wishes?" This was not a course

which any Minister in this country could take. Mr. Roebuck had said we ought to prevent the expulsion of Austria from Venetia; here, again, it was for the people themselves to decide, and he would never lay down the principle that this country must go to war to maintain Austria in her Italian possessions. (Mr. Roebuck disclaimed any such meaning.) In conclusion, Lord John declared that his policy had been a national one, and that he believed the country approved it.

Mr. White combated with some warmth the opinions expressed by Mr. Roebuck regarding the continuance of the Austrian power in Italy.

Mr. A. Russell observed that the result of this debate would prove, what was well known, that the foreign policy of the Government was really in accordance with the sympathies of the country.

Mr. M. Milnes also stated his opinion that the foreign policy of the Cabinet, though not free from inconsistencies, was one of which Englishmen had no right to complain. The tendency now apparent from the extension of the King of Sardinia's sway in Italy to the absorption of all the minor Powers of that peninsula under his dominion, led many persons to anticipate that the days of the Papal sovereignty were numbered, and that Rome would speedily become the capital of an united and constitutional kingdom. It was obvious that the solution of this question lay solely in the hands of the French Emperor, whose military force

at Rome constituted the sole prop of the Pope's temporal power, but whose motives and policy were wrapt in a mystery which defied all speculation to penetrate. The fate of Pius the Ninth and his temporality, thus suspended in a balance, excited a lively interest in this country; the hopes of the Protestants and the fears of the Roman Catholics being centred on the anticipations of a change which might be pregnant with momentous consequences to the Christian world.

The debate then terminated.

The Earl of Ellenborough made an attempt, in the month of April, to elicit some information from Her Majesty's Government on the same important subject, by inquiring of them, in the House of Lords, whether they were engaged in any correspondence with the object of reconciling the spiritual independence of the See of Rome with the exercise of temporal sovereignty within the Roman territory by the King of Italy. He prefaced this question by observing, that the subject for the consideration of the House was not the past misgovernment of the Italian peninsula, but how the work so auspiciously begun could be best completed for the happiness of the Italians and the benefit of Europe. The means by which the unity of Italy had been brought about plainly showed the hand of Providence, but the keystone of the arch was wanting until Rome should become the capital of the new State. The acquisition of Rome, on account of its central position and ancient renown, would suppress local jealousies, and unite in one general feeling the whole of Italy, which

would then constitute a nation. The occupation of Rome, however, by French troops, precluded that unity, placed France in a false position, and did not even conciliate the feelings of the French clergy. It would be advantageous, both to France and the Pope, that the present state of things should cease. The dignity of that personage would be better consulted by a surrender of his temporal authority, provided he were secured a liberal revenue and a position of dignified independence, than by the present state of things, in which his dominion rested on the uncertain support of a foreign soldiery and the precarious resource of tributary offerings. If such alteration were made in an honourable spirit, the French clergy would probably be satisfied, and Rome might at once assume her proper position as the capital of Italy. Lord Ellenborough then proceeded to examine the relations of Austria and Venetia, and, while acknowledging that Europe owed much to the former Power for the gallant stand she made against the first Napoleon, and admitting that she had only carried out the intentions of the Congress of Vienna in maintaining herself in Italy, he considered that the time had at length arrived for Austria to reconcile herself with the Italian people. Not only was Venetia a cause of endless expense to Austria, and, since the improvements in artillery, of comparatively small value as a strategical position, but the retention of Venetia by Austria threw Italy into the arms of France, whereas it ought to be the policy of Austria to make common cause with the Italians,

and to look on Italy as her vanguard against French aggression. Holding these views with regard to Venetia, 'he deprecated, however, any interference of the Italians in Hungary, and said that he should consider any one desirous of raising a war in Hungary against Austria as criminal in the face of Europe. For 45 years he had cherished hopes of Italian unity, and he rejoiced that he had been permitted to live to see those hopes and aspirations almost gratified.

Lord Wodehouse answered the question of Lord Ellenborough in the negative, and very briefly stated the reasons why the Government had not thought it becoming or desirable for a Protestant country to take the initiative in the matter. The whole question depended upon the withdrawal of the French troops from Rome, and Her Majesty's Government had not disguised their opinion that it was desirable those troops should be withdrawn. He refused to follow Lord Ellenborough into the Venetian question, but simply observed that the advice given to both parties was, not to be the assailant.

Lord Clarendon rejoiced to hear the answer of Lord Wodehouse, and hoped that the Government would continue to leave the settlement of the Roman question to the Roman Catholic Powers. At the same time he entirely agreed with Lord Ellenborough that Rome. should be the capital of Italy, both from its religious, historical, and local associations, and its freedom from municipal recollections, which would interfere with constitutional government.

Having briefly reviewed the reasons which had led to the occupation of Rome by the French, the humiliating position that they occupied as protectors of the worst Government in Europe, and the desire of the Emperor of the French to withdraw his troops on securing the safety and spiritual independence of the Pope, he stated it would be impolitic for this country to interfere, as it would only tend to confirm the idea that England had some selfish object in view. Time and the progress of events would, he thought, bring about an understanding between the Pope and the King of Italy, especially as the Pope's Government, by failing to command the obedience and loyalty of his subjects, could only hope to retain temporal power by the never-ceasing occupation of a foreign army, which was simply impossible.

