SECOND NIGHT.

HC Deb 07 March 1861 vol 161 cc1542-627

Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [4th March], "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

Question again proposed.

Debate resumed.

MR. EDWIN JAMES

expressed his regret that in a matter of so much interest and importance as the present posture of Italian affairs, the hon. and learned Member for the King's County (Mr. Hennessy) had not concluded his speech with a definite Resolution. There could not be the slightest doubt that in Piedmont—and, indeed, throughout the whole of Italy— the debates of the English House of Commons were read with the deepest interest and anxiety; and, for that reason alone, if for no other, the able speech of the hon. and learned Member for the King's County, impugning the Italian policy of Her Majesty's Government, ought to have been followed by a distinct Motion. His regret that the hon. and learned Member had not pursued that course, was increased by the fact that in "another place" ante-prandial conversations were indulged in night after night on matters of the greatest interest affecting the policy of Sardinia and the general affairs of Italy; and those conversations, though entitled to no weight, were regarded in some quarters as if they were expressions of the deliberate opinion of the assembly in which they took place. It was not his intention upon the present occasion to follow the hon. and learned Member for the King's County into the contrast which he had instituted between the financial position of Sardinia and that of the Papal States. Whether the imports into the island of Sardinia had fallen off during the war was a matter of no consequence to the present occasion. The test was as fallacious as it would have been to take the imports into Ireland during the famine as a test of the prosperity of England at that trying period. So with respect to the importation of coal and iron bars into Ancona. Everybody knew that the coal and iron imported into Ancona were not consumed by the inhabitants of the Papal States, but were intended for the use of the various steamers touching at the port. They were, in fact, no more a test of the prosperity of the inhabitants of the Papal States than so much coal and iron imported into an island in the middle of the Mediterranean. That portion, therefore, of the hon. and learned Member's speech contrasting the financial position of Piedmont and the Papal States was not borne out; and the matter was explicable on the most simple and obvious ground. Nor was it his intention to follow the hon. and learned Baronet, the Member for Dundalk (Sir George Bowyer), into his most discursive speech. The staple of that scolding speech consisted of abuse of the Emperor Napoleon, allusions to a threatened invasion from France, a revival of all those delicate topics which had been used to excite the enthusiasm of our Volunteers, and the substitution of nicknames for arguments—for in the opinion of the hon. and learned Baronet Garibaldi was a pirate, and the King of Sardinia a traitor. He submitted, with due deference, to the hon. and learned Baronet that a question of such paramount import- ance as that raised by the hon. and learned Member for the King's County should be discussed upon higher grounds, and in a more dignified manner. Nicknames were not arguments; abuse possessed no power of persuasion; and nothing could be gained by following the bad example recently set in France, where the priests were calling their Sovereign "Pontius Pilate."

There were two questions, as he (Mr. James) understood it, before the House, one relating to the conduct of Sardinia, and the other relating to the Italian policy of Her Majesty's Government. He would not weary the House with unnecessary observations upon the conduct of Sardinia and its relation to the interests of Italy. It was natural that the people of Italy, long divided into small Principalities and States, and exposed for years to all the horrors of Austrian tyranny and misrule, should look to Sardinia to relieve them from the misgovernment under which they had so long groaned. Charles Albert failed in his attempt to free Italy in 1848; but in 1859, when Sardinia had obtained a large accession of territory by the annexation of Lombardy, it became more than ever natural that the inhabitants of Southern Italy, seeing the establishment of constitutional government in the North, should desire and invoke the sympathy and aid of Piedmont. The hon. and learned Baronet, the Member for Dundalk, had charged the Government of Sardinia with complicity in the Garibaldi expedition from Genoa; and no doubt it was known to the Cabinet of Turin, as it was known to the whole of Europe, that a strong and national feeling had burst out among the people of Italy, and that a vigorous effort would be made by them to redress their injuries. The expedition from Genoa was the result of an enthusiasm beyond the control of the Sardinian Government, just as our own Government could not have restrained the enthusiasm of those hired mercenaries who, under the pretence of joining the Papal police, left Ireland for the purpose of fighting against the freedom and independence of Italy. But Garibaldi was a pirate? What reason the hon. and learned Baronet the Member for Dundalk had for calling him so; was more than he could tell. Garibaldi throughout the whole of his career always pointed to the Sardinian flag and declared he was fighting for King Victor Emmanuel. He landed in Sicily with scarce 800 men—and his subsequent course was well known. His progress from Marsala to Messina, from Palermo to Naples, was one continued triumph. The hon. and learned Baronet said that scarce a man joined his standard. Why the entire population was with him; and a man who commanded only a mere handful of volunteers, and who had no cannon except those surrendered to him by the Royal troops, men who would not fight for the King whose pay they received— passed through the country like a conqueror. It had been said that when Garibaldi arrived in Naples that capital was like a city of the dead. He (Mr. James) well remembered all the circumstances attending the arrival of the Liberator. The enthusiasm of the people was unbounded, and the entrance of Garibaldi into the house which had been selected as his residence in Naples was delayed by the crowd of priests who pressed forward to kiss the hem of his garment. The soldiery threw up their caps with joy, and the men who had been instructed by the King to fire upon the people did not venture to perform the duty entrusted to them. Garibaldi a pirate! Surely there never was such an instance of disinterested patriotism. He had the whole treasures of Naples in his hands, and yet he left the city as poor as when he entered it. When he entered Naples his only possession was his sword, and he quitted it with barely sufficient to pay his passage to Caprera. During his stay in Naples he was careful that not an insult should be offered to the King. He never entered the Royal Palace. Property was as secure as in the most peaceful times, and not a crime was committed which might not have been sufficiently punished with a short imprisonment. Was it not that in consequence of the state of misgovernment in Naples the people were glad of the opportunity of throwing off their allegiance to the King? But, said the hon. Member for the King's County, that government was a paternal government. He (Mr. James) would read a short extract from a letter which was found among the papers of Louis Philippe, written by the father of the ex-King of Naples, which would give a little insight into the way in which the Neapolitans were governed:— My people do not want to think. I take upon myself the care of their welfare and their dignity. I must draw closer to Austria. Liberty is fatal to the Bourbons. The Bourbons are ancient, and if they were to try to shape themselves according to the pattern of new dynasties they would be ridiculous. We will imitate the Hapsburgs. If fortune plays us false, we shall be true to ourselves. That was what was called the paternal government which the ex-King of Naples was administering to his subjects. It might be that for this state of things the ex-King was not originally responsible; the system pursued there had been precisely the same for a long period; no doubt the last advice given to the ex-King by his father was that he should pursue the same course, and that the lesson was instilled into his mind— which, no doubt, was true—that liberty was fatal to the Bourbons—that they must imitate the Hapsburgs, and be governed by the Austrians. Now what was the state of Naples when Garibaldi entered? There was but one institution in Naples, and that was its police. The dungeons were thrown open on the arrival of Garibaldi. There came out from these prisons men who had been imprisoned for years for what they called "political offences," but who had never been tried or confronted with their accusers. There was a system of espionage there, because it was a Government that made war, not upon the poor by exaction—it did not merely paralyze physical action, or abridge material comfort;—but it was a tyranny upon intellect, freedom of thought, and the educated mind of the people. The system of espionage was so ramified that he was afraid to tell the House the number of sbirri and spies employed. The Government could say with Macbeth— There's not a one of them, but in his house I keep a servant fee'd. The system was the same as that under Fouché, when a man did not know, when he was sleeping with the wife of his bosom, whether he was not sleeping with a traitress and a spy. Some of these prisoners had been tried by what was called a commission, but without even knowing the offence for which they were tried. He remembered a most remarkable instance. One who had been released when Garibaldi ordered the prisons to be thrown open called upon him the morning after his discharge, and related his own case, which subsequent inquiry led him (Mr. James) to believe to be true; it was but a sample of the system which had been going on. He was a young man and a gentleman; he said he had been confined in Ischia or in Procida—they shifted the prisoners from one prison to the other —for two years and two months; and what was his offence? He had one day taken a carriage in Naples to drive a little distance with a friend, and on their way they talked together about liberal institutions. He had not returned to his home and wife half an hour when he was arrested and dragged to prison by the police. He was utterly at a loss to know who were his accusers and their witnesses. He did not know whether the friend with whom he had been talking—and the tears ran down his cheeks as he made the statement—had been the traitor or spy. He had never been allowed to see him till he was discharged. His friend, also, had been imprisoned for the same period; and both, during an imprisonment of two years and two months, entertained of each other the same horrible suspicion, which, to honourable minds, was as great a misery as the imprisonment itself. It turned out, when both met, that the coachman who drove them was a hired spy in the pay of the King of Naples, and that he swore the accusation against them. That was a sample of the state of things which prevailed in Naples, and such incidents were by no means rare. His hon. and learned Friend, in alluding to the conduct of the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, had made one of the most extraordinary statements he had ever heard. In broad terms he accused the noble Lord of having prevented the King of Naples from fighting at the head of his troops. A more monstrous accusation, in a total absence of materials for it, he had never heard. The hon. and learned Member for the King's County had misapprehended a despatch which had reference to a totally different state of things. The noble Lord referred to the effect of interposition if there should be an attempt to repeat the horrors of the bombardment of Palermo. Prevent the King from placing himself at the head of his troops! Why, he found that long before that despatch had been received, the troops in Calabria had voluntarily laid down their arms, and refused to fight for the King. Why? Because the King's father had stated publicly that his troops were meant to keep down his people, and that if Naples or Italy were invaded he should rely on Austrian bayonets. He could not, therefore, understand how such an inference could be drawn from the noble Lord's despatch as that he had prevented the King from placing himself at the head of his troops. But the hon. and learned Gentleman, referring to the despatch of the 27th of October, said the noble Lord was not correct in stating that the whole population had taken up arms. The noble Lord was perfectly correct. The hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to think that he was corrobo- rated in his views by the statement of The Times' correspondent that there were not above 100 Neapolitans who became soldiers in Garibaldi's army. Did he not know what that meant? The correspondent of The Times evidently referred to the citizens, or if he might use the expression, Cockneys of Naples. Garibaldi had troops enough; and the citizens of Naples enrolled themselves as National Guards and volunteers for the protection of Naples: but his whole army—the thousands of men who flocked around his standard, were inhabitants of the Kingdom of Naples. What was the meaning of the despatch? Before he left England in the autumn, he had the honour of calling on the noble Lord at the head 0f the Government. He was politely received— nothing more—as every one was who called on the noble Lord, whether political friend or opponent. He called for this reason— he had intended to put this question in the House to the noble Lord:—If an attempt were made to bombard Naples as Palermo had been bombarded what course would the British Government pursue? The House broke up somewhat suddenly, and be had no opportunity to put the question, and he called on the noble Lord to obtain an answer. The noble Lord said that Her Majesty's Government would not, as he thought, allow the horrors of Palermo to be enacted at Naples, and that he might say so. Did the hon. and learned Gentleman suppose that the English fleet would be allowed to lie in the Bay of Naples, calmly reposing on their shadows, and see re-enacted the horrors of Palermo? It would, indeed, have been an impeachment of the noble Lord to suppose that he could allow such a state of things. Well, but it was said there had been a great deal of anarchy. Where was it? Where did it happen? He was perfectly ready to admit that for a short time there had been a state of uncertainty; but what course did Garibaldi pursue? With the same disinterested conduct which distinguished him throughout he declared for annexation of Naples to Sardinia, and order was immediately restored he consented to the mission to offer it to Victor Emmanuel, and with the same view the elections had taken place. There were some extraordinary fallacies to be guarded against here. A great deal had been made of the outrages said to have been committed on either side by General Cialdini and the Papal Generals; but the facts which he was about to give to the House in reference to the extraordinary statement made by the hon. and learned Member for the King's County would show, he thought, that credence ought not to be given too implicitly to rumours of that kind. The hon. and learned Gentleman had stated that at Milan very few persons had voted; and that at Piacenza, out of 1,238 voters, only 60 had recorded their votes; and that out of a constituency of 224 electors, Aurelio Saffi polled only 24 votes, yet he was returned at the head of the poll. Now he would tell his hon. and learned Friend what the real state of the case was. The franchise in Sardinia consisted of an £8 or £10 rental—40 of direct taxation, and there were other qualifications such as Gentlemen on the other side called "fancy franchises." ["No, no."] Well, then, Gentlemen on his side of the House, if they preferred it. The name had originated on that side, and was adopted on the other. There was nothing in the name of "fancy franchise," except that it was rather vulgar. Now, what were the facts with regard to the voting in Milan? That city was divided into five electoral colleges, in the first of which were 1,304 electors; in the second, 1,864; in the third, 1,235; in the fourth, 1,177; and in the fifth, 1,549. In the first college 775 voted, in the second, 1,056; in the third, 678; in the fourth, 598; and in the fifth, 843. The hon. Gentleman had spoken of Liborio Romano, whom he called "a traitor." Traitor was a hard name; he was a Minister who had changed sides with as much rapidity as had been done elsewhere, and who joined a coalition Ministry. He really was at a loss to understand how his hon. Friend could have said that Liborio Romano had been returned to Parliament by only 119 votes. The fact was that lie had been returned for six places, and that in the district where the numbers stood lowest in his favour 475 votes had been recorded, when intimation was received that he had already been returned for five other places, and he consequently declined to carry the contest further. Another fact, which would correct the impression created by the speech of the hon. Member for the King's County, that the Italian electors were wholly indifferent to the result of the election, was that in Piacenza, instead of the voting being confined to 60 voters, as he alleged, 923 electors voted out of a total constituency of 1,786. In Florence, as to which another extraordinary statement of a similar character had been made, he found that there were four colleges, of which the first contained 1,719 electors; the second, 1,347; and the fourth, 1,310. Of the third of these colleges he had mislaid the return. Of the first there voted 766 registered electors; of the second, 572; of the fourth, 462. The figures which he was now quoting were taken from the official returns made to the Sardinian Parliament, and examined and tested by a Committee of that body. Remembering that these elections had taken place among a people new to the exercise of the franchise; that they had no organization for the conveyance of voters to the poll; that inducements to vote such as existed in certain boroughs that could be named were altogether absent, and that these really were primitive electors, he thought the figures he had read conclusively answered the remark that the Italian people had shown no interest in the elections. The record of votes at Sardinian elections was likewise affected by the fact that a candidate was returned as soon as a third of the constituency had polled in his favour. Others, therefore, who might have been willing to give him their support became lukewarm about the matter as soon as it was known that he had obtained the requisite number of votes. Deep interest and anxiety were felt in Italy with reference to all statements made in that House, and he, therefore, pledged himself for the accuracy of these returns, and should be glad that the hon. Gentleman would take the trouble of looking into them. He asserted that the Italian Parliament, on which an attack had been made, contained men of integrity, of literary ability, and of great eminence in their own country, and he believed their debates would contrast favourably with those of any free Parliament in Europe. Both the hon. and learned Member for the King's County and the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk had passed great encomiums on the Pope. Of the religion to which Fenelon and Bossuet had belonged it was impossible for him to speak otherwise than with respect—it was calculated long to retain a mastery over the human mind and might endure; but, in his belief, the temporal power of the Pope was doomed. Those Gentlemen said that the Pope's Government was a paternal Government, and that under it people were far happier than in other States. But could any one shut his eyes to the fact that this temporal Power—call it a theocracy, a system of ecclesiastical Government, or what they would—was the very bane of his spiritual authority? If harsh and cruel laws were proclaimed from the altar as was always the practice of theocratical government, administered in the name of the Pope, the veneration in which he was held as the head of the Roman Catholic religion became lost in the contempt and execration awakened by his temporal misgovernment. There had been Popes, like Julius II. and Alexander VI., who placed themselves at the head of armies and added territories by conquest to the Papal dominions. There had been Popes who protested against the principle of foreign intervention, and Popes following after, who, when their temporal power was endangered, immediately invoked the aid of foreign Powers; and the result had been that, as regarded their temporal possessions, the Popes were alternately the vassals of Austria, of France, and of Spain. If you proposed laws from the altar, instead of the throne, if those laws be cruel and corrupt, the result will be visited on that religion with which they are thus associated. If in the name of the Pope cruel executions and trials without even a shadow of justice took place— if Bishops were made policemen and policemen Bishops — if the peasant was constrained to see in every priest a spy, and in every Bishop an enemy—could it be wondered that all devotional feeling was destroyed in the population, and that the Pope became responsible in their eyes for the grinding tyranny of his temporal sway? Much as he respected the religion of every man, he believed that the Papal authority in its temporal aspect was gone, and that the struggle to maintain it would only endanger his spiritual power. The Italian policy of Her Majesty's Government had been impugned; but he ventured to think that the course pursued by the noble Lord had been clear and unambiguous, and that his policy was just and enlightened, ["No, no,!"] His hon. Friend the Member for Brighton (Mr. White) said "No, no!" and, perhaps, he went further than he did in his view of what the Italian policy of the Government should have been. But he could not help thinking that to restore order and constitutional law in Italy was to have achieved a great deal. There had, of course, been Republicans in Italy— honest men, who dreamed of a political Utopia; but Count Cavour—whom he regarded as one of the greatest statesmen in Europe — succeeded in bringing the swollen torrents within the limits of a wise policy; and in this he had been assisted by Her Majesty's Government, who gave to him the moral influence of England. In this respect their policy commended itself to the people of England—and were it possible to elicit the feeling of the House of Commons on any scheme of policy shadowed forth by Gentlemen who thought differently—and this he might observe had not yet been attempted—he felt sure there would be a triumphant majority in favour of the course which the noble Lord had pursued. England might point to that policy as filling one of the brightest pages in her annals. In the spring of last year the noble Lord had before him circumstances of great difficulty. His aim was that there should be a fair expression of the opinion of England, as she had a right to express her opinion where the liberty of a nation was concerned. He was anxious to keep the armies of Austria and France out of any struggle in that peninsula, because Italy in such a case would have come by the worst, as she always had done, and all that had already been done for her would have been neutralized. This country occupied a position on this question of which she might be justly proud. We had in past times squandered blood and treasure in unjust and impolitic wars. We had lavished millions to uphold the Bourbons on the throne, and had equipped armies to maintain a crumbling empire in the East. But here the moral influence of England was lately heard amid the crash of arms and the conflict of parties. Without the sacrifice of a life, without adding to the burdens of taxation, she had assisted to secure the liberties of a great country which, when united, would be her greatest safeguard in maintaining the balance of power; for the policy she had pursued would bind Italy to her by every feeling of gratitude, while it must also commend itself to the spirit of freedom and the love of justice inherent in the British people.

