollens, silk, hardware, sugar, soap, and paper had fallen off. Mr. Gray showed that the import as well as the manufacture of paper had also declined. Her Majesty's Government had just entered into a convention with Sardinia on the subject of copyright in books. Had they inquired before they did so they would have found the number of books exported from Sardinia had been declining for years, and had now reached its minimum. It was also important to notice that the decline in trade was more especially observed to be in those branches which mostly employed native capital in Sardinia. Mr. Gray in the course of his Report made the following remark, and it was one of a most important character:— If the island (Sardinia) were progressing in the way of improvement, and developing its re sources, the effect of these serious blows might be mitigated; but this is not the case. Agriculture, the hope and stay of the island, is perfectly stationary, both in practice and extent; nay, indeed, I fear the latter has even decreased from the want of hands to support it. From 1851 to 1857 there were taken for the conscription 10,622 of the finest youths of the land, and of these 1,200 only are supposed to have returned to their homes, thus leaving the island, with its scanty and sickly population of barely 79 to the geographical square mile, minus 9,400 able bodied men, chiefly composed of those of which the island is so much in need to meet its industrial requirements, and to develop its rich but dormant resources. The island, therefore, had been robbed of the flower of its youth and able-bodied labour, and agriculture was stationary. The effect of this Piedmontese policy had been almost to destroy the commerce of England in that part of Europe; for the labouring population had been taken away and employed in a predatory warfare, and Count Savour's financial and fiscal system was so bad that it had completely crippled commerce and trade. Now, I will compare these facts and figures with those relating to other parts of Italy; and here, again, I will refer only to the Reports of British officials. The accounts from our officials in other parts of Italy offered a striking contrast to those of our consuls in Piedmont. With regard to the dominions of the Pope, Mr. (now Lord Lyons) wrote thus in a despatch from Home, May 29, 1857— Commerce has been advanced, the revenue has increased by a very considerable reduction of import duties. The value of land has risen, and agriculture is flourishing. Just the reverse of Piedmont. Again, on the same subject, Mr. Lyons wrote— The continued rise in the value of landed property in the Papal States of late years is very remarkable; but still it does not seem to have reached its limit. Agriculture is undoubtedly making considerable progress. And, again— There is a marked and progressive amelioration in the state of the finances. He also says— By the edicts of the 1st of June, 1855, and the 7th May, 1856, great reductions were made by the Papal Government in the Customs' tariff, and a great increase in the receipts followed; and that a further reduction had been carried into effect by the edict of the 26th of March, 1857. As the policy of the Emperor of the French with reference to the States of the Church is at this moment attracting European attention, it is interesting to confirm our own Minister's highly favourable account of the Papal dominions by referring to the official information in the possession of the Imperial Government. In a despatch of the 14th of May, 1856, the French envoy thus addressed the French Minister for Foreign Affairs— In the Papal States new buildings are very numerous, commercial relations are extending, large profits are being realized in agricultural and financial operations, great fortunes are being made, and an appearance of prosperity strikes the eye of the least observant. Again, returning to British authorities, I find that the last Report (dated 1860) is from M. Gaggiotti, British Consul in the Papal States. He says that The mulberry plantations are increasing throughout the country, and the capital employed in the produce is very extensive. M. Gaggiotti added that the British manufactured goods, cotton and linen yarns, and iron bars, mainly supplied the wants of the country, with almost no rivalship; and in the same Report he gave statistics which showed that in the five years from 1854 to 1858 inclusive—the period when our trade with Sardinia was declining'— the value of British imports increased nearly 100 per cent. The exports from the Papal States to the United Kingdom during the same period increased in a still greater ratio, being nearly 200 per cent more in 1858 than in 1854; and it was stated that the general foreign commerce exhibited, in the total number of tons exported into the States of the Church, an increase of from 80,000 in 1854 to 113,000 in 1858. These are important facts. May I ask the House to boar in mind the sources from whence they are obtained. They are not the result of my own observation; indeed I would not presume to trouble the House with evidence so little worthy of attention in a momentous discussion of this kind. Nor are they facts taken from sources friendly to the Governments of Central and Southern Italy. Nor are they the assertions of anonymous writers. I have obtained these facts in the records of the British Foreign Offices and the British Board of Trade. They have been compiled by British officials residing in Italy, they have been compiled by direction of the British Government; and, in accordance with a Resolution of this House, they have been presented to Parliament by the noble Lord himself (Lord John Russell).

Sir, I am sorry that I cannot leave this part of the subject without making another charge against the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. I have to charge the noble Lord with deliberately concealing a very important despatch. In March last I gave notice of an address to the Queen for the Reports of our Consuls in Tuscany, Sardinia, the Papal States, and the other States of Italy. That notice was placed on the books of the House; the noble Lord read it in print, and in a private interview he told me that, though he had no objection to give all the information I required about Tuscany, Sardinia, the Papal dominions, and the other States of Italy, he should like the Motion to be made general, calling for the Reports of all the consuls who had reported since 1858. Of course I acceded to the wish of the noble Lord; I amended my Motion accordingly, and after the rising of Parliament, a blue book containing the Reports was presented to Members. I looked at that blue book with great anxiety, because I expected to find in it an important despatch from Tuscany. I found no such despatch; however, when I went to Italy during the recess I found all the merchants of Leghorn were complaining of the distress which had fallen on them in consequence of the annexation. When the announcement appeared in the Piedmontese papers that the fiscal system of Sardinia was to be applied to Tuscany in place of the enlightened and liberal system of the Grand Duke, they all took alarm. In the despatch which ought to have been presented in accordance with an address voted by the House, but which the noble Lord kept back, important details were given. In particular our consul called the attention of the British Government to the fact that one of the most important branches of British trade consisted of the import into Tuscany of a sort of woollen cloth mixed with silk, which flourished under the enlightened system of the Grand Luke, but which had been destroyed by the Sardinian tariff. It formerly was imported into the Tuscan States at a trifling ad valorem duty; but, as the result of the annexation, the Sardinians had put on a specific duty; and the duty charged on the material as silk was far beyond its value. That branch of British trade had, therefore, been extinguished. The peasants relied upon that material for a large portion of their clothing, but they were now entirely deprived of it. These interesting facts, I am sorry to say, have been concealed from the House. The Chamber of Commerce of Leghorn on the 15th of November protested against the Sardinian system, and sent to Count Cavour a very strong remonstrance against his fiscal system. English captains trading to Leghorn complained not only of high duties, but of the greatly increased detention by Customs' functionaries since the annexation. Now they were detained twenty-four hours at Leghorn as a minimum, in consequence of the custom-house regulations, instead of, as formerly, being able to transact their business there in half an hour.

But I have also to call the attention of the House to another document which has been concealed from the House by the noble Lord. More than twelve months ago, that is on the 1st of March, 1860, the young King of Naples made some important fiscal reforms in the tariff of the Two Sicilies. The British Government concealed the details of this reform from the public and from Parliament. I am not in the habit of quoting anonymous articles from newspapers in this House, and in doing so now I venture to hope that the House will see I am compelled to do so because the Secretary of State has not given us the information which he was bound to supply. Whilst I was on the Continent I received a copy of the Newcastle Journal, in which I read with great surprise the following statement— The article, which we re-publish below from the Daily News of Thursday, contains the startling intelligence that, on the 1st and 15th of March and 1st of May last, the King of Naples signed three decrees by which free trade was established throughout his dominions. This intelligence is startling because of the date of these decrees. More than six months ago this was done, and the English people now learn it for the first time. The Daily News further states that copies of these most important decrees were duly forwarded by our Minister at Naples to the Foreign Office in London, but that they were not published. A notice only was inserted in the Gazette to the effect that important reductions in the Neapolitan tariff had been made. Parliament was sitting, but the subject was never alluded to. At the same time, Mr. Elliot's despatches, containing accusations against the King and Government of Naples respecting the internal affairs of the country, were published in hot haste. These despatches were re-published immediately at Naples and Palermo as incentives to the insurrection then preparing. The Daily News, aghast at the suppression of news, so intimately concerning and so important to the English people, by the Government, endeavours to account for their conduct by attributing it to indifference to the interests of trade. The Daily News, hon. Members are aware, is a leading organ of the Liberal party in England, and one of the ablest advocates of the Revolution abroad. The remarks of the Daily News—I quote from the journal of the 11th October, 1860—are, therefore, to say the least, not those of an organ inimical to the noble Lord. On these concealed reforms, it says— By virtue of three royal decrees issued successively on the 1st and 16th of March and the 1st of May last, the whole body of import duties in the Two Sicilies was remodelled after the manner of Peel and Gladstone. And, again, it says— Our Civil Service costs just three times today what it did twenty years ago; yet it is too much trouble to have a copy made of a dozen pages of schedule affecting the commercial interests of hundreds of thousands of people who toil to be able to pay the taxes on which our easygoing administrators live. Here and there throughout the country the keen eye of speculation has looked through its private spyglass, and discovered that on the quays of Palermo and Naples the old customs' barricades had been taken down, and that consequently it would pay to send out an assorted cargo of attractive wares to meet or to create a new demand. Keen-eyed speculation in such case will probably meet its reward. But is this the way in which national trade ought to be carried on? Or is this the use of a special department ironically said to be devoted to the care of popular industry? The Daily News says that the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) concealed all this important information because he was indifferent to the interests of trade. I take a different view of the noble Lord's policy in this business. Indifference to the interests of truth, when such indifference suits his purposes, is a more likely explanation of what he omitted to do in this case; as I think it is the explanation, also, of what he actually did before Europe in other cases.

Sir, I think I have now shown the House that, as far as regards those tests of prosperity to which the late Sir Robert Peel and his great pupil were in the habit of appealing, Sardinia stands lowest in the scale; while Tuscany, Naples, and the Papal States are, on the contrary, in a most satisfactory condition. To take a more selfish view, Piedmontese policy has most seriously enfeebled British trade; and, as far as the island of Sardinia is concerned, it has destroyed that existing with Belgium, Hanover, and other countries.

