Commons Sitting of 29 July 1864

MINUTES.
NEW WRIT ISSUED —For Exeter v. Edward Divett, esquire, deceased.
DENMARK AND GERMANY.

  SCHLESWIG-HOLSTEIN.—QUESTION.
  SIR HARRY VERNEYsaid, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether (France and England having placed on record that in their opinion no satisfactory settlement of the Schleswig-Holstein Question can be arrived at otherwise than, with the consent of the populations of those countries, either through their constitutional organs or in some other way, and Prussia having made proposals during the Conference which implied that she shared that opinion) Her Majesty's Government have, in conjunction with that of His Majesty the Emperor of the French, taken steps to urge on the

  2189
  Government of Prussia the propriety of not departing from that principle, and the importance, in the interests of European peace, of acting upon it as speedily as possible?
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: No, Sir; as long as the British Government were acting in Conference in conjunction with the other Neutral Powers, of course proposals and suggestions were made; but the Conference being over, negotiations have terminated and the negotiations being now conducted between the belligerent parties, it is not the intention of Her Majesty's Government to interfere further in the matter.

TURKEY.
  PRINCE COUZA AND THE PORTE.

    QUESTION.
    MR. P. A. TAYLORsaid, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether it is a fact that Prince Couza has issued a Proclamation dated 2nd (14th) July to the Roumanian people, wherein it is stated that—
    "His Majesty the Sultan, our Illustrious Sovereign, and the Guaranteeing Powers, have recognized the New Institutions of Roumania created by the Plebiscite of the 10th (22nd) to the 14th (26th) May?"
    VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Sir, Prince Couza, of his own authority, issued edicts entirely altering the constitution of the Principalities. The Porte objected to that, and so did the Powers who at the Treaty of Paris had to a certain degree undertaken to secure to the Principalities certain constitutional institutions. The Prince was summoned to Constantinople, where he communicated with the Porte and with the Representatives of the Powers who were parties to the Treaty of Paris, and the result of the deliberations of these parties was an agreement between the Porte and Prince Couza as to certain modifications in the constitution which had been given, certain portions of that constitution being maintained and other portions being altered. The result was considered satisfactory, both by the Porte and by the other European Powers.

  THE VOLUNTEER SERVICE.

    QUESTION.
    MR. H. B. SHERIDANsaid, he would beg to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, Whether the 20th section of the Volunteer Act of 1863 will apply to the
    2190
    case of a private (William Lodge, 146, Cannon Street Road, St. George's-in-the-East) of the Third London Rifle Volunteer Regiment, who was disabled while under official inspection, and therefore in actual Military Service—namely, on the 16th of May, 1864, at West End Park, Kilburn? the section referred to being as follows: —
    "A Volunteer, or Non-Commissioned Officer of the Volunteer Permanent Staff, disabled on actual Military Service, shall, according to his rank, be entitled to the like pension and other benefits, if any, as a Soldier of Her Majesty's Army."
    MR. HUTTsaid, in the absence of his noble Friend (the Marquess of Hartington), he would endeavour to answer the Question of the hon. Member. He regretted to say that the Volunteer who was the subject of the unfortunate accident was not, under the provisions of the Volunteer Act of 1863, entitled to a pension. He was not, within the meaning of that Act, engaged on actual military service. Such actual military service would only occur to a Volunteer in the event of an invasion of the country, or the immediate apprehension of such an event.

  CASE OF FLOGGING AT SUNDERLAND.

    QUESTION.
    COLONEL SYKESsaid, in the absence of his hon. Friend (Mr. Buxton), he would bog to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to the case of John Croudace and Thomas Allison, who were flogged on Saturday last in the County Prison at Sunderland; and what the names were of the magistrates by whom the same was ordered and superintended?
    SIR GEORGE GREYreplied, that his attention had been called to this case by a Question which had been put to him the other evening. He assumed then that this punishment had been inflicted by virtue of a sentence passed in conformity with the provisions of an Act passed last Session, which, for the first time, authorized corporal punishment to be inflicted in certain cases, in addition to penal servitude. Since then he had seen the calendar and the list of the convictions, and he found that these two prisoners were convicted of robbery with violence, and were sentenced by Mr. Baron Pigott to terms of penal servitude, and to receive twenty lashes with the cat within one week of the date of their conviction. He

