the provocations which the Piedmontese had received by the massacres of their fellow-soldiers and of harmless country people by bands of brigands. In regard to the elections, it could not be denied that the people were subjected to influences of various kinds; but the system of the plebiscite was certainly preferable to that of old, when provinces were transferred from one Government to another without the pretence of consulting the people at all. Lord Wodehouse next defended Lord John Russell's course on the Savoy and Nice question, stated what steps had been taken, but in vain, to obtain a military frontier for Switzerland, reasserted the policy of England in Italy to be that of non-intervention, and concluded by claiming the gratitude of Italy for the sympathy of England.

Lord Malmesbury expressed his surprise that information on very interesting topics, such as the blockade of Gaëta, the correspondence with France for preventing the blockade, and the position of Admiral Mundy, had been so scantily supplied by the Government. He then charged Lord John Russell with inconsistency between his despatches and his policy-for while, according to his despatches, he was opposed to the unification of Italy, he, by the policy he had adopted, brought about that very unification which he had deprecated.

Lord Llanover gave a positive denial to the sweeping assertions of Lord Normanby in regard to the feelings of the Italian people towards England, and insisted that the misfortunes which had befallen the King of Naples were

due to his own obstinacy in persisting to govern upon the arbitary principles of his father.

The discussion then terminated.

A few days later, Mr. Pope Hennessy, one of the members for King's County, took occasion of the motion for going into a Committee of Supply, to call the attention of the House of Commons to what he termed the active interference of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in promoting Piedmontese policy and to the effect of that policy, in increasing the national burdens in Piedmont, in the decline of its trade and commerce, the waste of the population in predatory war, and the consequent decay of agriculture, contrasting this state of things with the flourishing condition of the Papal dominions in all these particulars. In stating the facts from which he deduced the tests of the prosperity of the different parts of Italy, he charged Lord John Russell with deliberately concealing important despatches relating to the trade of Tuscany and Naples, and then entered upon a criticism of Lord John's Italian policy, as developed in his despatches, in connection with details of the military operations in Southern Italy, and of alleged atrocities committed by Sardinian officers. He discussed the subject of the elections in Italy, and the manner in which, as he said, the Piedmontese had dealt with the elections, as showing the little value to be attached to them. He appealed to acts on the part of Lord John Russell, which, he contended, amounted to interference in Italian affairs, in spite of his professions of neutrality; and he reproached him

with a breach of international law, and with destroying the confidence of European statesmen in the honour and integrity of the British Foreign Office.

Mr. Layard observed that this subject was one of the greatest importance, and deserved to be debated in that House, but he did not think it should be brought on in this way. His opinion was, that the policy which had been pursued by Her Majesty's Government in regard to Italy was in accordance with the sentiments of the large mass of the English people; and he did not believe that Mr. Hennessy had obtained his information regarding the Pope from the most trustworthy portion of his subjects, who desired the cessation of his temporal rule. He specified various instances of the arbitrary character of the Papal Government exercised by the Legates. He maintained that the Pope was responsible for the abuses in the Legations, and he opposed to the tales of atrocities charged against the Piedmontese by Mr. Hennessy, accounts of still fouler acts of barbarity perpetrated by agents of Rome. Speaking from personal observation, he bore testimony to the favourable changes in the appearance of the country in Ferrara and Bologna, and the condition of the people, since the alteration in the Government, and he avowed his disbelief of the statements quoted by Mr. Hennessy. He traced the vices of administration in the Roman States to the fact that it was exercised in all its parts by ecclesiastics. He insisted that the success of the King of Sardinia had been the result of the will of the people of Italy; he had not

relied upon foreign bayonets; and the attack made by Mr. Hennessy upon the elections was founded upon a misconception. In justifying the policy of Lord John Russell, he made an apt and somewhat remarkable quotation from a work of Sir George Bowyer, published in 1848. Independently of authorities, however, we were bound, he observed, to consider the wishes of the people of Italy, who, evincing a wonderful moderation, had determined to be subjects of the King of Sardinia. Italy united would be a strong Power, and though disunited it might be French, united Italy never would be French. As regarded this country, all the support we should give to the Italians was a moral support and cordial sympathy.

