Sivut kuvina
PDF
ePub

being acquainted with the policy of France, if Sardinia was aggrandized by the acquisition of the des, it might be expected that she would demand the anannexation of Savoy, and the Gosement had pursued a course favouring that policy. This was the marge he had brought against the Government, and Lord J. Kwas, tad given the House no information upon this subject. se conduct of France had been

frank and open; but, if the principle of natural boundaries was to be acted on-if distrust was excited in Europe-if sanguinary war followed and dynasties were subverted-the Government which had assisted that policy would be responsible to the country and to history for the consequences.

After speeches from Mr. Kinglake, Mr. Seymour Fitzgerald, and Mr. B. Osborne, the discussion terminated.

[25

CHAPTER II.

FINANCE-The Chancellor of the Exchequer appoints the 6th of February for bringing forward the Budget-Expectation of great financial changes-In consequence of the Minister's illness the Financial Statement is postponed-It is made on the 10th February, and the Commercial Treaty with France produced at the same timeElaborate and comprehensive speech of Mr. Gladstone-Extensive changes in taxation proposed by him-Wine Duties-Paper DutyReduction of Tariff-Increase of Income-tax, &c.-Reception of the Budget in the House of Commons-Mr. Du Cane gives notice of an Amendment disapproving of the proposed changes-His motion is postponed to give place to one made by Mr. Disraeli, relative to the proceedings on the Treaty-Speeches of Mr. Disraeli, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir Hugh Cairns, the Attorney-General, Sir F. Kelly, Mr. Bright, Lord John Russell, Mr. Horsman, Lord Palmerston, and other Members-The amendment is negatived by 293 to 230-Debate in the House of Lords on the French Treaty, and financial measures of the Government-Speeches of the Earl of Derby, Earls Grey and Granville, the Duke of Argyll, and Lord Hardwicke— Mr. Du Cane's notice comes on for discussion on the 21st February, and occupies three nights-Speeches of Mr. Baxter, Sir S. Northcote, Mr. Hubbard, Mr. Byng, Sir Francis Baring, Mr. Bright, Mr. Whiteside, Mr. Cardwell, Mr. Osborne, Mr. Thomas Baring, Mr. M. Gibson, Mr. Walpole, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Disraeli, and Lord Palmerston-The division results in a majority of 116 in favour of the Government-Address to the Crown in approbation of the Commercial Treaty with France, moved by Mr. Byng in the House of Commons on the 8th of March-Sir Hugh Cairns states some objections to the Treaty-Mr. Horsman moves an amendment, excepting to one of the articles-The Chancellor of the Exchequer vindicates the Treaty-The amendment is supported by only 56 votes against 282, and the Address is carried-Lord Taunton, in the Upper House, moves the concurrence of the Lords in the Address-His SpeechSpeeches of Earl Grey, Lord Wodehouse, Lord Malmesbury. Lord Overstone, the Duke of Argyll, Lord Derby, the Duke of Newcastle, and other Peers-The motion is carried on a division by 68 to 38.

THE Chancellor of the Exche

THE

quer had appointed, in the first instance, a very early day (February 6th), for the financial

statement, on which public expectation was anxiously fixed; and it was announced that the Commercial Treaty with France, which

him (Lord John) to say that, supposing the Grand Duke of Tuscany not to be restored, and a kingdom of Central Italy not to be formed, he must reiterate the declaration he had made. In January, however, the question had assumed a different shape, showing that there was a project on foot for the annexation of Savoy, and at the end of that month the Government renewed the expression of its fears as to the consequences of the measure. It had been objected, he continued, that the Government had been so anxious for the independence of Italy that they had neglected other objects. But in 1856 Lord Clarendon had thought the question of the state of Italy of so much im portance that he brought it before the Conference, and later occurrences had induced the Government to consider it one of European interest, and, if so, of British interest. It was for European objects that they had employed the influence of Great Britain, and employed it peacefully, to reconcile differences, prevent war, and lay the foundations of peace between the great Powers of Europe. If, in doing so, they could enable Italy to regain her independence, and raise a country, which had for three centuries been sunk and degraded, into one of the leading Powers of Europe, so far from being ashamed, and shrinking from any responsibility, he should always take a pride in having been allowed to participate in such an object.

