Sitting of 27 February 1863

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEES.—Of Selection, Second Report; on Ordnance, Colonel Dunne added.
SUPPLY — considered in Committee — Resolutions 1 to 9 [February 26] reported, and agreed to.
PUBLIC BILLS. — First Reading.—Innkeepers' Liability (No. 2) [Bill 43]
Second Reading. — Tobacco Duties [Bill 21] (Debate further adjourned).
Committee.—Bills of Exchange and Notes (Metropolis) [Bill 33].
Report.—Bills of Exchange and Notes (Metropolis) [Bill 33].
Third Reading.—Bills of Exchange and Notes (Metropolis) [Bill 33]; and passed.

COMMERCIAL TREATY BETWEEN FRANCE AND ITALY.

  QUESTION.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the Foreign Office has in its possession a Copy of the Commercial Treaty between France and Italy now waiting ratification by the Italian Parliament, and also a Copy of the new Italian Tariff; if so, whether he is prepared to lay these documents upon the table of the House; and, if not, whether he is aware that several days ago these documents were laid upon the table of the Italian Chambers by the Italian Minister?
  MR. LAYARD, in reply, said, the Commercial Treaty between France and Italy, as soon as it was ratified by the Italian Chambers, would be communicated to Her Majesty's Government, and by them be laid before Parliament at the earliest practicable moment. Her Majesty's Government had recently received a confidential communication with regard to the Treaty, but it was not of a nature which could be communicated to the House.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he must remind his hon. Friend that he had not answered the latter part of the Question.
  MR. LAYARDsaid, there was no doubt that the Treaty had lain for some days on the table of the Italian Chamber, awaiting ratification.

CONVICT ESTABLISHMENT AT BERMUDA.—QUESTION.
CAPTAIN JERVISsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Why the Convict Establishment at Bermuda has been broken up, and where the convicts have been sent to?
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, in reply, that if the hon. and gallant Gentleman would refer to the Report of the Select Committee on Transportation, he would find all the reasons stated in detail which induced the Government to think that the

873
establishment ought to be broken up. Since the early part of 1859 no convicts had been sent to Bermuda. Between 200 and 300 were conveyed last year from Bermuda to Western Australia; and at present the number was so small that in the course of the present spring the establishment would be wholly discontinued.

APPOINTMENT OF MR. REED.

  QUESTION.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he hoped that both for the public interest and for the satisfaction of the House, the question which had been twice raised by the hon, and gallant Member for Chatham (Sir Frederic Smith) would now receive an answer. He wished to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether he can inform the House that Mr. Reed, previous to bis employment by the present Board of Admiralty, had ever drawn the lines, or prepared the models, or superintended the construction, of any man-of-war or other ship? In putting that Question it would be understood that he referred to the models of ships which had actually been built and completed.
  LORD CLARENCE PAGET: As Mr. Reed is just about to appear before the House, I hope it may be thought better that I should defer answering that Question.

ARRANGEMENTS AT THE RECENT LEVEE.—QUESTION.
SIR MINTO FARQUHARsaid, in the absence of the hon. Member for Dorsetshire (Mr. Sturt), he hoped an answer would be given to the Question put to the Government on the previous day respecting the crowding at the Levee on Wednesday last.
SIR GEORGE GREY: When the hon. Gentleman the Member for Dorsetshire put his Question yesterday, I had no notice of it. He has since told me that be had given notice to a member of the Household of his intention to put his Question; but at the time I knew none of the facts, In consequence of that Question, I wrote to the Lord Chamberlain for information on the subject. He has informed me that the Levee of Wednesday must -be considered an exceptional one. No less than 3,000 gentlemen attended, and the accommodation ordinarily available on such occasions is not calculated for more than 1,500; but he adds that a large room, where seats are placed for the accommodation of ladies attending Drawing-rooms,
874
was thrown open, and efforts were made to induce gentlemen to wait there till their turn came for presentation. But I believe that in their anxiety to reach the presence of the Prince of Wales they all pressed forward towards the Throne-room. The Lord Chamberlain assures me that every effort will be made on future occasions to prevent the disorder which then prevailed, and I only hope gentlemen attending these Levees will endeavour to co-operate with the Lord Chamberlain and his officers in effecting their object.

RECEPTION OF THE PRINCESS ALEXANDRA.—QUESTION.
SIR ROBERT CLIFTONsaid, be rose to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether there is any truth in the statement in The Times of yesterday, that he has written to the authorities of the City as to changing the ceremonial upon the reception of the Princess Alexandra?
SIR GEORGE GREY:—No, Sir; I have not given any instructions for changing any ceremonial that I was informed had been adopted for the reception of Her Royal Highness in this country. But I will state what has taken place. My endeavour has been, acting in obedience to Her Majesty's commands, and in concert with those whoso duty it is to take a share in making arrangements for the reception of Her Royal Highness, that those arrangements should be such as best to gratify the very general and laudable desire to do honour to Her Royal Highness on her arrival. Sonic time ago, I informed the Lord Mayor that the Princess Alexandra, accompanied by the Prince of Wales and her Royal parents, the Prince and Princess of Denmark, would drive through the City of London and the metropolis, en route from Gravesend to Windsor Castle. I may state that this is not intended to be what is technically called a State Procession; Her Royal Highness and suite will drive from the railway station in six open Royal carriages, if the weather should fortunately permit, attended by an escort of Life Guards. When this became known, a very general desire was evinced, not only by the authorities of the City of London—who are always prominent in every loyal demonstration—but by the local authorities of other parts of the metropolis through which the route will lie, to take a part in the demonstration which would express their loyal attachment to the Throne, and their

875
desire to do honour to the Princess. With this view, it was proposed that the civic and municipal authorities through whose respective jurisdictions Her Royal Highness will pass, should, within the limits of their respective jurisdictions, be allowed the fullest opportunity of co-operating in the proceedings of the day. In consequence of a request urged upon me by a deputation from the Borough of Southwark, it has been arranged that the High Bailiff of Southwark, attended, as I have no doubt he will be, by the two representatives of that borough, and by some other official persons, should be present on the arrival of the Princess Alexandra at the Bricklayers' Arms station of the South Eastern Railway, which lies within the precincts of the borough of Southwark. The Lord Mayor having expressed a wish that he and the Sheriffs of London and Middlesex should also be present at the station, that wish was at once acceded to, subject only to the condition that the long line of carriages that it is understood will convey the other authorities of the City, and the representatives of the different London Companies, should not join at the station, which is beyond the municipal boundary, but should meet the Royal carriages at the limits of their jurisdiction at London Bridge, and should accompany them throughout the whole line of the City to its western extremity at Temple Bar. It is also proposed, in consequence of another request, which it seemed only reasonable to grant, that the Court of Burgesses of the City of Westminster—headed, as I am informed, by the Duke of Buccleuch, the High Steward of the borough, and accompanied by the Dean and other dignitaries, should take the place of the City authorities at this point, and attend Her Royal Highness during that further portion of her route which lies within their jurisdiction. In compliance with other applications, the carriages of a limited number of representatives of the different parishes through which the Royal procession will pass, will be afforded the-opportunity of taking part in this loyal demonstration. A difficulty, no doubt, arose in consequence of the wish of the civic authorities not to stop when they reached the western limits of the City at Temple Bar. On the other hand, if they are suffered, with a long line of carriages, to precede the Royal Procession throughout the western portion of
876
the route, there must be a material interference with other authorities beyond the City limits, who had an equal desire and an equal right to take part in the proceedings of the day. It has, however, been intimated to the Lord Mayor by the Lord Chamberlain, that provided arrangements can be made—and no doubt they will be made, if all parties heartily concur—whereby on their arrival at the western confines of the City the metropolitan authorities, having led the way so far, give place to the other authorities, who will then take up the procession at that point, no interference at all will be made with the order in which the civic dignitaries may wish to follow. I believe, under these circumstances, the arrangements will be such as not only to secure to the inhabitants of the metropolis generally the best opportunity of witnessing and welcoming the arrival of the Princess in London, but will also give to all parties concerned, without favour or partiality, the full advantage of sharing in the proceedings of the day, which I trust will be as gratifying to the Princess Alexandra as I am sure they will be to all the loyal subjects of Her Majesty in the metropolis.
SIR GEORGE BOWYERasked whether the City authorities would be allowed to go beyond Temple Bar?
SIR GEORGE GREY: Not as preceding the procession. I should state that an application was made on the part of the Sheriffs of London, who are also Sheriffs of Middlesex and have jurisdiction beyond the City, to continue in their place in the procession, and their request has been acceded to.
MR. LOCKEsaid, unfortunately he was not in the House when the right hon. Baronet made his statement. He wished clearly to understand what would be the position of the Borough he had the honour to represent relatively to the authorities of the City of London, and with regard to what the City of London is to do there.
SIR GEORGE GREY: I thought I had already sufficiently explained that the High Bailiff of Southwark, attended by some of the authorities of that Borough, and I Believe by my hon. and learned Friend who has just sat down, and his colleague, will be in attendance within the station at the Bricklayers' Arms, there to receive Her Royal Highness. The details are, of course, to be arranged with the Directors, but full information will be given them; and I believe a number of

877
carriages, not to exceed six in the whole, will accompany the Royal carriages as far as London Bridge. The Lord Mayor and Sheriffs, having been present on the arrival of Royal personages at that station on previous occasions, will also be permitted to attend. I do not know whether the Lord Mayor and Sheriffs claim to have any jurisdiction in Southwark; but, I believe, they appoint the High Bailiff of Southwark, and as their claim to be present has been conceded in former instances, I have thought there could be no objection to their being in attendance at the station on the arrival of the Princess. The same permission has been given to the Lord Lieutenant of Surrey and the Representatives of that county.
MR. LOCKE: The question of precedence does not appear to have been settled. It is not stated whether the Borough of Southwark is to lead the cavalcade to the bridge.
SIR GEORGE GREY: I have no doubt I shall he able to satisfy my hon. and learned Friend if he will communicate with me out of the House.

