Lords Sitting of 14 February 1860

MINUTES.
Sat First in Parliament.—The Lord Londesborough—after the Death of his Father.
Took the Oath—The Lord Skene.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Probate and Administration (India).

CENTRAL ITALY. SAVOY.

  MOTION FOR PAPERS.
  THE MARQUESS OF NORMANBY—who had given notice of Motion for the Instructions given by the Secretary of State to Her Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires at Florence, directing him to attend the official reception of Signor Buoncompagni, and subsequently of a Motion for a return of the dates of all communications between the Secretary of State and Her Majesty's Ambassador at Paris, from the accession to office of the present Ministry—said, that
  1002
  in introducing the subject of his Motion, he thought it his duty to show the close connection between the Notice that he first gave, and that which he added last night. His first Motion referred to the line taken by the English Government in reference to the provisional ruler of Florence, and it was his intention to have called their Lordships' attention to that very extraordinary act in exemplification of the system pursued during the last few months by Her Majesty's Government as partizans of one particular settlement of the difficulty in regard to the affairs of Central Italy. Their advocacy of that particular settlement was in direct opposition to the course of conduct pursued by the Emperor of the French. But on that subject he would not dwell. He wished to call their Lordships' attention to another circumstance, which had become known since he last called their Lordships' attention to the Italian question—namely, a statement given, as he believed, on the authority of Count Walewski, that certain proceedings had taken place relative to the annexation of Savoy, subsequent to those mentioned by his noble Friend, the Foreign Secretary, in the explanation which he had given in the other House of Parliament, and declaring that the explanation of his noble Friend, though correct as far as it went, was incomplete. Noble Lords opposite need be under no alarm that anything he would say could prejudice the course they were now pursuing. He appealed to their Lordships whether, notwithstanding what had passed in the other House, any complaint could be made against him for bringing this subject forward now. The subject was one to which he had already adverted, and he took some credit to himself when he said it was a question on which he felt most deeply. On Friday last, under somewhat inauspicious circumstances, he put a question to his noble Friend opposite (Earl Granville) as to an impression universally prevalent in Paris, that the whole of the case, as regarded Savoy, had not been stated to the British Parliament. He then observed that the general impression prevalent on the Continent, and in diplomatic circles on this matter, was confirmed by a letter to which publicity had been given in a French newspaper. His noble Friend might sneer at anonymous communications in newspapers; but when he did so, he was indulging in a dream of the past, and adverting to a state of things which no longer existed. In every great European State,

  1003
  it was now the practice to make important communications to the newspapers, particularly was it so on the part of our nearest neighbour here in question, and only within the last six weeks a great European Congress was officially declared to have been postponed on account of an anonymous pamphlet. But, in respect to the letter to which allusion was now made, his noble Friend must be was well aware as he was, that it was reputed to rest on the authority of Count Walewski himself. When he referred to the subject on Friday, he had not the newspaper beside him in which the letter appeared, and could only state substantially, and in a few words, the general effect of what appeared in that very remarkable document. He would now read to their Lordships at length the very words of the letter:—
  "Lord John Russell stated last week in the House of Commons that the English Cabinet, desiring to know the intentions of the French Government with regard to Savoy, Count Walewski had declared to them, in the month of July last, that the Emperor and his Government did not think of the annexation of that country to France. This communication of Lord John Russell was quite exact. But to make known all the truth, that the attitude of France with regard to Savoy should be properly appreciated, the noble Lord might have said, and perhaps ought to have said, more… The declarations of Count Walewski were, then, perfectly true; but it is equally certain that later on, when events had considerably changed the situation of Italy, the Government of the Emperor saw in these eventualities new necessities, new duties for France. Count Walewski then held quite another language, and declared that if the Central States of Italy were annexed to Piedmont, France would be obliged to claim Savoy and the county of Nice. Count Walewski told Lord Cowley, that if the English Government did not desire to see the annexation of Savoy to France, they had only to cease urging the annexation of Central Italy to Piedmont, but the one rendered the other inevitable. Lord John Russell was not ignorant of these resolutions, so frankly declared by the French Government; and it is a subject of surprise that he stopped at the Month of July in the explanations that he communicated to Parliament on a subject that has preoccupied public attention so much. However, the despatches of Lord Cowley cannot fail to be in one of the first volumes of the blue-book, which will be furnished to the English Parliament."
  Now he was very much afraid that Count Walewski would be disappointed in the expectation that any such explanations as he spoke of would be found in the blue-book. It had been assumed by the noble Lord that conversations might have taken place between Count Walewski and the English Ambassador on these matters, but that they had never assumed an official
  1004
  character. Now he maintained—and he would appeal for confirmation to those noble Lords who had the same acquaintance with diplomatic proceedings as he had himself—that in all European countries when a communication was made by a Foreign Minister to the Ambassador of another country on any public question, whether verbally or otherwise, it by its very nature became official, and that any departure from that rule was a departure from the established usages followed in diplomatic intercourse. Did their Lordships not see what monstrous abuses might spring from these private and confidential communications being considered unofficial? And was such a course not at variance with all our recognized constitutional doctrines, and dangerous to all our international relations? Such a departure from the established usage was unjust to the Foreign Minister who made communications verbally to the Ambassador in the expectation that what he stated would be put into an official shape. It would, moreover, place the Foreign Secretary beyond the pale of official responsibility; and not only this, he would say that, in order to have perfect identity of opinion on questions of foreign policy, the Members of the Cabinet should be aware of all that had passed, and it was therefore unfair to his colleagues if anything was kept back by the Foreign Secretary. The usual practice was that everything in the shape of a public despatch was circulated for the information of the Cabinet; but private letters were generally communicated only to the Foreign Secretary, the Prime Minister, and the Leader of the House in which the latter did not happen to be. That, at all events, was the practice which had been adopted by the Government of Lord Melbourne, of which he (the Marquess of Normanby) had the honour to be a Member. If that course were not observed, many things which arose during the recess would have occurred without the knowledge of the noble Lord's colleagues. It was a good old rule to have an official record of every diplomatic transaction, and one which he thought ought to be usefully observed. The letter which he had just read to their Lordships was strangely at variance with any appearance of sincerity and completeness in the statement which had been made by the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs. He must say that he did not understand the change of policy which seemed