    2191
    had no doubt that the sentence was carried into effect in strict conformity with the Act of last Session. Very few sentences had been passed under the provisions of that Act, but this was one of them. The magistrates were in no way responsible for the sentence; the only persons bound to be present at the infliction of the punishment being the governor of the gaol and the surgeon.
    MR. DARBY GRIFFITHsaid, he wished to know whether the cat was made of leather, and not of whipcord?
    SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he did not know the difference, or whether the cat of leather or of whipcord was the heavier instrument. The Judge who passed the sentence directed that the punishment should be inflicted with a cat instead of a birch-rod, according to the provisions of the statute.

ENDOWED SCHOOLS.—QUESTION.
MR. GRANT DUFFsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether a Royal Commission is about to be issued to inquire into all those Endowed Schools which were not inquired into by the last two Education Commissions?
SIR GEORGE GREY, in reply, said, an application was recently made to his noble Friend at the head of the Government for issuing a Commission with a view of inquiry into the state of those schools in which the children of the middle classes were principally educated, which were not included within the scope of the Commission for inquiry into the higher-class schools, nor within that of the Commission to inquire into the state of the ordinary schools for the lower class, which were supported by Parliamentary Grants. The Government thought it would be very useful that such an inquiry should take place, and a Commission would shortly be issued.

INDIA—FINANCE ACCOUNTS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. TORRENSsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, Whether he proposes to direct the attention of the Government of India to the necessity of closing the Finance and Revenue Accounts on a much earlier date than at present, in order that the Indian Financial Statement may be made soon after the meeting of Parliament; whether he has any objection to have the Finance at
  2192
  Revenue Accounts to be submitted to the House of Commons so arranged as to exhibit the Military and Naval (if any) Charges and Estimates for the maintenance of our Forces, European and Native, separately in the Presidency of Bengal, the North Western Provinces, the Oude Territory, the Punjaub Territories, the Presidency of Bombay, the Province of Sind, the Nagpore Territory, the Districts of East and West Berar, the Presidency of Madras with Coorg, the Eastern Settlements, and the Pegu at Tenasserim Provinces; and whether he has any objection to insert in the future annual Finance Accounts the total number of British troops, of Native troops, and of Military police, for whom the charges entered in the Accounts have been incurred?
  SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, in reply, that the investigation of the Indian Finance Accounts was submitted to the charge of two gentleman, upon whom devolved the duty of arranging them; and in the majority of cases it was found impossible to submit the financial statement to that House at an earlier period of the Session. He apprehended that the best course he could pursue would be to communicate with Sir Charles Trevelyan, with a view to ascertain what could be done in order to get the accounts at an earlier period than at present. In reply to the second Question of the hon. Gentleman, he thought it would be of no advantage, but that it would be, on the other hand, an evil to attempt to distribute the accounts of each Presidency—as that for instance of Bengal —within its own limits—inasmuch as the accounts of each district would furnish no guide to the general revenue and expenditure of the country. In answer to the third Question, he had only to say he should have not the least objection to state at any time the number of troops for whom the charges in the accounts had been incurred.
  MR. TORRENSsaid, he wished to explain that his inquiry merely extended to the expenses, and not to the number of the troops employed.

IRELAND—INAUGURATION OF THE O'CONNELL STATUE.

  QUESTION.
  MAJOR STUART KNOXsaid, he would beg to ask the noble Lord at the head of the Government a Question of which he had given him private notice, it was

  2193
  Whether the noble Lord is aware that a great party demonstration is to take place in Dublin on the occasion of the inauguration of the O'Connell Statue; and whether the Government will allow the provisions of the Processions and Party Emblems Acts to be set at nought on that occasion, as was the case at the funeral of Mr. M'Manus?
  VISCOWT PALMERSTON: Really, Sir, I have no information on the subject. I take it for granted that whenever the event to which the hon. and gallant Member has referred may be expected to take place, the Government will take all the measures which it will be their duty to take in order to preserve public order.