BREACH OF PRIVILEGE.—ATTENDANCE OF MR. REED.
Order for the attendance of Mr. E. J. Reed read,—And the House being informed that Mr. Reed attended accordingly, he was called in; and, having acknowledged that he had addressed the Letter complained of to Sir Frederic Smith, a Member of this House, Mr. Speaker acquainted him that his Letter had been adjudged to he a breach of the privileges of this House, and asked if he had any explanations to offer in respect of that Letter.
MR. REED: Sir, I was not aware that I was committing a breach of the privileges of this House when I wrote that letter, or I certainly should never have written it. Finding now that I have committed an offence, I beg to tender to the House the most ample apology that I can offer, and I beg the pardon of the House for having offended against its rules. To the hon. and gallant Member for Chatham I beg to tender a double apology—in the first place, for having written any letter at all to him concerning remarks made by him in this House; and, secondly, for having employed in the letter I did write phrases, I confess, of great impropriety. I am quite
878
confident now that I wrote that letter under great irritation; that the hon. and gallant Gentleman was entirely misunderstood by me on Monday evening, and that he did not intend to do me any injustice. I hope, Sir, that this apology will be deemed satisfactory by the hon. and gallant Gentleman, and the more so as I have a very deep sense of the estimation in which the hon. and gallant Gentleman is held by the public, by this House, and by his honourable profession.
Then he was directed to withdraw.
SIR FEDERIC SMITH: It was in the performance of a public duty that I brought this question before the House. I am gratified that the House has shown by its vote that it is satisfied that I have so acted. I think that the course I have taken was a proper one in all respects; and there is no better proof of this than the satisfactory apology—most satisfactory to my mind—which has just been made by Mr. Reed. I hope the apology made by Mr. Reed will be as satisfactory to this House as it is to myself. I think that I have vindicated the honour and dignity of the House in the course which I have taken. As a humble Member, of this House, and little acquainted as I am with its forms, I trust I have done that which my hon. Friends here will approve. And, Sir, being satisfied as I am with the apology which Mr. Reed has made, with its manner, tone, and expression, I should not think I had performed my duty to this House, to my own feelings, and to Mr. Reed if I did not express a hope that the House will consent to Mr. Reed's being discharged from further attendance. I therefore beg, with the permission of the House, to move—
"That Mr. Reed, having duly apologised to the satisfaction of this House, be now excused from further attendance here."
MR. ARTHUR MILLSseconded the Motion.
Motion agreed to.
Resolved, That Mr. Reed, having fully apologized to the satisfaction of this House, be now excused from further attendance on this House.

SUPPLY.
Order for Committee read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

AFFAIRS OF POLAND.

  ADDRES MOVED.
  MR. HENNESSY:—Mr. Speaker, In the Session of 1861, when I presumed to ask the attention of Parliament to the state of Poland, I was met by the stereotyped reply, that Poland was not a practical question. In the following Session, when I had the satisfaction of co-operating with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Tiverton in again calling attention to the state of Poland, we received the same answer. Sir, I venture to affirm that, whatever tone may now be taken by the Government, the old reply will not be given to-night. Since 1861 Poland has become, in the estimation, I believe, of every Member of this House, not only a practical but a momentous question. In 1861 events were taking place in Poland that wore little understood in other parts of Europe. It was then said that the endurance and passive attitude of the Poles were an indication that under the pressure of three great Powers the heart of Poland could not beat. I thought, on the contrary, and I ventured to express the opinion here, that the great forbearance of the Poles was a proof of implicit trust in their leaders, of confidence in their cause, and of faith in the future. Now, we see that all is changed. Universal forbearance has suddenly been transformed into universal revolt. How has this happened? Not because of domestic conspiracies or foreign influences. No; it is due to the Russian Government that the attitude of the Poles has been changed; it is in the conduct of the Government that we are able to discover the proximate cause of the national outbreak.
  Early in the year 1862 an Imperial ukase was issued which promised reforms, and appeared to confer privileges on the Poles. On the 10th of June, 1862, the Emperor appointed the Grand Duke Constantine his Lieutenant in Poland, and the Marquis Wielopolski to assist him. The Grand Duke Constantine solicited the Polish nobles to confer with him on the wants of Poland. The nobles, the great landowners, and the municipal bodies responded to that appeal. It was not alone from the Emperor of the Russias and from his Lieutenant the Grand Duke that words of advice were addressed to the Poles, telling them to petition for a liberal form of government. When I called the attention of the House to the state of Poland, there
  880
  was seated in the Peers' gallery a Pole of high rank and influence from the province of Podolia, who overheard the words spoken from the Treasury Bench by Lord John Russell. That noble Lord was then making his last speech in this House, and he said to the Poles—
  "I believe your interests point to tranquillity, and to petitions and requests for a more liberal form of government, and for institutions similar to those which were granted from Vienna."
  What was the consequence of following that advice? The maréchal de noblesse went back to his own country shortly after the noble Lord had made that speech. The ukase to which I have referred was published, and the nobles of Podolia assembled; 300 of them met, the maréchals de noblesse at their head, and an address to the Emperor was drawn up, in which they said—
  "Rejecting all thoughts of the predominance of any particular race or class, the Podolian nobles remain true to the fundamental Polish idea of giving to all classes the same political rights, and they require union with Poland because they see in such union the foundation of free institutions. The situation of the country is very bad—a people without means of education; the laws opposed to the customs, traditions, and interchange of opinions; the execution of the laws rendered nugatory by an administration foreign to the country, and concentrated beyond the pale of the national wants and interests, and, finally, a population without organs selected from its own body for the purpose of directing its affairs."
  What was the result of that address? I hold in my hand three letters describing the fate of the nobleman who had heard the advice of Lord Russell, and had followed it. One of the letters is dated from a prison at St. Petersburg, and the other two from Warsaw, describing what had happened. The last letter is dated the 16th of February, 1863, and is written by a near relative of the unhappy nobleman in question. It says—
  "The maréchal de noblesse whom you have seen in England is now immured in the prison of Petropaulovski, condemned for fourteen months, with eleven of his companions, to cruel and inhuman treatment."
  So much for following the advice given to the Poles by Her Majesty's Ministers; so much for accepting the hypocritical counsel of the Russian authorities. I mention this incident mainly for the purpose of illustrating the conduct of the Grand Duke as far as it affected the higher classes in Poland. But every class in Poland felt the pressure of the Russian Government; because during the time of which I am

  881
  speaking, and since October, 1861, a state of siege prevailed. I have said that the Grand Duke Constantine also invited the municipal authorities and town councils to confer with him upon the condition of the people. The town council of Warsaw, acting upon that invitation, sent to the Grand Duke a report dated July 20, 1862, on one of the prisons of Warsaw. The report began by saying that—
  "The total number of men and women arrested from the beginning of the year 1862 to the 19th of July, was 14,833."
  The description of the room in which the political prisoners were confined was as follows:—
  " Room No. 18, the same small size as the other two, except that it is but half their width, contains thirty men, arrested for not carrying lanterns at night. This room has no furniture and only one small barred window. There is so little space that the men in it can neither He down nor move about with freedom. There is scarcely a breath of air, and the close packing of these thirty persons is an unprecedented instance of disregard of human life."
  The report closed with this sentence—
  "Considering, first, that the number of people arrested during the past half-year amounts to nearly one-tenth of the whole population of the town, and to one-fifth of such population, excluding children; second, that among those arrested are persons detained for the most trifling inattention to the decrees of the police, and mothers with little children, even children of four years old and children at the breast are often arrested—the Deputy President and the delegates of the Municipal Council consider it most expedient to take immediate steps to put a stop to this evil."
  I am not quoting newspaper correspondents, or private letters, or any anonymous authorities—I refrain from relying on such information in a question so grave as the treatment of political prisoners, lest any person should accuse me of exaggerating; I have quoted from the report of the Town Council of Warsaw upon one of the prisons of the town. There were two or three other addresses from provincial councils in reply to the invitation of the Russian Government. The address of the provincial Council of Piotrkow, dated November, 1862, has a peculiar significance now—
  "The Council also feels it its duty to call the attention of the authorities to one of the chief causes of the present position—the want of men qualified for the various kinds of labour. Between the years 1833 and 1856 many thousands have been recruited for the army from this province, constituting the cream of the population, and not leaving enough men for labour. These recruits were sent thousands of miles away, into strange lands, for many years, were attacked by a dreadful mortality in consequence of the climate, and
  882
  returned, their numbers reduced to 498, not only useless, but a burden to their province. For these reasons the Council has felt it to he its duty to protest against any recruiting for the army which might be carried into effect on similar principles, and, above all, against a system which, by calling to the army the majority of persons belonging to the educated or mechanic class, would deprive the province of every means of self-development or progress. It is of opinion that the retention of recruits in their own country, with due protection for their language and religion, which are the only treasures left to a nation under foreign rule, could alone render a conscription tolerable to the population of this country; any other will always be considered as something worse than the heaviest of misfortunes."
  I have read these extracts to the House as a statement of the Polish case by the only official element left in Poland. But that is not all. In accordance with the request of the Grand Duke Constantine, Count Andrew Zamayski in open day suggested the policy which he thought best suited for the country. Nothing could be more moderate than the document which was drawn up by that much respected representative of the country gentlemen of Poland. Nevertheless, for that act of petitioning Count Zamayski was summoned to St. Petersburg, he was exiled, and he is now in banishment with his brother Ladislaus. Sir, I have received authentic information of what passed at the remarkable interview between this illustrious Polish exile and the Russian Czar, and I beg to call attention to the extraordinary language addressed by the Emperor himself and by Prince Gortschakoff to Count Zamayski. The Emperor said, "The only way to govern Poland, I see now, is by terror." And, on leaving the presence of the Emperor, Prince Gortschakoff said to the Count, "If you force us to it, we will make Poland a heap of ashes and corpses." And, again, Prince Gortschakoff said, "It has long been the conclusion of the Imperial Government, and remains so, that the only course to be pursued in reference to Poland is a policy of extermination." That policy the Russian Government have endeavoured to carry out, and the means they have adopted for that purpose are boldly described by their own official organs. Of these the most notable was the conscription. That great idea of the Grand Duke may fairly be called a device for converting barrack-rooms and fortresses into political prisons. According to their own admission, they hoped, in this way, to seize and secure every person opposed to their policy. The conscription was directed against the towns alone,