SIR ROBERT PEEL

My hon. and learned Friend has certainly made a very able speech. He has not been discursive, but he may have been ante-prandial. He has treated his subject with his accustomed talent and skill. In fact he has given us, in a very entertaining manner, what I may, without exaggeration, call the reminiscences of a vacation ramble. We know that in the autumn of last year he passed through Italy. He saw Garibaldi, and probably also Liborio Romano, who, if not a traitor, is, at all events, the biggest "rat" that ever existed. What I gather from my hon. and learned Friend's address is that, after all, lawyers are like other men —that gentlemen learned in the law have in the excitement of forensic display, or the homely comforts of the Inns of Court, nothing commensurate with the "pomp and circumstance of glorious war." I cannot pretend to import into this discussion the animated topics that he has introduced. My only object in rising is to offer a very few observations which have been suggested to my mind by the course of this debate. I listened attentively to the very able remarks of my hon. Friend, the Member for Southwark (Mr. Layard), the other night, with whom I quite agree as to the importance of this discussion, both as eliciting an expression of policy on the part of this House and as giving encouragement to the Italians, who follow our debates with great anxiety, and are naturally inclined to gather confidence from the support they may receive from the British Parliament. I cannot, however, concur with that hon. Member, or with the hon. and learned Gentleman who spoke last, in thinking that this discussion has been brought on in an inopportune manner. I see nothing inopportune or unusual in it; it has been raised in accordance with an usage often employed to obtain a declaration of opinion from the Government, and of which, if I am not mistaken, the hon. Member for Southwark has before now frequently availed himself, in order to criticise or attack the conduct of the Government. With respect to the speech of the hon. and learned Member for King's County (Mr. Hennessy) of course it cannot be supposed that I entirely subscribe to the views which he expressed, either as to the policy of her Majesty's Ministers, or as to the immense advantages derived from ecclesiastical jurisdiction in Italy. But this I can say —and I am sure the House will confirm my assertion—that that hon. Gentleman certainly showed much research in getting up his case, and put forward his opinions with a great deal of spirit and ability. But the Gentlemen who have preceded me—the hon. Member for Southwark, the hon. and learned Member for the King's County, and the gallant knight, the Member for Dundalk, I, of course, allude to his Italian qualification—those three Gentlemen have monopolized the whole of our time. I wished to speak the other night at the early hour of twelve o'clock but I had not the opportunity. I have no intention now to occupy an hour and a half with extracts from the newspapers, but will assume—as the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk did not— that everybody is not only acquainted with the opinions of the Press on the policy of the Government, but has also read all the blue books. Starting from that point, I shall begin with the hon. Gentleman who introduced this discussion. That hon. Member was, as might have been expected, very severe upon the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary. He accused the noble Lord of actively interfering to promote the Piedmontese policy, and attempted to show that the trade and commerce of Piedmont were diminishing and her finances sinking. I do not know how that may be. The hon. Gentleman next turned to the condition of the Papal States, which he described as very flourishing and presenting a marked contrast to Sardinia. Now, knowing something of Italy, I was struck with this remark, for it certainly never occurred to me that there was this great superiority in the Papal States over Sardinia. The hon. Gentleman then said that the noble Lord had wilfully concealed despatches, and, in fact, almost made him responsible for some of the atrocities committed in Central and Southern Italy. He next brought forward almost the gravest charge I have ever heard one Member of this House prefer against another; for he accused the noble Lord of having destroyed all confidence in the honesty and integrity of the Foreign Office. That is certainly very strong language, and yet I venture to say, without party feeling or prejudice, I believe the noble Lord can justly affirm that the honesty and integrity of the Foreign Office are as safe in his hands as in those of any other man in England. And of this I am quite certain, that whether the noble Lord or Lord Malmesbury holds the seals of that department—whether Lord Palmertson or Lord Derby is Prime Minister—no British Government with any regard to the sentiment of the country or the confidence of Parliament could have pursued any other policy than that of a strict non-intervention; but a strict non-intervention, be it observed, coupled with that stern expression of moral feeling so universally prevalent throughout the nation in favour of the Italian people.

The hon. Member for King's County was answered by the hon. Member for South-wark, who took an entirely different view of the case. He said the Papal Government was arbitrary and despotic—that it maintained gross abuses—that it was a disgrace rather than a subject of congratulation. He attacked the vices of ecclesiastical government, and then insinuated that the Sardinian policy was the true Italian policy. Well, those two Gentlemen's opinions being so diametrically opposed to each other, I began to think that neither of them knew what he was talking about. They both, indeed, began by telling us they knew the country, having travelled through it.

MR. HENNESSY

I distinctly said, I would not trouble the House with my own experience.

SIR ROBERT PEEL

I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon—I understood him to say that he had travelled through the country.—[Mr. HENNESSY signified assent.] —Oh! then you have. It really appears that both of the hon. Members have travelled through Italy; but each throws it in the teeth of the other that he has seen it under different features. "You, the Member for the King's County," says the hon. Member for Southwark, "saw it only under the guidance of the Monsignori—I have seen it travelling with the vetturini." No doubt the elegant Monsignori and the extortionate vetturini would give the traveller very different ideas of the effect of ecclesiastical jurisdiction in the Papal dominions. I also have seen the country; I know it well from one end to the other, and I am anxious, therefore, without entering into wild reminiscences of tourist rambles or vacation scrambles, to give my impressions to the House. The opinions of a person who has absolutely viewed the state of the country with his own eyes, and judged of it with his own mind, may, I think, be deserving of some weight on a question of this magnitude and importance. I have followed the noble Lord's policy from the close of last Session down to the present moment with a very eager and, I will not say hostile, but a very critical eye. I have observed the difficulties he has had to contend against, and seen one or two of his shortcomings. Happily, however, his mistakes were corrected by subsequent despatches. In dealing with this question these three great objects must have pressed upon the noble Lord's mind:—First, there was the French alliance to be maintained; next, there was the policy worthy of this country to be adhered to; and, thirdly, there was the interest of Italy to be consi- dered. I take the French policy first. Now, in a very remarkable speech delivered by Prince Napoleon the other day, it was well said that the French alliance with England is not with this or that Minister, but with the great and loyal English people. Well, the noble Lord had endeavoured to cultivate that alliance, which, as a Member of Parliament and a British subject, I hope may long continue. But I admit the French policy in Italy has been very ambiguous; it meddled at Messina; it interfered at Gaeta; it still intervenes in Rome; and I think it was a policy which has caused this country great fear and great uneasiness. Then, again, there has been another annexation —a small matter, but still an annexation— of Mentone and Roquebrune. That subject was alluded to on the first night of the Session, and the noble Lord, in reply to a Question, observed that it was a matter of very small importance, which could not affect the European equilibrium. That is quite true, but still it is an indication of the policy of the French Emperor. I say that we should be very cautious how we allow these transactions to pass by unnoticed, and I hope the noble Lord, with his usual spirit, protested, through Lord Cowley, against this annexation. I was mixed up with the events of 1848–9, and I recollect well what was the policy of the noble Lord at that time. The noble Lord allows the matter to pass now as if not worthy of notice; but those two same provinces of Mentone and Roquebrune were united in 1848 by the popular voice, and added to the dominions of Carlo Alberto. In October, 1849, that annexation was ratified by the Turin Chamber of Deputies; and then came a despatch from the noble Lord threatening them with the anger of all the Powers that had signed the Treaties of 1815, for what he called "this infamous usurpation." I say that if that was an act of usurpation on the part of Sardinia, then the present annexation is clearly an act of usurpation on the part of France. But there was also another sort of difficulty with which the noble Lord has had to contend. He has had to deal with a new system of action—a new feature in diplomacy. I allude to the plan adopted by the French Government of issuing pamphlets upon the various political questions of the day. The noble Lord, I know, has no mean opinion as to the influence of these pamphlets, which he mentions in a despatch to Lord Cowley. Those pamphlets are issued frequently from the French press; they ap- pear anonymously; if the ideas they developed are approved they were acknowledged, but if they are not approved then they were allowed to sink into oblivion. There was one pamphlet—Le Pape et le Congrès—concerning which I find a remarkable sentence in a despatch of the noble Lord to Lord Cowley, dated December 24, 1860. That despatch was copied into all the French papers; but this paragraph I am about to read was omitted from all, from the Moniteur down to the Constitutionnel—"This pamphlet has led to the loss by the Pope of more than half his dominions." I ask the noble Lord what is his opinion of the last pamphlet we have had—because if ever there is a remarkable one this is it. It is an open rupture with Rome, a declaration of war; it attacks the religious system of the country; it speaks, not anonymously nor in any concealed manner, but with the sanction and authority of the French Government and of the Emperor himself. Those were the difficulties which the noble Lord had to deal with in the French policy, and I think he has steered his course with admirable judgment as far as the French alliance is concerned. As to the English policy, that, I say, would have been the same under Lord Derby as under the noble Lord—it is non-intervention, with the influence of our moral support. In the beginning, I must say, there were some indications of vacillation on the part of the noble Lord, which afterwards happily disappeared, and from October until now I think he has acted in a straightforward and justifiable manner. That despatch of the 31st August certainly did affect me much. It was a despatch in which the noble Lord threatened Sardinia in case she should enter the Papal States, and that, I say, was direct intervention.

LORD JOHN RUSSELL

There was no threat.

SIR ROBERT PEEL

Well, it read very much like it. However, the later despatch of October 27 was an admirable one. Sardinia had then intervened, and the despatch justified the act, and said that whether France, Russia, Austria, or Prussia objected or not, he (the noble Lord) approved of it. And that is the policy I approve, and I think that from that time the noble Lord has pursued a most judicious course. He has had to consider the interests of the country, but he could not abstain from giving expression to the sympathies of the nation for the cause of Italy. I have felt warmly for the Italian cause, and I repeat that the noble Lord has done what no English Government could have declined doing, and has adopted a policy which has aided the Italians by giving the moral support of this country to further the progress of liberty and unity in Italy. I think questions of foreign affairs will be the most important questions that we shall have to discuss this Session. We may have but few discussions here, but still I am convinced that foreign affairs occupy the attention of the Government more than any other matters at this time. I am sure that whatever differences there may be, if they only follow upon this question a straightforward, disinterested policy with respect to Italy, it makes but little difference what may be the blunders of the Secretary to the Admiralty, or what may he the differences between the noble Duke at the head of the Colonial Department and the noble Lord upon the subject of the administration of the Colonies. The Italian question is now centred in Sardinia and in the King Victor Emmanuel.

Sir, that Sovereign was very severely handled by the hon. and learned Baronet the Member for Dundalk (Sir George Bowyer), who made a huge catalogue of charges against him. Now, I may say that upon public grounds there were few men in this House who had more occasion to censure Victor Emmanuel for the transactions of last year than I had. I looked, and still look, upon the annexation by France of Savoy and Nice as a most serious infringement upon the established law of Europe. I was the more induced to take up that question in company with my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Kinglake), because we felt that, while it affected the interests of the country, it was also a severe blow to the independence and neutrality of an ancient and cherished republic. That was why I strongly advocated the cause of that country against the policy of the King of Sardinia, and I feel that that conduct must still cause him considerable uneasiness, especially when we find in an order of the day issued at Naples, General Cialdini telling the world that the Sardinians are fighting under the Cross of Savoy. Why, the Cross of Savoy no more belongs to the King of Sardinia than to me. But he is responsible for an act which I am sure he must still regret, and which he may probably have occasion to lament. But there is one point in connection with that annexation to which I will, with the permission of the House, refer for a moment. There has recently been a meeting in Switzerland of Generals, headed by the most distinguished man in that country, who was himself a military instructor to Louis Napoleon when the latter was in exile; and the words of General Dufour on that occasion will show the feeling that prevails in that country. He said:— Switzerland, although so well supplied with natural defences, is nevertheless, comparatively speaking, of so small and limited an extent, that without compromising her existence she cannot take part in European wars. Neutrality, therefore, is not only a necessity but the very element of its vitality. Happily, that neutrality is at the same time in the interest of the Powers which neighbour Switzerland, and this has been the opinion of men best qualified to form one from their experience in military strategy, such as Napoleon and the Archduke Charles. It is the act of Victor Emmanuel which has affected the neutrality of that ancient Republic, and upon that ground I shall never cease to condemn the policy of Victor Emmanuel and the French Emperor. But, when I see Victor Emmanuel now at the head of the Italian movement, I am not so mean-spirited as to grudge him success in his great undertaking. I do rejoice to see him in the position which he now holds, —the guardian of the unity of Italy, and called upon to fulfil a task than which there never was a nobler, and which I fervently hope he may bring to a speedy and successful termination. He has to do with men of different ideas; and I can do no better than quote the noble words of Count Cavour to Baron Schleinitz in November last:— Europe ought not to lose sight of the fact, that the Sardinian Government is in Italy the sole conservative power capable of raising a rampart against the revolutionary element and of subduing it. We are Italy, we act in her name, but we are also the moderators of the national movement. We are the representatives of the monarchical principle, which in Italy had disappeared, convulsed by popular vengeance. That was a noble expression on the part of Count Cavour of his policy and that of his King, and a vindication to Europe of their position. And who has that King now to deal with? He has to deal with a people who have been ground down by the effect of successive revolutions, who have been fettered by the triple bond of tyranny, ignorance, and poverty—for ignorance is poverty, and tyranny is both. These men, who have been so ground down, are now seeking to emancipate themselves, to enrol themselves among the nations of Europe, to acquire possession of their national heritage. Is not this a noble aspiration? Is it not an effort deserving the moral support of the people of this country?

Sir, allusions have been made to the partial disturbances and disaffection that have been manifested in some districts of the country. No doubt there have been disturbances in Calabria, and on the borders of the Roman States; but, I ask any one, is it to be wondered at that a people whose lives have been poisoned by the long continuance of their miseries should, even in the moment of victory, almost doubt of the reality of their success? But I am happy to say that that success is no dream, no fanciful vision, no ideal scheme of a few hot-headed conspirators; it is a reality—a real Italy— gained by the unaided exertions of the people and the heroic deeds of a man who is not a pirate, as he was called by the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk, but one whose undoubted patriotism and undaunted valour have elicited the applause and the admiration of mankind. At length, I am happy to say, liberty is dawning upon Italy. Lord Malmesbury recently advised the Italians to "trust to themselves and to no one else for their liberty." That is true. I have myself seen the Austrian préfets and the mannikin despots who ruled over the small States of Italy, and I have often, when observing how magnificently nature had embellished that land, asked myself— Does she always intend that a tyrant shall print The footsteps of slavery there? No! Italy is breaking her shackles and rallying round a constitutional Sovereign and the standard of liberty. That is a noble destiny for a nation. She will have many difficulties to contend against; one of them I will name, and it is one to which I wish to direct the attention of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir George Bowyer). We must recollect that the movement now going on in Italy is not merely a result of political feeling; the regeneration of Italy has a higher cause. Were it merely a political movement, even now I should doubt of a full amount of liberty being realized. And why? Because, over and over again, political movements with the plea of nationality have been organized, and have failed. But the present movement for the regeneration of Italy is also a religious movement. The political and religious impulses are acting together. Dull ignorance and the mummeries of superstition are giving way before the broad features of religious tolera- tion. That will be a great blessing. The right hon. Member for Limerick County (Mr. Monsell) who is not exactly an advocate of the Protestant Alliance, but rather to be regarded as a friend to monastic asceticism, observed to me the other evening, during the discussion, that an attempt to open a Protestant chapel in Bologna had been prevented by the people rising against it. Well, it is just that spirit of fanaticism the Italians are trying to annihilate. What recent decrees, I ask, have most excited the admiration and the gratitude of the people of Italy? The decrees that have broken up the monastic institutions and nunneries. Those institutions are unserviceable to civil society, and can only exist upon its destruction, or upon the want of it. Those decrees have been received by the people of Southern Italy with the greatest applause.

But, Sir, I admit there is a difficulty in the consideration of this Italian question—a difficulty that may cause serious inconvenience before it is settled. That difficulty is not at Gaeta; that fortress has fallen, and South Italy is entirely free. I admire the chivalrous conduct of Francis II. in the last days of his political existence, or rather in the last gasp of his political agony; for what agony can be greater to a King than to be despised and rejected by his subjects?, I admire the spirit the King of Naples showed at the last, and I only regret he did not give to his people the benefit of the better part of his character at an earlier period. But Gaeta has fallen, and the Italian difficulty is not there. Nor is it at Venice. Prince Napoleon in his speech treated the question of Venice in a remarkable manner. He said, "It is the great misfortune of the age." What do we see at Venice? Venice is not Austrian—it is certainly Italian; but it is trampled under foot by Austria, and held in subjection by 10,000 bayonets, by a race foreign to Italy in language, sympathies, and feelings. Do not tell me that this state of things can last. Venice may he trodden down and ground into the dust, but they cannot destroy her nature, nor change her from what she is. Venice is Italian! States fall, arts fade, but Nature doth not die, Nor yet forget bow Venice once was dear, The pleasant place of all fest'vity, The revel of the earth, the masque of Italy! That is what Venice was; what is she now? See her "in her voiceless woe;" see her palaces crumbling into ruin! For in Venice there are none of those marks of improvement the hon. Gentleman opposite says he saw in the States of the Pope. No; you will find in Venice a melancholy and a tristesse most painful to observe. But, yet, what I have often told Italians I now repeat:—"Wait! Italians, wait! Do not be in a hurry to take Venice, and the necessities of Austria and the public opinion of Europe will give you Venice without purchase and without blood." Yes, I have heard of offers to purchase it. But, with the force of 200,000 men in and around Venice, I do not believe the condition of the finances of Austria will permit her to hold it long. Therefore, the chief Italian difficulty is not at Gaeta nor at Venice, nor is it at Messina. It is true Messina still holds out. The hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Hennessy) appears to derive some satisfaction from that circumstance, but I think General Fergola, who has disregarded the summons of Cialdini, had better accept it with honour, while he can do so with dignity. It is impossible that Messina can hold out when the heights behind the town are in the hands of a General like Cialdini. The chief difficulty of Italy is at Rome. Rome is the real difficulty and the obstacle to the consolidation of Italy. And I ask the hon. Gentlemen opposite, do they know what is the present condition of Rome? The Popes, not satisfied with being priests, have resolved to be Kings. But that union of temporal and spiritual power, which once constituted the strength of the Papacy, has become the cause of its weakness. Enlightened Roman Catholics, from the time of Dante to the present day, have condemned and denounced the temporal power of the Pope. I was reading the other day the works of a learned Italian, in which I came across the following sentence from St. Bernard, in allusion to the temporal and spiritual power of the Papacy, which assumes the character of prophecy in its application to events now passing at Rome — "Si vous tenez les deux Pouvoirs vous les perdrez tous deux." What is the condition of the city of Rome? For eleven years it has been in the hands of the French; for eleven years French bayonets have propped up the temporal power of the Papacy. The hon. Member for Dundalk says that if the Sardinian soldiers were taken away from the South of Italy the people would welcome back the King of Naples, and carry in Francis II. and his family on their shoulders. I do not know what the consequence would be if the Sardinian troops were withdrawn from the territory of Naples, but this I know, that if the French troops were to leave Home the first blast of popular indignation would immediately and without delay sweep away the Pope and the whole college of Cardinals. The temporal power of the Pope has been defended in this House. We are told that we exaggerate the facts stated against it, and that the Roman States are better governed than any other part of Italy. But how is it that all Italian feeling and sympathy are opposed to that temporal power? This is the reason:—The Papacy as it exists in Italy is an institution of the middle ages, and, like all other monastic institutions, must yield to the course and progress of events. The hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir George Bowyer) smiles; but I think we may well smile with pity and contempt when we listen, as I have done, to assertions of the doctrine — the blasphemous and damnable doctrine, as the Church of England calls it—that gives the Pope the power to absolve the people of other States from the oath of allegiance to their Sovereigns. That power it was attempted to exercise against Victor Emmanuel. The thunders of the Vatican were prepared; why were they not launched? Why was not the threat put into execution? Because they would have roused the execration of all Italy, and have fallen impotent without effect on the head of that Sovereign. Talk about ecclesiastical government! Why the bigotry of the Church of Rome cannot be disputed. For centuries it has condemned not only the writings but the liberties and lives of thousands of men of literature and science. It has done it from the time of Galileo to the present day. It is to be wondered at, therefore, that in this moment of trial and difficulty so little harmony, so little sympathy should appear to exist between the throne and altar of Popedom between the Bishop of Rome and the Roman people.