  1005
  to have taken place with respect to the Italian question as indicated by the speech of the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary at Aberdeen, which was the first communication to the public after the despatches received at the end of the month of June. In these they were distinctly told that everything in Central Italy was purely provisional. But in the speech which he had made at Aberdeen, the noble Lord stated that the people of Central Italy had conducted themselves with perfect order, as if they were citizens of a country which had long been free. He should like to know where his noble Friend got that information. They might have conducted themselves as citizens of a country which had long been free, but they could not have conducted themselves as citizens of a country which was any longer free, inasmuch as not one of the Governors of the different parts of Central Italy had been chosen by popular election. They were all nominated by a new method of shuffling the cards, putting the same persons into different positions in the Piedmontese Government, and the people had no choice in the matter. Had they liberty of speech there? It was well known that Signor Farini, the Governor of the Romagna, has issued a proclamation announcing that any person who adhered to the old regime would be visited with the pains of high treason. Had they freedom of the press there? On the contrary, the censorship was substantially in force throughout all the new Governments. Had they liberty of person? He could prove to their Lordships that not hundreds, but thousands, of the citizens were now imprisoned on account of their loyalty. One word with respect to the way in which the new Governments were appointed. They would recollect that the King of Sardinia, acting in conformity with that treaty by which he was so great a gainer, recalled his Royal Commissioners from the Governments of Central Italy. Thus Signor Buoncompagni was recalled from Tuscany as the King's Commissioner; but he had not long returned to his own country till he was sent back again by the Prince Carignan, though he was very far, indeed, from being the object of the popular choice. In the same way Signor Farini was recalled; but though they recalled Farini the Commissioner, they reappointed Farini the Dictator. Then let their Lordships turn to Parma, where Count Palieri had been appointed Commissioner. It
  1006
  might have been supposed that when the old Government retired, he would have have called the citizens together, and asked what was next to be done. Not a bit of it; but of his own accord he appointed Signor Manfredi, his Private Secretary, the Commissioner of the neighbouring state of Modena, and when the Commissioners were recalled, Manfredi came to Parma as Governor, but after a few days Farini appeared as Governor of both Provinces, appointed by Manfredi to Modena. And all these things were done by proclamations—the people were never consulted on any one of them. Their Lordships would perhaps allow him to go into some detail as to the acts of these new Governments. Everybody knew the character of the Duchess of Parma—how much she had done for her people, and how beloved she was among them, insomuch that on a former occasion, when her Government was overthrown by a popular tumult, she was restored to her throne by the spontaneous action of the people themselves. In the late transactions she might have held her place, for there were many brave hearts devoted to her, but she would not allow her troops to fire upon the people. One regiment of 900 resolute men, under the command of Major Bouzi, was prepared to act, and the tumultuous mob snowed no disposition to face them; when upon their approaching the town after the departure of the Duchess, General Scotti conveyed to Major Bouzi a message from the Duchess, ordering them not to fire, as the Duchess would prefer to suffer anything rather than her troops to fire upon the people for whom she had done so much. On receiving the message, Major Bouzi came to an agreement with the commander of the popular party, and agreed that his regiment should lay down their arms and enter the city, on condition that their safety should be guaranteed. This was agreed to by the leaders of the mob; but no sooner were they within the gates than Major Bousi was fired at, and as the pistol-shot grazed his head he was stabbed, and for two hours he was dragged through the streets of the town with every mark of indignity, and thrown into a dungeon more dead than alive. All the officers received similar treatment, and none of them were allowed to go out of prison, except on condition that they would join the popular army. Was all this concealed from his noble Friend the Foreign Secre-

  1007
  tary? If it was, where was his information? If it was not, how could he tell the people of Aberdeen that the Italians had conducted themselves as citizens of a country that had long been free? He wished now to refer to the fate of Colonel Anviti for the sake of correcting one or two errors that had gone abroad on that subject. Count Anviti did not go of his own accord to Parma, nor was it true that he was generally unpopular there. In the year 1855 his life had been attempted by a secret society there, and the person guilty of that attempt was tried and executed. He was travelling from Bologna, and at a particular place, where the railroad was broken, he was recognized by the brother of the man who had been executed for attempting his life. He was obliged, in consequence of that unfortunate occurrence, to go into the town, and there the unhappy man was seized and dragged through the streets for five hours, murdered with horrible cruelty, and his body mangled after death, without the slightest attempt having been made to rescue him by any person in authority; and from that time to this, in spite of the high-sounding-proclamations which had been put forth, not a single person had been put on his trial for that horrible outrage. All that happened during the regime of one of the new Governments of Central Italy, the people of which, according to his noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, had conducted themselves with perfect order, as if they were the citizens of a country which had long been free. But suppose there had been order, he contended that that proved nothing. In the French Revolution of 1848, they all knew that perfect order was maintained up to June; and at Rome, the same thing happened till Count Rossi was assassinated. In fact, nothing was easier than to control the mob in the first days of a revolution; but that proved nothing as to its future character. He (the Marquess of Normanby) read to their Lordships on the first day of the Session a letter from a Tuscan gentleman of the highest respectability. He had since heard from that gentleman, who said: "You will not be surprised that that letter has been made the ground of violent abuse. Why I cannot tell you, because it contained an exact description of the truth." He would read a letter which he had received a few days ago from an English merchant of the first considertion at Leghorn. That gentleman said:—
  1008
  "Intervention is prohibited in Tuscany, but, my Lord, intervention exists everywhere, and armed foreign intervention. The Governor-General is Piedmontese, the Minister of War is Piedmontese, the Commander of the Gendarmerie is Piedmontese, the Military Governor of Leghorn is Piedmontese, the Captain of the Port is Piedmontese; besides a great many others of the same nation occupying other responsible positions. This I consider armed foreign intervention. Let this be removed, and let the despotic pressure of the present Government be taken away, and I believe that the country would vote in a large majority for the restoration of the dynasty of Lorraine. I believe nearly the whole army to be in favour of the Grand Duke which is now kept out of Tuscany; and certainly two-thirds of the National Guard are for the Grand Duke. All the Powers have been neutral here, in as far as not taking part in ceremonies or in acknowledging the present Government. Since the peace of Villafranca the British agents have assisted at all ceremonies and balls."
  Surely the recognition of that Government was not in accordance with the assurance that was given last Session by the noble Lord at the head of the Foreign Department. His informant went on to say that,—
  "The troops are dispersed out of Tuscany—the people are afraid to make a great demonstration—they know that for one word the prisons are ready to receive them. Private meetings have been held at Leghorn by influential persons, and some members of the National Assembly. A public meeting is impossible. The convocation of the Assembly was requested by twenty-three members, and refused. At these private meetings it was decided that Ferdinand IV. should be received with a constitution and an amnesty. The people have been grossly deceived from the beginning, all promises have been broken, the price of food has been raised, and the national debt enormously augmented."
  Although some of those facts might have been withheld from the noble Lord, still he must have known some of them when he directed the English representative to attend Signor Buoncompagni's reception. He (the Marquess of Normanby) had referred, on a former evening, to a remarkable work written by Signor Ampèri, a most distinguished man, originally a refugee from the Romagna on account of certain disturbances that had occurred in that district, who addressed the new Government of Central Italy in the following terms:—
  "You must have been induced by the false position you have created for yourselves to consent in these times (which you call those of liberty, but which are not so) that perversions of the truth should be made a means of government. You transformed the answer of Victor Emanuel that he would advocate before the great Powers the vote of the Tuscan Assembly, which had adopted him as their King, into a positive acceptance; and, in order to persuade the ignorant multitude,

