upon the Treaty of Zurich, or meet a more dangerous situation -Italy united by the sword of France with its resources at the disposal of France." That was the result of the course the Government had pursued. Mr. Disraeli concluded by saying:

"Great influences have been at work during the last yearinfluences more powerful than French emperors and British ministers They had been slumbering in chaos; but you called forth those anarchical elements, one of which alone may be sufficient to produce a European war. What are these questions which are now agitating Europe, and from the agitation of which men shrank? You have the rival claims of priests and kings, you have the rights of races and the boundaries of empires-questions, one of which alone caused a war of thirty years. All these questions have now been called forth while Her Majesty's Government have been pursuing the phantom of an United Italy If the unity of Italy is to be effected, it can be affected only by a Power which occupies Italy in great force, not by a Power which has no force there whatever. That unity cannot be effected under such auspices without results dangerous, in my opinion, to the peace of Europe. That unity can only be effected in such circumstances by placing the Emperor of the French at the head of at least a million of armed men, and making him master of all the resources of Italy. I want to know whether, with the probability of such a result as that, with such dangers as these impending over Europe and more than Europe, inquiries

and explanations have passed between the Governments of England and France as to the intentions and policy of the French Emperor. I want to know whether the Government can inform the House what is the exact state of affairs in that respect, what are the true relations of France with Italy, and what are the prospects on this all-important question which the Government can hold out to the people of England.”

Lord John Russell admitted the right of Mr. Disraeli to ask for explanations, but told him he was not justified in complaining of want of information when the papers had just been laid on the table. He then stated the course pursued by the Government in the Italian question. “During the last year and a half, the Government have declared, over and over again, that the Italians should be allowed to settle their affairs as they thought best. Does Mr. Disraeli consider that a right or a wrong principle? He does not say whether he thinks it right or wrong; but he conjures up doubts which have no existence in fact. Mr. Disraeli has always derided opinions in favour of Italian independence. has sounded the praises of Austria and the late King of Naples." Lord John gave a close narrative of the course of Italian affairs since 1859, to show that the Government had consistently upheld the principle that the Italians should be free to choose their own rulers, and again asked Mr. Disraeli to say whether he thought that a right principle, or whether, after the Treaty of Zurich, he would have employed force to reinstate the GrandDukes. France said that no

He

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 various 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 question could not remain as it was; it must be settled, and he believed 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 ægis 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

of measures. It was not for the Executive Government to propose 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 proceedings of the House, had been adopted; but the other, applicable to the conduct and management of business by the Government-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 measures, 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 extent.

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

Mr. Bright hoped the amendment 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 Parliamentary 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