This brings me to the question of the noble Lord's intervention in support of Piedmontese policy. The noble Lord con- tended that he had left the Italians to settle their own affairs, and that his policy towards Italy had been one of strict neutrality. But in a despatch, dated 22nd of May, he went out of his way to extract two definite promises from Sardinia; first, that she would not attack Venetia, and next, that she would refrain from attacking the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies. In this I hold that the noble Lord has—instead of leaving the Italians to settle their own affairs—been guilty of two acts of direct intervention, and, as I hope to be able to show the House, most treacherous intervention. Count Cavour declared that the Government of the King would abstain from any act of aggression towards Austria as long as that country loyally acted in the same spirit; and he made a like declaration, with a like reservation, respecting the Kingdom of Naples. But Count Cavour contemplated the possibility of the very attack which afterwards took place, for he declared that Piedmont, like the British Government, was unable to repress "manifestations of sympathy" with the people of Sicily. The King of Sardinia afterwards broke his promise and interfered in the affairs of the kingdom of Naples. I will not now utter any condemnation of my own, but point to the despatches of the noble Lord, in which it was laid down that Victor Emmanuel— Having given his Royal word to maintain peace and friendship, was not at liberty to set his obligations at defiance, and to make a wanton aggression on a neighbouring Sovereign. When the King of Sardinia violated his word and invaded the States of the Two Sicilies the King of Naples was strongly intrenched on the Volturno; and it has been truly stated by all the correspondents that but for the arrival of the Sardinian troops King Francis would have stopped the progress of Garibaldi, and put an end to the invasion. Now let the House remember that in the same despatch in which he gives the promise that Sardinia would not invade the Two Sicilies, Count Cavour actually contemplated the case of a Garibaldian attack on Naples. The promise was made with a full knowledge of what was going to occur; but, as I am now anxious to keep the attention of the House on the one point of deliberate breach of faith by King Victor Emmanuel, I note Count Cavour's anticipation of the future merely to prove that no attack or proceedings of what he called the "Italian populations" altered the case as regards the promise ex- tracted by England, and given solemnly by Sardinia. That pledge was communicated by the noble Lord to the King of Naples. That young Sovereign relied, of course, on it; for though the character of Count Cavour and his Royal Master would not command much faith, the guarantee given by the fact that it was a pledge obtained by the British Government, and communicated from one party to the other by the Secretary of State, was sufficient to induce the King of Naples to believe that the pledge would not be broken. Well, what took place? Victor Emmanuel broke his word. Before all Europe he committed an act of the blackest treachery, and he openly violated, not, indeed, for the first time, a deliberate engagement. From one end of Christendom to the other the infamy of his conduct was denounced. Statesmen of all religions and of all countries condemned him. England alone came to the defence of the Royal pirate. The noble Lord defended the conduct of Victor Emmanuel.

I pass by the defence of piracy and plunder; that is trifling compared with the noble Lord's defence of deliberate falsehood. And what is the excuse given by the noble Lord? He says the Neapolitans were up in arms against their Sovereign. I deny it. But even if they were, what has that to say to the solemn obligations incurred and violated by Sardinia? Now I can give the noble Lord a little piece of testimony on the question that he thinks so important—the number of Neapolitans in arms against the King. Are hon. Members aware of the extent of the assistance which Garibaldi received from the Neapolitans themselves? Writing from Naples on the 10th of December, The Times correspondent stated "I am assured, on undoubted authority, that the number of Neapolitans who had enrolled themselves under Garibaldi was less than 100." The writer could not be suspected of sympathy with the King, for he had done much to promote the success of the revolution. "There were many applications for commissions," he says, "but the common soldiers were under 100." The Times itself, in a leader published a few days after the letter of the correspondent on December 14, 1860, stated that "the revolution was made for the Neapolitans rather than by them." This was also proved by the fact that Garibaldi telegraphed to Victor Emmanuel for 14,000 men. There are Members of this House who were present at the battle, and who can tell us that it was decided by the Pied-montese who came up in the middle of the day. Among the foreigners who fought for Garibaldi there were some whose interference the House would, I am sure, regret. Garibaldi could boast of having captured two cannons. But were they captured by the 90 or 100 Neapolitans who were fighting against their King? Through the courtesy of the Admiralty I am in possession of a document which stated who did capture them. Having addressed a letter on the subject to the Admiralty, I received a reply, in which I was informed that, in consequence of certain statements which had appeared in the public papers the department had written to Commander Forbes, of the Renown, for a report. In that Report the commander stated that the cannon were, in the first instance, captured by English Garibaldians; that, subsequently, when they were about 200 yards from Santa Maria a necessity arose for assistance, and that the English sailors having been called on they gave it, and dragged the cannon into that place. Thus, it seems, the only cannon taken from the King were taken by foreigners. I earnestly ask the attention of the House to the proclamation issued by the Sardinian general, Cialdini, after his entry into the Neapolitan dominions. In that famous document he said, "Publish the fact that I shoot all peasants that I find in arms, and that I give quarter to troops only." This announcement had a peculiar significance when taken in connection with the fact that the King of Naples had formed volunteer corps among his people, and that while less than 100 had joined Garibaldi, thousands had been found ready to fight for King Francis. Our Minister at Naples condemned the cruel proclamation of the Sardinian general. He said it was "barbarous;" but very different was the language of the Foreign Minister at home. In his extraordinary despatch of the 27th of October the noble Lord asked, "Did the people of Naples and the Roman States take up arms for good reasons?" My answer to that is, that they did not take up arms against their Sovereigns at all. Arms were taken up against them by the foreigners who invaded their dominions. Again, when the noble Lord asks, "Did the people take up arms for good reasons?" I refer him, for an answer, to those sanguinary orders of the day issued by the Sardinian generals, in which they said that any of the people found with arms in their hands would be shot without quarter. The Sardinian generals evidently thought, with the noble Lord, that the people did take up arms; but the Sardinian generals also differed from the noble Lord, for they shot the people who presumed to do what the noble Lord thinks so praiseworthy. In fact, speaking generally, none but foreigners took up arms against the King of the Two Sicilies. The noble Lord went on to say that the Italian revolution "had been conducted with singular temper and forbearance." The "temper and forbearance" exhibited was evidenced by the proclamation to which I have just alluded; by the atrocities committed on the subjects of the King of Naples; and by the breach of faith and international law of which Victor Emmanuel had been guilty in invading the territories of a Sovereign with whom he was diplomatically at peace. I received a letter from an English gentleman residing in Italy in which he stated that thirty-six villages had been totally burnt in the Abruzzi; many hundreds of men in one day were shot summarily as rebels; and an anormous amount of public and private property was destroyed. The writer further said that he had seen hundreds of both sexes dragged out of monasteries and convents and forced to fly from before the troops of the King of Piedmont. In the journal edited by Alexandre Dumas, a Piedmontese officer writing of his exploits said:— A brigand fell into my hands by chance, but instead of having him shot I tied a cord round his head, and, by the aid of a piece of wood, I squeezed his temples until the brain protruded from his head. Let us not forget that this is told by a Piedmontese officer, and told in the journal of A. Dumas. This is not an authority friendly to the cause of the King of Naples. The Nomade, a revolutionary journal in Italy, mentioned the act of a certain village having been sacked by order of the general, and that the mayor, a priest, and two other individuals who alone had remained in it were shot, because, as the writer observed, "everybody without exception in this country are brigands." I find in another Italian journal the following statement:— Flying columns organized were charged to burn without distinction all the towns of the brigands, to force them into one point, and then to exterminate them as Napoleon I. once did under similar circumstances. Now, here I beg to remind the House that when Napoleon I., in 1808, sought to combine the powers of Europe against England, Pope Pius "VII. positively refused to enter a war, especially one against the British Government, from whom, he said, he had never received the slightest offence. The consequence was that Napoleon confiscated his States and declared Italy to be united. In six years afterwards, when the policy of Pitt and the sword of the Duke of Wellington had annihilated the Bonaparte regimé, the population of the Peninsula repudiated united Italy, and, with rejoicings, declared their heartfelt allegiance to the legitimate sovereigns. Sir, it was stated by way of excuse by our Government that one of the Piedmontese generals was dismissed from his command on account of the proclamation which he issued. The proclamation to which I refer was issued by General Pinelli on behalf of the King of Sardinia, before the 27th of November, for we had an account of it in this country at that date. It declared that every person found with arms of any description would be shot, and it went on to say that "the same penalty would be immediately applied to those who, by words or acts, shall insult the arms of Savoy." The arms of Savoy! What had the peasants of South Italy to do with the arms of Savoy—with the arms of a French province sold by Pinelli's master to the Emperor? Any one could understand how the peasants would not know the meaning of the words "insulting the arms of Savoy." Well, that proclamation was issued before the 27th of November. When was Pinelli dismissed? Not until the second or third week in February—nearly three months after the issuing of the proclamation. And what was he doing in the meantime? Why, in one village of the kingdom of the Two Sicilies he shot, within a fortnight, 123 persons. That was in the first fortnight after the issuing of the proclamation. As to what he did subsequently at Teramo I am unable to tell the House. In another village he took seventeen prisoners and shot them on the steps of the church. The scene was described in a letter by a friend, in which he said— The poor women were like crazy while the executions were going on. Some cast themselves at the feet of the soldiers imploring mercy; others ran shrieking out, tearing their hair; while others fell apparently lifeless, utterly overcome by the frightful scene. When Pietro Bordoni was placed in position Rosina Manera broke through the ranks and folded herself round him as a guard, but she was torn away after much struggling, and with such violence that one of her wrists is irremediably injured. At Barete the people were at first quiet, contented themselves with pinning on the white cockade, and crying from their houses "Viva Francesco II!" but when the Piedmontese proceeded to take down the Neapolitan arms they lost their self-command, and in the most imprudent manner they rushed in threes and fours on the troops, and, of course, immediately lost their lives. The remainder fled, and then the place was sacked, the wine butts set flowing, and every sort of destruction ensued. Their next assault was on Cugnano—here a terrific scene took place: for Carlo Daniele aroused the people in a fiery harangue, and had time to organize a firmer resistance. He, with the principal males, took possession of the inn; from its front windows they fired on the Piedmontese, who returned the fire with equal vigour. The inn had another entrance at the rear in a back lane by means of which the other inhabitants supplied Daniele and his little band of heroes with powder, ball, missiles, and fresh men to take the place of those at the front windows who fell under the shot of the invaders. At length the Piedmontese discovered the entrance at the rear, forced it, and took prisoners those within, though not until the battle had been carried on from room to room and stair to stair. The house streamed with blood from the roof to the cellars, and is completely riddled with balls, as I myself saw two days ago; and I do not believe any process will ever clear it of the blood-stains which everywhere mark it in the interior. At other places the same fearful slaughters were committed. In one place the village priest heard that several of his people were to be shot, and, against the wishes of his brother and sister-in-law, went to plead for them to the Piedmontese officer. He fervently entreated him to have mercy on the unfortunate men. He begged him to remember that they were ignorant people, who had never before heard of Piedmont; who only knew and loved Francis II., who, seeing his arms effaced, believed they were bound in duty to avenge the insult. The colonel did not even answer him, but had him taken prisoner, and ordered that he should be shot with the others, which was done in the next hour. I have called attention to these atrocities and proclamations because the noble Lord must have been acquainted with them at the time that he wrote his despatch, in which he spoke of the singular forbearance and temper which had been displayed by the Piedmontese.

