Sitting of 11 August 1846

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1o. British Possessions.
2o. Naval and Military Departments; Public Works Commissioners (Ireland); Public Works and Fisheries; Small Debts; Public Works, Fisheries, &c.; public Works (Ireland) (No. 3); County Works Presentments (Ireland) (No. 2); Medical Practitioners.
Reported. Commons Inclosure (No. 3); Contagious Diseases Prevention; Lunatic Asylums and Pauper Lunatics.
3o. and passed. Deodands Abolition (No. 2); Death by Accidents Compensation.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Mr. Evans, from Associated Ministers and Delegates of the Churches of the Congregational Order in Derbyshire, in favour of the Religious Opinions Bill.—By Admiral Dundas, from John Paterson, of Silver Street, Greenwich, praying for Compensation for Losses sustained through the passing of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act.—By Mr. Thomas Duncombe, from Inhabitants of Ashton under Lyne, in Public Meeting assembled, complaining of the Treatment of Factory Children.—By Dr. Bowring, from Inhabitants of the Town of Hounslow and its Vicinity, for the Abolition of Naval and Military Flogging.—By Mr. Redhead Yorke, from Ratepayers of the Township of Southwick, in the Parish of Monkwearmouth, in the County of Durham, for Repeal or Alteration of Lunatics Act and Lunatic Asylums and Pauper Lunatics Act.—By Mr. Craven Berkeley, from William Henry Brown, of Park Road, in the County of Surrey, M.D., against the Medical Practitioners Bill.—By Mr. Thomas Duncombe, from Commissioners for Paving the United Parishes of Saint Andrew Holborn above the Bars, and St. George the Martyr, in the County of Middlesex, suggesting Plans for the Metropolitan Improvements..—By Mr. W. H. Bodkin, from Finsbury, for Redemption of the Tolls on the Waterloo and other Bridges.

NAVAL COURTS MARTIAL.
MR. WILLIAMSwish to asked a question of the Secretary of the Admiralty whether, as so much irregularity had taken place in courts martial in the navy, the opinion of the law officers of the Crown had been taken with regard to the trial of a marine lately sentenced to be hanged at Cork for striking his superior officer?
MR. WARDreplied, that the minutes of the court martial alluded to by the hon. Member for Coventry, were received in due course by the Board of Admiralty, who having found reason to suppose there was a legal flaw in the constitution of the court, submitted them to the law officers of the Crown. The law officers considered the court was illegally constituted,

623
and thought it unnecessary and undesirable, bearing in mind the suspense which the offender must have undergone, to order a new trial. Under these circumstances they directed the proceedings to be considered null and void; and recommended the offender to be brought back to his company, in the hope that the anxiety and suspense he suffered would have a salutary effect upon his future conduct.

RAILWAY LEGISLATION.
MR. WILLIAMSwished to ask the noble Lord at the head of the Government, whether it was his intention to propose any Resolution with respect to the introduction of Railway Bills in the next Session of Parliament? He was induced to ask this question, because it had been computed that in the course of the present Session the Legislature had sanctioned Railway Bills requiring the sum of 150,000,000 l. for their construction; and that the Session before, they had legalized undertakings requiring a further sum of 60,000,000 l., making altogether no less than 210,000,000 l. There was, he believed, a great apprehension existing in the money market, that the monetary affairs of the country would be deranged, and its commerce considerably retarded, by the application of so much capital to railway undertakings.
LORD J. RUSSELL: There are proposals about to be made with respect to the mode in which Railway Bills are to be framed; and the manner in which it is proposed they shall be examined in this House; and for that purpose a Committee has been sitting. Her Majesty's Government intend to take into consideration the Resolutions recommended by that Committee, with respect to the formation of a Railway Board. I will not now state the functions of that board; but the hon. Gentleman seems to have in contemplation another mode of interference—an interference calculated to restrict the application of capital, from the apprehension that such an application would derange the monetary affairs of the country. With regard to that subject, the House will bear it in recollection that a Committee of this House was appointed at the commencement of this Session, and another in the House of Lords to inquire into that point, and that neither of those Committees recommended any interference with the numerous railway projects then before the House. On the ground that they had not so recom-
624
mended any interference, various Railway Bills were passed, after they were examined before Committees, at a great expense to the parties concerned, and to the country at large. I do not, then, think with regard to those Committees, and with regard to the examination of railway projects, that it would be right now to stop those Railway Bills, and prevent the application of that capital which the public may be anxious to invest in such speculations. With regard to the general question, without pledging myself to a question of general legislation, I see a very great objection to an interference with the application of capital to railway projects and other undertakings of similar character, seeing we do not know any mode by which we could interfere with respect to the application of capital to railways in foreign countries. There are no means by which we could propose that any extent of capital speculators may think fit to invest, should not be applied to the construction of railways on the Continent or in the United States of America. Such being the case, I see a great objection to our interfering with the application of capital, and I fear in practice it will be found difficult and impracticable to carry such legislation into effect.

DEODANDS ABOLITION (No. 2) BILL.
Upon the Motion that this Bill be read a Third Time,
LORD GRANVILLE SOMERSETobjected to the manner in which this matter had been introduced. Neither the private rights of the Sovereign nor individuals had been consulted. He believed that 700 l. or 800 l. a year, arising from deodands, was paid into the privy purse; and it was only common decency that the Crown should have been consulted on the subject, and that some communication should have been made to Parliament on the part of Her Majesty. Private individuals would also be injured by this measure, as he believed that the corporation of Liverpool, for instance, received a considerable sum of money from deodands.
SIR G. GREYsaid, that he was quite prepared to take the same course as was taken last year by the noble Lord the Member for Falkirk, who announced Her Majesty's assent to a similar measure; and he was now ready to signify Her Majesty's assent to the present Bill. The right which would be relinquished by the Crown was of trifling pecuniary value, because