THE MOUNT ST. BERNARD REFORMATORY.—QUESTION.
MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, in consequence of his unavoidable absence, he was unable to submit to the House the Motion which stood in his name in reference to the Correspondence on the subject of the Reformatory of Mount St. Bernard. He begged now to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department as he can not allude to that correspondence, whether the certificate of the Inspector as regarded the Reformatory has not been practically withdrawn?
SIR GEORGE GREYreplied that the papers for which the hon. Gentleman gave notice of his intention to move did not relate, as he (Sir George Grey) understood, to recent circumstances, but only to the alleged mismanagement and disorder which prevailed at the Reformatory in 1863. A great deal of correspondence had taken place on the subject, but as the management of the institution had since passed into other hands, it was not considered expedient to produce it. He had certainly determined upon withdrawing the certificate; but subsequently he allowed it to remain in consequence of a representation having been made by the Inspector (Mr. Sidney Turner), that much inconvenience would arise if it were withdrawn. The certificate was then allowed to stand subject to the condition that the management of the Reformatory would be taken out of the hands of the monks and placed in other hands, which, was agreed to.

SCOTCH AND IRISH MARRIAGE LAW.

  QUESTION.
  CAPTAIN ARCHDALLsaid, he rose to ask, Whether the Government intend
  2194
  to introduce any measure early next Session to alter the Law of Marriage in Scotland, so as to make it in accordance with that of civilized nations?
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTONwas under-stood to say that the Question was a large one, and that he could not undertake to promise off-hand that the law on the subject would be considered by the Government.
  MR. HENNESSYsaid, he should like to know what Her Majesty's Government intend to do in regard to the Marriage Law in Ireland. At that moment there was the verdict of an Irish jury which had been upheld by the decision of the full Court of Common Pleas in Ireland, declaring Miss Longworth to be the lawful wife of Major Yelverton; and now they had further the decision of the final Court of Appeal that, according to the law of Scotland, she is not the wife of that gentleman.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, the question in the case alluded to was one of fact, not of law. Surely the hon. Gentleman could not mean to say that a marriage performed by a Roman Catholic Priest between a Protestant and Roman Catholic was legal?
  MR. HENNESSY: The jury found it to be legal.
  SIR GEORGE GREY: The jury only determined a question of fact.

DENMARK AND GERMANY—THE ARMISTICE.—QUESTION.
MR. DARBY GRIFFITHsaid, he would beg to ask the noble Lord at the head of the Government, Whether any information has reached him in regard to the nine months' armistice agreed upon between the Danish and the German Powers? As this armistice has been agreed to before the arrival of the Danish Representative at the Conference, it must have been effected through foreign mediation. He wished to know, Whether the noble Lord is aware of any such foreign mediation?
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON, in reply, said, he believed that no such mediation had been employed. He believed that the French Government had recommended moderation to the German Powers, but the negotiations had been carried on entirely between the Representative of Denmark on the one side, and those of Austria and Prussia on the other.

PRISON MINISTERS ACT.

