Sivut kuvina
PDF
ePub

1

population, who were in a state of discontent, and pointed out the manner in which the respective Governors of the Duchies had been elected. He expressed his opinion of Signor Buoncompagni in the strongest terms of reprobation, and asked if it were fitting that Her Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires at Florence should have been directed to pay his official court to such a man, and why a departure from the usual line of proceedings in such matters should have been ordered in this particular case.

Lord Granville defended Signor Buoncompagni and the Italian people from the attacks of Lord Normanby, and asked whether Lord Normanby, from the cases of outrage he had cited, supposed that Italy was, under her new Government, to return to the golden age, and that no crime was to exist; and whether the British Parliament were to be guided by the opinions of his anonymous correspondents, who, of course, were no more unbiassed in their views than others. The state of Italy was at the present moment most satisfactory, and he thought that the moderation the Italians had exhibited was highly creditable.

Lord Malmesbury hoped that nothing would induce the Government to abandon the policy of nonintervention, and regretted that no official transactions of the Government in Italy, except, fragments obtained in discussion, had been made public since the retirement of the late Government. It was his sincere wish that Italy should be made an independent nation, strong enough to repel aggression and to assume a place among the great European Powers, but he did not wish to see that end

compassed by the annexation of Savoy and Nice to France. If that annexation should take place, the formation of a strong kingdom in the north of Italy would not be feasible, as that kingdom would be open on both extremities, by the Alps to France, and by the Mincio to Austria. He should much prefer to the establishment of a kingdom a confederation of States free from the influence of the foreigner. The only way, however, to secure Italian independence was to leave the Italians to themselves, and to induce the Emperor of the French to withdraw his armies from Italy, as Italy, under her present circumstances, had merely exchanged an Austrian for a French master. He regretted extremely that any mark of respect not absolutely necessary had been paid to Signor Buoncompagni, whom he described as one of the most active conspirators in hurling from his throne the Sovereign to whom he had sworn allegiance.

Lord Clanricarde thought it would be impossible, in the present state of European feeling, to effect the annexation of Savoy and Nice to France. He proceeded to examine in detail the speech of Lord Normanby, and from his own experience contradicted the statement that the feeling of the Italians was one of discontent with the present state of things. The atrocities of the Italians, which had formed so fruitful a source of vituperation to Lord Normanby, were not entirely without a precedent, for the Austrians had committed cruelties which were not to be forgotten, although Lord Normanby had thought fit to pass them over.

The fiscal burdens under which the subjects of Sardinia groaned, according to Lord Nor

England]

HISTORY.

manby, were as nothing compared to the taxation endured by Venetia, which, in fact, was absolute confiscation. He proceeded to review in detail the speech of Lord Normanby, from which he dissented in almost every particular.

Lord Granville read a statement
from Lord Cowley, to the effect
that the French Government at
the time of the communication did
not contemplate the annexation of
Savoy.

Lord Cardigan said, that while
it was most desirable that the
French army should be withdrawn
from Northern Italy, the with-
drawal of the French army from
Rome would be followed by the
most dreadful consequences to the
Papal Government and its sup-
porters.

Lord Derby asked whether the
papers to be laid on the table of
the House would contain the latest
information on the subject of the
negotiations with respect to the
annexation of Savoy and Nice, and
whether Lord Granville would
point out in what view Her Majesty's
Government regard the project.
He also wished to know whether
there had been any communica-
tions between the two Governments
since the despatch of July last
(when the project of the annexation
of Savoy and Nice was denied)
which would lead Her Majesty's
Government to infer that a change
had occurred in the views of the
French Government. If any such
correspondence had taken place,
he must say that Her Majesty's
Government, while they had ad-
hered to the letter of the truth,
had at the same time made a state-
ment calculated to mislead. With
regard to Sumor Buoncompagni,
he wished to know whether it was
a fact that Mr. Corbett had attend-
VOL. CHI.

ed his receptions, and whether, if
he had done so, it was in opposi-
tion to the views of the represen-
tatives of other Courts, and to the
instructions he had received from
his Government.

Lord Granville said that he had
stated last week the most recent
communications which had taken
place between the French and
British Governments upon the
With regard to the second ques-
annexation of Savoy and Nice.
tion of Lord Derby, Mr. Corbett,
Her Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires,
had received no instructions what-
ever, except to treat Signor Buon-
compagni as he had treated his
predecessors.