625
lately deodands had been much litigated; and when they had been imposed by the verdict of a jury, they had in almost every case been taken into the Court of Queen's Bench, and quashed there.
Bill read a Third Time.
On the Motion that the Bill do pass,
MR. S. WORTLEYsaid, that although this Bill had passed the House of Lords, after an able introduction, yet it had so passed without any discussion whatever. It would be recollected that deodands were a gift to the Crown in a very early stage of our history; and he did not think that any alteration whatever was made in the case by their having been in some instances made over to corporations. The only discussion which the Bill had undergone was in a Committee up-stairs, consisting chiefly of lawyers, the responsibility of whose acts he would share, although he was only present for half an hour. It should further be recollected that it was by means of deodands only that a cheap and ready compensation was made to the poor for the injury which they suffered. Now, in the instance of an injury inflicted by a railway company, was it at all reasonable that they should not be obliged to pay for the consequences of the conduct of their servants? What was the use of bringing an action for damages against the servant, who was in most cases a man of straw, and could pay nothing? He was no advocate for the absurdity of the law of deodands; but he did say that a simple compensation to the Crown was a very ready means of getting at the compensation which was due to the injured party. He would appeal to the learned Lord Advocate for a confirmation of the working of the law of deodands in Scotland. He believed it worked very well. The Bill was brought down from the House of Lords on the 8th of May; and it was read a second time in the House of Commons, and committed on the following Monday; and when he returned to town on that day at one o'clock, he found that the two clauses which gave the principal feature to the Bill had not only been refrained, but totally altered in character. In Scotland, there was this difference in the law: the nearest relation of the person killed or injured might bring an action for damages; and any relation who might be abroad at the time of the occurrence, was not debarred from bringing an action on his return; in fact, each relation might come in turn. The question was involved in difficulties: he considered, therefore, that the two Bills
626
before the House ought to be postponed until next Session; and that, in the meantime, a Select Committee should be appointed to consider the laws relative to deodands, and to report to the House on the subject. He concluded by moving as an Amendment the appointment of a Committee to consider the present state of the law of deodands, and of actions for injuries to the person by accident or otherwise.
The ATTORNEY GENERALcould not accede to the Motion of his right hon. and learned Friend. The subject had been already carefully considered; and the result had been the Bill before the House. Were the deodands to be continued, to take them from the lord of the manor and give them to the sufferers, would cause a demand for compensation on the part of the former — a demand which, however, would not be raised were deodands to be abolished altogether, as converted from their original purposes, and vicious in their present operation. By the present law of deodand, compensation was made, not according to the extent of the injury inflicted, but according to the value of the instrument of injury. How did the right hon. and learned Gentleman mean to apportion the fine which he wished to keep up? Would he entrust the task of valuing it to the defective machinery of a coroner's court? If there was anything more difficult to fix than another, it was the amount of a deodand, and the cases in which it ought to be levied. The only way he could see of putting the system upon a more satisfactory footing was that of making the deodand recoverable by an action at civil law; and that was the course which the Government intended to adopt. He had great reliance upon the judgment of an English jury in fixing the amount of deodand. If they did sometimes run riot, they were always promptly checked, and the evil righted itself.
MR. WAKLEYsaid, he had hoped that some other legal Gentleman would have been present to expound the law. His two hon. Friends who had just spoken were educated under circumstances entirely similar, but their opinions entirely differed. If either of those Gentlemen were elevated to the Bench, the law of coroner would entirely depend on the opinion of which of them happened to be judge. That was a most unsatisfactory state of things. The law of deodand, he admitted, was in a most unsatisfactory state. He would take the case of a liverystable keeper who lent

627
to a wild drunken apprentice an unmanageable horse. The horse might cause the death of some person; and yet the livery-stable keeper, who was as much, if not more, to blame than the rider of the horse, entirely escaped all the consequences—the law could not touch him. If the horse belonged to a gentleman, and were ridden by his servant, the gentleman, in that case, would be liable. If, in the case of a railway company, the wheel of a carriage came off, and caused death to some one, the company might prove that the wheels had been examined before the starting of the train, and yet the jury had the power to inflict a deodand. He admitted that the law required alteration; but yet he hoped the hon. and learned Member would not divide the House on his Motion, provided the Government would give an assurance that if the Bill did not work well they would bring in another of a more efficient character.
MR. HENLEYsaid, that the question was, whether the Amendment proposed was one likely to be beneficial. The hon. and learned Members who had been discussing the Bill differed in opinion; and a similar difference of opinion was observable in the noble and learned Lords who had discussed the question in the other House. He thought that the Bill ought certainly to receive a more full and careful investigation before it passed that House.
The House divided on the Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question:"—Ayes 51; Noes 6: Majority 45.

List of the AYES.

Anson, hon. Col.

Greene, T.

Arundel and Surrey, Earl of

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

Hawes, B.

Baldwin, B.

Hobhouse, rt. hn. Sir J.

Berkeley, hon. C.

Howard, P. H.

Berkeley, hon. Capt.

Jervis, Sir J.

Bernal, R.

Morpeth, Visct.

Bodkin, W. H.

Muntz, G. F.

Bouverie, hon. E. P.

O'Conor Don

Brocklehurst, J.

Parker, J.

Brown, W.

Rich, H.

Browne, hon. W.

Rumbold, C. E.

Byng, rt. hon. G. S.

Rutherford, A.

Crawford, W. S.

Sheil, rt. hon. R. L.

Duncan, G.

Somerville, Sir W. M.

Duncannon, Visct.

Strutt, E.

Dundas, Adm.

Thornely, T.

Dundas, D.

Troubridge, Sir E. T.

Ebrington, Visct.

Turner, E.

Escott, B.

Wakley, T.

Evans, Sir De L.

Walpole, S. H.

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

Warburton, H.

Gibson, rt. hon. T. M.

Ward, H. G.

Gore, hon. R.

Wawn, J. T.

628

Williams, W.

TELLERS.

Wood, Col. T.

Tufnell, H.

Wyse, T.

Craig, G.

Yorke, H. R.

List of the NOES.

Estcourt, T. G. B.

Somerset, Lord G.

Fuller, A. E.

Henley, J. W.

TELLERS.

Nicholl, rt. hon. J.

Wortley, J. S.

Palmer, G.

Cripps, T.

Bill passed.

LABOURERS FOR THE WEST INDIES.
MR. GRANTLEY BERKELEYhad a question of great interest and importance to put to the noble Lord at the head of the Government, with respect to the Colony of British Guiana; namely, whether it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to take off the existing restrictions upon the importation of free labourers into British Guiana and the West Indian Colonies, from the free States of Africa? He also wished to know, whether there was any objection to permit free immigration into those British Colonies from the Kroo Coast; and, if there were no objection, when would the present restrictions be taken off?
LORD JOHN RUSSELLreplied, that he had stated before, that there was every desire on the part of Her Majesty's Government to permit free immigration from the coast of Africa into the Colonies of British Guiana and the West Indies. But there was considerable difficulty surrounding the question, inasmuch as unless restrictions were placed upon the mode of immigration, there might be, under the pretence of carrying free labourers to the Colonies, an actual carrying on of the Slave Trade. Persons might take Africans from the coasts under the pretence of their being engaged as free labourers, and, sailing nominally for Guiana or Jamaica, might take them instead to Cuba or Brazil. He thought therefore that it would be necessary that some proof should be given of the intention of the parties, and that the emigrants should be shown to be really engaged for the West Indies. For that purpose there should be some British authority appointed at the British settlements whose business it would be to ascertain whether any contract had been entered into between the parties, and to have proof of that contract, and that it was the bonâ fide intention of the shippers to take the labourers to Guiana or some of the West Indian Colonies. The noble Lord the Secretary of State for the Colonies had, since he (Lord

629
John Russell) last addressed the House upon the subject, received an application from some persons deeply interested in the prosperity of the West Indies, the substance of which was that the Kroo Coast might be opened for the importation of free labour. But there was no British settlement there, and the difficulty would be consequently apparent. However, his noble Friend had the subject under consideration; and if an arrangement could be effected whereby some officer could be appointed before whom all the immigrants should come in order to be examined, then immigration would be permitted. The whole subject was undergoing consideration; and he was sure his hon. Friend would agree with him that it was necessary to observe the greatest caution, that under no pretence should any encouragement be given to the Slave Trade.