The next point noticed in the despatches to which I am anxious to solicit the attention of the House is the nature of the elections; and, without travelling over the same ground that had been traversed so well in "another place," by the highest authority in England on Italian affairs—I mean Lord Normanby—I feel bound to mention a few facts, in order that hon. Members may be in possession of the real state of the case concerning those elections. Southern Italy is a very populous place; I hold in my hand a return from an official journal of the numbers who voted in the elections in Naples. Elections are matters in which men generally took an interest, and I may incidentally remark that 6,400 electors of the county of Cork voted the other day for a Conservative candidate who was returned mainly upon the ground of disapproval of the noble Lord's foreign policy. This was the largest number that ever voted at an election in Ireland. It was clear that the people of Cork took a different view of the policy of the noble Lord from that held by some Reformers in this House. But in South Italy, Liborio Romano, Minister of the Interior, was a candidate; and 119 persons voted for him; and he was at the head of the poll. And how many voted for Castellano in South Italy? Why, twenty-nine. And for Rossi? Sixty. And other members of the Sardinian Parliament were elected by a smaller number of votes. Universal suffrage had been much talked of. But what was to be said of the universal suffrage where 119 persons elected a minister in a population of 990,000? In Parma, Tuscany, Modena, and the Papal States the same results of annexation characterises the elections. How many voted at Piacenza? The poll-book contained only 1,213 names out of a numerous population. These were all that were allowed to vote. Well, a contest took place; and how many voted? Why, sixty-eight. The loyal inhabitants of Italy took no part in the elections. They have acted wisely. They looked for better days; and I am sanguine enough to think they are not far distant. Then at Milan 239 voters returned a member to Parliament. At Florence, 144—Florence, once so gay and nourishing, is now a deserted town, and one of the most miserable places in Italy. Signor Saffi, a professor of Italian at Oxford, went to Italy, and stood for a town in Naples. There were only 162 votes in Ruoti, and he obtained 154 of them. One would fancy he ought to be elected, but he was not in the Piedmontese Parliament. And how did this occur? Signor Saffi was a Republican and a friend of Garibaldi; and Count Cavour resolved that he should not sit. A scrutiny was consequently demanded, and the scrutineer, one of the new Piedmontese officials, struck off 121 of his votes. The result was that the Republican was not admitted to his seat in Parliament. This would give the House a notion of the value to be attached to the elections so often referred to by the noble Lord. The figures I give from the Piedmontese elections in Tuscany and Parma are taken from the official returns, Atti Uff. della Camera dei Deputati, tornata del 4 Ottobre, 1860, No. 139, p. 541.

The same noble Lord once threw out a taunt against the King of Naples for not having defended his kingdom—

LORD JOHN RUSSELL

No, never.

MR. HENNESSY

I am glad to hear the noble Lord say "No." But at any rate members of the Government had said so; Members of his (Lord John Russell's) side of the House had said so, and the public press associated with his views had said so. Now, why did not the young King attempt to reconquer Sicily? Why did he not defend Naples? I will tell the House. It has been asked why did he (the King) not go across to the island of Sicily when Garibaldi had possession of it; and he has been called a poltroon for not going. "Why not show some pluck and spirit? Why did he not retake the island from Garibaldi?" The noble Lord knew why. In one of his (Lord John Russell's) despatches to Sir James Hudson the noble Lord said— The proposal made by the Government of Sardinia that no attempt shall be made by the King of Naples to reconquer Sicily seems to her Majesty's Government to be necessary. And in a subsequent despatch the noble Lord went on to say that— Her Majesty's Government would have great satisfaction in finding that the special mission (from Naples) had been able to come to an agreement with Sardinia, and that no attempt should be made by the King of Naples to recover possession of Sicily without the consent of Great Britain. The consent of Great Britain! Was Great Britain a part of Italy? Was this leaving the Italians to settle their own affairs? What had Great Britain to do with the question whether the young King should be allowed to fight for his kingdom, or whether he should be forced into an "agreement" not to do so? Was not this interfering? Why should England make such a stipulation on one side or the other? This was evidently one reason why the young King did not regain Sicily. There was no such information as to why the King did not defend Naples, because we have no despatches from the noble Lord on that subject. We have, however, the words of the noble Lord in this House. The question was whether the young King should defend Naples or not? At the council board, sitting beside him, was Liborio Romano, a man who was then, as now, in the pay of Sardinia, and who is' one of the greatest traitors in Europe. The British fleet, the largest that ever entered the Bay of Naples, was at Naples; and the question arose whether the King should defend his capital or not. At his council board, sitting next the King, on the day when that question was discussed, was Liborio Romano. That man, who, I repeat, is one of the greatest traitors in Europe, was enabled by the conduct of the noble Lord to make fatal use of his treachery. It was the King's opinion that by going outside the town a short distance with his army he might fight with advantage. There were five general officers present. Four of them agreed with Liborio Romano in recommending the King to retire on the river, and not defend the walls of Naples; one alone—General Bosco—who remained faithful, concurred with his Majesty in thinking that it would be well to fight at once. How did Liborio Romano strengthen the advice he gave? By pointing to the despatches received from the noble Lord. The noble Lord at that crisis wrote "strongly remonstrating" against the repetition at Naples of what occurred at Palermo. The noble Lord had told the House on the 5th July, 1860, that he and the Cabinet actually considered the question how far the British fleet in the Bay of Naples might act with advantage against the King of Naples in case he did more than merely attack the mob in insurrection. But the noble Lord said they had found it impossible to send out to the Admiral such precise instructions as would be necessary to enable him to act. Was this "leaving the Italians to settle their own affairs?" Was this "strict neutrality?" Could any Member of the House deny, however prejudiced he might be, that this was an interference in Italian affairs on the part of the noble Lord? To prevent the young King from endeavouring to regain Sicily was unpardonable interference by the British Government. To remonstrate with him, or, as the Secretary of State said, to "strongly remonstrate" with the King about the defence of Naples was interference equally unpardonable.

But the most active interference of all, that which stamped the proceedings of the noble Lord with the guilt of highly treacherous intervention in Italian affairs, was his conduct when the Sardinian army invaded the Papal States and the Neapolitan dominions. All the Powers of Europe protested against the King of Sardinia's forgetting his honour when he broke the pledge which he had given to England and to Europe not to attack the young King provided he made no attempt to recover Sicily; but the noble Lord alone came forward to defend that celebrated falsehood. Having extracted a solemn promise from Sardinia the noble Lord was the only statesman who defended its flagrant violation. That was an interference in Italian affairs, and an interference honourable neither to England nor to English statesmen.

Against the army of General Lamori-ciere—to which the noble Lord had referred not in the most complimentary terms —the Piedmontese fought, and the Pied-montese alone. Not a single subject of the Pope took up arms except in support of the tiara. Not a single Roman was in arms against Lamoriciere. The noble Lord had spoken of foreign mercenaries, who, he seemed to think, ought never to be employed. But, in 1854, in moving the second reading of his Bill for allowing foreign mercenaries to be employed in the Queen's service, the noble Lord said this country had never achieved distinction without employing foreign mercenaries. He is fond of historical illustration, and he said:— Did the Duke of Marlborough rely upon the English alone as the forces which should be brought into the field? I have here an exact account of the component parts of the 40,000 men contributed by this country. I find that the numbers of the English was 18,328, and of foreigners in the English pay 21,672. Was there, then, any of these feelings that foreigners were not to be employed? No such ideas never entered the minds of the great men who sway the destinies of England. But the Secretary of State is not the only British authority in favour of the policy of Monsignor de Merode. The noble Viscount, too, who was then entering into an alliance with the Evangelical party, said the employment of foreign mercenaries was "a consecrated system." He added that every country in the world had employed them, and that England ought to follow their example, and especially because she did not use the power of conscription. But there was another power in Europe that did not employ the conscription, and that was the Government of the Pope. On the 27th of March, 1856, the Sardinian Plenipotentiary, at the Congress of Paris, addressed a memorandum to Lord Clarendon, recommending that certain provinces should be taken from the Pope, and that the Pope should maintain an army of 8,000 men, composed one-half of natives and one-half of foreign troops, who would be sufficient to keep order at Borne without the presence of French troops. Mr. Lyons, who was acting practically as our Minister at Rome, recommended Cardinal Antonelli to have an army such as had been recommended by Count Cavour, and, writing home on the 24th of May, 1856, he said that, With an adequate body of foreign soldiers in its own service, the Papal Government might dispense with the troops of France and Austria. Why should Mr. Lyons recommend Cardinal Antonelli to have an army of foreign mercenaries? Did not this advice, and the admonitions that accompanied it, amount to interference? But above all, when the British Minister held such language, was it fair, was it honourable, or honest, that the British Government should be the first and only Government to defend the Piedmontese invasion on the ground that the Pope employed foreign troops? Count Cavour, however, in September, 1860, writes to Cardinal Antonelli, pointing out that the Pope was employing an army of foreign mercenaries, and that they ought to be disbanded. General Cialdini, in leading his troops against General Lamoriciere, issued an order of the day, in which he told them he was leading them against a band of foreign adventurers who were animated by a thirst for gold, and a desire for pillage, and he called upon his soldiers to attack and disperse them "without mercy." Was that singular temper and forbearance? The Piedmontese general carried fire and sword through the Papal States because the Pope chose to employ some foreign troops, and yet it was the Minister of Piedmont who suggested that the Pope should form an army of 8,000 men, half natives and half foreigners. And that policy of employing foreign troops was approved of by the Minister of England. And the subsequent outrage on international law and on this policy is now approved of by the British Government. General Lamoriciere's army was attacked without a declaration of war, and, being greatly outnumbered, was defeated. Early in May, the noble Lord had instructed Mr. Odo Russell to ask Cardinal Antonelli whether he would give a pledge to act on the defensive. Cardinal Antonelli gave that pledge, but what was the conduct of the noble Lord when that pledge was violated? On the 21st of September, the noble Lord (Lord John Russell), writing to Mr. Fane, said:— I did not enter (with Count Wimpfen) into the original justice of the claim set up by Victor Emmanuel to be the chief and the champion of Italy. But, having undertaken that task, I thought he was forced by necessity not to allow the fragments of the Italian Kingdom to be scrambled for by the followers of Garibaldi and the foreign mercenaries of the Pope. It was the business of the King to command and regulate the movement, to put down anarchy by force, and to substitute orderly Government for the oppression which crushed and the insurrection which convulsed the Italian provinces. Sir, I shall not condescend to discuss with the noble Lord the expediency of abolishing the temporal power of the Pope. I will only tell Her Majesty's Government that when the British Minister denounced the temporal power of the Sovereign Pontiff he insulted millions of the Queen's subjects, and he did so most wantonly. What cause of quarrel had he with the Pope? Why should he allow his party spirit and the traditions of Whig policy so far to guide his public conduct as to involve him in a course of vindictive enmity against a peaceful Sovereign for whom many millions of British subjects entertain feelings of deep respect, and, in his spiritual capacity, of strong attachment and devotion? Does the noble Lord think he will thus increase the loyalty of the Irish Catholics, or the loyalty of the Catholics of Canada, of the West Indies, and of Australia? I will not characterize, in the only language fit to describe it, the proposition of the noble Lord, that the Pope should place himself at the disposal and under the protection of the King of Sardinia. I will only say of that, and of the other proceedings of the Secretary of State against the interests and dignity of the Pope, that they all constitute acts of unjustifiable interference in Italian affairs.