  1009
  you ordered public rejoicings in honour of that which you know was not a fact. You declared yourselves Ministers of a King who had never appointed you. You administer the Government in his name. You pass sentence in his name. You pledge the public faith to one who has not given you any authority for such a purpose; and though it is through you that you force the Tuscans to recognize him as King, you are the first to show a mark of disrespect which destroys his prestige, by imposing upon him the choice of a regent, which you have no right to do if he is the King, and whom you had no right to nominate on his behalf if he is not."
  Having pointed out the actual condition of the Tuscan Government, it was hardly necessary to allude to the particular person who had been selected for the favour of the noble Lord at the head of the Foreign Department of this country. They had all heard of Signor Buoncompagni—his name was a kind of by-word and reproach in Italy on account of his treachery in a profession which, above and beyond all others, required the strictest honour and good faith. The kind of estimation in which he was held had been well described by a noble Lord in the course of last Session. Signor Buoncompagni was nominated Commissioner-General for the King of Sardinia. He was recalled, and an offer of the Regency was then made to Prince Carignan, and then, strange to say, Prince Carignan, who had nothing to do with Tuscany, while refusing the regency, appointed or nominated Signor Buoncompagni as Governor-General. As had been shown, that appointment caused great indignation in Florence, and even Liberal members of the Assembly protested against it; but still the English Secretary of State desired Her Majesty's representative to attend an official reception of Signor Buoncompagni, to whom he was not accredited. He (the Marquess of Normanby) believed that it was an established point of diplomatic etiquette that that should not be done. He had not forgotten the lesson he received the other night from the noble Earl opposite upon the inexpediency of giving autobiographical details in the House; but where events were analagous a comparison was sometimes useful. He was Ambassador in Paris in 1848, when the revolution broke out: but, after the revolution, he remained there unofficially, having no regular communication with any member of the Provisional Government, and was personally acquainted only with M. Lamartine. When the National Assembly was convoked, M. Lamartine sent to him and to other members of the corps
  1010
  diplomatique a sort of invitation to attend the ceremony. He consulted with his colleagues and with the Government at home; it was universally agreed by them that not being accredited to the Government, and, with their assent, he declined to attend the opening of the Assembly in his official capacity. The Foreign Secretary of that day was Lord Palmerston, and the Prime Minister was Lord J. Russell. The actors had now changed their parts, but they were the same men who approved his conduct in 1848; and, therefore, he wished to know what there was peculiar in the position of Signor Buoncompagni to make him a special exception to what had hitherto been a universal practice. He regretted very much the present position of our Foreign Office. When the present Government entered upon office England was maintaining a dignified attitude of perfect neutrality, and professions were made of a determination to continue in the same course. But soon came the chimerical idea of a great kingdom in Central Italy, and the Government pursued it in their own utter ignorance—he meant ignorance of the wants, the wishes, and the prejudices of the people in the different States of Italy. The Emperor of the French, having entered into certain engagements with Austria, was very creditably desirous of fulfilling them; but it seemed that the noble Lords whom he had mentioned thought by showing favour to those factious Governments to overreach the Emperor. They had given to the Emperor of the French a reason, or, at all events, an excuse, for a course of proceeding which had excited universal reprobation in this country. Such he took to be the position of the Italian question. He was anxious that the papers for which he had moved should be produced, because he could not comprehend, in spite of the explanations which had been offered elsewhere, when the communications on the subject to which he had drawn attention were received by Her Majesty's Government. It was a painful duty to dispel the illusions which still existed in the public mind of England respecting Italy. He had, however, endeavoured to discharge that duty by bringing before Parliament information which he had received from trustworthy sources, and he was glad to believe that at last some glimmer of light was breaking from the cloud of prejudice and ignorance, and that there was now a greater prospect of the establish-

  1011
  ment of Italian independence on legitimate foundations, freed from all foreign interposition, and so as to promote the cause of loyalty, truth, good faith, and good order. The noble Marquess concluded by moving: First—
  "That an bumble Address be presented to Her Majesty for, Copy of any Instructions from the Secretary of State to Her Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires at Florence, who is not accredited to the Provisional Government there, directing him to attend the official Reception on the 1st of January of Signor Buoncompagni, now acting as Governor-General of Tuscany, having been nominated as such by Prince Carignan of Savoy without any subsequent popular Sanction on the Part of the Tuscan People."
  And second—
  "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty for, Return of the Dates of all Communications between the Secretary of State and Her Majesty's Ambassador at Paris, on the Subject of the Annexation of Savoy and Nice to France, from the Accession to Office of the present Ministry up to this Time."
  EARL GRANVILLEwas happy to say that he did not think it had ever before been his lot to be accused of want of courtesy in that House. That, however, did not diminish his regret to find the noble Marquess now complaining of his want of courtesy on a former occasion. As far as he could remember, not a single word fell from him which could bear out such a charge; but if he had unintentionally erred in this way, either as to manner or tone, he was very sorry, for he should lament much if anything he spoke or wrote should evince a want of consideration towards one with whom he had had both diplomatic and personal relations. With regard to the Motion of the noble Marquess, it was almost without precedent, if not irregular, to call for the production of Correspondence which the Government had stated it would not be for the public service at present to produce. At the same time he (Earl Granville) had not the slightest objection to the particular return for which the noble Marquess had moved as an addendum, for the dates of the communications respecting the annexation of Savoy, from the accession to office of the present Government. But the noble Marquess had laid great stress upon a letter in the Indépendence Beige, coming, he said, from Count Walewski, the statements of which, he thought, were inconsistent with the statements made in this and the other House of Parliament. Now, the statement he (Earl Granville) had made was, that there was no official communication between the two Governments
  1012
  during a certain time, but he had not denied that there might have passed communications, in private conversation, between the French Minister of Foreign Affairs and the English Minister at the French Court. The noble Marquess had made an assertion that no communications could pass between a Minister of Foreign Affairs and an Ambassador without being official. That he (Earl Granville) entirely denied. Between men who had long known each other and who stood in these relations there were frequent conversations and arguments which bore no official character. He had been informed by his noble Friend the Foreign Secretary that in looking back to his private correspondence he found a private letter from Earl Cowley detailing a private conversation with Count Walewski upon different phases of the Italian question, and containing, as an obiter dictum, an allusion to a contingency which was declared in the despatches to be quite impossible. He (Earl Granville) thought, that after official communications had taken place on this subject in more than one despatch, after an announcement had been made respecting it in Parliament, and after a satisfactory assurance had been received that the question had dropped, his noble Friend was quite justified in taking no notice of a private conversation, which Earl Cowley believed it unnecessary to embody in a despatch. It was useless, then, for his noble Friend to give an official form to a matter which seemed at that time at rest. That was all he (Earl Granville) had to say on this part of the subject. But the noble Marquess went on to move for
  "A copy of any instructions from the Secretary of State to Her Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires at Florence, who is not accredited to the Provisional Government there, directing him to attend the official reception on the 1st of January of Signor Buoncompagni, now acting as Governor-General of Tuscany, having been nominated as such by Prince Carignan of Savoy, without any subsequent sanction on the part of the Tuscan people."
  Then, profiting by this Motion, the noble Marquess had gone into the same sort of general charge against the whole Italian people, which he indulged the House with on almost every occasion he could. Now, he wished to ask the noble Marquess on what authority did he claim to advance these vague accusations? The noble Marquess had had sufficient Parliamentary experience to be aware that—although private letters to himself, filled with every

