Sitting of 11 April 1862

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Customs and Inland Revenue; Assurances Registration (Ireland); Weights and Measures (Ireland) Act (1860) Amendment; Lunacy (Scotland); Grand Jury Secretaries (Ireland); Metropolitan Building Act Amendment.
3° Exchequer Bonds (£1,000,000); Protection of Inventions and Designs, 1862.

MEDICAL OFFICERS IN INDIA.

  QUESTION.
  MR. BLAKEsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, What arrangements have been made with regard to the position of the Medical Officers of the late East India Company's Army on amalgamation with the Queen's Forces; whether it is still intended that the term "Service in India," used throughout the warrant of the 13th day of January, 1860, should be restricted to actual residence in India, exclusive of leave; and whether the Senior Medical Officers of Her Majesty's Indian Army will be considered entitled to promotion to the rank of Principal and Deputy Inspector General and Inspector General of Hospitals, as heretofore, or were these
  856
  appointments in future to be filled by the Medical Officers of Her Majesty's Royal Army?
  SIR CHARLES WOODreplied, that the revision of the medical establishment for India awaited the Report of the Government of India, which was expected very shortly. The Royal Warrant required a service in India of twenty years, in any rank, to qualify a staff or Regimental Surgeon for the rank of Surgeon Major. The rule having been found productive of hardship in individual cases, it was determined by Her Majesty's Government that a period of two years (the period allowed under the furlough rules to count as service for pension) should be allowed to reckon as part of the period qualifying for promotion to the rank of Surgeon Major, in addition to all leave taken in India. The grades of Principal and Deputy Inspector General, and Inspector General of Hospitals were of recent date as respected the Indian service. The future organization of the medical department of that service would receive the fullest consideration.

LOCOMOTIVES IN THE STREETS.

  QUESTION.
  SIR GRAHAM MONTGOMERYsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he is aware of the frequent passage of locomotives through several of the thoroughfares of the metropolis, more especially in Grosvenor Place and Eaton Square; and if he considers it consistent with the safety of the public to permit of their so passing through the streets both day and night?
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, his attention was called a few days ago to the fact of a locomotive passing through a crowded part of the metropolis—not the streets mentioned by the hon. Baronet, but in the neighbourhood of Charing Cross, and of horses taking fright in consequence. A communication was immediately made by the Police to the owner of that locomotive, which turned out to be one of Bray's traction engines engaged, in carrying goods from the Docks to the Exhibition, and the proprietors at once agreed to observe the regulations of the Police, requiring them not to drive the locomotive through the streets in the daytime, and to take a less frequented route. Since the hon. Baronet had given notice of his question, he had found, on inquiry, that another locomotive had been seen passing through Grosvenor

  857
  Place and Eaton Square, but the owner of it had not yet been discovered. He believed it was on its way from a railway station to the Exhibition. By au Act passed last Session, power was given to the Secretary of State to make regulations for the passage of engines through the metropolis, and there would appear in the Gazette of that night an order prohibiting them from being driven through the streets in the daytime.
  MR. CRAWFORDsaid, he wished to inquire whether the right hon. Baronet was aware of the fact that one of Bray's traction engines had passed up Eaton Square at eight o'clock that morning, making a great noise, and frightening horses?
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he had not heard of the circumstance, but the order in the Gazette would prohibit locomotives from passing through the streets at any time, except between ten o'clock at night and six o'clock in the morning. He had the power to make such a regulation, and if the owners of engines did not comply with it, they would not be allowed to use the streets at all.

CHELSEA SUSPENSION BRIDGE

  QUESTION.
  SIR JOSEPH PAXTONsaid, he wished to ask the First Commissioner of Works, If there is any truth in the rumour that the traffic over the Chelsea Suspension Bridge was restricted by the Police on account of some defects in the structure; and if the Bridge will furnish safe accommodation for the traffic arising from the Exhibition and the Royal Agricultural Show shortly to be held in Battersea Park?
  MR. COWPERsaid, the Police regulation had not arisen from any defect in the construction of the bridge, but was part of the original design. Mr. Page, when lie designed the bridge, intended that the light traffic should go on one portion of the bridge and the heavy traffic on another. He constructed a roadway for light traffic by placing blocks of wood on bitumen, that bitumen resting on a concrete of cork and bitumen, and thus making an elastic roadway. The heavy traffic was not to pass along that elastic roadway, but Mr. Page had constructed for it au iron tramway at the sides of the bridge. It was true, a question had arisen as to whether the bridge was fit to bear the greatest load that
  858
  might possibly come upon it. Mr. Page had not provided for such a load as other persons of high authority thought ought to be anticipated. The question had been under consideration, and his own opinion was that the bridge ought to be strengthened; but, at the same time, there was no reason to doubt that it was strong enough to carry the weight that would be brought upon it under ordinary circumstances. One might not like to see a dense crowd packed upon it, nor would it be advisable to allow troops to march across it, but he believed it was able to bear the traffic that would be permitted to come upon it.

THE THAMES EMBANKMENT.

  QUESTION.
  SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, he rose to ask, When the Returns ordered the other night relative to the Thames Embankment will be laid on the table?
  MR. COWPERsaid, they would be laid on the table either that night or at the meeting of Parliament after the recess.

INDIAN CONTRACTS BILL.— QUESTION.
MR. SMOLLETTsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for India Whether he has received a copy of an Act, intituled "The Indian Contracts Bill," now pending before the Legislative Council of the Governor General of India; and whether he is prepared to sanction this measure in its present shape if passed by that body?
SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, he had received a copy of the Bill in question, bat it, had not yet been considered by the Indian Council, and he was therefore unable to state at present whether it would be sanctioned or not.

INCOME AND EXPENDITURE.

  QUESTION.
  SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, When the account of the Gross Income and Expenditure up to the 31st of March, 1862, will be laid on the table of the House?
  MR. PEELstated, that the account of gross Income and Expenditure up to the 31st of March, 1862, would be laid on the table after the recess.

EDUCATION—THE RE-REVISED CODE OF REGULATIONS.—QUESTION.
SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he fished to ask the noble Viscount at the head of the Government a question as to the course of business which had been previously announced with respect to the Re-revised Code of Education. The right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Committee of Council of Education had promised to lay the Report on that subject on the table before the holidays, They were now about to adjourn for the holidays, and he desired to know whether it was probable that that Report would be laid on the table that night. The further progress of the Committee stood for the 5th of May, which was, practically only one week after the, re-assembling of the House. As very little, time would, intervene to enable hon. Members to consider that Report, he submitted that it would be desirable to postpone the, progress of the measure for some time longer.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, the Report to which the right hon. Baronet alluded, would be laid on the table in the course of that evening, and would be delivered to hon. Members to-morrow. With regard to their further proceedings in the matter, there would be ample time, on the reassembling of Parliament after the Easter recess, to make other arrangements if they should be found necessary.

STATE OF ITALY.—OBSERVATIONS.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: I rise, Sir, to move that the House at its rising should adjourn until Monday the 28th.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That this House will, at the rising of the House this day, adjourn till Monday the 28th day of this instant April."
SIR GEORGE BOWYERsaid, he rose in pursuance of notice, to call the attention of the House to the state of affairs in Italy. He did so, not only in the performance of his duty as a Member of that House, but also to redeem a pledge which he gave at the end of the last Session, and subsequently in a letter addressed to the First Lord of the Treasury, that when Parliament re-assembled, he would call the attention of the House and of the Government to the condition of Italy, and would likewise call the Government to account for the re-
860
sults of their policy with respect to that country. It would be in the remembrance of the hon. Members that near the close of the last Session he stated to the House, addressing himself particularly to the noble Viscount the First Lord of the Treasury, the atrocious means which were resorted to by the Piedmontese Government for keeping possession, of the kingdom of the Two Sicilies. He stated that the whole country was governed by martial law in its most dreadful form; that blood was shed; that there was no security for person Or property, and that the Government were utterly unworthy of a civilized community. He appealed to the noble Viscount, and asked him to use his influence with the Government of Turin to mitigate this state of things, and adopt a policy more in accordance with humanity and justice. What was the reply of the noble Lord? He began by speaking of the common topic of: brigandage, of which they had heard so much; the noble Viscount retorted upon him all he had stated; he questioned the truth of all he had stated, and asked him to receive implicitly every thing that fell from his own lips. The noble Viscount said there was nothing at all political in the outrages that had taken place; that greater atrocities had been committed by persons called brigands; and that it was necessary the Piedmontese Government should use strong measures to keep the public peace. He supposed the noble Lord believed what he stated; but it was surprising he should do so, knowing, as he must hare known, that a state of insurrection existed in the country, and that it was not merely an insecurity caused by marauders and highway-men. But what he was most concerned about was this— the noble Lord, so far from expressing regret or engaging, when asked, to use his influence with the Government of Piedmont to mitigate this state of things, said he would do no such thing, and that he hoped Generals Cialdini and Pinelli would use the strongest measures for preserving what the noble Lord called public security. Now, who was this General Pinelli? A man notorious for having issued a most atrocious proclamation, which had been reprobated by all parties in this country. When the Government was told of that proclamation, it was said he had been superseded in his command on account of it, yet he was afterwards reinstated—nay, he received a higher command; and that was the man the noble Viscount had encouraged to use

861
still greater rigour and cruelty against the inhabitants of that country. What had been the consequence of the language used by the noble Viscount? The language of a Prime Minister in that House must have considerable effect in a country which looked mainly to England for alliance and support, and the natural result had been an increase in the atrocities of which he had formerly complained. As many as six towns were burnt, the inhabitants being driven away, put to the sword, or perishing: in the flames. Numbers of persons were shot in cold blood, without trial or any process equivalent to a trial, and the prisons Were crowded. He would mention one instance — that of Count Cristen, who had served under the King of the Two Sicilies. He was arrested on the 7th of September, 1861, put in a dungeon and kept in solitary confinement for six months without a trial. He asked fur a trial, but could not succeed in obtaining one. Was that to be regarded as the result of the liberty which the noble Viscount had succeeded in establishing in Italy? Another case was that of Luigi Mancini, who was arrested in May, 1861, on suspicion of being a reactionist. He petitioned the Sardinian Parliament on the 8th of this month to be brought to trial. The Minister of Justice, Conforti, advised the Parliament to have nothing to do with the petition. Conforti was a companion of Poerio, the story of whose imprisonment had been rung from one end of the country to another; yet this Conforti, when asked by a poor prisoner to be brought to trial, advised the House to reject the petition, and the slavish Parliament of Turin followed his advice and gave no relief, and the man remained still in prison.
After the prorogation last autumn he (Sir George Bowyer) thought it his duty to write a letter to the noble Viscount, in which he again brought before him the facts he had stated in the House of Commons, as well as those which had since come to his knowledge. He showed that no mitigation of the cruelties practised by the Piedmontese Government had taken place, and he stated that he should hold the noble Viscount and his Government responsible, and call them to account for their participation by approval and support of a state of things so irreconcilable with every principle of justice and humanity. He received no reply from the noble Lord. The noble Viscount took no notice of his letter, and did nothing
862
—so far as he knew—to vindicate that character for humanity which the Government of England used to enjoy, and which seemed to require that they should not remain indifferent spectators of such a state of things as had been brought under their notice—a state of things which had been attested by the daily letters of The Times correspondent and other newspapers. What was the present condition of the south of Italy, in consequence, to a great degree, of the course pursued by Her Majesty's Government? There was no security for person or property; the country was kept under martial law; military executions were constantly occurring; and the whole country was devastated by fire and sword. That was especially the case in Sicily. According to the latest intelligence, the people were everywhere rising against the Piedmontese Government and its officials; the statues of Victor Emmanuel and Garibaldi had been broken by the people, so great was the popular indignation, who called aloud for their own Government and those rights which were secured to the kingdom of the Two Sicilies by Charles III.; and declared, as they would not be a province in those days, so they would not be a province now of a country distant from them, whose people were of a different race and spoke a different language—nay, who were not even Italians.
He came to the present Session. Questions had been put in both Houses of Parliament with regard to the state of things in Naples, and especially with regard to the proclamations of Major Fumel and Colonel Fantoni of which so much had been heard. Those proclamations were less important in themselves than as being fair types of the general system pursued by the Piedmontese authorities in the south of Italy. He could mention multitudes of atrocious acts committed by them, but he thought that was scarcely necessary, because it was avowed by pretty nearly all who knew anything of the matter that the mode in which Southern Italy was treated by the Government of Turin was a dark blot upon the morality and politics of Europe. He must remark upon the way in which these atrocious acts had been received by Her Majesty's Government. A question was put in that House respecting some of those atrocious acts, and Her Majesty's Government were asked whether they had any information upon them. The noble Viscount or the Under Secretary for

863
Foreign Affairs got up and replied in the negative; and immediately there arose a loud cry of "Hear, hear!" on the benches behind them—a cry of triumph implying, that because the Government had no information on the subject, therefore the allegations must be false, however much they might be borne out by the evidence of newspapers and private letters. That reminded him of the story of the man who, having, upon his trial for horsestealing, been told by the Judge, "Prisoner, there are two witnesses who swear that they saw you steal the horse," thereupon answered, "My Lord, I can produce twenty persons who did not see me steal it." The absence of information on the part of Her Majesty's Government seemed to be taken sis proof that a thing could not be true. He: could not help thinking that Her Majesty's agents at Turin had received a broad hint not to send any information that might be inconvenient or embarrassing to their Government; or, if no such hint had really been given them, those gentlemen appeared, by a species of instinct, to know what information would be agreeable to their superiors, and therefore supplied no other. They adapted their information to the policy which they knew the noble Viscount wanted to pursue. Possibly, things were mentioned in private letters which were not given in the public despatches. However that might be, the information possessed by Her Majesty's Government on these subjects was extremely partial and imperfect. A few days ago papers had been laid before Parliament giving, among other things, an account of a debate in the Turin Chamber, together, with the speech of Signor Massari; and, no doubt, that debate was favourable to the policy of Her Majesty's Government. But why were accounts of the debates of a different tendency never laid before Parliament? Instead of doing so, they selected what suited their own purpose, and suppressed what did not, in order to make the Government appear to be acting in a manner different from that in which they were acting. Why, for instance, was the discussion upon the speech of the Duke di Maddaloni, denouncing the conduct of the Piedmontese Government in Southern Italy, withheld? Fortunately, they had the reports of the correspondent of The Times, and he must say that, much as he differed from the views expressed by The Times and its correspondents, the correspondent of that newspaper
864
gave greater and more accurate information than was possessed by Her Majesty's Government. He would appeal to that writer to prove that the statements which he had made in that House, and which had been made elsewhere, in respect to the conduct of the Piedmontese Government in Southern Italy were founded on fact, and that the course adopted by Her Majesty's Government, in communicating to Parliament only what made for a particular policy, was highly disingenuous and calculated to deceive the Legislature and the nation. It was now nearly two years since the Piedmontese Government had been in possession of that country; and if, as had been alleged, they had really been deliverers from tyranny, who were received with open arms by the' people, surely by that time the whole of Southern Italy would be in a state of perfect tranquillity, and it would not be necessary to resort to violent means, he would not say to govern, but to retain their hold of the country. The conclusion, therefore, was irresistible, that as they were obliged to hold the country by violent means, their pretence of being its deliverers from tyranny was false and foul. It was impossible to deny that the Piedmontese were governing Southern Italy by martial law, that they were ruling an unwilling people, who took every opportunity of rising against them, and showing their detestation of them as invaders. He said that the Neapolitans would never be reconciled to the rule of the Piedmontese. The Piedmontese were a different race; they did not speak Italian; they were not Italian. The Piedmontese spoke a jargon which was not understood by the people of Naples, so that actually the Piedmontese troops, when they got to Naples, could not make themselves understood by the inhabitants of the place. The Neapolitans, therefore, did not recognise them as being of the same race, and they would always adhere to the ancient traditions which made their country an independent kingdom. They would never submit to this invasion —he did not know by what terms sufficiently to express his abomination of it— a vile invasion, which had been effected by treachery, by corruption, and by a violation of all those laws which governed the relations of civilized countries. But he must revert for a moment to the proclamations to which he had already referred. The English Government denied that they had been executed. It was rather

865
curious that while Her Majesty's Government held that language the Piedmontese newspapers admitted those proclamations to be true, and, indeed, rather gloried in them, at the same time that they snubbed the noble Viscount and Karl Russell for presuming to say that those nets were wrong. The Opinione, alluding to the question put in the British Parliament to Her Majesty's Government, respecting the proclamations of Major Fumel and Colonel Fantoni, observed that Lord Palmerston replied that no notice of the issue of the proclamation had been received from their agents. The Opinione went on to say that the English Premier ought nut to have limited himself to that statement, but should have informed himself of the exceptional condition of certain districts in which the brigands found a safe retreat in the woods. The writer added that, without approving all the measures of Major Fumel, he could have wished to see evinced in the House of Commons a greater respect towards an independent State in regad to the administration of its own internal affairs, and especially in Members of the Ministry a greater desire to learn the actual facts, and to avoid the danger of offending against the truth. Thus it would be seen that the noble Earl and the noble Viscount were told by a newspaper which was in the interest of the Piedmontese Government that what they had stated was not true, and it recommended them in future to adhere more closely to truth. He would refer to another extract from that journal—
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not in order in reading extracts which are comments upon debates in this House.
SIR GEORGE BOWYERsaid, that after that intimation he would not refer to any comments upon debates in that House, but he must allude to one article commenting upon opinions that had been expressed by the noble Lord, with the object of showing the real views of the Liberal press of Turin. It was to the effect that the notification of Colonel Fantoni that measures of increased rigour would be adopted was approved by all and the only regret was that those measures were too mild; but, nevertheless, they had already yielded excellent fruits. Now, Parliament had been told that the proclamations had never been acted upon, and yet there was a Liberal newspaper, supporting the interests and expressing, in a great degree, the views of the Pied-
866
montese Government, which declared that those measures had produced excellent results. And yet the noble Earl, in another place, denounced those proclamations as atrocious, and was certain that the Piedmontese Government disapproved them as much as he did.
He would next proceed to examine the answers of Her Majesty's Government when the subject was brought under their notice. The substance of those answers might be reduced to three points. Firstly, the Government said that the proclamations were never published, and never acted upon. He thought he had, to a great extent, disposed of that point. Next, the Government said these were matters for discussion in the Parliament of Piedmont, and not in the Parliament of England; and thirdly, that Her Majesty's Government were not responsible, but that the responsibility rested with the Piedmontese Government. He should show that the atrocious proclamations had been atrociously executed, and he would give a few instances. He had, on a former occasion, mentioned the case of thirteen peasants in the kingdom of Naples, who were burnt alive because they had not given notice of the approach of bands of persons who were called brigands—that was, armed partisans. When the Piedmontese troops returned to the town, they seized the first men they could lay hold upon, thrust them into a hut, to which they set fire, and those unhappy persons were burnt to death. Then there was another case of a boy, who made signals, or was suspected of doing so, in order to induce armed persons to go away, there being troops in the neighbourhood. The boy (a simple lad), in his defence, said he was afraid that if a fight took place; near his father's house it might produce injury to his family, and therefore he told those people to go away, which they did. His excuse was not accepted, and the boy was shot down in the presence of his father and mother, who were compelled to stand by and witness his execution. A third case which he would mention was that of a woman who fired a gun at the approach of the Piedmontese troops. An order had been issued by the Piedmontese authorities that when any armed persons were seen approaching a town or village a signal was to he given by the firing of a gun. The woman did so, but it appealed that the troops approaching were not reactionaries, hut soldiers of the King of Sardinia, who rushed into the house, killed the woman

867
(who was with child) and her husband, and then proceeded to make a feast in the presence of the bodies of the victims and their weeping children. Those were three instances of the atrocious manner in which the atrocious proclamations had been executed, although the noble Earl said they had never been executed at all. Then, as to the question of responsibility—Her Majesty's Government said they were not responsible for those affairs, and that the subject was one for discussion, not in the English Parliament, but in the Parliament of Piedmont. He did not deny that these matters should be discussed in the Parliament of Piedmont, although it was paying too high a compliment to that assembly to call it a Parliament, elected, as it had been, whilst the country was under military coercion and intimidation. But he contended that the subject ought to be discussed in the English House of Commons, because Her Majesty's Government were in a great degree responsible for what had taken place, as it was their policy which had led to such dreadful results; and it was his duty, as an independent Member of Parliament, to call them to account for that policy. The noble Lord and his friends had for years been the ringleaders and instigators of Italian revolution for party purposes. They had always been ready to raise for election purposes an outcry against what they called the tyranny and wickedness of foreign Governments, and held themselves out as the great redressors of wrongs and the assertors of justice and liberty. The famous mission of Lord Minto was sufficient to make Earl Russell and the noble Viscount responsible for what had occurred, because to that mission was traceable much of what had recently happened. That mission was styled a diplomatic mission, but it was an opprobrium to diplomacy: it was a mission of agitation, to stir up revolution; and it was a mission altogether contrary to all the rules by which the diplomatic intercourse of civilized countries had hitherto been conducted, lie was glad to see the right lion. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his place, as he wished to refer to his famous letter about Signor Poerio and the cruelties said to have been practised by the late King of Naples. Much political capital had been made out of Poerio by the right hon. Gentleman and Her Mnjesty's Government; but in a letter written by Delia Gattino, a well-known Member of the Piedmontese Parlia-
868
ment, and one of the revolutionary leaders, Poerio was described as "a conventional invention of the Anglo-French press;" and the writer added —
"When we were agitating Europe and exciting it against the Bourbons of Naples, we Wanted to personify the effects of the cruelty of that horrible dynasty; we wanted to present every morning to the readers of Liberal Europe a living, palpitating; visible victim, whom the ogre Ferdinand used to devour raw at every meal. For this purpose we invented Poerio.
The English and the French press excited the appetite of that great philanthropist Gladstone) who repaired to Naples to see with his own eyes this new sort of Man in an Iron Mask, lie saw him. He was moved. And, like us, he set to work to magnify the victim in order the more to irritate public opinion, and thus Poerio was created from top to toe. The real Poerio has taken seriously the Poerio whom we had been fabricating for twelve years in articles at three-halfpence a line."
That was the victim who was paraded by the right hon. Gentleman, and who formed a great portion of his stock-in-trade in his crusade against the King of Maples. He (Sir G. Bowyer) had been told that the right hon. Gentleman's pamphlet was sent by the noble Viscount to every capital in Europe, and as much as possible was made of it. No doubt it was a valuable piece of political capital for the right lion. Gentleman, and brought him much popularity. The pamphlet was made use of to ruin the Bourbon dynasty, and the Government and press of this country were responsible for the results which were now manifest. He came next to Garibaldi's invasion, the success of which was very much owing to what was called the moral influence of the British Government. [Hear, hear!] Hon. Gentlemen by that cheer accepted and approved that invasion, and it was disingenuous and unfair on their part and on the part of the Government to say that they were not responsible for the results which had followed that invasion. Her Majesty's Government had taken all the credit, and must also accept the blame. Earl Russell had always talked about nonintervention, and said that the Italians should be left to manage their own affairs; but they had not been allowed to do so, because the Government had done all they could against the Italian princes, and against what might be called the Conservative party. Though they had not sent an army into Italy, they had given every possible support to the revolutionists, and had grossly violated the principle of non-intervention. Stationing a large fleet in the Bay of Naples, they had repeatedly landed

869
marines under the pretence of drilling them, but really to give the weight of the English Government to the Piedmontese invaders The popular belief, of course, was that the English were there to help the Piedmontese, and that, if necessary, force would be used. No doubt they had been thanked by the Piedmontese Government for the support rendered to them in subjugating the country; yet they now declared that they were nut responsible for its present state. No one would he deluded by such an absurd denial. What had the Government gained by the countenance limy bail given to the revolutionary party? Had they established Italian unity? True, the kingdom of the Two Sicilies no longer existed in fait; but that kingdom, as had been truly said in another place, existed in the hearts of the people; and it existed also as part of the public law of Europe. Finance had recognised what was called the kingdom of Italy as a matter of fact, reserving to herself the right of taking any ulterior proceedings which she might deem necessary, ling land was the only Power which had acknowledged the kingdom ex animo; and every other Power refused to admit that the kingdom of the Two Sicilies had ceased to exist.
Then let then look at the accounts given by The Times correspondents only two or three days since. They admitted that, as regarded the kingdom of the Two Sicilies, unity became more impossible every day, and that, in fact, the south of Italy could not be governed by the Piedmontese. It was said that nothing prevented the pacification of Southern Italy except the brigands. But if the "brigands" bad not the concurrence of the population, and were not in a friendly country, they would have been extirpated long ago by an army of 80,000 men. And yet they had not been able to get rid of these brigands, who were opposing every day a more formidable opposition to the Piedmontese Government. In fact, if they wanted to get rid of every one who opposed that Government they must make a desert and extirpate the population. It was the whole population that was determined to resist the Piedmontese rule to the utmost. It was said that the only thing wanted to Complete the unity of Italy was the possession of the city of Rome. "Give us Rome." it was said ! If they had Rome ! "If" was a very little word, but a very important one; and he would tell them that they would never have Rome. By means of corruption, fraud, the violation of inter-
870
national law, and by piracy, the Piedmontese had got possession of a large part of the territory of Italy, and then they turned round and said, "Give us Rome." It was as if a robber said, because he had got your purse, you were bound to give him your watch. Could there be anything more impudent? The mean by which the Piedmontese got possession of the other parts of Italy were well known. In Florence the Minister of the King of Sardinia accredited to the Grand Duke of Tuscany plotted against that Soveieign. He was at the head of the conspiracy against him; he distributed money, and was the means; of overturning the Government of the Grand Duke. When that was done, the Sardinian Minister was found at the head of the provisional Government established after the Sovereign to whom he was accredited had been forced to quit his dominions. The same thing was tried at Rome; but there it failed. It was tried everywhere; and everywhere the ', Sardinian Ministers were among the conspirators. The Duchess of Parma was an excellent Sovereign; no one had hazarded a word against her clemency or the goodness of her character. She was treated in the same way; her Government was overturned by the game power. Then, take the invasion of Sicily by Garibladi —a flagrant act of piracy. The present King of Naples wrote to the King of Sardinia, his near relation, stating that be understood an expedition was being prepared against him that was to start from Genoa. The answer was that the Sardinian Government had no hostile intention whatever against the King of Naples, and that His Majesty might feel quite easy on the subject. In the mean time, the Sardinian Government furnished one or more ships to Garibaldi and his friends, and furnished him with money to carry out his hostile intentions. In fact, the King of Sardinia was responsible for the whole matter. When Garibaldi had got possession of the island of Sicily, the King of Sardinia, the English Minister being an enemy of the King of Naples, was able to inarch his troops, and take possession of the dominions of his cousin. He could go further into particulars, but it was not necessary: the facts were known to all who had kept their eyes open to events. Having by such means got possession of a great part of Italy, they next demanded Rome, because they said it was the natural capital of Italy, and they must have it. What right

871
had they to say that? The kingdom of Italy was not yet formed Victor Emmanuel, though he had got possession of a portion of Italy, was not King of Italy. He was not acknowledged as King of Italy by any of the Powers of Europe, except France and England; and he had no more right to have Rome than to possess London. The Piedmontese would not get Rome; and he would tell hon. Gentlemen distinctly, that if the formation of their favourite Italian unity depended upon the King of Sardinia possessing Rome, they might give up the idea at once. Now, he wanted to ask, what had the Government gained by its policy in Italy for English interests? First, it had given Savoy and Nice to France. So far it had aggrandised France. It had also broken the power of Austria in Italy. Austria was an ancient ally of England; it had no interests whatever opposed to those of England; they had nothing to apprehend from Austria. Notwithstanding the political feeling of the noble Viscount and Earl Russell against the form of government in Austria, he had often heard them say that Austria was a Power whose friendship was of importance to this country, and they ought to cultivate it. But they had broken the power of Austria in Italy, and set up that of France. They had made France the preponderating power in Italy; for Victor Emmanuel was no better than n French Viceroy. The Emperor Napoleon could do as he liked with him. Something had been said of an agreement to cede the island of Sardinia to France. The existence of such an agreement was denied—as the intended cession of Savoy and Nice was denied. But supposing there was no agreement to transfer Sardinia to France, there could be no doubt whatever that, with the great power France had acquired in Italy and the Mediterranean, she might dictate her own terms to the King of Sardinia. The moment France wanted Sardinia she had only to say so to have it. There was no occasion for any agreement. In case of a war a couple of regiments of French Zouaves would be sufficient. The recent change in the Italian Administration had been effected by France. Ricasoli was deposed, and Ratazzi reigned in his stead. That was done by France—the glorified King of Italy, to whom everybody was to give way, and for whom the Pope was to leave Rome, was not able to choose his own Ministers ! Ratazzi went to Paris, and every one knew that the object was to see whether he could make
872
some arrangements with the Emperor of the French to get into office, and carry out a policy in accordance with the views of the Emperor of the French. That arrangement was made, and every one knew that Ratazzi was as much the Minister of the Emperor of the French at Turin as Persigny was at Paris. The Emperor of the French ruled the Government of Turin, and it must submit. The King of Sardinia was but a French prefect. He was created by the Emperor just as much as if he was a Viceroy, acting for him at Turin. The Mediterranean had almost become at last a French lake. France had got Nice; some day or other, it was whispered, she would have Genoa; and he should not be surprised to hear of such an event. At any rate, she had got such a power in Italy that she might almost call it her own. It was now pretty well established that Piedmont could not rule the south of Italy. Wherever the Piedmontese went there was annrchy—even in Bologna for a longtime there was no Government at all, and in Naples and Sicily there was no security for persons and property. It had been more than whispered that a Murat might be placed on the Neapolitan throne. Perhaps the noble Lord, or some Member of the Government, might be able to deny that; at least, they might say that they knew nothing about it. That was generally the sum and substance of their answer when questioned about any disagreeable matter in relation to Italy—an answer which seemed to be perfectly satisfactory to hon. Gentlemen on the oilier side, though it was anything but satisfactory to others, who had not the same implicit reliance in the Government. What would the Government say if the Emperor of the French were to declare that, for the interests of humanity, he must step in and do that which the King of Piedmont could not do, and were to send his troops to occupy the kingdom of Naples? Would they go to war? If the Emperor were to send a few regiments to Naples, would there be any difficulty in getting a plébiscite in favour of Murat? Everybody knew how they were made, and that there could not be much difficulty in it. What would the noble Lord say—what would Earl Russell say—if the result of all their policy should be, as it probably would, to place a French Prince on the throne of Naples? They would then see a return of the old aggressive system of Napoleon I., who thought to take possession of all the thrones in the