THE GAME LAWS.
MR. GRANTLEY BERKELEYagain rose to call the attention of the House to the evidence taken by the Committee on the Game Laws, when the House was counted out, and adjourned at a quarter past Five o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a. Deodands Abolition (No. 2); Militia Pay; Forms (Assessed Taxes); Patent Commissions; Waste Lands (Australia).
2a. Highway Rates; Loan Societies; Turnpike Acts Continuance; Stock in Trade; Copyhold Commission.
Reported. Prisons (Ireland); Grand Jury Cess Bonds (Ireland); Books and Engravings.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. From Hounslow and Budleigh, for the Abolition of Flogging in the Army.—From the Chamber of Commerce and Manufactures of the City of Edinburgh, against the Joint Stock Banks (Scotland and Ireland) Bill.

FLOGGING IN THE ARMY.
EARL FORTESCUEpresented a petition from Budleigh Salterton, praying for the abolition of the practice of flogging in the army. The noble Earl said, he had seen with the greatest satisfaction a statement made by a noble Friend of his, in another place, with respect to an order given by the noble Duke on the cross benches (the Duke of Wellington) to limit the punishment of flogging in the army.

599
He hoped that the effect of an alteration in the law respecting military flogging, coupled with other improvements in the condition of the soldier, would tend at no distant period to the discontinuance of this punishment altogether, without any interference with that high state of discipline which the British army had so long maintained. With regard to the unfortunate transaction which had particularly directed public attention to this subject, he could only speak from common report; but as he was acquainted with the gallant officer whose name had been brought prominently before the public in connexion with it, he trusted that he should be permitted to say a few words with respect to that gallant officer's character. Of his character as an officer, he could only speak from common report; but being from the same part of the country as that officer, whose family were near neighbours of his, he knew him to be one of a large family of small means; and that he did not owe his promotion in the service to the influence of his family or to his fortune, or any other cause than the manner in which he discharged his duties as a soldier. With limited means (in fact, with very little beyond his regimental pay), and in a regiment the officers of which were generally men of independent fortune, he had always maintained his character as a gentleman, and obtained the respect of those who served with him. From what he (Earl Fortescue) had seen of him in society, he should say that there was no likelihood of his being guilty of an act of unnecessary severity, much less of wanton and heartless cruelty.
The EARL of RADNORalso presented a petition, from a meeting held at Hounslow, against military flogging, and expressed his satisfaction that the abominable and detestable practice had been diminished of late years, and he hoped that the changes which had recently taken place would lead by degrees to its entire abolition.
LORD BROUGHAMsaid, that in 1836 the subject was brought before the House of Commons, and gave rise to a great deal of discussion. An inquiry then took place, in which they had the advantage of the opinion of his noble Friend on the cross bench (the Duke of Wellington), and the result had been of great benefit to the House and the public in forming a just view of the question. He (Lord Brougham) was induced by that opinion to reconsider the subject, with the light afforded by the noble Duke; and that led him to adopt the
600
opinion which had been expressed, approving of the recent diminution of punishment. He wished, with respect to Colonel Whyte, not to add the testimony of his personal knowledge, but to state that, having had some communication with a member of his family, who was a member of the profession, to which he (Lord Brougham) belonged, he had inquired into the subject; and he was informed that there never was anything more groundless than the charge of cruelty against that officer. His manners in society were most amiable, and as an officer he was never rigorous, though properly just and strict in discipline. It often happened that a single expression was taken an advantage of; and in this case he (Lord Brougham) believed that an expression which Colonel Whyte used—a light and flippant word—was the origin of this charge against him: it was an unfortunate expression, but it vanished into nothing compared with the punishment.
The DUKE of WELLINGTON: My Lords, it is my duty, in considering the conduct of the gallant officer whose name has been mentioned; and in referring to the subject brought forward by the noble Earl who first addressed you, and the noble Lord who followed him, as well as by my noble and learned Friend, to assure your Lordships I have no doubt whatever in stating that the slightest blame does not attach to that officer in connexion with the late unfortunate transaction. With respect to the subject generally, it has long been the wish of all those connected with the command of the army, and particularly of the illustrious individual who was my predecessor in that command, that the punishment should be diminished in the greatest possible degree. It has been my invariable practice, since I first had the honour of a command in the army, to make every endeavour to diminish the punishment, so as, if possible, to lead by degrees to its entire discontinuance. My Lords, this has been the object of all my arrangements throughout the service, ever since I first commanded a regiment, now not less than fifty years ago. But really, my Lords, the fact is, that it is impossible to carry on the discipline of the British army without some punishment of that description which the individual shall feel. This has been found to be invariably the case; and so much has it been the case, that even when it was thought possible to discontinue it altogether, as had been recently tried in the East Indies, where, under an order of

601
the late Governor General the punishment was entirely discontinued, it was found necessary to re-establish it, owing to the impossibility of carrying on the duties of the service without it, the troops amongst whom it had been abolished having mutinied in the most remarkable and disgraceful manner—in a manner, in fact, calculated to disgrace their country and the nation in the service of whose Government they were acting. It was therefore found necessary to re-establish the punishment in that army in which it had been discontinued. My Lords, in consequence of the feeling of the Government, of the Parliament, and of the public on this subject, I have taken upon myself to issue an order greatly to diminish the severity of the punishment; and I hope, with the arrangements made in future, and with an alteration in the law, it may still further be diminished, so as to lead to its final discontinuance. I must, however, beg your Lordships to observe, that if we are to have an army we must have it in a state of discipline—a state of subordination to command, and of obedience to the State. This country does not like an army under any circumstances; but in no case would it bear any but the best troops that can be had. We must have the very best troops in this country, and in every part of the world where we employ them. We require the best conduct and the most perfect subordination and order; for I assure your Lordships that our troops are now at this moment engaged, and are constantly engaged, in the daily performance of services which you could not require—nay, I will go further, and say, which you could not have from any other troops in the world. They are constantly in the course of embarkation in vessels carrying convicts from this country to Australia; guarding these convicts in small detachments of infantry, commanded by a subaltern, the number of convicts being frequently from 300 to 400. My Lords, it is most surprising, under these circumstances, that it should be so, and yet I do not recollect any misfortune occurring during those long voyages under the command of a subaltern officer, assisted by noncommissioned officers, taking charge of a ship conveying so many convicts. This is going on every day without any misfortune, and in some few cases where shipwrecks have occurred, our troops have conducted themselves in the most remarkable manner, in a way which gained the confidence of all those around them. On these occasions
602
the officers of Her Majesty conducted themselves in a manner which tended to save the life of every individual on board. It is necessary for me now to remark—and I entreat your Lordships to remark—that you cannot have an army if, unfortunately, it should lose its discipline and habits of subordination and good order; but your Lordships may rely upon it that I will continue to do what I have always endeavoured to do, that is, to diminish the punishment as much as possible, and I hope I may live to see it abolished altogether.
The DUKE of GRAFTONwished to know whether the officers of our army who had so distinguished themselves in the cases alluded to by the noble Duke, had been promoted or rewarded for their conduct?
The DUKE of WELLINGTON: Yes.