If, in the course of my observations on these Italian questions I have not alluded to my own experience, perhaps the House will allow me to do so on the subject of the bigotry of the Church of Rome. It was only the other day, when travelling through the South of Spain, that I had an opportunity of putting myself in communication with two men who have been giving proof of the truth and honesty of their moral convictions by suffering for their faith in the Gospel of Christ. One of them had been committed to prison for eleven years, and the other was on the point of being adjudged the same punishment. Their names are worthy of being recorded; and, therefore, I shall give them —they are Alhama and Matamoros. Those two men I saw myself, and they were the victims of the bigotry of the Court and of the power of the priestcraft. Their sole fault was that they had in their possession a copy of the Holy Scriptures which they read in communion with others of the same faith as themselves. There is the bigotry of the Church of Rome! My heart bled for Matamoros. He was in a prison not larger than a few feet square. When I saw him he was suffering, but he was courageous. When I urged him to remain firm in the faith which he had adopted, he replied that such was his intention, and that he looked to this free country, England, for that sympathy which would alleviate his sufferings. This is the bigotry of the Church of Rome which has existed for generations. It has interfered with the emancipation of the human mind by choking and stopping up the avenues of human knowledge; but it is time that those anomalies should cease. The Reformation has commenced in Italy. I believe that the desire for civil liberty in that country is united with a strong desire for religious freedom, and that that which has already been accomplished in Germany, in England, and in Scotland, has been commenced in Italy. I say that the Reformation is growing apace in Italy, in spite of the Court of Rome, and in spite of the bishops. This accounts for the zeal of the Church of Rome to stop the march of Italian revolution which it perceives is every day sapping the foundations of priestcraft and priestly intolerance; but, Sir, the great movement has gone on, and I may be permitted to express my hope that as that system of progress which checks superstition and religious intolerance continues to take still deeper root in the minds and affections of the people, so it will contribute to the promotion of their material development and the future happinss of Italy. These are my feelings on Italy, and I have not exaggerated. I believe I have spoken the truth with regard to the bigotry of the Church of Rome and the intolerance of its conduct; and I believe the Italians will do well to separate themselves from that conduct, and turn from idle tales to the blessings of religious liberty. Gentlemen opposite accuse the foreign policy of the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary; but I assert that the noble Lord could not have acted, as the Foreign Minister of England, otherwise than on a policy of non-intervention, coupled with the expression of those sentiments to which I have before referred. The Italian people will be worthy of our sympathy and encouragement so long as they continue to display the firmness and moderation which have characterized their conduct throughout this great crisis—for none will dispute that they have hitherto acted with a wisdom and moderation of which the history of the world presents few if any examples. I have now to apologize to the House for having trespassed on its notice at a greater length than I had intended; and I would ask them to let the question itself plead my apology for any warmth which may have characterized those remarks. And, in conclusion, the best hope I can utter— the best wish I can entertain—is one which is echoed by thousands and tens of thousands of people throughout the Italian Peninsula, and which is felt, almost universally, by the people of this country, —it is that the present occasion of revolution may not close without affording to Europe and the civilized world the glorious spectacle of a united and contented Italy, with a reformed and invigorated priesthood.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

My hon. Friend who has just sat down, and who always addresses the House with a manly force and vigour, has given us a just and eloquent appreciation of the position of the King of Sardinia; and he has also declared, and declared with truth, that my noble Friend the Secretary for Foreign Affairs has, in regard to the Italian question, pursued a national policy — a policy than which none other would have been tolerated by the people of England. If this debate had been confined to criticisms of the King of Sardinia, or if it concerned only the policy of my noble Friend, I, for one, should have remained silent, because I think that policy is one which commands approval far beyond the limits of party connection—far beyond the walls of this House—far beyond class or interest. I believed it is stamped with approval throughout the body of the people of England, from the greatest to the least. But my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dundalk (Sir George Bowyer) following in some degree the line marked out by the hon. Member for the King's County, but likewise extending the subject of debate, has raised a great issue. He held the other night solemn language. He told us in terms of, I have no doubt, great sincerity that we ought to lament our foreign policy—that it was founded on injustice and could not prosper, and that the cause which we favoured in Italy was the persecution of righteous Governments. He rang the changes on the law of nations, public rights, established authority, and legitimate possession. These phrases came round in our ears throughout his address almost like the chimes of the clock which at last sound in our neighbourhood; but I must say that they did not strike on my ears quite so musically. My hon. Friend, however, raises a very broad issue, for he implies and asserts that those events which we and the people of England look to with a mixture of wonder, astonishment, and admiration, are nothing but the result of unworthy intrigues carried on by an unprincipled King and a cunning Minister; and the issue which he has raised is that the people of Italy were not an oppressed people, but a people attached to their Governments. The hon. Member and those who think with him tell us that there existed under those Governments a beneficent and benignant system, always wisely administered, and in respect of that Government which is, above all others, solemn, for it has the solemn sanction of religion, Members of the House are ready to assure us that it was carried on in the spirit of that religion itself. I wish to try, in the face of this House, and by reference to unquestionable sources, whether those allegations of the hon. Gentleman (Sir George Bowyer) are true, as I am sure the hon. Baronet believes them to be; or whether they are baseless shadows, the creations, not of his imagination, but proceeding from impure sources — fictions of those who in Italy have made it their unhappy work for years and for generations to trample down the liberty and happiness of the Italian people. Why, what is the case of Naples, as so well put by my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark (Mr. Layard) in that speech which he addressed to us the other night—a speech warmed by a generous enthusiasm and characterized by well established truth? My hon. Friend said that the case of Naples is that of a country where perjury is the tradition of its Kings. We who would not trust the son of James II., cannot wonder that the Neapolitans say they cannot trust a King of Naples without reference to the source from which he sprung. It is needless to to go back very far—to refer to the days of Ferdinand IV.—to see that violence and fraud — two things each bad separately, but horrible in their combination — were the engines of the Government of Naples. Let us begin with the time of the late King. Is it not on record that if ever a man was perjured in the face of Heaven and earth the late of King of Naples was that man? Did he not in February, 1848, confer a Constitution on his people, and ratify it with a solemn oath? And did he not, after the bloody struggle of the 10th of May, in that same year, again ratify that Constitution? I shall read his oath on that occasion. He says— With reference to our sovereign Act of the 29th of January, 1848, by which, concurring with the unanimous desire of our most beloved subjects, we have promised, of our own full, free, and spontaneous will, to establish in this kingdom a Constitution, conformable to the civilization of the times, whereof we then indicated, by a few rapid strokes, the fundamental bases, and reserved our ratification of it till it should be sent out and arranged in its principles, according to the draught which our present Ministry of State was to submit to us within ten day's time; determined to give immediate effect to this fixed resolution of our mind, in the awful name of the Most Holy and Almighty God, the Trinity in Unity, to whom alone it appertains to read the depths of the heart, and whom we loudly invoke as the judge of the simplicity of our intentions, and of the unreserved sincerity with which we have determined to enter upon the paths of the new political order, having heard, with mature deliberation, our Council of State, we have decided upon proclaiming, and we do proclaim, as irrevocably ratified by us, the following Constitution. And in most solemn terms that terrible oath was repeated in the face of Europe. What has become of that Constitution? Why, it was trampled underfoot. And that which it is difficult to convey to the mind of those who are assembled in this House, or in any other place in this country, is that the case of the Government of Naples is not the case of a Government guilty of particular actions wrong in this or that respect, but that of a Government built up and founded on the denial and destruction of law. In the first place, the Constitution so solemnly sworn to was shamelessly set aside and violated; but, in the second, it is to be remembered that, even though the Constitution had never existed, the whole course of the Government of Naples, so far as regards its rela- tions to the people was lawless from first to last. I heard an hon. Gentleman in this House speak the other night with horror of the principles of 1789. I will not enter into any disquisition as to the comparative merits or demerits of one period or another of the great French Revolution, but I suppose the hon. Gentleman meant to speak more particularly of the agonising transactions that took place in 1793. Amid the flood of evils which that period let loose on Europe the most pernicious is undoubtedly the system of modern police. That, the worst fruit of the great French Revolution, was embraced and hugged to the very heart by every Government in Italy; and it was by means of that police, substituted for good political government, and superseding the whole course of law and order, that the subjects of the King of Naples were doomed to live in an atmosphere of lawlessness, where it was not this law or that that was violated, but where the ruler's principle was that right had no existence, and where the reign of wrong and violence was universal. That was the position of the people of the Two Sicilies during the reign of the late King, and especially after the Revolution of 1848; for from that period, and after the solemn and awful oath to which I have referred, their condition was altered greatly for the worse. We now come to the accession of Francis II., and it is painful to speak of one so young and so unhappy; but certainly if ever there was a human being, young or old, who marred and spoiled his own destiny, it was that miserable monarch. It is all very well to claim consideration for him on account of his courage; but I confess I feel much more admiration for the courage of the hon. Member for Dundalk (Sir George Bowyer)and the hon. Member for the King's County (Mr. Hennessy), for I think I would rather live in a stout and well-built casemate listening to the whizzing of bullets and the bursting of shells, than come before a free assembly to vindicate such a cause as that which those hon. Gentlemen have espoused. I, for one, do not hesitate to say that when Francis II. ascended the throne, he did so under circumstances unusually favourable. Let me do justice even to the previous King of Naples. He proved himself a man of great practical ability, and he certainly exhibited political courage. His cause was founded on wrong, but he made good his ground in the face of Europe, and he left his son in a position to make concessions without having them imputed to alarm. If it had been the policy of that son to govern with even decent moderation; if he had had one single spark of human sympathy in his composition, had he endeavoured to soothe even one sorrow among the millions of sorrows of his oppressed subjects, he might have been King of Naples at this day, and Italian unity would still have been a dream. But short as was his peaceful possession of the throne, short as was his possession of it at all, even that short time did not pass by without giving rise to the most frightful revelations. I doubt not there are Gentlemen in this House into whose hands fell a publication that appeared in Paris, and which shortly after, from some mysterious cause, was not to be found at any price—I mean a pamphlet published in the French language, and entitled La Torture en Sicile. This pamphlet bore the name of its author, M. Charles La Varenne, and it contained names, dates, places, and particulars relative to transactions that every person interested in the character of the King of Naples, in the slightest degree, must have desired to see qualified, or denied. But no portion of those statements has ever been denied; and having myself heard and seen something of Naples in former times, I am bound to say that all the horrors that I saw and heard, fade and pale by the side of the revelations which that pamphlet disclosed. It seemed to me as if, in passing from an older sovereign to a younger one, instead of any relief, instead of the momentary relaxation to be hoped for, everything was made more rigorously repressive, and the long roll of crimes, for which the day of retribution was at hand, was made longer still.

But if this was the condition of the Kingdom of Naples, what shall we say with regard to the States of the Church? I cannot, however, speak of the States of the Church, without desiring to draw a broad and clear distinction between the personal character of Pius IX. and the effects of the miserable and execrable system of which he has been the instrument and the victim. I am ready to admit that he is simple, gentle, refined, and possessed of every personal quality and accomplishment that could tend to draw towards him the feelings of veneration that belong to his office. But when we speak of the system with which he is identified, I must tell the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. Maguire) who will probably follow me in this debate, that it is impossible for him, by gathering carefully together all that was so sedulously shown to him of the hospitals and charities of Rome, to set aside the broad, the damning facts that establish the indictment against the Papal Government. We had last year an official document presented to us, emanating from Rome, which the great leading journal in this country rather irreverently termed "a prolonged shriek;" and when we consider the epithets with which that document was studded, the terms "atheists," "anarchy," "revolution," a "combination of all the vices," &c, applied to those who opposed the Government of the Pope in the Romagna, it is difficult to describe it by any other term. Now what was the Government of the Pope in the Romagna? I hold in my hand authentic documents relating to the Austrian occupation of the Romagna for twelve years. What does that occupation mean? The evils of all foreign occupations are bad enough, and these Austrian occupations are not generally thought to have been mitigated by any peculiar kindliness or refinement in the character of Austrian soldiers. But what are we to say of any Government—above all, of a paternal ecclesiastical Government—which could hand over to the officers and the Austrian soldiery the common administration of justice? Is it possible by any epithet that language can supply to convey a picture more terrific than this—that the Austrians, whose feelings towards Italy have always been that of a conquering and dominant nation towards a conquered and subject race, and who now come in, forsooth, as the defenders of order and religion—that not their great officers merely—their Radetsky's and Lichtenstein's—but their colonels, their majors, and their captains should have delivered into their hands, ignorant as they are, the common administration of justice? I have in my hands the proofs of what I state. Here are sixteen men ordered to be shot. It is not for a political crime: here is a long list of robberies and two rapes; the result is that sixteen men are ordered to be shot, whether rightfully or wrongfully we cannot tell; it is improbable that they were all concerned in the two rapes; and I also notice, with surprise, the extreme youth of these persons, for their ages only average 22 or 23, and one was only 18; but the point to what I wish to call the attention of the House is, that to these Austrian soldiers was intrusted the ordinary administration of justice. But I do not rely mainly on cases like this. I hold in my hand examples of the management by the Austrians of political cases. Here is an example in the case of the brothers Donati, shot in 1851. The man who ordered them to be shot, and who, I presume, was responsible for their trial—that is, who judicially ordered them to be shot—I do not mean the man who obeyed the orders of justice, but the man who was their judge and signed their sentence was an Austrian major. The crime of these two brothers was stated to be that they had received assassins or criminals into their house. Does anybody, knowing the state of Italy, and the condition of the people, groaning under a military occupation—nay, more, does anybody, knowing the state of Italy with respect to the habits of the brigands and the ineffective means which the people would possess to defend themselves against them, not see that it is an odious and a monstrous system which enables a soldier, a major in the Austrian army, to shoot the subjects of the Pope upon the plea that they have received brigands, or, as they call them, assassins into their house? A man named Gherrardi, having been tried by a major, was shot for the same reason in 1856; another, Gian Castelli, after trial by a captain, was shot in 1855. Four more, whose cases I have here, were upon the same, I must say, most vague and general plea of reception of bad characters, shot by order of a captain. Another, Randi, was, in the year 1851, shot by order of a captain; and another, named Borghi, was shot upon similar grounds by order of an officer of similar rank. These things did not occur in time of war, they did not occur during the revolutions of 1848; they occurred through the long course of years from 1848 to 1859, and never was there a period in Italy when the disposition of the people to rebel—the disposition, I must say, to vindicate by resistance the claims of outraged humanity—was, for the moment, at least, more effectually subdued. And does my hon. Friend (Sir George Bowyer) really think that a state of things like this was to be endured by a population such as that which inhabits the Romagna; and does he really think that any Government, even if it were compelled to submit to the monstrous evil of occupation—when, surely, it should abandon the cant and hy- pocrisy of declaring that its people are fondly attached to its dominion—ought to deliver up into the hands of a foreign soldiery the whole judicial machinery of the country, upon which the peace and private happiness of individuals and families depend? I must confess, Sir, that it appears to me that the whole doctrine upon which the Papal sovereignty has of late years been supported is so intolerable that the man who could acquiesce in it—I mean the Roman or Italian who could acquiesce in it—would be nothing but a worm fit to be trampled under foot. A people of States so oppressed might, under ordinary circumstances, have some hope of relief: but what says the most eloquent champion of the Papal sovereignty, M. Montalembert? He says that— It is a great mistake to suppose that the Papal sovereignty is a sovereignty over 3,000,000 of Italians to be disposed of by the Pope. It is not to be disposed of by the Pope. Every one of the 200,000,000 Roman Catholics has a right and a vested interest in the maintenance of the Papal sovereignty. And, therefore, the people who inhabit the States of the Church have not even so much hope left as this, that if the Pope and the Cardinals are favourable to them they may have some chance of relief. No! every Roman Catholic all over the world is to presume to deal with their feelings and their destinies, and to assert a political right to establish dominion over them. This I must say appears to me to be a doctrine, if possible, more monstrous than that upon which the laws of Draco were founded. But my hon. Friend, the Member for Dundalk, followed the hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Layard) and said that he had dealt in a multitude of allegations which were all equally worthless; that he could not possibly occupy the time of the House by entering upon a discussion of them all, but that he would select one for confutation, and he added ex uno disce omnes. By that summary, convenient, and comfortable process my hon. Friend got rid of the indictment presented by the Member for Southwark. The statement which he selected for confutation was this, that at the capture of Perugia a number of women were wantonly killed by the soldiery. Says the hon. Member for Dundalk: "I saw two gentlemen who were eye-witnesses, and they assured me that there was no such thing." I have not got to quote two gentlemen who were eye-witnesses, but I have to quote the printed account of one gentleman who was officially responsible, for he was the Papal officer on the spot. The paper from which I am about to quote is the report of that Papal officer to his superior in Rome. His name is Monani, he was sub-intendant of the district, and he reports to his Excellency the Intendant-General Agostini, in Rome. We have heard something about foreign mercenaries, and a comparison was drawn between the foreigners whom England has at different times employed to make up the paucity of her men—a policy, perhaps, doubtful enough—but a comparison was drawn between them and the foreigners in the army of the Pope. This reporter, who, I must say, seems to do his duty honestly, but, who, of course, does not make the case too bad, says: "The enthusiasm of the troops in attacking the city was indescribable, especially that of the foreigners and gendarmes." Their enthusiasm in assaulting the city was something beyond the average of the rest of the soldiers. Having mentioned that there were certain barricades he goes on—I will read it as accurately as I can in English. "The soldiers then passed over these barricades. They took by assault the houses and the convent, where they killed and wounded all they could, not excepting some women "— alcune donne—"and, proceeding forward, they did the same thing at the inn in the Borgo San Pietro." This is the case on which my hon. Friend undertook to confute the hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Lay-ard), and with respect to which he thought that confutation would be so easy. Why, Sir, this is the precise assertion in terms that was made by the hon. Member for Southwark, because it was not the accidental death of women in the moment of assault, but it was the wanton and deliberate murder of women distinctly testified to by an officer of the Papal Government. [Sir GEORGE BOWYER: Read, read!] I have read. [Sir GEORGE BOWYER: Nothing about "wanton."] I do not find here the word "wanton." I admit that. I find that the troops when they had got into the town killed all they could, including women as well as men. Now, Sir, unfortunately there is, at least there was, a deplorable solidarity among the Italian Governments, and as sometimes in a miniature you see represented with the greatest force the features of the countenance, so there was one of the smallest of these States, the most insignificant of these Governments, which perhaps presented the fullest and truest development of the system —I mean the Government of a Sovereign to whom no allusion has been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dundalk, the late Grand Duke of Modena—one of those whom, of course, we ought to regard with pity, and even with veneration, as a righteous ruler driven out from his States by the contemptible intrigues of Victor Emmanuel. Well, Sir, here are again a set of original documents. Perhaps the hon. Member will say that they are forgeries. [Mr. HENNESSY: Hear, hear!] I have never seen the original manuscripts, but I hold in my hand the published book, and no contradiction of that book has to my knowledge or belief ever appeared. Let us have a few specimens of the mode of governing in that country which was above all others a paternal State, which was the pet State of the Austrians, and was steadily supported and uniformly countenanced by the Pope. The Pope, who has the thunders of the Vatican ready to launch at the head of Victor Emmanuel, and to brand his crimes, never had any words except those of courtesy and kindness for the Duke of Modena, to whose deeds I am about to refer. These are documents, of a great number of which I have not been able to make myself master, but I think that the specimens which I shall give you will be sufficient. The first which I shall cite was written in the year 1853, a time of profound peace. It does not mention whether the persons referred to were criminal offenders, but I have no doubt that they were. This document is signed "Francesco," and dated "Reggio, May 22, 1853," and is addressed to the Minister "di Buon Go-verno," which I may translate the Home Office, although my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who I am glad to see is not in the House, would not thank me for the comparison. The decree refers to a batch of 254 criminals, and orders that they shall all he sent to another prison, and then continues, observing that about one-third of them, who have received but very slight sentences from the tribunals, are to finish their sentences within the current year, "we decree by our Sovereign authority that none of them"—eighty or ninety—"shall be restored to society until they shall have given a proof of reformed conduct in the place where they are to be confined, and shall have acquired some trade." This is the system of government with regard to the security of the people as respects their personal rights. [Sir GEORGE BOWYER: The offence?] The document does not state the offence. My case is that they were offences that had been tried and judged not by Italian juries but by Italian judges; not persons of opulence and station, like those of this country, but receiving pittances not sufficient for a moderate livelihood, and holding those pittances at the absolute will of the Crown. The Duke of Modena said, "I see that these sentences expire within the year, and, therefore, I decree that the imprisonment of the whole shall be prolonged until the parties shall individually give satisfactory proofs of reformation." Again a young man of 17, named Granaj, of Carrara, was found guilty of murder or manslaughter. The law of Modena does not permit capital punishment under the age of 21. After the trial the Duke of Modena sends forth an edict declaring that notwithstanding the law the young man shall be executed. [Sir GEORGE BOWYER made an observation which was not heard.] The hon. Gentleman seems in some degree acclimated. In another edict I find that the Duke is nauseated by reading three judicial sentences, and his reason is that the crimes are so lightly treated that the punishment is worth nothing at all. The Duke is even more nauseated by finding that previous good conduct has been alleged on the part of the criminals. The third thing that nauseates him is that a man named Felice Libbra, who had been the accomplice of some criminal, should be let out of prison when he had exhausted the whole term of his imprisonment. In this case the Judges were rebuked and a new trial was ordered. I do not wonder that a smile of. incredulity passes over the lips of hon. Gentlemen. It ought to do so. It would be wrong that in this age and in this part of the world one should be too ready to believe that such things could take place. But I quote official documents, which I offer for the inspection of hon. Gentlemen opposite. I have told the House of the case of a criminal who did not come under the operation of capital punishment, but in whose case the Duke made an ex post facto law for his execution. Here comes a converse case of a law of remission that is not allowed to be retroactive The Duke, writing to one of his Ministers, describes his affliction relative to the case of some criminals who were entitled to the operation of a mitigating law, and he issues an edict addressed to his "Dear Cocchi," its object being to declare that the mitigating law shall not be applicable to that crime. Here is another case in which one citizen was killed and others were wounded in a row between the townspeople and the military at Carrara. The order to fire was given, not by the commander of the troops, but by a soldier, without the order of the commander, who was on the spot. The Duke of Modena issued a public edict, stating that, having looked into the case, he was of opinion that the soldier was perfectly justified in firing without the order of his commander, who, he added, probably deserved a rebuke for not having given the order to fire. I will trouble the House with one more document, and if ever there was a document that deserves to be transmitted for the study of posterity it is this. It is a letter of congratulation addressed by the Duke of Modena to his Minister of the Interior. I will state its purport in English. The Duke states that, having examined the list of those admitted to philosophy and the superior faculties in the University from 1848 to 1853, "we have remarked with genuine satisfaction the decreasing number of admissions." He says that these admissions had previously gone to an excess most pernicious to society. "We recognize that these results are owing, not only to the method of examination and the firmness of the professors, but particularly to the firmness of the Minister of the Interior who is persuaded of the evils that flow from an excess of students and doctors. Wherefore we exhort him, as well as all the professors, to continue always in this salutary path of reducing more and more the number of those who are to be admitted to the faculties and philosophy, and particularly to the faculty of law, which still continues in excess." This is followed up by a positive decree that there shall only be two examinations in the University, that only 150 students shall pass the first, and 80 the second. This is to me a novel view of civil service examinations.