  883
  against certain classes alone, and its object was defined. And how had it been carried out? I hold in my hand numerous letters describing it. But the House will not need any such documentary proof in the face of the statements made in another place by an eminent authority (the Earl of Ellenborough), and in the face of the fact that those statements had received the sanction of Her Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and had not been contradicted. It appears that the Russians at one o'clock in the night—the order having been made on the previous evening—surrounded the houses of the shopkeepers, middle classes, and professional people in Warsaw, dragged them from their beds and carried them off. The Russian official journal of Warsaw, on the 15th of January, thus described the time of the conscription:—
  "Between the hours of one and eight o'clock this morning the levy of recruits for the army has been accomplished in the town of Warsaw."
  The official journal, having stated that fact, went on to state what was not fact, but what was intended to produce, and did produce, a great result. It said that —
  "Never in the course of the last thirty years had men so taken shown so much readiness and goodwill, and when lodged in the town hall they actually became joyful at being now freed from the influence of evil men."
  That official notification concluded by stating that—
  "It is likely that the same measures will meet with the same satisfactory results all over the country."
  Sir, under these circumstances, I ask, what were the Poles to do? Hero was this conscription, unprecedented in the history of civilization, and hero was the official journal of Warsaw telling the people that it was to be carried out in the other parts of Poland. What were the Poles to do? It has been truly said that by "uncalculating despair" they were driven into insurrection. But, as surely as the conduct of the people was uncalculating, the policy of the Government was premeditated. The civil Governor of Warsaw, the Marquis of Wielopolski, has openly boasted that he drove the people into insurrection, observing that he had done his duty, and that it would now rest with the military authorities to discharge theirs. What do we now see? The whole Polish nation of one mind—a universal insurrection, or rather a universal resurrection of the
  884
  people; and, though without arms and without the slightest previous preparation, the insurgents day after day extending the area they had opened in Poland. Day after day the Russian troops are defeated, and the heroic struggle is absorbing the admiration and anxiety of Europe. This success arises from two causes—First, because the whole nation co-operates with the insurgents; and, secondly—and this is not an insignificant fact—because among the troops of Russia there exists a spirit of inevitable insubordination. One Russian officer, leading on his men to attack a party of insurgents, when he came in sight of them, called his officers around him and said, "My conscience as a man points in one direction, and my duty as an officer in an opposite," and that unfortunate soldier committed suicide. Accounts also reach us of Russian troops leaving towns in the morning to attack insurgents and coming back in the evening unwounded and disarmed. What does that mean? It moans that even the Russian troops to some extent entertain a friendly feeling for Poland, and are sensible of the disgraceful position which Russia has assumed.
  It may be asked, why should a Member of the British Parliament presume to interfere in this matter, and what has the House of Commons to do with it? To such inquiries I answer, that not only is Poland a practical question now, but that it is beyond all doubt an English question. It is an English question, because England is bound by a treaty entered into between this country, Russia, and other Powers of Europe with regard to Poland. If I can show that England is bound by that treaty—that the treaty has never been abrogated with the consent of England, and that it has been violated by Russia—I must leave the House to draw its own conclusions as to what should be the policy of this country.
  There has been a great deal of misconception about the precise value to the Poles of the Treaty of Vienna, That the treaty is of some value to Poland might be inferred from many well-known facts. Lord Castlereagh conducted the Vienna Conferences on the part of England, and in February, 1815, he laid down as the basis on which he entered into the negotiations of Vienna the wish constantly manifested by the British Government to see Poland an independent

  885
  State, more or less of considerable extent, over which there should reign a distinct dynasty, and which should form an intermediate Power between the three great monarchies. From that basis Lord Castlereagh was reluctantly driven, for he was not able to secure an independent Poland under a distinct dynasty; but he secured for Poland that which he deemed of vital importance to the Poles, and to the peace of Europe, a constitutional independence. That the first fourteen articles of the Treaty of Vienna should be devoted to that country, showed the importance the Great Powers attached to these obligations, and confirms the judgment of Talleyrand that Poland was the first, the greatest, and the most eminently European question that could be brought before the Congress of Vienna. I am not going to give my own interpretation of the articles of the Treaty of Vienna concerning Poland; but, for my present purpose, I will only rely on the interpretation of them given by two eminent authorities —the Emperor of Russia himself, and the noble Viscount on the Treasury Bench. After the treaty was negotiated, the Emperor of Russia, addressing the Poles, stated that they had received a constitution preserving in public enactments the Polish language, restricting public appointments to the Poles, and establishing freedom of commerce and a national army. In a yew years the Emperor addressed the Poles again, and told them that their restoration was defined by solemn treaties and sanctioned by a constitutional chart; and that the inviolability of these external engagements, and that constitutional law, insured for Poland henceforth her place among European nations. The first address was delivered by the Emperor of Russia in 1815, and the second in 1818. During the negotiation of the Treaty of Vienna, the noble Viscount now at the bead of the Government was a Minister of the Crown; and he was in the Foreign Office during the various infractions and final destruction of the treaty rights of Poland. I appeal, then, to the noble Viscount to say whether that treaty has not been systematically violated by Russia. In 1861 the noble Lord used remarkable words, to the effect that the course pursued by Russia constituted a complete and decided violation of the Treaty of Vienna; that the stipulations of the treaty were broken almost as soon as they were concluded, and that
  886
  perhaps the greatest violation of a treaty that had ever taken place in the history of the world was that which had taken place in the case of Poland. Though these words were used when Poland was thought to be only an abstract question, they are of paramount importance now. Yet it is even more important to observe what was the language of the British Government on the occasion of the Polish insurrection in 1831, and to ascertain whether or not they then asserted that Russia had violated her treaty engagements. For thirty years the despatches which determined and defined the policy of this country in 1831 were concealed from the Parliament and the people of England. The distinguished General opposite (Sir De Lacy Evans), who I am informed will do me the great honour of seconding my address, moved three times for those papers. Motion after Motion was made to the same effect by other Members, but the Government persistently refused to produce them. Thanks, however, to Earl Russell, they were laid upon the table in compliance with a Motion which was made the Session before last. The noble Earl, then a Member of this House, in agreeing to my Motion, said that so many years had elapsed that there could no longer be any harm in allowing the despatches to be published. Those documents disclosed some very important facts. It appeared that in 1831 the noble Viscount now at the head of the Government, again and again told the Russian Government that they had not carried out the provisions of the Treaty of Vienna, and that they had violated that treaty. Indeed, in one despatch the noble Viscount distinctly protested against that violation. In writing to Lord Heytesbury, on the 22nd of March, 1831, the noble Viscount expressed himself as follows:—
  "By Article 1 of the Treaty of Vienna it is stipulated that the Poles, subjects respectively of Russia, Austria, and Prussia, shall obtain a national representation and institutions regulated according to the kind of political existence which each of the Governments to which they belong shall think it useful and fitting to grant them. It is understood, that although this stipulation has been executed by Austria and Prussia, it has hitherto been entirely unfulfilled by the Russian Government. His Majesty's Government have been informed by the French Ambassador at this Court that instructions have been sent to the Duke de Mortemart to draw the attention of the Russian Government to this matter, and the French Government have expressed a wish that your Lordship might be instructed to support the Duke in his representations on this subject,"