  1013
  sort of assertion in detail, might help to confirm some particular opinions of his own, and might perhaps afford to himself matters of some interest and amusement, yet in a public assembly like that, discussing grave public questions, on which they had a certain bias of opinion, very little importance could be attached to weak translations and quotations from private letters—the House not knowing the names of the writers, or what personal motives they might have for thus sending them to be communicated there by the organ of the noble Marquess. It was really childish to think that the British Parliament would be influenced by such unauthorized communications as those. When, therefore, the noble Marquess asked whether the Government knew all that, he having read all those statements from his private letters, he scarcely knew what to say to him; but this he would say, that a collection of tales of that description had been given to Her Majesty's Government, and that Her Majesty's Government did thereupon inquire into the truth of them, and found there was no foundation for them whatever. It was of course impossible—it would be contrary to human nature—to suppose that, in such very peculiar times as these, a golden age could be existing in Italy—that there should be absolutely no offences committed amongst the populace, and that the Government on no occasion should have committed any fault; but from all that he had heard, and from the authentic information sent to Her Majesty's Government by our officials abroad, on their public responsibility, he must say that he believed on the whole the condition of Central Italy was remarkable, especially if it were contrasted with the state of things in 1848—that it was most remarkable at present for the general order and peace, and for the general satisfaction which reigned there. The noble Marquess would have done better to have postponed the discussions on these points till the papers which were last night laid before the House of Commons should have been presented also to their Lordships' House. He would there have seen that although Mr. Corbett pointed out certain things in which he thought the Government of Florence had been wrong, and other things on which the feelings of the people had flowed in this direction or in that, yet the general inference from those despatches was that there never were elections carried on with more order and regularity than those for
  1014
  the return of the Tuscan Assembly; and the result, be it remembered, was that that Assembly was composed of the men most remarkable in the country, by their birth, their property, their scientific, literary, or industrial qualifications. He (Earl Granville) really thought it was hardly necessary, as the papers had not yet been put into their Lordships' hands, to go further into this question. The noble Marquess had spoken of the "ignorance" prevailing among public men on the Italian question; but when he was complaining of want of courtesy towards himself, he thought he might have refrained himself from applying such a term to the most experienced statesmen of the present day. But to give the House some little idea of the value of the information which the noble Marquess himself possessed, he would ask upon what grounds did the noble Marquess suppose that such a despatch as that for which he had moved really existed? He (Earl Granville) believed that no such despatch existed. The only thing at all bearing upon the matter was a despatch, which would be found among the papers now printed, directing Mr. Corbett to treat Signor Buoncompagni exactly in the same unofficial way in which he had previously treated Baron Ricasoli. Now, from the abuse lavished by the noble Marquess on Signor Buoncompagni—abuse which, in speaking of the actual head of a Government to which we wished well, in every sense of the word, might better have been avoided—he (Earl Granville) did not understand whether or not the noble Marquess thought that Her Majesty's Government and Mr. Corbett ought to have made a difference between Signor Buoncompagni and Baron Ricasoli. But he thought nothing could have been more foolish or wrong than to do so. The principle on which Her Majesty's Government had proceeded was that of sending a person to act as chargé d'affaires at Florence, giving him orders to hold only unofficial communications with the de facto Government of the day; and nothing would have been so foolish as for him or for the British Government to enter into the claims of any one particular person, and to discuss whether that person really was the head of the Government or not. The simple rule was to take the state of affairs as they found it. Whether or not Mr. Corbett had throughout acted wisely and judiciously, and in strict compliance with diplomatic usages, he (Earl Granville) would not discuss,

  1015
  but certainly Mr. Corbett had done well in showing friendly attention to those who were actually carrying on the Government at Florence. The noble Marquess, however, had quoted from his anonymous correspondence a complaint that the English chargé d'affaires was the only one who had exhibited any civility of that sort. But he (Earl Granville) found in these papers a case somewhat similar, namely, that when the Assembly met, there, in the tribune allotted to the corps diplomatique, appeared not only the English and Sardinian, but also the French representative. Some of the other matters alluded to by the noble Marquess, which he found in his correspondence, were of such a kind that, at all events, no information of them whatever had reached any single individual except himself in this country. Now, he (Earl Granville) did implore their Lordships not to be led away by such representations. It would indeed be madness to suppose that there would not be some offences given and some faults committed by any Governments placed in such a peculiar position as those of Central Italy were; but he repeated that the general state of the country was most satisfactory, whether with regard to the good order that was preserved, or the wishes exhibited by the people. As for the general charge made by the noble Marquess against Her Majesty's Government, that, whereas the late Government left this country in a very high position at the beginning of the war, Her Majesty's present Government had now entirely lost that position through their partizan feeling in favour of the annexation to Sardinia—if the noble Marquess would look at the papers now produced, he might there see that from the beginning the attitude of Her Majesty's Government had been anything but that of the partizan of any particular scheme. He would see, for instance, that when that very distinguished man, whose death was so much deplored, the Marquis Lajatico, came to London, Her Majesty's Government refused to receive him in a diplomatic capacity, but that in conversations with him Lord John Russell endeavoured to impress upon him the reasons why it seemed to Her Majesty's Government desirable that the Tuscans should recall the hereditary Grand Duke. After that, when the future Government to be adopted was under discussion, Her Majesty's Government still refused to give any opinion, but merely stated that they would respect the
  1016
  wishes of the Italians. And if there were latterly one or two despatches in which the advantages of the annexation were urged, they were urged chiefly because it was known to be the expressed wish of Central Italy to be so annexed; and the despatches then merely added some other arguments which would naturally suggest themselves with regard to the forming of a larger kingdom, for the sake of the Italians protecting their own independence. But even on that occasion it would be seen that his noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs intimated that the approval of Her Majesty's Government was always open to any other arrangement satisfactory to the people. Instead, then, of the course pursued by Her Majesty's Government having brought us on the Continent into that deplorable position which the noble Marquess supposed, he (Earl Granville) believed that the influence of England on this Italian question had increased, and was still greatly increasing; and he admitted that this was owing to no merit of the present Government, except that of having followed a disinterested course, and one in unison with the wishes of the Italian people, and one in which he felt they were supported by the great majority of the people of this country. With regard to Austria, indeed, it could not be expected that the policy Her Majesty's Government thought right should be entirely pleasing to Austria, since Austria and England started from such different points of view as to everything that could regulate Italian policy. But, at the same time, these despatches showed—and, indeed, Her Majesty's Ministers had directly expressed the same to the Austrian Government—that although in Italy these subjects of disagreement still remained, it was the strong wish of Her Majesty's Government to see the power of Austria consolidated, so as to make her continue what she had been—an important element in the European equilibrium. And as for the people of Italy themselves, he was quite sure that, notwithstanding that we were no party to the war last year, which they hailed with so much enthusiasm, they still appreciated the attitude which we had since adopted with regard to them; and it was impossible not to see that they looked up to us as a model of free Government. The people of England, he was equally certain, felt grateful to Her Majesty's Ministers for having shown, in their name, a judicious sympathy with the people of

  1017
  Italy, so far as to protest against any forcible intervention from without, and to claim that the Italians themselves should be left to settle their own affairs, whilst we abstained from any engagement that could fetter our action hereafter. He was borne out, therefore, by public opinion in thus repudiating the charges which the noble Marquess had brought, with so much strong language, against Her Majesty's Government.
  THE MARQUESS OF NORMANBYsaid, that the grounds on which he supposed a despatch relating to the attendance of the British chargé d' affaires really existed was that Mr. Corbett had distinctly stated that he had done so, in consequence of the instructions he had received.
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURY: My Lords, the noble Earl has complained that on the Motion of the noble Marquess, your Lordships' House has been more than once, and more than twice, occupied with this question during the present Session of Parliament. If however the noble President of the Council has become wearied and impatient at the frequent observations and criticisms of the noble Marquess, I think that is very much to be laid at the door of the Government themselves. It is very much their fault that these repeated conversations take place, and that these repeated appeals are made from this side of the House; because they have imparted to us no information, at least only by bits and scraps; sometimes there is a speech in the other House, sometimes a few words in this; sometimes an official document in the Moniteur; sometimes an announcement in Reuter's telegraph; sometimes we have asked questions and sometimes we have moved for Returns: and out of this confused mass we have had to try to extract something like the truth of what has taken place during the last six months in Italy. Without wishing to glorify the Government to which I had the honour to belong, I may say that was not the case when we were in power. I beg your Lordships to recollect that just on the eve of my leaving office I presented to your Lordships a collected and full statement of the correspondence that had taken place on the affairs of Italy, between the 1st of January and the end of May. But from that moment up to this we have only had, as far as I have seen, one or two despatches published by the noble Lord now at the head of Foreign Affairs soon after he came into office, which were confined
  1018
  to a correspondence with the Prussian Government; and since that time we have received nothing official from Her Majesty's Government on the subject. It is, therefore, realty the fault of the Government that these frequent conversations have taken place. My Lords, a great deal of misrepresentation has taken place with respect to persons and with respect to things in this great controversy on this question. And no one person has been more misrepresented than myself. I have been—I suppose for some party purpose—held up in this House as a partizan of Austria and a constant supporter of Austrian tyranny in Italy, and yet on your Lordships' table I laid, a paper, the very first of the Government to which I belonged, written as early as the beginning of January, 1859, on the 12th of that month, in which I stated positively and categorically to Austria that in no case would England assist her in her military occupation of Italy. In the face of that I have been accused of being partial to that Government, and wishing her success as against Italian liberty and independence, whilst we threw every posssible difficulty in the path of Prance. Our object was to establish and maintain a bonâ fide neutrality in regard to Italy. I knew, and my Colleagues knew, that such was the wish of the English people; and I felt myself that, up to the moment we left office, we had maintained that wish. If I had done what was asserted I should judge, from the displeasure shown both by France and Austria, that the anger of both had evinced that we had not favoured either the one or the other. I believe, although many events have since occurred, that no circumstances have transpired which would have justified Her Majesty's Government in departing from the principle of noninterference; but I am apprehensive—although I have not seen the papers presented, at last, to the other House, and I feel, of course, great diffidence on the subject—but, from all that we have heard, and that has been said by the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in the other House, I am apprehensive that that strict impartiality and neutrality, and that system of non-interference, that was commenced by the late Government has not been persisted in by the present. I fear that that noble Lord has not carried out the principles he enunciated and maintained in his speech at Aberdeen. If it be true that, expressing