The motion for papers was mention of Mr. Corbett's instrucadopted, with the omission of all tions.

In reply to questions addressed to the Government in the House of Commons by Sir Robert Peel and Mr. Seymour Fitzgerald, Lord John Russell stated that inquiries of the Sardinian Government had produced a general answer, that Sardinia had no engagement with France to cede Savoy, and had no intention of ceding it: but the French Government had told Sargrandized by the annexation of dinia that if the latter were ag. Central Italy, France would think that her frontier was not secure without the annexation of at least some part of Savoy.

On the 28th of February, Mr. A. W. Kinglake again called the attention of the House of Commons to the same topic, in consequence of the strange rumours which prevailed of the approaching aunexation of Savoy and Nice obtain an expression of the opithat proupon to France, in order, he said, to [C] nion of the ilvuse

posal, and which he believed would be unanimous. He read a communication which he had received from Paris last autumn, and extracts from French papers suggesting grounds for the transfer-grounds which, he remarked, would have an extensive and dangerous application. By the treaties of 1815 the northern portion of Savoy (Chablais and Faucigny) was declared to participate in the neutrality of Switzerland; but if it became a part of France, what, he asked, would become of this guarantee, and of the integrity of Switzerland, which would be jammed in between two departments of France ? This annexation would have an embarrassing effect upon our own freedom of action, and would unsettle the political relations of Europe. He referred to the repeated declarations on the part of the Government of France, prior to the recent war in Italy, that the Emperor was actuated by no motive of personal ambition or desire of conquest. At the same time he had, he said, received in January, 1859, a communication (which he had imparted to the British Government) stating that a secret arrangement (called a pacte de famille) had been entered into between France and Sardinia for the cession of Savoy to France, although Count Walewski had assured Lord Cowley that no "treaty whatever existed with that view. Apparently, he observed, the matter stood thus:He had no doubt that an arrangement had been come to, under which, in exchange for Lombardy, the Emperor of the French should possess Savoy and Nice; but, as all Lombardy had not been conquered, the contingency had failed.

He protested strongly against the annexation of the two provinces, which, if carried into effect, would, in his opinion, be an open violation of treaties. He concluded by moving an address for copies of the correspondence between Her Majesty's Government and the Governments of the Emperor of the French and the King of Sardinia in respect to the proposal.

Sir Robert Peel, in seconding the motion, observed that this matter affected the whole Italian question, and was of such vital importance that it involved the interest of all Europe; the proposal in question being the first attempt to alter the basis of the territorial arrangements of 1815, the inroad must be checked with a vigorous hand. There was a stern and determined resolution on the part of the Savoyards to resist their transfer to France, the national feeling being, he knew, absolutely antagonistic to the connection; it would be in direct contravention of the Act of Congress of the 20th of November, 1815, and would affect at once the neutrality of Switzerland and of Savoy. And what, he asked, would be the feelings of the Italians when they found they had acquired liberty by the sacrifice of the freedom of other countries? They would be feelings of the deepest regret and grief.

Sir G. Grey did not dissent from the sentiments expressed by the mover and seconder of the motion. The question, he observed, had justly claimed a large share of public attention, and was worthy of the consideration of the House, which might rightly demand the fullest information as to the course taken by the Government. To the motion of Mr.

England]

HISTORY.

Kinglake, therefore, they were ready to assent, and were prepared to lay the papers upon the table. A protracted discussion could lead to no result until those popers were in the possession of the House, showing the position of the Government in relation to France and Sardinia, and the He course they had adopted. joined with Mr. Kinglake and Sir R. Peel in deprecating the annexation of Savoy to France, the consequence of which, he agreed, might unsettle Europe.

Mr. Disraeli thought it would
be more convenient to defer the
discussion until the papers were
before the House, and should,
therefore, refrain from expressing
any opinion upon the merits of
the question.

