Lord J. Russell observed that there had been a misunderstanding upon that point. What occurred was this: Lord Palmerston had himself mentioned what he had done to his colleagues, expressing a doubt whether it could be strictly justified, and his colleagues agreed, at his Lordship's suggestion, that it would be proper to authorize our ambassador at Naples to offer an explanation. With regard to the other matters, they were of too much importance to be discussed without full information. Lord J. Russell justified the proceedings of Lord Minto, expressing his belief that if that nobleman's advice had been given and acted upon in Austria, Prussia, and Italy, twenty years ago, a better state of things would have been established in Europe, instead of a transition from absolute despotism to the most wild and rabid democracy.

After a severe censure upon Lord Palmerston from Mr. Urquhart, the House divided upon the question, whether the motion of Mr. Bankes should be agreed to entire or curtailed, when the amendment of Lord Palmerston was carried by 124 to 39.

The transactions in the north of Italy engaged the attention of the House of Lords on the 22nd of March, on the motion of the noble ex-Secretary for Foreign Affairs (the Earl of Aberdeen).

In moving for the production of diplomatic correspondence concerning the affairs of Northern Italy, Lord Aberdeen spoke at consider able length on the actual state of those affairs, and the progress of past negotiations. So long as the conferences at Brussels seemed to have the slightest chance of attaining to any practical result, he had postponed his inquiry; but

A

now, a year since, Charles Albert, by an act of perfidy almost unexampled, had invaded the territory of his ally, his friend, his kinsman and benefactor. Sardinia had broken the armistice with Austria, and troops on both sides were moving to the conflict. Last session the Marquis of Lansdowne had spontaneously laid on the table of the House, for an object which did not then appear, a series of despatches. Two from Prince Metternich described the state of Northern Italy, and declared that the Emperor of Austria had no other object than to defend his territory from attack, and rest on the guarantees for European peace. One from Lord Palmerston averred, that the British Government had received no information of any aggressive scheme, and declared the right of every sovereign power to make reforms in its own territory. month later, on the 11th of September, Lord Palmerston sent another despatch expressing his conviction (by way of warning) that Austria did not intend any aggression on the dominions or rights of the King of Sardinia or the Pope; and hinting that Great Britain could never forget or repudiate claims founded on the ancient alliance with Sardinia, or the necessity of maintaining the integrity of the Roman States. Six months afterwards, Lord Brougham moved. for further correspondence; and then it appeared, that immediately after the receipt of Lord Palmerston's last despatch, on the 27th of the same month of September, Prince Metternich replied that Austria intended no aggression on Sardinia, her ally, but that she was ready to defend that ally against aggression. Why had that despatch been kept back?

It was impossible to deny that the voluntary production of papers for the purpose of creating the impression that we had been the instruments by which the aggression of Austria was stopped, at a time when we had in our possession, but kept back, an Austrian despatch containing a most decisive answer to that imputation, was a measure which it was impossible for any man-and he appealed to them as peers and gentlemen-to declare either just or even warrantable. What must be the effect of the suppression of that despatch upon Austria? The Austrian Government had received the accusation and the threat; it had promptly made an answer to both; and yet that answer had been studiously concealed by the Government to which it was addressed. The noble Marquis opposite had produced to their Lordships a paper calculated to convey an erroneous impression of the truth, and had made himself a party to the suppression of the truth, which, in point of fact, amounted to a falsehood. He was quite sure that the noble Marquis opposite was ignorant of the contents of the despatch just read, when he presented the other despatches to the House. He was quite sure that every one of their Lordships, from their knowledge of the conduct of the noble Marquis both in that House and out of it, must be fully convinced that he would never have condescended to be knowingly a party to the creation of so false an impression.

Lord Aberdeen contrasted Lord Palmerston's conduct towards Austria with his demeanour towards Sardinia. In a despatch dated the 27th of March, 1848, when the war was in actual progress, Mr.

Abercrombie wrote, that the Marquis of Pareto had said that the declaration of war against Austria "had a twofold object: first, to drive the Austrians for ever out of Italy; secondly, to assist the Provisional Government formed at Milan." On this Lord Palmerston wrote to Mr. Abercrombie :-" I have to instruct you to say to the Sardinian Minister, that the conflict into which Sardinia has entered must be admitted to be one of doubtful result, and that the principle on which it has been commenced is one full of danger." The least that this Government ought to have done was to protest against the proceedings of the King of Sardinia, as it had protested against the proceedings in Cracow, which were a violation of treaty, no doubt, but trifling compared to that which had been perpetrated in Upper Italy. Relying on the traditionary friendship with this country, Austria had invoked the mediation of our Government-had even offered to give up Lombardy. He had heard of the manner in which the mission had been received in this country. Fortunately for Austria, her conditions were rejected; the fight was renewed; and after a series of brilliant victories, Field-Marshal Radetzky, with a rare exertion of generosity, abstained from following the beaten enemy into his own territory. He granted an armistice, with a view to the settlement of peace; which might have been effected, but France and Great Britain now offered their mediation. It had proved ineffectual; the war was to be renewed, and the question arose, what did Her Majesty's Ministers propose to do? It would be impossible for any one to believe in their sincerity in ob

But what did they say to Sardinia? Did they say, as one would naturally suppose they would, "If you choose to break the peace which you have sworn to preserve-if you commit an infraction of the treaty of Vienna, to which you owe inestimable advantages-to which, indeed, you owe your Continental existence in Europe-England will threaten, warn, and menace you?" Nothing of the kind: Sardinia was merely told that if she did what she threatened to do she would do a dangerous act.

Lord Brougham commented severely on Charles Albert's recent proclamation and past conduct, but regarded him now as an object of pity.

His troubles had only now be gun, for he was in the hands of a set of the most reckless and implacable tyrants-the rebellious parties in his states, headed, as had been the case everywhere of late years, by exiled Poles. Wheresoever agitation had been going on, rebellion had been at work, conspiracies had been made, or revolts against established governments had broken out, Polish agitators were found either the leaders of or at least concerned in those movements.

The discussion here terminated, Lord Aberdeen not pressing his motion.

The same transactions, at a later period of the session, afforded occasion for an important debate. On the 20th of July Lord Brougham brought the Italian policy of the Government under the notice of the House of Lords, by moving the following resolutions:

"1. That it is the right and was the duty of the Government to require, and to obtain, from foreign powers, satisfactory explanations of

those recent movements in the Italian States which tend to unsettle the existing distribution of territory, and to endanger the general peace.

“2. That it is inconsistent with the general interests and duty of this country to interfere in the concerns of foreign nations, as between their Governments and their subjects.

3. That this House regrets to observe in the conduct of the Government, particularly as shown by the papers laid before Parliament, a want of friendly feeling towards allies to whom we are bound by treaty and by mutual acts of good will."

After deprecating the admixture of anything like personal feelings. in so important a subject, the noble Lord proceeded to pass in review the events which had recently occurred in the Italian peninsula. He wished he could at once begin with the kingdom of the Two Sicilies; but the perfidious conduct of Sardinia, though it had been signally punished by the valiant Austrian army under Marshal Radetzky, and the still pending negociations between the Cabinets of Vienna and Turin, rendered it necessary that he should first turn his eyes to the north of Italy. To hear some people talk, one would fancy that the policy pursued by Austria was one of aggrandizement at the expense of Sardinia, when the real state of the case was that she had evinced the utmost desire to abide by the faith of treaties, while her opponent broke the most solemn stipulations at her pleasure. But the whole policy of Great Britain towards the two contending parties had been, to threaten Austria, and to speak smoothly to Sardinia, though the one had been most