doubtful state of feeling in France, and in the present unsettled state of affairs 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 surprise 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 nothing 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 ebullition 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 topics to which it was impossible to do more than to allude. These were the commercial treaty be- 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 nter a Congress, he protested st any Congress which should this country to active intere 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 complimont 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 HISTORY. course to be adopted. The amendment was then nega- 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 [9 Government. mitted to the hands of the present attempt made by Lord Henley to Mr. Disraeli took notice of the 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 subless, the nature of the commercial ject of congratulation; neverthetreaty (supposing it to be based required some explanation, and he upon a principle of reciprocity) which the attention of Parliament was not aware of the mode in ciple of reciprocity was rejected was to be called to it. The prinby 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 had had cordially adhered, and if the adopted, and to which the House that policy, they must offer very present Government diverged from 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 Government 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. Α 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 expressing 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 to a peculiarity of the titution, 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 assembling. Her Majesty's Govern. ment, 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 them from arriving at the result which is most satisfactory to their own feelings and interests. The right honourable gentleman says that if you ask the opinions of different people, all of whom are respectively and individually good authorities on the subject of Italy, one will tell you one thing, and another another; that whether it is about the Romagna, Tuscany, or Sardinia, or Naples, or Lombardy, every one you consult gives you a different opinion. Is that peculiar to Italy? Without going further than the walls of this House, I should like to know whether you will not find gentlemen here who will give you the most opposite opinions about any question of domes tic interest you like to name. . . . In this House a question is settled according to what the majority thinks about it; let the people of Italy settle their own questions in the same way. If it be true that Tuscany wishes to be a separate nationality, so be it. If it be true that the King of Naples is the most beloved of monarchs, let his subjects remain united to him in the bonds of affection. If it be true that the people of the Romagna are enamoured of the Government of the Pope, let them return to the happiness from which they are temporarily separated. All that we want is, that the Italians should be left to judge of their own interests, to shape their future arrangements according to their own opinions of that which is most likely to contribute to their happiness and most in unison with their feelings and opinions. I am sure this policy is consonant to the wishes of the people. It is founded upon the same principle as that on which the throne of this country now rests, and, therefore, in advocating it I feel that the Government are backed and supported by the feelings of the people at large, by the historical traditions of our own country, and by the principles on which that constitution is founded under which we are so happy as to live." The Address was then agreed to, nem. con. On the bringing up of the report a desultory discussion on various subjects took place. Among others, Mr. Seymour Fitzgerald entered into a discussion of the treaty with France, to which he raised many objections, and he warned the House against too close an access and identity of interests with France. Mr. Gladstone rallied Mr. Fitzgerald on his assumed knowledge of the character of the treaty, hinting ironically that he must have secreted himself, after the ancient fashion, behind the tapestry of the room in which negotiations were going on, and thus have obtained his minute knowledge. Mr. Gladstone said he could not enter on a discussion of the questions raised; he must defer it until Parliament was made acquainted with the particulars of the treaty. Answering some of Mr. Fitzgerald's strictures, he ridiculed his fear of an identity of policy between England and France. Is that possible, in the nature of things? Why, there is hardly any contingency in which they can be associated except for objects honourable in themselves and beneficial to mankind." "On no occasion, in our own day or in history, have they ever been combined for a bad object as regards the politics of Europe; and therefore I trust in that alliance, as I hope we all do, and wish it may be drawn closer and closer, not only on account of its in |