873
world. Already they saw the commencement of that system, and the Government of the noble Lord were responsible for it. They were responsible for the destruction of English influence in that country by enabling France to assume a preponderance all through Italy. The only influence winch England could now exercise was the more influence of the fomenters of revolution; they could exercise what they called a moral power to prevent the return of; Princes to their ancient thrones, and to further the views of the Revolutionary party; but any real influence, honourable and useful to English policy, he defied them to exercise. France could do what she pleased in Italy, and then dare England to go to war to undo it, which probably the Emperor know very well we should not do. The people of England had been deluded by the noble Lord's specious professions of neutrality, and by the cry of civil and religious liberty; but they were beginning to open their eyes, and to perceive what the real result of that policy was. Earl Russell very likely would say that it was of no consequence, as he did the other day, when questioned about the atrocities committed by the Piedmontese Government. True it was, he said, that great seventies were exercised, that the people were heavily taxed, and that the country was in a very unsatisfactory state; but then they had a Parliament, where pen pie made speeches, and newspapers coming out every morning in which they could read them. According to the noble Lord's notion, it did not signify if a country was deluged in blood, and devastated by fire and sword, so long as they could make speeches and read newspapers. He could not agree with the noble Lord that that was the end of Government. They ought to inquire rather whether the people were happy and safe. If they were not, he could not consider that newspapers and an assembly were an equivalent, nor did he believe that the country would receive any such absurd doctrine. No doubt, the House would hear from the Treasury bench that the people had liberty, and that there was, therefore, a considerable improvement on the old system; but he should be very curious to bear in what that liberty consisted. Certainly, the people of Italy had got that inestimable blessing—a heavy income tax, and all their other taxes were increased to an enormous extent. They had got military law, too, and their people were earned away from their homes by military con-
874
scription. He valued liberty as much as any man, but he did not see any symptoms of liberty in Italy, He saw the very reverse. He saw acts of tyranny and cruelty; committed there such as the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with all his inclination to rake up everything which could tell against him, never could bring against his great enemy the King of Naples. England had always looked upon herself as taking the lead in liberty, as the model country, using her influence, as far as it extended, in protecting the oppressed—but in Italy her influence had been exerted in the other direction. It had been exercised against all constituted Governments and in favour of revolution. The flag of England, which used to be received everywhere with respect as the harbinger of justice and truth, was now looked on with terror, because it was held to be the harbinger of revolution, and the destruction of the rights of Princes. [Mr. WHITE: Hear, hear.] He was much obliged for the hon. Gentleman's cheer, it assisted his argument most materially. If the Government were in good faith—and he had no right to assume that they were: not—he hoped they would acknowledge honestly that they had been mistaken in their policy, and that results very different from those they had expected had flowed; from it. If they would adopt a truly English policy, it was not too late to repair the evils they had brought about in Italy —a country to which he was deeply attached, and which he hoped to see happy and prosperous. In the remarks which he had made on this subject he had spoken according to what he believed to be the; truth—as an honest man. He had said things which might he unpalatable to some hon. Gentlemen, and with which, probably, not many hon. Members would be inclined to agree. What he had said, he had said entirely on his own sole responsibility; and no one who followed him in the debate would be responsible for any of his opinions; for in hanging for ward the subject be had not consulted with any one. He wished it to be understood, that although he was aware the sentiments to which he had given expression were participated in by a considerable number of Members in that House, and although he had their concurrence in the course which he took, yet he alone was responsible for the opinions which he had enunciated, and which he felt bound to uphold in the discharge of his duties

875
to his constituents, the country, and the world at large.
MR. LAYARD:—Sir, If I were in the place of the hon. and learned Member (Sir G. Bowyer) who has just spoken, the very last thing I should wish to do would be to call the attention of the House and of the country to the present state of Italy. I am quite willing to believe and to admit that my hon. and learned Friend is perfectly sincere in the opinions he entertains, and that he has honestly expressed his own convictions; but I rejoice at the same time to learn from my hon. and learned Friend himself that they are his convictions alone, and that, they are not shared in by other Members of this House—a statement which, I think, has been fully confirmed by the manner in which the speech he has just made has been received. [Sir GEORGE BOWYER: A great many hon. Members with whom I usually act agree with me.] That may be so, but where are they? All I can say is this, that having attentively listened to every word that has fallen from my hon. and learned Friend, I can affirm with some confidence that it has never been my fortune to hear a speech delivered in this House which has met with so little sympathy. I most sincerely rejoice that such should have been the case. I should have been deeply grieved and mortified as a Member of the House of Commons, and as an Englishman, if the words of my hon. and learned Friend had found an echo within these walls. I am confident they find none in this country. I have no doubt that my hon. and learned Friend is most sincere and earnest in his advocacy of the temporal power of the Pope, of priestly rule, of irresponsible administration and the maintenance of popular ignorance and popular superstition as principles of Government. [Sir GEORGE BOWYER: No! No !] Well if my hon. and learned Friend will bear with me for a little while, and will permit me to proceed, I think I shall be able to prove to the satisfaction of the House, if not to his own, that the opinions he has expressed could bear no other interpretation, and the policy he advocates could lead to no other result. Such being the views of my hon. and learned Friend, if he were wise he would do his utmost, instead of inviting discussion, to keep from the eyes of the world, to withdraw from the field of investigation and inquiry, the condition of those provinces which have been happily released from the dominion of the Pone and of the
876
Bourbon dynasty of Naples. My hon. and learned Friend must surely have been most egregiously and designedly misinformed and deceived if he is prepared, in confidence of a triumphant issue, to go into a contrast between the present condition and prospects of those provinces, and their condition previous to their annexation to the Kingdom of Italy, and to maintain that their former state was preferable in every respect to their actual state. If he is prepared to maintain this, my hon. and learned Friend has devised a standard of prosperity, of morality, of legality, and of Government which differs so completely from any that I can conceive or understand, that it is almost useless for me to attempt to argue with him, or to hope; to convert him. My hon. and learned Friend promised to lay before the House what he termed a vast number of "the most atrocious facts" in support of the statements which he would make. He has unquestionably described many very dreadful occurrences in great detail, but he has given us no clue whatever to the evidence upon which they rest. I am completely at a loss to understand from whence his information has been derived. All I can say is, that after the most careful inquiry Her Majesty's Government have not been able to obtain any proof whatever of the atrocities and horrors which my hon. and learned Friend has attributed to the soldiers and adherents of "the King of Sardinia," as he is pleased to call the King of Italy. On the other hand, the facts that I shall state to the House this evening, and the statements that I shall make, are founded upon evidence which will bear the strictest investigation. I shall advance nothing that is not capable of ample proof. I shall be prepared to furnish that proof to my hon. and learned Friend, should he desire it. In dealing with this great and important subject I may detain the House longer than I would wish; but I think the House will agree with me in the opinion that it is quite time the questions raised by the hon. and learned Baronet should be set at rest, and that the real facts of the case should be established by evidence which may be deemed satisfactory to the country. It is, I think, but simple justice to that great people, whose interests we are discussing, that the calumnies which are uttered against them, if they be calumnies, should be exposed, and be met by an open and distinct denial. It is, Sir, I contend only due to the people

877
of this country, who have given to Italy the weight of their sympathy and moral support, that they should be accurately and fully informed on this subject, and that they should be satisfied whether or not that sympathy and support have been rightly and deservedly afforded, or whether they have been bestowed upon a nation unworthy to receive them. It is but fair to Her Majesty's Government, who, I believe, have faithfully interpreted the sentiments and opinions of the great majority of the people of England in their policy as regards Italy, that the truth should be known, that it should be shown whether or not that policy has been founded upon good grounds, and that such statements as have been put forward this evening, if without foundation, should not remain without a formal and most emphatic contradiction.
Although so short a time has elapsed since that great change which we are discussing has taken place in the political state of Italy—a change greater and more fundamental, I will venture to affirm, than has ever taken place in so brief a period in any Other nation of the world—a change which has in three short years transformed, I may almost say, the very life of the people —a change which has raised them from t he very verge of slavery to the enjoyment of the fullest liberty—a change which contrasts as much with that which went before as would the bursting forth of the glorious sun in its noonday splendour at midnight contrast with the darkness which it had suddenly dispelled—yet, I will not hesitate for one moment to go into the comparison between the former and present condition of Italy, to which I have been just invited by the speech of my hon. and learned Friend. I think I shall be able to furnish proof to all those who are prepared to go into the mutter without partiality or prejudice—by the light of reason and truth, and not with the false scales of intolerance and superstition-that the events which have recently taken place in the Italian Peninsula promise to lead to results far more important than any of us now present can contemplate, and to raise a people but a little time ago down-trodden, hopeless, I would almost say despised of other peoples, to the highest, rank amongst the nations of the world.
My hon. and learned Friend has very prudently and wisely, for his own case, confined himself in the course of his speech to the condition of the Neapolitan
878
Provinces. With the permission of the House, I shall take a wider range. I might, indeed, fairly go into the condition of the whole peninsula. That would be the fairest mode of comparison, instead of taking an isolated province or any particular part of the kingdom, as my hon. Friend has done. But without travelling over so large a field, I shall be satisfied with inquiring into the state of the territories recently belonging to the Pope and now annexed to the kingdom of Italy, as well as of those included within the late kingdom of the Two Sicilies. The contrast which may now exist between these two portions of the kingdom of Italy, to the disadvantage of the Neapolitan Provinces, may he fully explained by their previous condition. In the case of the kingdom of Naples, such proofs of progress and prosperity as formerly existed were confined to the capital, where, however, the population was corrupted, demoralized, and debauched by every means which the worst of governments could devise. There certainly was an outward appearance of prosperity and civilization in Naples, sufficient to delude the uninquiring and thoughtless stranger; but throughout the rest of the kingdom the condition of the population was truly lamentable; corruption of the grossest kind everywhere prevailed; there was no law, no justice; no roads, no means of communication between towns and districts; no commerce, no agriculture, no education, no attempt whatever to raise and improve the moral and physical condition of the people. The population was—the word is really not too strong — brutalized. In the cities and towns, with the sole exception of Naples, there was no educated and enlightened class, no high-minded aristocracy, animated by liberal: and patriotic sentiments, who cherished and maintained feelings of independence; and the love of freedom amongst those who surrounded them. As far almost as the records of Neapolitan history go back, the: country has been a prey to brigandage. This curse is no new thing. Disorder and misgovernment were the normal condition of these provinces. On the other hand, what was the state of the provinces under Papal sway? They were, indeed, scarcely less ill-governed than the kingdom of Naples. In them, too, it was the object of those who ruled to keep the people in the utmost ignorance. [Sir G. BOWYER: No ! No !] My hon. and learned Friend's view of ignorance may differ

879
from mine. I am speaking of temporal or secular ignorance. Religious instruction of a certain kind the people undoubtedly had; and to what that religious instruction led we shall presently see: but as to temporal and political matters, their ignorance was such as to be hardly credible to those who are not acquainted with the former condition of the population in the Papal States. No encouragement was given to commerce or agriculture— corruption prevailed universally — the law was infamously administered — the people were miserably poor. There existed, however, this remarkable and material difference between the Neapolitan and Roman provinces. In the latter there are many ancient and renowned cities, once great and prosperous, but now, through terrible misgovernment, poor and desolate. In them, dwelt men of old and illustrious families, who still cherished the independence, the liberal opinions, and the cultivated tastes of their ancestors, and who lived uncorrupted amidst the corruption around them. The consequence was, that as soon as they were released from the Papal yoke, the people found leaders to whom they were attached by every tie, who were there ready to teach them the value of the liberty they had secured, and to show them how to enjoy it with moderation. I have the honour of knowing many of the men to whom I have alluded—men of the highest intellectual cultivation, of the most unblemished character, of the most liberal political sentiments—men who would do honour to any country, the most civilized and the most free. They were to be found in the cities and towns of Umbria, of the Marches, of the Legations. They formed in each of these cities and towns a little society of their own of the highest refinement. They held themselves altogether aloof from politics, and from the government under the Papal rule. But when that rule ceased, they put themselves at the head of the people; they still continue to set them a great and honourable example, representing them worthily and independently in that free and illustrious assembly which my hon. and learned Friend has ventured this evening, in terms equally unbecoming and unjustifiable, to call "a slavish Parliament."
When the Roman provinces were annexed to the Italian Kingdom, the Papal Government scarcely left a single partisan behind it—no one to encourage conspira-
880
cies or to foment disorders. From that time to this there has not been a single rising, a single reactionary movement, nor, so far as I am aware, a single conspiracy in Umbria, the Marches, or the Legations. My hon. and learned Friend, will, no doubt, answer that every expression of popular opinion, all freedom of action, is kept down by force of arms, by the unbearable tyranny of "the King of Sardinia." But is that so B If I am not greatly misinformed, there is scarcely a regiment of regular troops in the provinces bordering upon the territories still held by the Pope. The populations are left entirely to themselves; public order is chiefly maintained by the people; that is to say, by the national guards, which are of the people. The test of good government I take to be this: —the presence of a sufficient police to repress crime—the absence of an army to repress liberty. Let this test be applied to those who are still under the rule of the Pope and to those who have been released from it. I am desirous that it should be—is my hon. and learned Friend equally willing? My hon. and learned Friend has not ventured to quote a single instance of disorder, violence, or misgovernment in the Roman provinces now forming part of the Kingdom of Italy. I have no doubt that, with his indefatigable industry in the search after such things, had he found one he would not have omitted calling our attention to it this evening. All I can gather from him is, that the populations of these provinces are extremely unhappy; that they yearn and long for a return to their former condition—sigh for that holy and paternal Government, which affords to those who are fortunate enough to live under it the highest amount of human felicity grafted on the best promise of eternal happiness. My answer is simply this. Why do they not return to that earthly paradise? How is it that those who are still living under this model theocracy, in which the spiritual and the temporal are so happily blended, that life passes smoothly away in the discharge of the highest duties imposed upon man—his duty to God and his King—are so ungrateful, so ignorant, so foolish, so besotted, that they wish to renounce the inestimable blessings they enjoy, and to unite with the unhappy, misgoverned, oppressed subjects of Victor Emmanuel! Sir, let the inhabitants of Viterbo, of the other border cities and of the Patrimony of St. Peter, kept down

881
by the iron hand of foreign mercenaries and foreign troops, reply. Would my hon. and learned Friend consent to the withdrawal of the Pope's foreign bands and unsympathizing allies, and allow the people, who, after all, may perhaps be better judges of their own condition and of their own wants than my hon. and learned Friend, to choose for themselves? Will he venture to affirm, does he think, that the population still under Papal rule would hesitate as to the course they would pursue? My hon. and learned Friend exclaimed with great emphasis and energy, that although Victor Emmanuel wanted Rome, he would never get it. Well, that remains to be seen. But what I would wish to ask my hon. and learned Friend is this:—Is it Victor Emmanuel only who wants Rome, or is it that Rome also wants Victor Emmanuel? If my hon. and learned Friend has any doubt on the subject, let him advocate the withdrawal of the French troops from Rome, and leave the people of that city to answer for themselves.
Who that had travelled in and was acquainted with the Roman provinces be fore their withdrawal from Papal rule, does not remember their unhappy condition? My hon. and learned Friend, and those who like him have limited their visits and experience to Rome itself, have been willing to remain within that atmosphere of deception and self-delusion; they knew little of what was taking place outside its walls and of the real condition of the country. Cities and towns deserted, fields uncultivated, poverty everywhere; a population without life or energy, without hopes, without aspirations, crushed under the weight of superstition and ignorance, deprived of education as something sinful and to be dreaded, deprived of political liberty as something equally criminal and impious, taught to look upon idleness, beggary, and almsgiving as the first of Christian virtues; no public works, no justice, no enterprise, no commerce. No sooner had priestly government been overthrown than with it disappeared that unclean herd which had preyed upon the vitals of the people — the secret police, the spy in the family, the agent of the Inquisition—like the swarm of noxious vermin which flies from the deserted ruin about to be made fit for human habitation One could watch the growth of a now life: men began to think that it were better to gain their bread by the sweat of their
882
brow and honest industry than by living upon the charity of others. Commercial enterprise began to develop itself; trade flourished; education—not the mere theo! logical education of the priests—was encouraged to an extent that had never been known before. Are these things true or are they not? I have done my, utmost to ascertain. Not satisfied with official reports alone, and with the statements made in the Italian Chambers— not even satisfied with what I have myself seen, I have endeavoured to obtain information from persons in Italy upon whose knowledge, judgment, and impartiality I could fully rely. The result of my inquiries is that they are true. But, I must be permitted, before going further, to say that my hon. and learned Friend was not justified in asserting, as he did, that the agents of Her Majesty's Government, including Sir James Hudson himself, had sent home reports which they knew, to be false, because they believed that such reports would be acceptable to Her Majesty's Government, and would be favourable to the policy pursued by Her Majesty's Ministers. Such statements are utterly without foundation. I would have my hon. and learned Friend know that our agents in Italy, whether diplomatic or consular, are men of far too high character, far too honourable and truthful, to lend themselves to anything of the kind. I will defy my hon. and learned Friend, or any other person, to prove that their reports have not been perfectly impartial, truthful, and trustworthy, from: first to last.
Amongst those to whom I wrote for information was Mr. Waddington, an English gentleman, married to an Italian lady of considerable landed property, and who has settled himself at Perugia, near which city his wife's estates are situated. He is intimately acquainted with the country and the people. He has I taken great interest in them, and has made himself thoroughly acquainted with their wants. More than this, he is a Roman Catholic, and has no reason to be well; disposed towards the Italian authorities, who have replaced those of the Pope in Umbria. He may, therefore, be looked upon as an impartial and trustworthy witness. If the House will permit me, I will read his letter in answer to my inquiries. It gives so complete and satisfactory an answer to the assertions of hon. Gentlemen opposite that it will go much

883
further and will have more weight than any statement I could make. His letter is dated Perugia, the 17th of last March— not a mouth ago. He writes—
"In your last you inquire how we are getting on here, and I am happy to be able to state that, as far as the intelligent part of the population is concerned, they are delighted at the change of Government, and everybody is astonished at the results which have already been obtained here. The most rapid strides have been made where they were most wanted—namely, in education. We have now Infant Schools and Evening Schools for the adults of the poorer classes; at the former there are 195, which number will be augmented as fast as the locality can be prepared (of course a convent), and at the latter about 500. For the middle classes we have the Gymnasium, from the age of eight to fourteen: the Lyceum from fourteen to eighteen, and the University for the later stages. This last institution existed before, but has been endowed with a fact of the revenues from the suppressed Convents, and has received an increase in the number of Professors. Besides these we have a Scuola Tecnica, where mechanics and designing, &c, are taught, and two normal schools for the formation of teachers, male and female. When you call to mind that we had only one Communal School and the University, in which one-third of the Professors were theological, you will see that we have made great efforts to remedy the weak point of education, and will note the wide difference between the past and present Governments. Besides this, in the sole commune of I'erugia we have instituted twelve village schools for the benefit of the peasants, and I am glad to say they are pretty well attended. We have also made the experiment of trial by jury, and have met with a success which I hardly anticipated: the attention of the juries to the causes before them and their decisions would have done honour to England herself. The influx of so many masters, professors, and judges (for we have also a tribunal of appeal) has given a considerable impetus to local commerce, and the alterations in old buildings and the raising of new ones have given abundant Occupation to the working classes, so that on the whole, though provisions have risen in consequence of the short crops of last year, and wages have not quite kept pace with the enhanced prices, everybody seems contented, … It is a fact that at Gubbio, where, to a population of barely 6,000, there are fifty-three churches and seventeen convents, there were no less than 2,700 persons receiving alms. And on the suppression of the convents many families, who were supported by the monks, … were added to the list of paupers. (I was told 200, but that must be an exaggeration.) lean vouch for the fact, as I was sent there on a mission to calm the populace, and was obliged for some time to continue the alms at the expense of the Government. Gubbio, once under the Dukes of Umbino, contained 28,000 inhabitants, and now 6,000 under Papal Government. … What has most astonished me in all these changes is the way in which the price of land has kept up."
But Perugia does not stand alone in the improvement and change which Mr. Waddington describes: it is no exceptional case.
884
Equal progress has been made in the same direction in other cities, freed from the Papal rule. In Bologna—I quote now from official returns—the number of schools for men and boys has been more than doubled within the short space of fifteen months. It now contains 40 schools with 2,318 scholars. In the district of Bologna there are now not less than 103 public girl schools, whilst under the old Government there were only 13; a fact of no little importance, when the previous absence of a proper system of female education in the Roman States is taken into consideration. Thirty-eight additional private schools for boys have been opened, and 109 for girls. Four new asylums for infants have been founded, and nine evening free schools for labouring men, which already contain above 1,000 scholars. Let it be remembered that no such institutions existed under the Pontifical Government. They are attended by even men of the lowest class, besides operatives and mechanics, all eager to obtain knowledge. A school of design has also been established, and is already well attended. In order to improve still further the quality of the instruction given and to form a qualified class of instructors, a normal school for masters was opened last year with 20 scholars; it now contains 112. A college for boys in connection with it is about to be formed. In 1861–2, the commune of Bologna voted the sum of 200,000 f, for educational purposes alone. At Imola and in the other districts of the Legations this educational movement is showing an equal development. In almost all the rural districts evening schools have now been established. In Ancona, where the population has been increased by between. 2,000 and 3,000 souls in eighteen months, four new schools for boys, and two for girls on an extensive scale have been opened. And, what will specially interest some of my lion. Friends in this House, Sunday schools, which were formerly prohibited altogether, have been opened in various parts of the town. An infant asylum, and schools for girls to be educated for governesses, have also been established. Travelling inspectors of schools have, moreover, been appointed in the Marches and Legations by the Government. This thirst after knowledge —this earnest desire for education—is certainly one of the most hopeful and encouraging signs of the regeneration of Italy. It extends throughout the Penin-

885
sula, and its results are already felt and seen. It will not surprise the House, after what I have stated, to hear that in Bologna during the last six months crime has diminished 60 per cent, and that the population is enjoying a security of life and property which it never enjoyed before. Trial by jury has now been introduced into the Legation and Marches, as well as Umbria, and has met with marked success. The press is perfectly free, and editors of newspapers can only be tried by a jury for articles against individuals or the State. Public works are being extensively carried on. Ravenna, in whose deserted streets but a short time since the grass grew, is again becoming the emporium of the commerce of the Romagna, and begins to show the busy signs of reviving trade. Its ancient port, long buried in sand, will shortly be cleared out; a million of francs has been assigned to the works, which are again to connect the city with the sea by a broad and deep canal. The conscription, another test of the feelings of the people, was during last year perfectly successful, and the Government found no difficulty whatever in raising1 the required number of men, notwithstanding the threats and intrigues of some portion of the priesthood, who endeavoured to prevent the country people from serving, the Government.
Such, then, is the state of the Roman provinces recently annexed to the kingdom of Italy. What is taking place in Rome itself, where the rule of the Pope, so much extolled by my hon. and learned Friend, is still maintained? Are the inhabitants of that city, and the territory surrounding it, satisfied with their lot? Do they require the presence of troops to keep them in subjection? Could they be left, as I have shown that the inhabitants of Umbria, the Marches, and the Legations have been left, to choose their own government? Let facts, which even my hon. and learned Friend cannot gainsay, answer these questions. Why is Rome occupied by a foreign army? What happened not later than the 28th of February last? Why were the streets resounding with cannon and bristling with bayonets? Was it to protect the people against a foreign enemy? Was it not rather to protect them against their own rulers—against that Government which my hon. and learned Friend so greatly admires? If not, why were the Papal troops and Papal mercenaries ordered to their barracks and confined to them
886
during that day? It is really astonishing to hear my hon. and learned Friend speak as he has spoken to-night, when he knows, as well as I do, that within a very few days the whole French army of occupation in Rome was called out under arms to prevent, not the people from attacking the Papal troops, but to prevent the Papal troops taking advantage of an innocent and unarmed demonstration to fall upon and massacre the people! And this in Rome, which claims to be the centre of religion and Christianity.
Let me now turn to the Neapolitan provinces. I would beg the House to bear in mind the broad distinction between them and the Roman provinces. I have said that in the latter, alter their annexation to the Kingdom of Italy, no partisans of the previous Government were left: as much cannot, perhaps, be asserted of the Neapolitan provinces. It is very probable that some few partisans of the former dynasty are to be found there. Whilst there is no one to stir up disorder and encourage disaffection in the Roman provinces, let it be remembered that the King of the Two Sicilies withdrew over the frontier to Rome; and that there, protected and encouraged, and safe from pursuit, he has been able to foment disturbance, to carry on and direct intrigues, and to arm and pay those who are inclined, for the sake of plunder and gain, or from attachment to himself, to engage in conspiracies and to stir the people to outrages of the worst description. This, and I believe this alone, has been the cause of the disturbed stale of some—not all, as I shall show—of the Neapolitan provinces, which, I freely admit, offer an unfavourable contrast to other parts of the United Kingdom of Italy.
But, before going into the subject of the condition of these Provinces, let me point out to my hon. and learned Friend a mistake into which he and others appear to have fallen, with regard to the duty and responsibility of Her Majesty's Government and their agents in obtaining information as to events which may take place in various parts of Italy. He has asked me this evening, as he has upon other occasions, whether we have received information of a proclamation issued in this place or of some occurrence which may have happened in some other place. He has made our ignorance a reproach to us. Now, it is impossible for Her Majesty's Government to obtain in all cases such information. We

887
cannot maintain agents in every small town and district in Italy. I cannot, therefore, undertake to satisfy my hon. and learned Friend upon all the occurrences, the greater part of them, probably mere matter of hearsay, which he has brought to my notice.
I will now proceed to examine into the state of the Neapolitan provinces. My hon. and learned Friend has spoken of them as if they had been, until their annexation to the Kingdom of Italy, among the most flourishing and best-governed portions of the Peninsula. He describes disorder, outrages, and brigandage, as events altogether of recent occurrence. According to him, no part of Europe was formerly more peaceful, in none were life and property more secure. Yet, Sir, if I am not very much mistaken, the Abruzzi and Calabria did not enjoy the best of reputations, even under the model rule of the Bourbons. It was not then that the traveller could journey in perfect safety from Rome to Naples, or that the inn at Terracina was considered the safest of resting-places. Surely my hon. and learned Friend knows little or nothing of the former condition of the Neapolitan provinces. He could not have set foot in them. Indeed, there was scarcely a. practicable road for a traveller through them, and I doubt whether even he would have ventured to incur the danger of such a journey. He seems to be in entire ignorance of the population and of their habits and feelings both now and then. How can he explain the fact, that if they are devoted to their expelled king, as he would wish us to believe, they should have made no effort in his behalf; but that, on the contrary, they should have received as benefactors and liberators those who drove him from his kingdom. He knows full well that the overthrow of the Bourbon dynasty was not accomplished by an army. When Garibaldi appeared at Naples, it was not at the head of large bodies of armed men. He came as a simple traveller by a railway, with a first-class ticket. The people rose to a man on his approach, and hailed him as their deliverer. How does my hon. and learned Friend account for these facts? In a few hours the political condition of the country was changed; but does any one believe that the nature and character of a people born and bred in ignorance and superstition, and accustomed for centuries to tyranny and misgovernment, could be changed likewise. The
888
vices which exist among the Neapolitan population are vices that have been created by a long period of bad government. What is happening now is not to be attributed to the present rulers, or to the political change which has taken place, but must be traced to a former state of things. Those who have succeeded to the former dynasty have inherited the evils which that dynasty created. The brigand still lurks in the woods and in the hills, robbing and murdering the peaceful traveller, not because he differs from his victim in polities, but because he covets his money: Added to these outlaws are the disbanded soldiers of the late king—men brought up in ignorance, superstition, and cruelty—men carefully deprived of the feelings and aspirations of citizens to be formed into the tools of a despotic and cruel Government. These are admirable engines in the hands of those who wish to create disorder, to murder and to destroy. They have been used, and undoubtedly with, effect. My hon. and learned Friend ventures to declare that they are not brigands and outlaws, but patriots, fighting in a good cause, and against a Government which has illegally, treacherously, and feloniously usurped the throne of their king; that they are loyal subjects of a monarch who has been unjustly and wickedly expelled his kingdom by strangers against the wish of his people. Sir, I would not so far dishonour the cause and name of the late king as to call men who have been guilty of the atrocities they have committed, his loyal subjects and his followers. Does my hon. and learned Friend doubt what I have stated? He seems to do so. Would he then accompany me in the spirit—not, of course, in the flesh, because, earnest and enthusiastic as he may be in their cause, if he fell into the hands of those loyal subjects and devoted patriots, I doubt whether he would fare much better than others who have had the misfortune of falling into their clutches—would he, I say, accompany me in the spirit into one of those districts in which the outrages to which I allude have been perpetrated? Let him look at that band of men, ferocious in mien and barbarous in dress, descending from those ilex-covered hills. They creep stealthily towards that quiet village, intent on rapine and blood. Who leads them on? Is it their royal master, for whom, were told, they are willing to sacrifice

889
their lives? Is it their king? Is it any member of his house? Any royal Rupert fighting to the last for the honour and rights of his race? Is it any man of gentle blood—any noble of ancient lineage? Is it any one bred to arms? Is it even one born in the land—an Italian r No— none of these! At their head is some unfortunate Borges or De Cristen who, deluded by religious zeal, or by a false enthusiasm—alas ! too soon to be dispelled —or led by the desire of plunder or of pay, has been persuaded that he has embarked in a holy and righteous cause, and that he is to fight on behalf of a whole people and their legitimate rulers against a foreign and hated foe. But who is at his side in the scene of carnage and havoe which ensues — who urges him onwards, and encourages him in deeds of blood? One in the garb of a Christian priest, a crucifix in one hand, and dispensations in the other! And when the illusion that has induced him to embark in this desperate venture has passed away—when he finds that the people he has come to save are not with him, but against him-—when deserted and betrayed he and his ruthless hand are forced to fly; where do they go, where do they retreat together? Why to the place from whence they were sent forth—to the sanctuary of religion, to the capital of the Christian world—the seat of justice and of peace, there to be blessed by the Head of their faith, whose priests they have just slaughtered, and to receive honours and rewards from him who claims for his subjects those with whose blood they are still reeking ! What happens the day after? Why, again deluded by false hopes and promises, they are launched once more against a helpless and unoffending people, are again driven back like wild beasts and again retreat to their sanctuary under the protection of foreign arms. Could anything be more calculated to exasperate those who suffer from such outrages? Could anything call forth more vindictive feelings and more cruel punishments? Is it a matter of surprise that the Italian Government should take the strongest and most summary measures to exterminate these bands? It is highly probable—indeed, it could scarcely be otherwise—that under circumstances of such great provocation, cruel acts of retaliation may have been committed. God forbid that I should justify or even palliate them ! I know not if all the proclamations quoted by my hon. and learned Friend, de-
890
nouncing punishments of the utmost severity, even barbarity, against these brigands, are authentic or not. As I have already said, it is impossible for Her Majesty's Government to obtain full information upon, such subjects. But this I can affirm, that Her Majesty's Government have not justified or defended those that have come to their knowledge, as my hon. and learned Friend has ventured to insinuate. As far as they may have a right to do in the cause of humanity, they have condemned them. Neither has the Italian Government approved of, nor justified them. So far from such, being the case, it has condemned them as strongly as we have, and has punished those who may, under extreme provocation, hare issued them. It seems, however, to be fully proved that they were only intended to terrify, and were never acted upon. Indeed, we know now that some were never even printed, having been suppressed at once by superior officers to whom they were submitted by their authors. How one proclamation thus suppressed came into the hands of my hon. and learned Friend I am at a loss to conjecture. I must say that the circumstance gives rise to some suspicion. [Sir GEORGE BOWYER: I obtained it from the Gazette de France.] Well, I had hitherto been under the impression that the only copy which existed had been sent to my hon. and learned Friend. But be this as it may, I must take this occasion of protesting against the habit of my hon. and learned Friend of constantly jumping up in this House, and asking questions about some imaginary proclamation, or some imaginary outrage, an account of which he may have seen in a newspaper, or may have received from some correspondent, without taking the trouble to ascertain whether or not there may be any foundation for the charge he thus attempts indirectly to bring against the Italian Government. The other evening he inquired of the noble Lord at the head of the Government whether the dead body of the Bishop of Amalfi, when exposed in state according to the custom of the country, had not been horribly insulted and mutilated by the Liberals, who rushed into the church, and stabbed it with their knives. He asked the question as if he had received the most authentic account of the whole transaction. Her Majesty's Government has since heard from their agents that the story was a pure invention, and had no foundation except in the imagi-