I am afraid I have tired the patience of the House in dealing with the case of those Italian Governments. Now let me say one word as to the yearning of the Italians for political unity. I am ashamed to say that for a long time I, like many more, withheld my assent and approval of those yearnings. I asked why they were not content to pursue locally there local reforms? But there is the most conclusive evidence that the time has now come when Italian unity can be no longer regarded as a term —as a thing to be desired—it is now a thing at hand. And I would ask who have been its main promoters? My noble Friends who sit near me have done something. The influence of England is acknowledged, and it is felt by the Italians that England has done something to promote the great and noble object they have at heart. Let us do justice to our neighbours over the water. We may criticize the annexation of Savoy. We may disapprove the still stronger ease of the annexation of Nice. We may be lost in astonishment at the proceedings before Gaeta. But after all these deductions have been made—and they are serious deductions I admit—Italy acknowledges with one voice that she owes a heavy debt of gratitude to France. But it is not our neighbours nor Victor Emmanuel and Count Cavour—with regard to whom I wonder at the extravagant compliments paid to them—who have been the doers of this wondrous work. They have helped it forward; but why have they had such wondrous power to help it forward? Because wherever the name of Victor Emmanuel is mentioned it has a charm from one end of Italy to another, because he has set that rare example in Italy of a true and loyal King—I mean a King to whom a compact with his subjects is a sacred thing, to be maintained through life and until death. Count Cavour will bear any criticism, either here or elsewhere, and I do not anticipate the public judgment when I say that the name of that man will take a place in the list of those who have deserved well of Italy. There are few indeed whose influence on their time or their country has been greater in its power or more successfully directed to benefit that country. But the House will permit me to say that it is not any of these who have made Italian unity what it is—namely, a prospect not far from being realized. There are others who have more contributed to this unity— those who have resisted all moderate and reasonable reform—the Kings of Naples, the series of Popes, the Emperors of Austria. These are they who have forced forward, and not simply helped forward— have forced on the cause of Italian unity. How is it possible that when the subjects of the King of Naples found themselves put down by military power they should not seek that resource which nature itself teaches, of helping themselves, and becoming stronger by union with others? How is it possible that, when the Government of the Pope is carried on upon the principle we have heard to-night, that the question is not to be settled between Sovereign and subject, but that every Roman Catholic throughout the world is to have a voice in maintaining it, and a greater voice, indeed, than those who are under the Papal sceptre—how is it possible that the subjects of the Pope should not seek for strength wherever they can find it to meet such an unnatural combination? Above all, it has been the conduct, the doctrines, and policy of Austria that have laid broad and deep the foundations of Italian unity. When I speak of Austria I draw a wide distinction between Austria in Italy and Austria beyond it. Beyond Italy I wish her well with all my heart, and regard her as the mainstay of the peace and order of Europe. But in Italy I hold it my bounden duty to say that it has been her unhappy and miserable task to be the instrument of carrying affliction to a people, not for her own benefit, but with a result imperilling her own existence as a State. It is Austria that has made Italian unity. What was the course taken by Austria on acquiring her Italian provinces? Did Austria hold that Italy was a mere accidental aggregation of States each one of which might be dealt with by itself apart from the others? No; Austria was the first that denied that doctrine. She denied it in her alliances all over Italy. She denied it when by arms and treaties she provided for perfect unity in the spirit and principle of government from one end of the Peninsula to the other. We know how Austria succeeded in that policy. She had Piedmont at her feet, and after the peace drove her into the desired system by the threat of fresh territorial demands. She had Tuscany at her command. She had a treaty with Naples, by which the King was bound, in the most stringent terms, to sanction no institution that was not in conformity with those of the Austrian dominion. Is it possible to have fuller or more striking testimony to the strong power of unity pervading the feelings of the Italian people than in the fact that Austria based her entire policy on the recognized necessity of assimilating the whole spirit of Government in every State in the Peninsula, and of bringing it under the influence of one moving Power? It is the Powers hostile to Italy who, in the mysterious counsels of Providence, have been the means of compelling the people, now in this crisis of their history, to forget those local feelings with which they were strongly imbued. Every jealousy, every petty tradition, every narrow local view have been merged in one desire —a desire which has arisen from the overpowering necessity of moral self-preservation. That is the desire which the people of England have been viewing with united prayers for its prosperity and success. As it has begun so may it go forward. Never were changes so great and important effected with so little to raise a blush on the cheeks of those who promoted them. They recall to my mind the words with which Mr. Pox greeted the first appearance of the French Revolution, when he said that it was the moat stupendous fabric that had ever been erected on the basis of human integrity in any age or country of the world. Sadly, indeed, was that prophecy falsified by subsequent events from causes which were not then suspected; but I believe the words were not far from the truth at the time when they were spoken; and whether they were or not, they are the simple and solid truth in their application to Italy. For long years have we been compelled to reckon Italy in its divided state—Italy under the friends of the Austrian, Italy the victim of legitimacy, Italy with a spiritual sovereignty at its centre— to reckon it one of the chief sources of difficulty and disturbance in European politics. We are now coming to another time. The miseries of Italy have been the danger of Europe. The consolidation of Italy, her restoration to national life— if it be the will of God to grant her that boon—will be, I believe, a blessing as great to Europe as it is to all the people of the Peninsula. It will add to the general peace and welfare of the civilized world a new and solid guarantee.