  887
  But the next sentence renders all this nugatory. The noble Viscount, turning to his Russian vocabulary, says—
  "Your Lordship will, of course, be careful not to take any step on this business which could lead to any unfriendly discussions with the Russian Government, with whom His Majesty's Government are, under present circumstances, more than over desirous of keeping up the closest relations of friendship. But if the question should be agitated, your Lordship is instructed to state that, as far as His Majesty's Government are informed of the facts of the case, it does not appear to them that the provisions of the Treaty of Vienna applicable to the Polish provinces of Russia have been hitherto carried into execution.
  "I am, &c.,
  "PALMERSTON."
  That despatch, though tinged with a Russian spirit and meaning nothing but words, and though from its reservations utterly valueless in 1831, is of value now; for it establishes the fact that at a critical moment, when the insurrection was raging, the noble Viscount stated that the treaty had not been carried out by Russia. In the same year another despatch was written by the noble Viscount, of which the people of England had heard but little, a despatch to which it was important their attention should be directed at the present moment. In 1831 the Government of Louis Philippe, a most cautious and peaceful Sovereign, addressed a despatch to the British Government, asking them to co-operate in endeavouring to secure for Poland those institutions which were guaranteed by the Treaty of Vienna. The note of Count Sebastian, which was communicated by Prince Talleyrand to Lord Palmerston, was in the following terms:—
  "Paris, July 7, 1831.
  "Mon Prince,—The King, touched by the evils which the Polish war has already caused to two nations in which he takes so lively an interest, eager to insure the maintenance of peace, compromised daily by so prolonged a contest, and no less engaged in preserving the West of Europe from the fearful sufferings which this war entails, has addressed himself confidentially to the Emperor of Russia, in order to put an end to so many disasters, and to bring to an end blood-shedding over which humanity has only too long groaned. The King's intention was also to preserve the political existence of a people which has showed itself so worthy of it by so great courage and patriotism, and which has the guarantee of the Treaties of Vienna for its nationality. Up to the present time the King's efforts have not achieved the results which he had the right to expect. Notwithstanding their small success, His Majesty does not consider it his duty to renounce the generous and pacific mediation which his personal feelings recommend, and which the condition of Europe prescribes to him. He believes, especially, that were England to act in agreement with France for giving to this salutary interven-
  888
  tion all the force of which it is susceptible, the effect might be made certain by the combination of these two Powers. The King is sufficiently acquainted with the feelings which animate His Britannic Majesty to entertain the hope that he will not refuse to give his frank and complete ad hesion to our advances, and to join his powerful action to our efforts, at a time when the question of the welfare of humanity and of the general interest of Europe transcends all others. The de sire of His Majesty, men Prince, is that you should make immediate and pressing overtures to the English Government with reference to this subject: we are awaiting their result with much impatience.
  "Accept, &c.,
  "HORACE SEBASTIAN."
  The noble Viscount, in replying on the 2nd of July, 1831, wrote as follows: —
  "The object of the communication which it is now proposed that France and England should jointly address to Russia is an immediate cessation of hostilities, with a view to negotiations for the purpose of re-establishing peace between the contending parties by some lasting arrangement; and it appears from Count Sebastiani's despatch that a proposition to this effect has already been made to Russia by France, but hitherto without success. Can it, then, be expedient to make a proposal which there is no ground to hope would be accepted? The effects and bearing of the contest upon the security of other States have not hitherto been such as to warrant measures of such a description; nor has the conduct of Russia towards England been calculated to excite any unfriendly feeling; she has, on the contrary, performed towards this country all the offices of a good and faithful ally, and, in the late difficult negotiations for the purpose of effecting a settlement between Belgium and Holland, she has acted with perfect fairness in her co-operation with the other four Powers. Under these circumstances, His Majesty, deeply lamenting the calamities of a disastrous and desolating contest, does not think the time has yet arrived when he could be justified in adopting a proceeding which, however conciliatory in form, could not fail to alarm an independent Power, naturally jealous of its rights. For these reasons his Majesty feels himself under the necessity of declining the proposal which the Prince de Talleyrand has been instructed to convey."
  The noble Viscount spoke of the "rights" of Russia; but the fact was Russia had long before lost any rights she possessed in Poland, by her violation of her engagements. I shall not at present presume to offer any opinion upon this memorable despatch of the noble Viscount in 1831. I simply draw the attention of the House to the possibility of a similar despatch being written in 1863, and of the noble Viscount again becoming the arbiter of the fate of Poland. Seeing what took place in 1831, and remembering that this despatch was concealed for thirty years, I respectfully put it to the House whether we ought not to press the Government to say distinctly what they are going to do?

  889
  There are many other considerations, besides those springing out of the Treaty of Vienna, which give us a direct interest in the independence of Poland, but I will not go into them now. I do not pretend to deal with the whole of the great Polish cause. I am only, as it were, opening the pleadings. I have no doubt other hon. Members, better able to do so, will state the case in full. I will merely add a word or two on the practical aspect of the question.
  It is significant that the various Powers of Europe are no longer indifferent to Poland. In France there is a diversity of opinion among public men on every great question save one, and that is Poland. On that subject Legitimists, Orleanists, Imperialists, Republicans, all are united. I shall not venture to predict what will be the policy of France, but there can be little doubt that it may depend on that of England. For a long time past men have been in the habit of asking, what will the Emperor do? But the question now is, what will England do? If the policy of this Empire is to depend on the spirit of the people, if the Ministers are prepared to carry out the wishes of the people, I can have no misgivings about the diplomacy of 1863; for I believe we can say with truth that the feeling of this country is as unanimous and as friendly to Poland as that of France. And what has been the conduct of Austria in this matter? She has complied with the Treaty of Vienna, as far as Galicia is concerned, and within the last few weeks the attitude she has assumed has received the well-merited commendation of the highest authorities in the other House. It is the traditional policy of Austria to be friendly to Poland. True, she was a party to the great crime of the partition; but when the Empress signed the deed, she added these memorable words to it —
  "Placeat, because so many great and learned men will have it so; but long after I am dead and gone people will see what will happen for breaking through everything holy and just.
  "MARIA THERESA."
  Again, during the insurrection of 1831 the Emperor Francis, then on his deathbed, sent the following message through Count Kolovratz, to the Envoy of the Polish Provisional Government—
  "The Emperor feels that the time is drawing near when he shall have to appear before the great Judge; the possession of Galicia weighs on his conscience as a crime, and he would be ready to restore that province to Poland, provided it were not annexed to Russia."
  890
  If my words could reach his ears, I would, therefore, respectfully urge the present Emperor of Austria to maintain the attitude he has assumed, for it is not only in accordance with the public opinion of Europe, but it is interwoven with the best interests of the great Empire that he governs so well, and it is strictly consistent with the traditions of his house. There is another Power in Europe; some speak of it as a weak Power, but it is not so; which can exercise great influence on Russia. I mean the Sublime Porte. The present Sultan is a man of determination and ability, and I can tell the House, what the noble Lord at the head of the Government probably knows, that of all the Powers of Europe none will be more anxious at this great crisis to assist Poland than the Sublime Porte. There are many reasons why the influence of Turkey upon Russia is well worth our consideration. The policy of England would be a policy to vindicate her own public faith and solemn engagements; the policy of the Turks would be a policy to save themselves and preserve the integrity of their empire. Again, in the North of Europe, there are Powers which have ever been, and are at this moment, friendly to Poland. On the other hand stood Russia herself and the Government of Prussia. To a certain extent Prussia has fulfilled the obligations of the Treaty of Vienna, and I am therefore willing to hope that she is not now combining with the arch-violator of that treaty. To do so would be indeed a fatal step. I have beard with pleasure that the Prussian Minister has announced that the Convention concluded with Russia has been misunderstood, and its purport exaggerated. I cannot believe that Prussia has gone so far as the House has been led to suppose on a former occasion. She may have committed a fault—a fault which may, perhaps, be repaired—and I hope we shall hear from the Government to-night, some satisfactory statement as to the actual attitude taken by Prussia. What are the sentiments of the people of Russia? Even in Russia itself I see a ray of hope. Among the people of Russia there is, if I am rightly informed, a profound feeling in favour of Poland. The Russian Government is not a Government which sprang from the people or has any direct communication with the people; on the contrary, it has many of the characteristics of a foreign Government; and though the Czar and the Grand Duke are no doubt

  891
  resolved, if they can, to crush the Poles, the people of Russia do not sympathize with the Imperial policy of extermination. I will not weary the House by reading passages from the Russian newspapers. It may be enough to mention that a journal printed in St. Petersburg recently published an argument in favour of an independent Poland, and urged the government to act upon that view. That paper has since been suppressed, but the fact that it ventured when in existence to publish such an article is significant. But my chief dependence is on Poland herself. I do not ask for armed intervention; I do not wish that a single foreign soldier should be sent to Poland. One Queen's messenger despatched from the Foreign Office to Paris, Vienna, or Constantinople, would be worth 100,000 foreign bayonets to the Poles. It is not armaments they want; but if the Powers of Europe, parties to the Treaty of Vienna, and the Sublime Porte, choose to act in diplomatic concert, then Poland is secure. Sir, the House to-night presents a very different appearance from that which it exhibited when I called attention to the state of Poland on former occasions. The contrast is, indeed, most striking. Nor is it confined to Parliament. From one end of the country to the other, the public mind has changed. Apathy and indifference have given way to the deepest interest and anxiety. Why is there this change? It is because a long absent visitor has returned. Many years ago,
  "Hope for a season bade the world farewell;"
  a long season and a sad season for Poland; but it is passed. Hope has returned— and I beg leave to welcome her to this House, and to mark her presence here to-night by moving this Address to the Crown.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, humbly to represent to Her Majesty that certain Treaty obligations have been incurred by England and other Powers with Russia in respect to Poland, and that these Treaty obligations have not been fulfilled by Russia, but were (in the words of Her Majesty's present First Minister) broken almost as soon as concluded:
  That these joint obligations are set forth in the first fourteen Articles of the Treaty of Vienna, and that the Emperor of Russia, on the 13th day of May 1815, thus recapitulated them: 'A Constitution; the preservation in public enactments of the Polish language; the
  892
  restriction of public appointments to Poles; freedom of Commerce; and a national army; and subsequently the same Sovereign, addressing the Poles, said, 'Your restoration is defined by solemn Treaties. It is sanctioned by the Constitutional Chart. The inviolability of these external engagements and of that fundamental law ensures for Poland henceforth an honourable place among European Nations:'
  That for many years past not one of these engagements and conditions has been fulfilled:
  That it appears from the diplomatic documents which from time to time have been laid before Parliament, that these external exgagements of Russia in respect to Poland were avowedly intended by the contradicting parties, on the one hand, as a compensation for the loss of her independence by the dismemberment, and, on the other hand, as guarantees for the peace and security of Europe:
  That the breach of the solemn engagements thus incurred between England and Russia has recently been described (2nd July 1861) by Her Majesty's First Minister in his place in this House, in the following words:—
  'The course which the Government of Russia adopted towards Poland was a complete and decided violation of the Treaties of Vienna. The stipulations of the Treaty of Vienna were broken almost as soon as concluded. Perhaps the greatest violation of a Treaty that has ever taken place in the history of the world was that which occurred in the case of Poland:'
  That for years past the Poles have borne with exemplary patience this deliberate violation of their national rights:
  That whilst their endurance has attracted the admiration of Europe, it seems to have aroused the worst passions of the Russian authorities:
  That the patriotic self-restraint of the unanimous people of Poland has at length given way under an accumulation of outrages unparalleled in these times:
  That the Kingdom of Poland is now the scene of desolating conflicts between the troops of Russia and the people thus driven to desperation:
  Humbly to submit to Her Majesty that these facts demand the interposition of England in vindication of her own public faith and solemn engagements,"
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  SIR DE LACY EVANSseconded the Motion.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, that having from first to last supported the Government of which the noble Lord at the head of the Administration was a Member in one Russian war, a war which had been carried to a successful termination, he was anxious at once to state that he would be no party to urging the noble Lord beyond his discretion in the sense of intervention for the sake of Poland, at the cost of another Russian war. The conduct of the noble Lord, and the expressions used by the