Mr. Whiteside adverted to the repeated warnings given by Swit zerland, which, he observed, had always seemed to know what was about to happen, that a bargain had been struck between France

and Sardinia for handing over Savoy and Nice to the former Power, and that this question was of vital importance to the safety and independence of Switzerland. The British Government, however, had done nothing in consequence of these repeated warnings; and, although Lord Cowley, in the month of January, wrote for instructions, up to the 28th there was nothing to show what the Goverument thought or did on the subject. On that day Lord J. Russell wrote a very good despatch; but in that despatch he did not make a remonstrance founded upon the general law of Europe. Mr. Whiteside referred to some of the papers laid before the House, with the view of showing that the French Government had very frankly declared its views that if Sardinia was aggrandized by the addition of Tuscany and the Romagna, France must have Savoy and Nice; and he contended that the Government had laboured to bring about this contingency.

After some observations by Mr. Milnes and Mr. Cochrane,

Mr. Horsman said he believed the House would be unanimous in thinking that the annexation of Savoy should not be made a cause of war. But the question was, whether France would not thereby acquire a new military frontier. The treaties of 1815 were securities taken by the great Powers of Europe against the traditional policy of France-a policy of war and aggrandizement-and what right had Sardinia to liberate France from obligations for the protection of Europe? Then what was to be done? Had Sardinia no alternative but or acquiescence? Lord J. Russell, in his despatch, had re

war

ferred to the Rhine and to Belgium; then, if we apprehended danger, the policy of this country was to take precautions and form alliances with other Powers. This was the traditional policy of this country, to form alliances in order to check aggression and the preponderance of any great Power, and he thought the Government would have done wisely upon this occasion by entering into such an alliance. Instead of this, they had busied themselves with a commercial treaty with France. The policy of tame acquiescence would be a dangerous and an unworthy policy; the other would place us in a dignified attitude before the world.

Lord Palmerston thought the course which the Government had pursued in this matter was much more clear and consistent than Mr. Whiteside had represented. It was evident that this was not a case upon which the issue of peace or war ought to depend. The cession of Savoy did not involve the interests of this country so as to induce us to go to war to prevent it. As regarded England, France would not be stronger after the acquisition of Savoy than before. If this was agreed upon, it was clear that some of the measures recommended in the debate would not be expedient. To enter into alliances with the great Powers of Europe, unless the matter was of sufficient importance, would inspire alarm, and rouse the national feeling in France. Her Majesty's Government, when it appeared that no Congress would take place, and there would be no opportunity to bring the matter into discussion in the assembly of the great Powers, stated to France and to the other Powers their objections to the He thought it would be

a great mistake in the French Government if they persisted in the plan of annexation, and it would be a glorious act on the part of France if, after having restored independence to Italy, she was content with the renown of that generous enterprise without mixing it up with so small an object. The reasons assigned for the annexation he thought insufficient, and the objection felt by the British Government was not founded upon what they considered British interests, but upon the danger to Europe of the precedent and of the principles, those of natural boundaries and the identity of language, upon which the annexation was justified. As it was not to be done without the consent of the sovereign and the people of Savoy, and the assent of the great Powers of Europe, we were not come to the point when we were authorized to hold that reflection might not induce the Government of France to abandon the design. In the opinion of our Government this was a question of European interest, and he could not help thinking that other Governments would take the same view as our own, and that the Government of France would find that it would gain more by preserving the good opinion of Europe than by the acquisition of this small territory.

Mr. Disraeli, after disclaiming any desire to make the annexation of Savoy and Nice to France a ground of war, observed that Lord J. Russell had not denied that he had received ample and repeated warnings of the design of the French Government. His defence was, that he thought the intimations mere threats, and he treated them with indifference. Then he (Mr. Disraeli) contended that,

being acquainted with the policy of France, if Sardinia was aggrandized by the acquisition of the duchies, it might be expected that she would demand the anannexation of Savoy, and the Government had pursued a course favouring that policy. This was the charge he had brought against the Government, and Lord J. Russell had given the House no information upon this subject. The conduct of France had been

frank and open; but, if the principle of natural boundaries was to be acted on-if distrust was excited in Europe-if sanguinary war followed and dynasties were subverted-the Government which had assisted that policy would be responsible to the country and to history for the consequences.

After speeches from Mr. Kinglake, Mr. Seymour Fitzgerald, and Mr. B. Osborne, the discussion terminated.

« EdellinenJatka »