Lord J. Russell offered a few
explanations. With respect to the
family compact referred to by Mr.
Kinglake and Sir R. Peel, he could
only say that the Government had
no diplomatic information to that
effect, and the fact of any treaty
prior to the war had been re-
peatedly denied by both the Go-
vernments of France and Sardinia
Leminding the House of the criti-
cal position of affairs in Central
Italy when the question of the
Congress was under consideration,
he observed that it was not un-
natural that a Power like England,
dreading a renewal of the war,
should endeavour to prevent it,
and with that view the Government
had made certain propositions, and.
although they had not been ac-
cepted in the gross, something had
been gained. With regard to the
question as to the annexation of
Savoy, he could not but think that
it was a course of poley which the
Emperor of the French would
hesitate long before he adopted.

since it would produce distrust,
because it would be in contradiction
with the magnificent proclamation
he had issued; because the en-
croachment, once begun, would, he
was afraid, be deemed the precursor
of others, and excite apprehension;
and, finally, because it could not
tend to strengthen France, whose
security depended upon her own
resources, upon the spirit of inde-
pendence and the warlike qualities
of her people. The extension of
source of power to France, and
her frontiers had never been a
was not for her a right or secure
policy.

The motion was agreed to.

Again, on the 2nd of March, Sir
R. Peel, reverting to the subject of
Government to a variation, which
Savoy, called the attention of the
he deemed of much importance, in
the original text of the French
Emperor's speech, as published in
different English journals, and,
after a strong denunciation of the
project, asked for more explicit in-
formation upon the subject of the
annexation.

Mr. Bright wished to know what
Sir R. Peel proposed should be
done in the case. These repe-
titions of inquiries, he said, tended
to create greater complications in
a matter of this nature. The lan-
guage of Sir R. Peel was as ex-
travagant as if Europe and Eng-
land itself were on fire, and he
strove not to suppress it, but to
make it hotter. We could not
prevent the annexation of Savoy
the people of the province desired;
to France, which he was informed
but we might embroil ourselves
with France. He would never
have recommended or promoted
the annexation; but Perish
Savoy," he would say, rather than
that House should involve the

[C 2)

Government in a war with France in a matter in which we had no interest whatever.

Lord J. Manners, with considerable warmth and vehemence, repudiated the opinions expressed by Mr. Bright, which did not, he said, represent the sentiments of the people of England; and he inquired whether the Emperor of the French still intended to consult the great Powers, prior to annexing Savoy.

Lord J. Russell, in reply to Lord J. Manners, reiterated the reply he had already given-that, reading the speech of the Emperor in conjunction with the assurances given by the ambassador, he did not doubt that the intention of the Emperor was to consult the great Powers with reference to the annexation. He proceeded to observe, that the question was one which related to the position of France and the protection of her frontier, and the Emperor thought it was due to the security of France that Savoy, if the assent of the people could be obtained, should be annexed to its territory; but he (Lord John) understood that the Emperor wished to consult the great Powers of Europe as to the measure, and the opinion of Europe could not be a matter of indifference to the Emperor of the French. He differed from the Government of France in this matter; he conceived that the annexation of Savoy and the occupation of the passes of the Alps by France would be more threatening to Italy than Sardinia could ever be to France. With regard to England, her power did not consist in the Government, but in the Parliament; and if, in a matter of this kind, mere assertion was to be taken for proof, the only effect of discussions in this temper would be to create angry feelings. This

was a question which should be fairly considered, and he had heard with concern, he said, the speeches of both Sir R. Peel and Mr. Bright. It was the duty of the Government and of the House of Commons to consider, in the present state of affairs, in what way the peace of Europe could be best maintained and consolidated, and not to give cause for the increase of suspicion and animosity. With respect to the two versions of the Emperor's speech, the Government had only a telegram; the authentic version would appear in the Moniteur.

Three days afterwards the annexation question was again reopened by Mr. Roebuck, the subject of Savoy having been brought before the House in connection with the pending commercial treaty with France, and some members having expressed an opinion that no further steps ought to be taken in regard to the treaty until the intentions of France in reference to Savoy were made known. The hon. and learned member for Sheffield inveighed on this occasion in strong terms against the Emperor of the French, whom he accused of breach of treaties. He feared, he said, lest England should be thought to truckle to him. There was something in the grave, solemn declaration of a nation like England. With the treaty of commerce he should be auxious to close, if he could; but the consideration of that question ought to be deferred until the House had an opportunity of declaring its opinion on the annexation of Savoy.

Mr. Coningham protested against such language as Mr. Roebuck had applied to the ruler of France, than which nothing, he said, could be more injurious to the interests of

« EdellinenJatka »