INDEPENDENCE OF CRACOW.
LORD BEAUMONTrose to submit to the consideration of their Lordships the Motion of which he had given notice, namely—
"That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty for Papers and Correspondence between this Country and the Courts of Vienna, Peters-burgh, and Berlin, respecting Events which have recently taken place at Cracow, in violation of the Treaty of Vienna."
He was fully aware of the disadvantage under which he laboured in bringing forward, at this period of the Session, and in the present condition of the House, a Motion which referred to a question of general European interest, rather than to one of local interest. But over and above this disadvantage, there generally attended Motions of this sort a kind of reluctance to interfere. Still, notwithstanding these disadvantages, he felt he should scarcely be fulfilling his duty if he did not attempt to urge their Lordships to take into consideration, as well as place before them, such Papers as referred to recent events in the city of Cracow and the neighbourhood. He felt this obligation upon him in consequence of the amount of correspondence he had read, and the information he had received upon those events; and he was convinced, that if that information were laid before the House, their Lordships would see the absolute necessity, as well as the duty, of some expression of interest in those events being displayed in this country. He founded his claim to their Lordships' attention to this subject upon three specific grounds. He claimed it, in the first place, upon the ground of the ne-

603
cessity of seeing carried out and enforced the treaties to which this country was a party. In the second place, he grounded the necessity of drawing their Lordships' attention to the subject upon that great question of political interest, the European balance of power, which was necessarily involved in it. And, in the third place, he claimed attention upon the broad grounds of humanity, because the events to which he referred as having taken place, were a flagrant violation of the common laws and rights of men, because they exhibited a want of civilization and a breach of humanity, which he trusted would never be repeated. He might, indeed, venture to say, with confidence, that if these deplorable events were properly noticed upon the present occasion, they would never again occur in any civilized country. The first ground he took was the violation of Treaties. The Treaties to which he referred were that of Vienna, and the Treaties which accompanied it. Their Lordships were aware that a special Treaty was entered into between Russia and Austria on the 3rd of May, 1815; on the same day another special Treaty was entered into between Russia and Prussia; and a third Treaty was made the same day between Russia, Prussia, and Austria. These three Treaties were subsequently made part and portion of the great Treaty of Vienna, which was signed on the 9th of June, 1815; they were embodied in the text of the Treaty made by the Congress at Vienna. One of the articles of this Treaty specially mentioned that every portion of the previous Treaties should be binding, whether or not it was introduced into the Treaty of Vienna. The most important portions, however, were specially mentioned. He would read the words of the articles to which he referred. He maintained that the Treaty of Vienna had been violated in its spirit, and violated in its letter. In one article, with regard to which the spirit had been violated, it was said—
"Les Polonais sujets respectifs de la Russie, de I'Autriche, et de la Prusse, obtiendront une representation et des institutions nationales."
The Treaty went on to specify that the three Powers were bound to respect the independence of Cracow:—
"La ville de Cracovie avec son territoire sera envisageé comme cité libre independante et neutre."
And then it added this remarkable passage:—
604
"Aucune force armée ne pourra jamaisy etre introduite sous quelque pretexte que ce soit."
Having read these passages, he would proceed to show their Lordships how he considered that these specific articles of the Treaty of Vienna had been violated. He should refer to events so recent as the commencement of the present year. In the month of January and the beginning of February, many rumours were spread through different points of Posen and Gallicia, which reached Berlin and Vienna, that it was possible an outbreak against the constituted authorities might take place in those countries. There were certain refugees, ill-intentioned persons, who made their appearance in those parts, and there was some probability of disturbance. That those apprehensions reached the ears of the Austrian Government at Vienna was well known now, because Prince Metternich had communicated them to the French Government. The conduct of Austria upon this occasion differed widely from that of Prussia. No sooner was Prussia made acquainted with the circumstances, than she took precautions to arrest and prevent the outbreak. The persons—and they were very few—who seemed likely to take part in it, were immediately arrested; and means were taken in Posen to prevent and check the disturbance. But by Austria no such precautions were adopted; no means were applied to arrest the persons who were suspected, or to check the outbreak, should one take place. The troops, even, were not placed in such a manner as to crush the rising, however extensive and violent it might threaten to be. In short, Austria took no precautions whatever, notwithstanding her knowledge of the events which were likely to happen. Towards the 17th of February, the rumours still spread and increased. He would now shortly state to their Lordships what had taken place in Cracow from the 18th to the present day, and leave them to consider whether the letter of the Treaty had not been violated. Of course, their Lordships were aware that the republic of Cracow was as perfectly independent de jure as France or any other State. Her independence had been acknowledged by all the great Powers of Europe. Three residents from those Powers were accredited at Cracow; and Cracow exercised a totally independent jurisdiction, and was supposed to have a perfectly independent Government. This Government might have become alarmed at the rumours which were abroad, and it was

605
true they might have expressed some fears to Austria; but whether this was the case or not, the events which he would describe certainly took place. On the 18th of February, to the astonishment of every person in Cracow, an Austrian army marched into the city, under the command of General Colin. A sudden stop was at once put to business: trade, commerce, and amusement were at an end; the people were aghast with astonishment. On the 19th, no particular events occurred, but general consternation still prevailed. Strict orders were issued by the Austrian general, prohibiting persons from being out beyond certain hours; and, in fact, military law prevailed. It was on the 20th that the first symptoms of anything like disturbance took place; it was as the people were returning from the theatre, after which two individuals were arrested in different parts of the town, who he had reason to believe were at that time seeking to disturb the peace. On the 21st, something more serious took place, but still of a trifling nature in itself. There was a tavern in one of the chief streets; in this tavern a few persons, headed by the tavern-keeper himself, barricadoed the doors and fired from the windows upon the troops; but they were immediately assailed and taken. The troops then fired into the streets, whereby some innocent victims were killed, and one or two persons, being found with arms in their hands, were arrested. This disturbance, which was very trifling, for it was concocted only by some twenty or thirty persons, was entirely suppressed and put down with the greatest facility by the large force under the command of General Colin. The 22nd was Sunday. The churches were ordered to be closed, and no service was allowed to be celebrated in them. The shops were also closed. The troops marched through the town at different parts of the day. As might be expected from the circumstances, one or two accidents took place; an unfortunate man was shot because he went out when he was ordered otherwise, but there were no symptoms of further outbreak. The people indeed were perfectly quiet, when, to the greatest astonishment and alarm of every body in Cracow, at five o'clock in the afternoon of Sunday, General Colin evacuated the city with the whole of his force—with the three residents—with all the Members of the Government, and every single employé down to the lowest menial who swept the floors of the
606
public offices. Cracow was then left without a single authority of any description; there was no force for its protection, not even a sentinel at the prison. Not a single person was left charged with responsibility in the entire territory, containing 130,000 people: all responsible authority disappeared. Under these circumstances, and after some time, one or two leading and respectable persons attempted to form a provisional Government for the sake of security, and to keep things calm and quiet until they perceived what measures were being taken exterior to the republic. On the 23rd this short-lived provisional Government was put down, laid aside, and its functions usurped by five or six individuals who came from Gallicia, and who were the suspected persons to whom he had already alluded as not having been arrested. Of course those parties must have passed General Colin's army before they could reach Cracow; at all events they seized upon all authority, and formed themselves into a revolutionary Government. They issued all sorts of proclamations; amongst them was one for an equal division of lands, and various inflammatory documents enticing the peasants to rise against their masters. Their communist opinions led them to try these measures. In the territory of Cracow no one responded to them, and not a single noble was taken. Notwithstanding the misconduct of this revolutionary Government the whole of the people behaved perfectly well, and observed the utmost regularity. Though the doors of the residents' houses were open, and their bureaux accessible, not a single paper was touched. The people, with a Government professing such barbarous opinions, and abandoned by their own authorities, kept order as well as it possibly could be kept, and nothing of any alarming character occurred. The leader of the revolutionary Government being a great communist, contrived to get together a force of some twenty or thirty persons, with arms, to carry out their views. Such a force must have been perfectly contemptible; nevertheless they advanced to the Vistula. Between Cracow and Podgorze there was a bridge. General Colin had retreated to Podgorze. This small body of men under the revolutionary chief advanced to the bridge, and General Colin with his whole army retreated before them. This was on the 25th. Encouraged by this success, on the 26th this small hand of revolutionists pressed the Austrians, but