But of all these despatches now before us I know none which the public, if they are still animated by a spirit of fair play, will peruse with greater pain than that which was addressed by the noble Lord to the Court of France, with a view to promote the bombardment of Gaeta. The noble Lord alone of European, statesmen had not protested against the bombardment of Ancona. His animosity against the Pope, no doubt accounts for that. Ancona was bombarded by foreigners without a declaration of war. In that bombardment more women and children were killed in the town than sailors and soldiers on board Admiral Persano's fleet. The British Government looked on in silence. Capua was subsequently bombarded by the Piedmontese, and again the British Government remained silent. Let the House remember the energetic remonstrances of the noble Lord against bombardments at Palermo and Naples. Well, the bombardment of Gaeta from the land side began, and the bombardment by the Sardinian fleet was threatened. What did the British Government do? In pursuance of that policy of "systematic hostility" to the King of the Two Sicilies, which General Casella has lately charged (with undoubted truth) upon the noble Lord, the whole influence of Her Majesty's Foreign Office was brought to bear against the King. The noble Lord encouraged and enforced the bombardment of Gaeta. And who were those upon whose heads a Minister of England thus persisted in showering the shells and shot of the Sardinian fleet? In Gaeta was a young King gallantly defending his throne against foreigners; and sharing with her husband all the dangers of the siege was that royal lady—the princess of modern chivalry—she whose conjugal devotion, inflexible courage, and dignified endurance under the greatest of calamaties have made her—more than Queen of the two Sicilies—the example and the sovereign of her sex. The hostility of the British Government to these young monarchs seemed to increase with the growth of their misfortunes. In a despatch of the 13th of December, the noble Lord said "The King of Naples is free to retire, why does he not do so?" I will tell the noble Lord why he did not retire; it is because the King of Naples is a brave man, who had a great duty to discharge; and who imperilled his life fighting, as I shall ever maintain, for the independence of his people. That independence is now, for a time, lost. The people of South Italy are under the martial law of foreigners. I, who wish to see the Italians free, protest against the active interference of Her Majesty's Government, because it is an interference which has been as detrimental to the people as it has been to the Sovereigns of Italy.

Sir, I have shown the House what has been the policy of the noble Lord. Is there an honest man in this country who will now believe the assertion of the Secretary of State that his policy is a policy of neutrality? I have shown you that he interfered to promote Piedmontese influence; that such interference has been alike injurious to Italian and to English interests; that he has compromised the independence of the Italian people; that he has contributed to destroy British trade and commerce. Has he destroyed nothing else? Where now is the great settlement of five-and-forty years ago? Where is that magna charta of European order that the sword of my illustrious countryman, and the best blood and treasure of this nation secured? The predatory army of Piedmont has torn the Treaty of Vienna to pieces. Where are now the alliances in whose stability the safety of the country, as we have always been taught, was so closely involved? Where are the great Conservative principles of Continental policy which were developed by the genius of Mr. Pitt, and enforced by the Duke of Wellington? Where are the once firm links of international law which bound the Sovereignty of England to the States of Europe? There was a time— not many years ago—when your alliances abroad would in an hour of national danger contribute to your safety. If, a few years ago, 80,000 Frenchmen were landed on your coast the bayonets of Austria and Russia would glitter on the Rhine, and a French occupation of London would involve an allied occupation of Paris. It is very different now. With your change of policy you have changed your allies. And yet, your fortifications, the augmentation of your fleet, and the hasty drilling of your Volunteers prove that the new alliance which you substituted for the others is not to live. In pursuing the phantom of Italian unity you have thus endangered your peace, your prosperity, and your national glory. Trade, treaties, and alliances have fallen away: more than all this, your policy has destroyed the confidence of European statesmen in the honesty of the Foreign Office. By your repeated defence of falsehood, and your treacherous conduct to the Sovereign Pontiff, and the young King of Naples, you have degraded British diplomacy and deeply stained the honour of England.