  PAPERS MOVED FOR.
  MR. HENNESSY, pursuant to notice, rose to call attention to the proceedings of the Middlesex magistrates with reference to the Prison Ministers Act; and to move an address for papers. The hon. Gentleman said, a few days ago, he had presented a petition, signed by upwards of 10,000 Roman Catholics residing in the county of Middlesex, complaining that the provisions of the Prison Ministers Act had not been carried into effect by the Middlesex magistrates. It appeared that during the year ending Michaelmas, 1863, no less than forty-six Roman Catholics were received into the three prisons of Middlesex, and that at one time, in February last, those three prisons contained Roman Catholic prisoners. The petitioners stated that, owing to the conduct of the Middlesex magistrates, those unfortunate prisoners were deprived of that spiritual consolation and religious instruction which by the Prison Ministers Act the Legislature intended to give them. The Middlesex magistrates not only refused to appoint a Roman Catholic priest to attend upon those prisoners, but they had subsequently taken a particular step which indicated that they had been animated by motives which he did not think that House would approve. After refusing to carry out the provisions of the Prison Ministers Act, they proceeded a few days afterwards to pass the following resolution—
  "That a Scripture Reader be appointed, at a salary of £80 per annum, whose duty shall be—first, to see every prisoner about to be discharged a sufficient length of time beforehand to enable him to make himself acquainted, as far as may be, with his position and character, with a view to ascertaining whether he is a fit object for relief by the Visiting Justices, through the agency of the Discharged Prisoners Aid Committee; secondly, to devote whatever time remains at his disposal to the religious instruction of the prisoners generally, in the two new buildings of the prison, and that in this part of his duties he be placed under the supervision and control of the prison chaplain."
  It was obvious that the appointment of such a person, under such circumstances, was but an indirect attempt to proselytise the Roman Catholic prisoners. Hon. Members knew that the Scripture readers were generally of a controversial turn of mind, and the Scripture reader in question would have a clear field for the exercise of his powers when armed with the power of reporting upon the prisoners
  2196
  who were most deserving of relief from the Prisoners Aid Fund. He (Mr. Hennessy) wished to ask the Home Secretary, whether Her Majesty's Government approved of those proceedings, and whether they were aware of all the circumstances connected with them. It appeared, further, that the Chairman of the Middlesex magistrates was Mr. Pownall, who (he perceived from an advertisement in The Times) was an active member of the Committee of the Protestant Alliance. He thought it very unfortunate that a gentleman who was acting in such a semi-judicial capacity should be also closely connected with that body, which boasted, in the very advertisement to which he had referred, of the opposition it had given from time to time to the proceedings of the House of Commons. He considered that the conduct pursued by the Middlesex magistrates was highly unjust to the Roman Catholic prisoners themselves, unjust to millions of the Queen's subjects of the Roman Catholic Faith, and unjust also to the great mass of the people of this country, who believed that religious freedom and equal laws for all existed throughout the kingdom.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that She will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House, Copies of any Papers concerning the Proceedings of the Middlesex Magistrates, with reference to the Prison Ministers Act."— (Mr. Hennessy.)
  MR. NEWDEGATE, having had the honour of presenting a petition from the Middlesex magistrates, might state that he was present at the discussion which resulted in the passing of the resolution alluded to by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the King's County. He thought it right to call the attention of the House to a former resolution of the Middlesex magistrates, the last words of which were—
  "And no prisoner belonging to any church or religious persuasion shall be compelled to attend any religious service, held or performed by any chaplain, minister, or religious instructor of a church or religious persuasion to which the said prisoner does not belong."
  He could assure the House that the terms of that resolution had been strictly observed by the Middlesex magistrates. He had heard Mr. Serjeant Bellasis propose that the Roman Catholic prisoners should be placed under the exclusive supervision of the Roman Catholic priests. In consequence

