Page images

troops, Austrian or French, should be used to reinstate these rulers, and Austria declared she would not cross her frontier. Lord John then made this statement as regards the unity of Italy:


But now, as to the unity of Italy. We have declared that we have no wish that the Grand Duke of Tuscany and the Duke of Modena should not return. I have stated with regard to Naples, both in this House and in my communications with the Government of the Emperor of the French, that, in our opinion, the happiness of Italy would be better secured by there being two kingdoms of Italy than one, and that if the King of Naples would have granted a constitution, we, should have been glad to see two constitutional kingdoms in Italy. But still that was a question for the Italians themselves. It was for them to consider whether the prince, having hereditary right on his side, was a prince in whom they could trust, and they had the perfect right to regulate their internal affairs in such a manner as to secure their own happiness. Was that a wrong principle? We may have been wrong in our opinion that it would be better there should be two kingdoms in Italy, but we said that the Italians only ought to be the judges on that point."

Being extremely anxious to maintain peace, that the Treaty of Villafranca should be observed, and that the Italians should settle their own affairs, he wrote the despatch in August, 1860, recommending Sardinia not to enter hastily upon a war. But, without the knowledge of the Sardinian Government, Garibaldi sailed from Genoa, con

quered Sicily, landed in the kingdom of Naples, and entered the capital, with a dozen companions, as Dictator. The question for the King of Sardinia then was, what he should do. Lord John Russell justified his intervention, on the ground of the anarchy that ensued on the arrival of Garibaldi. The extraordinary results of this invasion had shown that he was welcomed as a deliverer by the people of Sicily and Naples. But he could not found a solid power at Naples, and unless the King of Sardinia had stepped in, all would have been anarchy, and Italian independence would have vanished like a dream. He thought that the King could not have done otherwise than declare himself at once, and he justified the course which the Government had taken in consequence of this event, and of the views indicated by other Powers in relation thereto. The policy of non-intervention was concurred in by France; Her Majesty's Government entirely agreed with the Emperor of the French in this policy, and we were in close alliance with the other great Powers. With regard to the amendment, and the subject of Reform, he thought it was better for the Government not to bring forward a measure which, at the present time, must create disappointment, and occupy a great deal of time without leading to any satisfactory result. Upon this question, he always dreaded what persons would do by way of compromise. He had come to the opinion that, in order to carry a Reform Bill which would be of use to the country, there must be such an amount of pub

lic opinion in its favour as would carry it through that House and the House of Lords. The country, however, had the matter in its own hands, and might declare that nothing would satisfy it but Parliamentary Reform; the Government were of opinion that their best course would be to give their attention to the varions subjects indicated in Her Majesty's Speech.

Mr. Bright said he felt a grief which he could not express at what had fallen from Lord John Russell on the subject of a Reform Bill, and at the tone in which he had treated it. He asked the House to consider what was its position with regard to this subject-a question more important than the consistency of the conduct of any member of it. When the present Government came into power, pledges, public and private, had been given on the subject of Reform, of the most explicit character, and he asked the House whether it was right that the representation should be amended or not; and, if right, whether it was not better that it should be done now. The course which they were called upon to take upon this question, was not a safe course. If it was good for those entitled to a vote to be represented, it was not good for that House that they should be permanently excluded. The ques tion could not remain as it was; it must be settled, and he be heved that, in this session of all others, a moderate and useful measure of Reform, if the Government were in earnest, might pass both Houses of Parliament. He warned the House of dangers which, though regarded as re

mote, had overtaken statesmen of every country who had neglected them, and had overwhelmed many, and against risking the loss of their own selfrespect as well as the respect of the country.

Mr. White's amendment having been negatived by 124 to 46, the Address was agreed to.