MR. LAYARD

said, he trusted the House would excuse him if he trespassed on its attention for a short period, of her had special reasons for speaking on this subject. He had long taken a deep interest in it, and he believed he knew something about it—more, perhaps, than the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken, though he would not detain the House at the same length. He thought the hon. Gentleman had omitted a very important element from his speech. The hon. Member had omitted all mention of the Italians and their feelings. As to his statements with regard to the state of trade in Italy he had said that to which he thought he should be able to give a sufficient answer. Another reason that he had for addressing the House was that the subject was an important one, and ought to be debated in that House. In Italy the deepest interest attached to what passed in that House. The people read every word that was spoken, their papers reported every speech that was made there—they looked to that House for counsel, for encouragement, and support. He did not think that the question ought to have been brought on in this form. On Friday he came down to the House prepared to move a definite Resolution, declaring that the policy which had been pursued by Her Majesty's Government was in accordance with the opinion of the largo mass of the English people, and was worthy of the honour, the interest, and the dignity of I this country. He reflected, however, that it might have been considered a party question, and he was most desirous that this subject should not be degraded to a party question. Although he knew from the cheering which he had heard that the general opinion of Gentlemen opposite was unfavourable to Italy, he was perfectly well aware that there were Gentlemen on that side of the House who had large sympathies and who did feel for that country. He would not say that those Gentlemen would have voted against their consciences, but he should not have liked to place them in the position of having to vote upon what might have been considered a party question against those with whom they generally acted. Upon these grounds he refrained from proposing his Motion. He hoped that in any remarks which he might make, and which might appear condemnatory of the Papal Government, he should not be understood to mean anything disrespectful to the Pope himself. He believed the Pope to be a well-meaning, humane, benevolent man, and that no one could better represent the Catholic Church as its spiritual head than he did. He said this because an impression existed in France, and elsewhere, that the policy of this country was very much guided by a feeling against the Pope as the head of the Roman Catholic Church. That he did not believe. Other feelings guided the policy of this country. We had always wished to see the Pope independent; the question was, how he was to be independent? Nor was he (Mr. Layard) without claims to be considered a tolerant man. When he sat in that House before he had always voted, and he would in the future vote, in favour of all proper concessions to Roman Catholics. He considered this question upon the much broader ground of the advisability of separating the temporal from the spiritual power of the Pope. He was frequently astonished at the line of argument pursued by hon. Gentlemen opposite who persist in connecting the temporal with the religious question. "Was there, he asked, a single man in Italy, eminent in literature, in art, in science, or in politics, who was at this moment in favour of combining the temporal and spiritual power of the Pope? They could not find one. [Mr. HENNESSY: Secchi, the greatest astronomer of the day.] Secchi was a Jesuit, and was bound, therefore, to support the Papacy. But to him he would oppose the Marquis D'Azeglio, not the celebrated novelist, but the well-known member of the Sardinian Senate who had supported the policy of what was called the religious party in Piedmont against that of Count Cavour, but who was well known to have declared against the union of the spiritual and temporal power of the Pope. What was the inference from this? Either these men, being good Roman Catholics, desired to separate the temporal and spiritual authority of the Pope, or they had ceased to be Roman Catholics. He believed that the former was the case. He asked hon. Gentlemen opposite, particularly the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken, from whom they derived their information? [Mr. HENMESSY: From the Government.] He did not get his information from the Government; he got it from Italy. He did not know whether the hon. Member spoke Italian, or from whom he got his information at Rome. Was it from the Monsignori, or the cardinals, who received him and showed him civility, or did he go to the hard-working middle classes of Rome —men who thought that they had something better to do than to support the beggars who swarmed around them and an effete ecclesiastical system—who had some regard for the honour and dignity of the country, and who wished to see its interests enlarge and its prosperity increase? In a very important protest addressed to the French Government by the leading men of the Liberal party in Rome they ask, with great force, this question—"Do the interests of Europe require that we should be considered as slaves bound to the soil and born to support the rule of the Pope which many declare to be necessary, but which no one would wish to see in his own country?" Would the hon. Gentleman like to see the Government of the Pope in his country? Had he been into the provinces, and into the small towns, or had he only been at Rome? Had he mixed with the people, or was it only from the nobility and the Monsignori that he had received his information? He was astonished at the ignorance displayed by hon. Gentlemen. He (Mr. Layard) was at Rome when the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. Maguire) was there, and he saw how he obtained his information. He saw him led away in the morning by, he supposed he must call him, an illustrious Prelate, taken from institution to institution, and brought home at night; and then the hon. Gentleman who had seen no other part of the Roman States, and who could not speak a word of Italian, came home to England and wrote a book which was an authority upon the subject! In that book he praised the immense number of charitable institutions in Rome, the great patronage of what he was pleased to call education, the great hospitals, and the monastic institutions. Why, these were the curses of the country. The population of Rome had been divided into two equal parts, one of which lived upon the other. The hon. Gentleman visited the great political prison of San Michael, and he could hardly find words to describe the beauty of the place. He had described how the sunbeams fell into the courtyards, dwelt upon the beautiful looking-glasses with which the prisoners were provided, and said that he even felt some delicacy in intruding upon people who seemed so happy. He had told how in the courtyards there were little tables at which gentlemen were playing at dominoes, and it really only wanted some ladies in a particular costume to make a complete scene for Her Ma- jesty's Theatre. But he could have shown the hon. Gentleman as a reverse to this picture, one of the most ingenious artists in Borne who was now again in exile because he had designed the hilt of a sword to be presented to the Emperor Napoleon, the defender of the Pope! who was confined for three years in a cell in this very prison in which he could hardly turn, and who every hour of the night or day was called upon to answer to his name until his intellect gave way, and he was confined in a madhouse. He referred to Signor Castellani. He could have taken the hon. Gentleman to places near Rome where he would have seen men who had been in prisons of the most revolting description for years and years without trial, and without accusation. The hon. Gentleman said nothing in his book about the Inquisition—for the Inquisition still existed. It was true that the ingenious tortures of former times did not exist; but, considering the period at which we had arrived, the Inquisition was nearly as bad as ever. In travelling in the Marches and other parts of the Roman States he saw the edicts of the Inquisition stack up in all directions. These were edicts against blasphemy, which was defined to be reading any book which was prohibited by the Sacred Office, or knowing anybody—even their nearest relations—who had read such a book and not denouncing him. One of these edicts, which he got at Ancona, and which was signed by the Inquisitor General, after denouncing a penalty of imprisonment against sorcerers and dealers in magic art, concluded by prohibiting all intercourse, such as eating, sleeping, dancing and going to market together, &c, between Jews and Christians, and denounced against offenders the penalties mentioned in the Bull of Pope Clement VIII., entitled Cœca et Obdurata. While he was in the Roman States he read M. About's book, and he would venture to say, and would stake his reputation upon the assertion that, although its style and language were a little exaggerated, there was in it scarcely a statement which was not true in fact. A great deal had been said about the paternal Government of the Pope. Nothing on the face of the earth could be more mischievous, more calculated to oppress and degrade a people than this paternal Government so highly extolled in certain quarters. The paternal Government in the Roman States consisted of an inquisitorial interference in the affairs of families. It be- trayed itself in one place in the arrest of five young men who had obtained from the local authorities permission to bury one of their own kindred—a permission which was not ratified from Rome. That fact was stated by Mr. Odo Russell whom no one could accuse of partiality, for no-diplomatic officer could have conducted himself with more prudence and uprightness than Mr. Russell had done in Rome. The result was that he had conciliated every party, and was equally trusted by the Liberals and the supporters of the Papal Government. At Ferrara, some years ago, the Papal authorities-stopped the cultivation of flax—the staple of the province—because they thought that women engaged in one of the processes showed rather more of their extremities than was consistent with the ecclesiastical idea of propriety—the only excuse to be urged for the Pope was the fact that since 1849 the Pope had not governed a single acre of his own States; occupation by foreign armies had neutralized his temporal authority. There had been a French occupation of Rome, and an Austrian occupation of the Legations, while the rest of the Papal territories had been given over to the tender mercies of Swiss mercenaries. At Bologna there had been a combination—the most horrible that could be conceived—a combination of the stupid brutality of the Austrian soldier with the cunning cruelty of that of priests; and what was the result? During eight years of Austrian occupation no fewer than 186 persons had been put to death, of whom some were under the age of eighteen. It might be said that the Pope was not responsible for these things; but the fact was not so. Amid all these bloody executions it might fairly be expected that the Pope or his Government would have interfered on the side of mercy. The Pope did interfere once, but for what object? Was it to put a stop to these cruel practices? No. He interfered to give a dispensation to the Austrians to shoot a boy who was under the legal age at which the punishment of death could be inflicted. The subjects of the Pope in the Legations were taken before an Austrian court martial, both in criminal and civil causes; the trials were conducted in German, which was to them an unknown tongue, and the appeal was not to the Pope, but to an Austrian general at Verona and Mantua. He had himself seen a curious document taken from the archives of Bologna. It was a letter from Marshal Radetzki to the Papal Legate, in which the Austrian general replied to a proposition previously made to him by his correspondent. What that proposition was did not clearly appear; but Radetzky said, "If I were to adopt your advice with respect to the treatment of political offenders I should dishonour myself and disgrace my country." The people liked the temporal power of the Pope no more than the tyranny of the Austrians. Such was the state of things in Bologna that the last Papal Legate there wrote to his Government that there was not in the whole of the Legations a single man, woman, or child—with the exception, perhaps, of a few old men and women—who was well disposed to the Papal Government. Consequently, when the Austrian troops left Bologna they were accompanied by the Papal Legate, who found it impossible to remain behind, and the whole of the Legations passed at once into the hands of the people, who, considering what had occurred, behaved themselves with marvellous moderation. The case of Perugia was equally, if not more discreditable to the Papal Government. Perugia was sacked; men, women and children were slain with every circumstance of barbarity; and General Schmitz, who commanded the troops, was rewarded and decorated by the Pope. The only Italians engaged in the taking of Perugia wore a