891
nation of those who seem to delight in taking advantage of the credulity of my hon. land learned Friend. He was no doubt deceived, but I protest again against the House of Commons being made the organ of such calumnies against the people of Italy.
I hare asserted that the outrages committed in Southern Italy, which my hon. and learned Friend has declared to be the legitimate Warfare of an oppressed people against their oppressors, are but the isolated acts of brigands, of persons whose object is plunder and murder, That it is brigandage, and nothing else but brigandage, and is no proof of disaffection or reactionary feeling on the part of the population, the following facts will, I think, prove. The excesses and outrages committed by these bands of armed men have been limited almost exclusively to the provinces immediately adjoining the territory still tinder the dominion of the Pope—to the Terra del Lavoro, the Abruzzi (in parts Conterminous with Velletri and Frosinone), and the Capitanata. They have not prevailed in Calabria, Terra d'Otranto, and the Terra di Bari. And only when driven from their lurking-places in the hills have these bands descended into the plains of Apulia. There have been partial disturbances in Calabria and the Basilieata, but they have been caused by the landing of expeditions from abroad. That these invading bands meet with no sympathy in other parts of Italy, is fully proved by the fact that they are not composed of Italians—of men from Tuscany, or the Duchies, or Lombardy—but of strangers from Austria, Germany, or Spain. That they meet with no sympathy from the people of the country is indisputably proved by the fact that no landholder or respectable farmer—no man of intelligence or property—has joined them, and that in nearly every instance the National Guard, drawn from the people themselves, have acted with promptitude and energy in pursuing and destroying them. That the armed men sent over the Roman frontiers do not represent any portion of the population is proved by the fact that even in the districts bordering on the Roman confines, where they could best receive succour and support, they have never been able to hold their ground, or to keep a post of. any importance for even a day—not a town—indeed, scarcely a village—having declared in their favour. Having descended from their hiding-places, struck their
892
blow, and robbed, burnt, and murdered, they have again sought refuge across the border, where they are safe from pursuit. I have already mentioned that no officer who had attained rank in. the former Neapolitan army has ventured to place himself at their head.
Now, as to the deeds of these men, who, according to my hon. and learned Friend, are loyal subjects struggling against a foreign yoke. I will not quote mere reports such as he has quoted. I will confine myself to information received from authentic and official sources, and will read to the House from a despatch from Mr. Bonham, Her Majesty's Consul at Naples, (dated the 27th March,) the following statement, made by a person whose truthfulness there is no reason to doubt:—
"I left Bad accompanied by my brother. The road being considered Unsafe; two diligences, having altogether 14 passengers, travelled in company. On the 14th of March we Were Stopped by a large band in the valley of Bovino. Amongst the passengers were a lady, art old sergeant of veterans, a police officer, a monk, and my brother; the others were private travellers. We were taken some miles into the forest, where the largo body of brigands were assembled—these Numbered about 100, all young men dressed as peasants, not at all as soldiers. Two appeared to act as chiefs, one of whom was called Chiavone, a man of about 35 or 36 years old; the other Crocco, a mart about 22 or 23. We Were stripped of our money and clothes; the lady's earrings were also taken the sergeant was then shot; the policeman was bound and thrown amongst a heap of faggots, which were set on fire, and he was burnt. The rest of us remained for some time in extreme terror, not knowing what would be our fate; finally, one of the chiefs ordered that we should be let go, and we were released accordingly, found our way to Ariano, and thence to Naples" (Mr. Bonham himself adds:) "I have to-day seen a telegram reporting the burning alive of a priest by the same band of Crocco, near Ascoli, which is also in the neighbourhood of Bovino."
Again, on the 19th of March last, Mr. Bonham, in giving an account of an interview with General La Marmora, on the subject of the proclamation of Major Fumel, thus accounts for the severity of the punishments inflicted upon the brigands when they fell into the hands of the Italian troops—
"Doubtless the utmost exasperation exists on the part of the troops towards the brigands; it cannot be otherwise. The latter put to death with excessive cruelty any one of the troops who has the misfortune to fall into their power—cut off the mustachios and chin-tufts of their victims, and wear them as ornaments in their hats. Having such trophies, it is not possible to suppose they can expect or receive quarter when they, on their

893
part, fall into the hands of the troops. General La Marmora further stated to me that a captain and nineteen men of a company of infantry at Lucera, near Foggia, having separated from the rest of the company when marching in that neighbourhood yesterday, were overpowered and all massacred by brigands. Their bodies were subsequently found by their companions, stripped and horribly mutilated."
Mr. Bonham, in another despatch, writes—
"Castelluccio, a village containing nearly 1,500 inhabitants, situated about two miles from the frontier, was the object of their (Chiavone's band) attack. This unfortunate village was surprised, sacked, and partly burned before the troops and the national guard of Sora, distant five or six miles, could reach the spot. The brigands then retired with their plunder across the frontier."
"The band of Cipriani, about Nola and Avellino, is still uncaptured, and makes occasional descents upon villages and outlying hamlets, plundering and carrying persons off for ransom."
As I have already said, I know not whether any of the threats held out in the proclamations which have been so often referred to have been put into execution or not. I am assured that they have not. If cruelties have been inflicted upon the captured brigands, I am not here to palliate them, although they may admit; of some palliation when the horrible outrages committed by these brigands are considered. Nor would I hold the Italian Government responsible for them; nor would I wish to see that Government constantly called to account for such things. It appears to me, as I have already stated in this House, that it would be unbecoming in us, that we should be wanting in due consideration and respect to the Italian Government, if we were to be constantly asking that Government for information and explanations upon matters which do not concern us, and which are for its consideration alone. I cannot forget that Italy has a free press and a free Parliament, and that there exists at this moment this great, this happy difference—that whereas formerly no one dared to comment upon or condemn such things, and that the people were taught to look upon strangers alone for sympathy and redress, no illegal or inhuman act can now be committed without calling forth the fullest inquiry and investigation, if such inquiry and investigation are needed. If abuses exist, under the influence of Italian public opinion they will be redressed; under the influence of foreign intervention, as frequently happens with nations sensitive as to that which may affect their dignity
894
and independence, they may be persevered in.
Unfortunately, such outrages and proclamations as have been described are by no means new in the Kingdom of Naples. The proclamations, indeed, seem to have been modelled upon documents of the same kind not only issued, but acted upon with inexorable rigour, by the former rulers of these provinces. The curse of Southern Italy has ever been brigandage, and it was only by deeds of extreme cruelty and horrible retaliation that the former Governments endeavoured to keep it in check. They seem to have thought that no other means could prevail. Let me refer my hon. and learned Friend to the pages of the well-known historian of Naples, Colletta. He cites proclamations against brigands which are nearly word for word the same as those said to have been issued by officers of the King of I till3', and describes deeds of cruelty and revenge which far exceed in horror even those of which the details have been supplied to my hon. and learned Friend. Let me quote one or two instances from the annals of the reign of Muiat—
"When Joachim perceived that there was no crime of which the brigands were not capable, he passed a law conferring unlimited power on one of his generals to try every case in Calabria, whether military or civil, for the destruction of brigandage. General Manhes, who was selected for this office, passed the ensuing October in preparations, waiting until the country should be bare of fruit and leaves, which provided the brigands with food and shelter." "He then published lists of brigands in every commune, and issued orders to the citizens to kill them or take them prisoners."He punished with death all correspondence, not even excepting that between wife and husband, or between mother and son; he armed the innocent parents against their own sons, and brothers against brothers. He prohibited, under pain of death, labourers to carry any food with them into the fields. These decrees were so severe that they appeared to be only dictated to strike terror; but shortly afterwards facts put an end to this incredulity.
"Benincasa, a chief of brigands. Was apprehended and taken to Cosenza. Manhes directed his hands to be cut off, and that he should then be taken to San Giovanni, his native place, and hung on the gallows. He actually underwent the first portion of this sentence in Cosenza, and marched on foot the same day to San Giovanni, where he met his death bravely."
These horrible acts happened during the reign of Murat; let me mention a deed of combined treachery and cruelty perpetrated by the Bourbon dynasty—
"Gaetano Vardarelli, an ex-soldier, a brigand, formed a formidable band, and set the police at defiance. The Government at last treated with

895
him, and engaged, to, take him: and his men into the pay of the king as gendarmes, in which capacity they acted with considerable success for a while. At last, General Amato, who commanded in Puglia, enticed the band into the city of Foggia, under pretence of a review, and, in the midst of a public festival, shot them down in the marketplace."
I do not quote these instances of cruelty and treachery to justify anything that may have been done by the Italian troops—admitting for the sake of argument that the accusations made against them by my hon. and learned Friend have some foundation —but as proofs of the unhappy condition of the Neapolitan provinces under former Governmental—of the prevalence of brigandage under them, as well as under the present Government—of the deplorable state of a country in which such brutal deeds could be committed with impunity, and of the consequent demoralization of its inhabitants. We can judge from these facts to what a condition a nation can be reduced by a lengthened period of tyranny and misrule.
My. hon. and learned Friend declares that we are not well-informed with regard to the real state of things in Naples and other parts of Italy, because the Italian Parliament does not represent the feelings and opinions of the people. If my hon. and learned Friend means that there are no men in that assembly who represent his opinions and feelings, he is, unquestionably, in the right. I doubt whether there be any constituency in Italy which would return a Member of my hon. and learned Friend's views. And for a very good reason. I may venture to say that there are no independent, intelligent Italians who entertain them. But of this I am convinced, that the Italian Parliament fairly and fully represents the vast majority of the Italian people. My hon. and learned Friend declares that the real condition of the Neapolitan provinces has passed unnoticed in that Parliament. Surely he has not followed the debates which have of late taken place in that assembly. Had he done so, he would have read the speeches of Signor Massari, and other eloquent and able men, who have been sent to Turin to represent their native cities and districts in the Neapolitan provinces and in Sicily. They have fearlessly exposed the condition of the country, have pointed out the causes of disorder, and have called the Government to account for such things, as the Government might fairly be held responsible. I repeat
896
it, the Italian Parliament is a free assembly in which every class and shade of opinion, not numerically insignificant, is fully and ably represented.
My hon. and learned Friend has denounced the Piedmontese as strangers of a different origin and face, sneaking a different language to those whom, according to him, they have treacherously invaded, and are now holding in subjection by force of arms. He has talked of "the jargon" of the Piedmontese, which so little resembled the Italian language that the Neapolitans cannot even understand their invaders. I do not profess to have a critical knowledge of the various dialects spoken in the Italian Peninsula; but I, may, I think, affirm with some confidence, that the Neapolitan dialect is scarcely less removed from the pure Italian than the Piedmontese. I am pretty certain, at all events, that one who spoke only the classic language of Tuscany would have as much difficulty in understanding a Neapolitan as a Piedmontese. But let me ask my hon. and learned Friend whether those Austrian troops who, with his entire approbation, for ten long years held in terrible servitude the subjects of the Pope, spoke the Italian tongue? Is it the native language of the armies which now keep down the people of Rome? or did that noble band of heroes who went from a neighbouring island to the succour of the Holy Pontiff speak the purest dialect of Italy?
I will readily admit, indeed it cannot be denied, that the population of the Neapolitan provinces are not at this moment as well satisfied with the change of Government and their annexation to the Italian Kingdom as the rest of Italy. There is no difficulty in explaining the reason. When the army of Victor Emmanuel appeared in the south, of Italy, they were received not as conquerors, but with universal joy by the population as their saviours. The people were under the belief, not that the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies was to be annexed to Piedmont, but that it was to form part of a great united Kingdom of Italy, of which Piedmont itself was but a province, with Rome for its capital. It was for such a united Italy that they so unanimously declared themselves. Their hopes and expectations have hitherto been disappointed. That is still wanting which can alone constitute a united Italy. The Neapolitans will not consent to be the province of a province; nor will they be so. No doubt the fact of their being

897
governed from Turin had caused a great deal of disappointment, perhaps discontent. But I will venture to say that such discontent does not extend beyond this. If my hon. and learned Friend means to assert that they desire to return to their ancient condition—to receive back the Bourbon dynasty—he is very greatly misinformed. I believe that no trace of such a desire exists, amongst the vast majority of the population. Allow me to read what Mr. Bonham wrote to Her Majesty's Government on this subject (6th September of last year)—
"I doubt whether, except with a portion of the nobility who were personally attached to the Bourbon family and Court, and many of the peasantry who are specially under the influence of the priesthood, there is any considerable party whose feelings of discontent go the length of causing a wish for a return to the former Government. I arrive at this conclusion in a great measure from the fact that throughout the whole country, with one or two insignificant exceptions, the National Guard has held stanch to the Government, and has been everywhere and on every occasion found acting by the side of the regular troops. The ranks of the mobilized National Guard, composed entirely of natives of the localities in which they were raised, two companies for each district (circondario), have been thus far quickly and efficiently filled, already numbering upwards of 15,000 men. General Piola tells me these men have already rendered good service."
Even admitting, for the sake of argument, the existence in the Neapolitan pro vinces of more disaffection and discontent than I am aware of—even admitting that such acts of cruelty as described by my hon. and learned Friend have been committed by the Italian troops—let us turn for a while to the material condition of those provinces since their annexation to the Kingdom of Italy. Let us inquire whether any real progress has been made in the development of their resources; in the education of the people, morally, socially, and intellectually; in the establishment of free institutions; and in the administration of justice. After all, these things furnish the best test of good government, and by this test I am willing that the new Government should be tried. I would earnestly request the attention of the House to this important subject. I think the House and the country will be astonished at the proofs of such progress that I shall be able to place before them; that they will marvel that so much has been accomplished in so short a time, and in the midst of such great difficulties. The substantial improvements—improvements
898
of vast importance—which have already been introduced may be thus briefly enumerated:—1. Ecclesiastical reforms of the greatest consequence, accompanied by complete religious toleration. 2. The introduction of an extensive system of popular education. 3. The commencement and construction of great public works, railways, highroads, and harbours. 4. The introduction of one uniform commercial tariff with the rest of the kingdom, upon principles of free trade, the former high and protective duties having been summarily abolished. 5. The establishment of trial by jury, and measures, already in many respects highly successful, to improve the administration of the law, so scandalously corrupt under the Bourbon dynasty. 6. The introduction of the military conscription, at first so repugnant to, and so resolutely opposed, by the people.
I will now touch briefly upon each of the principal heads of improvement and progress I have thus enumerated, furnishing proofs from authentic and official sources. And first with regard to ecclesiastical reforms. One of the earliest steps taken by the new Government was to abolish the privileges granted to the clergy under the Concordat with Rome of 1818, by which the civil authority was systematically placed under the rule and control of the clerical power. In addition the right of appeal 'ab abusu' such as it exists in France and Piedmont, against excesses of power on the part of the clergy, has been established. In a country where formerly religious intolerance was us great as in the most intolerant countries of the world, complete religious toleration has now been introduced, and a perfect equality of civil and political rights has been extended to persons of every religious persuasion. One of the results which will be interesting to this country has been the confirmation by the Government of the grant made by Garibaldi of a piece of land at Naples for the erection of an English Protestant Church. (The House may, perhaps, be aware that the Italian Government has made a similar grant at Milan, and has there given a building for conversion into an English Church.) A scarcely less important step, and one which will have a very considerable effect upon; the prosperity and well-being of the country, has been the suppression of convents, monasteries, and religious bodies, except such as can be proved to be of public utility. Hon. Members who

899
had no personal acquaintance with the Italian provinces under the old rule can form but an imperfect idea of the evils that such institutions entailed upon the population—of the curse that they were to the country. I can best illustrate their mischievous effects and the demoralizing results they produced by quoting some official statistics—
"On the 17th of February, 1861, there were (in the Neapolitan provinces) 1,020 establishments for men, containing 13,611 monks and laymen, namely: 1st—3,005 monks-proprietors, that is to say 1,924 fathers and 1,131 laymen, with a revenue of 3,323,785 francs a year. 2nd—1,657 mendicant friars, with a revenue of 1,232,182 fr. 3rd—8,899 absolute mendicants without revenue, namely, 5,382 fathers and 3,52 7 laymen. The above 4,662 monks-proprietors therefore enjoyed a revenue of 4,555,967 fr., which makes an average for each individual of 977 fr. a year.
"It is worthy of remark that several monasteries have not yet sent in a return of their revenues. The other 8,899 live on the alms of devotees and of the lower classes. The convents on the I7thof February, 1861, were 276 in number, occupied by 8,001 females, of whom 5,103 were nuns, and 2,898 novices, with a revenue of 4,772,794 fr., making an average of 596 fr. for each,"
What a story do these figures tell! what a condition of society do they disclose! All these men and women living in idleness upon public charity and withdrawn from the productive resources of the country ! My hon. and learned Friend laughs. But let him without prejudice examine the results of such a state of things. What has contributed to the ignorance, the superstition, and the misery of the people of the largest portion of Italy but the existence of this monstrous evil? What has reduced the populations of great and flourishing cities to a mere aggregation of beggars —what has left some of the fairest parts of Italy uncultivated and a desert but this system? Let me beg my hon. Friends opposite (the Irish Members) not to believe for one moment that I would treat this matter as one of religion. This is no religous question. I would scorn to exhibit an intolerant feeling toward Roman Catholics, as I would towards men of any other denomination. I do not denounce and condemn the former misgovernment of Italy as a Protestant, as my hon. and learned Friend would persuade himself. It has been far more earnestly denounced and condemned by sincere and pious Roman Catholics. I cannot believe that my hon. Friend will venture to declare that the great Italian people, and their leaders, men of the highest eminence and
900
ability, who have brought about the great change which I am describing, have renounced the Catholic faith. They think that they can denounce, without forfeiting their claims to be considered good Catholics, a system which, although professing to be essential to, and to be supported by, the Roman Church, they believe to form no part of it, but to be noxious to the people and detrimental to the progress of their country.
And now as regards education; in Naples in three or four months a university may be said to have been created. It formerly existed only in name. No less than 9,477 students have entered it, so great is the ardour for learning in that part, as in all other parts of Italy! An Academy of Fine Arts, which already contains more than three hundred, students, has been founded. In the provinces seventeen lyceums, or superior academies, have already been opened—those at Naples and Bari ranking amongst the first for instruction and discipline in Italy. No less than fifty-two superior provincial schools have been established, and government inspectors have been appointed for the communal and parochial schools. And let the House remember that all this has been effected in a country in which but a vary short time ago education and instruction were not merely neglected but actually forbidden !
I now come to great public works undertaken or encouraged and supported by the Government. Lines of steamers, either carried on or subsidized by Government, or belonging to companies encouraged by it, have been established along the coasts^ connecting together many cities and ports. A complete scheme for lighting those coasts has been adopted. New harbours are being constructed, and old ones cleaned and restored. No less than seventy-two of such harbours exist on the coasts of Naples and Sicily; but they had been so utterly neglected that, for the most part, they had become useless: works upon a very extensive scale are now being carried on to restore them to commerce. The harbours of Ancona, Molfetta, Bari, Gallipoli, Catania, and Milazzo are being enlarged and improved. Other works are projected for Pescara, Brindisi (to which nine millions of francs have been assigned), Naples (to which forty millions of francs have been assigned), Palermo, and Licata (in Sicily). The Government have, moreover, determined to construct harbours of refuge at S. Venere near Pizzo in Calabria, and at other places. A com-

901
mission has been further appointed to report upon the ports and harbours of the Adriatic and Mediterranean with a view to their improvement. Great lines of railways along both coasts of the southern part of the Peninsula, and others joining the great cities and towns in the interior are in course of construction. I will not occupy the time of the House by naming in detail each line now making or about to be commenced. Suffice it to say, that in the Neapolitan provinces alone railways to the extent of 1,600 kilometres (or nearly 1,000 miles) are being constructed, and in Sicily to the extent of 400, or 248 mites, and that in a very few months Turin will he united by railway with Naples. During the last year there has been spent in public works, chiefly ordinary roads for the Neapolitan provinces, no less a sum than 7,100,000 francs, 3,500,000 on national works, 600,000 in "bonifications," and 3,000,000 on provincial works, and 33,400 workmen have been employed. The Council of Salerno alone has voted five millions of francs to complete the roads of that province. In Sicily, where, remember, there existed under the old dynasty but two roads— that rich and fertile island being left without any means of internal communication, and consequently without agriculture or trade —by a Royal decree of the 1st October last, six millions of francs were assigned to the construction of ordinary works, four millions to national works, and two millions to provincial works. The provincial taxes, which the former Government raised for the construction and maintenance of roads, but misapplied to its own purposes, will in future be entirely appropriated to the objects for which they are collected.
Now, as regards commercial improvements, I may first mention that in October, 1860, the tariff previously in force in Northern and Central Italy was introduced into the former Kingdom of the Two Sicilies; and the whole of Italy, with the exception of the territories still under the dominion of the Pope, and Venetia, was placed under one uniform commercial system. The effect was to reduce at once the old Neapolitan tariff 80 percent. Well, what has been the result? The trade and commerce of the Neapolitan provinces, which had been almost paralysed under the old protective system, had been stimulated and increased to an extent which even the Italian Government could have scarcely contemplated. The receipts of the Naples
902
custom-house in the time of the Bourbons had amounted to£800,000. Under the new system they reached last year £520,000— showing that the value of goods paying duty had increased fourfold; because had the imports and exports remained stationary, the duty under the new tariff, being lower by 80 per cent than that under the old tariff, would only have reached £148,000, or about one-fourth of the former receipts. I take these figures from the financial statement made in December last by Signor Bastogi, the Italian Minister of Finance. Comparing the receipts of two months of the last two years, I find that, whilst in October, 1860, the customs receipts at Naples were £39,880; in the same month in 1861, they were £47,840; in November, 1861, as against November, 1860, they were £60,000 to £52,000. The same increase has taken place in the other Neapolitan ports. At Bari, for instance, there was in August last an increase of £2,880 over the preceding year; and in September, of £4,600. In Sicily I find the-same results. Before the, change of Government, the amount of customs receipts was £320,000; last year, under the new tariff, with the reduction of 80 per cent, it had already reached £260,000, showing more than a fourfold increase in articles subject to duty; and numerous articles, it must be borne in mind, are now admitted free. Such being the results of only a few months' experiment, no one, I think, will entertain any reasonable doubt that in a very short time the revenue derived from customs will not only reach its former level under the protective system, but will very considerably exceed it. I may further mention, as an interesting feature in the financial prospects of this part of Italy, that savings banks are being established in the principal provincial towns, such, for instance, as Trani.
The condition and conduct of a national guard furnish a decisive test of the feelings of the people to their Government. Its ranks are filled up in the south of Italy as in other countries, from the most intelligent, independent, and well-to-do portion of the community—the upper as well as the middle classes, rich merchants, small landed proprietors, respectable shopkeepers, small tradesmen, farmers, and even daily workmen. They have fought, almost without exception, on the side of the government against the brigands—or loyalists, as my hon. and learned Friend calls them—

903
sometimes side by side with the Royal troops, sometimes alone. In the city of Naples there are no less than 20,000 national guards, and yet no symptoms of hostility or disaffection to the Government have shown themselves. I have already read to the House what Her Majesty's Consul reports to us on those subjects, and the conclusion he justly draws from the conduct of the national guards.
The success of the conscription has been equally remarkable. Those who were drawn for the army were formerly brought from their villages like malefactors, bound together by ropes; they now leave their native places amidst the cheers of their countrymen. In Sicily, where the Bourbons could only raise two regiments, composed for the greater part of criminals and men of the most worthless character, where even Garibaldi could at first scarcely prevail upon the people to furnish troops in their own cause, last year the conscription was carried out with such success by General Delia Rovere that the number of recruits exceeded the legal requirement.
With all the facts that t have stated before him, my hon. and learned Friend has ventured to declare that the condition of Sicily is such, the disorder and anarchy so great and universal, that he will not attempt to describe them. In order that the House may judge how far he is authorized in making the statements he has made, I will read a report dated in December last from Her Majesty's Consul at Palermo—
"A change of Government, long foreseen and foretold, was brought about by Garibaldi's entrance into Palermo. The old structure fell to pieces, and a new and better fabric rose by degrees. Anarchy prevailed for a moment, but order was finally restored. Districts were put under governors, towns and villages under syndics,. and provincial and commercial councils were established on a broader basis. Public confidence in the maintenance of peace, at first somewhat shaken, regained its usual tone. 12,000 galley slaves, released from prison, were sent into the country to remain at their birthplaces, and kept, under heavy penalties for removal, under the constant eye of the local authorities. During the eighteen months which have elapsed since the entrance of Garibaldi, industry and Government have undergone material changes. The progress of agriculture has been slight but perceptible. Wastes have been enclosed; grass lands broken up; and pastures converted into orchards; vineyards have been planted and fresh gardens laid out; new and higher prices are asked and given for land. The judicial administration, both civil and criminal, has been improved by the institution of new courts and the introduction of new judges. The ends of justice are too often defeated by the reluctance of timid prosecutors to appear against the accused;
904
the fear of future vengeance deters them from giving evidence. The civil administration has been materially amended. The councils of communes, districts, and provinces were formerly composed of Government nominees who debated with closed doors, and passed accounts without examination. These councils will in future be chosen by landlords and housekeepers; the debates will be public; the administration of funds will be subject to audit; and the governors will interfere no further than is needful to prevent violation of the law. The interests of learning have not been forgotten or overlooked. New chairs of science have been established, new schools have been founded, and new estates have been appropriated to public instruction."
This is, I think, a conclusive answer to my hon. and learned Friend as regards Sicily. A despatch, which has been received only this morning from Her Majesty's Consul at Naples, Mr. Bonham, is equally conclusive as regards the condition of the Neapolitan provinces. With the permission of the House, I will read it. It is dated the 2nd of April, and contains, consequently, the very latest information that I could submit to the House—
"Great insecurity continues to prevail in the province of Capitanata. There are several bands of brigands in that province who keep the country in a state of terror, and successfully elude the pursuit of the troops. Reinforcements have been sent, and a new and active general appointed to the command.
"Most exaggerated reports of brigandage throughout the country generally are industriously and perseveringly spread at the present time, with the obvious view of causing alarm and disgust. Brigandage, no doubt, exists on a large scale, and as yet has met no serious check in the Capitanata; but in other provinces, at all events up to this time, that scourge is not at all what it was last year, and in many provinces it does not exist at all. So far as I can learn, the Calabrias are undisturbed, and the Abruzzi the same; these have usually been the most disturbed provinces. In the Abruzzi they are now expecting an invasion of adventurers, who are organizing, without, as is believed, hindrance or molestation, at Tivoli, in the Roman states.
"The reactionary agents here are busy, not only in spreading alarming reports, but in endeavouring to seduce and corrupt the Neapolitan soldiers, who now in considerable numbers are embodied and serving in Italian regiments in these provinces; I am, however, assured that these soldiers are behaving exceedingly well, and that the attempts of these agents meet with no success.
"There continues to be great discontent in Naples, and undiminished jealousy of Northern Italians; still, in many respects, there is progress and material improvement. It cannot be doubted that commerce is largely increasing; British shipping at Naples during the first three months of this year, as compared with the first three months of the years 1859, 1860, and 1861, shows the following results:—

905

"British vessels entered during first quarter:

Vessels.

Tonnage.