  2197
  of that declaration the Middlesex magistrates, acting in conformity with the spirit of the Act, refused to make any appointment which would entail such compulsory supervision. He had voted for that resolution of the Middlesex magistrates, and that was the ground upon which he did so. In reference to what the hon. Gentleman had said, respecting Mr. Pownall having appointed a Scripture reader for the performance of certain duties in the prisons, he could only state that Mr. Pownall was incapable of adopting any such means for the purpose of proselytism. But having a person as Scripture reader whom they could trust, that person was employed to make the inquiries with reference to the distribution of the Prisoners Aid Fund. It was his conviction that the Middlesex magistrates would continue to act to the best of their ability in the spirit of the Prison Ministers Act. When the hon. and learned Member for the King's County expressed uneasiness at the idea of proselytism by means of the Scripture reader, he could assure him that he was doing a great injustice to a body of gentlemen, of which he (Mr. Newdegate) had the honour of being a member, and especially to Mr. Pownall, their honoured and trustworthy chairman.
  SIR GEORGE GREY, in answer to the hon. and learned Member for the King's County, begged to say that the papers recently laid upon the table contained the correspondence asked for. He had done all that he felt he could do, in pointing out to the visiting justices of Middlesex the power which the law placed in their hands in this matter, and in urging upon them their responsibility in the exercise of that power. The Prison Ministers Act did three things. It gave power in England to the magistrates in quarter sessions to appoint a Roman Catholic priest to visit the Roman Catholic prisoners, where there was a certain number of prisoners of that persuasion, and it also empowered them to award such remuneration as they deemed just to the Roman Catholic priest who performed those services. In a subsequent part of the Act, the visiting justices, as distinguished from the Court of Quarter Session, were expressly authorized to dispense with the necessity of exacting a request from the Roman Catholic prisoner as a condition to his seeing a priest, and were likewise enabled to permit a priest, if they saw fit, to visit the prisoners of his own church, subject to certain arrange-
  2198
  ments, for the prevention of improper intercourse. In the early part of the year the visiting justices had had that question brought before them, and they had declined to exorcise the power which the law gave them. He could make no complaint against them for exercising that discretion, but he thought the magistrates in quarter sessions went beyond the power and the spirit of the act in passing the resolution that had been referred to. He pointed out to the visiting magistrates that the law vested the appointment in them, and that they were not bound by the resolution of the Court of Quarter Sessions. The visiting justices of Cold-bath Fields Prison had before intimated to him their views in almost the same terms he addressed to the quarter sessions, and that they were willing to exercise their power, but that in deference to the resolution of the Court of Quarter Sessions, they thought they had better not do so. In the case of the other two prisons they said they did not consider themselves actually precluded from the resolution from doing so, but that in consequence of that resolution, they thought they ought not to make the appointment. He regretted they had taken that view of the duty imposed on them by Parliament, because he thought it was contrary to the intention of the Act, and the Court of Quarter Sessions ought not to have endeavoured to control the visiting justices. He had no power to make them take a different view of their duty. He had, however, stated his own opinion upon the subject, and he had some hopes that it would be reconsidered. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Forth Warwickshire had represented Mr. Serjeant Bellasis' letter as a proposition to place the Roman Catholic prisoners under the absolute supervision of the Roman Catholic priests; but the fact was that he simply called upon the visiting justices to carry out strictly the provisions of the Act. He regretted very much that occasion had been given by the magistrates in quarter session to our fellow Roman Catholic subjects to complain in this matter of injustice done to them. Parliament had enacted that it was expedient that Roman Catholic prisoners should receive religious instruction from ministers of that religion. Though the number of Roman Catholic prisoners confined in these prisons was very large, it should be borne in mind that 115 only, out of 891 Roman Catholic prisoners

  2199
  in one prison, and in another not one out of 97, had requested the attendance of a priest in the quarter ending January, 1864. The number of Roman Catholics in these prisons was very great, and he, therefore, felt it to be unfortunate that the magistrates in quarter sessions had not shown a greater disposition to carry into effect the intention of the Legislature in this matter.
  MR. NEWDEGATE, in explanation, read the resolution agreed to by the Middlesex Sessions—
  "That it appears to this Court that, by the laws now in force, all prisoners who belong to churches or persuasions differing from the Church of England, in addition to the instruction they may be willing to receive from the chaplain of the prison, are entitled, at their own request, to be visited by a minister of the religious persuasion to which they belong; but no prisoners are compellable to receive such visits against their will; that comparatively few prisoners of the various religious denominations have made such requests, and those who have have been duly visited; this Court is, therefore, of opinion that the present arrangements for the moral and religious instruction of the prisoners are sufficient, and that any appointments by this Court, or permission by the visiting justices, for Roman Catholic priests to attend at the prisons on all occasions, whether their ministrations are required or not, would be unnecessary and improper."
  MR. WYLDdesired to defend Mr. Pownall from the imputation of any religious bias in this matter. That gentleman had for a number of years discharged the duties of his office with honour to himself and to the satisfaction of the public.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