  1019
  strongly their opinion that a kingdom should be formed in Northern Italy composed of those united Provinces that have now rejected their former Sovereigns, and if, believing this to be the best policy, the Government have forced it or urged it upon France, and if in consequence France has used it as a reason and a pretext for carrying out an object which she appears for a time to have abandoned—if that is the "logic of the facts," and believing the Emperor of the French's argument to be true, then such a consummation—the loss of Savoy to Piedmont and its annexation to France—rests on the head of Her Majesty's Government. Indeed, it is the first fruits they have gathered of the consequence of abandoning the principle of non-interference which they first espoused and first professed to follow, and the fruits to be reaped from which may be far more bitter if they persistently continue in that course. Every man has a right to his opinions on these subjects, and the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, it appears, is, that a strong Government should be formed in Northern Italy. I have the greatest respect for the experience, the abilities, and the judgment of many noble Lords opposite and of their colleagues in the House of Commons, but that is not, in my opinion, the real way to give strength and peace to the Italian people. I conclude that they wish—what I wish and what I believe every man in this country wishes—that Italy should be a free and independent nation, that she should be strong enough to resist aggression, and to take her proper place among the other nations of Europe. But I do not think that the scheme proposed is the best scheme for arriving at such a consummation; and my Lords, I will tell you why. If the strong kingdom to be found in Northern Italy is to comprise the union of the Duchies of Tuscany and Parma, and the Romagna, to Piedmont, and if that has for its consequences the annexation of Savoy to France, how can the northern kingdom, or Northern Italy, be a strong kingdom in a military or strategic point of view? It would, in reality, be open at both ends—it would be exposed at both extremities. France would hold the key of the Alps in Savoy, and Austria would hold the key of Northern Italy on the Mincio. Italy in herself would have no protection at all from the north and from the east, and we all know that the geographical formation of Italy makes it difficult to
  1020
  defend it in a military point of view, unless she is in possession of enormous forces. The very shape of Italy, taking the entire country from the top of the boot to the foot, would necessitate its having a navy almost as large as England has to protect her against foreign aggression. Its natural configuration exposes its armies, however strong, to be turned in the flank or rear by sea, and if in addition to that it has the doors of the Alps open at both ends, it is palpable that it cannot be a strong country or one capable of being strongly protected. I do not believe that it is in that kind of strength it must look for its protection. Looking at the character of the Italians, at the divided sovereignties it has possessed for ages, at the different feelings that prevail, and the different dialects that are spoken, I believe Italy would be strong as a nation of confederated States—neutralized, and therefore free, of course, from the interference of the foreigner—and that if thus confederated together they would form what might be called a strong nation. I say so because I believe that constituted into such a kingdom as Her Majesty's Government propose it would only be strong enough to give offence, but too weak to protect itself. Although these are my private opinions as differing from those of Her Majesty's Government, let it not be supposed for a moment that I wish to urge them upon Italy. I would not do so even were I a Minister of the Crown at this moment—unless, indeed, I had official authority to do so, and the people demanded it on the part of those States in my Ministerial capacity. My Lords, let us, in God's name, leave Italy to make its own arrangements and work out its own independence. Let us not interfere or commit ourselves. If Her Majesty's Government have any power and influence over the Emperor of the French, let them induce him to withdraw his army from Italy. In what has been foreshadowed I only see France substituted for Austria—a consummation that I foresaw and denounced more than a year ago. With respect to the smaller matter brought before us by the noble Marquess, the compliment paid to Signor Buoncampagni—I agree with the noble Marquess in regretting that any mark of respect, which was not a very evidently necessary one, should have been paid to that individual. I am no prude in politics. I am not at all disposed to be severe on the ambitious or on any display of party feeling; and if any

  1021
  man ever carried illusions of a Quixotic or chivalrous nature with reference to the generosity of nations and of governments into the midday of life, and it happened that that gentleman happened to reside at the Foreign Office for six months, I will answer for it that they would he expelled. I have no such illusions whatever, but yet I must say there is a line beyond which the greatest indulgence cannot be extended. In the earliest ages it was ascertained that even the divine maxims of the Christian religion were not sufficient to keep society together, and there was a code of honour established by man himself to assist the code of morality; and if nations deal with nations, and erect a code of honour, it is impossible, without its rules being properly observed, that official relations should be properly maintained, and if not, the whole state of society must become one of disruption. I will remind you—and I have excellent authority for what I say—what Signor Buoncompagni did. He stood in the high, and I may almost say sacred character of Minister from the King of Sardinia to a friendly Sovereign, the Grand Duke of Tuscany, and it appears by the evidence of Mr. Scarlett, our own Minister at Florence, that this person was one if not the most active of the conspirators in bringing about the revolution in Tuscany, and in hurling from his throne the Sovereign of that State. To English minds this seems incredible and almost inconceivable. Suppose for a moment that the Sardinian or any other foreign Minister at the British Court should be discovered conspiring with Irish agitators, or any foreign band of conspirators, not only to break the law, but actually to drive the Sovereign from the throne—would it not be looked upon as perfectly incredible? But this was really the case in Tuscany, and before the ink was dry that signed away the Grand Duke's power over his subjects, that gentleman, Signor Buoncompagni, who had been accredited by the King of Sardinia as Minister to the Grand Duke, sat almost in his place, inasmuch as he was one of the commission who managed the Duchy. Now revolution is revolution. We do not expect it to be created without great and extraordinary causes; but that is no reason why you should connect yourself with those who took part in them even in the most indirect way, or pay them useless or unnecessary compliments. I cannot therefore, any more than the noble Marquess, understand why our
  1022
  chargé d'affaires went, though apparently without orders, in his official character and in his official dress, to the levée of M. Buoncompagni. If he went without orders, of course these remarks on the Government go for nothing; but there is not one of your Lordships who will be of opinion that with respect to public morality, and in other views of the question, it was right. I have only one word to say with regard to Savoy, and that is to express my surprise at the fact of a more complete statement not having been made to the House on that scheme. Considering the footing which I am glad to see the noble Lord at the head of Her Majesty's Government has established with the Emperor of the French, it appears to me that they ought to he perfectly clear and well informed on the subject. Does the Emperor of the French mean, or does he not mean the annexation of Savoy to France? The question is a short and easy one to ask, and for His Majesty it ought to be an easy one to answer. I do not understand by what process the difficulties have taken place. Her Majesty's late Government, when they had an inkling of this scheme, lost no time in putting the categorical question. The answer Lord Cowley, he believed, gave when the inquiry was put was, that he had no idea of it at all; and, if I recollect the language of Lord Cowley, he said that not only was there no treaty, but that there was no intention to conclude such a treaty. It was quite evident that Lord Cowley did not believe that any such intention was seriously entertained, and then the matter dropped. But it appears that Her Majesty's Government have since had communications with the French Government, and that some proposals have been made respecting the annexation of Savoy. It appears that we have not the papers yet; but what we want to know is, what is the impression of Her Majesty's Government in regard to this matter; if they have had no answer from His Majesty's Government, we can pretty well judge for ourselves whether such a consummation is likely to take place. The matter is of the greatest European importance, because it gives to France the gates of Italy as well as Savoy. It is a question of such importance that Her Majesty's Government must have formed some opinion upon the subject, and unless the noble Lord says at once that it is not for the public benefit, I think we ought to press on him, and