  893
  noble Lord, which were quoted in the form of the Motion, were a sufficient guarantee to the House and the country that if it were possible by friendly offices to mitigate the present state of affairs in Poland, and the evils to which Poland for so many years had been subjected, the noble Lord would not fail to use the power of England in this sense. But, lamenting as he did the condition of Poland, and deprecating its partition, still he thought the House ought to ask itself—Are the Polish people in a condition to establish their own freedom? ["Yes."] In his opinion, Russian Poland by itself would not be large enough to constitute a free State, under existing circumstances; and if this insurrection succeeded as against Russia, was the condition of that part of Poland which belonged to Prussia such as to justify the active intervention of England to wrest that portion of Poland from her ally? The hon. Member for the King's County admitted that the condition of that part of Poland which belonged to Austria was satisfactory. [Mr. HENNESSY: No.] Then the hon. Member implied that England was to enter into hostilities with the object of depriving Austria also of certain dominions which she now held. That was rather a grave proposal, and he was actuated by this motive, for no one had ever seen him stand aloof from a movement in favour of rational freedom in any part of the world. What he feared was this, whether, if the Poles were now to succeed, they might not find that they had substituted one tyranny for another, because he doubted whether the condition of that country was such as to prove that the people were qualified for freedom. Let them glance for one moment at the history of 1815. The Emperor Alexander then participated in the feelings of England, and set honestly to work in order to carry out the dictates of the treaty that was to establish constitutional freedom in the portion of Poland which fell to Russia. But he was immediately met by a Roman Catholic movement, by a Jesuitical agency, stirring up disunion and strife, and what was the proof? The proof of it was this:—That in anticipation of establishing the state of things which England desired he was forced to expel the Jesuits from that country. This happy state of things, organized by the Emperor Alexander, in 1815, in the sense of England, lasted till 1820, and then the mischief that had been fomented broke out, and Russia had a right to say that she was
  894
  forced to crush freedom. ["Oh, oh!"] Hon. Members said "No, no!"—[" Oh, oh!"]— but he asserted that the conduct of the Parliament of Poland, in 1820, was totally inconsistent with the understanding upon which the Emperor made the declaration quoted by the hon. Member. Let not the House be deceived. There were agencies at work in Poland that were not in favour of true freedom. With whom had the Emperor of Russia remonstrated against the fomentation of the troubles which had now broken out? With Rome. And Rome had refused to aid in the pacification of Poland, but sanctioned the action of her ultramontane bishops in that country. Let the House not be deceived, but remember that brigandage in Italy was characterized in this House as a struggle for the restoration of freedom. He had only risen to protest against the House being deceived, conceiving that by any hasty action of their own in the case of Poland, they might be hurrying the Government into that which might become a most serious complication, without being likely to advance in Poland the cause of true freedom.
  MR. BUXTONsaid, that every one who took an interest in Poland must be exceedingly obliged to the hon. and learned Member for the King's County (Mr. Hennessy) for the able speech in which he had introduced this subject to the House. From no part of that speech had he derived greater pleasure than from that passage in which the hon. and learned Member said that he did not advocate intervention by war, but only by diplomatic means. Every man of sense and humanity would deprecate our going to war on behalf of Poland. But while he deprecated any steps being taken by the British Government that could have any semblance of a tendency towards war, he thought there were solid grounds why the Government of England ought to utter on her behalf an earnest protest against the crimes of which Russia had been guilty, and still more against the barbarities which she might be tempted to commit if she prevailed—as he feared she would—in the re-conquest of Poland. Not only, however, ought the British Government to cause the voice of this country to be heard, but it would be well for that Government to do its utmost to persuade every civilized country—at any rate, every country of Europe—to unite with England in the utterance of the same

  895
  views. The force of any protest would be increased tenfold if it were a unanimous expression of opinion by every people within the same quarter of the globe. It was sometimes laid down as a maxim that a nation should say nothing when it meant to do nothing; and very often, no doubt, well-meant protests had seemed to be utterly without avail. The experience of England and France with regard to Naples was not encouraging. In fact, a Government that knew it was not to be interfered with by force could always affect to treat its neighbours' protests with insolent contempt. The matter, however, might not really end there. The Government, thus remonstrated with, might treat such interference with scorn; but the victims whom she was wronging would look with affection on those who, of their own accord, had stepped forward to aid them; and the feeling would be deepened in the hearts of all men that the country which breaks through the law of justice and humanity isolates itself from mankind, and exposes itself to the indignant aversion of her sister kingdoms. It seemed to him that more and more as mankind went forward, the nations that lived side by side ought to form one organized whole —a commonwealth of nations. It would, in reality, tend towards that result that they should abstain from meddling by force with each other's affairs; but it would be well that they should not stand aloof from each other, as if the deeds of one were not a shame to the whole, but should combine to withhold each other from the crimes and follies of which they might else be guilty. And if ever it could be right for neighbourly Governments to join hand-in-hand in condemnation of the acts of any one Government, surely such a case had now arisen? Poland had been treated by Russia with shameful insult and shameful brutality. The whole aim of Russia had been to crush out the national feeling and patriotism of the Poles. She had set herself with a resolute purpose to grind them down under the heel of her despotism, and to break the spirit of a most gallant people. It seemed, indeed, a short time ago, that the Emperor, whose policy in other parts of his empire had been liberal and humane, had become alive to the folly and wickedness of this tyranny over Poland. He seemed, at length, to be catching sight of the truth, so obvious to every bystander, that unless Poland was to continue to be the weakness and the disgrace
  896
  of the Russian empire, she must be treated with the reverence due to her rights. It appeared as though the wisdom which of late years had come over the policy of England in her treatment of her dependencies had reached the Czar, and it was dawning on him that by allowing Poland to become once more a people, enjoying her own institutions, though still under his sceptre, he would not only be doing that which was just and noble, but raising the Russian throne to a height of glory in the eyes of mankind which it had never reached before. The path lay straight before him towards rendering his empire stronger, while at the same time winning for himself the purest honour. From his other acts we might have deemed him worthy of such a policy; but, whether it was by his own fault, or that he was misled by wicked counsel, the terrible result of this change of conduct was before them. There was no occasion for him to dwell on that new and iniquitous act of tyranny—the attempt of the authorities to seize on every man whose education and energy of character might render him an efficient representative of his countrymen, and to send him off in all likelihood to perish in Siberia or the Caucasus. He did not hesitate to say that, barring the massacre of the women and children, that attempt was closely parallel to the mode in which the King of Dahomey seized on the young men of a Fellatah village in order to sell them into slavery. But though the cup of Polish wrath was filled to the very brim by this brutality, they still held themselves in check, and it was not till the pride of the whole nation had been trampled upon by the official proclamation, which averred that these young men had gladly offered themselves to the Russian recruiting sergeants, that the nation had burst forth at length into a hurricane of rage, and had filled the land with insurrection. If ever the doings of tyrants ought to call forth the indignant protest of the nations around, our Government ought not to pass over in silence such iniquities as these. Such a protest would not be idle. He was assured by those who knew much of Russian feeling, that they were singularly sensitive to the opinion of Europe. They were, above all things, afraid of being thought barbarians, and would shrink extremely from the solemn rebuke of their more civilized neighbours. It might be said that public opinion had been expressed loudly enough by the press of this

  897
  country and of Europe. He heartily rejoiced that the press of this and of all civilized countries had spoken forth with such tremendous emphasis in condemnation of these outrages. But, after all, the members of a Government like that of Russia could have little time and little inclination for making themselves acquainted with what the newspapers of other countries might be saying; whereas the combined protest of England, France, Italy, Austria, Spain, Sweden, Norway, Holland, and Belgium—he heartily wished he could add the name of Prussia too— could not but ring in the ears of the Russian Emperor. An additional motive for making such a protest had been afforded by that transcendant meanness of which the King of Prussia had been guilty, in eagerly assuring Russia that he would do his part towards crushing the unfortunate Poles, and that his sympathies were now, as they ever had been, with the oppressor against the oppressed. A baser action than that Europe had not seen for many a long year. The King of Prussia, by the narrowness of his views and the stupidity of his treatment of his own people, had already awakened feelings in which indignation was mingled with contempt. But even the King of Prussia could hardly have been expected to proclaim his zeal in the great cause of consigning to death and slavery those who were simply rising up against brutal cruelties. Since the King had thus come forward to give his countenance to Russia, it would the more become other nations to show what all men but he were feeling in the very depths of their hearts. The position of Austria, again, afforded a further motive for such a course of conduct. Austria had shown herself worthy of the respect of Europe in her treatment of that portion of Poland which had fallen to her share. She had not sought to trample out the nationality of the Poles, nor to crush them under her foot; and the result was, that although Galicia might have some cravings to join the kingdom of Poland, should such a kingdom ever be restored, her people did not complain of the treatment of the Government to which they were consigned. He thought it would encourage Austria, and make her position less difficult, if all her sister nations expressed their abhorrence of the policy of Russia, with which her own stood in such gratifying contrast. Above all, they knew that France was resolved no
  898
  longer to look on with tacit acquiescence at these deeds. He did not see why our Government should wait for the lead of France; nor, on the other hand, would it be possible for those who represented the British people to stand by in silence while France was taking energetic steps towards impressing on Russia and on Prussia the sentiments by which she is moved. It might be, too, that our joining ourselves with France in remonstrances would tend to hold her back from war. On the whole, looking at the atrocities that had been done, and the dire likelihood of still fouler deeds—seeing the real bent of the Czar's mind towards humanity—seeing what power in these days the voice of Christendom must have, if uttered firmly—seeing the step which Prussia had taken, the position in which Austria stood, and the decision to which France was tending— the motives seemed strong for our Government not to linger, but to call upon every Power, great or small, of Europe to join with England to condemn what was past, and to press upon Russia a wise and gentle policy in days to come.
  MR. MONCKTON MILNES: Sir, although on former occasions those persons, Members of this House, who brought the question of Poland under discussion may be accused of having induced this House to go into a matter of theoretical polity rather than one of practical import, I do not think that my hot), and learned Friend opposite (Mr. Hennessy) or any Member on the other side of the House, can be accused of doing so on the present occasion. I do hope the House will fully estimate the value of this discussion tonight; because I apprehend that on the souse in which the Government of this country conceives this House to speak will depend to a very great degree the line of conduct which that Government will take in regard either to following any proposition of the Government of the Emperor of the French, or in initiating any measures of their own. If I be right in this apprehension, I think Her Majesty's Government will do well to follow the opinion of this House. Because the question is one that has long engaged the attention of mankind; it is one on which no Government could be authorized to act entirely on their own impulses, or their own private opinions—it is one in which they can only act with safety and with honour by obtaining the full support of this House and of the country, not only to the mea-