RELATIONS WITH MEXICO—PAPERS MOVED FOR.
MR. KINGLAKE, in rising to submit the Motion of which he had given notice relative to Mexico, observed that the papers for which he should move were necessary, in justification of the very important decision which had been come to by Government. He thought this country could not sufficiently congratulate itself on the fact that, thanks to the spirit and sagacity of Sir Charles Wyke, it was happily disentangled from the invasion the French were carrying on in Mexico. He was glad to find that the information of Her Majesty's Government with regard to the extent of that invasion was even more favourable to the views which he entertained on this question, than was the information which had come to himself. They now knew the extent of territory into which
2200
that invasion had penetrated. The Archduke's Government, it was stated, was occupying Tampico; but, in order to free that statement from deception, it must be also stated that there was no land communication between Mexico and Tampico, and the latter had only been occupied because the French had a naval communication with that port, and the result was that the French invasion occupied a wedge-like piece of territory only one-tenth of the extent of Mexico, hemmed in by 39,000 regular troops, and by an amount of guerilla troops which it was not easily to compute. It was quite clear, therefore, that there was no justification, in point of fact, for the proposed recognition of the Archduke's Government; but it must rest upon policy. It was quite possible there might be a policy to justify us in recognizing a ruler notwithstanding that he had not succeeded in possessing himself of the country. The way in which matters stood was this. If, in point of fact, the ruler was in possession of the country, there could be nothing offensive in acknowledging a fact so established; but if the fact did not correspond with the claims— if he who professed to be Emperor of all Mexico occupied only a small portion of it, the acknowledgment of his pretensions was an expression of preference—an intimation that he would be warranted in proceeding by fire and sword to subjugate an independent people. That seemed a very strong proposition to maintain. No doubt wherever the French army had penetrated it would be easy to find persons called "Notables" to offer a crown to an Archduke, but he believed he was warranted in saying that beyond the reach of the French armies no one had expressed the slightest inclination for the introduction of the monarchical system into that part of the world. He held in his hand the copy of a very interesting letter from General Prim to the Emperor Napoleon, which he would have read to the House, but from the very uncertain term of the present sitting. General Prim stated in that letter that the experiment of a Mexican Monarchy had been tried, and persons had been made to understand that they should express their opinions. That state of things had continued for two months, but notwithstanding every intrigue and. every opportunity given to encourage the expression of opinion in favour of the monarchical system, nothing of the kind had occurred. The General, therefore, coun-

2201
selled the Emperor to withdraw from the experiment, which was altogether inapplicable to the state of the country. How did it, then, consist with the principle which this country had always held, to be siding with the invader against the invaded? He had always thought that one of the great objects which England aimed at was the independence of nations, and yet we were here showing a preference for invaders, who came without a Mexican in their camp, except some priests who had made themselves hateful to their country, and who would not venture to remain there but for the support of the French. True, General Marquez was amongst the exiled faction, but he was a man whom he would not say had robbed, but had removed by force the sum of £132,000 from the British Legation. That man was now the foremost soldier in the service of the Archduke Maximilian, and had received the decoration of the Legion of Honour. That was the man who was engaged with the Archduke Maximilian in his attempt to subdue the country; an attempt to which we had given our sanction, he was going to say recognition, but it could hardly be termed recognition, because we had not yet recognized the Archduke as Sovereign of that country, though for some reason hitherto unexplained it seemed that we had entered into an engagement to do so at some future period. There might, possibly, be some reason for such a course which the papers for which he asked would disclose, but he could not but regard the course which we had pursued as one which differed from the ordinary practice of English statesmen. Over and over again English statesmen had been asked to say what they would do in the case of some future contingency, and their answer had always been that it did not become them to say, because the Government of this country was a Parliamentary Government, and their duty, therefore, was to avoid as much as possible doing anything which would tend to fetter the hands of their successors. But Her Majesty's Government seemed to have departed from that wholesome principle, and to have promised the French Government that they would recognize this invasion. As far as he was able to gather from the official papers of the French themselves, he believed that the invasion of the French by fire and sword was not only directed against the people of the country who were in arms, but also
2202
against peaceful villagers. A colonel in the French army had threatened a village with destruction, not because the inhabitants had resisted the French, but because they had fled to the mountains on their approach, and their only alternative was to furnish supplies to the enemies of their country. That was the kind of cause with which we were associated. If the invasion were in itself politic and just, then he freely admitted that the fact of the recognition being gratifying to a neighbouring potentate would only be an extra inducement for us to adopt that course; and if the Archduke were really in the occupation of these territories, he would recommend our following the policy of Mr. Canning, or even going still further, and saying that notwithstanding the invasion might be an iniquitous one, we were content, since the Archduke had succeeded in making himself Emperor, to acknowledge himself as such. That argument however could not apply when the Archduke Maximilian was only in possession of one-tenth of those vast territories. Under these circumstances, he trusted that the papers would be produced, so that they might have the means of examining fully into the grounds upon which the Government had proceeded in holding out a promise of support to the Archduke's Government.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that She will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House, Copies of any Papers relating to the state of our relations with Mexico."—(Mr. Kinglake.)
VISCOUNT TALMERSTONsaid, the course which Her Majesty's Government intend to pursue in this case does not differ in principle from the course which the Government has invariably pursued in similar cases. It has been our practice to acknowledge established Governments. Without going into minute questions as to the origin of the Government—whether it be a republic or a monarchy—when we find a Government established we enter into friendly relations with that Government. My hon. Friend says that we have promised prematurely to acknowledge the Emperor of Mexico before that empire has practically and really been established. I do not think our engagements have gone to that extent. Before the Archduke left Europe we were asked to acknowledge him as the future Emperor of Mexico.