607
they were not quite so successful as on the former occasion, for they met a body of peasants, or soldiers disguised as peasants, commanded by an Austrian officer, and a skirmish took place. On the 27th the people, alarmed at the state of the country and at the conduct of the revolutionary Government, astonished too at the retreat of General Colin, and hearing moreover of the frightful murders in Gallicia, where the peasants had risen and were massacring their masters, determined upon forming a religious procession, to pass the frontier, and try to induce the peasants to desist from these atrocities. With crosses, crucifixes, and religious banners, a large body of persons sallied forth from Cracow and advanced towards Gallicia, when the Austrians attacked this peaceful band. Many perished, and the rest fled back in alarm and consternation into Cracow. General Colin did not even then enter Cracow after he had driven back this procession, and the people of the city sent some persons to endeavour to confer with him. At first he refused to see them, but afterwards he said they might send some of their leading men. On the 1st of March they negotiated; the terms required by General Colin were extremely severe; namely, the submission and surrender of the whole provisional Government, and various other conditions, and they were not agreed to. On the 2nd of March, General Colin still appearing ignorant of what was passing on the other side of Cracow, a Circassian regiment belonging to the Russian army arrived in the city. The alarm was such, that they received this Mahometan regiment with the greatest joy. The revolutionary Government fled, crossing the frontier upon the Russian side, and for a short time the city was kept quiet and defended by this small detachment from the Russian army. No sooner did General Colin hear this, than he entered the city upon the Podgorze side, and then began a struggle between severity upon the part of the Austrians, and kindness on the part of the Russians. The three residents then returned; various conferences took place, and upon the 7th the Prussians, who showed still more leniency than the Russians, arrived, and they were extremely well received. For a short time Cracow remained in possession of the troops of the three Powers; but afterwards, to the alarm and dread of the people, both the Prussian and the Russian troops withdrew. The three residents also withdrew; their arms
608
were taken down from their residences. An Austrian garrison alone remained in Cracow. The two other Powers had not a single representative; and since that period all authority had been administered as if Cracow was an Austrian town and an Austrian garrison. Now, he asked their Lordships with some confidence, whether this was not a violation of that article in the Treaty of Vienna which said, that under no circumstances should the force of any Power occupy that territory? He admitted that outrages might occur so grave in their character, that it might be policy to override the Treaty, and not to adhere strictly to the letter. He should have felt somewhat less cause for complaint if the whole of the three Powers had remained for a time in occupation, after what had taken place; but he did complain, and he thought with reason, that the town of Cracow had been converted into an Austrian garrison, and the utter destruction of its independence accomplished. He had already mentioned that Austria had taken no precaution to arrest the persons who were concocting the outbreak, although the knowledge of them existed at Vienna. Precaution, however, was taken—and a most unfortunate one it was—by the Austrian Government to allow and encourage them. Perhaps he might be wrong in using the word "encourage;" but it was a positive fact that the authorities in different parts issued certain proclamations, calling upon the peasants "to defend the Government" and to "stand true to the Emperor." One such was issued in the circle of Tarnow; and this proclamation held out a reward to any peasant who would bring any persons whom they suspected before the authorities. They were told that if they could not get them by one means they must by another, and that they must arm themselves with scythes, or any other weapons they could procure. The noble Lord then read a translation from the original Polish of one of these extraordinary proclamations. He had several other documents to the same effect, which he need not trouble their Lordships by reading. It was evident that the proceedings which had taken place were founded on the barbarian institutions of the middle ages, under which the retainers were called on to defend their country, and, literally speaking, might be no violation of the law existing in that part of Gallicia. What he blamed the Government for was, that they resorted to these means of suppressing the rebellion, if any existed, and that

609
they did not resort to the ordinary aid of the police and army, as was done in Posen by the Prussian Government. In the grand duchy of Posen the Prussian Government most effectually prevented the effusion of blood, and established a state of peace and tranquillity, for which they were deserving of the thanks and the admiration of Europe. The result of the proclamation to which he had alluded was, that the peasants in the Austrian territory of Gallicia rose in many parts and committed those violent ravages which were so much to be regretted. It was not the immediate retainers of the nobles that burned the castles and murdered the families of those nobles, but these atrocities were generally perpetrated by other persons, who often came from a distance, and who attacked the castles either for gain or to wreak their vengeance on the inmates. In this manner the castles of persons whom the assailants only knew by reputation were attacked in distant places from where their assailants resided. This was justified by rewards having been offered by the Government of so many florins a head for every one of the disaffected, and also for bringing in alive or dead any one suspected of being involved in the intended rebellion. Several of those outrages were committed, and murders perpetrated in order to obtain the rewards. One person, who had earned a guilty notoriety, led bands of the peasants through the country, and attacked castle after castle, murdering men, women, and children in their course. He could go through a most deplorable list of the sufferings of various noble families, and weary the House with the names of the sufferers. He held in his hand a letter written by the sole survivor of one noble family, a young lady whose father and mother had been murdered by the peasants; and he had seen another letter, from a person whose wife and children had been murdered, and who, having escaped himself, was now applying to the Emperor for redress. One noble family was massacred in a frightful manner, and fifty or sixty of their retainers put to death. He was free to admit, however, that in his opinion the Government of Vienna were ignorant at the time of the excesses which had taken place, and that the blame was chiefly to be attributed to the local authorities. He believed that the Government of Vienna were really under the impression that the attacks of the peasantry were directed against those who had attempted the revolution, and who
610
were in connexion with those emissaries who, according to Prince Metternich, had been for some time previously perambulating the Empire. Unfortunately, however, those persons who were not guilty of any such designs equally suffered, and had their castles attacked and their families murdered. He had not heard of any charge having been established against the principal sufferers which could in the least degree show that they had any participation in, or knowledge or cognizance of, any designs to cause a revolution. He would again repeat that he acquitted the Government of Austria of any foreknowledge of these crimes; and he believed that if the Government had known the extent to which they were carried on, it would have checked them. But he should at the same time charge the Austrian Government with having neglected to take the necessary precautions, by means of which they might have prevented the outbreak, and have avoided the servile war which had since taken place, and in which nobles who were innocent of any designs against the Government, had suffered so severely at the hands of the peasants. How different was the conduct of the Prussian Government with regard to Posen from that of the Austrian Government in Gallicia! Their Lordships knew well the course which had been taken by the Government of Prussia in the grand duchy of Posen. A wise arrangement had been made there by which the hateful corvés were abolished, and the peasants placed on an improved footing as regarded their tenures; while in Gallicia, on the contrary, some of the most objectionable of the old customs were retained. The result was, that in Posen there was no more danger of a rising of the peasantry against the old nobility, than there was of a rising of the peasantry of this country against the nobles of England. Posen had, therefore, little to complain of beyond the loss of her national independence; whereas in Gallicia every bad institution which had existed before was continued. The proprietors were obliged by the Government to collect the taxes from the people; they were also made to raise the military forces. They were, in fact, turned into a pressgang among the peasantry; and as ignorant people only looked to the persons from whom the orders to them immediately came, a feeling of exasperation against the nobles was created. The nobles were obliged, under penalties, to perform all those disagreeable duties; and the result was, that