  899
  sures which they adopt, but to the consequences which may result from them. Although I have no desire to suppose that the word "intervention" in the speech of my hon. and learned Friend opposite meant anything more than diplomatic intervention, and although I have no reason to believe that in the present aspect of Europe there is any immediate reason to suppose that diplomatic interposition would be accompanied by more serious measures; nevertheless I say that it becomes this House to look to the possible consequences of interposition; not to act blindly and one-sided in the matter, but to take a clear and comprehensive view, so as to feel, that if they do their duty in this matter by their country and by Europe, they may be perfectly at ease, whatever the consequences. It is no secret that this question at the present moment deeply agitates the French nation—it is no secret, because, and the fact may be gained from the history of Europe, the question of Poland does excite in the French people an interest so absorbing as to be altogether disproportionate to their interest in any other foreign affair whatever. It is very much as if all the sympathies which my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld) feels for Italy were combined with all the sentiments entertained on the same subject by my worthy Friend the hon. Baronet the Member for Dundalk (Sir George Bowyer)—all the aspirations for liberty combined with all the ardour of religion. Therefore, I say, there can be no doubt the French people are ready to support the Emperor in any measures he may lake with regard to Poland, even though these measures should ultimately induce an appeal to arms. It becomes us, consequently, clearly to understand, whether it is our duty in this case to support any proposals for peaceable interposition which may be made by the Emperor of the French. The first consideration is, are we bound to do so by the state of the treaties? I own that I cannot read the Treaty of Vienna in any other sense than as determining the common consent at that time of all the Powers that Poland should enjoy, in a certain degree, the advantages of a comparatively free government. The history of that negotiation is curious in itself. Lord Castle-reagh—whose strong common sense comes out more and more as we grow familiar with his suggestions—was fully aware of all the difficulties which would encumber the question the moment free Poland was
  900
  attached to despotic Russia. Therefore, all the interest of England was brought to bear with a view to constitute a large and independent Poland as an integral part of Europe. So far the conscience of England acquits her. She had taken no share in the partition of Poland, and at the great Congress of Nations she did all she could to rectify that wrong. But the other Powers were too strong for her, and the the arrangement was made by which Austria and Prussia each got a portion, and the Kingdom of Poland was constituted, with all the dignity of an independent people, and attached to the despotic empire of Russia. What Lord Castlereagh had anticipated naturally occurred; the difficulties of the position grew day by day, and were increased by the ill-will shown towards Poland by the Government of Russia. An intelligent and moderate Government might have surmounted the difficulties; but it was not in the power of human wisdom to combine the Government of Poland in an independent and liberal spirit with the increase and fostering of absolute despotism in Russia. I cannot agree with my hon. and learned Friend opposite that the insurrection of 1831 was not justified. It was provoked by a series of great insults, of dire cruelties, and of systematic oppression; and when the spirit of liberty broke out so freely, in some cases so wildly, as it did then in Europe, it was not in human nature that Poland should not have attempted to resist. The Emperor of Russia took advantage of that resistance; and though that view has not been distinctly formalized in any diplomatic document, yet I believe it is understood that the Russian Government consider that the Treaties of Vienna were cancelled, as regards Poland, by the insurrection of 1831, and that any power which Russia now exercises over Poland is no longer restrained by the faith of the Treaty of 1815, but that her dominion is held by the simple right of conquest. I cannot admit this doctrine, for several reasons, and mainly on this ground:—Whatever may be the immediate relations between Poland and Russia at the Treaty of Vienna, Russia nevertheless contracted towards the other Powers of Europe such obligations as would justify them in holding this language towards her:— "You have no right to keep in the centre of Europe a focus of continual discontent, when the wisdom of mankind has taught

  901
  us that to hold a recalcitrant nation by the mere means of force is not only impolitic in itself, but intolerable in its consequences. You have no right to keep Poland in a state of chronic insurrection; you have no right to impose a condition of perpetual disturbance on your neighbours of Austria and Prussia; yon have no right to threaten the peace of Europe, in which we are all concerned." The circumstances of history are very seldom parallel, but I would call the attention of the House to an instance bearing some resemblance to the mute appeal which is now made by Poland. In 1809 the people of the Tyrol wore attacked by the combined armies of France and Bavaria. They made an appeal to England, at that time under a Tory Government, not supposed to give its countenance to anything favouring revolutionary designs, and with the leave of the House I will read a passage from the answer given to the Deputies of the Tyrol by Lord Bathurst. After expressing his regret at the event he says—
  "When submission is in effect more hazardous than resistance, or when the dangers attending on each are nearly balanced, a brave nation may be encouraged justifiably to prefer the latter alternative; but when by resistance the sufferings of those engaged in it must be grievous, and the hopes of its success cannot possibly be great, it is not for those who are not to participate in the danger to counsel others to incur it."
  But the despatch did not end here. Lord Bathurst added —
  "If, however, the remembrance of past happiness, the sense of recent, wrongs, the expectation of renewed oppression, the character of the country, the habits and spirit of the people, shall decide them to persist, His Majesty cannot but give some testimony of the interest which he takes in the issue of a contest too unequal, he fears, to be availing, but which he knows to be just."
  I take that to be the spirit of the counsel which Her Majesty's Government ought to give on the present occasion. We must not delude ourselves by false hopes. The character of the Russian Government is well known, and their stern and cool-headed statesmen will estimate our interference at what it is worth. I think that it is worth something in two ways. It is worth something in itself, and my hon. and learned Friend has justly said, that Russia is not now unamenable to public opinion. The people and Government of Russia are now conscious that they are on the threshold of a new order of things. The emancipa-
  902
  tion of the serfs and the comparatively enfeebled position of Russia as a military Power in Europe should impress on the Russian people the consciousness that they can no longer combine in their policy the astuteness of the West and the primitive barbarism of the East. The press is beginning to have its influence. Newspapers are no longer confined to her capital, but traverse the uttermost limits of her dominions. She knows, too, that the perpetration of perpetual injustice is not only viewed as a crime in the eyes of Europe, but that it will prove a great impediment to her internal progress as well as to her external policy. Russia also knows that the military strength of England, although physically inferior to that of France, will yet weigh considerably when thrown into the balance with that of France. Add to the enthusiasm of Franco the deep conviction of duty on the part of the people of England, and you will get a stress of public opinion that will not bear upon Russia in vain. Therefore, I believe that I am not inaccurately interpreting the feeling of this House when I say, that if overtures are made to the Government to express to the Emperor of Russia the strong opinion—I will use a stronger word, and say the indignation of this country at his persistence in a line of Government which can only be maintained by atrocities such as have lately occurred, they ought not to be ignored by this House or by Her Majesty's Government. I know that many excuses are made for these acts. There were plenty of good and learned excuses made for the Massacre of St. Bartholomew and for the Sicilian Vespers. There is not a coup d'état that does not find its apologists, nor one that has not, viewed from one side, its excuses. The Russian Government may say that they were compelled to adopt this larcenous oppression of carrying off thousands of men to serve in their distant armies by the fear of a national insurrection. But why did they provoke that insurrection? Why, when they got to a state of things in which the aristocratic element and good sense of the community were enlisted against them— why, when the movement was clearly seen to he one not of excited revolutionists, but was conducted by the most temperate, the richest, and the best men of the country—why did the Government take advantage of that moment to attempt to turn the perfectly constitutional proceedings of the people of Poland into vio-