Sir G. Bowyer replied to Mr. Layard, whose statements as to the atrocities said to be committed by brigands he met by contradiction. He occasioned some surprise by asserting that there had been no massacre at all at Perugia, where none were killed but soldiers in fair fight. He vindicated the doctrine he had laid down in the quotation made by Mr. Layard, in answer to whose observation that the King of Sardinia had not relied on foreign bayonets, he asked, whether the revolution in Italy had not been initiated by French bayonets. He preferred a long series of charges against the King of Sardinia, comparing disadvantageously his conduct with that of the gallant young King of Naples, fighting in defence of his rights against piracy and rebellion. He denounced the policy of the Foreign Office

as fatal to the interests of this country, and as a policy which, in the end, must lead to war.

Mr. James, declining to discuss the statistics of the finances and trade of Piedmont and the Papal States, cited by Mr. Hennessy as tests-though he denied they were certain tests-of their comparative prosperity; or to follow Sir G. Bowyer in his discursive speech, proceeded to examine the accusations brought against the conduct of Sardinia and the Italian policy of Her Majesty's Government. He vindicated the character and the proceedings of Garibaldi, so unjustly stigmatized as a "pirate," and drew a fearful picture of the "paternal" government of Naples, which, by its system of espionage and its prisons, tyrannized, he said, over the intellect of its subjects and the freedom of thought. He defended Lord John Russell against charges made by Mr. Hennessy, and upon the evidence of official returns, to the accuracy of which he pledged himself, exposed that gentleman's errors on the subject of the elections. With reference to the Pope, he believed that his temporal power, which, he said, was gone, was the bane of his spiritual influence, rendering him responsible for acts of cruelty and injustice. The foreign policy of Her Majesty's Government had been, in his opinion, clear, unambiguous, and just; it reflected infinite credit upon them, and recommended itself to the feelings of the people.

Sir R. Peel complained of the invectives of Sir G. Bowyer directed against the British Foreign Office, expressing his opinion that the integrity of that

office was safe in the hands of the present Secretary. He had, he said, followed the acts of the Foreign Secretary with a critical eye, and though there had been shortcomings, they had been corrected. He examined the course pursued by Lord John Russell in Italian affairs in relation to the French alliance, and to English policy, which was one of strict non-intervention, with an expression of moral sympathy towards Italy. With regard to King Victor Emmanuel, considering his conduct apart from the cession of Savoy, he approved his policy, and rejoiced in the position he held, as guardian of the liberties of Italy. Liberty, he was happy to say, was at length dawning upon that country under a constitutional Sovereign, the political being coupled with a religious movement. Difficulties were, however, to be overcome; they were not at Gaëta, nor at Venice, nor at Messina; they were at Rome, which was the great obstacle to the pacification and consolidation of Italy.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer observed that Sir. G. Bowyer had raised a broad issue; he had asserted that a revolution which the people of England looked upon with wonder, was the result of a wicked conspiracy, carried on by an unprincipled King and a cunning Minister; that the people of Naples, governed by benignant laws wisely administered, were devoted to their Sovereign; and he (Mr. Gladstone) wished to try, in the face of the House of Commons, by reference to unquestioned evidence, whether these allegations were true, or faithless shadows, the fictions of those

who had made it their work to trample down the liberty of the people. Mr. Gladstone then entered upon a melancholy history of the sufferings of the people of Naples since the time when the late King audaciously violated the Constitution he had deliberately sworn to maintain. He then adverted to the Government of the States of the Church, distinguishing between the personal character of the Pope and his Administration, that execrable system of which, he observed, the Pope was both the instrument and the victim. He detailed various cases of executions and outrages in the Romagna, long before the late revolution; acts which, whether perpetrated by their own Government or by a foreign soldiery, would justly exasperate the most patient people. He established by documentary proofs the fact of wanton and deliberate murders at Perugia, and read details of particular instances of illegal executions in Modena, the pet State of Austria, under the late " paternal" Government. Italy, he observed, which had long yearned for unity, owed much to England, and a heavy debt of gratitude to France. But neither England nor France, nor even Victor Emmanuel, had made Italian unity; it was the policy which had been pursued by Austria towards Italy that had made her what she was.