611
when an opportunity offered, the peasantry were willing to wreak their vengeance on those from whom they imagined they had suffered wrong. So strong was this feeling, that people went across the country, even to a considerable distance, to take vengeance on those who had injured them. That was a course of proceeding which could not be justified, and that was the complaint he brought against the Austrian Government. He contended that the Austrian Government should not have adopted a course which must have the effect of raising the rancour of the peasantry against the nobles; and it was, he hoped, at all events, a course which would never again be repeated. As to the proceedings at Cracow, he should express his regret that this country had no consul in that republic. If there had been a British consul at Cracow on the occasion of the late proceedings there, it was probable that all those distressing occurrences might have been prevented. He considered that this country ought to adopt steps for having a political agent in the republic of Cracow; and in this opinion he was borne out by some of the first diplomatists and statesmen of the country. In proof of this fact he might refer to speeches of Sir Stratford Canning, Lord Lyndburst, and Lord Palmerston. The forcible occupation of Cracow was a matter which this country had a right to interfere in, and he hoped steps would be taken to bring it to a speedy termination. There were two parties among the Poles, between whom a wide distinction ought to be drawn. One of these was composed of the more respectable inhabitants, who took no part whatever in the outbreak; and the other consisted of persons of a wild and restless disposition, who were participators in, or at all events approvers of, the attempt. He thought it would be exceedingly wrong and incorrect in any Government to give the slightest encouragement to these wild individuals, or to hold out to them the least ground of hope that they would ever receive any countenance here. He made this remark in order that the few individuals of this party who might have been forced to come to this country, and who might have endeavoured to excite the people here in favour of their cause, should know that he wished to dissociate them from the great body of the Poles who resided in this kingdom. He would not trouble their Lordships further on this point. He regretted having to occupy so much of their Lordships' time with the
612
subject, and he regretted that he had felt it to be his painful duty to bring the matter forward. But having done so, he would now state to the Government that in asking them for the production of any correspondence that might have passed between the Government of this country and the three Powers, he did not wish to specify any particular papers. He would leave it to the noble Marquess to decide what papers he would think proper to give, and what to refuse. Feeling full confidence in the Government that was now in power, and more particularly in the noble Viscount at the head of Foreign Affairs, he had no doubt but that they would take the right view of this question, and that they would with judgment and discretion endeavour by peaceable means to prevent if possible the recurrence of those monstrous proceedings to which he had alluded. The noble Lord concluded by moving the Address.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEsaid, it was quite natural that the noble Lord should have his attention much directed to the transactions whieh had taken place on the continent of Europe, and particularly to those events, painful undoubtedly in their nature, which had recently occurred in the part of Europe to which he had alluded, and which had already been the cause of great calamity and disorder. His noble Friend had adverted, he was bound to say, on the outset, with discretion and temper to the different transactions which had taken place, first, in the republic of Cracow, and secondly, in Gallicia, which latter had also attracted great attention in this country. With respect to the republic of Cracow, it had been correctly assumed by the noble Baron, and indeed it was well known to all their Lordships, that that State derived an independent existence from the Treaty which was concluded at the Congress of Vienna; and he was free to concur with his noble Friend that the Powers which had there assembled, having determined to preserve a monument at least of the ancient kingdom of Poland, which was then abolished, by the formation of that State into an independent republic, a right—perhaps more than a right, a duty—devolved on the States who were parties to that arrangement to see that it was carried fully, fairly, and permanently into effect. That republic was undoubtedly so formed, as even a casual inspection of the extent of population, and still more of the amount of power left to it, must show;

613
and it had, besides, a guarantee from three of the greatest Powers of Europe, acting before all the other Powers, that its independence should under all circumstances be preserved. That it should be so preserved was the interest of every country in Europe; and no person could lament more deeply than he did that anything should have occurred — whatever might be the origin of these circumstances, or wherever the blame of them should lie—that could afford anything like an apology or justification for a departure, temporary as he trusted it would be, from the independence which Cracow was before permitted to preserve, and which the Government of this country were most desirous that she should at the earliest possible period resume. It was quite true that all these misfortunes had their origin, as had been fairly stated by his noble Friend, in the circumstance of a number of refugees having, after the events which had taken place in the grand duchy of Posen, passed into the republic of Cracow, about the commencement of the present year, and having there, by successful and mischievous efforts, directed not only against Cracow but against other quarters, endangered the peace of Germany, and in fact of the whole of Europe. They associated with them every one that was most turbulent and most disposed to insurrection and to violence in the town of Cracow, and they thus justifiably roused the alarm of all the neighbouring States. The representatives of these States in Cracow, finding the amount of commotion which existed there, and finding the extent of the conspiracy (for there was a conspiracy going on)—finding that an application was made to one of the most eminent Poles known in that part of the world to take part in the insurrection—finding, moreover, that these plots and designs had gained over a large portion of the population, and that from day to day the peace of Cracow and its neighbourhood was threatened—finding these things, all the authorities, all the independent authorities, then took measures to put an end to a state of things so subversive of order, and so threatening to the peace of Europe. They made an application to the Government of Cracow; but that Government admitted that it was incapable of controlling the excitement. It was on that admission, and on the appearance of things in the State, that these Powers took Steps to occupy Cracow, and to put an end, undoubtedly by force, but by force which appeared to be justified by the ne-
614
cessity of the case, to that state of things. Under these circumstances, the Austrians did enter and occupy Cracow. With respect to the circumstances that afterwards induced the military body—such as would necessarily form a part of the Austrian army, that is, a well-appointed and well-disciplined force—to retire from that place, those circumstances he was totally unable to explain. After that event, a spirit of insubordination took place, which rendered it necessary that the town should be again occupied. After this state of things had been permitted to continue so long, the forces of the three Powers were employed to put an end to it. He believed that the Austrian forces came in first, but the forces of the other Powers entered Cracow about the same time, and the result had been the military occupation of the town.
LORD BEAUMONT: The Russians were the first to enter the place.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNE: It was quite right: the Russians did enter the place first, and the other troops followed. It was then occupied by the military. He did not know why the other troops retired and left the Austrians alone in possession; but he did not see that this was of any great importance. But seeing the occupation of Cracow by the three Powers conjointly, whether the place was occupied by Russian, Austrian, or Prussian troops, it was a military occupation for the time, deemed necessary by the three Powers. He must say, however, that there must be a limit to this necessity, and the very moment that Cracow could safely resume the position guaranteed under the Treaty of Vienna it would be necessary that the Treaty should be observed. All that he could state to his noble Friend on the subject was, that repeated conferences had taken place between the three Powers for the reorganization of the Government of Cracow. He believed that these conferences had taken place latterly at Berlin; and he had reason to hope—he trusted that he had reason to hope—that Cracow would be relieved of that military occupation of which his noble Friend said that the inhabitants had reason to complain, and restored to the enjoyment of that freedom which the Treaty of Vienna was meant to guarantee to them. There would be no objection to give his noble Friend such information on this subject as was in the possession of Her Majesty's Government; but he would suggest that his noble Friend should make his Motion