  903
  lent and angry revolution? Therefore, do not let the Government of Russia represent that the state of Poland rendered this act one of State necessity. The future of Poland hangs in the balance. I have no hope that the mere military power of Poland will not succumb to the arms of Russia. But it will be well if by our interposition we try to modify materially so awful a state of things. The conduct of Prussia has been visited with deep censure not only in this country but throughout Europe. We have not only a strong dynastic, but almost a personal interest in the welfare of Prussia; but the wishes and sympathies of this House go with the rising liberty, the constitutional and moderate liberty of the Prussian people. I am sure that this is not a case in which we can interfere; but we may exhibit to the Parliament of that country that our interest and sympathies are with them in this hour of trial and danger, and we may assure them, that if by such means as their constitution allows them they show their just reprobation of the Government of Russia, they will acquire the esteem and admiration of this country. To Prussia at the present moment we should address the language of moderate remonstrance. To Russia we should speak in a tone of just and manly indignation; and I trust that Her Majesty's Government will rightly convey and express these sentiments. If they do this, they will not misinterpret the feelings of the House.
  MR. WALTER: Sir, I listened with deep interest to the able and eloquent address of the hon. and learned Member for the King's County. But I am bound to say that the enthusiasm which the hon. Member excited in my mind with respect to Poland dropped down at once from boiling point to zero, when, at the close of his speech, he informed the House that the interference he contemplated was not of a military but of purely a diplomatic character. However strong our sympathies may be—and we have proof enough that the sympathies of the people of England are strongly in favour of Poland—we ought not to be misunderstood on so important a question. The Resolutions which the hon. and learned Member has moved consist of sundry recitals of the well-known state of Poland; but they end in a practical conclusion of so serious a character that I trust the House will permit me to read the last paragraph once more. The conclusion which
  904
  the hon. and learned Member desires the House to adopt is as follows:— "Humbly to submit to Her Majesty that these facts demand the interposition of England in vindication of her own public faith and solemn engagements." Sir, that language, if it means anything, means war. It ought to mean war. England ought not to counsel her Sovereign to use such language, if diplomatic action alone is to be taken. I do not wish to prejudge the question at issue, or to give, at present, an opinion upon it. But I wish the House to understand that when the House of Commons asserts that England is bound to interpose in vindication of her own public faith and solemn engagements, it must be prepared to support the Sovereign in giving effect to that language. I trust that the Government will not be misled into believing that this Address expresses no other meaning than that which may be conveyed by a Queen's messenger. I think I may even say that it would be degrading to the majesty of England to place such language in the mouth of the Sovereign, if nothing more is to be done. I shall not pretend to go into the question which the hon. and learned Member has opened. I leave that for persons better qualified than I am to discuss it. The time may arrive, or, for all I know, the time has arrived, when it may be necessary for England to act. But whether that time has arrived or not, I trust that the House will believe that England is bound to give effect to her language, and not to place in the lips of the Sovereign words that say so much when the hon. Gentleman who proposes them means so little.
  MR. DENMANsaid, he also felt very strongly the objections just stated by the hon. Member for Berkshire (Mr. Walter). The hon. and learned Member (Mr. Hennessy) stated that he only contemplated diplomatic intervention; but he (Mr. Den-man) agreed in thinking the House could not possibly agree to the last paragraph of the Address unless it were prepared immediately to go to war; and that to put upon the records of the House a Resolution pledging themselves to "interposition," especially to "interposition in vindication," if not followed up by a speedy declaration of war, would expose them to the charge of using idle words without any real intention of acting upon them. While however, he would counsel moderate action on the part of the Government, and while he deprecated the use of such lan-

  905
  guage as that in which the last Resolution was couched, he differed from the hon. Member for Maidstone (Mr. Buxton) in thinking that under no possible circumstances should any other than diplomatic action be resorted to by the Government. He could not approve of diplomatic negotiations commenced with an understanding that in no eventuality were they to be followed by war. Therefore, he should be anxious to pass such a Resolution only as would strengthen the hands of the Government in the proposed diplomatic negotiations; but he would not tie the hands of the Government by telling the Russian Government, that however atrocious their violation of treaties, however wicked and cruel the conduct of Russia towards Poland might be, the English Government would not be prepared to go to war with Russia. The necessary alteration in the Address might, he thought, be made by omitting the words of the last paragraph after the word "demand," and by substituting words which would make the paragraph read as follows:— "Humbly to submit to Her Majesty that these facts loudly demand the serious and immediate consideration of Her Majesty's Government." The House would then do in its collective capacity what every speaker (unless the hon. Member for North Warwickshire were an exception) had done tonight individually, and express its strong and ardent sympathy for Poland. He had felt, when the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegale) rose, that he would hardly be two minutes on his legs without saying something to show that the want of sympathy with Poland which he showed arose from the fact that she was a Roman Catholic nation. He could not help thinking that the hon. Member allowed his judgment to be I warped by that fact; but it was to be hoped that—ardent sympathizer with liberty as he knew his hon. Friend to be—he would become a convert to more liberal views. It ought to be remembered that a clown-trodden and oppressed country was the very country where plotters, Jesuits, and all the miserable engines of tyranny have a sway such as they never can have where freedom prevails. By an honest expression of opinion in favour of Poland, and by thus helping her to become free, the hon. Gentlemen would find that those things which now so much disquieted him would all disappear. Until she was free they never would disappear.
  MR. NEWDEGATEexplained that all he had said was that the speech made on a former occasion by the noble Lord at the head of the Government had convinced him that he required no prompting in favour of Poland, and to urge that the matter might be safely left to the discretion of the Government.
  MR. DENMAN: He was glad to hear that that was the opinion of the hon. Gentleman. He imagined that the hon. Gentleman had spoken disparagingly of Poland, and of her right to freedom, because of the great number of Jesuits in that country. As to leaving the cause of Poland in the hands of the noble Lord at the head of the Government, there was no man in whose hands that cause was likely to suffer less than in his; but, at the same time, the influence of the Government would be greatly strengthened by a unanimous expression of the opinion of that House. He therefore hoped that, without cither pledging themselves to go to war in this matter or declaring that under no circumstances whatever would they be prepared to go to war, the House would agree to a decided Resolution in favour of Poland.
  LORD FERMOYsaid, he felt the full force of the remarks of the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down; but he thought, that if they desired that debate to have any moral effect in Europe, they must not be nervous about putting on record a strong Resolution conveying their opinion of the conduct of Russia towards Poland. It had been said that this country was not responsible for the partition of Poland—that might be so—but England was, he believed, morally responsible for many of the unfortunate results to that country from the non-fulfilment of the Treaty of Vienna. It was not enough to say, as the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Monckton Milnes) had done, that Lord Castlereagh, our Plenipotentiary in 1815, advocated the independence of Poland at Vienna. To the final decisions of the Congress, England was a party in conjunction with the other Powers who signed the treaty. Poland herself was not responsible, for all through her history she had protested strenuously against her oppressors. Under these circumstances it was his opinion that that House—the oldest, freest, and most distinguished assembly in Europe—should now adopt a unanimous Resolution emphatically con-

  907
  demning the acts of Russia. When the hon. and learned Member for the Kings County placed on the paper the Motion which he had introduced with so much ability and moderation, he (Lord Fermoy) had thought that there could not be in the British House of Commons any other sentiment than one of unanimous condemnation of the conduct of Russia— how much, therefore, had he been astonished to hear the hon. Member for North Warwickshire vindicating that Power, and saying practically that the Poles were not worthy of liberty. His astonishment, however, was lessened when the hon. Member gave his reason for that, because when that hon. Gentlemen smelt something of the Pope in this matter, it was not so surprising, perhaps, that he should have come to such a conclusion. Still, could any man read in the newspapers the accounts of the atrocities committed by the Russians in Poland—the deeds of rapine, rape, kidnapping, and murder, and not be moved by them? The people of Poland were, indeed, of a different religion from the hon. Member; but was that a reason why the people of England should not Sympathize with them in their sufferings. Our responsibility for the condition of Poland was heavy. She had never been a party to her own dismemberment and degradation. She had suffered three partitions and she had taken every legitimate opportunity to protest against them. Russia had done everything in her power to foment discontent among the Poles, to get up conspiracies among them and exasperate them to violence, in order to find an excuse for massacring and expatriating them. In 1831, when Poland carried out a partially successful revolution and formed a Provisional Government, the Powers who made the arrangements of 1815 should have met and admitted her into the family of nations. The contracting Powers ought, then, to have insisted on her freedom. That opportunity was, however, lost. Another now presented itself. After employing in vain every kind of peaceful remonstrance, and been subjected only to increased outrage, the Poles had taken up arms. It was incumbent, therefore, upon this country, in vindication of its own character and honour, to act, and to act promptly, on this occasion. He did not say that we should rush headlong into war; but the Government must be the best judges of the right mode of interfering, and the onus of doing so judi-
  908
  ciously and effectually ought to he thrown upon them. If Poland were restored to independence, she would be a friend to this country in any European troubles, and an important trade with her might easily be developed. Looking back to the past history of Poland, it would he found that she had always exhibited a tendency towards free trade, while Russia was one of the most decidedly protectionist Powers of the day. With a free Poland, then, England would be likely to have secured a considerable increased custom for her manufactures, while we should have additional facilities for procuring those raw materials which we required. Setting aside, then, all feeling of sympathy or philanthropy, and looking at the question merely in a practical and commercial point of view, there was every reason why we should lend our aid towards the re-establishment of Polish independence. The line of conduct, he might add, which Prussia was pursuing in the case of the Poles was an eternal disgrace to her Government. She was, to use a vulgar phrase, holding a candle to the Devil, and he thought she would before long find enough to do in settling accounts with her own people. Meantime, however, with France on our side, and with Austria ready, as he believed she was, to assist us in bringing about a satisfactory solution of the Polish question, he had not the slightest doubt that we might in conjunction with those two Powers effect much in that direction. If in concert England, France, and Austria were to come to the resolution to insist that Russia should either take the alternative of adhering honestly to the Treaty of Vienna, or be prepared to see them come to the support of Poland in the endeavour to win her freedom, we might depend upon it that there would be no war—that Russia would either do justice to Poland or she would be set altogether free; and in contributing to the accomplishment of that result we should have acquired for ourselves not only the gratitude of Poland and the thanks of the world, but we should have done more to secure the future peace of Europe than if the House of Commons were to hesitate for ever about the mere drawing up of a Resolution.
  MR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALD: Sir, I should be sorry that this debate should be closed without my having asked permission of the House to address to it a few observations. My hon. Friend the Member for the King's County, has received a