battalion of artillery. Their commander, in reporting the result of the operations to his Government, congratulated himself that his soldiers had taken no part in the massacres which had occurred in the place. The consequence was that he was turned out of his post. Another Italian officer who refused to act as a member of the infamous tribunal which was established after the sack was also dismissed the service. The hon. Member (Mr. Hennessy) had said something about the atrocities that had been committed in the Abruzzi, and a strange witness had been cited in the person of M. Dumas. He had often heard M. Dumas quoted as an authority upon fiction, but never as an authority upon facts; and some of the stories which that gentleman had printed in his journal had more the appearance of fiction than of fact. But he held a letter in his hand dated Feb. 18, detailing the grossest atrocities committed by the Papal troops. It was a fact which could not be denied that Col- lalto, a small village of about 700 souls, was given up to a general sack; that the medical man of the place, one Latini, was stabbed to death; that his sister, who ran to his assistance, was shot down; that the Sindic was mortally wounded; and that the heads of the Imperi family were miserably slain, and their little child of twenty months, transfixed by a bayonet, was carried in triumph through the streets. These atrocities were committed by a Bo-man general, who was decorated by Mon-signor do Merode for what he had done. He held in his hand a letter, dated the 1st of March, in which the writer described his own journey from Naples to Ancona. The writer stated that he met an officer in the Piedmontese uniform, walking and crying bitterly, who told him that his house had been burnt to the ground, and that his father had been killed, and cut into small pieces, which were thrown to the dogs, and were still to be seen in the street. A family in the same neighbourhood, suspected of Piedmontese sympathies, had fled for fear of the reactionary party, but had left behind them a youth of tender age. The poor child was seized by the brigands who tore out his eyes, and committed every manner of torture upon him before putting him to death. He had no doubt the hon. Member (Mr. Hennessy) would tell him that his authorities were valueless, he (Mr. Layard) said the same of the hon. Member's. He proposed to strike off the atrocities on both sides, for, in fact, they had nothing to do with the matter. Such great revolutions such as had taken place in Italy some acts worthy of condemnation were inevitable. Allusion had been made that evening to General Pinelli's proclamation. Now, he had been told on the best authority that the proclamation in question was condemned as soon as it was issued, and that two months were not allowed to elapse before its author was recalled. It had also been asserted that the Piedmontese Government continued a pension to the family of Milano, the man who attempted to assassinate the King of Naples; but the fact was, that the moment the Piedmontese Government obtained authority in Naples that pension was discontinued. By whom was that pension given? Not by General Garibaldi, but somebody about him who was utterly undeserving of his confidence, and without his consent. After all it was the condition of the country under the Roman Government which was the best proof of the badness of that Government. Was it true, or not, that the neighbourhood of Rome was a desert, and that the whole population was almost in a state of open rebellion? Mr. Russell, in a despatch dated November 11, 1860, said that the enthusiasm for unity and Victor Emmanuel was greater in the Marches and Umbria than in any other part of Italy; that his attention had been attracted by the growing national sympathies of the lower clergy; and that those sympathies were gradually making their way among the more enlightened Cardinals and Bishops. He could confirm that statement himself. Last summer he had visited one of the largest and best conducted Benedictine convents in Italy; and from its principal inmates he heard the strongest opinions expressed against the Papal Government. That was within a very few miles of Rome. After all, the people were the best judges of the character of the Government, and they had declared it intolerable, and had risen against it. The hon. Gentleman had quoted largely from documents purporting to be trade returns. He would rather give them the result of his own experience. A few years ago, he was at Ferrara and other places in the Marches and Legations, and found thorn deserts. Last year he revisited the same places, and the change was perfectly wonderful. The inhabitants seemed to breathe a freer and more invigorating air; everywhere there was activity and industry. Bologna had become the great centre of railways branching off in all directions. The Report of Mr. Otway, our consul general at Milan, which was among the printed papers, afforded a conclusive answer to the hon. Gentlemen's assertions as to the decrease of trade— There can be no doubt whatever," says the report, "that since the annexation of Lombardy to Piedmont the trade between England and Lombardy has become more active, and will become more so still as soon as the political questions be set at rest, and that the prospect of the future becomes certain, and be not disturbed by fear of war or internal dissensions. In the same document the improved state of commerce was attributed to the moderate Customs' tariff introduced by the Piedmontese. The greatest increase in the importation had been in cottons. A man had only to use his own eyes in Italy to observe the contrast between the Papal and Piedmontese rule. While Piedmont was extending its railways on every side there were but two short railways in all the Papal States—one from Rome to Civita Vechia, the other from Rome to Fras-cati. A remarkable illustration of the way in which things were managed in the Roman dominions was to be found in the story that one of the very first trains on the Frascati line was stopped by brigands and the passengers plundered. Such an incident could have happened in no other country in the world. Turning, then, to Naples, the hon. Gentleman claimed sympathy for the young King of Naples who had shown at the last moment the courage of despair. But was no sympathy due to the hundreds of thousands who had been the victims of Bourbon tyranny? Could they forget the dungeons filled with prisoners who had never undergone trial, and all the other horrors and atrocities which had been committed for years and years in the kingdom of Naples? Or could they deny them? He would not describe the state of Venetia. He would only mention a couple of public notices to illustrate the rule of the Austrians. One was issued some four years ago, and sanctioned the whipping of two young girls for insulting the Austrian flag, for which a Bill was actually sent to the Municipality of Milan for the rods, vinegar, and bandages; the other was issued only last year, and threatened the people with fire and sword because some street boys had hissed a lady the dimensions of whose dress exceeded the limit approved by popular taste. But it might be said that abuses might be reformed. Reforms were impossible — the time for them had gone by. The murder of Count Rossi had been constantly dwelt upon as justifying the refusal of the Pope to grant reforms. The secret history of 1848 would, no doubt, some day become known; and, although it might turn out that the Pope was personally innocent, he believed that evil counsellors around him had roused the indignation of the people. Were any of the reforms promised by the Pope by the celebrated motû proprio of Portici upon his return to Rome ever carried out? Had not remonstrances been made with the Pope against his mode of government from that time to the present? And had not every remonstrance, no matter from what quarter, been treated with neglect or met with the usual answer, non possumm? The noble Lord the Foreign Secretary, in his search for a now form of suffrage, might, perhaps, be interested in one devised by the Pope. The Pope had promised that a municipal body should be elected; but the condition of the electors voting was that they should first have a certificate of good religious and political conduct from their parish priest. Up to the present moment no subject of the Pope, however highly educated, however intelligent, however distinguished in social position, could pass beyond the gates of Rome into the Campagna without a certificate from the curé of the parish, that he had duly attended sacrament and confession. Could they hope for reform in Naples under the Bourbons? No. The bitterest saying which was ever uttered by one man concerning another was drawn from Baron Poerio in the Piedmontese Parliament by the statement that the King of Naples was ready to grant a Constitution. Governments," he said, "are founded on traditions. The tradition of the Neapolitan Government is perjury. The King has promised a Constitution. He -will show himself the legitimate successor to the throne by forswearing himself. But a man cannot forswear himself till he has taken an oath. Poerio's remark was as true as it was bitter. Neither was there any hope of reform in Venice. Some years ago the Venetian people might have been conciliated, but the atrocious, stupid misgovernment of the Austrians, who had spared neither friend nor foe, had alienated every Venetian. A Government and an army in which the Venetians were represented was essential to reform in Venice. But there was not a single Italian who would either accept office or bear arms under the Austrians. Again, in the Roman States the two chief elements of reform were the abolition of ecclesiastical privileges and orders and the transfer of the land to those who would cultivate it from those who kept it a desert. He had it on the highest authority that those two concessions could not be made; and, therefore, reform was impossible. It might be said that there were more laymen than ecclesiastics in office; and so, perhaps, there were, if they took account of all the paltry minor situations which the ecclesiastics would not condescend to accept. But all the high officers, all the legates, governors, Judges of the upper Courts, and so on, were either ecclesiastics, or at least, prelates who enjoyed ecclesiastical privileges. One of these privileges consisted in this, that if one person in a suit, whether amongst the plaintiffs or defendants was an ecclesiastic, that suit could be removed from the Civil into the Ecclesiastical Courts, in which corruptions and delays rendered it impossible to obtain justice. When, after the peace of Villa-franca, the Emperor declared there should be an Italian Confederation, every Italian felt justly indignant at the suggestion. The time for confederation had passed. There was but one Italian Prince. The King of Naples, the Grand Duke of Tuscany, and all the other petty sovereigns ruled through the support of Austria, and were mere Austrian tools; but they might have been Italian Princes at that moment had they conciliated the affections of their people by the concession of their rights, and discarded foreign aid and influences. Victor Emmanuel, although not of an Italian family, was the only true Italian Prince, because he was the only Prince who had refused to repose on foreign bayonets, and had relied upon the Italians themselves, and had devoted himself to the great idea of Italian unity and independence. He believed that King Victor was actuated by a noble ambition, and that the people were right in gathering round him. The motive of Victor Emmanuel's conduct need not be sought in urn ambition. He said, "I will be an Italian King. I have confidence in my subjects. I will give them liberty, and I will rely on them." When the Confederation, therefore, was proposed and rejected, the whole of Italy rallied round Victor Emmanuel. The hon. Gentleman talked about the voting, and said that the people had shown no interest in the elections. He denied it. He believed that the numbers quoted by the hon. Gentleman had nothing at all to do with the voting. They referred to the "Ballotaggio." He was in the north of Tuscany at the time of the voting. He saw peasants coming from all directions with priests at their head, and voting by ballot with the greatest calmness and moderation. There was no intimidation— no bribery, and he believed that not a single man gave his vote except with the entire conviction that he was voting according to the dictates of his conscience. He would take a higher test. Who were elected to the Parliament of Tuscany? Men who represented families which had existed for 500 or 600 years. Let anybody go through the historic roll of the great families of Tuscany, and he would find that not a single name of im- portance was absent from the list. The clergy, science, and art were also represented—and who was elected chief of the country during the interregnum? Ricasoli —a man of whom the country gentlemen of England might be proud. He was a man of large possessions, who had devoted himself to the improvements of his vast estates; who had come to England to see the best inventions in agriculture, and to introduce into his own country the latest improvements—a man of most exemplary character, and against whom his bitterest adversaries