  1023
  expect an answer on this most important point.
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEsaid, he would beg leave to remind the noble Earl (the Earl of Malmesbury) of the forbearance which was exhibited to himself and the Government of which he was a member last year, when, at a most critical moment they had no particular reason for trusting the noble Earl's management of these matters, the Opposition forbore not only from moving for any papers, but also from originating any discussions, for which many persons were most anxious. The noble Earl, like the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Normanby) had mixed up two questions which he did not believe had any necessary connection with each other—for he had assumed the annexation of Savoy to France, to be part and parcel of the annexation of the liberated States of Central Italy to Piedmont. No such connection existed; and although unfortunately the possible contingency of the annexation of Savoy to France had been admitted into discussion by the Sardinian and French Government, he did not believe any such scheme would be carried out; but he believed, and strongly hoped and trusted, that the consolidation of a strong Italian Government, by the liberated Duchies would be accomplished. The feeling of the country was very strong against the one proposal, and very much in favour of the other. The noble Marquess had blamed the Ministry for having given too great a moral support to Signor Buoncompagni at Florence. But as his noble Friend, the Lord President, had well said, it was not the person that was in question, but the Government. As the noble Marquess was fond of referring to his own autobiography, he would upon this point remind him of the support which in 1848 he, as British Ambassador at Paris, gave to M. de Lamartine, at a time when other members of the Provisional Government of France were doing things and holding language of which no loyal Englishman could approve. It was right to afford support to M. de Lamartine at that moment, because he was rendering services to the cause of humanity and to Europe, which would better secure his immortality, even than would his writings; and for the same reason, so far from blaming Her Majesty's Government for what they had done towards recognizing and strengthening the Provisional Governments of Italy, he (the Marquess of Clanricarde) was only disposed to censure them for not having gone
  1024
  so far as they might in support of Governments, which, in his opinion, were entitled to the admiration of Europe. He confessed that he had listened with extreme pain to the speeches delivered both in the last and the present year by the noble Marquess. There were few Englishmen who would have spoken as the noble Marquess had done with reference to the struggles of the Italians against the most despotic and oppressive Governments which ever afflicted a civilized people; and his belief was that the noble Marquess's information was as incorrect as his political reasoning was erroneous. This he asserted confidently, not only upon authority of the highest kind, but also from what the noble Marquess himself relied upon, personal observation and personal knowledge. The noble Marquess said, that he had long resided in Florence, and was well acquainted with Tuscany; but their Lordships knew that a resident in a country who was attached to a particular clique or party, who adopted their views and lived with them, was often infinitely less informed about what was really going on in the country than might be a stranger, who, if actuated by a thirst for information, could often, in the course of a short casual visit, find out a great deal of which the other had no knowledge. Such we had found to be the case with regard to India; and it was made especially manifest in the instance in which Directors of the East India Company, who had resided in India for twenty years, denied the existence of the torture which was discovered and proved by Mr. Danby Seymour during a visit to that country of only six months. The ignorance of the noble Marquess—to use his own terms—was, he believed, as great as that of the East India Directors. The statements as to Milan were, he asserted, totally erroneous. For many years that city had not been in so happy and contented a state as it was at present; and if there was a little less gaiety than usual, it ought not to be forgotten that for two years there had been a failure in the crops of wine and silk. It might be true, as the noble Marquess said, that the taxation had been increased 15 per cent; but why did he not inform their Lordships what was its amount in Venetia, under the government of that country, from whose rule—for it was really the rule not of the Grand-Dukes, but of Austria—the people of Central Italy had emancipated themselves? The taxation in that country—it was so called by Austria, but it would be termed

  1025
  confiscation by every other civilized people—amounted to 130, and in some instances, for it was levied capriciously, to 200 per cent; that was, people were charged with, taxes infinitely greater in amount than their yearly income, and their property was sold to raise these enormous imposts. What did their Lordships think of taxing a man more than his yearly income? There was but one word for it, and that was "confiscation." One might suppose, from what had fallen from the noble Marquess, that the people of Northern Italy only wished that their former benign Governments should be restored to them; but to that statement he gave the most direct and flat contradiction. [The Marquess of NORMANBY: I said no such thing.] At all events, the noble Marquess said there was great discontent under the present system, particularly at Milan. He (the Marquess of Clanricarde) had witnessed the Reform agitation, and some contested elections, and he had lately been present at a demonstration in Italy; and never had he witnessed before, among all classes of the people, such enthusiasm, unanimity, order, and happiness as at Milan during a demonstration there of popular feeling. It was all very well to say that a stranger might have been deceived; but a person coming from a free country might generally be supposed to know something of popular demonstrations, and could easily collect from his intercourse with different parties whether their sentiments were real or not. He had also visited Parma, and here he must say he was sorry the noble Marquess should have thought it necessary to bring into discussion the conduct of the late ruler of those countries. For his own part, he had reason to know that, with the exception of a few persons attached to the Royal household, by whom the departure of the Ducal family was regretted, there was but one feeling of anxiety among persons of wealth and respectability, to get rid of the system of government under which they had hitherto lived. He warned the noble Marquess that there were documents in existence the signatures to which could not be denied, and which, if laid before their Lordships, would not redound to the honour of the Princes who had been removed from the thrones of Italy. What was the so-called Papal Government in Bologna and Romagna, and how had it been carried on? It was notoriously a Government under which life and property were not secure
  1026
  from the rapacity of Austrian commanders and the pillage of Austrian soldiers; while, on the other hand, it offered no protection from the banditti and malefactors of the country. It was a Government under which several young men, under twenty-one years of age, were shot one morning for ordinary delinquencies. What would be thought of a Government under which a man was shot by Austrian soldiers for having stolen four baiocchi (about 2d.,) and whose sentence recited that he had committed a simple act of robbery unarmed? The fact was that Austria, and not the Pope, had governed Bologna. He was as anxious as any one for the maintenance of the Pope as a temporal Sovereign. He was aware that a great number of good Catholics thought it would be better if the Pope were not a temporal Sovereign at all. Looking, however, to the state of the Christian world, and of Europe, it was his deliberate and well-considered opinion that it is most desirable for Europe, and for those rulers who had Protestant subjects, that the Pope should occupy an independent position as a temporal Sovereign. Austria, however, had been more anxious than ever had been Sardinia to obtain possession of Papal territory, and had filched from the Pope a portion of his States: He was deeply concerned that there should be so much delay in settling the Italian question. He asked their Lordships to consider the position in which the Provisional Governments in Italy were now placed, and to see the importance of a strong Government being established as speedily as possible in that country. The movement that had been going on in Central Italy was under the control of the most influential and wealthy men, and was sympathized in by all who had an interest in the establishment of peace. He defied the noble Marquess to produce at that table a list of men in Tuscany and Bologna who would form a better selection of representatives than that which the Assembly contained. He held in his hand a list of 169 representatives, among whom were to be found not only many of the old historical names, but the most distinguished of modern times. The list comprised two Princes, twenty-nine Marquises and Counts, twelve Knights, six men of high military rank, twelve professors and men of learning, four ecclesiastical dignitaries, four judges, and so on. The Provisional Government had a very difficult part to perform. They had not only to encounter those who

