terms the conduct of Her Majesty's Government in not having brought these matters before Parliament, and feared that steps had now been taken which rendered war almost inevitable, and had, at the same time, bound us to the French Government in such manner that we could not draw back. All he wanted was to prevent this pernicious practice being drawn into a precedent, and he, therefore, should move to add to the paragraph relating to Chinese affairs an amendment embodying these opinions.

The Duke of Newcastle thought that when the circumstances of the commercial treaty with France were known, the House would be prepared to support Her Majesty's Government. To extend the commerce between two powerful countries was the best way to cement peace and good-will, as commerce bound not kings and governments alone; but when kings and govern. ments had passed away, still linked together the people of the two countries. As to the amendment, he combatted the principle which Lord Grey had attempted to establish by the two precedents of 1790 and 1826, which, in his opinion, were contrary to the rule which had been established during the last thirty years. We were not about to commence hostilities with a country with which we were previously at peace; the fact was, we had not been at peace with China for the last two years, for, although a treaty had been drawn up, it was not ratified, and peace could not be said to be concluded before the ratification of the treaty. He could not agree that we had no right to go up the Peiho, and maintained that it was not only the way but the only highway, and pointed to the Rus

sian treaty which had particularly reserved this very route for the Russians whenever they might choose to avail themselves of it, and we, by the favoured nation clause, undoubtedly might claim the same right. He repudiated the idea that the honour of the country was to be made subservient to the interests of the tea trade, and concluded by re-asserting that the practice of Parliament as laid down by Lord Grey was not an established rule,-but that, even if it were, it had not been violated, as peace had not been concluded by China.

Lord Normanby thought it would be better to postpone the discussion on Chinese affairs until the papers on the subject were before the House. After a few remarks upon the present state of feeling among the French manufacturers on the contemplated abolition of Protection, he entered at great length into the Italian question, and while expressing a wish that the Princes of Central Italy might not be reimposed on their subjects by force, he considered that, if force were not to be permitted on one side, it ought not to be countenanced on the other.

Lord Brougham reviewed the events in Italy during the last year, and expressed his opinion that the Italians should be allowed to work out their own freedom, without the interference of foreigners, whether French, Sardinian, or Austrian. Adverting to the commercial treaty between France and this country, he combatted the erroneous impressions of the Parisian circles, that the treaty was prejudicial to France and profitable to England alone, and asserted that the contrary would, without doubt, be the case. With this

doubtful state of feeling in France, and in the present unsettled state of athairs all over the world, when it was impossible to calculate what might happen in the next month or week, he considered we ought to be so well armed as to render in vasion impossible to succeed and unlikely to be attempted.

Lord Derby expressed his sur prise that among so great a variety of topics as the Royal Speech con tained there were so many on which nothing had been said by preceding speakers. They had heard nothing about the treaties of Guatemala and the Tycoon of Japan, and of the San Juan difficulty, in which our officers, both civil and military, had exercised so sound and admirable a discretion. They had heard no thing on Reform but a casual remark of Lord Brougham as to the apathy of the people of Yorkshire and Lancashire on the subject, and he considered that if Parliament treated the subject in the same dispassionate manner, there would be no great dread of any very revolutionary measure being carried. With the exception of some little cbullition of Irish feeling here and there, he congratulated the House on the happy domestic condition of the country. Lord Derby, in speaking of India, dwelt with satisfaction upon the suppression of the mutiny and the restoration of our dominion, and highly eulogized the policy of Lord Canning in his restoration of the feudal system in Oude, and his treatment of the talookdars, a system which would consolidate British power more firmly than ever. Having paid a just tribute to the spirit which had produced the present volunteer movement, he said there were three topies to which it was impossible to do more than to allude. Those

