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Lord Cardigan said, that while it was most desirable that the French army should be withdrawn from Northern Italy, the withdrawal of the French army from Rome would be followed by the most dreadful consequences to the Papal Government and its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

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 communications 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 adhered to the letter of the truth, had at the same time made a statement calculated to mislead. With regard to Signor Buoncompagni, he wished to know whether it was a fact that Mr. Corbett had attendVOL. CII.

ed his receptions, and whether, if he had done so, it was in opposition to the views of the representatives 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 annexation of Savoy and Nice. With regard to the second question of Lord Derby, Mr. Corbett, Her Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires, had received no instructions whatever, except to treat Signor Buoncompagni as he had treated his predecessors.

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

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 Sardinia that if the latter were ag grandized by the annexation of 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 annexation of Savoy and Nice to France, in order, he said, to obtain an expression of the opi nion of the House upon that pro[C]

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 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.

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 papers were in the possession of the House, showing the position of the Government in relation to France and Sardinia, and the course they had adopted. He 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 repeatedly denied by both the Governments of France and Sardinia. Reminding the House of the critical position of affairs in Central Italy when the question of the Congress was under consideration, he observed that it was not unnatural 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 accepted 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 policy 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 encroachment, 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 independence and the warlike qualities of her people. The extension of her frontiers had never been a source of power to France, and 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 Savoy, called the attention of the Government to a variation, which 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 information upon the subject of the annexation.

Mr. Bright wished to know what Sir R. Peel proposed should be done in the case. These repetitions of inquiries, he said, tended to create greater complications in a matter of this nature. The language of Sir R. Peel was as extravagant as if Europe and England itself were on fire, and he strove not to suppress it, but to make it hotter. We could not prevent the annexation of Savoy to France, which he was informed the people of the province desired; 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

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 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 anxious 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

England, of civilization, and of liberty.

Lord J. Russell said, if it was thought necessary to take the whole question of Savoy out of the hands of Her Majesty's Government, that might be a useful course; but there was one course which was consistent neither with constitutional proceedings in that House nor with the confidence usually placed in the Government, and, above all, not consistent with amicable feelings between this country and France; and that was, renewing, day after day, irritating discussions upon this subject, asking for no decisive vote, proposing no definite result, but sowing suspicion and distrust, calculated to bring about a total rupture with a neighbouring friendly country. After recapitulating the course which the question had taken, and the position in which it now stood, he asked whether the present was the moment for raising this discussion. His persuasion was, he said, that if the language of disapprobation was heard from all the great Powers, the project of annexation would not be persevered in. The Government of Sardinia, the Power most interested in the question, had not spoken upon the subject. His opinion was, that the treaty of commerce with France was destined, if approved by Parliament, to draw closer the ties of friendship between the two nations, by giving both an interest in the blessings of peace, which would tend to prevent the great calamity of war.

After some further desultory discussions on the same subject in both Houses, Lord John Russell undertook to give a formal explanation on behalf of the Govern

ment in relation to the Savoy question. The noble Lord discharged this undertaking on the 12th of March. He began his speech by representing the state in which the question of Savoy and Nice had been left by the late Administration, and proceeded to vindicate the present Government from the accusation that they had pursued a policy which, by promoting the annexation of the Romagna and Tuscany to Sardinia, laid a ground for that of Savoy to France. This accusation was founded, he said, upon an entire misapprehension. Their policy had been to endeavour, by negotiation, to secure to the Italian people the power of managing their own affairs. He then explained the communications which had taken place on the subject of certain proposed combinations for the restoration of the Grand Duke of Tuscany, and the establishment of a kingdom of Central Italy. The British Government, he observed, were not hostile to either; they wished the people of Italy to decide for themselves; to assert their independence of any Power whatever, and, if they thought proper, to unite themselves to Sardinia. It had been said that for a long time he had acquiesced in the design of France to annex Savoy, aud that he took no step in the matter until late in the month of January. But this was a mistake of dates. On the 5th of July he had stated what he considered would be the consequences to the Emperor of the French if the plan of annexing Savoy was carried into effect, in the general distrust it would create. But, according to Count Walewski, no such plan was then contemplated, and, the contingency he referred to being improbable, it was unnecessary for