  1027
  favoured the return of the Dukes, but also the Revolutionary party, with whom it would be extremely difficult to deal, unless there was the speedy prospect of a strong and free Government being established. They had been told by France and Sardinia that they must be exceedingly quiet and cautious in all their movements. If the people of Italy had been told to remain as they had done for six months, and that at the end of it they might be assured of their liberties being secured to them, he could have understood it; but everything was left vague and indefinite, and he feared that unless a speedy settlement was arrived at, there was great danger of a renewal of the war. He cautioned the Governments of France and England that if great care was not taken there would be a renewal of the war. Austria was now constantly sending recruits to the army in the Papal territory; and he had heard it said that not fewer than 800 men had been despatched at one time from Trieste to Ancona. That, if true, appeared to him to be an infraction of the neutrality which had been agreed upon. He had thought it right to make these remarks, because he considered the Provisional Government of Italy and the people of Italy had been most unfairly treated by the noble Marquess. His noble Friend might now go from one end of that country to the other, and walk about the towns at all hours in a great deal more safety than he could ever have done while it was under the Austrian rule. The noble Marquess in his zeal for the Grand Duke of Tuscany seemed to forget all that had passed in 1848. When the Grand Duke was expelled by the revolution in 1848, he was recalled by the party now in power; he gave in his adhesion to the state of things then adopted, and pledged himself solemnly to administer the Constitution which was then established, and the first thing he did was to strike a medal in honour of the persons who established it. But he afterwards forfeited every pledge he had given as soon as he found himself supported by the arms of Austria, and totally abolished the Constitution. He believed that the Grand Duke, had he proved faithful to the Constitution, would have been most acceptable to the Italians. The question now was, whether there was to be for ever bad or good Government in Central Italy, and he trusted the Italians—and that without loss of time—would be permitted freely to institute the form of
  1028
  government which would be most pleasing to themselves.
  EARL GRANVILLEwas understood to explain that the despatches which had been recently received from Earl Cowley made no allusion to any territorial acquisitions on the part of the French Government.
  THE EARL OF CARDIGANthought that nothing could be more desirable than that Her Majesty's Government should endeavour to prevail on the Emperor of the French to withdraw his army from Northern Italy. But the case of the occupation of Rome by French troops stood on different grounds; and he believed that before one hour elapsed after the withdrawal of those troops the lives of the Pope and the Cardinals would be in the greatest peril. The noble Earl, the President of the Council would bear him out when he said that the Government of the Pope and the Cardinals, as it was constituted in Rome, was of so hateful, arbitrary, and intolerable a nature, that there was none more unpopular, and that to leave it without the support of French troops would be to endanger the safety of all the authorities there—unless, indeed, the French were to be replaced by Austrian troops.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, their Lordships need not be under the least apprehension that he was going to follow, much less reply to, the very discursive speech of the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Clanricarde). He concurred with the noble Earl, the President of the Council, that, the papers having been laid on the table of both Houses of Parliament only on the previous evening, any further discussion of the question raised by his noble Friend would be premature. But certainly it would not be desirable to enter into the various topics which the noble Marquess opposite had imported into his speech, including allusions to the biography of some of the Princes and statesmen of Italy, to his own early reminiscences of the time when he presided over an institution of the friends of civil and religious liberty, to the history of the old Catholic Association, and to the language held by the disciples of Dr. Cullen—topics by which he had to a considerable extent amused and enlightened their Lordships. He (the Earl of Derby), not having been in Italy for thirty-eight years, and not being possessed of that twenty years' experience which, according to the noble Marquess opposite,

  1029
  was necessary to make a man ignorant; nor, on the other hand, having made that quick transit through a country by which one suddenly became acquainted with all the circumstances of which twenty years' residence made a person ignorant, he should certainly not attempt to express any opinion as to the personal character of the gentlemen whose names had been introduced into the debate, nor to discuss the merits of the different Assemblies.
  "Non nostrum inter vos tantas componere lites."
  This, however, he would say, that the Italian topic was becoming day by day more important, and it probably might be necessary in the course of the present Session to discuss in a more deliberate manner the state of Central Italy. He was afraid events there were acquiring alarming importance, and he thought their Lordships' attention should be steadily directed to the country. But, while deprecating at that moment any further discussion, he was anxious to ask the noble Earl opposite a few questions. In the first place, would the noble Earl inform the House whether the papers that had been laid on the table would contain the latest information which the Government were enabled to afford on one of the subjects—and that the most important one—to which the noble Marquess had directed attention? If those papers would contain the latest information on the subject of the supposed intention to annex Savoy to the French dominions, he (the Earl of Derby) had not another word to say, and he would wait their appearance. On the other hand, if they would not include that information, he must take the liberty to ask whether the noble Earl would afford any information to the House with regard to the present intentions of the Emperor of the French as to the annexation of Savoy, and the light in which Her Majesty's Ministers regarded that policy. If the noble Earl was unable to give that information, he (the Earl of Derby) was compelled to tell him that the irresistible conclusion would be either that the noble Earl and his colleagues had not dealt very ingenuously with that and the other House of Parliament, or that they had been kept in a state of ignorance and consequently deceived as to the intentions which our Imperial Ally entertained on the subject in question. The answer recently given in both Houses of Parliament was to the effect that in the month of July last Her Majesty's Go-
  1030
  vernment had a communication with the Government of the Emperor of the French, and had been assured that there was no intention to propose or suggest the annexation of Savoy to France. Her Majesty's Government went on to inform their Lordships that they had intimated to the French Government that such a project would meet with their entire disapprobation. Was it or was it not true that since July, and previous to that question having been put and answered in both Houses of Parliament, a further communication had been received from the French Government that an alteration of opinion had taken place on the part of the Emperor of the French? If there had been such a subsequent correspondence, he (the Earl of Derby) was compelled, however painfully, to say that the Government, in giving the answer they did, merely referring to earlier communications, gave an answer which, though true to the letter, at the same time left both Houses of Parliament under an erroneous impression on a matter of the deepest importance. If, on the other hand, when the Government gave that answer, they were still under the impression that the Emperor of the French adhered to the views expressed in July last, but that since then they had ascertained from conversation, or otherwise, that a different opinion prevailed which had been concealed from them, then he thought it was a most unfortunate state of feeling, and the relations between the two countries were very different from the state of perfect confidence and harmony which it was the boast of the present Government to have established. He thought, therefore, Parliament was entitled to ask whether Her Majesty's Government had any reason to believe that there had been any change of views on the part of the French Government since July last with regard to the annexation of Savoy; whether any communications had been made to them upon the subject, and whether they had expressed their opinions upon the annexation. If the noble Earl should say that negotiations were still going on and that the correspondence had not been concluded, he (the Earl of Derby) had not a word further to say, but would wait the production of that correspondence for an explanation of the course that had been pursued. But he would entreat the House to mark the position in which they now stood. Her Majesty's Government had given them no information on the subject of a later date