1859

51

15,925

1860

62

21,646

1861

57

20,347

1862

93

34,710

"The custom-house is inadequate in size to contain the increased quantity of goods now landed, and a large area on the outside has been covered in with zinc roofing to afford temporary shelter for such goods.
"People have no difficulty in finding work, trade generally is good, and furthermore employment is largely given by the municipality in building and other works in different parts of the town. House-rent and provisions of all kinds have risen in price.
"I hear no complaints of distress or want of work at the various ports where there are Vice-Consuls, and believe commercial affairs there, as here, are going on prosperously."
It is quite true that Mr. Bonham states in this despatch, that considerable discontent exists in Naples because it is still governed as a province from Turin, This fact I have fully admitted. I have endeavoured to explain the reason why it is so. And I venture again to affirm that it arises in no way whatever from a desire on the part of the Neapolitans to return to their former Government, or to separate themselves from the rest of Italy. It is no symptom of any reactionary feeling in favour of the Bourbon dynasty.
Sir, in the remarks which I have addressed to the House, I have limited my self to the condition of the south of Italy, and of the territories still under the rule of the Pope. Did I not fear to weary the patience of the House, upon whose attention I have already trespassed fur too long, what a picture could I not draw of the condition of other parts of Italy, of the progress and improvements visible in them, when compared with their state under their former rulers? What could I not say of Lombardy, of the Duchies, even of Tuscany? I might describe that sudden springing up of political vitality, of commercial energy, of private and public enterprise, of happy contentment—proving that the vigour, the intelligence, the genius of that great Italian people; have not been destroyed, but only kept down by the demoralizing and corrupting tyranny which for so long a time weighed upon them. I could dwell upon their new political life, their freedom of thought, and liberty of action, full of promise and of hope. These things are, perhaps, not unknown to the people of this country who have watched with eager anxiety, yet
906
earnest confidence, the great struggle which has been going on in Italy. But let me point to the Italian Parliament as a convincing proof of the aptitude of the Italian people for self-government, and for the enjoyment of the freest constitutional institutions. I was surprised to hear my hon. and learned Friend, himself a constitutional lawyer, speak in disparaging, I had almost said insulting, terms of that assembly. I will venture, notwithstanding, to say that its conduct and demeanour, its dignity, prudence, moderation, wisdom, and self-restraint during three years of unexampled difficulties and temptations, have been such as to deserve the admiration of every people, and most especially of the people of this country. It is an assembly over which even you, Sir (Mr. Speaker), might not disdain to preside. I believe, as I have before stated, that every part of Italy is fully represented in it. We might even trace, in its constitution in this respect, some resemblance to our own House of Commons. There are the sober Tuscans, the somewhat canny Piedmontese, and a class of gentlemen from the south, men of ardent, excitable temperaments, with great eloquence and great grievances, who represent a certain number of hon. Friends of mine in this House. So excellent is it in its mode of conducting business, that a right hon. Friend of mine, the Member for Wells (Sir W. Hayter), who was lately at Turin, and watched the proceedings of the Italian Parliament, and who surely is no mean authority on such matters, declares that it would be quite perfect if it only possessed that institution of which he was so long the respected and esteemed embodiment in this House—an effective "whipper-in." I believe, moreover, that the Government of Italy has done its duty. do not now allude to any particular Ministry. It would not be becoming in me to draw comparison between one Government and another. The Italians are the sole judges of those to whom they should confide the management of their affairs. It is for us to accept the Government of the time as the organ of the Italian people. But I cannot refrain from expressing my deep sorrow— a sorrow indeed, for the utterance of which words are wanting to me—at the loss of that calm, ready, and skilful pilot, who guided his country through so many stormy seas, and who is more wanted now than ever to carry her past those rocks and shoals which still lie between her and her desired harbour. Yet I have confi-

907
dence in the Italian Government. I believe their conduct hitherto justifies that confidence. I have equal confidence in the Italian people, and I think that confidence is equally well grounded. Is it a small thing that twenty-two millions of men should have been released in one day from the darkness of servitude, and placed in the full sunshine of freedom; that they should have suddenly found themselves possessed of complete liberty, and that they should have used it not only without licence, but with unexampled moderation and wisdom? With one solitary exception, and that a case in which there was extreme provocation—I mean the unhappy murder of Anviti—can my hon. and learned Friend point to a single outrage, to a single crime? Remember what the Italian Government have had to accomplish during this short space of time, and admit that it is wonderful that they should have accomplished it without producing general disorder and confusion. Seven different states to weld into one, with seven different administrations, seven different codes of law, seven different systems of finance and commerce, seven different currencies, seven armies; and yet this fusion has been effected. If, as my hon. and learned Friend asserts, Italian unity has not yet been attained, certainly it must be admitted that the first step towards it, and a very essential one, has been taken. Taxes, and heavy war taxes, are collected without opposition —nay, are cheerfully paid. The conscription is successfully carried out, from one end of Italy to the other. Judges, not removable as formerly, but holding their offices for life, have been appointed for the administration of justice; juries try and protect their fellow-countrymen; a wonderful commercial energy and activity have developed themselves. Surely these are great results. I trust my hon. and learned Friend is now satisfied. I have endeavoured to show him the contrast, which he has invited, between the past and present condition of Italy. Still I despair of converting him; but the time must come when even he will be no longer able to withstand the irresistible evidence furnished by the state of Italy—when even he will admit that a great, prosperous, independent, united Italy is more than a wild and empty dream.
There is an omission that has particularly struck me in my hon. and learned Friend's speech; it is the absence of any
908
accusation against the Italian Government of political persecution. It is, indeed, a most remarkable fact, that there have been no political vengeances, that there have been no political parties persecuted or banished; that there are no refugees except those who have voluntarily withdrawn themselves from the rule of a Government whose principles they do not approve, or who have been legally condemned for crimes against the State. The worst case which my hon. and learned Friend could point out, and I have no doubt he has searched very keenly, was that of the unfortunate Count de Cristen, who has, been confined in prison without trial for six months, and who according to my hon. and learned Friend, is the victim of political persecution. But let the House remember the circumstances under which the Count de Cristen was captured—that he was in disguise in Naples, conspiring against the Government, and directing and encouraging those brigands whose outrages I have described. What, let me ask my hon. and learned Friend, would have been his fate had he been captured by some who formerly ruled in Italy? Would he not have been summarily condemned and shot, probably without any trial at all, or with the mere mockery of one? It is rather a proof of the humanity than of the cruelty and injustice of the Italian Government, that they have dealt so leniently with him.
Now, what has been the result of my hon. and learned Friend's speech? He may search the gutters of crime, and find an instance of a murder here or an outrage there, and then hold these instances up in triumph, as proofs of the incapacity and turpitude of the Italian Government, and of the unfitness of the Italian people for freedom. But does he think that such things can alter or affect the opinions, the views, or the policy of Her Majesty's Government with regard to Italy? Does he think that they will shake the confidence of Her Majesty's Government—that they will shake my confidence—in the destiny reserved for that great people? The philosophic statesman is not influenced by such considerations as those brought forward by my hon. and learned Friend. He does not allow his judgment to be swayed by events which have no relation to the great principles at issue, which neither depend upon them nor affect them. Those principles in the ease of Italy—the principles recognised by Her

909
Majesty's Government—are simply these—that the Italian people have a right to deliver themselves from the tyranny under which they formerly lived, and to choose their own form of Government and their own rulers. God forbid that whilst professing a liberal and generous policy we should seek every opportunity of dishonouring and calumniating the Italian people and the Italian Government. If there are still things to be deplored, if there are still evils to be remedied and crimes to be suppressed, we do not look upon them as proofs of the incapacity and misconduct either of the Italian people or of those who are in trusted with the administration of their affairs, but rather as the inevitable consequences of a long period of oppression and misrule. Surely this is not the time for the Government to withdraw its sympathy and moral support from Italy. On the contrary, it is the time to give it, freely, generously, unreservedly; not to force upon the Italian Government intrusive council, but to offer it friendly and disinterested advice, founded upon our own experience in the struggles for political freedom which we ourselves have had to pass through.
The Italians have yet much to undergo They must not believe that their task is: already done. No nation ever yet acquired and established its liberties, without passing through great trials and great sufferings. Italy may yet have hers to experience. She has still great dangers and temptations to contend with—on the one side a vast and powerful conspiracy organized and conducted by the priesthood; on the other, the promises and delusions of visionary and often unscrupulous men. Let them remember that nothing is so much desired, by both parties, as disorder and war; nothing so much dreaded as order and peace. Nay it is even possible that the efforts of their enemies—that the conspiracy against their liberties—may, succeed for a time. It is even possible that they may again be subjected to despotic government and priestly rule. Such; things have happened in other countries before now. But does any reason able and thinking man believe, that even if such were the case, the Italians would consent to remain under their old rulers? Is it possible that a people who, even for the short period of three years, have tasted of the inestimable blessings of freedom—who have seen the arbitrary barriers which separated into petty states a great country which Providence meant to
910
be one, broken down—who have known what free intercourse is—who have enjoyed liberty of thought and a free press—should ever consent to return to their former state under the demoralizing rule of absolute Princes and ignorant Priests. Sir, it is impossible! The future of Italy is now in the hands of the Italians themselves. Let them be neither disheartened by the speeches, the accusations, and the denunciations of the hon. and learned Baronet and those who act with him, nor by the calumnies, the intrigues, and the conspiracies of those who, finding power slipping from their grasp, are prepared to make every effort, however unscrupulous, to retain it. When Italy becomes, as she will inevitably, become, a great, prosperous, and united kingdom—when she takes that place amongst the family of nations to which she is entitled by the genius, the wisdom, and the virtues of her children—history will record, if indeed she will condescend to notice such things, these vain and futile attempts, as amongst those that have ever been made by the enemies of progress and human freedom to frustrate and retard the, development of the political and religious liberties of mankind.
MR. HENNESSYsaid, that while he would congratulate the hon. Gentleman upon the ingenuity with which he had selected the documents from which he had ventured to quote, he could not avoid remarking that it was not usual for a Minister to refer to despatches which had not been laid before Parliament, and to which, therefore, lion. Members had not had access. He desired to follow the hon. Gentleman into what had formed the main portion of his speech —the material progress of Italy—and he could conceive no statements more diametrically opposed to facts than the statements of the hon. Gentleman. He should avoid the example which he had condemned in the hon. Gentleman, and therefore he should quote from no documents which were not official. He should take as his guide the Board of Trade returns, which gave an authentic view of our past and present commercial relations with the different States of Italy. Those returns, which had only within a few days been laid before them, gave; the details of exports from the United Kingdom to the various parts of Italy during the last two years. From those documents it appeared that for the year 1860 the total value of merchandise exported from the United Kingdom to Sardinia was £265,714, and

911
in 1861 it had fallen to £260,339. The exports to Tuscany in 1860 amounted in value to £575,064, and in 1861 they were £560,917, also showing a decline. To the Two Sicilies the exports in 1860 were of the value of £1,867,904, and in 1861 they had declined to £1,540,715. But the case was different as concerned the Papal States, for our exports to that quarter had increased from £39,843 in 1860 to£118,350 in 1861. Thus in every part of Italy that had been annexed to Piedmont there had been a decline in our trade, while in the portions not annexed there had been an enormous increase. The reason for those extraordinary facts could be found in official documents. Consul Maebean, writing to Lord John Russell in October, 1859, stated that the publication of the document declaring the annexation of Tuscany to Piedmont had created a great sensation among all traders and merchants, and that several large importers of British goods had determined to suspend their purchases, fearing that the Piedmontese customs tariff would be substituted for that of Tuscany—the former being far more Protectionist than the latter. That despatch, although it was not laid before Parliament for twelve months after it was received, had attracted the attention of Sir James Hudson, who directed an inquiry as to how the introduction of the Piedmontese tariff into Tuscany would affect British trade. The report that followed stated that the inevitable consequence of the introduction of the Sardinian tariff into Tuscany would be, that, sooner or later, the importation of cotton yarns, shirtings, and other cotton goods, must completely cease. That report was confirmed by a subsequent despatch from Consul Macbean. The Government were thus aware that the application of the Sardinian tariff to other parts of Italy would injure British commerce, and yet they withheld for months those despatches from the knowledge of Parliament. But what had taken place at Naples? Shortly before the revolution, in March, 1860, the Government received a despatch stating that the young King of Naples intended to introduce extensive fiscal reforms; hut as the Government had not given the House any information upon that subject, he must refer to an article in the Daily News of October, 1860, which paper had been fortunate enough to obtain a knowledge of the proposed customs duties. The article stated that, by virtue of a Royal decree of the young King of Naples,
912
the whole body of import duties for the. Two Sicilies were remodelled after the manner of those eminent British Statesmen, Peel, and Mr. Gladstone; and it proceeded to inquire, very naturally, Why the Government had kept back the despatches announcing the fact. He thought the House would perceive how completely Consul Macbean's anticipations had been realized, and how our cotton trade had been injured by the annexation of some parts of Italy to Piedmont. He would again refer to the Board of Trade returns, which the hon. Under Secretary had so carefully avoided noticing. The value of cotton goods exported in the two months of January and February, 1861, to Sardinia was £80,000; in the same two months of 1862, £55,000. The exports to Tuseany were in the two months of 1861, £62,000; in 1862, £30,000; to Naples and Sicily, in 1861, £140,000; and in 1862, £88,000. In the Austrian territories in Italy, on the other hand, there was a large increase in the total value of British cotton imported. With respect to worsted stuffs, or stuffs mixed with wool, the import into Sardinia in 1861 was to the value of £50,000; in 1862 it fell to £15,000. In Tuscany it was, in 1861, £20.000; it fell in 1862 to £5,000; and in Naples and Sicily it fell from £41,000 to £7,0001 The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Layard) stated that the British Consul at Naples had informed him that the number of ships had increased; but the number entered in British ports— which ought to be a good test—was, of Sardinian ships, 24 in 1861, 20 in 1862; and of Neapolitan, 113 in the former year against 88 in the latter. Those were facts which the hon. Gentleman would not be able to dispose of, for no private letter that he might read could have the force of returns presented by the Board of Trade within the last few days, and which dealt most with what concerned the trade of England. Last year he (Mr. Hennessy) was able to show the same class of facts, and from the same authority. But if the Sardinian tariff was of that oppressive character which it was described to be, no wonder that trade and commerce should be crippled by the extension of the Sardinian power. But that was not all. Within the last few days Her Majesty's Government had received a despatch from the Secretary of Legation at Turin which contained anything but a satisfactory account of the financial condition of Sardinia. If the hon. Gentleman had turned to the despatch

913
of Mr. West, dated the month before last, he would find that from 1815 to 1847 the public debt contracted by Piedmont was 135,000,000 f; but in the twelve years from 1848 to 1859 the debt contracted wag 910,000,000 f., making a total of 1,045.000,000 f., with an interest of 51,000,000 f, and that debt had been since increased. The comparative debts of Piedmont and the States annexed were, according to Mr. West—Piedmont, 1,159,000,000 f; Lombardy, 145,000.000 f.; the Æmian provinces, 42,000.000 f; Tuscany, 209,000,000 f.; and Naples and Sicily, 550,000,000 f;. Mr. West went on to say that the enormous expenses incurred by the Minister of War in the Neapolitan provinces would probably amount to more than the revenue of all the other provinces put together. The deficit last year of whoever acted as Chancellor of the Exchequer in Piedmont was not less than 400.000.000f. The expenditure in Piedmont was 80 or 90 per cent more than the Estimates, With these facts before them he confessed he was surprised at the hardihood of that member of the Government who talked of the financial progress and growing prosperity of Piedmont. On the other hand, let the House look at the accounts of the Papal States which had been given by Lord Lyons—one of the ablest officials whom Her Majesty possessed, and who had sent home some interesting despatches relative to the Papal States. Lord Lyons: said that in the Papal States commerce had advanced; the revenue had increased, in consequence of a considerable reduction of the import duties—let the House mark that; the value of land had risen, and agriculture was flourishing. In a subsequent despatch Lord Lyons said —
"The continued rise in the value of landed property in the Papal States of late years is very remarkable, but still it does not seem to have reached its limit. Agriculture is undoubtedly making considerable progress. There is a marked 1and progressive amelioration in the finances of this country."
He would recommend the hon. Gentleman, when next addressing the House, to prefer the official statements of the British Ministers in Italy to the reports of a secret agent of the Piedinoutese Government—Mr. Waddington. But that was nut a question of British trade and commerce only; it affected the character of British statesmen, and he knew of no more striking effect of the Italian revolution on the continent than the change that was produced in regard
914
to the estimation in which British statesmen were held there. He had been challenged to show any one member of the Piedmontese Parliament who held the opinions to which his hon. and learned Friend (Sir G. Bowyer) had referred. There was one who deserved to be known in that House—M. Petrucelli delta Gattina, who, when an attack was lately made upon England in the Italian Parliament, had generously defended this country. That gentleman made a statement which well deserved the attention of that House. In. a letter to a friend in this country he described "Poerio" as a conventional invention of the Anglo-Gallic press, designed to excite feelings of exasperation against the Bourbons of Naples, and that all the fine statements made with respect to him by the Chancellor of the Exchequer were really not founded on facts, though it was not alleged that the Chancellor of the Exchequer believed them to be otherwise than true when he made them. But the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had more recently taken up the ease of the Duke of Modena, against whom he brought certain charges. Those charges were brought on the 4th of March; but upon the 16th of July following the right hon. Gentleman said that he was ready to explain, and to express his regret that he had put a construction on the document beyond what it properly bore; and again, that ha was ready to express his deep concern. It was highly honourable in the right hon. Gentleman that he did so. What, however, would foreign countries think of the British Senate when one of its most brilliant ornaments committed blunders like this, and charged an unfortunate prince with crimes he had never committed? But that was not all. On the 28th of March, 1859, the Earl of Clarendon, in discussing the chances of a war in Italy, said that against such a war, or rather against such an unprovoked European convulsion, the public opinion of Europe had been expressed with unprecedented unanimity; and in April he declared that the territorial possessions of Austria were to be found set forth in the Treaty of Vienna; that they had been correctly described as being the result of conquest, of inheritance, and of long tenure; that they had for one hundred years been recognised as part of the international law of Europe; and upon these treaties Austria had a right to take her stand, and should in doing so be upheld by the other Powers of Europe; and he

915
added, "I believe the bubble of Italian unity has burst." The, Earl of Clarendon thus stood by the Treaty of Vienna, but what did Count Cavour in his published letters to Ratazzi represent him as saying? In a letter, dated, April 12, 1856, when the Earl of Clarendon was British Plenipotentiary at Paris, Count Covour wrote to his correspondent, that being convinced that the powerlessness of diplomacy arid of the Congress would produce evil consequences for Italy, and mould place Piedmont in a difficult and dangerous position, he had thought it well to see if a solution could not be arrived at by arms; that he bad accordingly gone to the Earl of Clarendon and said that Piedmont must either make friends with Austria or declare war against her; that the Earl of Clarendon, without showing either surprise or disapprobation, replied, "I think you are right. Your position is growing very difficult. I conceive that a rupture will soon be inevitable. I only doubt whether the moment to speak out has yet come." To that Count Cavour s answer was that the Piedmontese were in a condition to go to war, and that he was persuaded that England would be constrained to help them, whereupon the Earl of Clarendon said, "Oh ! certainty. If you are in that strait, you can count upon us, and you will see with what energy we will come to your rescue," To that Count Cavour added in his letter that he would go to London, and talk with Palmerston and the other heads of the Government; that if they agreed with Clarendon, Piedmont must make secret preparations, raise a loan of 30,000,000 f., send Austria an ultimatum which she could not accept, and so commence the war. The programme was fulfilled accordingly; Austria was forced into the war; and yet, while all this was being done, it was said over and over again upon the Government benches, "Austria is attacking Piedmont; Piedmont can have no aggressive policy; she desires nothing but peace." The Earl of Clarendon had since, on his word of honour, denied every allegation which Count Cavour had made. They had heard Count Cavour spoken of that night by the Under Secretary of State, he did not think that the hon. Gentleman had called him an honest or accurate statesman; but if he (Mr. Hennessy) were called upon to believe the Italian or the English statesman, he infinitely preferred to believe Lord Clarendon. There was, however, n distinguished Piedmontese statesman, Massimo d'Aze-
916
glio, whose words he did believe. That nobleman seemed to be of' opinion that Southern Italy was far from being in the happy position described on the Government benches, and since his opinion had been expressed things had become far worse. Massimo d'Azeglio said—
"I know nothing of this result of universal suffrage except that it requires 60 battalions to maintain it—a Government said to be established by universal consent. There must here be some great error; we must change either our acts or our principles. We must ascertain once more, and once for all, from the Neapolitans whether they will have us, 'Yes, or No.' I can comprehend that the Italians have a right to make war on those who wish to retain German rule in Italy but; because Italians, while remaining Italians, will not unite themselves with us; I say that we have no right to send bttalions to shoot them down, unless, once for all, we mean to adopt the principles and the name of Bomba, who bombarded Palermo and Messina."
That was the language held by one who, had filled the highest offices in Piedmont, and who ranked as high as any statesman in that country. He (Mr. Hennessy.) held in his hand a very extraordinary document which the Under Secretary of State presented to the House only a few days ago. It was called "Papers on the Affairs of Italy," and it consisted of four despatches. They were the last papers laid on the table by the Government for the purpose of giving the House information relative to Italy, and the last in order was dated "Turin, April 4, 1861." He at first thought that "1861" had been a misprint for "1862," for he could not imagine that the Government would so insult the common sense of the House; but, looking into the despatch, he found it enclosed a summary of a debate in the Italian Chambers on the 3rd of April, 1861. He supposed that the Government had printed these papers from a wish that the Piedmontese case should be laid before the House in anticipation of the present debate. Surely, it was treating the House badly to lay before it the information published by the leading journals twelvemonths ago. Another despatch in the papers in question, dated April 3, 1861, gave a summary of the speeches in the Italian Chambers of the previous day. Another despatch in these papers was dated April 27, 1861. Only one of these four despatches had reference to recent matters. As the Government had given the House no information of what Sir James Hudson thought of that which was going on, he had been compelled to refer to that great repertory

917
of facts— The Times newspaper. In The Times of that morning he found a letter from its Naples correspondent, dated April 6, 1862. That was at least recent information, and it came from a source which they all knew to he very much prejudiced against the Legitimate party at Naples. He was, however, willing to take it as his evidence, because the Government had given the House no information, The Times correspondent said —
"Though I wrote to you so lately as yesterday, events of such importance are occurring as to render it necessary to trouble you with another letter to-day. 'Brigandage' is in every one's mouth; and though undoubtedly some of the worst cha racters are enrolled in its ranks, it cannot be regarded otherwise, I think, than as the expression of a very general discontent and disappointment. The consequences are Vacillation, desperation, and disorder, and a fearful looking forward to the future. First, let me give you the gleanings of such official papers as I have been permitted to see."
Thus it seemed The Times correspondent was better treated by the Piedmontese Government than the British House of Commons was by the British Government. He then quoted despatches of the 4th of April, and continued—
"But it is the old story; the strength of these men is in division and flight; they are concealed or tolerated by the inhabitants, meet again, strike a blow, and so on, round the circle."
The hon. Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, on the authority of some private letters, stated that not a single member of the National Guard had joined the insurgents. But The Times correspondent said that a reward had been offered for the apprehension of the late commander of the National Guard of Ottajano, a town of 20,000 inhabitants, who had been in communication with the brigands, and had disappeared. He added that a serious report was in circulation of disaffection in the National Guard of Naples, and that the popular statement was, that a conspiracy had been discovered, comprising a portion of each of the twelve battalions except the first. So much for the information of the Government as contrasted with that given by well-informed authorities in Naples. He was surprised to hear the hon. Under Secretary of State read an extract from an historical work describing the atrocities that were committed in the time of Murat, as a sort of extenuation for the atrocities recently committed. He would not go back to the time of Murat, but confine himself to the present time, and he would fall back on the correspondent of The Times. The
918
noble Lord at the head of the Government on the 2nd of August, 1861, assured an hon. Gentleman, with, as he said, much satisfaction, that Her Majesty's Government would do nothing to check the proceedings of Generals Cialdini and Pinelli. Within a few days of that speech the Piedmontese General wrote the famous despatch to the Piedmontese Government:—" Yesterday, at dawn, justice was done upon Ponte Landolfo and Casalduni." The justice thus done was in burning two towns to the ground. The Times correspondent stated that upwards of two hundred women perished in the massacre, having rushed from the soldiers into the flames. Did the hon. Under Secretary deny that? [Mr. LAYARD: Yes.] Did the hon. Gentleman deny that the correspondent of The Times mentioned the fact? [Mr. LAYARD: No.] That was, at any rate, getting half-way to the truth, and the question was whether the correspondent was well informed or Her Majesty's Government. That Gentleman said he read the official accounts, and that he saw the officers present at the massacre. Until the Government laid some authentic information before the House, he should prefer to give his faith to one who was even credulous against the Legitimate cause. Before the massacre of Polite Landolfo was known, and on the very day that the infamous despatch of the Piedmontese General was written, the Contemporaneo, of Florence, No. 358, published some statistics which had been reproduced in other Italian papers.1 Had the Government given the despatches of Sir James Hudson, or other authorities, perhaps he should not be constrained to quote either The Times correspondent or a Piedmontese newspaper. The Contemporaneo stated the number of persons "shot instantly," as 1,841; shot after a few hours, 7,127; wounded, 10,604; prisoners, 6,112, houses burnt, 918; number of individuals arrested, 13,629. The despatch from the Piedmontese officer who destroyed Ponte Landolfo and Casalduni, he regretted to say, had not been very generally published in this country. It said that in Ponte Landolfo and Casalduni all the houses were burnt, "except those of seven or eight Liberals." That showed not only the atrocity of the Piedmontese, but that, by their own admission, they could only find in two such large towns "seven or eight Liberals," whose houses were spared. These were facts worth mentioning, if only to show the extraordi-

919
nary ignorance in which the Government, as far as official information was concerned, left the House and the country. They had heard something about the Mediterranean being a French lake. In a recent speech M. Ratazzi made use of a remarkable expression; he said, "When I think of Italy, I look to the Emperor of the French." That was not pleasant to hear. Ratazzi had been to Paris; he had received his instructions; he was not the popular Statesman. The majority of the representative body had voted confidence in Ricasoli, and yet Ratazzi was the Italian Prime Minister and Ricasoli was in disgrace. Was that English influence or Piedmontese influence? When they thought of it, they could only look at the Emperor of the French, who held the key of the revolution. But the Emperor had another visitor at the same time as Ratazzi, and perhaps the visit of that other distinguished person was even more suggestive. He referred to the visit of the King of Prussia to the Emperor. When it was known that such a visit was about to be made, speculation was rife as to what the King of Prussia wanted with the Emperor of the French just before his coronation. At Konigsberg the King of Prussia made a speech in which he certainly did not use revolutionary language. In fact, no Sovereign for many years past had spoken in such a high monarchical tone. And who was present at his coronation? The representative of the King of Italy? No; Victor Emmanuel, having asked to be represented at the King of Prussia's coronation in his capacity of King of Italy, was refused, and he submitted to the indignity of being represented there merely as King of Sardinia. But there was also present the representative of the King of the Two Sicilies; so the recent visitor of the Emperor of the French, who refused to receive the representative of the King of Italy, received the Minister of Francis II. These facts, coupled with the state of things in Italy, South and North, should teach the hon. Gentleman to be more cautious in addressing the House on this question. Instead of believing with The Times correspondent that the future looked dark for Italy, he thought it looked bright; because a great party in Italy, to which justice had never been done, was gaining strength, and the Piedmontese party was tottering to its fall. And he was perfectly satisfied that, before another debate like the present could take place, the bubble—to use the Earl of
920
Clarendon's phrase—of Italian unity would have burst.
MR. SLANEYsaid, he would have hardly risen to address the House but for the fact that he was, perhaps, the only representative present who had been within the last two months in Italy, where he was gratified to see on all sides the most conclusive signs of improvement and growing prosperity. It was not necessary for him to say a word in defence of the Government of Italy, or of the great departed Statesman (Count Cavour) who had done so much to restore liberty to his native land. From all the information that he had been, able to collect in the country itself, he was led to conclude that the statements made that evening by hon. Gentlemen opposed to the policy of the King of Italy were great exaggerations of the real facts. He had no doubt of the sincerity of the hon. Members who put forward those accounts; but they were deceived. With respect to Sicily, he had visited several different parts of it within the last six weeks or two months; and in all quarters —Palermo, Messina, and elsewhere—he heard constantly repeated statements of the great happiness felt by the inhabitants in consequence of the recent changes. Though, doubtless, there were disturbances in the interior, owing to the banditti, who every now and then molested travellers, yet there was a concurrence of testimony by the most intelligent and respectable persons that, on the whole, things were fast improving; and those persons felt no doubt, that under the new rule there would be great progress both in agriculture and commerce. From Sicily he went to Naples, and in the latter country also he found that there was every prospect of very great progress being made after the lapse of that time which must necessarily elapse before things could become settled. It had been his intention to proceed by land from Naples to Rome; but finding on inquiry that on the Roman side every obstacle was offered to those who wished to make use of the railways by which the greater part of the journey by land might be performed, he felt obliged to go to sea by Civita Vecchia. The state of agriculture in the Campagna was more backward than anything he had ever seen, and in the Papal States he met beggars in abundance. In Upper Italy improvements were going on, and the people were looking forward to Italy becoming one great kingdom, united for the first time. Tuscany had always been like a garden;

921
its beauty was maintained, and improvements were going forward. From Pisa to Genoa, and from Genoa to Milan, the case was the same. At Milan, where five years ago the people were downcast and seemingly oppressed, he had witnessed a sight deeply affecting to all who delighted in the happiness of men; he had seen the rejoicings of emancipated thousands on the first entry of Victor Emmanuel. He also went to Turin, and was present at the debates of the Italian Parliament; and, from the regularity and order with which they were conducted, they might even bear comparison with the august assembly he was addressing. On the vast plain of Lombardy and Piedmont, which for ages had been a battlefield, the people were living happy and contented, having for their common object to improve their native country, with the hope and expectation of seeing it ultimately take its proper rank among the leading nations of Europe. It was expected that the development of railways in the southern portion of the kingdom would employ many whom the want of occupation had driven to evil courses, and would also have the effect of stimulating trade. The Neapolitans believed—but that expectation might be sanguine—that one of their first exports to England would be cotton. Brigandage, undoubtedly, lingered in these provinces, but a vast improvement had taken place since the time when, visiting Naples forty-two years ago, he was cautioned not to walk beyond a promontory at Terracina, or he would run the risk of being carried to the mountains.
MR. BAILLIE COCHRANEsaid, he did not propose to address himself to the question of Rome or Gaeta or the Quadrilateral. He was anxious to look at the question from an English point of view. It was a question not so much what the past policy of this country had been as what its future policy ought to be. With that feeling it was not his intention in any way to animadvert on the past conduct of the Government. He would not follow the hon. Gentleman who had preceded him in referring to what had passed in 1847. lie was quite willing to let the dead past rest; but he must say with regard to the English view of the question, they were bound to take a very great interest in the matter. In the first place, he had implicit faith in what had fallen from the Earl of Clarendon with regard to his conversation with Count Cavour, and probably the words which he had employed in that conversation at a time
922
when he wished to stand well with Count Walewski had been held to imply more than was intended. They had, however, to consider what was the result of their Italian policy on the Continent, and whether that policy gained friends or allies on the Continent. In a recent discussion in the Turin Chambers two or three of the speakers inveighed strongly against the conduct of England, and declared themselves unable to discover exactly what was meant by her "moral support." The language used by M. Billault in the French Chambers was still more surprising. He declared that England, though professing to be animated by an ardent zeal for Italian liberty, had not given one drop of blood or one piece of gold for the advancement of that object, and declared "that it was not wise to attach themselves exclusively to those who were only willing to give advice." It was clear, therefore, that the policy of this country had not secured the confidence of the French Government. They were in the presence of two difficulties in Italy, and they ought to look their position fairly in the face. There was clearly a strong Muratist party in the Neapolitan territory. He had the list of a Muratist committee then sitting in Naples. It comprised men of very high station. The president was, the Duke d'Avalos, who was more than half Bourbonist in his sympathies, but had married a relation of Murat's. Among the leading members were the Cavaliere d'Avalos.
MR. WHALLEYrose to order. He thought it was not in order for the hon. I Gentleman to read names which might compromise the parties.
MR. BAILLIE COCHRANEsaid, he thought he could not be out of order in reading a published document. He could understand the anxiety of the hon. Gentleman to address the House, for he had attempted three or four times without success to catch the Speaker's eye—but he was scarcely justified in calling him to order. Still he would not read the names if the lion. Gentleman objected to it. He had, however, a declaration which he supposed lie might read, because it was a printed document, written by Murat himself. It was written on March 27, 1861, and was as follows:—
"I quite understand that in the presence of these calamities the memory of my father should shine like a ray of hope. As long as the people of the Two Sicilies exist, so long will the name of Joachim Napoleon be dear to and venerated by all; and I, his son, would feel honoured in braving

923
the dangers tod difficulties of succeeding him by popular election. The admirable force of the French empire is the result of the work of many generations. Inasmuch as I have thrown no obstacle in the way of the Unity of Italy, so I will not permit others to interfere with the purpose of my reign, by drawing us into dangerous and disastrous enterprises. I will guard your independence as a treasure, and share with a parliament the noble duties of a king."
He then speaks of' destroying "l'aristoeratie artificielle de conspirateurs," and suggests the confederation of Italy. There were many other documents he might read to the House to prove the fact that there was a great Muratist party. England was interested in that question. Another danger was that; of the Republican party in the north, of Italy. In the speech of Garibaldi at Genoa he talked of going into the streets and raising insurrection; and from the speech of Mazzini there could be no doubt that there was a perfect understanding between Garibaldi and Mazzini. Those were the two dangers in Italy—the Muratist party and the Republican party. Then, he would ask, was this country prepared to allow Naples to be taken possession of by trance for any member of the Imperial family? Could they see with indifference the harbours of Naples, Syracuse, Messina, 'and Gaeta in the; possession of France? He should think not. He did not know Whether it would be a casus belli or not, but at/any rate the Government would do its best 'to prevent it. The hon. Gentleman had talked about brigandage. He (Mr. Baillie Cochrane) was not going to quote instances to prove that it existed, but he would simply refer to one point which could be perfectly well authenticated. There was in this country at that moment a Neapolitan gentleman of the highest consideration. Because certain of the parties called brigands, or royalists, or whatever they were, were seen in the neighbourhood of that gentleman's residence, his three brothers were taken out of his house at night, and put into a prison at Naples, and had never been tried to that day, nor had any accusation been brought against them. He had a rather curious document which he wished to lay before the House, to show how justice was administered in the Neapolitan states. It was the report of the President of the Chamber of Justice to the Procurateur General on the state of the prisons. It was, perhaps, the most remarkable document that ever emanated from a minister of justice—
"You will find some orders for the discharge of
924
some of the Incarcerated, even by the police here or elsewhere, by the magistrates specially delegated; and you will, find that some of these, even without a favourable report upon the case, could have been discharged from prison. But I have not acted in that way, because I wished to investigate the processes, and also because we are surrounded by the banded brigandage of the Bourbon reaction. You will find the process of accusation of the well-known Mirabelli Centurione, in which, on my proposition, the Grand Court did not give effect to the order for discharge, and I was led to this proposition from considerations of prudence You will, find the process which regards the Prince of Ottaiano, and upon which t should have proposed a declaration of acquittal. I have not done so, as I wished more carefully to consider the material of the processes commenced at Salerno, and entered at Sarno, at the accusation of the four Bourbon soldiers, Alfonso Amato, Domenico Esposito, Aniello Manna, and Guglielmo Crescehzo, in which process Ottaiano is named; and although, from the course Of the prosecution at Salerno, it was almost manifest that, to say the least of it, this was an error, and that in consequence I could have proposed the liberation of the four individuals, indicated I did not do so for the above-cited Veason. You will find the process of accusation of Carlo de Gennaro and Pasquale d'Angelo, on account of a seizure of sixty-seven packages of powder, and three of percussion caps. In the course of the instruction of the prosecution made by me at Salerno, I contradicted the defence set up, and I must not conceal from you that I was convinced that those seized Articles were for the service of the reaction. And, for that reason, being only a simple capture, and although not having as yet succeeded in eliciting the truth from the lips of the accused, or of obtaining any other evidence of their guilt, flattering myself to be able to compass that, object, I did not allow myself to propose the liberation of the two accused."
No doubt the Italian Government had great difficulties to contend with, but it could not be said that justice ought to be administered in that way. He wished to ask the Government, in the present state of Italy, which must be a cause of anxiety —he wished to know from the Government what their policy would be. How far was moral support to go? If, as was probable, there should be another movement in the north of Italy he hoped that the policy which was last year indicated by Earl Russell with regard to Austria would be strictly followed. The noble Lord said that whatever reproach he might bring upon himself for holding old-fashioned and obsolete politics, he did undoubtedly entertain the strongest desire to see the prosperity and reviving strength of the empire of Austria. That policy he (Mr. Baillie Cochrane) considered was identified with the best interests of this country. He believed that whatever Armstrong guns or iron ships they might construct their