615
for communications, or extracts of communications. He should have stopped here, if his noble Friend had not gone from the Treaty of Vienna to the unfortunate circumstances which had occurred in Gallicia. And here he must remind his noble Friend, that he had entered upon a case entirely different from the occupation of Cracow. In the case of Cracow, they had to deal with an independent republic, whose independence was guaranteed by the Congress of Vienna. As for Gallicia, they had only to deal with a State which, as a matter of history, they knew to belong to the Austrian Government; and whatever opinion they might form as to the original occupation of that country, they had no more right to give an opinion as to the internal government of it than they had of the internal government of any other State on the continent of Europe. He would, therefore, not go further than to say that he wished that he could contradict the statement which his noble Friend had made as to what had taken place there. He lamented deeply that he could not contradict him. He did not think that the circumstances alluded to formed matter for diplomatic interference; but as his noble Friend had alluded to the events that had occurred there, he felt called upon to make an observation. He must do his noble Friend the justice to say that in his statement he had shown many cases full of oppression. He (the Marquess of Lansdowne) never could believe that it could be at all proved that the events understood to have taken place in Gallicia—events calculated to disorganize the whole government of that country, and impair the security of property, of life itself—events calculated to produce such lamentable effects—could have taken place with the sanction of such a Government as he knew that of Austria to be; and he believed that whatever had occurred there, had resulted from, to say the least of it, the mistaken conduct of certain persons in local authority. He was sure that the Austrian Government would be the first to place, if it could, the state of that country on its former footing, and that it deplored what had taken place as much or more than would be done here. There were circumstances in this case which were calculated to arrest the attention of every one. He believed, from the character of the Court of Vienna, that it would endeavour to put an effectual end to the state of things described, and which had been the result of mismanagement by local parties, and which
616
must be reprobated by the Emperor and Government of Austria, and by the Government under which Gallicia was directly placed. On this subject, however, he was not disposed to speak further. In conclusion, he would only suggest to his noble Friend, that he should frame his Motion for extracts of correspondence relating exclusively to Cracow; and he would only add, that he had no reason to complain of the terms in which his noble Friend had called the attention of the House to the subject.
The DUKE of WELLINGTONfelt called upon, as a Member of Her Majesty's Council when those events occurred, to attend to the noble Lord's statement; and he was perfectly satisfied with the statement which the noble Marquess had just made on the subject. There was no doubt that any occupation by the troops of the three Powers of the republic of Cracow, was a breach of the Treaty of Vienna; and it must have been explained, or if not, it must be explained, by the three Powers alluded to which had made this occupation. Although he was a Member of Her Majesty's Council at the time, he was not certain that the subject had been under discussion. The terms of the Treaty were clear, however, that this city should not be occupied by troops; but when the Treaty was made, the state of things which existed when that occupation took place, was not thought of or contemplated. It was not thought possible that committees would be sitting in many of the great metropolises of Europe in order to carry on a secret conspiracy in these countries, and to organize insurrection against an actual Government of a country; such a committee existed in this very city of Cracow, and this circumstance could not have been foreseen, and consequently could not have been provided for, at the time of the Treaty of Vienna. But, as was said by the noble Marquess, the authorities of the town and the agents of the then protecting Governments residing there, from information acquired by their agents, were aware of a state of conspiracy existing not only in Cracow, but in all the neighbouring countries—and not only in the duchy of Posen and Gallicia, but also in the duchy of Warsaw itself—for the purpose of insurrection, which insurrection in all these places broke out nearly at the same time. The noble Lord complained that the Austrian Government had taken no measures of prevention, or by means of the military at once to put down the insurrection in Gal-

617
licia. He did not know what measures of precaution the Austrian Government did take; but he was sure that there were very few in this country who could know what measures had been taken, or ought to have been taken. It was quite certain, however, that the measures adopted as to Cracow were contrary to the Treaty, and could only he justified by the circumstances of the time, namely, the state of intrigue going on in Cracow, and the daily expectation of a rising taking place there, and the state of disturbance in which all the neighbouring provinces were, namely, Gallicia, the duchy of Posen, and the duchy of Warsaw. This was the cause of moving troops into Cracow, which, as the noble Lord said himself, the day after their arrival there it was found necessary to withdraw. Whether that necessity was on account of the extent of the insurrection existing in Cracow, or on account of the insurrection immediately behind them amongst the people of Gallicia, he did not pretend to judge; but it was clear that it was necessary to withdraw the troops, and on their withdrawal occurred the subsequent events in Cracow, But the Austrian Government were not to blame for this. They did not send an army, as was stated by the noble Lord; but they sent, he believed, a corps of 5,000 troops, which certainly could not be called an army. The noble Lord had thought proper to blame the Austrian Government for not taking precautions and carrying on operations in a particular manner within the province of Gallicia. He did not know that any one there would be able to tell the House what operations ought to have been carried on by the Austrian Government under the circumstances of the case. On this subject the noble Lord had greatly blamed the Austrian Government, while he praised the Prussian Government for its conduct in the duchy of Posen; but that House had nothing to do with either of those transactions. It had nothing to do with the merits of the Prussian arrangements, or with the demerits of the Austrian arrangements. What it had to do was simply with the breach of treaty; and he had no hesitation in saying that if ever a breach of treaty was justifiable this was the case. The noble Marquess had accounted for all that had occurred subsequent to the occupation of the town of Cracow. The whole of the neighbouring country, that was the duchy of Warsaw, the duchy of Posen, and the province of Gallicia, was the theatre of
618
war. It might have been convenient for military operations to have a larger or smaller body of troops in the town of Cracow. The noble Lord said at one time there was only a very small corps of Russian troops there, and these were afterwards joined by a body of Austrian troops, and subsequently by a body of Prussian troops. A Prussian army, a Russian army, and an Austrian army were in operation in the three provinces surrounding Cracow, while these three bodies of troops were in the town itself. But it was not convenient to leave all these troops in the city of Cracow. Some, therefore, were withdrawn, and at length the Austrians were left there alone; but it was not to be supposed that because the Austrians were left alone in Cracow, that therefore the independence of that town was destroyed, and that it was made over to the Emperor of Austria. It was necessary for military operations at the moment that a portion of the troops should be withdrawn, and there was no political object in view in it, nor anything in any manner affecting the independence of the city of Cracow. He did not know what existing circumstances there were; but he understood, when he was in Her Majesty's Councils, that the three Sovereigns had then under their consideration measures for re-establishing an independent government in the town of Cracow, and placing it in a state of independence, and of course the old articles of the Treaty would be revived, and no troops would remain in the place. He could not say how far these arrangements had proceeded; but he was quite certain that it would be better for that House to adhere strictly to those points in which this country had a right to interfere, and not to step forth for the purpose of interfering in the internal government of other parts with which they had nothing to do.
LORD KINNAIRDhad no wish to detain the House at that hour; but he could not sit silent without saying a few words, as the subject had been introduced. The noble Marquess said, and he believed truly, that a certain conspiracy had existed in the town of Cracow, and that the Austrian authorities had felt themselves justified in putting it down; but the remarkable fact admitted by the noble Marquess and the noble Luke was, the withdrawal of the troops, together with all the authorities of the town; and this was beyond all power of explanation. Both the noble Marquess and the noble Duke said they could not