2203
We were not inclined to do that, and we said it would be entirely at variance with our practice and our principles; but that if on his arrival in Mexico he should be well received by the people and his Government regularly established, our wish was that Mexico should have a stable Government. The great cause of the dissatisfaction which we have had for a long time in respect to that country is that Mexico has been governed successively by a number of military chiefs, who one after another obtained power, and one after another availed themselves of that power to plunder and murder English subjects, for they treated them no better than the people of any other country, but rather worse. It was, therefore, a great object with us to see established in Mexico a Government with which friendly relations could be maintained; and from which we might expect justice for British subjects resident in or engaged in commerce with Mexico. My hon. Friend says that as far as his information goes the portion of Mexico occupied by Trench troops is very limited. That may be so; but it does not follow that in other parts of the country not occupied by French troops the people may not be inclined to support the Government of the Emperor. And we have information —we may be misled, but our information is to the effect that the Indian population, who form a large portion of the total number of the people, are very well disposed to the establishment of an empire. It is said that they have historical traditions which dispose them to this course, as they have no particular regard or fancy for the mixed Spanish race, by whom they have never been over-well treated. For these reasons it is thought that they would be glad to see the Government of the Emperor established in Mexico, and that they would willingly submit to the rule of that Government. No doubt, there is still a number of troops commanded by Native leaders in opposition to the French army, but we are told that the French Government are employing transports to bring back a number of their soldiers, which
2204
fact implies that the disposition on the part of the people of Mexico to acquiesce in the rule of the Emperor is considerably greater than my hon. Friend has been informed it is. All I can say is that our course will depend on what we hear as to the manner in which the authority of the Emperor is established. If we find there is a prospect of a permanent Government being established, we shall be very glad to acknowledge it, because we think that would be a very great good not only to the people of Mexico but also to all Europe. If, on the other hand, we find matters still uncertain, and a war still going on, which may result one way or the other, we shall say the Government is not of a kind that would justify us in acknowledging the Archduke as Emperor of Mexico—

PROROGATION OF THE PARLIAMENT.
Message to attend the LORDS COMMISSIONERS.
The House went, and the ROYAL ASSENT was given to several Bills; And afterwards a Speech of THE LORDS COMMISSIONERS was delivered to both Houses of Parliament by THE LORD CHANCELLOR.
Then a Commission for proroguing the Parliament was read.
After which
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid—
My Lords, and Gentlemen,
By virtue of Her Majesty's Commission, under the Great Seal, to us and other Lords directed, and now road, we do, in Her Majesty's Name, and in obedience to Her Commands, prorogue this Parliament to Thursday the Thirteenth day of October next, to be then here holden; and this Parliament is accordingly prorogued to Thursday the Thirteenth day of October next.