925
greatest safety was in our continental |alliances. It seemed to him perfectly inexplicable how we could distrust France, and arm ourselves against her; and yet all the time adopt a policy which must inevitably lead to an extension of the influence of France, and to giving her seaboard in the Mediterranean. He maintained that the true policy of this country was distinctly an alliance with Austria. It had been said that Austria was a decaying country. A short time before he had passed through the north of Austria, and the could say that no country had been subjected to more misrepresentation. Much had been said about the tyranny of the Austrian Government, but he knew that the proper state of the case was not represented in this country. No doubt there was some discontent, but it had been created by the Piedmontese committee acting at Venice. That was a committee as secret as any in the days of terror in France, and all kinds of misrepresentations were made with regard to Austria. He would quote from a document that was important upon the subject. Last year some officers were sent out from this country to make a report on the battle of Solferino. He would read an extract from that report—
"The stories that were told of the cruelties and excesses of the Austrians were wanton fictions to excite the people against them. A French correspondent, who had forwarded to the Debate reports of peasants compelled to labour à coups de baton, writes from Vercelli, 'Once more an error. I am happy to say that I can find no trace of those ravages, the accounts of which have so filled the press. I look, I inquire, I seek for information, but there is nothing Everything at Vercelli, as at Voghera, is limited to requisitions for beef and other provisions."'
He believed that sooner or later they would have to accept an Austrian alliance, and that the best hope of this country in the event of a war would lie in such a union. He wished, therefore, to know what was the course Her Majesty's Government would be prepared to take in case France should carry her arms into either the north or the south of Italy, as he believed the French Government were intent on doing.
MR. GRANT DUFFsaid, the Italians are generally accused of being hot-headed; but I think that, in the matter of this de bate, they have given us a lesson in moderation. When it was first understood at Turin that the hon. Baronet intended to call the attention of this House to the in-
926
ternal affairs of the kingdom of Italy, some violent persons proposed that they, in their turn, should get up a discussion in the Italian Parliament about the internal affairs of Ireland. I am happy to say, however, that the good sense of the majority of the deputies, to whom this proposal was mentioned, induced them to scout it, and to leave Her Majesty's Government; with the assistance of Parliament—a Parliament, be it observed, in no way more legally constituted than the Italian one— to govern Ireland as it deems best. What possible right have we to interfere, under present circumstances, in the internal affairs of the kingdom of Italy? When a Government becomes so hopelessly bad, that it can be called by a Conservative statesman writing to a Conservative statesman, and amidst the applause of the civilized world, "a negation of God," it may be very right for us to interfere, to prevent horrors which are a disgrace to our common humanity; but, even upon the showing of the hon. Baronet himself, there is at present nothing worse than a languid rebellion being slowly trampled out by the legitimate authority. The hon. Baronet may perhaps object to the phrase I have used—" a negation of God "—but the language of the most eloquent defender of the Papal power is quite as strong. "Look," says Count de Montalembert, "at those wretched sovereigns of Italy, men of politics so profound, of imaginations so marvellously fertile for the destruction of the admirable race which they misgovern, that they have made their country a moral and intellectual hell, and have compelled all the best spirits to curse that land, the fairest under heaven, because, as they justly say, a tomb is never a country.' But even granting that the hon. Baronet has a right to ask us to discuss the internal affairs of Italy, what case has he made out for his friends? He has told us of atrocities committed by the troops of the King, but what is his authority for those atrocities? Are they the reactionary newspapers of Italy? Is it not perfectly notorious that these are in the hands of persons so unscrupulous, that the fact of any piece of intelligence appearing in them is almost a presumption that that piece of intelligence is false? Or does the hon. Baronet derive his information from private letters? If he does, he will find it difficult to prove that those letters are not written by persons who are the accomplices —the meaner accomplices—of those very

927
brigands whom they put forward to do their work. Nothing would be easier than to get up a list of atrocities longer than that of the hon. Baronet. But although the mediaeval imagination of himself and those who sit near him may luxuriate in Such things, they are too horrible for the House of Commons. With regard to this whole subject of brigandage, surely we can have nothing more decisive than the dying declaration of the least disreputable of those brigands who met his fate last December. It may be in the recollection of the House that a Spaniard named Borges, who appears to have been a man of honour, was deceived by the persons who surround the ex-King of Naples into the belief that there was a real insurrection going on in his favour in the Neapolitan provinces, the kind of insurrection in which an honourable fanatic might take part without disgracing his name or the reputation of a soldier. He landed in the Neapolitan provinces with a commission constituting him Generalissimo; he soon found; however, that the regiments of which he had been told were purely imaginary, that' the troops which he had expected to command consisted of the mere sweeping of the galleys, commanded, amongst other ruffians, by one Crocco, whom he describes as a monster in human shape. So much with regard to the facts of the hon. Baronet. But if we have a right to discuss the internal affairs of Italy, we have every right to discuss its external affairs, and for this plain reason, that our own foreign relations are closely bound up with its foreign relations. As long as the present abnormal state of things continues in Italy, a general war may break out at any moment; we shall always be uneasy about our Estimates, and kept in that painful state of preparation for war, which is only a less evil than war itself. Now, what are the two causes of this exceptional state of things in Italy? They are Venice and Rome. With regard to the first of these, I am free to admit that the Italian nationality cry can no more be defended before the tribunal of pure reason, than any other nationality cry. It might be much better if nations could be made to understand that good government is the first thing, and that the question between foreign and domestic government, where the subject population is small, is really a matter of secondary importance. Unfortunately, however, it wants very little insight to see that nations are not governed by pure reason;
928
that this nationality cry is the cry of the time, and that, wherever it is sufficiently strong, it must in the end be yielded to. Of course there is no doubt that plausible reasons have been put forward to show that the loss of Venetia would be extremely inconvenient to Austria; but the question is not about convenience or inconvenience, it is about national existence or national ruin. It is impossible that Austria can right itself without making political concessions to Hungary, and without getting rid of Venetia, in return either for a large sum of money or for territorial compensation elsewhere: I am happy to think that there is a large party in Austria, including some persons who stand very hear the throne, which would most willingly throw overboard Venetia, if they could venture to propose such a measure without irritating the susceptibilities of the Emperor, and throwing more power into the hands of the Absolutist clique which still flits about the Palace in Vienna. I am sure that our Government will act in accordance with the wishes alike of the House of Commons and of the British nation, if, while taking care not to wound the pride of a high-spirited and patriotic people, they loss no opportunity of impressing upon the Austrian Cabinet the expediency of yielding to circumstances, and abridging a state of things which is dangerous to Europe, and must, if continued, prove absolutely fatal to Austria. With regard to the question of Rome, there is one point on which the Italians have, as it seems to me, a right to express their opinions very strongly. It is quite intolerable that the ex-King of Naples should be permitted to use that wealth which he has carried away with him to excite confusion within the territories which he was unable to govern. It may be said that the Emperor of the French only permits it in order to show that Italy can really triumph, even over such a terrible disadvantage as this; but I rather fear that he only permits it to continue for want of courage to take a decisive step; and although, as I shall presently point out, the Italians ought not to be too impatient to insist on the withdrawal of the French from Rome, they, and we, and all civilized mankind have an interest in protesting against the brigandage and filibustering of Francis II. and Monsignor de Merode. With regard to the occupation of Rome by the French, I am not one of those who believe, after making deduction of all mixed

929
motives, that the intentions of the Emperor with regard to Italy are otherwise than very fair and honourable; but his favourite motto is "Nerien brusquer." As far back as the year 1849, when the news of the battle of Novara came to Pais, he was on the point of declaring war against Austria, He was prevented doing so by the entreaties of his Ministers, and for ten years he bided his time. I cannot help seeing that he has to contend with great difficulties. Of these I will mention only two. Up to the; time when he returned from his long exile, he never believed that religion was a political power in France at all. He was, undeceived by the remarkable energy displayed by the clergy at the time of his election to the Presidency, and from that time he has obviously never been able to make up his mind what the real strength of the Ultramontane party in France may be. And no wonder; it is one of the most difficult questions which can be put to any one. Let any gentleman ask the opinion on it of the six best-informed Frenchmen with whom he is acquainted, and he will be perfectly astonished by the diversity of the replies which he will receive. His second great difficulty is to be found in the fact that it has been the traditional policy of French statesmen to keep Italy weak, to prevent the formation of a great power upon the southern frontier of France. All the heads of the "old parties" continually and pertinaciously repeat that Louis Napoleon, by giving in to the scheme of a united Italy, is sacrificing to his own crotchets the permanent interests of his empire. For these, and other reasons, he must be extremely circumspect; but I believe, nevertheless, that, in that dreamy and inconstant mind, where so many things are in a state of flux and reflux, there is one point fixed, and that is a determination to be friend Italy, if he can do so without injuring what he loves a great deal better than Italy—the prospects of his dynasty On the whole, Sir, I do not take a very unfavourable view of the present condition of Victor Emmanuel's kingdom. I think that the members of the present, as of the former Parliament in Turin, have shown great good sense in affecting rather the fame of being good men of business than of being great debaters. I think that the Italian press, considering the low price at which papers are sold, and the fact that the abolition of the censorship is so recent a thing, even in Piedmont,
930
is marvellously good. I think that the whole conduct of Victor Emmanuel shows that those who recently accused him of being in ill humour with the working of constitutional monarchy, judged him harshly and unfairly. I think that the report lately circulated by a person in high place in this country, with regard to the sale of obscene hooks at Naples, is contrary to all evidence and grossly exaggerated. And, finally, I think that English Liberals, if they have anything to say to Italy, except to apologize for meddliwg in her affairs at all, should quote to her the maxim which I have already mentioned, "Ne rien brusquer."
MR. MONCKTON MILNESsaid, that on a recent great occasion—that on which Italian unity might be said to have been proclaimed in the House—ho expressed an opinion, which he still maintained, that it would be well for the friends of Italy to look towards the future, not in too jubilant a spirit, not confident in the belief that the difficulties of Italy were over, but conscious that they were just beginning. It was with the nation as with the individual— I when the responsibilities of life arrived, great difficulties had always to be encountered. The question was, whether Italy had, under the circumstances, risen to the level of her responsibilities. He was of opinion that there was nothing in late events in Italy to call for any interference on the part of that House. The hon. Baronet (Sir G. Bowyer) who introduced the Motion entirely failed to make good his case; for the "facts" which he brought forward were mostly unattested, and would certainly not justify the intervention of England. There was some truth in the reproach of the French Minister, that France had spent her blood and treasure in the cause of Italy, and had got very little gratitude in return. On the other hand, England had got much credit from Italy for doing nothing at all. This arose from the perception on the part of the Italians that our conduct towards them was entirely unselfish. The commercial interest of England in the Italian question was somewhat remote, and her interest in the movement undoubtedly sprang from that sympathy which, he trusted, England would always bestow on the rise of liberal institutions and the establishment of independent nations. Unfortunately, and most unjustly, the action of Her Majesty's Government, limited as it had been, and unaccompanied

931
by a sliver of English money or a drop of English blood, had been perversely seized as a pretext for strengthening the Opposition against the Minister and for alienating from the Liberal party those who were bound to it by the strongest ties of gratitude and old associations. He believed that this had arisen partly from a disregard, and partly from a misapprehension of facts. He challenged any Roman Catholic gentleman, however zealous he might be in religious matters, to point out a single act of the Government which could be regarded as a participation in any insult or injury to be inflicted by the Catholic people of Italy upon the Court of Rome. The Government appeared to him to have merely given expression to the commonly-received opinion of all rational Protestants, that the question of the temporal Government of Rome rested between the Catholics of Italy and the Catholics of the rest of the world, and that it would be unbecoming and indecent for this country to assert that the former were wrong and the latter right. The only opinion which they ventured to express was, that if the temporal administration of the Roman See became utterly irreconcilable with the happiness of Italy, if it were plain that the Pontifical Government had not gained the affections of its subjects, then it would be desirable that some modification of the rule should take place in order to reconcile it with the great future of Italy. The Catholics of Italy were naturally the best judges on such a subject, and the other adherents of the faith were too far off either to appreciate the difficulties, or to feel the oppressions of the Papal system. But, because the Government had pursued this very moderate course, was the great link between the Liberal party and the Roman Catholics of Great Britain to be snapped for ever? He could not but believe that this temporary aberration of judgment would pass away, and that the Roman Catholics would again rally round the banner under which they had fought so long and so triumphantly. He was fain to accept the absence of the main body of the Roman Catholic members from the House as a proof of their unwillingness to use this question, as it had been used on the hustings, against the Government. He trusted that Italy would be left to herself, and that England would interfere as little as possible. [Sir GEORGE BOWYER: Hear, hear!] Would the hon. Baronet cheer as cordially the wish that the Emperor of the French
932
would withdraw from intervention in Italy? He thought the question would then come to an issue. He begged that he might not be supposed for a moment to assume that it would terminate in any manner derogatory to the dignity or real power of the Roman See. As an Englishman and as a Protestant he had no right to make such an assumption. Forming a judgment upon what was known of Italian history and Italian character, he believed that the people of Italy were sincerely, earnestly, and piously Catholic. He believed that the supporters of the Papacy would have to go to much greater lengths than they had at present to make the people otherwise. But no one could foretell the consequences if for a generation, or even half a generation, the faith of the people were to be set against the liberties of the people. It was a question of great delicacy and of great gravity, but he believed that it was capable of a pacific and honourable solution, and that it was possible to combine the unity and happiness of Italy with such a position for the Bishop of Rome as every Catholic desired. At the same time it was a question with which he could never think it right to allow Protestant opinions or inclinations to interfere. The future of Italy must rest with the Italian people. He implored the House to leave the question unaffected by the foolish rumours of newspapers, or the accumulations of comparatively insignificant incidents. In his opinion it would be as absurd for the French Government to interrogate the English Government upon the course which was being pursued in reference to the" Road murder or the Roberts tragedy, as for the English Government to be continually questioning the Emperor of the French as to the policy he intended to adopt in regard to the affairs of Italy. He was of opinion that the hon. Baronet (Sir George Bowyer) had introduced a subject which it would have been quite as well not to bring before the notice of the English House of Commons.
MR. WHALLEYsaid, as to Catholics to whom the hon. Member had alluded, that they were not open to the charge of pretending to support civil and religious liberty merely for electioneering purposes, or that they had deserted their party on this Italian question. He believed they had always acted in accordance with their avowed principles. The natural place of the Catholic Members was in opposition

933
to a liberal Government. He had never said a word against the faith of Catholics, and he would never consent to withhold any advantages from them which they could enjoy in common with their fellow-countrymen. But in its political a3pect Catholicism was a conspiracy to obtain political power inconsistent with the social well-being of the community. As to the brigandage, if the Piedmontese soldiers had committed acts of atrocity, they had done so contrary to the spirit and principles of the Government. But if those persons who turned brigands to effect the restoration of Francis II., and to sustain the temporal power of the Pope, had committed atrocities, they had done so in accordance with the principles enunciated by the authorities of the Catholic Church. Every massacre by Catholics was celebrated under the orders of their superiors, and they were still celebrated as the great events in their Church, to show that they were ready to re-enact them, just as the Orangemen, by celebrating the siege of Derry, showed that they were ready to re-enact their heroism if similar circumstances were again to occur. If the alliance between the Opposition and the Catholic Members were further matured, there might shortly be a change of Government on this question of Italy. Italy remained unsettled because of this war of brigandage; and, connived at and promoted by the French, the Emperor was responsible for it as much as if his troops sullied their own arms in the cause. He appealed to Her Majesty's Government to give a practical turn to this Italian debate, and call upon the French Emperor to act decidedly one way or the other—either to withdraw his troops from Rome, and so put an end to the protection afforded to those persons who really fostered the war of brigandage now raging and the atrocities resulting from it, or to declare war against Italy. If the Emperor hesitated what to do, the noble Lord at the head of the Government could at all events remind the Emperor that, according to his own declarations, the French troops were at Rome to keep order, and not to support brigandage and its attendant atrocities?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, I confess it appears to me there is a great deal of force in the objection which has been taken by various hon. Members on this side of the House—at all events, in the abstract—to the periodical
934
discussion in the House of Commons of the internal affairs of Italy: in the first place, because it seems to be hardly consistent with the respect due to a friendly Power wholly independent of us; and in the second place, because Italy herself is provided with an arena and organs for such a discussion. But although I feel the force of the objection in the abstract, I cannot lint feel also that it is much mitigated by the form which those debates assume, and the effects they are likely to produce. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dundalk (Sir G. Bowyer) in the exercise of his judgment, pursues, I think, a course which is eminently conducive to the benefit of Italy; for when, from year to year, he invites the British House of Commons to enter into this subject, and to give expression to the feelings which they themselves, as well as their constituents, entertain with reference to the progress of events in that country, it is to him, and not to the organs of the Ministry, not to my hon. Friend near me —to whose admirable speech I listened with so much pleasure to-night—nor to my noble Friend at the head of the Government—we owe the frequent opportunities which are afforded to us, the representatives of a free people, of speaking out our sentiments on this deeply-moving question —opportunities for which I, for one, beg to return the hon. and learned Gentleman my hearty thanks. I may add, that of all the speeches to which I listened this evening not one, on the whole, appealed so strongly to my feelings as that of the hon. and learned Baronet himself. I do not wish to use unparliamentary language; but if I may be permitted—as I believe I may, without being open to the charge—to accuse an hon. Member of indulging in paradox and being the victim of credulity, I would appeal to my hon. and learned Friend himself, and at ail events with great confidence to the House generally, to say whether his speeches are not distinguished by astonishing powers of paradox, as well us by a capacity for credulity which is absolutely marvellous. I shall, if the House will allow me, endeavour to sum up in a few words the statements which he made. He comes among us a contemporary historian of events passing in Italy, and tells us that 4,000,000 of people in a corner of that Peninsula—Lombardy, of course, stands out of the account, us conquest being due to French arms— who, he says, are regarded as strangers by all the rest of the people of the country,

935
and are detested by the Neapolitans—have by their own unprincipled agency succeeded, not indeed in uniting in the bonds of friendly alliance and fully incorporating with themselves, but in subjugating to their sway some 15,000,000 or 20,000,000 of Italians. That is the first great item in the charge which the hon. and learned Baronet brings Against Piedmont; but I wonder he does not perceive, that if the allegation be true, he has made out a very good claim on behalf of the Piedmontese to the poisition which they enjoy; for, if there be in Italy a race of men numbering only 4,000,000 endowed with this marvelos capacity for extending their narrow limits, and who* with the Pope frowning on one side and Austria on the other, work out the marvellous results which the hon. and learned Baronet has described, surely their very performances stamp on their front the character of an imperial race, and the lion, and learned Gentleman is doing them not only great but most extravagant honour in giving them credit for those achievements. But what makes all this more wonderful is that my hon. and learned Friend would lead us to believe that before Piedmont set out on this apparently hopeless crusade Italy was the happiest country in Europe, the population of the different States of which it was composed being united in the closest bonds of friendship and animated by sentiments of devoted loyalty to sovereigns who exercised over them a paternal sway in the eyes of an admiring world. Now, I may, I think, without exaggeration describe my hon. and learned Friend, who has given us this picture of Italy, who has represented the operations of the Piedmontese as having been eon-ducted not only in the face of the great spiritual power of Rome, and the great temporal power of Austria, but likewise against a people who enjoyed the utmost happiness, as a most successful creator of paradox.
Now, let me take a particular in-instance,—the downfall of the late King of the Two Sicilies, in bringing about which event my hon. and learned Friend was so kind — I do not know whether he meant it as a kindness or not —as to speak of so humble an individual as myself as having had some infinitesimal share; and let me observe, that if he could prove to me that I have been in the smallest degree instrumental in assisting to cause the removal, from
936
a world in which there is wickedness add misery and sorrow enough, of one great and gigantic iniquity, I should accept that proof as another favour conferred upon me. I do not, however, assume to myself any credit of that character. But what, according to the representation of the hon. and learned Baronet, has happened in this case of the King of the Two Sicilies to which I am referring? Here was a kingdom in which he tells us the whole population, with the exception of a few busybodies belonging to the middle-classes—in which the aristocracy, the educated classes, the peasantry, as well as the great bulk of the middle classes—were attached to the expelled dynasty. That being so, what takes place? An adventurer named Garibaldi, clad in a red shirt, with a certain number of followers also clad in red shirts, lands upon the southern point of the Italian Peninsula, marches through Calabria, and with those few men in red shirts faces a Sovereign with a well-organized army of 80,000 men and a fleet perhaps the best in Italy, and the Sovereign at once disappears before him like a mock king of snow. Then comes my hon. and learned Friend, and, with the evident sincerity and earnestness which marks all he says and does in this' House, seeks to persuade us that such events as these can occur in a country where the feelings of the people are not alienated from the throne, and where misgovernment does not prevail—thus exhibiting, in addition to the power of paradox to which I have already referred, a credulity which is almost incomprehensible, and in which he wishes to make us sharers when he asks us to receive his statements on this head as a kind of political Gospel. Then the hon. and learned Baronet said, with respect to the kingdom of Italy, that it was non-existent. Now, it is true we must all, in taking into consideration the completeness of the kingdom, refer with sad and pensive thought to the names of Rome and Venice; but how, I should like to know, does my hon. and learned Friend prove his assertion? He maintains that the kingdom of Italy is non-existent because it is not recognised by any European Power, except England and France. Now, I will not inquire into the literal accuracy of that statement, but I may observe that I do not think it is entirely correct. Be that, however, as it may, I venture to contend

937
that, so far as the existence of a nation depends on the recognition of European Powers, you have made in that direction very considerable progress when you have procured the recognition of England and France. But the principle which I want to assert in the face of my hon. and learned Friend is, that the existence of a people does not depend mainly or primarily upon reognition from other peoples, The Almighty has allowed nations and peoples to exist in the main for themselves, and has permitted them to be the first judges and arbiters of their own destiny. It is that which the Italian people have done and achieved, and which all men, except my hon. and learned Friend, have perceived them to have done and achieved; and it is that in virtue of which they are entitled to be called, even though they have not the recognition of some other nations, the people who constitute the kingdom of Italy.
My hon. and learned Friend is heard with great patience in this House. I never hear the speeches, in which he expresses his views upon Italian freedom. and gives his history of transactions in Italy, without thinking that they are remarkably characteristic and are highly creditable both to himself and the House They are creditable to the House, because the patience with which they are listened to indicates the traditional self-restraint of an assembly that is not in harmony with the speaker who addresses it; and they are highly honourable to my hon. and learned Friend, because his evident earnestness and sincerity, his unvarying good humour, and the manner in which he always carefully avoids injuring or wounding the feelings of any of those among whom he sits, entitle him to the friendly and patient hearing which he receives. But, besides that, I, for one, frankly own that I feel something like a sentiment of gratified curiosity in listening to my hon. and learned Friend. My hon. and learned Friend possesses a wonderful faculty, which he exercises in perfect unconsciousness, first of sill of deceiving himself, and then of endeavouring in entire good faith to deceive his hearers. The result is, when this marvellous faculty is exercised laboriously and continuously by my lion, and learned Friend throughout a long speech, that the display becomes a perfect work of art, and at once attracts the eye even of the least
938
curious among mankind. When my hon. and learned Friend tells us his amazing stories, and propounds his extraordinary doctrines about what are the real proofs of the attachment of a people and what is the real meaning of the events which have taken place in Italy, he comes among us almost like a visitant from another sphere. What does my hon. and learned Friend admit? He admits that there is in Italy a free press and a free Parliament.
SIR GEORGE BOWYER: No; I do nothing of the kind.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: My hon. and learned Friend does not admit that, but he quotes from Italian newspapers language the most congenial to his feelings—language denouncing, in terms satisfactory even to him, the conduct of the Italian Government and the institutions which exist in Italy. Does he not himself thereby produce a proof of the existence of a free press in Italy? In the halcyon days upon which his memory fondly dwells would it have been possible for those who wanted to exhibit the real state of Italy to take their evidence from Opposition papers? My hon. Friend the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs has referred to other proofs of the happy change which has been effected in Italy. He has cited, in addition to a free press and a free Parliament, the extension of education and the increase of trade; and he made another citation, which I did think would, through the medium of his professional feelings, have touched my hon. and learned Friend. If my hon. and learned Friend could not admit any of the things I have enumerated to be evidence of a sound or an improving state of affairs, I certainly did expect that we should hear some expression of sympathy from him when my hon. Friend the Under Secretary referred to that which is, perhaps, not leas important than them all—namely, the fact that Italy now has a body of judges who cannot be removed at the will of the Government. But all these things are, in the sight of my hon. and learned Friend, as nothing. Perhaps he regards them as evidences of slavery. We, on the other hand, are accustomed to consider them as demonstrations of freedom. When an Englishman goes abroad among those with whom my hon. and learned Friend has the closest sympathy—those, for example, who are much about the Court of Rome—he is often told that there is a great deal of

939
practical slavery in England. He is frequently told that there is a wide gulf between classes, that the aristocracy domineers over the rest of the community, that no real freedom exists, and that the people are in a state of misery. How does he answer? He answers by pointing to the great institutions I have mentioned as indications to the contrary, and he considers his answer conclusive. But my hon. and learned Friend will not admit anything of the kind in the case of Italy. The Englishman says that all the things alleged against his country must be false, otherwise we should hear of them through our free press and our free Parliament; and that if they were true, we could not have the prosperity —the improvement of our laws and the advancement of education—which, through the mercy of Providence, prevails among us. No wonder that my hon. and learned Friend makes but little way in the British House of Commons, when he is compelled to admit the existence of such institutions in Italy, and yet denies that they are evidences of freedom and of a progressive state of affairs. My hon. and learned Friend denies the existence of a kingdom of Italy, deplores the change which has taken place in that country, and asserts that a state of anarchy prevails. The Italian peninsula contains a population of something like 28.000,000, of whom 23,000.000 or 24,000,000 are Italian people. Now, observe, the statement of my hon. and learned Friend does not touch 16,000,000 out of these 24,000,000. It does not touch the inhabitants of Piedmont, the inhabitants of Lombardy, the inhabitants of the Duchies, the inhabitants of Tuscany, the inhabitants of the Legations, the inhabitants of Umbria and the Marches, or the inhabitants of Sicily. My hon. and learned Friend is compelled to put them all aside.
SIR GEORGE BOWYER: Not Sicily.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I do not think my hon. and learned Friend introduced Sicily into his speech.
SIR GEORGE BOWYER: I did.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Then I am wrong. But when we come to the evils which my hon. and learned Friend describes, into what do they resolve themselves? Into manifestations which occur either on points near the coast, where the agency of foreigners landing from abroad is felt, or else on points near
940
the frontier, where the agency of those who work from Rome is felt. But is it really to be expected that after a great revolution—not a destructive, but a constructive revolution— effected among a people like the Italians, on the very next day at dawn everything is to be in perfect order, developing itself and operating with all the advantages which belong to long-established institutions and traditions? The thing is absurd. Only two years hove elapsed since the Italian Revolution. What was the condition of England two years after the Revolution of 1688? Was the new dynasty secure? Was the country tranquil? What was the state of things in Ireland and in Scotland? What about the Massacre of Glencoe? The work of pacification and consolidation was not act accomplished for two, or ten, or twenty, or even thirty years after that great revolution, which we regard as the epoch when the last and greatest development of constitutional freedom in this country was effectually begun; and I want to know what the condition of England would have been if, instead of being separated by the sea, on which we were always strong, from the country whence foreign influence was exercised against us, Scotland had had a frontier coterminous with France. If France had been able to operate upon Scotland in the time of Louis XIV. and Louis XV. as Rome is now able to operate upon the southern portion of the Italian kingdom, I believe the condition of England would have been such that a comparison drawn between it and the present state of the kingdom of Italy would be to the disadvantage, not of the Italians, but of ourselves. Let us endeavour to bring this question to some clear and practical issue. I shall put to the House two points which appear to me to be decisive. In the first place, as regards two-thirds of the population of the kingdom of Italy, my hon. and learned Friend himself has practically renounced and abandoned the case.
SIR GEORGE BOWYER: Certainly not.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Do not let me be misunderstood. I do not mean that my hon. and learned Friend has undergone a process of conversion in his own mind. What I wish to any is, that for the purposes of debate in this House he has abandoned the case as far as two-thirds of the Italian population are concerned.
SIR GEORGE BOWYER: I deny it, at least for the debate to-night.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: My hon. And learned Friend denies it, but what is the denial worth? Surely my hon. and learned Friend is not going to resume the subject to-morrow. To-night is the great annual festival, or, I should rather say, the night of doleful commemoration on which he sings his dirges and requiems for the late Government in Italy, and launchers his invectives against the present state of things. It is, therefore, the night on which, if he had intended to say anything about two-thirds of the Italian people, he ought to have said it. My hon. and learned Friend may have omitted something from his speech; but if so, all I can say is that the omission was a grievous one and I am sorry for it. With respect to the other third of the population, upon which my hon. and learned Friend laid great and exclusive stress, I admit that we ought to be able to show that things are improving. Bad Government, especially when long continued, must undoubtedly have a disorganizing effect, and order cannot be restored after even the most beneficial revolution within so short a time as has elapsed since the recent change in Italy; but we may fairly be asked for some evidences and indications of improvement. Without adding to the lucid and ample details which have been submitted by my hon. Friend the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, I will call the attention of the House to two important points. One allegation of my hon. and learned Friend is, that the entire population of Southern Italy is averse to its union with the kingdom of Italy. As a conclusive confutation of that statement, I adduce the fact of the existence of a National Guard. It is impossible that there should be a National Guard—which arms the most intelligent and most substantial portion of the population—in harmony with the Government, if there were anything like an approach to truth in the assertion of my hon. and learned Friend, that the people of Southern Italy are alienated in spirit from the Italian Government. My hon. and learned Friend is credulous enough in some things; but when he deals with an adversary, he is strong in the resources of unbelief. I wish to come to close quarters with him. I put to him this test—he says the arming of a force such as the National Guard, containing the best
942
part of the heads of families in the country, is no proof of sympathy between a people and the Government. [Sir GEORGE BOWYER: No.] Does he think that the present Sovereign of the remaining fragment of the Roman States would like to arm the National Guard? Either that National Guard would at once be in collision with the French troops, or, if the French troops were withdrawn, that temporal Sovereign would have to execute an evacuation of the Roman territory more rapid than dignified. I am glad my hon. Friend favours me with his "Yes" or "No" for it enables me to found a stronger argument on his silence. I asked him if he thought the temporal Sovereign of Rome would like to intrust his defence or safety to a national Guard, but I did not succeed in drawing any answer from my hon. Friend on that point.
SIR, the other case to which my hon. and learned Friend referred is a matter with respect to which it is impossible, on a debate suddenly arising, to arrive at any judgment. It is, I am afraid, impossible that such atrocities in their degree should not occur. It is in the nature of a revolution partaking, as it must, of the charaeter of civil was—though it has partaken less of that in Italy than in any revolution of equal magnitude that ever took place in modern times— it is of the nature of a civil war to engender bitter and ferocious passions; and there is one circumstance, above all, that invariably gives an intensity to these ferocious passions—that is, when those who contend on the other side as representing and being supported by a foreign influence. Sir, it is foreign influence interfering in Italy, it is foreign influence that gives its character to those horrors wherever they prevail in the South of Italy; and for that foreign influence, I regret to say it, the present temporal Soverign of the Roman States is principally reponsible. It may be natural enough for the exking the Two Sicilies to do what he can to regain his power, and we can perhaps hardly blame him if he be not too scrupulous as to the means; but it is he who shelters him; it is he who, being sheltered himself by the defence of France, extends that shelter to the expelled King of the Two Sicilies—it is he who is most deeply reponsible for the continuance of the disorders in the South, and for whatever of