MR. MAGUIRE

I am conscious, Sir, that I labour under a great disadvantage in attempting to address the House immediately after the right hon. Gentleman. I also feel that the cause which I advocate is the unpopular side of the question; but I, nevertheless, trust to obtain a patient hearing, from the well-known spirit of fair play which distinguishes an assembly of English gentlemen. At the outset, I desire distinctly to declare that I am no apologist of Neapolitan atrocities, if any such be really proved to exist; but in saying this much, I must guard myself from endorsing the accusations which have been brought by the right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and other hon. Members against the late King and the young King of Naples. Neither, I wish to state, do I approve the Austrian occupation of portions of Italy. I wish sincerely that it may be brought to a close, but only in such a manner as may really promote Italian freedom and prosperity. The right hon. Gentleman has held up the late King of Naples to the execration of his hearers as a deep-dyed perjurer, who violated the solemn oath which he had voluntarily pledged to his people. But did the right hon. Gentleman give a fair version of the facts? What was the real state of the case? The late King of Naples did, no doubt, solemnly grant a constitution to his people. But what was that constitution, and how was it received? No doubt he gave a constitution, and swore to maintain it; but the extreme party, who are the curse of Italy, and the most fatal enemies of her liberty, were those who destroyed it, and not the King. The constitution granted provided for two Chambers, analogous to our House of Commons and our House of Peers. This was the nature of the constitution to which the King pledged himself. But how was it received? The very day, if I mistake not, before the Chambers were to have met — before this free Parliament was to have assembled— the extreme party met, and put forward their own programme; and amongst its features was the extinction of one branch of the new constitution — they declaring that they would have a Chamber of Deputies, but not a Chamber of Peers. The matter was taken up by the clubs, and the cry was re-echoed by the mob, who raised barricades in the streets, and set defiance to the royal authority. A collision took place between the King and his people, or rather a section of his people; and the result was that the constitution which was offered and granted by the King, and which was foolishly rejected by the people, was never offered again, and, of course, never confirmed. I put it to the candour of the right hon. Gentleman whether, under these circumstances, the King, by the course which he pursued, was guilty of that awful perjury which he so impressively laboured to demonstrate to the House? I am no apologist for police excesses, whether under the reign of the late or the present King of Naples; but I ask, has the young King received fair play from the Colleagues of the right hon. Gentleman? From the moment he came to the throne he has been railed at and scolded by the noble Lord, the Foreign Minister; — from the moment the noble Lord assumed the office of schoolmaster to the Princes of Italy he has done everything in his power to crush that youthful Monarch. When he offered concessions these concessions were ridiculed and treated with contempt; and when he was making the last struggle for his kingdom, the "moral" influence of the English Government was added to the power of his dishonest assailant. With the Duke of Modena, and the mode in which he governed his dominions, I have nothing to do; hut I confess I am deeply interested in the fortunes of him who so nobly graces the Chair of St. Peter at this moment; and, as a Roman Catholic, I am deeply interested in the maintenance of the temporal power of the Pope, against which the right hon. Gentleman has addressed his eloquent denunciations. I was prepared to expect that the right hon. Gentleman would have made out some case to show why the Pope should be robbed of his temporal possessions; but he contented himself with a few quasi facts respecting Austrian occupation of the Romagna, and such epithets as "execrable" and "abominable" as descriptive of the character of the administration of the temporal government of the Papal States. The cases stated by the right hon. Gentleman were given as proofs of outrages committed by Austrian troops at Bologna; but if they were inquired into more closely, I believe it would be found that robberies, assassinations, and other atrocities by brigands, were frequent and rife in the districts in question, and that nothing but military force and summary punishment could put an end to excesses which were made the constant theme of accusations against the temporal authority of the Court of Rome. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman has made out his strong charge of atrocity on the part of the Austrian troops, or mismanagement on the part of the Papal Government. Count de Montalembert has been misrepresented, and not very fairly, by the right hon. Gentleman. M. de Montalembert never said that the Catholics of the entire world had a greater interest in the government of Rome than the people of the Papal States; but he did say, that in which the Catholics of every country sympathised, that Catholics throughout the world were deeply interested in the maintenance of the temporal power of the Pope, through which he would be in a position to exercise his spiritual functions with greater freedom and more perfect independence. During the troubles of 1848 and 1849, when the Pope was in exile, addresses from all parts of the world, expressive of the same Catholic sentiment, were received by the Holy Father. These addresses poured in upon him from even the most remote countries of the earth, from the very borders of human civilization—proving that the heart of the Catholic world was stirred to its depths when any attempt was made to destroy that power which the hon. Baronet, the Member for Tarn worth (Sir Robert Peel), has characterized as "one of the inventions of the Middle Ages." Any statement more ridiculous or absurd has never fallen even from the lips of that hon. Baronet. I was in Ireland when this debate commenced, and it was on my way to London that I read a report of it on yesterday. The hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Layard) made a speech on that occasion, and I respectfully ask the attention of the House while I refer to some facts and figures to prove that there was not one tittle of justification for several of the statements of that hon. Gentleman. The hon. Gentleman asserted that material progress was discouraged in the Papal States, and alluded to the scarcity of railways as a proof. He also pointed to its deficient cultivation, as another proof of misgovernment, and he triumphantly asked — "Is not the neighbourhood of Rome a desert?" I have passed on two occasions through a considerable portion of the States of the Church, and I might state my own opinion with respect to their condition from personal observation; but I shall not ask the House to rely on my authority. I prefer hon. Gentlemen should rely on the testimony of many eminent men who are thoroughly acquainted with Italy; and they stated—what can be corroborated by many Members of this House—that there are parts of the Papal States as highly cultivated as any portions of the civilized world. Along the shores of the Adriatic, in the Marches, near Ancona and in that direction, there is not any part of Italy which is more flourishing and prosperous. There is not, I assert, a more highly cultivated or beautiful district than that which I mention — and yet it is governed by the Pope. But the hon. Gentleman asked— Was not the neighbourhood of Rome a desert? My answer is—it is a desert, in appearance; but it is now what it was in the sixth century, as described by Gibbon. That author described its condition in these words — "The Campagna of Rome was speedily reduced to the state of a dreary wilderness in which the land is barren, the waters are impure, and the air is infectious." And yet what has existed for a period of 1,200 years is triumphantly quoted by the hon. Gentleman as a conclusive proof of Papal misgovernment! The real fact in reference to the Campagna is that it is the pasture ground for an immense district round Rome. It extends about 350,000 acres; some 50,000 are fit for or are occasionally devoted to tillage. It annually feeds—at least it did in 1857 — 30,000 cows, 1,800 buffaloes, 8,000 bullocks, 3,500 brood mares, and 260.000 sheep. It produces annually 2.000,000lbs. of cheese, 800,000lbs. wool, and 200,000 skins. It supplies the Roman and other markets with an abundance of meat. It also produces an enormous amount of young cattle, and a fine breed of horses, which are sold in all parts of Italy. I have frequently heard it stated, and on one occasion by a Roman who was himself engaged in agriculture, that the proprietors and renters of the Campagna would not let it out for tillage, which they rather discouraged, because they made more money of it by pasturage; and that is one reason, amongst others—such as the insalubrity of the air—why no effort is made to make it appear otherwise than it does to the eye of a stranger. During a considerable portion of the year it has all the appearance of an arid desert, while during another period it is as bright with verdure as the meadows in this country, or even in Ireland, which is so famous for the vividness of its emerald hue. The hon. Member for Southwark endeavoured to show, by contrasting the few railways in the Papal States with those in the North of Italy, that railway enterprise was discouraged by the Pope's Government. In reply to his assertion, I beg to quote for his benefit the following passage from an article which appeared in The Times newspaper of the 28th of March, 1847— The spectacle of an Italian Prince, relying for the maintenance of his power on the affectionate regard and the national sympathies of his people—the resolution of the Pope to pursue a course of moderate reform, to encourage railroads, to emancipate the press, to admit laymen to offices in the State; but, above all, the dignified independence of action maintained by the Court of Rome, have filled the Austrians with exasperation and apprehension. The writer in The Times (and everybody knows that that newspaper was never a great supporter of the temporal power of the Pope) here states that the Pope was even then an encourager of railway enterprise; and I assert that from that day to this he has never changed his policy with respect to this element of modern material progress. But what is the fact? The Pope has freely granted concessions for railways, which concessions are somewhat analogous to our Acts of Parliament authorizing the construction of railways; but in some instances mere schemers and adventurers have got hold of these concessions, and have made them articles of barter and sale. They have frequently got into the hands of those who only meant to make money by trafficking in them, and who never carried out, and never meant to carry out, the pledge which their obtainment implied. I could mention the names of persons who held an eminent position in the financial world who were jobbers and traffickers in these railway projects. By such means and by such men much obloquy has been cast upon the Pope and his Government, and he and his Government have been held accountable for a state of things for which they were and are wholly and entirely irresponsible. The hon. Gentleman said that one line of railway—I suppose that from Rome to Civita Vecchia—was thirty miles long; but if he had said forty-six miles long he would have been nearer the truth; and in reference to this particular railway I may state why, amongst other reasons, its opening was delayed. Its stone-work— its bridges and water-courses—were constructed not by native workmen, but by strangers; and so badly constructed were they, that the Minister of Public Works compelled the Company to rebuild eleven bridges and thirty-four water-courses. Besides the railway to Frescati, other railways are in progress of construction; and when the Pope made the tour of his dominions, in 1857, he saw the line to Ancona in a state of forwardness. That line had been in a special degree supported by the Pope and by the leading members of his Court. When the railways now in progress, and for which concessions have been granted by the Papal Government, are completed, Rome will be connected with Naples on the south, and Tuscany on the north; and while the line to Civita Vecchia already links Rome to the Mediterranean, another which is in progress will link it with the Adriatic. In considering this matter, it should be borne in mind that from the nature of the ground surrounding Rome, serious difficulties had to be overcome in order to meet railways from Naples and from Tuscany; and also the smallness of the resources of this poor country should be taken into fair consideration when an attempt is made to contrast it with other and more nourishing and wealthy states. With regard to the electric telegraph, not less than 614 miles of telegraph traversed the Papal States at the end of 1858, although at that time it was but a recent invention; and at the present moment there may be nearly 1,000 miles of electric telegraph in the Pope's dominions. These facts are, I think, a fair vindication against the charges made by the hon. Member for Southwark when he alleges that material progress is systematically arrested in the Papal States. Pius IX., who is said to be such an enemy of progress is a financial reformer and a free-trader. In 1854 and 1855 he made large changes in the tariff, from which considerable commercial prosperity ensued. From 1829 to 1858 the customs of the Papal States actually doubled in their amount; and this without any increase in taxation, but simply from an increase of trade — which increase principally occurred in the years subsequent to the change in the commercial tariff made by the present Pope, and as the natural result of his wise and liberal measures. Then, again, the Pope endeavoured by a system of competition and rewards to stimulate the industry of his people. Every year an exhibition of industry is held in the Capitol; and in the year 1857 a sum of 17,000 scudi—a large sum in such a country and in such a state—was distributed in rewards for the encouragement of wollen manufactures. Other industries are also stimulated by rewards, such as planting valuable trees, and new inventions. As another proof of progress, I may mention that there has been of late years a marked improvement in the shipping of the Papal States. These States, I must of course admit, are comparatively poor and insignificant, with a very few good ports, and some miserable creeks; but still, although the figures might well excite the derisive pity of a Liverpool merchant, they do exhibit a marked and steady improvement. In 1850 the number of vessels belonging to the Papal States was 1,595, with 29,084 tonnage; but in 1857 the ships had increased to 1,847, and the tonnage to 33,471. And within the same period the tonnage of ships entering and leaving the ports of the States had increased by 257,681 tons. I shall now glance at the finances of the Papal States which we are assured have made no material progress. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, at least, will acknowledge that the condition of a country is, as a general rule, fairly represented by the state of its finances; and if we track the history of the Papal dominions, it will be found that when peace and tranquillity prevailed, the finances became every day less embarrassed, and in time exhibited the happy result of a balance in favour of the Government. From 1815 to 1830 there was tranquillity in the Papal States, and at the end of that period there was a balance in the Exchequer. There were disturbances in 1830 and 1831, mainly caused by the effects of the French Revolution which placed Louis Phillippe on the throne, and there was the terrible Revolution which terminated in the flight of the Pope and the Roman Republic. The result was what might have been expected—great financial embarrassment, through the obstruction which the state of the country offered to all trade and business. That Revolution also left a legacy of 7,000,000 scudi of worthless paper money. The Pope returned to his capital in 1850; and notwithstanding the condition in which he found his capital—notwithstanding the legacy of these 7,000,000 scudi of worthless paper money—by good management on the part of his Government, aided by even a brief period of peace and tranquillity, there was in 1858 a balance of 140,000 scudi in the Papal Exchequer. The interest in the foreign loans was diminished in one year by no less than 251,388 scudi. To one item of the Papal expenditure attention ought to be called. So anxious was the Pope not even to seem to rest his power upon the support of foreign bayonets, that from the moment he returned to his capital in 1850 he resolved to have an army of his own, and in the years 1856, 1857, and 1858, he devoted the seventh of the entire revenue of the country towards the formation of such a force. The revenue in 1858 amounted in round numbers to 14,000,000 scudi; and of this a little more than 2,000,000 scudi were devoted to purely military purposes, it has been said that Rome groans under a priestly tyranny—under a proud and splendid ecclesiastical court, which is lapped in luxury— and that the people are crushed under the load of their taxation. What is the fact? I have an unimpeachahle authority on this subject—the Count de Rayneval, who wrote to his Government from Rome in May, 1846. He says— The taxes remain much below the mean of the different European States. A Roman pays the State 22 francs annually, 68 millions being levied on a population of 3,000,000. A Frenchman pays the Government 45 francs, 1,600 millions being levied on a population of 35,000,000. These figures show demonstratively that the Pontifical States, with regard to so important a point, must be reckoned amongst the most favoured nations. But there has been a reduction since then; for in 1858 the taxation per head was but 3 scudi, 72 baiocchi—that is 20 francs, or 16s. English money. And the property tax amounted to 1 scudo, 35 baiocchi on every 100 scudi—or about 1⅓ per cent. It has been alleged that the Papal Court is lapped in luxury, and that the Cardinals live in the midst of profusion and splendour, while the people have to pay for all this extravagance. What is the fact? The entire expenditure for the support of the Government and the Court does not exceed—did not in 1858 exceed—the small sum of £125,000. It may be interesting to know who and what are supported and provided for out of this enormous sum. Among them are the Holy Father, the College of Cardinals, the Ecclesiastical Congregations, the offices of the Secretaries of State, the Diplomatic body, Religious ceremonies, maintenance of the Government palaces, museums and libraries connected with them, pensions of members of the Papal Court, and provision for casual expenses; also, the Guard of Nobles, the Palatine Guard, and the Swiss Guard. The whole of these expenses are defrayed by the sum of 600,000 scudi, or £125,000, which is not larger than the revenue of a moderately rich Duke in this country. It has been said that most of the offices in the Papal States are monopolised by ecclesiastics. I flatly contradict the assertion. There were, in the year 1856, not more than 124 ecclesiastics holding purely civil offices, while the number of laymen holding similar offices was 6,854. Even in the purely religious associations or congregations there were two laymen employed for every ecclesiastic. No doubt the Secretary of State and some other superior officers were ecclesiastics; but was that extraordinary? The Roman Government is an ecclesiastical Government. [Mr. LAYARD: Hear!] Yes, it is an ecclesiastical Go- vernment, and it must stand or fall on its merits. But it will not fall because it is thundered at by the hon. Member for Southwark or the hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth, or because it is prophesied at by the hon. and learned Member for Marylebone. When the lay element predominated what happened? Was not Count Rossi at the head of a purely lay ministry? The hon. Member for Southwark never condescended to say a word about the murder of Count Rossi the lay Minister of the Pope. An entirely lay ministry, as well as a free press and a free Parliament, failed to satisfy the revolutionary clubs of Rome; and on the very threshold of that free Parliament, granted to his people by the Sovereign who is now hunted by the Foreign Office, and spewed at by every caterer for a rabid constituency, the lay Minister of the Pope was struck to death by the hand of an assassin. The hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth said that the temporal power of the Pope was an invention of the Middle Ages. That is certainly a new fact for me. Has the hon. Baronet ever read Gibbon on this subject? I shall quote a few lines from Gibbon on this question of the temporal authority of the Papacy, which I think will prove that the same power which the Pope now exercises was held by and guaranteed to his predecessors in the eighth century. Gibbon says— Her ancient patrimony of farms and houses was transferred by their bounty into the temporal dominions of cities and provinces; and the donation of the Exarchate was the first fruits of the conquest of Pepin. Its strict and proper limits were included in the territories of Ravenna, Bologna, and Ferrara; its inseparable dependency was the Pentapolis, which stretched along the Adriatic from Rimini to Ancona, and advanced into the midland country as far as the ridges of the Apennines. This temporal dominion is now confirmed by the reverence of a thousand years; and their noblest title is in the free choice of a people whom they had redeemed from slavery. This is a conclusive proof of the monstrous absurdity which I have heard for the first time this night. No doubt it is the policy of the present Government to destroy the temporal power of the Pope. It is, unfortunately, the momentary madness of the French Emperor to do the same. In the pamphlet with which the whole agitation commenced, and in the speech delivered a few days since by Prince Napoleon, the same desperate and fatal policy is endeavoured to be carried out. But there lived a greater man than Napoleon III., or than Prince Napoleon, though he has married the daughter of the King of Sardinia. The First Consul, who was undoubtedly the greatest man of his age, held a different opinion with respect to this same temporal power, from that which is now held by his relatives in Paris, or by the noble Secretary for Foreign Affairs and his Colleagues in London. These are his words, quoted by M. Thiers, in the History of the Consulate and the Empire:— The Pope is out of Paris, and that is well; he is not at Madrid, nor at Vienna, and it is for that we tolerate his spiritual authority. At Vienna, at Madrid, the same could be said. Do you believe that, if he were at Paris, the Austrians and the Spaniards would consent to receive his decisions? We are then, too, happy that he resides away from us, and that, in residing away from us he does not reside with our rivals. It is quite true the conduct of Napoleon the Emperor was different from the language of Napoleon the First Consul; for be changed his policy, and sought to tyrannise over the Pope, Pius VII., to whom be addressed a remarkable letter in 1805. It is valuable now, as it shows the use that was attempted to be made of the Pope, and the danger of undue influence near the Papal throne; hut the reply given by the Pope, who was then at the mercy of the conqueror of Europe, ought to inspire sympathy in the minds of English gentlemen for the successor of that illustrious Pontiff— All Italy must be subject to my laws. Your situation requires that you should pay me the same respect in temporal, which I do you in spiritual matters. You are Sovereign of Rome, but I am its Emperor. All my enemies must be its enemies. No Sardinian, English, Russian, or Swedish envoy may be permitted to reside at your capital. The Pope thus replied— Your Majesty lays it down as a fundamental principle that you are Sovereign of Rome. The Supreme Pontiff admits no such authority, nor any power superior in temporal matters to his own. There is no Emperor of Rome. It is not thus that Charlemagne treated our predecessors. The demand to dismiss the Envoys of Russia, England, and Sweden, is positively refused: the Father of the faithful is bound to remain at peace with all, without distinction Catholics or heretics. The right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the hon. and learned Member fur Marylebone have both assured us that there is now an end to the temporal power of the Pope—an end, in fact, to the Papacy. Have these Gentlemen read history in vain? If they will only look back a little they will find that this temporal power has been in far greater danger within the last one hundred years and that it has yet survived. The French Directory endeavoured to destroy the Papacy. Napoleon endeavoured to make it his instrument, and to subjugate it to his will. Pius VI. lost every foot of his dominions. He was carried off a prisoner from Rome, hurried from fortress to fortress, and died a captive. Yet the temporal power of the Pope was not at an end, nor was the Papacy destroyed. His successor Pius VII. was elected at Venice, and not in the Vatican. He was also borne off a captive from Rome, and by a general of Napoleon's. This was in 1808, when the tricolour floated from the Castle of St. Angelo amid the peal of French cannon, and the Emperor was proclaimed King of all Italy; and still the temporal power was not at an end, nor was the Papacy destroyed. The States of Europe united against his oppressor, and that despot was crushed. Pius VII. was restored to his dominions amid the rejoicings of his people, and under his rule the Papal States made great material progress, the practical test of which was that in the year 1830 there was a balance in the Papal Exchequer. Pius IX. was obliged to seek safety in flight. His palace was assaulted, his person was in danger, and the then Members for Marylebone and Southwark might have then prophesied that the Papacy was at an end. It was not at an end; and that which has existed for a thousand years will not yield to base machinations, vile intrigues, dishonest artifices, and wicked calumnies. I thoroughly believe that the Providence of God for wise purposes watched and watches over the temporal power of the Pope. It is necessary to the free exercise of his spiritual power and authority; and so long as that is dear to millions of Catholics throughout the world, I have no fear that, however for a moment it may appear to mortal eyes to be destroyed, it will not be built up again more strongly than ever. This is my firm belief, and the belief of the majority of Catholics throughout the world. As the Pope, in his temporal capacity, has been represented as a tyrant, and his Government "execrable," it is only fair that the real state of the case should be known, and should be again made clear. The impulse to liberty in 1848, and which has produced so much as is genuine of the present spirit in Italy, was given from the Vati- can. When Pius IX. ascended the throne in 1846, he did so as a reformer. Pius IX. has a large heart, full of sympathy and compassion, and replete with the moat generous emotions. He determined to win his people to his throne and person, and link them to him by words of love and affection. He granted an amnesty, and flung open the prison door. He then gave to his subjects a free Parliament, a free press, and lay administrators. He was remonstrated with by wise and wary statesmen in his council, brat he was too full of generosity and confidence, and he disregarded their cautious advice. He gave to his people, as I said, free institutions—a free Parliament—an assembly such as had not met in Rome since the time of the ancient Senate—a free press, and a lay administration. No doubt, he alarmed the despotic Governments of Italy and Europe by the daring character of his concessions; and it was remarked at the time by an eminent statesman, Cardinal Gizzi—"Pius IX. will certainly fall, but he will fall with honour, because he will do so in giving free institutions to his people." It was a true prediction, for Pius IX. did fall, and the free institutions broke down; for the revolutionary clubs excited the populace into a state of frenzy, and the press, to which the largest freedom had been granted, became licentious in its attacks alike on the throne and altar. [Mr. LAYARD shook his head.] Does the hon. Member mean to say that I state what is untrue? If he does I can easily confute him, for I have read passages from the writers of the Roman press at the period, and I assert that they wrote in the spirit of a Red Republic, that they preached the wildest revolutionary doctrines, doctrines which led the way to the overthrow of the liberty which the Pope had granted, and which eventually merged everything in a chaos of anarchy and confusion. What a requital for this free Parliament and lay administration, that upon the very threshold of this free Parliament the lay Minister of the Pope should be slain by an assassin in the open day! Who can truly say that the Pope did not make a fair trial of his reforms? M. de Montalembert alludes eloquently to the unrequited gifts of the Pope in these words. [After reading a passage from a pamphlet published in 1856, Mr. Maguire continued] —The Pope then did make a fair trial, and how were his reforms received? Ungratefully—with violence, murder, open in- surrection—by the noon-day assassination of an enlightened minister, and by a daring attack upon his palace and his person. I ask was the Pope when he returned from Gaeta, to which he had been compelled to fly, so enamoured of risk and revolution as to make the experiment a second time? Why he ought to be branded as a madman if he had been rash enough to adopt the same line of policy again. Well, then, I affirm that, instead of being assailed as he has been as the enemy of free institutions, the Pope ought to be held up as the apostle of liberty, and the munificent granter of freedom to his people. Now, as to the determination of Pius IX. to render his Government independent of foreign bayonets. All Catholics desired to see the Pope independent of France and Austria; but they also knew that the power of France and Austria was absolutely indispensable after the revolution of 1848 in order to repress further attempts, and to allow things to settle down into repose. The Pope was sincerely anxious to surround himself with a native army, or an army composed of natives and subjects of Catholic and friendly States. In 1858 he had succeeded in raising an army of about 17,000 men, and he hoped soon to have it increased to 20,000, which would have been sufficient for the protection of peace and the maintenance of tranquillity. But the Pope has been taunted here as well as elsewhere with having called "mercenaries" to his standard! Does such a taunt come well from that bench, or from any part of this House? Does it come well from England? What did you do when you were entering on the Russian war? Did you not then enlist mercenaries? What did you do in India? Did you not enlist mercenaries there also — turning against the natives of that country every savage tribe that you could lay hold on or seduce to your side? Did not England employ foreign mercenaries against Ireland— Germans—"Hessians"—whose very name is abhorred in that country to this day? Did she not employ these foreign mercenaries to put down the people of Ireland some sixty years since? And yet we hear the Pope taunted with having employed mercenaries for the purpose of maintaining the tranquillity and independence of his kingdom! The native soldiers of the small army brought together by the Pope were systematically corrupted by the efforts of the secret societies; and if he were to hare an army at all, he should obtain men from the Catholic Cantons of Switzerland, from Austria, Belgium, and other countries. This army, it must be remembered, was raised, not for purposes of aggression on other States, but for the purpose of maintaining order, and putting an end to that state of things which had been so often condemned in this House— the presence of the troops of France and Austria in the dominions of the Pope, But the virtuous King of Sardinia was indignant with the Pope for having enlisted mercenaries—for striving, in fact, to render himself independent of foreign bayonets. The Pope arms himself to defend his territories against the attacks of revolutionary bands. What does the King of Sardinia do? At the very moment the Pope is thus protecting his dominions, this gallant King sends him an imperious message— "Disband your mercenaries;" but without giving time for an answer to this insolent demand, the King, who has no sympathy with revolutions and robbery, sends one of his ablest generals with a powerful army to aid the revolutionists and crush the infant army of the Pope commanded by General Lamoriciere, who struggled in vain against the force and the treason of this King, whose acts and whoso deeds are the theme of fulsome eulogy. I do not know of a more infamous act than this, I believe that the history of the world can scarcely afford an example of greater injustice, and iniquity, than was manifested in the conduct of the King of Sardinia in his wanton and cause-less attack on a friendly Sovereign who was merely defending his dominions from the revolutionary bands. All the acts of that King are of a piece, from the first to the last—from the sale of his birth place, the cradle and home of his ancestors—to his treacherous attack on the Pope and the King of Naples. It is true the hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth, is not willing to forgive the King of Sardinia, against whom he and the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Kinglake) hurled so much denunciation last year. Now, every act of the King of Sardinia and the Emperor Napoleon is of a piece. The Chancellor of the Exchequer expressed a kind of indignation at those who in these days ventured to talk of national law and the rights of nations; but these, if I mistake not, are founded upon the principles of justice, morality, and right. Now, what are to govern nations but the very same principles which ought to govern indivi- duals—the laws of justice, equity, and fair dealing? If this be not so, and if a new-code and doctrine are to be set up, then we must he prepared for revolution and outrage, and to stand by while the strong crush the weak. Was conduct ever more perfidious than that of this gallant King? He allowed Garibaldi to form his revolutionary troops under the very eye of the Government—he permitted a revolutionary expedition to sail from his shores—and this while he affected to deprecate the designs and objects of the revolutionary party. Garibaldi, who acted, it was said, against the wishes, or in defiance of the wishes of the King, actually used the flag of Sardinia. If this were so — and it is stated triumphantly this evening—why did not the King repudiate Garibaldi openly, and denounce the outrage upon his flag? But no, the chivalrous monarch would only repudiate Garibaldi in case he failed; but the moment he succeeded in his enterprise that moment the chivalrous monarch came forward to take advantage of that which a short time before he affected to deprecate. He professed to deprecate the invasion of the Papal States, and he even pretended that his object in taking an active part was to crush revolution; but, instead of attempting to crush revolution, he crushed the army of the Pope who was resisting the revolutionary force by which his dominions wore assailed, and he did so without any provocation whatever. Such conduct as this was a violation of all justice and morality. But the noble Lord justified it in a most extraordinary manner. The noble Lord would not take on himself to say whether the assumption of the championship of the liberties of Italy—in other words, of the revolution—by the King of Sardinia were right or not; but having once resolved on taking up that position, every act which he did in furtherance of his original intention was a necessary act, and consequently a justifiable one. Therefore, because Victor Emmanuel had conceived the iniquitous idea of robbing friendly Powers of their States, every act he did, or was compelled to do, in furtherance of his iniquitous intention, was justifiable and proper. Was there ever heard such public morality as this? England— through its Government and its Press— applauded the conduct of the King of Sardinia, and why? because it was a Catholic monarchy that was attacked—because it was the head of the Catholic Church that was assailed. I believe, as if it were a revelation from Heaven, that Protestant bigotry is at the bottom of the whole of it. On my soul I believe that the spirit of Exeter Hall and the Protestant Alliance has animated the diplomacy of the Foreign Office. I believe that the Minister who abandoned Reform and sold the Reformers, selected this anti-Papal crusade as a good card—the same card which the noble Lord played in 1851, when he wrote the Durham letter. It is a desperate attempt on the part of a shaky Administration to prop up their falling power by pandering to Protestant hate of Catholicity. What has the Pope done that he should be robbed of his dominions with the sanction of the Foreign Office? I deny that the people of the Papal States have risen against the temporal authority of the Pope. I assert what has been done has been done by revolutionary agents, by secret societies, by the connivance of the French Emperor, and by the active aggression of the King of Sardinia, and that the mass of the Pope's subjects are true to him at heart. The right hon. Gentleman (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) and others had endeavoured to represent the Pope, his Government, and his generals as monsters, because "a few women" were accidentally shot at Perugia. Much has been said of this "massacre" of Perugia. The delicate feelings of the noble Lord (the Foreign Minister) were dreadfully shocked; yet the Foreign Secretary approved the bombardment of Canton, when red-hot shot was poured into a populous and defenceless city. [Mr. B. OSRORNE: Why, he voted against it.] True, so he did—but why? I now recollect that the noble Lord made the bombardment of Canton an occasion for the display of his unfriendly feeling to the noble Lord, the present Prime Minister. I should have remembered how the noble Lord seemed to have sworn to trip up his noble Friend on the first favourable opportunity. At any rate the Government of that day and the House of Commons sanctioned the bombardment of Canton—the firing of red-hot shot into one of the most densely-populated cities in the universe; and yet you are now horrified when you hear that thirty or forty people have been shot in a fair stand-up fight in the streets of Perugia! Let me put a case. Suppose to-morrow there was a rebellion in Ireland. ["Oh!"] Well, perhaps it is dangerous to go so near home. Suppose, then, a rebellion in India. Suppose that your army has to attack a rebellious city. British soldiers, with the full approbation of the Home Government and of the country, would shoot down every one of the enemy who showed himself upon the walls; they would batter down those walls, and blow in the gates; and if barricades were erected in the streets, they would kill their defenders: and if they were fired upon from the windows of houses, they would enter those houses, and put their assailants to the bayonet. Now, in Perugia, after the action, some of the Papal soldiers were opposite a hotel, when a shot was fired from one of the windows which killed a drummer boy, who was then certainly as defenceless as unoffending. Other shots followed. Of course, the soldiers did what all soldiers would have done under the same circumstances—they rushed in and killed those who fired the shots. No doubt, in moments of excitement, exceptional cases of apparent cruelty may have occurred; but I defy any man honestly to say that a massacre was perpetrated in Perugia. Great God! is the Pope the only Sovereign who must not defend his dominions? And is General Schmidt to be stigmatized as a ruffian and a mercenary because he faithfully serves a legitimate monarch who is protecting his states from anarchy; while Cialdini, who is carrying out the unscrupulous policy of his master, and that darling Pianelli, who issued his ferocious orders to slay without mercy, are applauded? When the noble Lord and his colleagues and supporters taunted the Papal troops with acts of cruelty they ought to recollect that in India there was such a practice as blowing men from the mouths of the cannon. That is peculiarly an English invention. Neither the French nor even the "brutal" Austrians have practised it. To this country belongs the entire honour of this humane punishment. Nothing could be more unfair than the manner in which the Pope and the King of Naples have been hunted down by the English Government. The young King of Naples was not allowed time to institute reforms; but when he did so he was laughed at for having granted them. English policy is most unfair, because it is not really a policy of non-intervention, and because everything that could be done has been done to damage the Pope's cause, and to back up the robberies of Sardinia. It is true, the Government of England has not actually sent bayonets, or cannon, or soldiers to attack the Pope or the King of Naples; but the whole "moral" weight of the English Government, represented faithfully in the Foreign Office, has been flung into the scale against those friendly sovereigns. And, let me ask, is Italy really improved by the changes which have taken place? The correspondent of The Times, as well as writers in other journals even more strongly in favour of revolution, declared that anarchy, confusion and corruption were rampant there; while Mr. Elliott, whose testimony the Foreign Minister cannot question, writing on the 15th of October, and speaking of Naples, said that malversation and corruption and oppression were more prevalent and deep-seated than they had been at any previous period. These are the very words of Mr. Elliott. Here are a few passages from the despatches of Mr. Elliott. On the 15th of October Mr. Elliott writes regarding the state of the country— Malversation, corruption, and oppression are greater at the present moment than they have been at any previous period. On the 9th of November he admits that The corruption which has prevailed in every branch of the administration of the Dictatorship has far surpassed anything that was known even in the corrupt times which preceded it;" and he adds, "after having bestowed two kingdoms upon his Sovereign, General Garibaldi's last days at Naples have been embittered by the sense of neglect and of ingratitude. In fine, on the 17th of the same month, Mr. Elliott says— This gloomy view is caused chiefly by two considerations; first, the universal corruption prevailing throughout the country, and the absence of all public morality; and secondly, the conviction that there is not a hearty or general desire for the success of the annexation. On the 23rd he writes— I regret to have to call your Lordship's attention to the barbarous announcement of General Cialdini's determination to put to death all the peasants he finds in arms, in support of him whom they have the right to consider their legitimate Sovereign. Now it has been said that the utmost enthusiasm for annexation existed among the people. That is a palpable untruth. No doubt, the violent and revolutionary party, and those who have nothing to lose and everything to gain by change, may have exhibited this alleged enthusiasm. But how was the free vote of the Neapolitans taken on this question of annexation? Here is the evidence of Mr. Elliott, who writes on the 16th of October:— The vote is to be taken by universal suffrage, and although not avowedly by open voting, it is so arranged that what each man does will be known, and public opinion brought to bear on him. In fact, both the terms of the vote, and the manner in which it is to be taken, are well calculated to secure the largest possible majority for the annexation, but not so well fitted to ascertain the real wishes of the country. Many people voted under the threat of the dagger, and I utterly deny the general feeling is in favour of annexation, The Neapolitan vote was the affair of Savoy and Nice over again. Splendid things had been said of a united Italy; but you might just as well talk of a united Continent—of a united Europe. It is absurd to speculate upon it, for there can be no such thing. The Italian nationalities are as distinct as nationalities in any part of the world—as France is from Spain—as England is from Franco. Naples and Sicily, Tuscany and the Papal States, have no real sympathy with Sardinia. The Southern Italians entertain a feeling of aversion, almost amounting to contempt, for the unpolished people of the North. All the Southern States have each their proud memories, their glorious traditions, their distinct and separate individuality; and it is idle to suppose that they will ever really consent to be merged as mere provinces of that which they regard as a barbarian state of the North. How are they to be held in unity? Is it by the sword—the sword of Sardinia? Italy—united Italy—will soon break to pieces, and it may happen that ere long we shall learn that the same power which recently acquired Savoy and Nice has endeavoured to acquire some portion of Southern Italy as his share of the spoil. I deny that the King of Sardinia is entitled to respect or consideration; on the contrary, I contend that he deserves the execration and contempt of every honest man, because of his flagrant violation of those sacred principles upon which the stability of states and governments and the independence of nations rest. Gentlemen were indignant at having Garibaldi described as a pirate. But, according to the law of nations, what else could he be considered? And if he had been captured by the King of Naples, by what known law could his execution be forbidden. I shall say nothing harsh of General Garibaldi. He is, at least, a gallant soldier, and throughout these transactions he has shown himself single-minded, though a fanatic, for he has returned to Caprera as poor as he left it. [Sir GEORGE BOWYER: Gammon!] My hon. Friend thought this "gammon"; but certainly, in my opinion, Garibaldi has come better out of the contest than any of those who fought on the so-called national side. Compare him with the King of Sardinia! This gallant King watched his proceedings, allowed him to assume his flag without repudiating him, took advantage of his victories, and then basely dismissed him, and this conduct of the King of Sardinia towards Garibaldi has sunk deeply into the minds of the Italian people. Some noble and generous words have been attributed to the King of Sardinia which he never wrote, for Victor Emmanuel is one of the stolidest stupids in Europe. He has, combined with this stupidity, the morality of a moss-trooper and the temperament of a he-goat. Yet this is the King whom the noble Lord and the Chancellor of the Exchequer laud as the saviour of Italy! It is, Sir, a curious fact that scarcely any man, however great, has ever assailed him who sat in the chair of Peter, or laid violent hands on the possessions of the Church, without eventually suffering for it. The present Emperor of the French —now speaking by the mouth of Prince Napoleon, the hero of several battles which he never fought—wishes to divide Rome into parts, one part for the Pope, the other for the King of Sardinia—who is to protect the Pope and the independence of the Church! What happened to the Great Napoleon who laid his impious hands on the sacred person of the Pope? He died an exile and a prisoner, and his proud heart broke beating against the bars of his island cage. The present Napoleon is a far different man. He is not great. He is a subtle schemer, little more. His power is not so secure as his flatterers represent it to be. His throne and dynasty rest on a volcano, and but a thin crust separates him from the fire which rages beneath. Every one knows what drove him to Italy. It was the fear struck into his heart by the infernal machines of Orsini and Pierri; it was their bloody fingers pointing from the scaffold to Italy which directed him there; and he is now pursuing a course which will alienate from him the affections of a large mass of his people. The Bishop of Poictiers may be denounced and prosecuted for nailing him to the cross—yes; but no bishop would have dared to write what he has written of the Emperor if he did not know that he was representing the feelings of a great body of the people of France and of Europe. If he persevere in his course let him beware, or his end may not be so honourable or so glorious as that of the prisoner of St. Helena. It is certainly no compliment to the Conservative to be told that the King of Sardinia is the representative of Conservative power in Italy. Conservatism is not, according to my reading—and I am not a Conservative —based on fraud, hypocrisy, robbery, and an open violation of the laws which govern nations. Conservatism holds its own, while it endeavours to advance and improve it; but it does not trample on every holy and I sacred principle of right and justice. I wish Italy to be happy, but she cannot be happy under the iron rule of a king who has no sympathy, who can have no sympathy, with the mass of his people, if such they can be called. I may give one fact, which will indicate how absurd is this dream of a united Italy. In 1831, there were disturbances in the Papal States, and in certain provinces the Pope's authority was at an end for a time. The province of Spoleto was in the hands of the revolutionary party, and a self-elected Committee set up a Government with a Foreign Minister, a Minister of the Interior, and the usual staff of high officials; but the sphere of its authority narrowed day by day, for every city in the province set up its own government and had its own Home and Foreign Ministers. The same thing happened in the province of Perugia. If this were the case with cities in the same province, how could States which differed from each other as much as France and England be expected to coalesce together and form one nation? I deny that the King of Sardinia has given municipal institutions to his new subjects. The Papal States have long enjoyed municipal institutions, jealously cherished by the very smallest communes; and so far from Victor Emmanuel being the granter of free institutions to his own subjects, Pius IX. is the author, to a large extent, of the constitution which Sardinia now enjoys. The first impulse to the Italian liberty came from the Vatican. Last year the noble Lord opposite rather abused the Pope, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer did the same. To night the right hon. Gentleman eulogised the Pope personally; and, some nights since, the noble Lord, whose designs are as transparent as glass, adopted the same tone with respect to the Holy Father. "Why don't you, good, amiable, benevolent gentleman," said the noble Lord, "why don't you surrender your embarrassing temporal power, and quietly place yourself under the protection of the honest and loving King of Sardinia?" Yes, the noble Lord was anxious that the lamb should place itself in the power of the wolf whose red jaws are open to devour it. But the Pope will not take the noble Lord's advice. The Pope knows that the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary are the two worst enemies of the Church of God, ("Oh, oh!") or, not to offend Protestant prejudice, I will Bay of the Catholic Church, in the world. Count Cavour is not worse; the King of Sardinia is not worse. The noble Lord who inflames the passions and prejudices of his countrymen, who stimulates revolution and justifies sanguinary spoliation is worse than the wretched instruments who are working out, not the designs of Providence, but, as I believe, the wishes of the Evil One. But the noble Lord will neither intimidate nor cajole the Pope. He is not so simple, so utterly "green," as to be bamboozled by the clumsy artifice of the noble Lord; and in his present misery and agony of mind—for his crown is indeed a crown of thorns—he attributes much of his suffering to the machinations of the English Government. These began in 1846 and 1847, when a now deceased relative of the noble Lord's was mixed up in them; and the same spirit of intrigue, the same tampering with peoples, exciting peoples against their lawful sovereigns, and stirring up revolutions, is still at work. This may be popular in England—yes, but it will not go down in Ireland; and let not hon. Gentleman despise the power which Ireland can exercise in the conflict of parties. The recent election for the county of Cork has been mainly decided on the noble Lord's foreign policy, and while only 2,500 persons voted for the Liberal candidate, who would have supported the noble Lord, nearly 7,000 voted for his opponent. The Irish Attorney General, a gentleman of the greatest distinction at the bar, of almost matchless eloquence, and of the highest private character, is now in want of a seat; but I venture to say that if that estimable gentleman would go down and contest the city of Cork just now—so disgusted are the people with the noble Lord—he would not have the slightest chance against even the vilest Orangeman in Cork. This pandering to Protestant prejudices has entirely alienated the people of Ireland from the noble Lord. At one time, too credulously trusting to his professions, they had been his ardent admirers; but now they abhorred him, for the untruthfulness of his policy, for his want of candour, for his malignant attacks on the Pope, and for his systematic course of conduct which has for its object the destruction of the temporal power of the Pope. That temporal power may be momentarily struck down, but it will be raised up again. In spite of English opposition and Foreign Office diplomacy this will inevitably happen. If the Pope were driven from his palace to-morrow and his capital given to the King of Sardinia, you would see his Holiness restored to his dominions and people before two years had passed. There are Catholic Sovereigns and nations interested in the spiritual independence of the head of the Catholic Church, and they will not sanction the annihilation of a power which assists to maintain it. There are those— and they sit on both sides of this House— who believe that if they destroyed the temporal power of the Sovereign Pontiff, they would also destroy the Papacy. I deny it. The Papacy is beyond your reach, and above your enmity. Let not the frequenters of Exeter Hall and the supporters of the Protestant Alliance believe in the alleged Italian reformation— let them them not imagine, because Italy is now in a fever, that Protestant principles are about to triumph there. Every feeling of the people is against them, and and when Father Gavazzi was haranguing or lecturing in several places, he had to be protected from their indignation. I believe the King of Sardinia in some respects closely resembles the author of the English Reformation; and, if circumstances favoured the parallel between him and his great prototype would probably hold as to the number of wives he would give to the axe. But, Sir, be that as it may, it is not in the power of Victor Emmanuel to change the religion of the Italian people; nor is it within that of the King of Sardinia, the Emperor of the French, and the English Government combined, to finally destroy the temporal power of the Pope, or to put an end to the Papacy.