were never able to say a single word. It was the same in the Legations. The men elected were of the highest character and most distinguished families. He would not trouble the House with their names, but with many of them he had the honour to be acquainted, and he ventured to say that it was impossible to have chosen any number of men, by any mode which could be devised, who more entirely represented the feelings of the people than those who composed the Parliamentary representatives of Tuscany and the Legations. It was a most remarkable and interesting fact that there was not one man who had taken part in the Italian movement against whom a finger could be pointed. There was not one who could be accused of speculating on the Bourse, or who was not of the highest private character. He would not say that they would afford a favourable contrast with men in a country nearer to us than Italy, but they did afford a most striking contrast with the officials in the Roman States, where all was bribery and corruption. If you wanted an order to see a public building in those States or to see a book in a library you must bribe. Legates were sent to govern districts with a salary of £200 or £300 a year, and they came back with fortunes. The whole country was a mass of bribery. The result of all this misgovernment was that throughout the whole of Italy the people called on the King of Sardinia to extend his dominions. It was an important fact to bear in mind that this great movement had been carried on entirely by the moderate party. The so-called Mazzini party had disappeared. The noble Lord the Member for the City of London would bear him out when he reminded him that four or five years ago he said that party was almost extinct. In 1848 the moderate party abstained from action, but the movement now was entirely that of the moderate party. The result was that every honest, intelligent, and liberal man had gathered round them, and Mr. Russell, in one of his despatches, noticed the change of public feeling, speaking of the people as placing their hopes in the King of Sardinia and Count Cavour, in whom they saw the sole salvation of Italy. They had heard of intimidation at Naples. He had the authority of the military commander of Naples for saying that, when the elections took place in that city, there were only twenty-two soldiers present in it. He believed, therefore, the numbers quoted by the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Hennessy) were founded on some mistake. [MR. HENNESSY: They were official."] He believed that Her Majesty's Government was justified in the course they had taken. He believed that the despatch written by the noble Lord accurately stated the feeling of the English people. He had an authority to quote almost higher than that of the noble Lord. He held in his hand a pamphlet on Lombardy, written by one who would not be accused of partiality for Italian liberals; it was written by George Bowyer, Esq., D.C.L., author of Commentaries on the Constitutional Law of England; and en the Modern Civil Law. It was published in 1848, but things were not much changed since then— It must, moreover, be remembered that the King was invited by the Government de facto of Lombardy, being in full possession of the capital, to assist that Government in its contest against Austria. The case is one, not of intervention, but of the acknowledgment of a new Government during the continuance of a civil war. Such an acknowledgment and its consequences are shown to be lawful by some of the highest authorities on the law of nations. Wheaton (vol. i., pp. 92, 93) holds that while a civil war involving a contest for the Government continues, other States may remain indifferent spectators of the contest, or may espouse the cause of the party which they believe to have justice on its side; and he corroborates his position by citing divers precedents. Vattel and Martens hold the same opinion. The former says (liv. ii., ch. iv. § 56), 'Quand un peuple prend avec raison les armes contre un oppresseur, il n'y a que justice et generosityé à secourir do braves gens qui defendent leur liberté. Toutes les foisr done, que les choses en viennent a une guerre civile, les puissances étrangères peuvent assister celui des deux parties qui leur parait fonde ea justice.' When he saw the quotation from Vattel in the despatch of the noble Lord the Member for the City, he little thought that the noble Lord was indebted for it to the pamphlet of the hon. and learned Member for Lundalk. The hon. and learned Mem- ber was the tutor, preceptor, and friend of the noble Lord, and furnished him with this very quotation. Still less would be have anticipated that the noble Lord would have gone to the hon. and learned Member for illustrations on a great constitutional question. The hon. and learned Member, however, went on to say— This is a doctrine which the admirers of William III. and the Revolution of 1688 cannot be allowed to call in question. Vattel shows that in a case of civil war foreign Powers have a right to deal with the contending parties as separate Powers and to take part with either. These are authorities directly in point. It is also established law that a foreign Power may by force put an end to a civil war in another State for the purpose of preventing a condition of things dangerous or injurious to herself. Further on the hon. and learned Member wrote— Are the Italian feelings of nationality entitled to no respect? True, the Italians have never in modern times been united into one State. But what then? Is community of language and literature nothing? Is community of traditions and history nothing? And is community of race no bond of union? The Italians feel as one nation, and there are few Englishmen who do not sympathize with them and cordially desire their deliverance, by their own valour, from their foreign masters. The hon. and learned Member wound up— I shall assume, therefore, that the independence of Italy is a great and desirable object for which we, as a free nation, must be zealous, as we should be for our own deliverance if the course of events had brought us under foreign domination, and deprived us of our political liberties. Such is the feeling which makes me rejoice that the armies of Italy are led in a just cause by a just man. He was sure the hon. and learned Member would not call in question that which he had written. He did not wish to rest the question, however, on these quotations. There were times when nations did not go by Vattel or any other authority on international law. There were great crises in the history of a nation when international law was set aside, as when Hampden refused to pay ship-money and when we effected our great Revolution. This was a great revolution, and they must weigh the good against the bad. They must see what was the necessity, and take upon their own showing the manifestations of feeling by the people. He confessed that he was one of those who, like the noble Lord, thought that what was called unification was not likely to promote the prosperity of Italy. He believed that a federation of States under the same head, but with self government, would best suit the genius of the Italians and would best agree with their former history. But the Italians had decided otherwise. It might be an experiment which would turn out ill; but, if it did, it must not be forgotten that no nation had established its independence by one struggle, and it might be that through many struggles the hour of redemption for Italy would come at last. But if the voice of that House could reach Italy he hoped it would tell her to care not so much for unification as for her municipal institutions. There was no country in the world which had such municipal institutions. They dated from the earliest period, and they were the cause of the preservation of that little liberty which had survived all foreign tyranny. By means of the municipal institutions the whole of the taxes in Tuscany were collected without one shilling of expense to the Government. They not only discounted their own bills for taxes, but even paid them sometimes in advance. He had no doubt the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be glad to see such a system in operation here. He entreated the Italians, then, to retain their old municipal institutions. They were the glory and the best safeguard of freedom of England, and, he believed, in no country could liberty be safe where they did not exist. He rejoiced to see that in the programme of Count Cavour the principle was laid down that municipal institutions should be preserved and promoted to the greatest possible extent. He was not one of those who went as far as an eminent modern writer in believing that men had no influence over events, but were entirely dependent upon them; but he did believe that when great events were about to take place the men necessary to direct them were to be found. This had been eminently the case in Italy. The three very men required to carry through the great change which had taken place there had been found—a King disposed to listen to the advice of a constitutional Minister; a great constitutional Minister— for he was a great constitutional Minister— let them say what they liked, who could give true liberal institutions to his country, and a general, like Garibaldi, who could direct the enthusiasm of his countrymen and lead them to conquer their freedom. There was another man whose name should not be omitted in the history of Italian independence—Sir James Hudson—who had not interfered in the affairs of Italy, otherwise than being always ready with the most prudent and wisest counsel, and who by steadily pointing out to the Italians the true path of constitutional liberty, had earned a title to their lasting gratitude. It seemed to be supposed that Italy had always been a slave and must remain so. But it should be remembered that from the tenth to the fifteenth century no country had been so rich or prosperous, and, at the same time, so free. What led to the destruction of her commerce and her liberties? The ambition of Popes, and afterwards the invasion of the French in the time of Charles VIII. To restore them the ambition of the Popes must be restrained, and her foreign oppressors, whether Austrians or French, be removed. Italy would then regain her former prosperity. She had shown herself eminently qualified for liberal institutions. Look at the Parliamentary Government of Piedmont. Compare Piedmont with Rome. Look at the railways of Piedmont, at the increase of her commerce, and the prosperity of her population: no one could travel through the country without being struck with wonder at the progress she had made in a few years. Look at the Italian press; its moderation was a proof of the moderation of the people. It was in this respect an example to Europe. He was told Italy would be French; but no nation permanently allied itself to another from motives of gratitude; he believed that Italy would be the ally of that country which most resembled herself in her institutions and in which she had the greatest material interests — she would be the ally of this country. Did they think it suited France to have a united Italy? Look at the policy of France in years gone by. After the restoration of the Bourbons, during the time of the Republic, it had always been the same; it was opposed to a strong and united Italy. Italy united could not be French; Italy disunited would always be French. Let the Austrians be removed from Venetia, let there be no more pretext for French interference, Italy would be united and independent; she would then know where to seek for her best allies. Such being his opinions, he could not but feel that the despatch of the noble Lord truly and justly represented the feeling of this country. He believed the policy of hon. Gentlemen opposite as a party, was Austrian, and against Italian unity; and he thought it would be the greatest possible misfortune if the present Government were brought to an end, for he believed such a foreign policy would involve us in a war before long; and, therefore, he would do everything in his power to support the present Government. Before he sat down he owed some reparation to Lord Derby who complained that he had misquoted what he (Lord Derby) said on a recent occasion in "another place." A wrong impression had been given of what he really did say. He certainly did condemn the quotation made use of by the noble Lord in which he compared the Italians to dogs and curs, and the manner in which he had spoken of Garibaldi; he thought his words would appear, when translated, insulting to the Italian people; and he was borne out in that by the Italian press. But he fully acquitted the noble Lord of wishing to say anything offensive to the Italian people, or of saying anything personally disrespectful of Garibaldi. He entirely sympathized with the Italian people, and he thought the policy which had been pursued was right. We could not do more; we could not do less. They had our moral support, sympathy, encouragement, and, he hoped, our advice; and he believed the time would come when they would be grateful. An enviable glory would attach to the two noble Lords who had enabled a great country to resume that place in the family of nations to which she was so well entitled by the genius of her people and her past history.