943
human misery or crime attends the perpetration of these enormities. Sir, wherever cruelty is proved it will never, I am sure, be apologized for or palliated in this House; but in recording the admission that all cruelty is abominable, I must say I think, on the whole, it is marvellous to see how little cruelty, under such circumstances of fearful and agonizing suffering, has been proved against the soldiery of Italy.
The mind is necessarily dragged in discussions of this kind to the state of Rome, with regard to which my hon. and learned Friend would have us to believe that the population of that city and the surrounding country are thoroughly satisfied with their Government. He requires us to believe this in the face of the fact, that I believe not less than some 20,000 French troops are there for some purpose or other. He does not say what purpose, but he says he is quite sure of one thing—it is not to keep the population in order. He requires us to believe this in the teeth of the recollecttion that he was wont to make similar declarations regarding the whole Papal States; but it did happen in the wealthiest and most considerable portion of those States that one fine morning the Austrian army walked out, and before twelve hours had elapsed the Papal Government walked after it, and that portion of Italy, with a singular absence of military force, has been among the most peaceful portions of the whole kingdom ever since. But my hon. and learned Friend undertakes to say that Piedmont will never have Rome, and that the population is entirely in favour of the temporal sovereignty of those States. I cannot help recollecting a very slight anecdote which I may mention to the House as illustrative of the real state of opinion in Italy, and which every one who has travelled in Italy, unless he has kept himself among a particular section, perfectly well knows. You may say, "I do not care a pin about the state of feeling among the population; I mean to keep them down. It is necessary for religion that the iron heel should be placed on them." At least, there would be a grain of truth in that; but there is not, I am sure, the slightest shadow of truth in the declaration of my hon. and learned Friend as to the feeling of the population. It was in the month of June, 1849, when I can assure my hon. and learned Friend I had not paid the smallest attention to the details of Roman politics, I happened
944
to be on board a steamer at Civita Vecchia; there was every variety of passengers in the ship, arid, the French having just entered Rome, they were all joking of crying' out against the; Pope but a portly facchino, who said, "I am; on the side of the Pope, because the Pope fills my paunch." That was the reason why-he was on the side of the Pope—the Pope filled his paunch. So you will find two classes in Italy en the side of the Pope—" the majority of the clergy and the majority of those whose paunches are filled by holding public office. Beyond those classes, however, a Papal party does not exist, and the; proof of it is what has happened in the portion from which the Austrian troops have been withdrawn, and which is a clear indication of what will happen in the rest when the French troops are withdrawn. My hon. and learned Friend, however, takes refuge in bold prediction. "I tell you plainly, he said, "you won't get Rome; you will never have it." Sir, that reminds me of what was once said in this House by Mr. Grattan, when contending with an adversary. He said, "He does not argue, but he foretells. I have, there fore, but one resource. I cannot confute a prophet, but I can disbelieve him." Sir, that applies to' the utterances of my hon. and learned Friend. The future is neither in his nor in our power. If I spoke as this organ of the Government, I should feel less at liberty in alluding to the occupation of Rome as I now do; but, speaking as an individual, I cannot but record the deep regret with which I view the continued prolongation of that occupation. I, for one, feel for France—for that great nation, an admiration which is not mixed with nor measured by envy, because I do not believe that England has any occasion to envy France, and I do believe that in this world, which the Almighty has made for nations, there is room enough for us all; but this is a matter of deep European interest—not confined to any country or any religion, and I most earnestly hope that for the name and fame of France, for the sake of justice and humanity, for the sake of the future peace of Europe, and for the sake of the great and splendid services that France herself has conferred on Italy, that occupation may soon come to an end.
My hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Mr. Baillie Cochrane) alarms us by referring to the supposed existence of a Repub-

945
lican party in the North of Italy, and a Muratist party in the Neapolitan territory. He said that French interest prevailed, and he asked what measures the Government intended to adopt to avert the evils he anticipated. Well, I say, if there be such a party as the Muratist in Naples, which I do not believe—if there be a Republican party in the North of Italy, which I do not wholly disbelieve, but we know it has been repressed for a long series of years with increasing energy and earnestness by the great mass of the Italian people—and if French interests prevails — I do hot presume to forecast the course of this or any other Government in particular exigencies—but if these dangers exist from within and without, I venture to say the safest and the surest remedy is this—to call forth the self-consciousness of the Italian people. That is the basis, as I think, of all the policy to be pursued by the Government of this country, either with consistency, or in accordance with the rules of right and justice, or with the slightest hope of support from the people. My hon. and learned Friend alarms us by speaking of the responsibility of the Government with regard to Italy, and lie seems to think' that our slumbers must be disturbed by the immense effect which our policy has produced. Now, it appears to me, that as the hon. Member for Honiton somewhat underrated, as I think, what be called, and very properly, moral support in matters of great European policy, so it was materially overrated by my hon. and learned Friend. My hon. and learned Friend treated the British Government as being in the main the authors of recent events in Italy. The hon. Member for Honiton, on the contrary, rather approximated to the notion that what is termed moral support is only a name, a mere shadow, or something which is totally in I effective. Now, I grant that what is called moral support, as between country and country, is in no inconsiderable degree a modern idea; but it is one of those modern ideas to which, as it appears to me, we ought to attach the greatest price and the greatest value. Moral support is a real power in Europe. Genuine public opinion—not the opinion of any one State—is a real power in Europe; and it is a true sign of advancing civilization and of progress in the affairs of men—not a vision any, but real and substantial progress— when you find that you have passed be-
946
yond the region in which no real influence was known, except that of sword clashing against sword, and entered into that domain in which the minds of men act upon one another, and in which, without a resort to force, the power of higher principles is fell and recognised. That I believe to be the meaning of moral support. That moral support, I rejoice to think, has been afforded by Her Majesty's Government to what is, in my humble opinion, the cause of law, the cause of freedom, the cause of European peace, and I will even presume to say—following the excellent remarks of the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. M. Milnes)—the cause of religion itself.
Reference has been made to the course taken by a portion of our fellow-subjects with respect to the general policy and position of the present Administration in consequence of its conduct in regard to the affairs of Italy. Sir, every section of Englishmen, Irishmen, or Scotchmen are free to judge of and to adopt the course that seems hest to themselves. For my own part, if I deeply lament that there are in this House, and out of it, those who, make their views as to the temporal power of the Pope the key to their entire political action in all matters of civil and internal concern affecting this great Empire, I can only say that, regretting it, I regret it far more for their own sake than upon any other ground. I have, before now, walked with my hon. and learned Friend into the lobby of this House in very small minorities in defence of what I held to be the civil rights of persons of his own religion. I am ready again to repeat that course wholly without reference to that which he or others may now do. But I beg respectfully to tender to him the assurance that I should think it the basest of proceedings if we were capable of being actuated on great questions involving the fortunes of the nations of the world by the opinions which we might secretly or individually entertain in respect to the special fortunes of this or that religion. Sir, there are among the British public, and even among those portions of it who, perhaps, go the furthest in their hostility to the Roman Catholic religion, persons who are perfectly well satisfied with the policy now followed by the temporal sovereign of the Roman States, because, as they argue, "Whatever we may say or do, either in Exeter Hall or through the medium of the printing

947
press, we cannot do anything one half so (effective for detaching the Italian people from religious allegiance to the Court of Borne as the Pope himself and his Cardinals are doing from day to day, from night to night, from month to mouth, and from year to year, without intermission, by Causing that Italian people to retain in their minds the living sentiment that there is a practical opposition between the Conduct of their ecclesiastical rulers, who insist upon being likewise their civil governor?, and those deep principles of justice, right, truth, and order, which are the original and inalienable heritage of mankind," I hope it is not disrespectful towards my hon. Friend, recollecting the endeavours that have been made to cast the censures of infidelity upon those who have followed Garibaldi, if I venture to remind him that theologians perhaps the most distinguished of his own communion in Italy are men who have shown themselves ready and anxious to part with the Papal sovereignty. [Sir GEORGE BOWYER was understood to signify dissent.] My hon. and learned Friend shakes his head, and thereby, I suppose, means to challenge me to the proof of my assertion; I would therefore cite to him the names of the celebrated monk of Montecassano and of the Padre Passaglia. My hon. and learned Friend seems shocked at the mention of the Padre Passaglia, but who, let me ask, is the bearer of that name? A man, I will say, quite as famous as my hon. and learned Friend. My hon. and learned Friend has acquired an extended fame by his chivalrous and dogged defence of everything done in Italy by the beloved Sovereigns who have now left it; and, considering the peculiarity of his task, the strangeness of his performance, and the courage it requires, I think he deserves the reward of an extended fame. But Passaglia was a considerable man when the Court of Rome, about five or six years ago, proceeded to take one of the most remarkable steps in the whole of its ecclesiastical history, and promulgated what was popularly known by the name of the new dogma. The Pope and his advisers then very naturally looked around for a grave and competent apologist, and who was the person they selected? Why, Father Passaglia. I cannot say that I have in my pocket the two enormous volumes which that gentleman, then wrote, containing not only his dedication of his book to the Pope, but also a letter from
948
the Pope to him stating the grounds of the confidence on which he had been chosen to execute that great work for the honour of the Church. That man, whom my hon. and learned Friend now decries, contradicting the whole tenour of that letter of the Pope, which I have seen, and can show to my hon. and learned Friend—that man whom I cite as a theologian of far more eminence than any one in Italy who can be marshalled against him, is now an exile from Rome, because, although he was the chosen champion of the Papacy in matters spiritual, he could not consent to be the advocate of the iniquities connected with its temporal authority, and he is, I believe, at this moment earning his bread by editing a petty journal at Turin.
With respect, Sir, to our responsibility on this question, I am not entitled to speak for the Government collectively, but only for my own individual share in it; and I would only say I rather incline to have that responsibility aggravated than extenuated. But there is one important point with respect to which, with the indulgence of the House, I wish to bring this matter to a clear and definite issue. I have admitted that those who are, in some degree, responsible for having contributed, by their moral support, to the formation of the kingdom of Italy, are bound to show the existence of an improving state of things in that country. It has been alleged that disaffection prevails among the National Guard of Italy. Now, that assertion confutes itself, because, if it were true, who believes that the Italian Government would for a moment allow that force to continue in arms? Of course, in that case it would be disarmed immediately. But another and more distinct issue still capable of being presented to the House, and which was put by my hon. Friend (Mr. Layard) at an hour when there were much fewer hon. Members present than are here now, is, I hold, conclusive, not for the purpose of rebutting every allegation that is made of abuse, of cruelty, of imperfection, or of crime, but for the purpose of showing that great improvement is going on in the southern part of the Italian kingdom. I refer to the remarkable circumstance stated by my hon. Friend with regard to the trade of that kingdom. The hon. Member for King's County (Mr. Hennessy) thought to confute it by showing that the imports into this

949
country from Italy have undergone a certain decline within the last year. Why, Sir, it is not a question of what the trade of Italy with this country may be, but what the trade of Italy may be with herself and with the whole world. Italy was formerly divided into seven States, and those seven States, being now formed into one, have been united in point of commerce. My hon. Friend (Mr. Layard) observed that we have the very dear and simple test of figures to apply to this matter. The receipts of the customs at Naples formerly amounted in the aggregate to £800,000 a year. [Mr. HENNESSY: At what date?] The date is the latest for which the figures can be given under the old régime. I do not recollect precisely the month at which that régime ceased. Under the new system the import duties have been reduced to one-fifth of their previous rate. If, therefore, the trade of the country were the same as it was under the old system, the amount of customs receipts obtained at Naples would be just one-fifth of £800,000, that is, £160.000. But, instead of that latter sum, the actual sum is £520,000, showing a threefold trade in the port of Naples. The same thing might be proved to exist in regard to the trade of Sicily, were the hour not too late for troubling the House with the particulars. But I do not hesitate to stale that I think this fact is in itself a conclusive confutation of the stories that have been told us. It has been said that 7,000 men were shot on the spot, that 6,000 or 10,000 were wounded, that 7,000 or 8.000 were carried away to prison, that 900 villages have been burnt to the ground, and all this, forsooth, in a country where, in the short space of two years or a little more, the trade of the metropolis has expanded to threefold dimensions. I put it to the reasoning faculties of my hon. and learned Friend, which are perfectly acute in all cases where he is not governed by some overruling prepossession—I do entreat him to divest himself of the prejudice in which he seems to look at this question, and to tell us how he can possibly reconcile these two suppositions: on the one hand, that the people are universally disaffected and miserable, and that 900 of their villages are burned, and I know not how many hundreds or thousands more depopulated or under military occupation; and, on the other hand, that simultaneously with this terrible state of things, the pur-
950
suits of peace exhibit such an expansive power as is not merely indicated, but proved by the figures which I have just laid before the House. As regards the responsibility of the Government, I think they will be well able to bear it. I do not hesitate to say that I believe a special part of the duty—I may say of the mission—of the Administration of which my noble Friend is at the head, is to be the true expositor of the sense of the people of England on a question so vitally important as the Italian question is, both to the maintenance of every high and sacred principle, and likewise to the future tranquillity of Europe. I believe, too, so far as the judgment of England is concerned, never was that judgment pronounced on any public question, at home or abroad, with greater unanimity or clearness; and that there, will not be any chapter of the life of my noble Friend on which Englishmen will probably dwell with greater satisfaction than that in which it shall be recorded that, not now alone, but for many years past, before the question had arisen to the magnitude of its present position, through evil report and through good report, ha sustained and supported the cause of Italy.
MR. LOCKEsaid, he was willing to give the hon. Baronet the Member for Dundalk (Sir G. Bowyer) credit for the manner in which he had brought forward this question, and for the temper which he had displayed; and he did not rise for the purpose of speaking upon the question after the crushing speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which appeared to him to have entirely disposed of it. Ha rose rather for the purpose of asking a question. Upon the numerous occasions, when the affairs of Italy had been discussed in that House, there was one thing which had been always wanting, and tint was the expression of any opinion upon the part of those hon. Members who sat upon the front Opposition bench. Day after day hon. Gentlemen had for years past occupied themselves with carping at the foreign policy of the noble Lord at the head of Her Majesty's Government, and it would be in the recollection of hon. Members that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bucks and the late Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs had at the commencement of last session more especially indulged in that course, he should like to know what policy hon. Gentlemen opposite would pursue upon this question

951
if they came into power? Would it be similar to that adopted by Lord Derby's Government in 1852, upon the question of free trade, when they said that they had no opinions of their own, but whatever the opinion of the people of England might be, they would bow to it, and at the general election in that year their supporters professed free trade principles in the boroughs, and, like the hon. Member for Suffolk, were Protectionists in the Counties. They might have expected better things from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli), whom he did not see in his place, although a very short time since he had observed his head above the box while sitting at the further end of the front bench, Where was he? Although he had left his place, he would undertake to say that he was underneath that roof. He much wished he would rectum to the House and state the opinions of himself and of his party, if they had any. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dundalk and the hon. Member for the King's County, who had transferred their allegiance from the Gentlemen on this side of the House, to whom they were indebted for Catholic Emancipation, and consequently for the seats which they occupied, must have been sadly disappointed that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire had not Spoken to-night. He was, however, glad to see the hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Fitzgerald) taking a note, as there was no man more fit than the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs in the Government of Lord Derby to say what the opinions of the leaders of the Opposition were upon this; questions [Mr. FITZGERALD: NO !] Well, if he were not taking a note, he was probably writing one to his leader to ask him to come back. Hon. Gentlemen opposite could not tell whether their leader was a supporter of the Pope or of the King of Italy; let him come back and say which he was. What had been the conduct of the noble Earl at the head of the Conservative party. Had it been in favour of the King of Italy? No, he had rather given his support to Lord Normanby, whenever he had brought forward his tedious propositions.
MR. HENNESSYrose to order. He protested against such an attack being made upon a noble Lord who had at one time been a Member of that House.
MR. SPEAKERinformed the hon. Member for Southward that he was out of order in his remarks.
MR. LOCKSsaid, then, that a noble Lord [Order! order!]—that somebody in another place was sometimes tedious, and that certainly was no aspersion on his character, for hon. Gentlemen in that House were sometimes tedious. He did not wish hon. Gentlemen opposite to be deceived. They looked forward to a glorious accession to power. The hon. Member for Dundalk, and those who agreed with him, had a right to know what were the opinions of the late Government on the Italian question, and the hon. Member for Norfolk (Mr. Bentinck), who sometimes entertained opinions of his own irrespective of his party, ought to be informed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bucks whether, if his party came into power, he intended to support the Pope or the King of Italy. He felt sure that some explanation would be offered by some hon. Member opposite. He was not going to take part in the debate, he had merely risen for the purpose of asking a question. It seemed to him most extraordinary that throughout the evening the front Opposition bench should have remained unoccupied, but he now saw upon it his hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Fitzgerald) from whom he trusted the House would receive some information.
MR. PEACOCKEsaid, he did not rise for the purpose of answering the question of the hon. and learned Member for Southward (Mr. Locke), because he considered it superfluous to do so; but the right hon. Gentleman (the Chancellor of' the Exchequer began his speech, by stating that he deprecated these discussions; but who had been more ready than the Chancellor of the Exchequer both with his tongue and with his pen to raise discussions as to the internal affairs of other countries; neither would he follow the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Whalley) in the discussion of the theological bearings of the question, for that hon. Member would have the opportunity of discussing them at greater length on the 8th of May, when he designed to submit to the House his Motion on the subject of Maynooth. The hon. Baronet the Member for Dundalk (Sir G. Bowyer) and the hon. Member for the King's County (Mr. Hennessy) would then have the opportunity of replying to the hon. Gentleman's argu-

953
ments, and he had no doubt but that the triangular duel would then take place in the presence of a numerous and an admiring audience. But on his own behalf, and on behalf of those with whom he usually sat, he must deprecate the charges brought against that side of the House by the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Whalley) and the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down (Mr. Locke) of having any intention of combining with the hon. Member for the King's County (Mr. Hennessy) for the purpose of turning out the Government upon the Italian question. So far from wishing to do so, although he thought the question might have been argued in a fairer spirit by the right hon. Gentleman, he would still say that he desired as much as, the right hon. Gentleman himself to see a powerful and united Italy, But when they spoke of a united Italy, it must be remembered that there were two systems by which that unity might be effected—one a system of centralization, and the other a system of federation. That point the right hon. Gentleman had carefully avoided, and no doubt intentionally. The system of centralization was the French system of governing by prefets, and of mapping out the country into departments: the system of federation,; was the English system, which had an Imperial parliament for Imperial purposes, yet left each province to manage its own affairs after its own fashion. The system of centralization had been tried, and had failed. The hon. Baronet the Member for Dundalk (Sir G. Bowyer) had probably over-coloured the picture, but there could be no doubt that discontent did exist in Tuscany, in Naples, and in the Island of Sicily. The other day he received a letter from one of the most distinguished men in the island, who was a short time back more Piedmontese than the Piedmontese themselves, but who now acknowledged that great discontent had been caused in the island by the removal of the Viceroy and the appointment of a Governor who was nothing but a prefet in his stead. He wished to see a strong and united Italy, and under a system of federation his wish might still be realized. Baron Brenner, in the interest of Prance desiring a weak Italy, wished for a system of federation under a variety of Princes; but the system which he desired was a federation under a single Sovereign. There was a certain charm about centralization; but it ignored
954
the habits, the feelings, sympathies, and prejudices which were prevalent among; large classes of men, and to be practicable; men must be movable as pawns upon a chess-board. It was altogether inexpedient to endeavour to force Piedmontese laws and institutions upon the provinces now united with Sardinia, and to compel a forced division of property in Lombardy. In making such an attempt Count Cavour had committed one of the greatest blunders that could be made by a great statesman, because it was generally acknowledged that constitutional liberty could not exist without the support of an independent territorial class, but if an independent Upper chamber was desirable in all countries as a check upon the fickle passions of an elective chamber, it was more especially desirable at Turin as a check upon the intrigues of the Camerilla of that capital. If there bad been an independent upper chamber in Piedmont, Baron Ricasoli would not have been displaced. An honourable man, an upright minister, who would not stoop to the artifices of many public men, who would neither purchase the praises of the press, nor fawn upon the demagogues of the market-place; and yet he had fallen a victim to the backstairs influences of the Par lace, and to certain other influences which might be but too easily surmised, when it was recollected that for months his dismissal had been demanded and clamoured for by the constitutionnel and by the Patrie. Italy ought to feel as England would have felt if Lord Clarendon had been dismissed by the intrigues of Mrs. Palmer, and at the demand of Louis XIV.; and great indeed must be the shame of Italy that her Minister should be displaced on account of the inflexibility of his integrity—a vice not too common upon Italian soil. Anxious as he was for the liberty of Italy, he must say he thought the present attitude of the Cabinet of Turin was becoming intolerable—it was inconsistent with the disarmament of Austria and with the peace of Europe. Instead of empty threats and idle vapouring, it would be better if she were to consolidate the provinces she had already acquired, and to conciliate the populations which acknowledged her sway; for, as the Cabinet of Turin but too well knew, if she attacked Austria without France, she must fail; and if she attacked Austria with France, success would even be more disastrous to

955
her than failure, and in that case, in the warning language of Lord Clarendon, she might perhaps too late find, that she was but the advanced guard and pioneer of France, and that in grasping at the shadow of power she bad thrown away the substance of liberty.
MR. STANSFELDsaid, that in his opinion the arguments used in the course pf the debate had been rather one-sided. There were two questions to be considered —the one the condition of Italy, the other the Italian policy of Her Majesty's Government. As to the former of these questions, the remarks of the hon. Baronet the Member for Duudalk (Sir G. Bowyer), who raised the discussion, had been somewhat Vague respecting the unsatisfactory and unsettled condition of certain provinces of Naples, and of the rigours and excesses of martial law. Those statements had been replied to by the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs in a speech full of accurate information, and delivered in a tone of manly sympathy for the Italian people that was creditable alike to himself and to the Government. The hon. Baronet who opened the debate found fault with the Government because their policy was inconsistent with the principle of non-intervention, upon which it professed to be founded. The hon. Baronet, no doubt, would desire to bring about political changes in this country which, rightly or not, he might believe would mean a change from non-intervention, with the moral influence of this country on the side of the King of Italy, and against Austria and the Pope, to nonintervention with the moral influence of this country marring the destinies of the Kingdom of Italy and upholding the cause of Austria and the Pope. For himself, he accepted non-intervention in good faith as the real foreign policy of this country, and after the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer he thought he should be justified in making a few remarks upon the subject. He would, in the first instance, meet the hon. Baronet by saying that non-intervention did not mean indifference, nor even neutrality, for to hold that opinion would be equivalent to a negation of all foreign policy, and a conclusion alike impossible and unworthy for this country to adopt. If it neither meant indifference nor neutrality, a policy based upon non-intervention could not consist in its profession as a bare fact or a rule to
956
guide our own action, but must consist in upholding that principle, and, as far as we wisely might, in enforcing it in the councils of Europe. Thus interpreted, he did not think it was far from being the policy of Her Majesty's Government, and it was one worthy of them and of the country. It recommended itself as tending to limit the area of future conflicts and general European wars, and it recommended itself far more widely for reasons quite opposite to indifference, because it tended to leave Governments and those whom they governed face to face, without any Holy Alliance to interpose between them and the attainment of their desires, Now for the application, of those principles to the case of Italy. The policy of intervention, thus understood, would lead this country to, deprecate a renewal of the struggle between France and Austria upon Italian soil, because that might lead to a European war, arid because that would not be leaving Italy to work out her own emancipation. But such principles and considerations would lead them with even greater urgency to demand the withdrawal of the French troops from Rome, and to forbid, should the occasion arise, the interference of any other European Power, German or otherwise, between Italy and those dynasties which stood between her and the accomplishment of her unity. Did not that description apply to the policy of Her Majesty's Government? At all events, he might safely say, that in proportion as their policy deviated from those principles and those considerations would it meet with the approval of the supporters of the hon. Baronet. The hon. Baronet, in dealing with the condition of Italy, carefully avoided that which it was his duty to explain—the causes of the evils of Italy and their remedies. They knew the causes of those evils and they knew the remedies for them. The hon. Baronet told the House that the dismemberment of Italy, with a return to the old state of things, would restore peace to that country. But the House knew very well that the cause of the evils of Italy was neither more nor less than the policy of those whom the hon. Baronet represented that night. The hon. Baronet did not come there as the exponent of any national policy from an English point of view, but he came as the representative and the advocate of a foreign temporal Power, itself the sole cause—the conscious and intending cause—of all the evils which he affected to deplore. Did not all

957
the world know that it was at Rome the ex-King of Naples found a refuge when he fled in terror from Garibaldi and his thousand volunteers; that Rome was the basis of the system of brigandage, and that Rome was the source of supplies and the shelter in defeat of those hirelings who Sought to harass and disturb, though they could not hope to restore a kingdom? Why did the temporal Papacy play so suicidal — so ignominious a part? Why had it so fallen from its high estate in those days when it had yet a purpose to fulfil, when Gregory VII. brought that powerful monarch Henry IV. of Germany from the head of his armies to sue on bended knees for three days and throe nights, fur forgiveness from the Papal chair? Why had it so fallen from what it was in more recent times, when the present Pontiff ascended the Papal chair, and when, moved by the aspirations and troubles of his country to a moment of humanity and patriotism, the sacred word "Italy" escaped his lips with a prayer, and all Europe, Protestant as well as Catholic, indulged in dreams of a renovated Papacy? Why was this? It was not because the temporal Papacy was unable to read aright the handwriting on the wall; but because it had not the courage to submit to an inevitable fate, but per fas et nefas struggled against the decree. It was because it read in the unity and the life of Italy its own death-warrant that it allied itself with the scum of Europe to harass, to pillage, and to murder where it could not hope to conquer, The hon. Baronet had assured the House that Italy should not have Rome, and he taunted the Government by telling them that it was their policy which led to the predominance of French influence in Italy. He would ask the hon. Baronet one question —on what power did the temporal Papacy rest? Why did it continue this fatal, needless, and yet ignominious struggle, day by day, rendering any possible arrangement which might serve to break its fall more improbable—day by day making itself more hateful in the eyes of the Italian people, because it became more clearly the great obstacle between them and the accomplishment of that which they wished for, to crown and consolidate the edifice which they had built—day by day rendering itself more despicable because it maintained the struggle with a force in no degree its own,: and day by day losing its hold even upon the spiritual allegiance of the Italians, be-
958
cause it relied upon the bayonets of Voltairian Fiance? He had rend the history of the Italian people in a very different manner from some hon. Gentlemen who had spoken that night. Looking back upon the history of Italy he saw that country had fulfilled great purposes in the world, and, having fulfilled them, it fell. He had pondered on the depth of that fall. It might be said that Italy had never been a nation. That might be true in one cense but it had been more than a nation. Twice had she possessed universal dominion; she had ruled the Pagan and the Christian world, and precisely in proportion to her grandeur had been the depth of her fall. But those days were past, and the future at which she aimed was one more modest, but at the same time eminently calculated to promote the welfare and the peace of Europe, no less than her own. From '48 downwards the Italian people had been availing themselves of all aids, they had been accumulating for one struggle all the various forces within that kingdom, and those facts might be taken as evidence of their determination to found a united Italy. He had always felt that the chief difficulties in the way of Italian unity would be those immediately preceding it. He could not conceive any disintegrating force sufficient to rend asunder Italy having Rome for its capital and the Alps and the sea for its natural boundaries. He believed firmly in the approaching consummation, and it was one winch no diplomatic intrigues would avail to prevent. He hoped that Her Majesty's Government would do what they could to hasten that consummation by narrowing the area of the necessary conflict, by limiting the expenditure of treasure and of blood, and by rendering more fruitful and more peaceful the victory which would yet be won. This was a policy worthy of the English nation—a policy in the pursuit of which any Minister might count on the support of the country—a policy which would lead this country still further in the path she had already trodden, and which would be giving only due and fitting expression to the feelings of people who desired ardently the civil and religious liberty of the world.
MR. MAGUIREsaid, the hon. and learned Member opposite (Mr. Locke) seemed surprised that Catholic Members of that House should wish to see the present Government come to grief. Now,