MR. ARTHUR RUSSELL

said, that having passed a few months in Italy during both the present winter and the last he ventured to detain the House with a few remarks. Everything that he had heard, seen, and observed in that country, had led him to exactly the same conclusion as that arrived at by his hon. Friend the Member for Southwark (Mr. Layard). He had conversed with Italians of many classes, and with many priests, who had arrived at the conviction that the time had come when the temporal power of the Pope should cease. The hon. Baronet, the Member for Dundalk (Sir George Bowyer), attributed the great national regeneration they had witnessed in Italy entirely to the intrigues of Count Cavour, and the judicious distribution of bribes. If that view was really correct, and if it was true that the Neapolitan army and navy had been entirely destroyed by the offers of Sardinian gold, he must say that the Neapolitan army richly deserved its fate. So, also, with the revolution in Tuscany. If it was actually brought about by half-a-dozen Sardian agents, who imposed themselves on the people in such a manner as to prevent them for nearly two years from raising a finger to regain their national independence and recall their beloved Grand Duke, then that people must have richly merited its fate, and those Sardinian agents had only shown that they were really statesmen who deserved to govern the country. He had the pleasure of meeting the hon. Member for the King's County (Mr. Hennessy) in Italy, and he believed it would not be unfair to say that that hon. and learned Gentleman went to Italy with his mind fully made up—that he went only to collect information unfavourable to the Sardinians and the national cause, and that might be damaging to the foreign policy of Her Majesty's Government. He (Mr. Russell) endeavoured to introduce the hon. Member to some of the National party at Rome, whom, no doubt, he would call the Sardinian emissaries; but, although the hon. Member listened to them, it was doubtful whether any impression had been made upon his mind, as he had not made the slightest reference to those interviews. The hon. Member went to Rome, not as a judge, but as an advocate, and he seemed now to wish only to attribute everything to the influence of the Foreign Office. He (Mr. Russell) thought the hon. Member overrated the powers of the Foreign Office, although it would be very gratifying to his own feelings to believe that his noble relative had contributed to bring about the great results lately achieved in Italy. The hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Layard) quoted some extracts from a pamphlet written some years since by the hon. Baronet, the Member for Dundalk (Sir George Bowyer); but it would not be fair to charge that hon. Baronet with inconsistency, for when that pamphlet was written the Pope was a Liberal, a Reformer, and an Italian patriot, and the hon. Baronet was bound in honour to be also a Reformer and an Italian patriot. The day was not far distant, perhaps, when the Pope might again become a patriot and a Liberal, and then every one would be delighted to find the hon. Baronet restored to his former opinions. All the hon. Gentlemen who had spoken against the Italian cause imported their religious feelings into the debate, and, therefore, they were not impartial judges. The hon. Member who had spoken last (Mr. Maguire) had quoted statistics to show that the temporal government of the Pope was not so bad as it had been represented. But it was not a commercial question merely. Supposing that the Members for Ireland had a national grievance to complain of, they could not accept as a satisfactory answer that the Customs returns showed so many pigs had been exported. The truth was that this was a profitless discussion. All internal questions affecting Italy might safely be left to Victor Emmanuel and his Parliament. One question, indeed, did concern that House, and that was the foreign policy of the Government; but the result of the debate would be to prove that that policy did really express the sympathies of the country, and was in harmony with its interests.