Lord Derby entirely agreed with the remarks of Lord Ellenborough on the rights of Austria in Venetia, and the importance of removing all differences between Austria and Italy. He also heartily concurred with the principle of non-interference in the settlement of the Romish question laid down by Lord Wodehouse. To this country, considering the number of its Roman Catholic subjects, it was of the greatest importance that the Pope should be independent, and not subject to the dictation of any foreign Power; but the extent of his temporal power was entirely distinct from his independence. For some years the Pope had enjoyed only a nominal power, but until some solution of the present difficulties was

found, it would be impossible to urge upon France the withdrawal of her troops. He would not express so strong an opinion as that Rome should of necessity be the capital of Italy, as, in his opinion, it would have been better to form a north and south kingdom in Italy, in which case Rome would have lain between the two, and the solution of the question would have been easy. As, however, there was now only one Italian kingdom, it was a natural desire that Rome should be the capital, but it was a desire which created the greatest embarrassment. Whatever conclusion was arrived at, the importance of maintaining the real independence of the Pope should never be lost sight of.

The discussion then terminated.

The death of Count Cavour, which was made known in this country on the 6th of June, excited the liveliest emotions of regret throughout England. That statesman had so thoroughly identified himself with the great constitutional revolution in which all parties, with few exceptions, cordially sympathized, that the sudden removal from the scene of the master mind which had effected so much, and appeared so essential to the successful accomplishment of Italian unity, produced, at first, a feeling almost of consternation among the well-wishers to that cause. some circles, there was a sentiment of regret, as if each man had sustained an individual loss. In Italy itself, the sorrow for the loss of her unrivalled statesman amounted, for a time, to dismay. The Parliament of Turin was adjourned for three days, as a mark

In

of respect to the memory of the deceased. In France, the universal press poured forth a strain of eulogy and regret. In the English House of Commons it was felt that so lamentable an event ought not to pass without notice. Sir Robert Peel referring, in feeling terms, to the irreparable loss which the cause of liberty had sustained, suggested that the House might record its deep sympathy with the affliction which the Italian nation had sustained by the premature death of so illustrious a statesman.

Lord John Russell said, that having been engaged in diplomatic transactions with the late Count Cavour, he could not but feel it due to his memory to say that never man had more devoted himself, heart, mind, and soul, to his country than Cavour. He had early dedicated his great abilities and untiring industry to achieve a task of the greatest difficulty, the independence of Italy.

The O'Donoghue was the sole dissentient from the opinions thus expressed. He reprobated the conduct of one whose policy had been actuated by hostility to the temporal power of the Pope, and could not regard his death as a calamity.

Mr. M. Milnes deprecated any controversy of this kind over the dead body of a great man. He thought it only becoming to express their sense of the immense loss which Europe had sustained. Lord Palmerston, after pointing out the practical objections to any formal record of its sentiments by the House on this occasion, which might involve difficulties hereafter, pronounced

an eloquent eulogium upon the distinguished qualities of Count Cavour, and referred to the claims he had upon the gratitude and attachment of his fellow-countrymen. He had laid the foundation of improvements-social, moral, and political-which would long survive him, and which would entail inestimable advantages upon the country over the destinies of which he had exerted so powerful an influence. It might well be said of him that he had lived a life

"To point a moral and adorn a tale,"

and though his death was premature, it could not be said that he died too soon for his glory and his fame.

In the House of Lords, the Marquis of Clanricarde originated a similar expression of sentiment. He pronounced the event which had recently occurred to be a calamity both to Italy and to Europe. Count Cavour was a statesman who, whatever opinions might be entertained of his political views, occupied too important a place in the politics of Europe for his death not to be regarded as a great calamity; and those who had the honour and advantage of his personal acquaintance must feel most deeply and painfully on this event. The loss which had fallen on Italy and the world, at the present moment was irreparable. But Count Cavour had left behind him a renown for patriotism, personal disinterestedness, and an ambition honourably directed, that would survive till the latest period in the annals of his country.

Lord Wodehouse said he en

tirely concurred with Lord Clanricarde in feeling, that whatever difference of opinions might exist with respect to particular transactions in Count Cavour's policy, his death at such a crisis as the present in Italian affairs, must be regarded as a most serious calamity. He also entirely agreed with the feeling that had been expressed, that Cavour was a man of great talents, of great skill, and that he rendered vast services to his own country and the kingdom of Italy in general. All must join in deploring his death as a most calamitous blow to that great cause to which every one wished well.

The Earl of Malmesbury said, "Having at two distinct periods, in consequence of the changes in the Government of this country, had to carry on official correspondence, and enter into official relations with Count Cavour, I should be sorry if I omitted to refer to the death of one who must be considered a very great man. I entirely agree with my noble friend opposite that no differences of opinion as to his policy can make any difference in the feelings with which we have heard of the death of Count Cavour. I do not think those differences of opinion have been so great-they were rather differences on points of detail than on principle-as to render such a distinction of feeling possible. Whatever they may have been, and whatever they may be hereafter, we must see, from the importance of the events pending in Italy, that the influence of the great Minister and statesman was of the most essential character. I do not look

forward with such apprehension as the noble Marquis has expressed to what may be the results of the death of Count Cavour. We must hope that the Italians, having attained the point at which they have arrived, will continue to show the same resolution and the same prudence in their general conduct that they have displayed under the administration of Count Cavour. His memory will be a beacon and an example to them which it is most important that they should follow, not only for their own sake, but for that of every country of Europe."

The Marquis of Bath, alone in the House of Lords, expressed an opinion of Count Cavour different from that of the other Peers. His sentiments, however, met with no response from their lordships.

A question, arising out of the recent relations of the new Italian sovereignty with France, was mooted by a member usually well-informed upon foreign affairs, Mr. A. W. Kinglake, in the House of Commons, in one of the

last weeks of the session. The hon. hon. member inquired. whether the Governments of Italy and France continued to deny that the King of Italy had entertained a project for ceding to France the Island of Sardinia; and whether the truth of any such denials was confirmed or shaken by the information which Her Majesty's Government might have received from other quarters. Mr. Kinglake prefaced this inquiry by suggesting the vast importance and value of the island to France, since the possession of it would give her a commanding