959
it was historically untrue that the Whigs had emancipated the Catholics. Civil and religious liberty: was made a shuttlecock between two great parties in this country, but it was the people of Ireland, under a great and powerful leader who carried the question of emancipation to such a point that the English Government were obliged to concede it, and the instruments to carry the law into effect were: Sir Robert Peel and the Duke of Wellington. Who was it that put the first fetter on the Irish Catholics in 1688? Was it not the Whigs? It was to toe Whigs? they were indebted for the Penal Laws. By whom was the first link struck from the limbs of the slave? By Pitt, who was not a Whig statesman. The Whigs for nearly thirty years made capital out of the cry of civil and religious liberty, and over and over again deceived the hopes of the Catholics. It was the Catholics themselves who, under a wise and powerful leader, worked out their own political redemption. As to this Italian question, the Government were, no doubt, very glad it had been brought forward. Hon. Members opposite called it "the great question of the day." That was precisely what Her Majesty's Government wished to make it. Reform had been the great question of the day. But it was sO no longer. Having betrayed the English Reformers and. turned out the Conservatives for not going as far in the path of Reform as they professed themselves determined to go, the Government came, into office as Reformers upon a Reform cry, and the hon. and learned Gentleman knew only too well how much he and his party had been "sold." For his own part he thanked God that he was one of those who voted against Lord Russell's Resolution which he proposed in his enthusiasm for Reform. He did not assist in turning out Lord Derby's Government for a mere sham, knowing as he did thoroughly well that the present Ministry were not in earnest upon the question of Reform, The House had heard enough that evening of paradox, and, as to credulity, why the Radical party swallowed almost everything. No deception was so gross that they were not willing victims to it. And now after all this talk about Reform what was said to be the great question of the day? Not something that was happening in Southwark or the manufacturing districts, but certain events in Southern Italy. The Government would most likely be glad if the same question were brought
960
forward at the end of the Session, when they were being smashed to pieces by internal dissension. They would rejoice; in getting up a cry against the Pope and the King of Naples, for this, perhaps, might enable them to tide over the recess, and give them a lease of office until the opening of the next Session. Having abandoned Reform and betrayed their supporters, the Government were now doing what Earl Russelle did whenever he was unpopular. When that statesman found himself unpopular, which he often was, he generally betook himself to Exeter Hall, and there delivered himself of a "No Popery" speech. The Government were now living on sufferance, having deceived their parry; and they also made Anti-Papal speeches, but of course in the interests of human liberty. There was no connection between the Catholics and any party. They simply exercised the right which belonged to them as freemen, and they acted as every freeman had a right to act. They simply discriminated between revolutionists, and those who were anxious for true progress and rational liberty—between those who believed in the power of nations and: governments to work out their own reformation, and those who, on the other side, hounded on every anarchist and infidel in Italy to the destruction both of throne and altar. It was one thing to wish well to Reform, but it was another thing to promote anarchy and encourage revolution. What Catholics complained of was, not that the Government had acted on the principle of non-intervention, but that they had grossly violated that principle. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Stansfeld) had defined non-intervention in rather an extraordinary manner. He said it meant sympathy and something more, for it did not bind him to neutrality. But would Her Majesty's Government dare to apply that definition to their dealings with the Northern and Southern States of America? He would maintain that no individual Member of the Government dare even express his sympathy either with North or South; and as a body the Government would not venture to throw their moral weight into either scale, much less to abandon the strict line of neutrality. They might alter their prudent policy when they saw which way things were certain to incline, but at present they dare not act upon the policy which they pursued towards Italy and feeble Powers generally. Then, look at Russian Poland. Did the Govern-

961
ment deal with Russia as they dealt with the Pope and the King of Naples? The noble Viscount at the head of the Government had stated the other night upon this question that it was not the province of a Member of that House to sit in judgment on the policy of a foreign country and to criticise the rule of Russia in Poland, Yet, were there no wounds in Poland? Was there no dark and dense tyranny in that unhappy country—were there no cruel outrages there? Where were the eloquent appeals of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his colleagues upon the wrongs of Poland? The reason of their silence was one unworthy of English manliness and English pride. They were outspoken upon Italy, because the Pope and the King of Naples were weak and broken; but Russia was strong and powerful, and so not a word escaped them on behalf of the oppressed Poles. The noble Lord now translated to another place (Earl Russell) had made himself the schoolmaster for whipping and scourging the Sovereigns of Italy, but he dared not apply the same tawse to the Emperor of Russia when the sufferings of Poland were in question. For the Papacy he had no apprehension, neither had he any fear that its temporal power would be destroyed He believed that the same Providence that had watched over the temporal power of the Papacy for 1,100 years, and which had protected it through many fiery ordeals, and against many malignant enemies, would again baffle the enemies of the See of Peter. He said this because he believed it, and because within little more than half a century the temporal authority of the Papacy appeared, at least to the eyes of men of limited vision, to be utterly destroyed. The storm and fury born of the Great Revolution swept over Italy, and the Pope was whirled away before its resistless force; but the Pope was again restored to the Vatican. The Pope was again driven from Rome; but a few years passed, and the Pope was once more in the Vatican, and the Great Powers of Europe guaranteed by solemn treaty the security of his temporal power, which her Majesty's Government were now assisting to wrest from him. When the revolution of 1848 broke out, and the Pope was driven into exile, it was thought that his temporal power was gone for ever; but a year afterwards the Pope was again in the Vatican. And should the Pope be compelled to fly from Rome with that indecent
962
haste over which the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer gloated by anticipation, it would still matter little; for, by some new and unexpected combination of circumstances, Providence would raise up friends and protectors where, perhaps it was least, expected. When the hairs of the right hon. Gentleman were white, and when he was no longer equal to those splendid intellectual conflicts in which he is now so powerful and successful, he will acknowledge the wonderful dispensations of that Providence which will again and again save the Papacy and its temporal power from the malice of its enemies. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Stansfeld) talked of the sunburst of freedom that now shines over Italy. But be must surely forget. He asked him was that freedom perfect? Where was his friend Mnzzini? Was he in Italy? No doubt, Garibaldi was in Italy, where he was blasphemously adored as a God. Did he romance? Not ten days ago one of Garibaldi's lieutenants hailed him in the midst of an immense assembly as a deity, and the correspondent of The Times declared that the people rose up with such enthusiasm that they evidently believed the statement to be true. If the Government had faithfully and honourably carried out the principle of non-intervention, the Roman Catholics of this country would have made no complaint. But they had done everything unworthy of men who represented a great, powerful, or, as they so often proclaimed, chivalrous country. What did they do? When that unhappy young monarch, betrayed by his Generals and surrounded by purchased statesmen, made his last gallant stand against his enemies, with his heroic wife at his side, what was the cry from the benches opposite? What was the tenor of the despatches from the Foreign Office? That blood was being wantonly spilt, that it was a sin to protract a useless struggle, and that the King ought to abandon his throne to his enemies. That was dis-honourable language on the part of the British Government towards a young man to whom no fair trial had been vouchsafed. The whole weight of this powerful country was flung into the balance against the besieged of Gaeta, and in favour of the besiegers. That, surely, was not strict; neutrality —the same that was now exhibited to the Northern and Southern States of America, He was glad that there had been no great amount of laudation that

963
night of Victor Emmanuel, whose career during the last three years had been one of unparalleled infamy. He had violated every moral and sacred obligation; he had burst through every law of nations. He had done everything that could brand shame on his brow. [Murmurs.] He would prove it. They might murmur as they liked; he was in order, and if he did not vindicate what he had said, he would consent to be hooted by them. Victor Eramnnuel had counselled the Pope not to rely upon foreign aid, but to create and maintain an army of his own to defend his throne. The Pope took his advice, and got an army. [An hon. MEMBER: Yes, the Irish.] They need not sneer at the Irish, for they could not do without them. It would be a bad thing for them if they had not them in the hour of danger. It was then they could appreciate their value, and could understand how necessary to their country was their courage, their daring, and their dash. Well, Victor Emmanuel pretended to be the friend of the Pope; he was in diplomatic alliance with him; his Minister was at Rome. The Pope had an army, and what did Victor Emmanuel do? He treacherously promoted insurrection in the Papal territories, and said he would go forward for the double purpose of putting down the revolution and protecting the Pope. He then, with his powerful army, crushed the Pope's small army under Lamoriciére. Was that honour, or was it infamy? In his opinion it was nothing but infamy. Pie had not even proclaimed war against the King of Naples, yet he sent an army against him, and besieged him in Gaëta. That was nothing but piracy and robbery on a gigantic scale, and the historian of fifty years hence would pass a cooler judgment on such transactions than now came from the Treasury Bench. The Government appeared to be bent on continuing the same mad and reckless policy which they had pursued ever since they came into office. They were encouraging the ambition of a Power which was dangerous to the peace of Europe, and they had done everything they could to bring about the humiliation of a Power which had been their friend at other times. Their policy was in favour of Prance and against Austria. He had no fear for the Papacy, for, if necessary, Providence would again protect it; but it was a foolish und an ungrateful policy on the part of England to injure, humiliate, and op-
964
press nations that had been her faithful allies in the time of her need and trial.
MR. O'BRIENremarked, that the interest taken in this question was not so much caused by any particular regard for the liberty of the people of Rome as by an impression that the annihilation of the temporal power of the Pope would tend to produce some religious change in Italy. But he believed the maintenance of the temporal power of Rome was necessary to prevent the head of the Catholic Church from becoming the minion either of France, Austria, Spain, or any other political Power. He would, therefore, in every possible way, maintain a Power he thought necessary. But they knew that Roman Catholics had established republics on the American continent; and he fully accepted all the great principles of civil liberty. The Emperor of the French was the real arbiter of the temporal power of the Papacy; and as long as Pio Nono lived, he had a strong idea that a French garrison would always be seen in Rome.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Sir, I think the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. Maguire) when he reads to-morrow the words he hag spoken to-night, may, on cooler reflection, regret some of the expressions he has let fall with respect to a Sovereign in alliance with our own. There is in this House perfect freedom of speech; every hon. Member is entitled by the rules and privileges of Parliament to express, in any manner he thinks consistent with the decorum that ought to prevail in our debates, his opinion of the acts of any foreign Sovereigns. But I think the hon. Gentleman, on reflection, will feel that his zeal for the head of his Church, though natural, has led him somewhat too far in his expressions. The vehemence and passion with which he has spoken remind me of a story of a North American Indian, who, coming to England, attended one of the courts of justice and heard a trial. He was not familiar with the English language; but when asked by a friend what was his opinion of the proceedings, he said it was quite clear which of two lawyers who had spoken was in the right. One, who went into a violent passion, was evidently in the wrong; the other, who kept his temper, must have been in the right. Now, the vehemence and passion the hon. Gentleman displayed in the course of his remarks have clearly shown an internal consciousness that he was defending a bad cause, and endeavouring to make violence and passion the substitutes for argument. The hon.

965
Gentleman hag also, I think, treated very unjustly the services which the Liberal party have rendered to the Roman Catholics of Ireland. The hon. Gentleman, with a natural pride, said, "We thank nobody for the emancipation of the Catholics; we have only to thank ourselves for it; it was the Irish who carried the question, with no assistance from England." I think the hon. Gentleman has misread the history of his own time. He has devoted great pains and study to the history of the Court of Rome; if he had bestowed equal attention upon the events of his own period in the United Kingdom, I think he would come to a somewhat different conclusion. Undoubtedly, the Liberal party had not the good fortune actually to carry the question of Catholic Emancipation; it was carried by the party which had systematically resisted it when proposed by others. But it was owing to the exertions of the Liberal party, and the pressing reasons they brought to bear on the case, that justice was ultimately done, and the question carried in a satisfactory manner. I do not complain of the course the Roman Catholic Members have thought fit to pursue with regard to Her Majesty's Government. I am willing to make full allowance for the strong religious feeling and natural attachment to the head of their Church. They are mistaken, and acting under a delusion; but that mistake and that delusion are to be respected. And I assure them we feel no resentment towards them; we are willing to trust the course of events, which, I hope, may lead them to take a Sounder view of their relations to the party by which Catholic emancipation was sup ported and gained. With regard to the hon. Baronet who brought forward this Motion, I not only respect his motives, but I tender him both my thanks and compliments. I compliment the lion. Baronet on the renewed proof he has given of the: fidelity of his attachment to the Church to which he belongs. I think it does him honour; now that the temporal power of Rome is in danger, the more assured it is of his vehement support. The more likely it is to lose the small remnant of the authority it once possessed, the more honourable is the zeal he manifests in his defence. Like Cato he prefers the falling cause—
"Victrix causa Deis placuit, sed victa Catoni."
The temporal power of Rome is a falling cause. It is, therefore, a fair subject of personal compliment to the hon. Baronet that in spite of the calamity that now surrounds
966
it he is still its friend, champion, and advocate, as he was in its days of greater prosperity. I think, however, the hon. Baronet has not done that cause much good by the manner in which he has brought it under discussion in the House; because, whatever service he may have thought he was rendering to the temporal power of the Pope and to the cause of the fallen Sovereigns of Italy by the statement he has made, I think, if he had known beforehand what replies would be made by my hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, his own prudence would have counselled him to be silent and to abstain from bringing down a description of the real state of the Italian question. Sir, it is manifest that Italy has been greatly benefited by the changes that have taken place. I will not now go into a repetition of the immense advantages Italy has gained by the change in its Governments. I do not, on the other hand, want to dwell on the enormities committed by those who were sent from Home under the sanction of the bend of the Roman Catholic religion, and under the sanction of their unhappy and exiled Sovereign, who lives under the protection of the Pope. I will not go into these atrocities; I will simply say that they were such as ought to deter any one from advocating a cause stained by such cruelties. If the Southern part of Italy is disturbed, it is disturbed not by internal insurrection — not by the people themselves — but totally and entirely by emissaries, the scum of the earth, sent there on purpose to murder, to plunder, to destroy by fire, and even to burn people alive. The hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Peacocke), if I understand him, says he does not wish that Italy should revert to its former condition, but that there should be a federation; and a federation, no doubt, was the plan proposed originally at Villafranca and afterwards at Zurich. But it has been stated that the people of Italy were of opinion that a federation would have been impossible—that if it had been established, it could not have held good. However that may he, the time for it has gone by; it is now an impossibility. Italy is now united, with the exception of Rome and the small portion of territory attached to it and of Venetia. The hon. Baronet says that the King of Italy will never get Romp, that the Pope will continue there for ever; and the hon. Member for Dungarvan—the expounder of the decrees of Providence—

967
says it is destined by the Almighty that the Pope should be for ever the Sovereign of Rome. As a humble individual—as a simple mortal, neither being a prophet, nor an expounder of the Divine intentions— I think it is impossible that the temporal power of the Pope can continue. My opinion is, that, sooner or later, his rule will come to an end; and, depend upon it, every year, every month of its continuance will alienate the people of Italy more and more from his spiritual authority. It is the interest of the Head of the Church to divest himself of that temporal power which has been so grievously abused by those who have exercised it under his authority and in his name. The two events are not incompatible. The hon. Member says that the Pope will for ever remain at the Vatican. I say that the temporal power of the Pope will cease, and that Rome, sooner or later, will become the capital of Italy; but the Pope might maintain his dignity as head of the Church, occupying the Vatican, and Rome at the same time being the capital of the kingdom of Italy. There is nothing incompatible in the two prophecies; and it is not impossible that we may see the realization of both. It has been stated by one of my hon. Friends that the destinies of the Pope, as regards the temporal power, are in the hands of the Emperor of the French. There is no doubt of the fact. No doubt the temporal power of the Pope, such as it is, depends entirely on the presence of the French troops in Rome. I have heard it said by Roman Catholics that it is essential that the Head of the Church should be an independent Sovereign. Is the Pope an independent Sovereign? He is maintained in his temporal authority simply by 20,000 French troops, against the will of almost the whole of his subjects. Is that the position of an independent Sovereign? Why, it is the most dependent position that an unhappy Sovereign can possibly occupy; and, depend upon it, that condition of things cannot be permanent. I will not say that the occupation of Rome by French troops is a violation of international law; because it exists at the desire and demand, and with the consent of the Sovereign of what remains of that country; but, no doubt, it is a gross violation of that principle of non-intervention which has been proclaimed by France as well as by England; and it is also at distinct variance with those declarations with which the war in Italy was commenced, the ob-
968
ject of which war was stated to be to restore Italy to herself, and to make her free from the Mediterranean to the Adriatic. Italy has not been restored to herself; Italy is not free from the Mediterranean to the Adriatic; but, on the contrary, a most important part of Italy is occupied by foreign troops for the purpose of keeping from Italy that government which it most wishes, and also maintaining a system repugnant to all the feelings of the people and inconsistent with the principles of political and civil government. Well, Sir, I cannot think that will last for ever; I cannot think the policy of France requires it; I cannot think it is for the interest of France that it should be maintained. There are persons who say—I think I heard it stated in the debate to-night—that it would be against the interest of France to have a united Italy. On the other hand,. I have heard it said as a reproach to England, that in wishing for a united Italy she wished for that which would be beneficial to France. It has been urged by those who, are opposed to the policy of Her Majesty's Government that a united Italy would be an advantage to France. Well, it would be an advantage to France; not that a united Italy would be an ally of this Power or that; but as a country which would take a leading part in the extension of civilization and commerce, it would be the friend of all European Powers and the enemy of none. As to France, a united Italy would be useful to her not only as a friend, but it would also serve as a barrier to France against any hostility from Powers on the other side of the Italian frontier. Therefore, I say it is a short sighted policy of France to view with dislike or apprehension, if she really does so the consolidation of Italy as a united kingdom. Then, as to England, it must be an advantage to this country to have knowledge diffused, commerce extended, and commercial relations established as far as possible among the various countries in Europe. I must say, therefore, that I think the hon. Baronet, with the best possible intentions to serve the cause of which he is so devoted an advocate, has made a mistake in bringing on this discussion, and giving my hon. Friend the Under Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and others, an opportunity of so completely demolishing the fragment of the case which he has made against the existing state of things. Nevertheless, as I before observed, I com-

969
pliment him on his fidelity and zeal; and I also thank him, on the part of the Government, for his compliment to us, which I feel is greater than that which we deserve, in respect of those great, and, as we think, important and advantageous changes which have been effected in the condition of Italy. If those changes be of that character, I am happy to accept the compliment. We are proud to be thought to have contributed, in the way the lion. Baronet says we have done, to an event which every person may consider a happy one. He overrates our merits; but I am not the less thankful for the kindness which he has shown us. We have preserved a strict neutrality, and adhered to the principle of non-intervention. As has been well said by one of my hon. Friends (Mr. Stansfeld), that principle does not consist in apathy and indifference, in having no opinions, no sympathies. Non-intervention consists in abstaining from action—in not interfering by force of anus in a contest in which, notwithstanding, you may feel a deep interest, and in which as between the parties you may feel a partiality towards one rather than the other. We have never disguised our sympathy with the Italians in their struggles to obtain liberty and independence. We are proud of our feeling in that respect; and, so far from considering it as any reproach —which the hon. Baronet feels it to be that we should have contributed by our advice, as the organ of the sentiments and sympathies of the British nation, to bring about the results that have been achieved, we are proud of any success that may have attended our efforts in that direction, and should be happy to see them still more successful in contributing to the perfect consolidation of Italy. Therefore, so far from feeling angry with the hon. Baronet for making what he considered to be a charge against us, we are proud of that charge. I think we have given expression to what are always the feelings of the people of this country towards those who are struggling for their independence, for their liberty, and for their political freedom, when those struggles are conducted—as the struggles of the Italian people have been—-with moderation, without violence, with wisdom, and with a most happy attainment of the objects in view. Twice in the history of the world Rome has exercised most extensive sway over a large portion of the human race. In the days of the old Romans that influence was exerted by military conquest, and the nations were
970
subdued by force of arms. At a later period the Pope, when his authority was at its height exercised a power almost supreme over the minds of men in nearly every part of Europe. The military rule was annulled by the force of the barbarians. The spiritual power has gradually waned under the influence of European enlightenment. I trust that Rome, when it becomes the capital of Italy, will again be destined to exercise, not an arbitrary power, but a great and distinguished influence over Europe, by the development of intellect, the progress of arts and sciences, the commercial activity, the political wisdom, and the general tendencies towards improvement which will there be witnessed. When that time arrives—and I trust it may not be so distant as hon. Gentlemen opposite expect—posterity will judge between those who may have contributed to that result by the wisdom of their counsels, by their advice, their knowledge, and their influence, and those who have doggedly resisted all improvement, and have been champions and defenders of everything that was corrupt, tyrannical, and oppressive in the former institutions of Italy. Posterity will judge between them, and we shall fearlessly appeal to that tribunal for a decision in our favour.

INSPECTORS OF ROMAN CATHOLIC SCHOOLS.—QUESTION.
SIR JOHN ACTONsaid, he wished to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, Whether he has reason to suppose that the Inspectors of Roman Catholic schools fail to report the actual condition of the Schools inspected by them?
MR. LOWEsaid, he thought it rather hard that he should be called on to answer questions arising out of charges which he had never made. To suppose that the heads of the Education Department would continue in the service of the Committee of the Privy Council any gentleman who reported otherwise than truthfully the condition of schools which came under their observation, was to bring a far heavier charge against his noble Friend and himself than was implied in the question as regarded these Inspectors of Roman Catholic Schools themselves.
MR. ADDERLEYsaid, he wished to explain that the words which he had used in debate on a previous evening did not fairly deserve the construction which ap-

971
peared, from the question of the hon. Baronet, to have been put upon them. Nothing had been further from his intention than to assert that the Roman Catholic Inspectors made unfaithful reports.
Motion agreed to.
House at rising to adjourn till Monday, 28th April.

DISTRESS IN IRELAND.

  POSTPONEMENT OF MOTION.
  MR. MAGUIREsaid, he should postpone the Motion on the subject of the distress in Ireland standing in his name; but he wished at the same time to call the attention of the Chief Secretary for Ireland to the fact that twenty-five deaths from starvation had lately taken place in that country.
  SIR ROBERT PEELin reply to the statement that twenty-five deaths had occurred from starvation, begged to say that such was positively not the case. Unfortunately, a number of deaths had occurred in Ireland, but he was prepared to show that the hon. Gentleman had been misinformed as to the cause; and that those unhappy circumstances were not to be attributed to the positive want of food.

EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL.

  SECOND READING DEFERRED.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE, in postponing the second reading of the Bill until after Easter, said, the impression which had prevailed that the financial results of the measure would be to put £1,000,000 of money into the pockets of the landed proprietors was an entire mistake; on the contrary, the Bill would raise from £35 to £80, the absolute burden on the heritors.
  MR. G. W. HOPEsaid, the landowners objected to the parochial schools being made stipendiaries of the Government.
  Second Reading deferred till Thursday,. 8th May.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Two o 'clock, till Monday 28th April.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1aQueenstown Improvement.
Royal Assent.—Officers' Commissions Mutiny; Marine Mutiny; India Stocks Transfer; Bleachfields (Women and Children Employment); Industrial School Acts, 1861, Amendment; Australian Colonies Government Act Amendment; Sir John Soane's Museums Great Northern Railway (No. 1).

EDUCATION —THE REVISED CODE OF REGULATIONS.

  REVISED CODE WITH CHANGES PRESENTED.
  EARL GRANVILLErose for the purpose of fulfilling the pledge he made to the House the other night, to lay on the table the alterations proposed to be made in the Revised Code. (The noble Earl then presented, by command, the changes proposed to be introduced into the Revised Code of the Committee of Council on Education, as last printed.) He would very briefly state their substance, without entering into any arguments upon them. First of all,
  832
  with respect to the grant. What was not proposed was that 4s. a year should fee given to the schools in virtue of the average attendance of the scholars at the school, and that the rest of the grant should depend on individual examination, the school being entitled to 8s. for every child who should have attended 200 times, and on examination in reading, writing, and arithmetic, not fail, in any one. On failure in any one of these elementary branches a third of the 8s. would be deducted. With regard to the mode of examination, the grouping by age was given up and what Was now proposed was that, instead of four standard examinations, two should be added, making six standard examinations altogether, and the children were, to be., examined according to those standards in the manner in which the managers or masters should present them. But the school was riot to receive any grant—and he, was sure their Lordships would not think this condition reasonable—in virtue of children only passing the standard examination which they had succeeded in passing in the previous year. With regard to the obligations of the managers towards existing pupil-teachers the question would be arranged thus—in case, under the operation of the Revised Code the grants received by the managers should not suffice to meet the existing payments to the pupil-teachers, the central office would undertake that their full salaries should be provided for them during their period of service, so that no burden on that account would be thrown upon the managers. These were the changes to which the Government were prepared to agree. His own individual opinion of the modifications which had been assented to was that they were not improvements, because their tendency would be to diminish the economical working of the system, and in some measure to weaken the stimulus by which they wished to correct the defects pointed out by the Royal Commission. The Government had endeavoured fully and fairly to meet the general feeling exhibited in another place. For, thank God, we did not live under an absolute Government, and therefore the general feelings and opinions of all parties could be consulted. At the same time he was bound to say, that if any further relaxations were made, the scheme itself would not, in his opinion, be worth continuing; but he hoped and believed, that even with the present concessions, enormous advantages would be derived

  833
  from the plan now to be carried out, because it would enable them to get rid of all the complications so much complained of, and in favour of which no one had said a single word. It would simplify the arrangements between the Privy Council Office and the managers, and would give a great stimulus to the education of the labouring population. There was one other point on which he was desirous of saying a word. He had been appealed to by a good many of Her Majesty's Inspectors of Schools to defend them from aspersions which had been cast upon them. Some of those gentlemen he did not know, beyond that he had the pleasure of corresponding with them; others were old and valued friends. Now, he thought their Lordships would bear him out in saying that, in any thing that he had said in that House he did not remember one word otherwise than in just praise of the meritorious exertions of that valuable body of men in carrying out the existing minutes of the Privy Council. He had also read very carefully the speeches of the Vice President in another place, and he could not find in them any aspersions whatever upon the Inspectors; nor did the Report of the Royal Commission contain remarks which could be construed into anything of the kind. Some individual charges had been made in another place by a right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Adderley), who had addressed that House with very great ability with regard to the Roman Catholic Inspectors; but a correspondence had taken place between that right hon. Gentleman and the senior Roman Catholic Inspector, and he was sure that that correspondence would be perfectly satisfactory to the parties concerned. The noble Lord on the back bench (Lord Belper) had, indeed, the other night stated that if the Report of the Commissioners was correct, the Inspectors must have deceived the public. But his noble Friend, he apprehended, had used that expression only argumentatively, and did not intend to draw from the Report any inference of, that kind. He did not speak after the noble Lord, or he should have alluded to that remark at the time; but his noble Friend the Lord Privy Seal pointed out the very different duty imposed upon the Inspectors and the Assistant Commissioners. The inference, indeed, could not possibly be correct, because the Royal Commissioners founded the greater part of their charges with regard to deficiency; in reading upon the reports of the In-
  834
  spectors, there being no less than seven Inspectors whose reports had a bearing upon that point. Her Majesty's Inspectors were a most faithful body of very able men, who had acted most efficiently under the existing system, and under the instructions which they had received. Those instructions applied to the examination of pupil-teachers, but not with the same strictness to the examination of individual scholars. He therefore begged to bear his testimony that the Inspectors had discharged their duty in the honourable manner which might have been expected.
  LORD BELPERbegged to say, that nothing could have been further from his intention than to cast any imputation on the Inspectors; so far from that, his argument was intended to have quite a contrary bearing. When the Inspectors reported that in the case of 80 or 90 per cent of the scholars reading and writing had been well taught, and the Commissioners reported so very differently, he expressed his regret that the Inspectors themselves were not called upon to explain what they meant, instead of having the explanation put into their mouth. Had they been asked, they would probably have been able to give an explanation which might have reconciled this apparent contradiction.
  EARL STANHOPEsaid, he was glad that the modifications had been laid in a tangible form before the House; but any comments upon them would be better postponed until the papers were printed. There was one point, however, to which he wished to call attention, and that was with reference to a pledge which had been given in another place—which was indeed embodied in Mr. Walpole's 12th Resolution—that in future years no changes should be made in the system of public education without being first brought by the Government of the day under the cognizance of Parliament. He should be glad to learn from the noble Earl, that if any changes in future should be made, they would be laid before Parliament in the beginning- of the Session.
  EARL GRANVILLEwas understood to say that the whole matter would come on for discussion on an early day after the Easter recess.

FORTIFICATIONS AT SPITHEAD.