were the commercial treaty between France and England, the war with China, and the Congress and the separate negotiations. In reviewing the recent commercial arrangement, he did not think it a matter for congratulation, aud pointed out the inequality of the advantages, as being immediate to France, but prospective to Eng land, and that while the articles admitted into France were of vital importance to her for warlike purposes, the articles taken by this country were of a totally different nature. The present time, when the defences of the country were absorbing so much money, and the Income-tax was drawing to an end, was most inapt for reducing the revenue and binding the country by a treaty from which it could not withdraw. Why, too, he asked, were the wine duties to be miti gated and the duty on hops and malt left untouched? War duties were still levied on tea and sugar, and he could not understand how, without inconsistency, the Government could take off the one and retain the other. In respect to Lord Grey's amendment on the war with China, he would defer the discussion raised by Lord Grey to a future time, but availed himself of the occasion to speak in the highest terms of the Admiral and the officers and men who had conducted the attack, and who for devotion to their duty and heroic bravery were surpassed by few even in our navy. In reply to the Duke of Newcastle, he observed that if we were at war with China, the Chinese were justified in attacking us, and if at peace we had no right to force our way up the Peiho He then addressed himself to the affairs of Italy and the Congress, and asked under what cir

cumstances the Government had determined to join the Congress. Various rumours as to the conjoint action of France and England in Italy had been afloat for some time, and he wished to elicit a declaration on this point from Her Majesty's Government. He repudiated the notion of a separate treaty with France, and strongly insisted on the dangers which would ensue from such a course. While he admitted the right of every country to arrange its own affairs without foreign interference, he considered that those internal changes in a country should be made by itself, and not influenced by external assistance. He would not enter into a discussion upon the temporal and spiritual power of the Pope, which was not a question for a Protestant country. This country looked upon the Sovereign Pontiff in the same light as they looked upon any other sovereign, and would treat him in the same way, so that if his Government were overthrown we should not interfere, but this must be done by the free will of the Italian people, and not by foreign influence or aid; and in connection with this part of his argument he asked why, when all Austrian troops were withdrawn, were Rome and Milan still occupied by the French? In case of the meeting of a Congress, he should object to England joining in it at all. Such a course might be undignified, but, in his opinion, the present high position and moral influence of this country in Europe were entirely owing to that cause. If, however, it should be found necessary to enter a Congress, he protested against any Congress which should bind this country to active interference or acquiescence in the

policy laid down by the majority of the Powers assembled, and insisted that Government should clearly understand for what objects. they entered into Congress, and how far they were to be made parties to its decisions.

Lord Granville, having replied to the preliminary remarks in Lord Derby's speech, pointed out, in reply to Lord Derby's compliment to Lord Canning on his present policy in Oude, that it was identical with the policy of the despatch which had been condemned on a previous occasion by Lord Derby. He could not agree with the opinions of Lord Derby on the commercial treaty between this country and France, and considered that they were only the old opinions of Lord Derby on Protection put forward in a new form. He contended that the removal of all artificial obstructions to commerce would be for the benefit of both countries, and was calculated, by promoting mutual interests, to strengthen the desire for continued peace between them. As to the Congress and the relations of this country with France, he was aware of no such negotiation or proposition made in August, or since that time, as that to which Lord Derby had alluded; and Her Majesty's Government was perfectly unfettered, and free from any engagement, pledge, or guarantee of any nature whatever. He explained the reasons which influenced the Government in agreeing to enter the Congress, and pointed out what would have been the consequences if they had refused to do so. In regard to the future policy of the country it had been sufficiently laid down in the language of the Speech, which declared non-interference was the

course to be adopted. He regretted to see the tendency in this country to treat the question of the sovereignty of the Pope as a religious question. In his opinion that was not the case, and Her Majesty's Government had decided to look upon it as a political subject, and in that light only. An eloquent panegyric on the late Lord Macaulay, as one of the members of their Lordships' House, was introduced by Lord Granville in conclusion.

The amendment was then negatived, and the Address agreed to without a division.