Mr. Maguire disputed the accuracy of the statements made by Mr. Layard as to the condition of the Papal States, contending that some parts were as highly cultivated as any other parts of the civilized world. Mr. Layard had termed the neigh

bourhood of Rome a desert, whereas a large portion of the Campagna was highly productive as pasture land, and the worst portion was no worse now than in former times. He alleged that the Pontifical Government had not been backward in introducing railways and electric telegraphs, and rewards for the encouragement of industry; that the shipping had increased; that, whenever tranquillity prevailed, the 'Papal finances improved ; that taxes were moderate, and that laymen were largely employed, although Rome was said to groan under priestly tyranny. He denied that the temporal power of the Pope was coming to its end. Providence, he said, watched over it as necessary for the exercise of his spiritual power; and he asked what the Pope had done that he should be robbed of his dominions? He denied that the policy of Lord J. Russell was non-intervention, since he was doing everything in his power to damage the cause of the Pope, who attributed much of his suffering to the machinations of the English Government.

Mr. Roebuck observed that most of those who had spoken upon this question had mistaken it altogether. What was wanted was to learn, not so much as to the past, as what the Government meant to do in settling Italy. He looked at the question as an Englishman, and he asked what ought to be the policy of England towards Italy? He was for an united Italy, he wanted to see Italy under one Government-from the bottom of the Peninsula up to the Mincio, wholly Italian. He found on

the north-west of Italy a great Power-France; on the northeast another great Power-Austria; and on the east of her another great Power Russia. What, then, were the hopes of making Italy an united Italy? Up to that hour, since the iron despotism of Rome, Italy had never been one. We had been told that France had done great things for Italy. Yes; but had she not done something for herself? had she not advanced to the crest of the mountains, and could she not now pour her troops into Italy? Were there not 40,000 French at Rome? Ought there not to be, then, some counterpoise to the power of France? He had no desire to see an united Italy a vassal of France; was there not a danger of this, and how was it to be prevented? The only part of Italy held by Germany was Venice and the Quadrilateral, and he pressed on the Government the danger of the course they were pursuing, by endeavouring to exclude Austria from Venetia. Austria had now a constitution one which, on paper, was as liberal as ours, and our policy ought to be to protect Austria, as she had no interest opposed to England. Austria at the present time was not the Austria of the past, and, looking to the possible contingency of an alliance between France and Russia, we might have to cast about for friends, and our policy ought to be to cultivate the friendship of Austria.

Mr. Monsell believed it would be impracticable to unite the different States of Italy, the inhabitants of which had few sym

pathies in common, and would not coalesce, He contended that the rules of international law had been violated by the approbation given by our Government to the invasion of the Papal territory by the Sardinian troopsa precedent which might hereafter be pleaded to our prejudice.

Lord J. Russell said that Mr. Hennessy and Sir G. Bowyer, as well as Mr. Monsell, had raised a false issue-whether the Government of the King of Sardinia was better than the Governments of the King of Naples and of the Pope, and whether Her Majesty's Government were justified in giving their support to the King of Sardinia against those princes. The people of Naples might be wrong in preferring the rule of the King of Sardinia; but this did not touch the policy of Her Majesty's Government, which was, not to interfere so as to prevent the people of Italy from choosing what Government they pleased. After all he had heard, it seemed to him that a Government more abominable than that of the King of Naples never existed in Europe; and in the Legations there was no protection for life and property, while every care was taken that men should not use the intellect which God had given them; what wonder, then, that the people should prefer to live under another ruler? But the question was not whether the Sardinian Government was preferable or not to the Governments it displaced. Were it ever so distasteful to the people concerned, was it for the English Government to say, "We are determined to oppose your