619
explain this. The noble Duke indeed intimated that he had no means of knowing why the troops were withdrawn from Cracow. He (Lord Kinnaird) knew, both from history and from turning his attention to the mode of government by foreign Powers, that it not unfrequently happened—and he believed it was so in the present case—that they deemed that the best means of quashing a conspiracy was by urging it on, and bringing it to a head. In this case it appeared that something like a systematic course had been adopted to bring this secret conspiracy to an open revolt. Although he was willing to acquit the Austrian Government at Vienna of formally authorizing the outrages that had occurred in Gallicia, he feared that it could not be denied—and the noble Lord, he was sorry to say, was obliged to admit the truth of the statement of his noble Friend who brought forward the Motion—that these calamities and atrocities were perpetrated under the cognizance and sanction of the local authorities in Gallicia. In the month of April last his noble Friend had brought the subject under the attention of the House, by putting a question to the noble Earl then Secretary for Foreign Affairs; and that noble Earl replied, that from what he knew of the character of Prince Metternich, he did not believe there was a word of truth in the statement. But it was now admitted by Her Majesty's Ministers, and it was not denied by any Member of that House, that the fact was established, that these horrors, which were worse than any perpetrated during the French Revolution, had been committed in Gallicia. The name of one of the perpetrators of these horrible crimes had been mentioned that night in the House; and he found that that monster in human form had just been promoted by the Austrian Government. How, then, could it be said they had not sanctioned these proceedings, when they rewarded those who had perpetrated them? He (Lord Kinnaird) found from various documents which the noble Lord had not touched upon, that it appeared that those peasants were incited—he (Lord Kinnaird) would not say by the Government of Vienna, but by the local authorities—to massacre the nobles. It was, he believed, part of the policy—he (Lord Kinnaird) would not say of the Austrian Government, but of those acting for them—to raise the peasantry against the nobles. The noble Lord had detailed to them the means which were adopted to cast odium
620
on those nobles, by putting every odious duty in the State upon them, and taking every opportunity of exciting the peasantry against them. However, the noble Lord had only glanced at these things; and even, at the risk of taking up a portion of their time, he (Lord Kinnaird) should state one case that had occurred, and which sustained the statement he had made that the peasantry were encouraged by the authorities to commit those acts, and the authorities had since been rewarded by the Court of Vienna. The case to which he referred was this: A gentleman of large property in the neighbourhood of Tarnow was alarmed by receiving an account of the approach of a multitude of people. However, there had been rumours of a conspiracy, and he merely thought that this was some insurrectionary movement; but he was soon undeceived. The first attack was on the house steward, and they then attacked the house. The wife of the owner of the house went down and endeavoured to appease them; her entreaties were met by a blow of a club, which levelled her with the ground. Her husband rushed to her assistance, but was immediately overpowered, trampled on by the mob, and left for dead. A child of twelve years of age having presented herself to them, was also slain; and they were on the point of slaying a female who was resident in the house, but taking her for the lady's maid, she was spared. They ordered her to lead them through the house in search of knives, which they said the Prefect of Tarnow told them were concealed in the house to cut the throats of the peasantry. This showed that the Prefect had induced the peasantry to make an attack on the nobles, by representing that they were to be massacred by them. These horrors were fearful to describe or think of. The wife of the owner of the house had dragged herself to some little distance, and she was not long there when the multitude returned. They came to convey away the body of her husband, and those of many other persons whom they had killed—and what for? For the prize that was offered by the authorities for the bodies. They were accompanied by a party of gensd'armes. On arriving near the town of Tarnow, they dug a large grave, and had begun casting the bodies into that grave, when symptoms of vitality were exhibited by the husband. The wife implored of them to save him; but in the presence of the gens d'armes they cast him living into the grave with the other bodies, and buried

621
him alive, and they did that act with gensd'armes in their company. He (Lord Kinnaird) again said, and would repeat it, that the Government of Vienna were highly to blame, and had rendered themselves parties to those deeds, though not so in the first instance, by rewarding those who had stimulated the peasantry to perpetrate them. It might be said, that there was no proof of this—that they had no means of knowing whether those things were so or not. Unfortunately there were living witnesses in this country in a state of despair and wretchedness who would speak to them, and whose statements could not be denied. The noble Duke and the noble Marquess might say they had no right to interfere on account of those acts; but he (Lord Kinnaird) thought they were bound to express their horror and detestation of such acts; and even he could see no harm in asking the Government, when those things were asserted in the public prints and elsewhere, whether they could enable them to contradict them? He would wish to see a contradiction of them laid on the Table; and he thought, in justification of the Court refered to, such contradiction ought to be laid on the Table, if it could be produced. He did not, of course, ask them to interfere through the medium of an armed force; but he thought a remonstrance from this country would have a substantial effect, and prevent a recurrence of those deeds. There was one point which he conceived to be worthy of the consideration of the Government, and that was the appointment of a Consul at Cracow. He would remind them that the noble Lord who at present filled the office of Foreign Secretary for this country had made the appointment of a Consul at Warsaw; and there was no reason why they should not have a Consul at Cracow, except the dislike of foreign Powers to such an appointment, and the remonstrances (which, however, he felt could not be supported by any valid reason) that might be made by foreign Powers against it. But he thought they might insist upon it: he trusted France would join them, and that they would insist upon having a Consul there. He believed, in the first place, it would be the means of protection, and tend to prevent such cruelties as had been perpetrated. At all events, the Government of this country would then be enabled to give a contradiction to such statements as had been made, if they were not sustained by facts; and he hoped Her Majesty's Government would take the mat-
622
ter into their serious consideration. He (Lord Kinnaird) felt deeply on the question of Poland, and however depressed that country might be at the present moment, he hoped the fatal mistake that had been committed with reference to it would be remedied, and that he should yet see that country raised to her proper position as a nation.
Motion, as amended, agreed to.
House adjourned.