In the House of Commons on the same evening the Address was moved by Mr. St. Aubyn, M.P. for West Cornwall, who briefly passed in review the principal topics adverted to in the Speech from the Throne. He expressed a hope that the influence of the Government would be exerted for securing to the Italian people the benefits of freedom and good government; that the necessity for actual hostilities with China would be averted; and, with respect to domestic affairs, that a Bill for the reform of the representation would not only be introduced, but that the measure would so far meet with the approbation of all parties that it would become the law of the land before the expiration of the present Session. In conclusion, he congratulated the House upon the high position in which the country now stood, without example in modern

times.

The motion was seconded by Lord Henley, who entered at some length into the question of Parliamentary Reform, and congratulated the House that the charge of public affairs was com

mitted to the hands of the present Government.

Mr. Disraeli took notice of the attempt made by Lord Henley to raise, he said, a question of confidence. He did not intend, he observed, to move an amendment to the Address; but there were topics of much importance referred to in the Royal Speech which required explanation. The prospect of increased commercial relations with France was, he admitted, a subject of congratulation; nevertheless, the nature of the commercial treaty (supposing it to be based upon a principle of reciprocity) required some explanation, and he was not aware of the mode in which the attention of Parliament was to be called to it. The principle of reciprocity was rejected by our commercial system; and what France undertook to do in 1861 might be done without any treaty whatever. Another subject which demanded explanation was the condition of Italy and the relations of our Government with that country. There was so much ambiguity in the Royal Speech on this subject that he was at a loss to gather the real state of our diplomatic relations with Italy and with France in reference to that country, and he felt it his duty to ask some explanation of what had occurred since the prorogation, and what were the engagements into which Her Majesty had been advised to enter. The principle of non-intervention had been that which the late Government hud adopted, and to which the House had cordially adhered, and if the present Government diverged from that policy, they must offer very grave reasons for so doing. He wanted to know, therefore, why in August Lord J. Russell had (as he

learned from a foreign source) made overtures to the French Govern→ ment to enter into a special agreement for the settlement of the affairs of Italy. What was the character of those overtures? What was the nature of the agreement? It appeared that a proposition had been made for an alliance offensive and defensive between France and England to make interference by any Power in the affairs of Italy a casus belli, which might involve this country in serious political complications. He wanted to know what was the object of the Congress, which, if we entered into it, might lead us into embarrassing relations. The conclusion to which he had come was, that the less we meddled with the affairs of Italy the better. A country in the present state of Italy was far beyond the management and settlement of Courts, Cabinets, and Congresses; the problem could only be solved by the will of the population, though this country might do great good by laying down principles of sound policy.

Lord Palmerston, after express ing his satisfaction at the prospect of unanimity upon the Address," vindicated the paragraph in the Royal Speech on the topic of Reform, and then passed on to the other main subjects of the debate. He announced that the treaty with France was signed on the 23rd, but that he had not yet received the document. He certainly thought it not desirable as a general rule that England should enter into any conventional agreement with other countries as to her tariff and customs duties; but he maintained that in the present case, owing to a peculiarity of the French constitution, we could not

obtain an essential security from France except by a convention. The treaty was therefore an exceptional arrangement, and did not imply any change in opinion on the principle which should govern these matters. The agreement, however, was conditional on the consent of Parliament. In reference to the affairs of Italy, he protested against the Government being called upon to answer interrogatories founded upon anonymous telegrams: he declared that the statement regarding the special agreement referred to by Mr. Disraeli,was totally unfounded, and that this Government was entirely free from any agreement with any foreign Government as to the af fairs of Italy.

The noble lord then entered upon the question of the proposed Congress, and contended that England could not honourably or wisely stand aloof in the event of its as sembling. Her Majesty's Government, he said, were prepared to go into the Congress, free from all engagements; but after having declared fully their opinions as to the propriety of leaving the Italians free to determine their own course.

"Our policy," said the noble lord in conclusion, "has never varied. We said in the beginning, and we say still, that no foreign force should be exerted to control the people of Italy in the arrangement of their own affairs. Our opinion is, that they should be left to settle their affairs among themselves, between people and Government; that they should be free to adopt that form of Government and such an arrangement of States as they might think best for their own interests, and that no foreign Power ought to interfere by force of arms to prevent