On the bringing up of the report on the Address the next day, Mr. S. Fitzgerald revived the discussion respecting the foreign policy of the Government, and drew a contrast between the tone of Lord J. Russell's two despatches in August and October. The object of the first, which was the maintenance of peace, he approved of, though he took some exceptions to its language. The second Mr. Fitzgerald compared to the devices of the French Convention, and declared that the doctrines laid down in it sanctioned insurrection. He asked for explanations regarding our relations with France and the state of Syria.

Lord J. Russell, in reply, vindicated the language of his despatches. He said that Mr. Fitzgerald must adopt one of two courses-either say there should be no interference by a foreign Power, or show that in this case Sardinian intervention was unjustifiable. It would be absurd to lay down a rule that all cases should be placed in the same category. Each must be judged by its own merits. He gave several instances of interventions that had taken place, viz. in Greece against the Sultan-in Belgium against Holland-in England against James I. Were these instances to be condemned? It was unjust to say that the

despatch of October contained a general declaration in favour of insurrection. Mr. Disraeli and Mr. Fitzgerald had both evaded the facts. The latter said he could not discuss the general bearings of the Italian question: but in his (Lord J. Russell's) opinion, the rights and wrongs of the Italian people formed the whole matter in question. Reviewing the history of Naples since 1821, showing how Austria had interfered to put down the Constitutionalists, how the exking had forsworn himself-how he broke faith with his ministers -the noble lord justified the revolt of the Neapolitans, who were seeking constitutional government. 'Let me observe, further," added the noble lord, "that there are now in Europe, as there have been at various periods, three parties. There are those who are for despotism, there are those who are for disorder, and there are those who are for constitutional monarchy; and I say that it is not unbefitting the English Government to declare that when there is a contest among these principles they cannot favour despotism, they cannot show any countenance to disorder; but that with the cause of constitutional monarchy and of representative institutions, under the aegis of a king who can keep his word, they do feel sympathy, and that they are glad to see such a cause flourishing in a country which is so glorious for its ancient recollections, and so distinguished for the ability, industry, and activity of its sons, as is Italy. Therefore it was that when Russia and Prussia, and impliedly Austria and France, expressed their disapprobation of

any attempt to establish an independent Italy, I thought that the voice of this country might be heard on the other side, and that it might be shown that one constitutional monarchy at least would be glad to see the Italians free themselves by their own exertions." The discussion then terminated.

One of the first steps taken by the Government in this session was with a view to remedy the evils so much complained of in recent sessions, arising from the slow progress of public business, and the uncertainty and irregularity of Parliamentary proceedings. The opinion was entertained in certain quarters that the procedure of the House of Commons was in some degree chargeable with these consequences; and with a view of investigating the truth of that allegation, the Government proposed to institute an inquiry into this matter in both Houses.

Lord Palmerston,

on the 7th of February, accordingly moved the nomination of a Committee of the Commons, to consider whether, by any alterations in the forms and proceedings of that House, the despatch of public business could be more effectually promoted. He observed that there had prevailed both in and out of the House an opinion that some of its forms might be dispensed with, so as considerably to accelerate the public business. He reminded the House that improvements of this kind had been made, observing, at the same time, that they ought to be very cautious in adopting such changes, as expedition was not the sole purpose for which the House met, the great object being the discussion

[ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors]

of measures. It was not for the
Executive Government to pro-
pose any changes, but he threw
out some suggestions which had
been made by various members.
He proposed that the Committee
should consist of 21 members.

Mr. Horsman remarked, that
the report of the Committee of
1838 contained two classes of
recommendations, one of which,
relating to the forms and pro-
ceedings of the House, had been
adopted; but the other, applica-
ble to the conduct and manage-
ment of business by the Govern-
ment-upon which the Committee
observed its acceleration mainly
depended-had been very much
disregarded; and he proposed to
enlarge the instruction to the
Select Committee, so as to extend
its inquiries, whether the business
could not be accelerated by a
more careful preparation of mea-
sures, their early introduction,
and a judicious distribution of
them between the two Houses,
on the part of the Government.
He moved to amend the terms of
reference in the motion to that


Mr. Disraeli said he could not support the amendment, which implied a censure upon the Government in the conduct of busi1ies8 He was satisfied with the original motion, which contained all that the House could deal with.