MR. MONCKTON MILNES

Sir, as it has been my lot upon many occasions during the last twelve years to bring under the attention of the House the condition of Italy, and the struggles that were taking place in that country, I may be permitted, at this supreme moment of the Italian movement, to express my earnest congratulations, and to say, that whatever hopes I had formed of the rapid progress of Italian liberty have been accomplished beyond my most sanguine expectations. It is impossible not to feel, from the fervid eloquence we heard in the early part of this evening, and the chivalrous devotion of the small band of Members opposite, that we are in totally different positions, because all that we have said has been proved, all that we had hoped for has come to pass; and it is, therefore, our duty to treat these champions of a fallen cause with forbearance and respect. I have always felt upon one part of the Italian question—the Roman question—that it be-became us Protestants to approach it with humility; to understand that a very large body of Christian men throughout the world view the question in a totally dif- ferent aspect; and that we should make every allowance for their feelings and opinions. Therefore, upon that part of the Italian question I will only make one remark. It appears to me that the advocates of the temporal dominion of the Pope have made this fatal blunder—they have confounded the question of property with the question of sovereignty. Upon the question of property, be it corporate or individual, you may talk of spoliation, of robbery, of injustice, if you please; but the question of sovereignty is a question that lies between the Sovereign and the people; and for you wholly to ignore the existence of the people, and to say that for the advantage of the Catholic world generally the people are to submit to a distasteful rule, and one which they think it is degrading to submit to—that is a position which is not consistent with national rights nor the principles of common humanity. I will only say that whether the settlement of that particular question is to be found in a joint occupation of the Holy City by the French and Sardinians, or in a change of opinion on the part of the respected person who now holds the sovereignty, it is not for me to say; but I do hope that question will be solved in a way which will do least injury to the feelings of the Catholic world. The main object of the hon. and learned Gentleman in originating this discussion is to abuse the foreign policy of the noble Lord, and especially what he calls our intervention in Italy. Now, as to the foreign policy of Her Majesty's Ministers, there was a saying of Prince Talleyrand's, a short time after the inauguration of the new policy of non-intervention. He was asked by some one, "What is nonintervention?" He replied that, as far as he could understand, non-intervention was a metaphysical expression, which meant pretty much the same as intervention. As long as Europe forms a great corporation, with common objects and interests, it is impossible for a great country like this to remain entirely apart from the rest of the world. We must intervene with our feelings and the moral force of our sympathies, although we abstain from an intervention which would require the expenditure of English money or implicate English honour. That is just what the noble Lord seems to have done. I do not say that his course has been entirely uniform or consistent, but I say that, taking the whole course of his policy, and considering the varying circumstances of the world from time to time, it has been a policy for which no Englishman has cause to be ashamed. The question of Italy is approaching its solution. Each day brings us news of events which tend to obliterate all distinctions of States in Italy; and the hon. Gentleman opposite will soon have no opportunity of quoting statistics of one State or another, or of speaking of the Sardinian debt or the Neapolitan debt, but all will be merged in one united Italy, But I do not, indeed, believe that all the difficulties of the Italian question have received a solution. Such a great historical event as the unification of Italy must be accompanied by vicissitudes. The municipal or federal feelings that have been alluded to must find expression, and the difficulties of the King and Count Cavour begin in the hour of their triumph. I think it is important that the feeling of the House and the country should be fully understood in Italy, that the Italians may know that they will have our support in their perilous path to national liberty; that in all their difficulties they will have our sympathy; and that upon all constitutional questions they will have our example to guide them. Whatever course the will of Providence may prescribe—be the accomplishment of this great object immediate and rapid, or be it slow and deferred—England does believe in her inmost heart that a great nation has arisen in whose birth she has felt great interest, whose progress she will follow with sympathy and anxiety, and whose firm establishment she believes will contribute to the benefit of Europe.

MR. ROEBUCK

Sir, there is no person who feels more acutely than myself the responsibility which attaches to a person who speaks on a great question like that which now occupies the attention of the House. The influence of this House is so important, every word that is pronounced in debate here is echoed at the uttermost parts of the earth; and, no matter how insignificant may be the individual, his words contribute in some measure to the effect produced. What I shall now say will, I fear, be unpalatable to many here; but not holding any office under the Crown, and not being connected with any party, I give expression to my own opinions alone, and let the world judge what they are worth. It appears to me that many Gentlemen who have addressed this House have mistaken the object with which we are now discussing this question. What we want to learn is not so much what has occurred in the past as what the future shall produce. We want to know how the Government of this country ought hereafter to act concerning Italy. To the extent that the answer to this question depends on what has passed we are justified in referring to the past; but so much lies in the future that we may well pass by the petty discussions with which we have been entertained, leaving to future history the disputes between the followers of Garibaldi and the followers of the Pope. We are here as legislators to determine in what way the great influence of England shall be directed in coming years. I shall look on this question simply as an English one. I believe that what is for the interest of England is for the interest of the world. Her influence is so great and so good that what conduces to her welfare conduces to the welfare of the world; and, therefore, I say, I address myself to this great question simply as an Englishman. Now, I want to know what ought to be the policy of England; and for that purpose I ask myself what ought we to wish Italy to be, and what are the steps that we ought to take in order to bring Italy to that condition. I at once confess that I am for what is now to be considered "an united Italy." That is an expression which I know excites discontent in some minds; but when I come to describe what I mean, perhaps it may not be so offensive. I want to see Italy under one Government from the bottom of the Peninsula up to the Mincio. I want it not to be held by any foreign Power, but to be wholly Italian. Entertaining this view, I have to ask myself of what nations Italy is composed, and what are the nations round and about Italy. I find in the north - west a great Power — namely, France; I find in the north-east another great Power—Austria; and still further east another great European Power — Russia. All these countries were to be borne in mind in considering the state of Italy. What are the hopes which ought to exist in any rational mind of accomplishing an united Italy? To the present hour that is a consummation which has never been effected. Excepting under the leaden despotism of the Empire of Rome Italy never could be considered in any way as one. Under the Republic she was many; and in the great days of her existence there were separate Powers throughout Italy. Before, then, we can hope for an united people, we hare to conquer all the feelings of local and municipal rivalry. But is there no other disturbing force? We have been told, with all that vehement eloquence which so distinguishes the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that France has done great things for Italy. Yes; France has done great things for Italy; may France not have done great things for herself? Has not France advanced towards the crests of the mountains which, surround Italy, and can she not, when she chooses, pour her soldiers down on the plains, and put an end to your expectations of an united Italy? At the present moment is there not a wedge driven between the north and the south by 40,000 Frenchmen quartered at Rome? You have to get rid of them. You have also to create some counterpoise to the power of the Emperor of the French before you can expect, not merely an united Italy, but a self-governed Italy—one which shall be a nation for itself, and not a vassal of France. It has not been my fate to appear in the character of one who lauded the Emperor of the French. I have to look at his conduct with regard to Italy; and in this House, where to-night we have certainly heard some very remarkable statements, and some very hard language has been used — I hope I may be permitted to express in respectful, terms my opinion — even though it should affect so great a potentate as the Emperor of the French — I have no faith in the Emperor of the French. I do not believe that with the Emperor's will there will be an united and independent Italy. And I warn the two noble Lords who sit on the Treasury Bench, in order that they may not be tools in his hand in making Italy his vassal, and in increasing the power of France, which is even now imminent on her border, which is hanging on the crests of the Alps, and which has 40,000 men in garrison at Rome. I warn them that they may not be instrumental in uniting Italy to France. Italy a vassal of France would enable France to domineer over Europe. Mark how you step; be very cautious how you tread, lest you should be led into that path. I pass now from the north-west to the north-east. The Italians hate the Germans. When France ruled Italy, the Italians hated the French. It is a very common opinion now-a-days, and it is one which the French Emperor has approved, that we are to listen to what is called universal suffrage, and to be guided by popular opinion as to the govern- ment of States. Is England in a condition to acquiesce in that opinion? Does England adopt that principle? Shall we give up the Seven Islands in the mouth of the Adriatic? If we listen to the hon. Member for Dungarvan shall we adopt this course with regard to Ireland? Should we have been able to do so in Canada some years ago. Should we have been able to do so in India not many months ago? I say, therefore, this is not a principle that can be adopted by English politicians. The only parts of Italy held by Germany are Venetia and the Quadrilateral. I press on the noble Lord opposite and the noble Lord at the head of the Government—and I do so in consequence of what was said by the Chancellor of the Exchequer—the danger of the course they are pursuing in endeavouring to extrude Austria from her dominion in Venetia. ("Oh, oh.") I am very well accustomed to that dismal sound, but I must have something more than that sonorous "Oh, oh!" — I must have an answer. And what I am asking for, and what I am endeavouring to discover, is some counterpoise to the power of France — some counterpoise to her interference in Italy, which shall prevent the Italian people from becoming the vassals of France, so that Italy shall not be made an instrument against England, and on the consideration of the interests both of England and Italy, I say it is our duty to prevent the expulsion of Austria from Venetia at present. I know this is an unpopular view. Oh, I have no doubt of it. It has been my fate very often to bring forward unpopular ideas in this House; but the curious thing is, that what was unpopular when I first mentioned it, has become the creed of this House. (Laughter.) I will mention a particular case. The hon. Member for Leeds (Mr. Baines) is laughing; but it was before his time. In the year 1835 I made certain propositions with regard to our colonial rule; and I recollect the time when I was considered a traitor and not an Englishman for doing so. I want to know whether there is a single word which I then uttered, a single demand which I then made for the colonies, which has not been granted; and whether you have not adopted in your colonial policy the very rule which I recommended, and which was so unpopular at the time? When such a change has taken place on an important point in the views of the noble Lord the Minister for Foreign Affairs may I not hope that—unlike the Member for Brighton (Mr. White), who meets me with a sonorous "Oh!"—he will listen to my arguments, and, possibly adopt them? We have made an alliance with France; and I will ask any man who has studied the history or the geography of Europe whether our natural continental ally is not Austria. But it said that Austria is at the head of the despotism of Europe. Austria was at the head of the despotism of Europe; but Austria is now a constitutional Government. There is a great prophet come among us, and that prophet is the Member for Southwark. (Laughter.) He laughs at the idea; but I want to know whether our conduct to Ireland before 1829 was not quite as bad as that of Austria to her subjects? In 1829 we changed our policy, and from that time to this our policy has been different. I believe Ireland is well governed now; but I believe that our policy before 1829 was bad, was cruel, was unjust. Well, then we changed, and Austria has changed, and the Constitution which she has granted to her people is as liberal as our own. [Mr. WHITE: Hear!] I am not a nervous man or I do not know what might have been the effect on mo of that very melodious cry of the hon. Member. I say that on paper the constitution of Austria is as liberal as ours; and what is it that makes me believe that that policy will be persevered in? The interests of Austria—the interests of the House of Hapsburg. If Austria attempted to depart from it—if she were to attempt to go back to the old days of 1849—the House of Hapsburg would disappear from Germany, the Austrian throne would be overturned, the whole Empire would be split up into parts, and we should see the various nations around aggrandized by her dissolution. No one knows better that this is the case than do the leading men of Austria. They have told me so. The policy of England ought to be to support Austria because she has no interests opposed to those of England. The hon. Member for Southwark talks of the Austrians—the brutal Austrians, I want to know, when you set soldiers against a besieged town, is there any country in Europe whose army is not brutal? What do you say of Badajoz—what do you say of St. Sebastian? I say that if you put soldiers before a town, and they take it by assault, there is no crime that is not committed, no brutality that is not perpetrated, nothing shocking to humanity that does not occur; and among the nations that ought to blush by reason of such deeds is England. I know many here will say I am speaking against England. There is no man who hears me speak but does not know that from youth upwards I have always been called a thoroughgoing John Bull, I am not a big John Bull; but I am a John Bull. My sympathies are with my country; and I believe I have all the prejudices, all the peculiarities, and all the faults of my countrymen. [Mr. WHITE: Hear, hear!] I think I have read of some Roman orators who were accustomed to have fighters by their side. Others had persons to make gestures. The hon. Member's interruptions remind me of the services performed by those assistants, but I am pretty well hardened, and I can bear these things. I was asking the House to listen to my argument in respect of our policy towards Austria when I was interrupted by the hon. Member, and, going back, I should wish to remind the House that the Austria of the present time is not the Austria of the past, and that it is our interest to support Austria. All our interests are coincident with hers. She exports corn, wool, wine, and hides—all of which we desire—but she does not export manufactures, and would gladly receive our manufactures in return for her produce. And be it remarked that Austria has no desire to compete with us, not merely in commerce, but in war. She builds no ships to be the rival of our navy. She does not keep the world alive and disturbed by her aggressive policy. We have made friends, or attempted to make friends, of those who do all these things. Why should we not address ourself to that great Power of the Continent which would be our friend in difficult times? Besides, Austria lies between Russia and Western Europe; and depend upon it that the words of the First Napoleon are dangerously prophetic—"Europe will be either Republican or Cossack." The time will come when the attempt will be made to make her Cossack; the time is now hovering over us when we are threatened with an alliance between our ally and Russia. I am now speaking frankly to this House, and I am speaking words which I think the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs will say are worthy of consideration. An alliance between France and Russia is threatened—is predicted—from day to day; and let me tell the House that such an alliance is not for our benefit. We shall have to cast about us for friends, and I think the friend on whom we ought to rely, and on whom we can rely, is Austria. And let me tell the hon. Gentleman the Member for Southwark that the Austrian nation have feelings which lead them to wish for the good-will of this country. Their children are brought up to esteem and love English literature, and let me tell the House that that is a mighty link between two nations. You cannot go into a house in Austria in which, if there be means to accomplish it, there is not a teacher of the English language. The literature of England is a literature which they all appreciate and admire, which they all love; and let me tell the House that that literature has diffused throughout Austria that desire for freedom and self-government which has arisen throughout that country. This has not been done in an hour, or a day, nor in the life of a man, but gradually English ideas and English aspirations have permeated throughout the country; and if the English Government will now show her friendship and protect her against aggression, we shall in turn find in her a hearty supporter and a willing protector; for a protector we may need against the aggression of Russia or France. Italy cannot afford such an alliance, for she cannot protect herself. Returning then to Italy, do not the Italians want some counterpoise? The Member for Southwark talks about Charles VIII. Did he not go from the Alps to Rheggio? What is to prevent Napoleon III. from doing the same thing? Will any man tell me that 40,000 Frenchmen might not march from one end of Italy to the other? Does any man believe, I ask, that the 'filibustering—to use an American term—army of Garibaldi would have been successful in Italy if they had had a single regiment of French soldiers to oppose them? I admit that great things have been done by Garibaldi; and here is my answer to all that has been said by the hon. Members for Dungarvan, for Dundalk, and for the King's County. They say that Victor Emmanuel and M. Cavour, and the noble Lord, robbed the Italian potentates of their dominions. Not so. They are not the men who have done it. The bad rulers of Italy have done it. When Garibaldi landed in Naples with his few hundreds of soldiers, while the King had a large army, if that army had been faithful and brave, could he possibly have succeeded against them? No, it was the instinctive feeling of the Neapolitan people —their detestation of their monarchs—their determination, on the first chance that occurred, to throw off the odious rule. Garibaldi succeeded because the rulers of the country were unworthy to rule, and that is the whole secret of his success. But if he had been opposed to Austrian or French troops, do you think the result would have been the same? And if he were now, as (he hon. Member for Southwark suggests, to attack Venice, with the same means that he attacked Messina, this I shall prophesy, that he would be hanged in a week. What I state is perhaps unwelcome; but the truth is often unwelcome. And if what I have said to-night is in time to have any effect, I believe that effect will be wholly in favour of England. Her power, her dominion of the sea, her influence over men's mind and intellect are her greatness and her glory. To maintain this position is now in the hands of the two noble Lords opposite. They are the rulers of the destinies of this great country. On their heads will rest the responsibility for what is now being done. If they make Italy merely the vassal of France they will have done no good for England or for the world. But if Italy is made really free, independent, and united—free from spiritual as well as temporal despotism—they will have done that for which their names will be hailed by posterity, and they will deserve and receive the thanks of the whole world.

MR. SOMERSET BEAUMONT

said, he bad intended to say a few words in vindication of the policy of Her Majesty's Government with respect to Italy; but he found the House so unanimous in favour of that policy, that it required no support from him. That policy was one of non-intervention, and he had never yet heard it stated how the Government could have acted otherwise. For instance, he bad heard the Government blamed for not preventing the landing of Garibaldi's forces on the mainland of Naples. But what would have been the consequences of such an interference? The King of Naples would not the loss have fled, and then there must have been a joint occupation of the country by English and French troops; but such an occupation, however consistent with French schemes, would not have been consistent with the policy of Great Britain. The policy of the English Government had been truly national; and, at the same time, had been for the advantage of Italy. There was no need for him to dwell on the mismanagement of the old rulers of Italy, for, in fact, they found defenders nowhere but in this House; and it was certainly an extraordinary thing that the House of Commons, the home of liberty, should contain three such able apologists of the system pursued by the Neapolitan Government. When he was lately in Naples he could hardly find a single supporter of that Government. With regard to the now Government, however, he believed that its difficulties hitherto were nothing to what they would be in future. It was a comparatively easy thing to get rid of bad rulers; the difficulty was to create among the people the elements of public life; and, much as he hoped to see the day when the Neapolitans would prove themselves independent and self-reliant, he was bound to admit that that day seemed for the present to be far off, and that in Naples, at least, there was great political inertness and apathy. It would be time enough for Italy to talk of forming alliances when she had consolidated her empire and organised her army. He hoped Her Majesty's Government would continue to watch over the interests of Italy, and caution her against the officious friendship of a neighbouring Power, and that she would become accustomed to political and public life, and take her place as a great and independent nation.