SIR GEORGE BOWYER

* would not follow the hon. Gentleman into the details of his invective against the Papal Government. He would content himself with a sample or two. He had quoted an old story about a certain judge or inquisitor who had issued a very foolish decree as a sample of what the Roman Government was; but that foolish person, who held a very obscure and subordinate office which had fallen completely into desuetude, who thought he would show his authority and importance by publishing that decree, was displaced when it was known at Rome, and the decree itself was quashed and annulled. Then the hon. Gentleman told a story about some brigands near Rome stopping a railway train. Certainly, any brigands who could stop a steam-engine travelling on a railroad must be very powerful follows—almost as powerful as the bulls which the hon. Gentleman had discovered. He remembered the story very well; but the fact was, it was all a hoax, which amused people at Rome for some days, to which no one ever attached the slightest credit. Then the hon. Gentleman referred to the much talked of massacre at Perugia. When he was at Borne he was told by an English lady and gentleman of high character—Protestants—in no way prejudiced in favour of the Papal Government—who were at Perugia at the time and saw all that took place, that there was no massacre at all. No women or children at all were killed; the town was taken by storm, certainly, and about thirty men in arms were killed in fair fight, but there was no such thing as a massacre. The hon. Gentleman had addressed a sort of argumentum ad hominem to him, by quoting from a pamphlet which, he had written in the year 1848. To every word in that pamphlet he still adhered; but the circumstances of 1848 were entirely different from those of 1860 and 1861. There was then no conspiracy of the King of Sardinia against Austria. The Austrians by a popular rising had been driven out of Lombardy, and the King of Sardinia, exercising the right of intervention, and being invited by the authorities of Lombardy, did march his troops into that country. The cases were quite different. By his quotation the hon. Gentleman endeavoured to show that he had been guilty of self-contradiction, and that he had been in favour of intervention at one time, and of non-intervention at another. But he still maintained that, according to the doctrine of international law, when there was a war going on in a country, an adjoining country, if it were interested, had a right to intervene; and the exercise of the right was justifiable or not according to the side which was taken. If you took up a just quarrel, the intervention was justifiable; if you took up an unjust quarrel, intervention was unjustifiable. But now intervention was only considered justifiable and right when it took place in favour of rebellion. Anything that was done against the lawful Sovereign fighting to maintain his rights was justifiable; but anything done on the side of a lawful Sovereign was stigmatized as unjustifiable. Hon. Gentlemen cheered when reference was made to the massacre of Perugia; but not a word of indignation was heard when his hon. Friend mentioned the atrocities which had been committed by the Piedmontese Go- vernment. It was quite right for the Piedmontese to bombard Ancona, Capua, and Gaeta; but when Ferdinand King of Naples bombarded a part of Messina, which was occupied by rebels, it was said that all Europe ought to rise up against him. When the massacres committed by the revolutionary party were spoken of, the hon. Gentleman said, of course, such things must happen at a time of revolution; but if a single man were imprisoned—Baron Poerio, or any one else—the Government was denounced as tyrannical and barbarous, though he was imprisoned for undoubted treason and on due conviction. ("Oh, oh!") Hon. Gentlemen might cry "Oh," but that was the fact. The stories which the hon. Gentleman had recounted against the Papal Government wore obsolete, groundless, and absurd, but the hon. Gentleman had dished them up as if they were something new and worthy the attention of the House. He would now proceed to the real subject before the House. When the Foreign Secretary rose to speak, no doubt they would hear again, as they often had heard, of the doctrine of non-intervention. That appeared to be the beginning and the end of the policy of the Government. It was the doctrine with which the Government answered all the attacks made upon it, and with which so far it had professed to carry out all its Italian policy. What was the modern doctrine of nonintervention? It was a doctrine invented by the revolutionary party to facilitate and effect the overthrow of lawful Governments by the violation of the law of nations, and of those laws on which not only-all Governments, but human society itself, was founded. The Government of Her Majesty ought not to have accepted and maintained that doctrine, destructive of the public law of Europe, and directed to an end which, for the welfare of our country and of the whole world, Providence will not permit to be accomplished. But did the Italian revolution begin by nonintervention? Certainly not. The hon. Gentleman said that the King of Sardinia did not rely on foreign bayonets; but if it had not been for the support of 300,000 French bayonets he would have been crushed when he put himself at the head of the revolution. It was the intervention of France that revolutionized Italy. There was no rising of the people in Tuscany; it was the landing at Leghorn of Prince Napoleon—whose speech within the last few days has astonished Europe—which gave the command to the revolutionary party, and overturned the Government. It was not the people, but the foreign intervention which did that. The hon. Gentleman said that when the Austrian troops left Bologna, the Papal Legate left with them. There was nothing wonderful in that. There were no troops left to protect life and property; the Trench troops were in Tuscany, the Revolutionary party was certain to move, and the fact did not by any means prove that the Papal Government was detested by the people. The Government now prevailing there; he would venture to say was much more detested by the people than the Papal Government was asserted by hon. Gentlemen to have been. His hon. Friend (Mr. Hennessy) had given various instances of the manner in which the Government had put into practice this hypocritical doctrine of non-intervention, of which they talked so much. The Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary had, in fact, been supporting the revolution from the very first. What was our fleet doing at Marsala when Garibaldi landed? It could not be to protect the miserable trade in bad sherry which was carried on there. The fact was our Government knew of his being about to land there, and sent the fleet to give him what aid it could. In the same way The Times' correspondent wrote the other day that the revolutionary party at Naples were in a great fright lest our fleet should leave Naples, and he added that he feared the consequences if it were taken away. It was there, in fact, to support the revolution and prevent the return of the King. In the blue book it was stated that Victor Emmanuel had thanked the English Government for the sympathy they had shown him throughout, and acknowledged that their moral, or, as he (Sir George Bowyer) would call it, immoral support of his unprovoked aggression, had been of the greatest service. But did noble Lords mean to say that to observe the principle of non-intervention it was sufficient to abstain from sending armies and fleets to levy war? Was the moral influence of a country like England nothing? The moral, or rather the immoral influence of England had been, used by Her Majesty's Government in support of the Revolutionary party in Italy, and against the established governments; and that, he asserted, was a violation of their professions of non-intervention. Our right of intervention had been acted upon by Her Majesty's Government, not for its legitimate purpose, the maintenance of the law of nations and of treaties, and the support of lawful authority, but in favour of revolution and piracy, and for the purpose of satisfying old and unjust rancour against the family of the Bourbons of Naples. But in this case material as well as moral support was given by the English fleet, without the presence of which the landing at Marsala could not have been effected, as it has been declared by the population, judge, and authorities of Favignana. As to the King of Sardinia he was not even an Italian. He was a Savoyard, and a bad one, too, for he sold Savoy. And then General Cialdini had the impudence to talk about planting the cross of Savoy upon the walls of Gaeta! Was a King who had sold his own country a fit champion of the nationality of others? Then, what had been his conduct with regard to Naples? Last year an expedition was fitted out at Genoa for the avowed object of attacking Naples, with which State Sardinia was then at peace. That expedition was organized publicly, and might have been stopped by the Sardinian Government, as, according to the law of nations, they were bound to do. The King of Naples asked the meaning of these armaments. The King of Sardinia disavowed and disclaimed them, declaring that Garibaldi was making an illegal use of the flag of Sardinia. What did this declaration mean? It meant that Garibaldi was a pirate. The King of Naples, be it remembered, was the son of a Princess of Savoy, and was, therefore, related to Victor Emmanuel. He was the son of Princess Christina of Savoy, daughter of Victor Emmanuel, King of Sardinia— that gallant King who defended Savoy against the French, which his unworthy successor basely sold to Franco. Yet, in order to expel this relation from his dominions, the King of Sardinia practised all the arts of bribery and corruption. Neapolitan officers in high command, both in the army and navy, were bought over at the very time when the King was assuring his cousin of his pacific intentions, and was stigmatizing Garibaldi as a pirate. In this detestable manner the expedition succeeded. It was said that when Garibaldi overran Sicily the people were enthusiastic and unanimous in his favour; but, if so, why was no regular Government established? Instead of this, a newspaper correspondent declared that nothing was established but assassination, anarchy, and confusion. The King of Naples was then advised by Her Majesty's Government to throw himself into the arms of the Liberal party.—[Lord JOHN RUSSELL: Not at that time. He was advised to do so before.]— Accordingly, His Majesty sent for Liborio Romano. This man was bribed by Piedmont, and was a traitor. He took his seat at the Council Board, with the intention of betraying his Sovereign. The King was naturally reluctant to expose the beautiful city of Naples to the horrors of war, and therefore accepted the advice given to him that he should leave his capital, knowing well that if he did not do so, and if the city were afterwards destroyed by the Pied-montese, Her Majesty's Government would throw the blame of it, not upon the aggressors, but upon him. When Garibaldi entered Naples with his gang of pirates in red shirts the city was in consternation, as though struck with pestilence. He had this from an eyewitness. Garibaldi proceeded at once to the cathedral. Forcing open the gates, he placed in the sanctuary Gavazzi, who sang an impious Te Deum, after every verse of which he called out "Viva Garibaldi!" After this outrage upon the Church of God, the first act of the Government was to bestow a national reward upon the relations of Agesilao Milano, who had attempted to murder the father of the present King of Naples. And they had been told by The Times' correspondent that the King of Sardinia had confirmed the decree by which that reward was granted to the family of Milano. The piracy of Garibaldi having thus succeeded by means of treason and corruption, the King of Sardinia declared himself, and gathered the fruits of all these crimes. The King of Sardinia had entered Naples, and accepted the annexation of that kingdom which had been already declared by Garibaldi in Palermo, and implicitly carried into execution at Naples by the delivery of the Neapolitan fleet to the King of Sardinia's Admiral. And the King justified the act by saying that he did it to deliver the country from the anarchy caused by the invasion of Garibaldi. But instead of attacking the forces of Garibaldi he attacked the troops of Naples and of Borne. Again, the King of Sardinia stated that he was justified in entering the States of the Pope because the Pope had foreign troops in his pay. Why, they knew from history that all Sovereigns had had foreign troops in their service; such a casus belli against a neighbouring Sovereign had never been heard of. With no cause for war, without a declaration of war, Sardinia marched 70,000 troops into the lower part of Italy and bombarded Ancona. Yet, those who made so much noise about the bombardment of Messina, said nothing about Ancona. Ancona was bombarded by the revolutionary party, and everything done by the revolutionary party hon. Gentlemen opposite thought right; everything done by the lawful Sovereign of the country was wrong and an outrage. The Sardinian troops overran the territory of Naples; and while they held military possession of it, and four provinces were under martial law, the annexation took place. Again, he would refer to the correspondent of The Times, because nobody could say he was unfavourable to the cause of Piedmont. The correspondent of The Times gave an account of the publication of the vote at Naples — what would be called hero the declaration of the poll. He stated that very few people were present and described the whole thing as a failure. It proved that the feeling of the people of Naples was not in favour of the annexation to Sardinia. In fact their feeling was opposed to it. The vote in favour of annexation was obtained by force, fraud, and terror. Was it likely that the people of Naples, who honoured the memory of Charles III. for putting an end to the dominion of a viceroy; or the Sicilians, who were jealous of the dominion oven of a viceroy of the neighbouring State, would applaud the notion of being placed under the authority of a viceroy from Turin? The thing was absurd, the annexation was repugnant to the people, and as a proof of it they heard of nothing but anarchy after it. He now came to the last part of this miserable history. The King repaired to Gaeta, and took refuge in that fortress, and there he presented a spectacle unparalleled in the history of the world. At Gaeta they saw that King and his brave younger brothers, and his loyal and valiant uncle, the Count of Trapani, gallantly making a stand in defence of the nationality of their people. The Sardinian General, Cialdini, having no cause of war against them, threw shot and shell upon the heads of the King and his family, and yet hon. Gentlemen applauded and approved of that outrage on international law. Who was King Bomba now? Who had destroyed thousands of people? The King of Sardinia. Was it King Ferdinand who bombarded a part of Messina while in the possession of rebels, and used military means to maintain his lawful authority, and King Francis, who humanely-stopped the bombardment of Palermo; or was it not rather the King of Sardinia, who, without any cause of war against the Holy Father, bombarded Ancona, and who then, without any cause of war, bombarded Capua, and ended by bombarding Gaeta, the last refuge of his royal and unfortunate relative and his august family, while he himself enjoyed the pleasures of the usurped capital? The King of Sardinia had destroyed thousands of unoffending people by bombardment. In that fortress they saw a young Queen, accustomed to all the luxury of a splendid Royal Court, doing the work of a sister of charity in the hospitals, hurrying from the ramparts to the hospitals and from the hospitals to the ramparts, encouraging the soldiers, and consoling and assisting the wounded, exposing her life to the fire of the Sardinians and to pestilence; and on one occasion she was called up in the dead of the night from her bed, because a poor soldier desired to see her before he died. That was a spectacle that might move the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary. But no, his feelings were not with the illustrious, pious, and heroic Lady and that young and gallant Prince struggling against a brutal usurpation: no, his sympathies were with violence, revolution, and with the apologist of murder—the pirate Garibaldi. All this was dishonest and wicked in every way; but it was justified because it was done for the cause of Italian unity. Put even granting that an Italian unity was desirable, he did not believe in the future prosperity of any unity founded in crime. That unity had been accomplished to a certain extent, but the building had a bad foundation, and must speedily fall. He doubted whether an Italian unity was to be desired. In the greatest times of Italy, in the days of Dante, Petrarch, Michael Angelo, and Galileo—in the days of all that was grand in art, science, and literature, there was a great and glorious, but not a united Italy. When was it ever united? Only when it was ground down by conquest; and that was the case at present. Italy was united, because Piedmont had conquered it; there was now a military tyranny over Italy. But a prosperous unity could only be obtained by just and noble means, certainly not by destroying the traditions of its his- tory and the rights of its princes, and violating the law of nations, not by sacrilege against the see of Peter and the rights of religion and the Church, the violation of the laws of property, the spoliation and persecution of the clergy, and by outrages against the morality and the conscience of the people. Italy, left to the different peoples who inherit it, with its princes in the enjoyment of their rights, might be great and glorious as a Confederation. They talked of Italy as they would talk of Middlesex. Put the Italians were not all one people; they were different in origin, different even in language. Of the Piedmontese troops now in Naples, not one in ten could make himself easily understood by its inhabitants. The people of Lombardy were of Germanic origin, as their name indicated. They wore descended from an invading tribe. The Piedmontese belonged to Cisalpine Gaul, and were not Italians. To bring all Italy under one Government, all the various nationalities of the country must be crushed, all the magnificent municipal institutions must be destroyed, everything that belonged to Italian history must be obliterated, and all reduced to a dull uniformity under a military despotism. And that was what was now being done. Instead of liberty there was a grinding tyranny; and if the Piedmontese troops were marched out of Naples tomorrow the legitimate Sovereign would be brought back to his capital upon the shoulders of his people. [A laugh.] Hon. Gentlemen laughed because they knew nothing of the country; but having resided for years in Naples he was certain of the fact. Italian unity is an idea which has been made an instrument to gratify the ambition of Piedmont and enable the revolutionary party to overturn lawful authority and persecute the Church, for the satisfaction of their rapacity and their destructive passions. He must allude to one other point before he sat down. He wanted to know from the noble Lord what was his policy. Was it an Italian policy, a French policy, or an English policy? A remarkable speech has just been delivered by Prince Napoleon. The noble Lord, no doubt, would say that we were acting in unison with France. But what did Prince Napoleon say? He said, "The Emperor represents modern society—its progressive tendencies"—could any one tell what that phrase meant?—"and the liberal principles of 1789." What were the principles of 1739? Those principles brought a King and a Queen to the scaffold. The Prince went on to say, "Our alliance is not with any particular Ministers, but with the great and liberal English people, by which we defend the great principles of liberty and progress." The Prince talked about liberty and progress a good deal, but why did he not begin at home? He was willing that other nations should enjoy liberty and progress, because by those terms he meant revolution and confusion. The Emperor's policy was revolution at the head of half a million of armed men. He was now endeavouring to stir up revolution in Hungary, in Poland, and he had succeeded in revolutionizing all Italy. Having placed Italy under his feet by holding out the bauble of Italian unity, the Emperor was now seeking to break up the Germanic Confederation by setting up Germanic unity. The game of the Emperor of the French was revolution, and noble Lords opposite were playing into his hands. They all knew what the Emperor went for. He had got Savoy and Nice; and now the English Government were doing all they could to separate Prussia from Germany, and to destroy Austria. What harm had Austria ever done this country? She was our "ancient Ally." But, supposing that the Emperor should succeed in separating Prussia from Austria, then it was clear that France and Russia would divide Europe between them. The present policy of the English Government was to forward that consummation, and he (Sir George Bowyer) denounced it as an un-English policy, although it might be a liberal and an Italian policy. The Emperor of the French desired the frontier of the Rhine, he coveted Antwerp, he wanted dominion in the East, and he had got his foot in Syria; and the English Government were doing all in their power to forward his views. They were paralyzing all our European allies by assisting him, and he would go on steadily in his course until he had gained all his objects, and at lust England would he forced to go to war with him. The Emperor did not, probably, want to invade England, but his ambition would lead him to it, for we should go on allowing him to gain his ends, uttering empty protests as in the case of Savoy and Nice, or making unmeaning speeches, until at last he would have all the power of Europe in his hands. It would, then, be too late for this country to attempt to stop him, and he would play his last card and invade this country. He would not, probably, succeed, and scarely a man of his army would be likely to return; but he would be able to inflict infinite ruin and mischief upon us. Any attempt at invasion even would produce something like national bankruptcy, for the Chancellor of the Exchequer could tell them how the national credit was affected by the slightest causes. The policy now adopted was the cause of the necessity for maintaining a large army, for calling upon 200,000 Volunteers, for imposing taxes almost beyond the endurance of the people. It was a false policy — one which placed the country in the hands of a man who, while he talked of friendship, meant mischief; and it was, moreover, a policy founded upon party spirit, adopted for party motives, which was fostering a power that in the end would, if not destroy, at least produce the greatest injury to this country. It was a policy which had destroyed that prestige of honour and justice which used to attend the British flag. That flag now inspires distrust and apprehension in the minds of sovereigns and nations, and encourages none but the revolutionary party in Europe, who are the unprincipled tools of the unbounded ambition of the French Emperor. He called upon the noble Lord to change that policy before it was too late. He called upon the people of this country to compel them to abandon a policy which was fatal to the interests and the honour of England, and destructive of the peace and tranquillity of Europe.

MR. EDWIN JAMES

moved the adjournment of the debate.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON

said, he was aware that several hon. Members wished to speak upon this subject, and, therefore, would not object to the adjournment; but he thought the debate should be continued to-morrow as it was very inconvenient to have long intervals, and in that case on Thursday they could go into Committee of Supply, which was even necessary for the public service. He hoped that hon. Members who had given notice of Motions for to-morrow would allow the debate to be resumed then.