Mr. Bright hoped the amend ment would not be pressed.

Sir George Lewis objected to the addition proposed. He pointed out what he conceived to be the main defects in the arrangement of Parlamentary business, and the causes of its being thrown

into arrear.

Sir J. Pakington was of opinion that as the business of the House

had outgrown its forms of procedure, these forms might be safely and beneficially abridged, which would accelerate the progress of the business without encroaching upon the right of debate. After some further discussion, Mr. Horsman withdrew his amendment, and the motion was agreed to.

Earl Granville made a similar motion the next day in the House of Lords. It had been, he said, at first proposed to have a joint Committee of both Houses, but the Government had preferred the plan of separate Committees, having a power of mutual communication. The Earl of Derby cordially assented to the motion, and it was carried.

The Committees thus appointed pursued their inquiries at some length, and after a short period presented their reports. That of the Commons Committee recommended certain alterations in the arrangement of business, which were partly adopted by the House.

The most important changes were the substitution of Thursday for Friday as a Government night, and the adoption of Tuesday as a supply night. The last alteration was considered at the end of the session to have had a decided effect in accelerating business.

On the 14th of February, Lord Herbert of Lea, as Secretary of State for War, moved a vote of thanks in the House of Lords to the officers and men in Her Majesty's service who had been engaged in the recent operations in China. The noble lord gave a brief sketch of the organization of the expedition for avenging the defeat of the Peiho, and adverted to the ability which had

been displayed by the officers in command in embarking and landing their troops in the highest state of efficiency. On the 1st of August, the troops under General Grant landed in China and occupied the forts of the Peiho. They subsequently, after encountering unexpected hardships, advanced through a difficult country, the obstacles of which were much lessened by the gallantry of the Sikh cavalry. The Taku Forts were next attacked, and after a short but gallant resistance, carried in the most successful style. He deemed it necessary to dwell on these points, because, since the capture of Pekin and the signing of the treaty, people were inclined to forget the difficulties which had been overcome. Lord Herbert next referred to the action which took place before Tientsin, and vindicated Sir Hope Grant from the charge that he had forced hostilities on the Chinese at this period, when they were particularly desirous of peace. Between the military and naval services he was delighted to state that there had been the most cordial co-operation. In terms of indignation he proceeded to detail the horrible barbarities inflicted by the Chinese on the unfortunate gentlemen whom they had captured by a foul act of treachery. This atrocious crime necessitated some sort of punishment, one which should fall upon the instigators of it, and not upon an unoffending people, and the punishment selected had been the destruction of the Summer Palace of the Emperor. From these topics he passed to speak in terms of great approval of the commissariat and

medical staff attached to the forces. It was the first time that a medical officer had been sent out solely for sanitary purposes, and the appointment had been productive of great benefits to the army. Already Her Majesty had expressed her sense of the services which had been rendered by the troops in China, and it now remained for their Lordships to express their approbation by giving their assent to the motion.

Lord Derby said that he felt it incumbent upon him to express his satisfaction at the perfect organization of the expedition to China, reflecting, as it did, the greatest credit upon the departments concerned with it, and especially upon their chiefs, Lord Herbert and the Duke of Cambridge. Although the campaign in China could not compare either in magnitude or in interest with late events in India, yet when he remembered how much had been done by a comparatively small force, how that force had passed through a thicklyinhabited country, advanced to the gates of the capital, and there dictated its terms of peace, he could not refrain from thinking such vast results achieved by such inadequate means read more like a page of romance than a fact of history. Having highly eulogized the various operations, he complained of the meagre information which had been laid before the House by the Government, and insisted that more papers should have been presented to their Lordships on the merits of officers whom they were about to thank for their services. No words, however, could be too high to mark their sense of Sir

« PreviousContinue »