  1031
  than the month of July; and the correspondence, when it is prod need, would tell their Lordships whether, when they gave that answer they had in their possession communications of a later date, showing that that correspondence had been again renewed. The foreign journals, who were under strict control, and would not be allowed to discuss the question without the sanction of their Government, made no scruple in treating of the annexation as virtually decided upon. He did not ask the Government to say whether that was the case, but he hoped they would take the earliest opportunity of telling us the substance of any information they may have received, and we can then judge what might have been done if we had had the information sooner. The other and much less important question which he had to put was only to ascertain whether he had correctly understood the noble Earl. The Motion of the noble Marquess was for
  "Copies of any instructions from the Secretary of State to Her Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires at Florence, who is not accredited to the Provisional Government there, directing him to attend the official reception on the 1st of January of Signor Buoncompagni, now acting as Governor General of Tuscany."
  He understood the noble Earl (Earl Granville) to say that no despatch had been written instructing Mr. Corbett as to the course he should pursue; but what the House ought to know was, what were the real facts. Did Mr. Corbett officially attend at a public reception of M. Buoncompagni, to whom he was not accredited by the Government? Did he take a course different to that taken by other Ministers residing at that Court? Was he in possession of the views and wishes of Her Majesty's Government before doing so? And if he had received no instructions, but acted upon his own responsibility, did Her Majesty's Government subsequently signify their approval of his conduct? He (the Earl of Derby) did not intend to enter into the question of whether the course taken was a correct one or not, although he had a strong opinion upon that point; but he wished to know what were the real facts.
  EARL GRANVILLE,in reply to the first, question of the noble Earl, said he had last week stated the most recent answer of the French Government, and he had also stated that negotiations were still proceeding between the Governments upon the subject, and that therefore he could
  1032
  not produce the papers. In answer to the second question, he had only to state that no other instructions were given to Mr. Corbett by the Government than a direction that if M. Buoncompagni should come to Florence as the head of the Government, he should be treated with every respect and in the same way as other Ministers did.
  THE EARL OF DERBYthought that when such general instructions were given to Mr. Corbett, the Government could not say they had given no instructions to that gentleman with respect to his official reception; and it was still more impossible that the Foreign Office could be ignorant of a fact so significant in diplomacy as whether the representative of England had attended, in an official capacity, the public reception of a gentleman at the head of a Government to which he was not accredited. If they had received information of the fact, he wished to know whether or not they bad approved of his conduct?
  LORD WODEHOUSEthought the noble Earl had assumed too much. Did Mr. Corbett attend in an official capacity? He could not have attended in such capacity, because he had no credentials. That gentleman's position was simply this:—When the Grand Duke retired, the noble Earl who was then Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (the Earl of Malmesbury) instructed Mr. Scarlett to maintain, not "official," but "officious" relations with the Provisional Government. When the present Government came into office they were of opinion that it was unnecessary to retain Mr. Scarlett there, and accordingly they directed the Minister to leave, and that Mr. Corbett, the Secretary of Legation, should remain in the same "officious" capacity as Mr. Scarlett had been. There was no official character attaching to him at Florence, and no act which he could do would involve the recognition of any Government there by Her Majesty's Government. As his noble Friend (Earl Granville) had stated, it would have been undesirable for the Government to inquire into the source or nature of the authority of M. Buoncompagni, since their real position was one of officious relations with the authority for the time being, no matter how it had been established, if it was established for the preservation of peace and order. The noble Earl had expressed astonishment that the Foreign Office should not have been informed of the prodigious event of Mr. Corbett's at-

  1033
  tending Signor Buoncompagni's reception. Speaking from memory, he might say that Mr. Corbett did not report that circumstance; but, if he had done so, no very grave importance could have been attached to it. Whether he was right in going at all was of no consequence, as he was acting under instructions placing him only in an officious position; and he (Lord Wodehouse) ventured to say that no authority could be produced to show that a person so placed could, by attending an official reception, compromise his Government to the recognition of any other Government.
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURYthought the noble Lord had not answered the question whether other Ministers attended officially. The noble Lord must know that an official reception compromised any gentleman in the position of Mr. Corbett if he attended it at all. If Mr. Corbett did attend that official reception without instructions, he (the Earl of Malmesbury) could only say that that gentleman committed an act which must be called extremely "officious" in another sense.
  THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHsaid he could not understand how the correspondence respecting the suggested annexation of Savoy and Nice came to be confined to the Governments of England, France, and Sardinia. Our interest in the matter must be shared by every other European Power; in fact, our interest is not so immediate as that of some other Powers. He questioned the right of the King of Sardinia to give Savoy to France without the consent of all the Powers which gave Savoy to his House. Let their Lordships remember the position of the House of Savoy before the Treaties of 1815. The King only retained possession of Sardinia, and that under the protection of our fleets; but the treaties restored him to his ancient dominions, and added to them Genoa, for the especial purpose of making Sardinia stronger, and preventing that influence of France over Italy which had been so injuriously exercised in former times. Any attempt on the part of the King of Sardinia to yield Savoy to France without the consent of the Powers which gave it to him would be an act of treachery to them, and, further, would be an act of treachery to the people of the Central States of Italy, who had shown such confidence in him as to desire him to be their ruler. Savoy was the frontier of Italy. All those Italian States, which at
  1034
  no distant period expected to be united to Piedmont, were as deeply interested in the continued possession of Savoy and Nice by Piedmont as was the King of Sardinia himself. It was, indeed, stated that Piacenza was to be given to the King of Sardinia, and they were told much of the strategical importance of that place; but Savoy and Nice are strategically much more important than Piacenza; and, indeed, if the King of Sardinia had the option of having all Tuscany and giving up Savoy and Nice, or of keeping Savoy and Nice without having Tuscany, he would, if he understood his own position, without hesitation keep Savoy and Nice. This was not the occasion on which to enter fully into the subject, but he felt most deeply with regard to it, and he did hope that at no distant period their Lordships would be afforded a regular opportunity of expressing their opinions.
  THE MARQUESS OF NORMANBYsaid, that, agreeing, as had been stated, on both sides, that this discussion should not now be prolonged, he would detain their Lordships by a few words only in reply. He accepted the assurance of his noble Friend (Earl Granville) that no discourtesy was intended on Friday last. The noble Earl was mistaken in thinking he asserted positively that the letter in question was written by Count Walewski. What he did say was, that the letter bore internal evidence that its contents must have been communicated from Count Walewski. He must next condole the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Clanricarde) on the failure of his well-prepared attack. It must have caused the noble Marquess some pains to examine so very carefully into his (the Marquess of Normanby's) despatches in 1848, and try to establish a discrepancy between his present objection and his declaration then, that he thought M. Lamartine deserved all the support which Her Majesty's Government could give. Put in saying this he intended to raise no question of the recognition of the Provisional Government; and, therefore, the noble Marquess had fallen into what, in his own country, would be called a blunder, and, in the country which he had been lately visiting, a fiasco. With regard to the reception which Mr. Corbett had attended, it should be remembered that a reception on New Year's-day bore on the Continent a peculiarly official character. The French chargé de affaires, it seemed, wrote to his own Government to ask

  1035
  whether he should attend it; and it was understood at Florence that he had a reply in the negative. It was very unusual that, under such circumstances, the British representative should have been present, and it was still more extraordinary if the British Government had not been informed of it.
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEsaid, that the expression he had quoted was not contained in any despatches, but in the Diary written by the noble Marquess.
  THE MARQUESS OF NORMANBYsaid, that whether despatch, diary or biography, his noble Friend's object was to establish a case of inconsistency; and he thought that he had established to the satisfaction of all, even of the noble Marquess, that no such inconsistency had been found to exist.
  Motion for Address for Instructions, &c. (by leave of the House), withdrawn.
  Motion for Address for Return of Dates, &c, agreed to.
  House adjourned at a quarter past Eight o'clock, to Thursday next, half-past Ten o'clock.