  QUESTION.
  LORD VIVIAN, in rising, according to notice, to ask Her Majesty's Government

  835
  what are their Intentions with respect to the Fortifications at Spithead, said, that after the very important debate which had just occurred in another place, nothing short of the extreme anxiety created by recent events would have induced him to bring the question under the notice of their Lordships. Now he understood that the result of that discussion amounted to no more than this—that it was the intention of the Government to re-open the whole question of the consideration of the Report of the Defence Commission. He for one wished that the Government had gone a step further, and had pledged themselves to have withheld their hands from proceeding with those fortifications until the result of experiments which were now being made was accurately known. On a matter of such vast importance he conceived that that was the only course which they could adopt. We were now in a transition state. So rapid were the changes now being made in artillery that it was impossible to form a judgment as to how far science could be carried in that direction. Ships and forts might be constructed to-day which might be supposed to be impregnable and invulnerable, and which to-morrow might be proved to be worth nothing. Within the last few days an experiment had been made on a target similar in all respects to the side of the Warrior at a distance of 200 yards, which proved that such iron plates could not resist the enormous projectile force of some descriptions of cannon. He was told that the constructor of the gun which pierced the target said that when rifled it might be made to penetrate a similar target at a distance of 800 or 1,000 yards. Until that was proved, however, this question of the Spithead forts was of little moment. The anchorage which a hostile fleet might take up before those forts for the attack of the dockyard could be at a distance not short of 1,000 yards, and therefore until the experiment of the efficiency of guns at that range had been tested the question of forts was nothing worth. Now that the minds of scientific men were occupied with the question of attack and defence, it was impossible to say what aspect it might ultimately assume. He thought it not improbable that after a considerable expenditure of labour and of money we should return to the point from which we had started, and that we should find that the power of attack was, as it had heretofore been, somewhat greater than the power of
  836
  defence. But be that as it might, he ventured to think that guns of any calibre could not be used so successfully on board a ship as in batteries. Not, however, for for the reason assigned by the noble Earl (the Earl of Hardwicke) who had the other night pointed out so lucidly the difference in warfare which must prevail hereafter, and suggested a doubt whether storage could be found for the increased charges of powder and the larger shot which must be used for fighting the largest classes of guns. But the noble Earl probably forgot that while the quantity of powder for each gun would be greatly increased, the number of guns on board any particular ship would be greatly diminished, so that storage for the powder and shot might be as easily found as at present. But apart from the question of floating batteries and forts, it was desirable to ascertain what would be the condition of a dockyard when the fleet was all converted into iron ships. It should be remembered, that if such a change were effected, the requirement for timber, and masts, and cordage, would be greatly decreased; and he believed that a sum far less than that which it was proposed should be incurred in fortifications and forts would then be sufficient to secure such stores against any attack from a hostile fleet; He wished, however, to confine himself simply upon that occasion to the question of which he had given notice; and he therefore begged to ask the Government, Whether or not they were about to proceed with the forts at Spithead; or whether it was to be understood that they had abandoned for the moment all intention of proceeding with those forts; and whether they were directing their attention exclusively to the construction of an iron fleet, which, in his opinion, was at present a question of far greater importance than the question even of the construction of forts at Spithead?
  EARL DE GREY AND RIPONsaid, he was glad that this subject had been brought under the notice of their Lordships, in the special aspect in which his noble Friend had introduced it. The point to which his noble Friend had directed their attention, and which had hardly been touched upon in the course of the very interesting discussion raised by a noble Earl (the Earl of Hardwicke) the other evening, was one of very considerable importance, and he could assure their Lordships that Her Majesty's Government were very glad to find that it had been

  837
  made the subject of so much inquiry and consideration, both in Parliament and among the public out of doors. He was not surprised at the effect which had been produced in the public mind by the intelligence which had recently arrived in this country of the naval action in the Hampton Roads. It might be true that those who had given their attention to this subject, and who possessed a scientific and professional acquaintance with its details, had not learned much that was new from the accounts of that engagement. It had, however, brought before the eyes of the unscientific public in a striking and practical shape the great changes which had taken place in naval warfare, and the altered conditions under which in future it must be conducted. It was no wonder that the public mind should have been startled by the intelligence. Their Lord ships would, however, agree with him that it was not desirable Her Majesty's Government should take any hasty action founded upon a single event, however important and striking it might be. It was their duty, on the contrary, to endeavour, by careful consideration and inquiry, to ascertain what was the real bearing and importance of that event, to weigh it in connection with the experiments recently instituted, and not to abandon too hastily a course adopted by the Government and approved by Parliament after full discussion. He would explain to their Lord ships as briefly as he could what was the present position of the matter. Their Lordships were aware that the Government, in submitting the plan which they had adopted, in pursuance of the recommendation of the Defence Commissioners, included in their works the erection of three forts at Spithead. Parliament sanctioned the proposal, and the Government subsequently entered into a contract for the building of the foundations of these forts. The contract was by measurement, founded on a fixed scale of prices, and the cost of the works to be erected under it was to be £230,000. The contractors had commenced their operations. At the Horse Sand a staging had been erected, and an iron cylinder had been sunk in the bottom of the sea to a considerable depth. At the second fort a similar staging had been made, and a cylinder also sunk. At the third point, No Man's Land, although a stage had been erected, it had not been completed. But little had been actually done, but the con-
  838
  tractor, with the view of executing his contract, had got together a considerable plant, together with stone for the foundation and other materials. He had possessed himself of steamers for carrying workmen and materials from the shore, and a pier had been built in Stokes Bay to facilitate the work. Considerable expense had, therefore, been incurred in carrying out the contracts, when the news arrived from America. The intelligence of course immediately attracted the attention of the Government, as it had done that of both Houses of Parliament. Finding that there was an evident wish on the part of the Legislature and the public that the question of the construction of these forts should be very carefully reconsidered by the light of recent events in America, and having no desire to adhere obstinately to the course previously determined upon, Her Majesty's Government had determined, as had been already announced, to refer the question of the construction and erection of these forts back to the Defence Commissioners. The fact was, however, that the question, had attracted the notice of the Government at an earlier period, and the question had been referred back to the Commissioners-last year by the late Secretary of State for War, and they had then made a special and very able Report on this particular branch of the subject. The matter would now be reconsidered, and, in order to obtain the best scientific and professional advice, Her Alajesty's Government had determined to add to the Commission one or two naval and military officers, whose attainments would give additional weight to their recommendations. It would be the duty of that Commission to examine the question anew from a scientific point of view, and to report their opinion to the Government. When that Report was made, it would be for the Government, on their responsibility, to weigh the facts of the case and the opinion of those officers, and to determine for themselves what course they thought it their duly to recommend to Parliament. Meanwhile, and pending the reconsideration of the question, the Government had determined to suspend the works that were going on at these three forts. Of course some expense would be incurred in the shape of compensation to the contractors; but the Government thought it better, in order to leave themselves freedom of action, to suspend the works. The cost of these forts had been estimated at £840.000, the sum of £230,000 being the coat of the

  839
  foundations. Their Lordships must not, however, imagine, that if these works were suspended, there would be left out of the sums voted by Parliament any considerable surplus which could be applied to any other purpose—such, for instance as the building of iron ships. Their Lordships would remember that the sum proposed by the Commissioners in their Report to be expended for fortifications, exclusive of floating defences and armaments, was between £10,000,000 and £11,000,000. Of this Bum an outlay of £5,000,000, in round numbers, for new works received the sanction of Parliament two years ago. In order to put themselves in a position to at once carry out a portion of the works which had been sanctioned, the Government, two years ago, obtained from Parliament powers to raise on loan a sum of £2,000,000. This was the only sum at the present moment in the hands of the Government available for that purpose. Of the £2,000,000 a sum of £900,000 had already been expended for land and works; a further sum of £700,000 would be required immediately for the purchase of land, and the balance of the £2,000,000 would be expended before the end of July next, on works actually in progress. Under these circumstances, their Lordships would see that the suspension which had taken place of the works at Spithead would not give any important or appreciable sum to the Government for any other purpose than that for which the £2,000,000 had been voted. It would be for the Government when the Commission had reported, and when they came to Parliament —as they would have to do in the present Session—to ask for means to continue works already sanctioned, but for the continuation of which money had not yet been voted—it would be for the Government to say then what course they would take.
  That was the present state of the question as regarded those forts at Spithead; hut, as the whole subject of our national defences was one of very great importance, he would ask permission of their Lordships to refer to one or two of the wider topics touched on in the speech of his noble Friend. In the first place he would observe—because there seemed to be considerable misapprehension in the minds of many persons on this point—that the only question really raised by the recent events in the American waters was one which related to the forts at Spithead—that was, to
  840
  isolated forts in the sea. They heard some persons say that the question was one involving the consideration of an expenditure of £11,000,000—that it was a question of stopping all fortifications as land and sea defences, and substituting for them vessels of the description of the Monitor. But he was sure that none of their Lordships took this view of the matter. He knew that such was not the opinion of his noble Friend who had introduced the subject that evening, and he was happy to say that he could quote, in support of his own view of the question, the opinion of a distinguished and able naval officer, who was one of the most determined opponents of the forts at Spithead—namely, Captain Coles. He was sure that the other opponents of the Spithead forts would accept that gallant officer as an authority; and, in his second pamphlet, it would be found that his objection was limited to the forts in the sea. Now, as regarded those forts, their Lordships would recollect that in their Report the Commissioners recommended that forts and floating defences should be combined together. The Commissioners did not say, "You ought to have nothing but those forts." They said, "You should have them to aid and assist floating defences;" and although Her Majesty's Government had not included floating defences in the works for which they had obtained powers to raise the loan, yet there could be no doubt, after the speech of his noble Friend at the head of the Admiralty the other night, that the question of the efficiency of these defences had for a very considerable time engaged, and was still engaging, the attention of the Government. The view of the Government, when coming to Parliament for authority to raise the loan, was that when money was to be borrowed it was better to confine the application of the borrowed money to the building of permanent works. Some persons might be disposed to question the soundness of that opinion; but he mentioned it for the purpose of assuring their Lordships that it was only in consequence of that view that no sum for the building of floating defences had been included in the amount originally asked for by the Government. We were now told that forts were of no use, and that we ought to have nothing but floating defences for our dockyards and arsenals. But if we adopted this advice we should, he believed, be liable to incur those very dangers which the fortifications were intended to guard against, and which formed

  841
  the main foundation of the Commissioners, recommendations, and of the sanction which their Lordships' House, he believed unanimously, and the other House of Parliament almost unanimously, had given to the proposal of the Government. The argument then used was based on the fact of the facilities possessed by steam vessels for running into any particular harbour on which it might be proposed to make an attack, at a time when our Channel fleet was not present; but if we had only a limited number of these Monitors—say twenty or thirty as proposed by Capt. Coles—round our coast, and there was not time to concentrate them at the point of attack, we should be open to the same danger as that to which under the old system of naval warfare the absence of our Channel fleet from the point that was immediately threatened would expose us; so that if we wanted security by means of floating defences alone, we should have to provide at each of our ports and arsenals a great permanent fleet of those floating defences. That would be a proceeding involving an immense cost; and, in addition, it would have the effect of tying up at those particular points a large naval force that might otherwise, to a great extent, be available for various important operations. It would, in fact, reduce us very much to the condition described in the discussion two years ago by his noble Friend the late Lord Herbert, of whom he would say in passing that nut the least of his claims to the grateful remembrance of his countrymen was the aid he had given in carrying through Parliament to a successful issue the system of defences which had met with such general approbation. Lord Herbert had observed, that if we defended our dockyards because they contained our fleet, and kept our fleet there for the purpose of defending our dockyards, we might as well abolish both dockyards and fleet altogether. That was a reductio ad absurdum; but it served to illustrate the difficulty in which those who would trust to floating defences alone were placed by their own argument. It appeared to him that what was required for our defence was a combination of floating and fixed defences. They had been told only a few days before that vessels of the description of the Monitor were invulnerable — that they could not be injured by anything which might be brought against them, and that they would pass harmless by our forts. That notion of their invulnerability had been put an end to by the recent experiments.
  842
  His noble Friend (Lord Vivian) had asked him to give some description or account of what had taken place at Shoeburyness within the last few days on an occasion when he was present; but it would be superfluous of him to occupy their Lordships' time at any length on this point after the very able and graphic description which had appeared in The Times newspaper, for the accuracy of which description he was prepared to vouch. He did not wish to press the results of those experiments a step further than they really went; but thought they at least showed this—that whereas it had hitherto been supposed that at 200 yards it was not possible to pierce a target made on the model of the Warrior's side, it was now clear that at such distance a shot from a smooth-bore gun would perforate that target as if you had drilled a hole through it. This showed what artillery we already possessed, and he believed that we had not yet reached the limit of the power of artillery. If what had been done at Shoeburyness had been effected at only 200 yards, it did not follow that the same result might not be obtained at 400 yards. He might say that he had every reason to believe that such a result could be had at a greater distance than 200 yards. The gun from which the shot had been fired was made for a 300 lb. shot; and there was every likelihood that a shot of that weight would have at 400 yards a momentum sufficient to produce the same result as the lighter shot had produced at 200. But, more than this, scientific men, gunmakers, and others, were of opinion that a much more powerful gun than the 300-pounder could he made. Sir William Armstrong—a cautious man in speaking of anything which had not had the test of experience—had assured him that day, that although he would not speak with certainty on the point, he had no doubt in his own mind that a gun could be made which would be effective at the mean range between the two forts at Spithead. One day it was believed that the plate would heat the gun; the next day a gun was made which pierced the plate. They had been told that a 1801b. shot had failed to go through the side of the Monitor: when it came to the test, it was ascertained that it had not done so because too low a charge of powder had been used. The same experiment had been tried the other day, a 2001b. shot being fired with 101b. of powder without any effect; and even the 300lb. gun, with a charge of 401b. of powder failed to pierce

  843
  the target; but when the charge was increased to 50lb. the shot went through. In the opinion of the most competent scientific men the result of the experiments had shown, upon the whole, a steady average superiority of the gun over the plates. At all events there was a limit, which, in the opinion of the best scientific authorities, must be nearly attained, to the thickness of armour plating that could be put upon a seagoing vessel, while the power of artillery was capable of development to a point which was much more distant. Great difficulties and great expenditure necessarily attended a period of transition like the present, and it was, of course, desirable to take no steps which further experience might force them to reverse. But in the mean time it was absolutely impossible to stand still. The country must be defended, and they should take care, while in this state of transition, that the security of the country was not endangered. He believed it would be a most unwise proceeding hastily to suspend or abandon the erection of these forts. Care had been taken to render the foundations of those in process of construction sufficiently strong to bear any weight of iron with which the superstructure might be defended. Upon a fort plates of such thickness could be laid as to make it absolutely invulnerable, and guns could be mounted of any size that science might produce. These would have the advantage of resting on a solid platform, instead of the moving platform of a ship's deck—a consideration which ought not to be overlooked in discussing the question. It was also proposed that floating defences should be combined with forts; and if these could only detain the enemy for a short time under the fire of guns such as they had seen the other day, or the still more powerful artillery which might yet be produced, he ventured to say that a very good account would be given of any iron fleet in the world. Forts, also, were of great value to the floating defences, as points upon which to advance or retire. Many of those who paid great attention to the details of the recent naval engagement in America seemed to have overlooked the fact, that when the Merrimac retired under the guns of a fort, the Monitor, although she was stated to have been uninjured in the contest, did not venture to pursue her. He did not wish to lay undue stress on this circumstance, but it ought not to be lost sight of.
  844
  Having consulted persons whose opinions were of the very highest importance, he was led to believe that the final result of the experiments would leave the relative position of ships and forts very much where it was previously. The question was one of importance not only to this country, but to Europe generally, and he knew that the proceedings of the British Government were watched with great interest by foreign nations. Their Lordships, therefore, might like to hear an extract from the letter of a distinguished foreign officer, Captain Brialmont, The author of an excellent life of the Duke of Wellington—
  "I have just read in the papers that, by order of the Government, the works at Spithead have been suspended, and that you are returning to Dundas's old idea of substituting iron-plated ships for iron-plated towers. I think this very absurd; for the famous battle of the Monitor and the Merrimac has proved nothing that you did not know already; and your experiments at Shoeburyness are in my eyes much more conclusive. I can hardly believe that your, engineers will consent to have fixed iron-plated batteries replaced by movable iron-plated batteries, which are twice as expensive, and twice as uncertain in their fire."
  Under these circumstances their Lordships, he hoped, would not hesitate to approve the course which Her Majesty's Government had taken. This was not a question on which they ought to act hastily. The Government desired to consider it in the fairest possible spirit, and with that object they had now referred the matter to a Commission of scientific and practical men. The Government were not wedded obstinately to any particular scheme, but when the Report of that Commission was issued, they would feel it their bounden duty, after mature deliberation, to recommend those measures which they conceived to be necessary for the defence of our ports and arsenals, and in that course they hoped to receive the same support from Parliament which had been given for the same object two years ago.
  THE DUKE OF CAMBRIDGE: My Lords, I feel some hesitation in prolonging the discussion which was raised by the question of the noble Lord, and which, I think, has been fully and effectually answered by my noble Friend. But, perhaps, it may be right that I should make some few observations on this important military and naval question, which occupies the attention not only of your Lordships' House and the other House of Parliament, but, I may

  845
  say, the country at large. In my recollection there has been no military or naval question which of late years has so entirety engrossed the public attention as, on the one hand, the power of resistance by iron plates, whether for ships or forts, and, on the other, the power of attack by the artillery of the present day. It appears to me that in considering this question circumstances have been introduced which lead to some confusion; and among others the valuable opinion of my late friend, Sir Richard Dundas, has given to the discussion an appearance different from what it really ought to present. I must explain to your Lordships that there are two distinct bodies in existence. One, the Defence Commission, was established with a view of giving to the country their advice and opinion upon the national defences. The other, the Defence Committee, was a Committee formed, I may say, within the Government, and from my position as Commander-in-chief I happen to be its President. The details contained in the Report of the Defence Commission having been submitted to the Defence Committee, in order that they might communicate their opinion to the Government, I was, of course, aware- of the opinion entertained by the late Sir Richard Dundas. Indeed, I may state, that when this question of the forts of Spithead was first brought under the notice of the Defence Committee, I very much agreed with the lute Sir Richard Dundas in thinking that we should be acting unwisely if we only looked at the forts and did not at the same time pay attention to floating defences. I believe the noble Duke the First Lord of the Admiralty can corroborate my statement that when Sir Richard Dundas wrote that strong letter on the subject of iron-plated ships he in no respect wished to convey that his opinion was unfavourable to forts; he only wished to assert that forts would not be ready in sufficient time, and therefore that ships ought to be prepared pari passu with forts. In that opinion I fully coincided; and it was after considering the question and agreeing with reference to it, that my gallant Friend the late Admiral wrote that letter. With regard to what has happened in America, I think it bears out the opinion expressed by my gallant Friend, that it is only by combined defences of forts and ships that an important roadstead, such as Spithead, can be and ought to be defended. Indeed, I cannot help feeling a strong conviction, particularly after what has happen-
  846
  ed at Shoeburyness, that, so far from retrograding, we ought to continue the course which was originally contemplated— that of combining ships with forts for this special purpose. Look at what happened at Shoeburyness. I believe that we have: not nearly arrived at the limit of the power of the artillery which can be produced. I, like my noble Friend, have communicated with: that distinguished and able man Sir William Armstrong to-day; and although he never likes to express an opinion unless he knows: by experiment that he can produce what he says he will, still he has the strongest conviction that he can make a gun of a calibre of 600lb., which, if rifled, will throw a shot which at 2,200 yards will produce an effect equal to, if not greater than that produced at 200 yards on Tuesday. This meets one objection which is brought against the result of the experiment at Shoeburyness. It is said, "Oh, look at the range; it was only 200 yards, and no ship would come within that distance of a fort." If the range could not be extended, that argument would be worth a great deal; but I am convinced that the range can be greatly enlarged: and if we got only half of what Sir William Armstrong promises, or 1,100 yards, these Spithead forts would at once become invaluable. The forts would also be of the greatest importance in supporting a fleet, which I apprehend will be composed of ships very different from sea-going vessels. I take it that the floating defences of Spithead will be vessels somewhat analagous to the Monitor, and which, although very powerful, must require a certain amount of support. That support they will find in the forts; and I suppose that if an attack is ever expected, they will be concentrated round the forts, ready to rush out, in the manner of a sortie on land, against any naval force which may be attacking the entrance to Spithead. There is also another consideration. We can all foresee that artillery may be greatly improved and its power extended; but I have great doubts—of course, not being a naval man, I speak with all diffidence—but I have great doubts whether you can much increase the thickness of the plates to be placed upon your ships. We have got to 4½ inches, and I think that the noble Duke the other night said something about trying 5½ inches, but I doubt whether he will go much beyond that. We know that that thickness of plate has already been pierced with facility, and therefore it seems to be unlikely that you will be able to make your

  847
  ships invulnerable. But that does not apply to forts. Upon them you may, if you please, place a foot of iron; and therefore the increased power of artillery, although it may prove fatal to ships, will by no means so entirely dispose of forts. Another very important question is as to the possibility of carrying these heavy guns on board ships. I questioned many naval men upon the subject the other day, and the general opinion seemed to be that it would be possible to carry this 3001b. gun, which weighs twelve tons, on board ship; but we had a proof of the difficulty which might be experienced in working it in the fact that it required 200 artillerymen to move it over a portion of the ground at Shoeburyness which was rather soft. In a battery Sir William Armstrong says that he could, by means of machinery, work one of these heavy guns with only five men; but on board ship, although, no doubt, some machinery might be employed, yet the very motion of the vessel would render its application more difficult than in a stationary fort. Therefore I think it is very questionable whether a ship can carry much heavier guns than those with which they are now armed. I have no doubt that within twelve months we shall have a gun of twice the calibre of the 300-pounder which has done such feats at Shoeburyness. Nor do I expect that we shall stop there, if it is thought necessary to have still heavier ordnance. These great guns, it must he remembered, require very large charges; and as a ship is required to carry ammunition for a long voyage, it becomes a question how you can find storage for the large supplies required for her large guns. On Tuesday we tried charges of 401b. and 50 lb. for the 300-pounder gun, and for the 600-pounder we hear talk of charges of 80 lb. and 100 lb. How are you in a small ship to stow away the enormous amount of ammunition which would be required for the service of such guns as these? In the case of forts no such difficulty would arise. In them you can make any arrangements you like, and store up as much ammunition as you please. Therefore, although I would on no account overlook the importance of the experiments which we have witnessed, and of the actual occurences which have taken place in America, yet all these circumstances lead me, and I think ought to lead the country, to the conclusion that the Government have been right in inking the course which they have hitherto adopted, and that it would have been very
  848
  wrong for them to have suddenly altered their whole arrangements on account of what has occurred. In making so great a change as is by some persons desired we ought not to be carried away by the impulse of the moment. A week ago everybody was saying, "There is an end of forts —the thing is absurd; you have now arrived at invulnerable ships." A week has elapsed, further experiments have taken place at Shoeburyness, and every one now says, "Every ship is vulnerable; there is no question upon that point." Thus within a fortnight at least a portion of the public have entirely changed their opinions. I will not say which of those opinions is the right one. I have always been of one opinion, and that is that the original plan, although it might be open to modifications, was the right one and ought to be adhered to. I think that Her Majesty's Government is wise not to give up that plan, but to pause, and to give to the country another opportunity of expressing an opinion upon it. Still I do hope that that pause is not to be a prolonged one, but that before long we may come to some decision. I will tell you why. Because, while we are pausing we shall be defenceless, and that of all arrangements would be the most unfortunate one that could be adopted. Let us proceed steadily, consistently, and without hesitation in one uniform course of action— that course of action, of course, which is most advantageous to the best interests of the country—and let us not be biassed by any accident which may give to the gun or the ship the preponderance for the hour. That is not the way in which to decide so important a question, and I hope that it will not be the course which Her Majesty's Government will adopt; indeed, I feel sure that it will not. I believe, that if ever it was proved to the satisfaction of military and naval men that a combination of defences was essential in such a position as that of Spithead, such has been fully and fairly demonstrated by the last experiments at Shoeburyness, and I venture to think even by what happened the other day in America. Because what my noble Friend said is fully borne out by the newspaper report, namely, that when the Merrimac was to a certain extent injured by the Monitor she retired under the cover of the forts, and the Monitor did not pursue her or venture to expose herself at close quarters to the guns of those fortifications. After the experiments at Shoeburyness people have been much surprised

  849
  that in America the ships were so little injured: but I should be inclined to suppose that this arose from the American guns being all shell guns, and throwing nothing but hollow shot; while the shot with which such great effects were produced at Shoeburynesson Tuesday were solid shot. Nor ought we to overlook the charges of powder that were used in the two cases. When we used charges of 40 lb. of powder, the target resisted the shot; but when we used a charge of 50 lb. of powder with a shot of 150 lb., the effect was, as we know, very remarkable. The Americans, on the other hand, used only 121b. or 141b. of powder to a shot of 180 lb. The result was, that the American guns were comparatively useless. It is clear, therefore, that the amount of powder for the charge is a very important element in the question. I have thought it right, my Lords, to go into some detail on this subject, because I think that such an important question as this should be thoroughly sifted, and that the country should clearly understand it. This is no mere party question, but a question of vital importance to the security of the country, and it cannot be too much discussed. We ought to give it the most careful and deliberate consideration, and having once made up our minds, we ought to act with energy and steadily adhere to our course. In conclusion, I trust the Government will come as soon as they can to a decision as to the steps they are prepared to take in regard to the fortifications.
  THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGH: My Lords, the speeches of the illustrious Duke and of the noble Earl the Under Secretary for War have left hardly a word for any one to say on this subject, so fully have they entered on every point of importance. I owe an apology, therefore, to your Lord ships for the few observations which I wish to make, because I take a very strong interest in the question. It appears to me, that if the Ministers were right last year when, with the general acquiescence, they determined to build the three forts, there is nothing whatever in the events which have recently taken place in America, or in the experiments which have been made here, which should induce them to change their opinion. They may be very right in not proceeding hurriedly in the matter, but I do trust they will not proceed tardily. Somehow or other it was managed that all the fine weather of last year was lost to this work. I hope another summer will
  850
  not be thrown away, but that during the fine weather, whenever it comes, the Government will proceed with these forts. And what is to be the cost of these works? Why, my Lords, they will not cost more than three iron ships. You have to decide whether you will have three forts carrying some 300 guns—a permanent and lasting defence—or three ships carrying 30 or 36 guns, of which the duration cannot be exactly calculated, but would not probably exceed ten or fifteen years. The state of the question in regard to the iron ships seems to me to be this:—I think it is ascertained that a ship can be made invulnerable against large shot thrown with a small charge, or against ordinary shot with a large charge; but if a large shot be thrown with a very large charge, it can penetrate the side of any ship which has yet been constructed. It appears to be consistent with reason that whatever advance may be made in strengthening the sides of ships, equal or greater advances can be made in augmenting the power of the attacking force. So that we may consider it a proved and almost admitted fact that no side of a ship can be built which is not to be perforated by shot. But, observe, there is a necessary limit to the strength which can be given to the side of the ship, and, further, that there is a necessary limit to the weight of the guns which a ship can carry, and which can be worked on hoard. But there is no assignable limit whatever to the strength which can be given to an iron fort or to the power which can be given to the guns with which the fort may be mounted. It is by means of these forts that we desire to resist the inferior and unequal attacks of iron ships. Your Lordships must bear in mind that this is more a naval than a military question. I hold that the Government have done extremely well in placing a naval officer on the Committee which is to consider the subject. For my own part, if I were in the situation of the noble Duke, I should go to Sir William Parker or Sir George Seymour, as the two best seamen we have; and also, perhaps, to the efficient officers who have successively commanded the Excellent in Portsmouth harbour, because I think we could not obtain sounder information or more intelligent opinions anywhere else, and it is always well to go direct to the best source. The advice which the wise have given is that before proceeding to action on any matter we ought to consider all the difficulties and objections

  851
  connected with it, and to balance them carefully; but that when once we have, come to a decision, we ought not to allow any event which shall occur, unless of the gravest importance, and one which could not before have been at all contemplated, to divert us from our purpose, I trust the Government will follow that rule in the course which they adopt on this subject. If, we could always be sure we should possess a superior fleet, no doubt we could dispense with the forts at Spithead. A superior fleet lying there would not be attacked in all probability, or, if attacked, would be able: to defeat the enemy. But the advantage of possessing forts is that it is no longer necessary to keep, so large a fleet at hand. Your ships become available for other purposes, and the forts afford at all times a refuge and protection to an inferior or crippled force. I cannot understand how any one, looking at the comparative smallness of the cost and the immense value of the, forts, can hesitate for a moment as to the course which should be pursued. As to Portsmouth will say nothing, because it is not necessary connected with the question of these forts; but I will say a few words upon another point which is strongly impressed upon my mind, and to which a noble and gallant, Friend of mine has already drawn attention. It is not only the application of steam to navigation, but yet more the invention, of these iron men-of-war, which has entirely altered our position relatively, to other States. In former wars we derived vast advantages from, the possession of a great maritime, commerce, which furnished us with a supply of; skilful seamen. But these iron ships can be navigated by landsmen, who, in the course of two or three weeks, can acquire their "sea legs" as well as the best seaman who ever trod the quarter-deck of a man-of-war. There is, consequently, no country on the Continent which is not capable of putting forth a navy, and they all appear desirous of at once doing so. The engineer is not a seaman, the gunner is not a seaman. We stand, therefore, on equal terms with all the nations of the Continent, who are each striving, in a spirit of rivalry, to obtain a fleet. It is only by instant action, by using our superior financial means and the advantages which our manufactures and the possession of iron give us—it is only by doing this at once and with a will, that we can possibly maintain that position of preeminence which we have hitherto enjoyed.
  852
  I heard with great interest the noble Duke at the head of the Admiralty speak the other night of the iron ships which the Government are disposed to build. I confess, however, I did not infer from his speech that he and; the Government; were fully alive to the circumstances of difficulty and danger in which, we stand. This is not a time when we can be satisfied with mere ordinary measures, or with doing, only that to which no one can very strongly object. We are in a position in which it is absolutely necessary for us to make, a great effort, be the cost what it may; and place ourselves at once in a position of maritime superiority. It was justly said by Lord Palmerston some years ago that the application of steam to navigation; had made a, bridge between this country and the Continent. This, no doubt, materially altered our position in relation to the Continent; but the invention of iron ships is much worse; and unless we apply all our energies to uphold our predominance at sea, our position is reversed, and our commerce is at the mercy of those who may become our enemies, and may deprive us of the little security which remains to us, and of that which how enables us to keep our shores from invasion. For years it has been my conviction that, ultimately, we shall be compelled to fight for our homes upon the soil of England, and all the events which are taking place only strengthen that belief in my mind. I will not ask the illustrious Duke what his opinion may be as to our present state of preparation; but as an individual Member of this House I may express my opinion that our means of defence are utterly inadequate, and that we ought at once to turn our attention to the provision not merely of maritime means of defence, but of those means of defence which we must use in the event of an invasion of our shores having been effected.
  THE DUKE OF SOMERSET: My Lords, there are one or two observations which I wish to make. I wish to confirm the statement made by the illustrious Duke in reference to the opinion of my late Friend Sir Richard Dundas, because his opinion was quoted as being very adverse to the forts at Spithead, and as desiring to do away with them, and to substitute floating defences. In the early part of 1861 I had naturally several conversations with him upon this question of defence, as well as with other officers; and he then stated to me that he thought it very desirable to

  853
  press more on the Defence Committee the importance of floating defences, and that he was very desirous to put that forward if, by so doing, he would not embarrass the Government. I told him at once that my wish was—and I was sure it was the wish of the Government—before we entered into such a large expenditure, to have the matter fully discussed on every side, and that I thought he was quite right, as a naval officer in a high position, to state his views as strongly as possible, in order to bring them before the attention of the Defence Committee, and to have them thoroughly sifted. It was with that intention that he wrote the letter of the 8th of February, 1861, which, when it was received at the Horse Guards, was referred to the Defence and Fortifications Committee for their report. They went into an investigation at some length, although upon some points I regret that the matter was not gone into at greater length. I should have liked some officers to have been called who were not called, and to have had the evidence of Captain Cowper Coles on that occasion; because I think the Report would have been more satisfactory to the public than it has been since considered. With regard to the general question of these forts and defences, the House will allow me to say that there are two great objects to be attained by these defences— one is to defend the country against the attack of an enemy, and the other is to defend it against panics at home. We have really had so many panics within the last few years that some means of thorough defence are absolutely necessary. Some years ago these defences were commenced, not merely to prevent an invasion, but to prevent the alarm of an invasion. A few weeks ago, as soon as the news arrived from America of the engagement between these two iron vessels, another panic spread through the country, and great alarm arose, and the opinion was expressed, that as our naval means of defence were entirely gone, we should have to look to some other means of defence for our shores. I think it most desirable, whether by floating defences or by forts, or by both combined—which I believe to be best—we should guard not only against foreign invasion, but against sucli continual panics at home. With regard to what the noble Earl (the Earl of Ellen-borough) has said—that he does not think the Government is going quite fast enough in getting these means of defence—I will just observe that in 1859 we were told the
  854
  same thing. We were not going fast enough then in having more wooden line-of-battle ships, line-of-battle ships and fast frigates being then considered the best means of defence. We pressed on the wooden ships, and we began iron ships; and I would have gone faster if I had had confidence in our mode of constructing them. But it was very properly said. "It is a new plan First try what you have built. See how you can improve them. Do not involve the country in immense expenditure for more, costly ships until yon know whether they will answer." I did not quite take that advice. Seeing what was going on abroad, we did not wait to that extent. We had fifteen iron ships in course of preparation before one had been tried. I think that was quite as fast as I could justify. I think now that we have had further experience, we can advance faster; and accordingly last year we commenced plating five wooden ships, with a view to giving those additional means of defence. We are also now providing a vessel upon another plan, for the purpose of defending our ports and harbours Of course that is experimental. Nothing has yet been done very satisfactory in that way. But I believe we can make a vessel which will be a most formidable opponent to anything which can be brought against us, although I do not believe that it will be a vessel which can proceed conveniently far beyond the Channel. I believe we can make vessels for service in the Channel far more effective than anything which has yet been made. There are two ways of building—one in our own dockyards, the other by employing contractors. We find that the contractors are more inexperienced in building these iron ships than the naval men in our dockyards. When we try to build by contract, the contractors undertake to furnish the ships in ten, twelve, or eighteen months. They try hard to do it, and in some cases they may have lost money in their efforts to complete their contract. But they are unable to do it. The novel construction and the enormous pieces of iron required interfere with the progress of the work. There are very few contractors capable of constructing these iron-plated ships, and they are not able rapidly to meet the wants of the Admiralty. With regard to our dockyards, I have ordered in each one ship at least to be built, and one at least to be plated, in the year. I did not think that if we tried to do more we should advance much further, because the men whom we

  855
  want to overlook this novel work cannot give attention to more than one ship building at a time; and if we had attempted to do more, we should have failed, and brought discredit, perhaps, upon this class of vessels. I will not trouble your Lordships any longer, but I think I have explained why we have not gone so fast as is wished.
  THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGH: What I think is, that the Government makes these ships a great deal too large. We hear that the Warrior can hardly enter Portsmouth harbour. These enormous vessels are unnecessary for the purpose for which they are intended, and their expense is enormous.
  THE DUKE OF SOMERSET: One day we are told the ships must carry larger guns. Another day we are told they must go very fast. If they are to carry great weight and to go very fast, they must be enormous vessels. The only way to carry heavy armaments is to give up somewhat of the speed we have endeavoured to obtain.
  House adjourned at Seven o'clock, to Tuesday, the 29th instant, Four o'clock.