MR. MONSELL

said, he had risen several times earlier in the evening and endeavoured to catch the Speaker's eye, because he had wished to express his views at some length. At that late hour it was impossible that he should do so, but he would throw himself on the indulgence of the House while he addressed it for a few moments. The first point that struck him was that he had never heard a foreign debate in that House involving great national interests in which so little reference was made to the great principles of international law and international justice as had been shown by those Gentlemen who defended the policy of the Government. The hon. and learned Member for Marylebone (Mr. James) had confined himself to the endeavour to make out that the revolution in the Neapolitan States was promoted by the great majority of the Neapolitan people. What might have been the state of popular feeling when the hon. and learned Member was there he could not say; but it was a fact beyond dispute that at the present time the Sardinian Government was most unpopular among the Neapolitan people, and that its only supporters were to be found among those to whom places had been given. As to the Abruzzi no difference of opinion could exist, for then an insurrection was being vigorously carried on by the peasantry; and, whilst it was said that the people were unanimously in favour of the present order of things, it must be remembered that an army of 60,000 Piedtnontese was required to keep the people in order. He did not say this from any want of sympathy for the Italian people, but because it was his solemn conviction that the liberties of Italy would never be accomplished by any attempt to unite people who differed more from each other than did the French and English people. He desired to see the Italians rise from the depths of degradation to which they had sunk, but that could only be accomplished by allowing each people, after their own kind, to develope its own civilization. With the views of the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck) he had no sympathy whatever. There was the strongest possible feeling on the part of the Italian people against the system of Austrian rule. That system was established by the arrangement made in 1815, and was among the chief causes of the miseries of Italy. The present apparent unanimity in Italy had risen almost entirely from that cause. But on the other hand, those were mistaken who imagined that the national feeling of the different Italian States was not strong. It might sleep for a while, or be crushed, but it would most certainly rise again, and Italy would never again have the opportunity of what he might perhaps call her resurrection if the present opportunity were lost by allowing the Sardinians to coerce the Italians into a combination that was most distasteful to them. Were this permitted troubles precisely similar to the present would arise. With regard to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he would ask what it amounted to, considered in relation to the foreign policy of the Government. He described the trials that had taken place at Modena, and the scenes that occurred during the Austrian occupation of Bologna, but these were matters that had no direct bearing on the question before them. He remembered well the doctrine put forth by the late Sir Robert Peel in the last speech he delivered—namely, that we ought to treat the smallest States with the same consideration that we gave to the most powerful. His right hon. Friend in his vehement denunciations frightened Gentlemen on the benches opposite when he said that those who defended the King of Naples had more courage than the King of Naples had. With reference to what had fallen from the hon. Member for Tavistock as to the feeling of the Italian people regarding the Roman Government, he must say that his experience differed from that of the hon. Gentleman. At the end of the year he was at Rome. It was the custom of the Pope at that season to go to one of the churches of Rome about a mile and a half distant from his palace. He (Mr. Monsell) was present on the last occasion, and, though accustomed to Irish enthusiasm when their affections were called forth in any way, never had he seen such a demonstration of affection as was shown towards the Pope by all classes of the people who crowded the streets. He would say one or two words on the question of international law in relation to the invasion of the Papal frontiers. At the time when General Cialdini had declared his intention of invading the Roman territories the French Emperor sent a telegraphic message from Marseilles to the Duke de Gramont, saying that the French Government would oppose the entrance of the Sardinian troops into the Papal States, and that message was sent from Rome to Ancona. General Cialdini said that he understood the matter better—he knew what was the feeling of the Emperor of the French, because he had had an interview with him. On the 22nd of October M. Thouvenel sent a despatch to the different Courts of Europe, which did not appear in the blue books before the House, explaining that it was true that such an interview did take place, and stating that what General Cialdini said on that occasion on the part of the Cabinet of Turin was that if great disturbances occurred in the Roman States it would be necessary for the Piedmontese to enter those States in order to protect the temporal Government of the Pope, and to go on into the Neapolitan territory to fight a battle against the revolutionists. In spite of that despatch, which he was surprised did not appear in the blue book, the noble Lord had given his approval to the course which was being pursued by the Sardinian Government. He asked any gentleman whether there ever was in the world an act of greater treachery than that which the Government of Sardinia had committed? He knew he was addressing a body of men whose sympathies were not with him; but he felt sure that their sense of honour would revolt against such conduct as this, notwithstanding that it had received the approbation of Her Majesty's Government. After all, in forming precedents we ought to remember that they might be used against ourselves, and after the course which had been pursued in this instance we might at a future time find it very difficult to oppose the entrance of the Russians into Wallachia and Moldavia, or that of France into Belgium. Those Powers would point to the principles on which we had acted, and it would be impossible for us to stand upon the strong moral ground which we had hitherto occupied, of saying that we were the defenders of right, honour, and justice, and that for no prejudice or desire of our own would we sacrifice those great principles.

LORD JOHN RUSSELL

At the close of the second night's debate upon the Question of going into Committee of Supply, it is very difficult to say what is the real question which lion. Gentlemen upon different sides of the House have raised. Upon this occasion I can perfectly understand that Gentlemen, either in opposition or supporters of the Government, may take the Ministry to task for their foreign policy, and may say, as they have a perfect right to say, "Before we go into Committee to give any Supply to Her Majesty we must have explanations with regard to the policy which the Government have pursued." But the hon. and learned Member for the King's County, the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk, and my right hon. Friend who has just spoken, have in fact raised a totally different issue. They have raised the issue in the first place whether the Government of the King of Sardinia is a better Government than that of the late King of Naples, or better than that of the Pope; and, in the second place, whether, seeing that in their opinion the Government of the King of Sardinia is not so good as that of the Pope or of the King of Naples, Her Majesty's Government were justified in giving support to the King of Sardinia against the Pope and the King of Naples. To the whole of that question I might answer "Your representation of the policy of Her Majesty's Government is an entirely mistaken one." I might even grant the first proposition. I might say, "The Italians are extremely wrong to prefer the Government of the King of Sardinia; it is, no doubt, perfectly clear—you have made it clear to demonstration—that the Government of the Pope is much more enlightened, and the Government of Naples far more humane than is the Government of the King of Sardinia; "but after all, I should say that does not touch the policy of Her Majesty's Government, which has been that we would not interfere by force to prevent the Italians from choosing the Government under which they would live. That has been, and is, the policy of the Government, and not a policy of supporting the King of Sardinia against any other Sovereign or State whatever. My right hon. Friend who has just addressed us has, indeed, referred to the approbation which I expressed in the name of Her Majesty's Government of the entrance of the Sardinian troops into the States of the Pope, and into those of the King of Naples. For that, no doubt, we are responsible; but that, again, I say, is a question for the Italian people themselves to decide; and that is what I said in the despatch which has been so often alluded to. If the people of Naples preferred, as they evidently did prefer, to be governed by the King of Sardinia, and to be relieved from their existing Governments, it appears to me, looking to numerous precedents in the history of Europe, that they were justified in making that election, and that we should not have been justified either in expressing disapprobation, or in preventing them from changing their Governments. The right hon. Gentleman refers to Belgium, and says, "Would you allow French troops to enter Belgium?" Why, we did allow French troops to enter Belgium; and not only that, but we made it a matter of convention that they should enter that country. And why? The people of Belgium had risen against their Sovereign with whom we were bound by every treaty of alliance; they had broken the Treaties of Paris and of Vienna, by which all Europe was bound; and it was because they had done this that we allowed a French army to go into Belgium in order to prevent the Sovereign from enforcing the dominion against which they had rebelled. Therefore, this is not a matter without a precedent. And, as I have mentioned this instance, look how it bears upon another question which the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. Maguire) has raised to-night. He said that the Government of this country have such a hatred against the Pope that they are ready to support any persons who will overthrow his dominion. He says they cannot bear the Pope, and, therefore, be- cause there was an insurrection against him, they immediately took the part of the rebels. My first answer to that must be that all the persona, that all the great bodies who are fighting in Italy, are Roman Catholics. There is no Protestant Power which is directly concerned in the question at issue there. It is a contest of Roman Catholics against Roman Catholics. It is a contest not on any matter of faith, but upon a matter of temporal power and Government. But, in the next place, I shall reply that, in the instance to which I just referred, we, making myself responsible, but more particularly my noble Friend near me (Viscount Palmerston), who is supposed to be inspired by the Evil One quite as much as myself, took the part of a Roman Catholic people who wished to establish Roman Cotholic institutions, against a Protestant Sovereign who was accused of making them too Protestant, and of attempting on account of his prejudice in favour of the Protestant religion to overthrow their Roman Catholic institutions. Well, then, I think that that accusation, at least, will fall to the ground. I will now touch upon the question, which, I must say, I think is hardly one for the House of Commons, but which yet is the question to which we have devoted two nights' debate—namely, whether the people of Italy have been right or wrong in overturning the Government of the King of Naples, and that of the Pope in the greater part of his dominions? Upon that subject I must say that, after all I have heard, it seems to me that a Government more abominable and more degrading to the people than those of the Kings of Naples have never existed in the world. Look at what the young King who has just lost his throne was led by evil councillors to do. We have lately heard a good deal said against the King of Sardinia on account of a certain pension paid to the mother of one Milano who attempted to assassinate the late King of Naples. That, at all events, is no fault of the King of Sardinia, because his lieutenant at once abolished that pension. When the late King of Naples came to the throne he found a number of persons who had been put in prison because they were supposed to be the accomplices in this crime, or to have some knowledge of the attempt of that soldier who endeavoured to be an assassin. It was represented to the King, and by the English Ambassador among others, and a petition was also presented to the King by the persons thus imprisoned, setting forth that they were altogether innocent of the crime laid to their charge. They said, "If there is any evidence, bring us to trial; let witnesses prove that we are guilty, and we are ready to submit to any punishment the Court may decree." But the Government of the King of Naples said "No; we will not bring you to trial." The persons accused replied, "If you will not bring us to trial let us go free." "No," said the Government; "it is possible you may be guilty although there is no evidence to prove it. We shall endanger the safety of the King if we let loose those who may possibly be guilty, and you must therefore stay in prison for the rest of your lives for the imaginary crime." That was the way in which justice was administered in the Kingdom of Naples. Take another instance. As my right hon. Friend (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) stated, the whole Kingdom of Naples was governed by the police. There were a number of persons, principally of the middle orders, who were called "suspected." They were hampered in every way; they were not allowed passports to go to the next town; they were not allowed to leave the country, or to bring up their sons to the learned professions. If one of these persons said, "I have a clever son who has a disposition for the law," or another said, "I wish to send my son to a medical college," they were not allowed to do so. About 100,000 persons were thus watched by the police, and were not allowed the use of those liberties which the subjects of the greatest despotisms are permitted to enjoy. At length a decree appeared declaring that this surveillance was at an end. But the Minister of Police sent a secret order to the police that these persons were still to be kept under "inspection," and were not to be allowed to do the things previously forbidden without the matter being reported to him. That shows the perfidy of the Government, They were not only tyrannical in their overt acts and destroyed the social life of the country, but they concealed what they were doing. Well, these things naturally sank into the minds of the people, and when they saw the opportunity of freeing themselves from such a torment it was no wonder they gladly availed themselves of it. I now come to the case of the Pope and the Legations. The very worst character that a Government can have is that they neglect the things they ought to do, and do that which they ought not to do. Well, that is exactly the fault of the Roman Government. The first thing a Government ought to do is to protect life and property. The Roman Government afforded no protection to life and property. A man could not travel in the Romagna in safety. One gentleman told me he was about to sit down to dinner in his country-house, when a band of robbers carried off everything in the house, and he determined — wisely, as I think — never to live in his country-house any more. Some young men who committed offences against ecclesiastical discipline were punished, but the only remedy against robbers and murderers was that military tribunal to which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has alluded, and which, evil and oppressive as it might be, was only an indication of the insincerity that prevailed. With regard to those things which the Government of the Pope did do, one of the greatest abuses a Government can commit is to prevent a man from using those faculties that God has given to him, and refusing to permit them to worship Him according to the dictates of their own conscience. That, however, was the whole business of the Roman Government. Every care was taken that men should not use those faculties which God gave them, and should not worship according to the dictates of their conscience. Thus the Roman Government forbade that with which a Government had nothing to do, and did not do that to which the people were entitled. If these were the faults of the Government what wonder that the people should at once and gladly receive another Government? I should like my right hon. Friend the Member for Limerick (Mr. Monsell) to account for the fact that when the Austrian garrison left Bologna there was no question about carrying on the Government on behalf of the Pope. The Cardinal who governed there, as the representative of the Pope, left Bologna as soon as the Austrian garrison took its departure. There were no Sardinian troops, or, so far as I know, Sardinian agents in Bologna, but there was a general resolution on the part of the people, the moment the Austrian troops left, to declare that the Papal Government was at an end and was dissolved. In like manner, every one knows that if the French troops were to leave Rome, as the Austrians left Bologna, exactly the same consequences would ensue, and the temporal Government of the Pope would be at an end. Then, the real question is not whether the Sardinian Government is preferable or not to these Governments, but, these Governments being thus distasteful, not to say abhorrent, to the people, was it any business of the English Government to say, "However much you detest your Government and prefer to live under the King of Sardinia—however much you may wish for Italian unity—we, the English Government, are determined to oppose your wishes and to employ the force of England to prevent you from obtaining your independence?" Was that a course that any English Minister would take, or that this House would approve? It is not necessary to prove that the King of Sardinia's is a good Government; but I sec with great pleasure that an Italian Parliament is assembled, that persons duly elected by the provinces of Italy have taken their seats, and that they have met to carry on a Constitutional Government in which freedom of conscience and political liberty may be completely enjoyed. The lion, and learned Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck) says we ought to consider what is our policy, and ought to prevent the expulsion of Austria from Venetia. There, again, is a question for the people themselves. I should be very glad to see that Power maintained, because I quite agree with my hon. and learned Friend that during many contests in Europe for two centuries past we have often contended in the same cause, and against the preponderance of other Powers, with Austria. I agree with him that Austria is a great, regular, and Conservative Power in the middle of Europe, that tends to preserve many of the political and social advantages which Europe enjoys. With regard to Venetia, it is true, as my hon. and learned Friend says, that Austria has adopted a representative Constitution. It is for those who are summoned as representatives of the provinces of Austria to decide what their policy shall be; but I believe it will be found so difficult to retain the affections of the people of Venetia, and that the Austrians garrisons are so costly that it is not for the interest of Austria to continue making such heavy sacrifices as the preservation of Venetia requires. I think, therefore, that it would be better for Austria herself that Venetia should be governed according to her own wishes and aspirations. But I never can lay down the principle, as the hon. and learned Gentleman seems to wish, that this country should go to war for the purpose of maintaining the Austrian dominion in Venetia, if it should be shown that the people of Venetia are opposed to that dominion.

MR. ROEBUCK

said, he never suggested such a course; he suggested that persons coming from other parts of Europe should be prevented from attacking the Austrian dominions.

LORD JOHN RUSSELL

With regard to a war of aggression that is a different matter, upon which when the time comes it will be sufficient to enter. But with regard to the general question we remain on the same ground we have always taken. We have never interfered to prevent Italy becoming an united country. The right hon. Member for Limerick says that the people of Italy detest one another so much, and are so separated, that they never can form one country. It is for them to decide that. If their mutual hatreds are so great they will not fail to find expression in the Parliament of Turin, and separation will probably be the result. But, having known something both of Spain and Italy, I should 3ay that the hatred which exists in Spain between one province and another —between Castile and Andalusia, or between Valencia and Arragon—is far more bitter than that which is to be found in Italy. Yet Spain has been governed for a long period by one monarch; and any jealousy or dislike that may exist between the people of neighbouring provinces has never been urged as a ground for constituting a Federal State or that there should not be one Castilian or Spanish monarch. In like manner if the people of Italy can get over their jealousies and dislikes, let them form one united people. Unfortunately for the Italians there are objections to that course from very opposite quarters and of the most opposite character. France is disposed to think that it would be much better for her to have a number of weak separate States in Italy than one strong State exercising a pressure on the South as unpleasant as the pressure on the North. Germany, again, fears that an united Italy would be sure to take part against her with France. Now, it seems to me to be rather hard on the Italians, who have not yet constituted an united Italy, and are free to choose their policy, to bring such objections against them, and to assume that they will adopt this or that disagreeable line of policy. I believe that when they are united they will look solely to the interests of Italy, and will go to war for or against France, or perhaps remain neutral, just as may seem most beneficial for their country. Although I hold that we were not only not at liberty to interfere ourselves, but were bound to use our influence to prevent others from interfering in the affairs of Italy, I do not disguise the great satisfaction I feel at the prospect which is opening before that country. If it be a crime to wish that the people of Italy should be free to use the intellect with which it has pleased Providence to endow them, and to tread, as our own nation has done, the path of constitutional liberty, then it is a crime of which I must plead guilty. I should heartily rejoice in that result. It appears to me to be no obstacle to their progress that in no former period of history has Italy been united. It was because Italy was disunited that three centuries ago a great Power found it easy to subdue her province by province, using the jealousies of each against the other as the means of destroying their independence. What is more natural than that the Italians, having found by experience the effect of their jealousies, should now be anxious to discard them and try if union will not restore them to independence? Having thus answered the observations made in relation to the general subject, I shall not enter into all the particular accusations which have been made against myself on this subject. They are of the most conflicting character. The hon. Member for the King's County charges me with extreme partiality for Austria; the hon. Baronet, the Member for Dundalk, charges me with a settled design against Austrian interests and a desire to see Austria dismembered. I can assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that his accusation at all events is unfounded. Austria occupies a most difficult position at this moment, but it is my earnest wish, as it should be of every Englishman, that she may so reconcile the various parts of her monarchy as to satisfy the wishes of her subjects, and maintain her place as a great and stable Power in Europe. That, however, is also a question in which we cannot interfere; and it must depend on the wisdom of the Austrian Government whether, within the next three months, that State re-establishes her position, or whether she takes a step that may be injurious, if not fatal, to the recovery of her influence in Europe. I rejoice to ob- serve the strength lately acquired by constitutional parties in almost every country of Europe. After a long interval we see in the Senate of France a revival of liberty of speech which is really quite delightful. One gentleman with a great historic name, the Marquis de Larochejaquelein, has delivered a speech abusing the policy of England; but I perused it with no less pleasure on that account, being satisfied that free discussion must, in the long run, after, no doubt, much bickering and mutual accusation, tend to promote greater confidence and amity between the two nations. In Austria and Hungary representative assemblies have been summoned. In Prussia there have been signs of greater independence in a Chamber which has hitherto seemed almost a mockery of a representative assembly. I hope that the unfortunate occurrence which has lately taken place at Warsaw will lead to the recovery by the Poles of some of the ancient privileges of which they were deprived after the events of 1831. On almost every side, indeed, we witness the progress of constitutional liberty; and an ancient and classic land of freedom like our own cannot but rejoice in the success of principles to which we are so much attached. In all these matters my object, as one of the Ministers of Her Majesty's Government, has been to follow, not a party policy, but a national policy; and I believe I have succeeded so far that the country generally affirms the policy Her Majesty's Ministry have pursued. Although my administration has elicited a good deal of criticism from the party in Opposition I do not understand that they venture to condemn it; and I trust and believe that the great majority of my countrymen approve a policy which is favourable to the liberty of Italy, and to the interests of Europe.

MR. WHITE

said, he had not intended to take any part in this debate; but after the direct reference which had been made to him by the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck) he must say a few words. The hon. and learned Member had told the House of his efforts on behalf of the oppressed Canadians of former times, and declared that the country had been converted to his opinions. If the nation had changed the hon. and learned Member had assuredly changed also, seeing that he could not now extend his sympathies to the down-trodden people of Venetia, groaning under a manifestly worse tyranny than was ever suffered by the Canadians. The sentiments that the hon. and learned Member used to utter strongly contrasted with those to which he now gave expression; and it was said in the City, no doubt untruly, that gilded saloons and converse with Archdukes and Archduchesses accounted for the change. It was even said that the hon. and learned Member came from Vienna with a lucrative contract in his pocket. ["Oh!"] He bogged pardon of the House, but thought it justice to the hon. and learned Member to state what was said in the City about him. Even on commercial grounds it was the interest of England to advocate the liberty and unity of Italy; for, once let Austria be driven out of Venetia, and the French depart from Rome, and there would be no country in the world such good customers to England as Italy, excepting the United States of America.

MR. LINDSAY

then moved the adjournment of the debate.

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

MR. AYRTON

said, his hon. Friend's object was, as he understood, to know when his own Motion upon the paper respecting iron and wooden ships of war would come on, and he was under the impression that it was necessary for his purpose to prevent this discussion closing tonight. This, however, appeared to him (Mr. Ayrton) to be a mistake; and if the Government would say that his hon. Friend should not lose his opportunity probably the Motion would be withdrawn.

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON

said, if his hon. Friend would allow them on Monday to take a Vote for the men and their pay he would have an opportunity on a subsequent occasion of moving his Motion. It would be a very great convenience if they were allowed to take a Vote for the men on Monday.

SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE

asked whether it was the intention to take a Vote for the number of men for the army as well on Monday?

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON

said, it would be convenient, perhaps, to do so; but at all events it was desirable to take the Vote for the navy.

MR. LINDSAY

said he would withdraw his motion for adjourning the debate on the understanding that, before the Votes relating to the construction of ships and the expenditure of the dockyards wore taken, he should have the opportunity of bringing forward his Motion in reference to those subjects.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Main Question put, and agreed to.

Supply considered in Committee.

House resumed.

Committee report Progress; to sit again this day.