  909
  deserved tribute of admiration and gratitude from all those who have addressed the House this evening, for bringing under our consideration to-night, in a speech not more remarkable for its judgment and its discretion than for its information and ability, this important subject. I am sure he also deserves the thanks of every friend of Poland for his exertions in her cause, not only upon this but upon former occasions; and he deserves the thanks of every one who has the peace of Europe at heart—that peace which I believe in my conscience can never be thoroughly secured so long as the ulcer of Polish oppression is allowed to fester in the heart of the Continent. I am sure also that he deserves the thanks of the House for the persistence with which he has, year after year, brought forward this question. He has now so impressed that question on the attention of the House, that instead of addressing a few Members scattered at frequent intervals upon the benches of this House; he is this evening enabled to lay the wrongs of Poland before a full and attentive House. I say emphatically, he deserves most truly the gratitude of every friend of Poland. Sir, this question has certainly assumed a different complexion to-night from that which it has borne in former years. In former years this was a question that was classed among measures advocated by those who were by politicians spoken of as being of a rather enthusiastic turn. Every one who admires the bravery of the Polish nation, their love of country, which nothing has been able and nothing will ever be able to extinguish; their patience under suffering, their enthusiastic resistance to tyranny—and every Englishman admires qualities like these—cannot fail to express his sympathy for the Polish cause whenever an opportunity occurs in this House. But now, as the hon. Member for the King's County, has pointed out, the question has entered into a different phase; and I believe that, instead of its being a question reserved for the consideration only of the generous and the enthusiastic, there is no more practically urgent question at this time demanding the attention of the statesmen of Europe than the position of the Polish people. And this consideration becomes more important to us when we reflect that at this moment, I believe, the solution of this question rests, in a great degree, with Her Majesty's Government. I believe that at no time and upon no question, has
  910
  there been among us a more solemn sense of responsibility than now presses on England with regard to Poland. Now, Sir, let us look for a moment at what is the position of France in regard to this question, and what is now passing in that country. The hon. Member for the King's County has pointed out — what we all know —the enthusiasm that has always been felt for the Polish cause among every class of the French people, the generous sympathy which has always been expressed at the sufferings of the Polish people. What has of late taken place? Every one whom I have the honour of addressing, knows what, for a length of time, has been the position of the press in France. Upon no question cither of internal or external policy had the expression of an opinion been allowed in the French press: reports had been criticised and curtailed before they were allowed to be published: if the rules and regulations of the Minister of the Interior were broken, a warning was sent to the offending journal, and, sooner or later, the result was its suspension. But those who have remarked what has been lately going on in France, must have observed that the tone and temper of the French journals has altogether changed. In the case of the Polish insurrection, from the first the papers were allowed to publish exact reports of everything that was said; comments next made their appearance; and now, so far from being limited to comment and report, there is scarcely a journal in France that does not express in burning language the enthusiastic sympathy of the French people with Poland, and call on the Government to give expression to that enthusiasm and to that sympathy. In this, I think a significant proof is furnished of what it may be assumed is the latent opinion of the Government of France. But let us consider for one moment what may be the possible effect of this stirring up these enthusiastic feelings in France upon the course of the French Government, and consequently upon the state of the affairs of Europe. It is perfectly possible that this sympathy and this enthusiasm in the cause of Poland, may give such impulse to the French Government, that instead of taking that position which, I think, the French Government is anxious to take, of acting in diplomatic conceit with Her Majesty's Government, and giving the fullest support to the Polish cause, the French Government may find themselves

  911
  in the position of having a public opinion in France too strong for them to resist; and then consequences may occur to Europe of an importance that cannot be magnified, results that it is fearful to contemplate at this time; and it would be a poor consolation for us to reflect that it was owing to the timidity of an English House of Commons, and the over-caution of a Liberal Administration, that such consequences had resulted. Again, let us look for one moment at the position of Austria. My hon. Friend the Member for the King's County has pointed out with the greatest truth what are the traditions of that empire. But this must always be remembered with reference to Austria and to the politics of that part of Europe-—it can never be expected that on n question of this kind Austria should take the initiative. On the one side she has Russia, and on the other France; and her whole policy has been a consideration how best to promote her own policy by acting in concert with the most powerful party. Therefore, there is nothing more important than that England should take the initiative and join with France; and I am as firmly convinced as I can be of anything not capable of mathematical proof, that if we take such a course, in common with France, Austria will not only be willing, but will be anxious to give her cooperation on behalf of Poland. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Denman), the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. M. Milnes), and the hon. Member for Berks (Mr. Walter), now find fault with the Resolution of my hon. Friend because it is too strong. It meant war, said the hon. Member for Tiverton, or it meant nothing. I differ from that opinion. More than that—it appears to me impossible for any one to agree to the statement of facts contained in the Resolution and then to be satisfied with the lame and impotent conclusion at which the hon. and learned Member for Tiverton would have the House arrive—that we should conclude by saying that these things "deserve the early attention of Her Majesty's Government." What does the first part of the Resolutions embody? It contains a statement that the great Powers of Europe entered into a solemn compact and agreement intended for the pacification of Europe, and that to it all the great Powers were bound: it goes on to say that this compact has been flagrantly and notoriously violated by the
  912
  Government of Russia; that this conduct on the part of Russia has been stigmatized by the noble Lord at the head of Her Majesty's Government in the most solemn terms; and having said that the treaty was intended to pacify Europe, that all the Powers of Europe were parties, and that its obligations have been violated, we are to come to the weak and impotent conclusion that Her Majesty's Government are to take these circumstances into their early consideration.
  MR. DENMAN: The words I wished to introduce were much stronger. The words were—" the serious and immediate consideration of Her Majesty's Government."
  MR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALD: It does not help the hon. and learned Gentleman much to say that when the law of Europe has been trampled upon for a number of years, the matter deserves the serious and immediate attention of Her Majesty's Government. The objections that are taken to the Resolutions were two-fold. The hon. and learned Member for Tiverton objects that our proceedings should take the shape of a Resolution, and not of an Address to the Crown. I must entirely differ from him on that point. In the first place, an Address to the Crown is a more solemn proceeding than a Resolution of this House; and I wish the House of Commons to proceed in the most emphatic and solemn manner possible. But beyond that, Her Majesty is a party to the treaty which has been violated; and it was against her that the most flagrant breach of public faith has been committed. And therefore I say the right form of proceeding is the Resolution for an Address to Her Majesty. But we are told that intervention necessarily means war. Why? Surely there are solemn cases demanding the interposition of England which can be made without meaning war, or expressing, as an hon. Gentleman opposite said, a determination on the part of this country never to go to war. Here is a treaty to which all the Powers of Europe are parties, and by which they are bound. Would it not he a solemn interposition to call together the parties to that treaty, and in the face of Europe to charge the Russian Government with falsity to their obligations? Would that not be an interposition on the part of this country that could not fail to have an immediate and important effect on the public opinion of Europe and, I believe, of Russia? And is

  913
  not the course proposed, that we should act in harmony with France, in harmony with Austria, in harmony with the great Powers of Europe—is not that an interposition of England in vindication of her own public faith and solemn engagement? I, for one, return my thanks to the hon. Member for the King's County, who has brought this question before us in the way he has done. I thank him personally for the opportunity which he has afforded me of expressing opinions which I deeply feel. Only this morning I saw one of the most distinguished Poles—whose name is a passport to the confidence of his fellow-countrymen and to the admiration of Europe as a pure and sincere patriot— and he told me that for years he had cherished the certainty in his heart that Po-land would be restored to the family of nations. He said he felt her cause was just, and, being just, sooner or later Providence, in its own good time, would bring about its consummation; and now, be added, that time has arrived. I implore the House of Commons not, by refusing to assent to this Address, to daunt that hope and that expectation,
  MR. STANSFELDsaid, that if the hon. Gentleman the Member for Horsham (Mr. Seymour FitzGerald) was justified, as he thought he was, in tendering thanks to the hon. Member for the King's County, he might be permitted to make his acknowledgments, not for the ability with which the hon. Member had spoken, but for the opportunity given to the right hon. Gentleman to utter those generous words which deserved all their sympathy. They had to deal with questions of fact, and with the grave question, what course, in this emergency, the House of Commons ought to pursue. There could he hardly any doubt about the facts, and, in spite of the opinions of the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Nowdegate) he did not think there could be any serious difference of opinion upon the character of the proceedings of the Russian Government. The insurrection was caused—nay, was compelled by the conscription. The Poles had no choice but to rise. An ordinary conscription was levied on the whole male population of a whole country by lot, with protection against chance bearing too hardly upon the members of one family, and with the privilege of providing substitutes. This conscription for the Russian finny was levied upon the population only of the towns of Poland, without any ex-
  914
  emptions, and every man was, in fact, named by the Russian Police. They all knew how this conscription, if it could be so called, was carried out on the night of the 14th of January. It amounted, neither more nor less, to the wholesale deportation of the élite of the youth of Poland. It was a barefaced scheme—a barefaced device—for sweeping into one huge net all that was patriotic, all that was free-spirited, and all that was progressive in the country; a device for carrying away bodily all who were the promise of their country, and for consigning them to a doom which every Polish mother would feel was worse than death. To such a conscription it was simply an impossibility to submit, and the Poles had no choice but to resist. He would not dwell upon the heroism displayed by the Poles in the unequal struggle. It had been, in the beginning at least, almost an unarmed insurrection; for their cannons were made from the tree which but yesterday flourished in the forest, and their guns had been snatched from the hands of a soldiery very numerous, infinitely better disciplined and armed, against whom they had unhesitatingly marched, some with the national weapon, the scythe, but some—he spoke the literal fact—with only clubs in their hands. He would not stay to dwell on the well-known heroism of the Poles; he preferred to hasten onward to a question which it appeared to him of the highest importance that they should know how to regard in the discussion in which they were engaged that night. He wanted to know what were the motives of the conscription. He desired to ascertain how it was that Russia was tempted to pursue a course which had roused the indignant wonder of the whole civilized world. Was it wanton—was it an unreasoning and capricious act? Was it one of those acts of arbitrary blind cruelty which the possession of despotic power sometimes tempted its possessors to indulge? He thought that was not the real character of the act, and he considered it of the utmost importance that they should inquire as to the origin of such a proceeding. After the failure of the insurrection of 1830, and after the European movement of 1848 and 1849 bad passed over without any overt response on the part of the Polish people, there were perhaps not many who did not begin at least to fear that the life of a nation had been too successfully crushed out. If they did entertain that fear, the movement of the last two years

  915
  must have convinced them that that fear was unfounded. And let him, in passing, ask the attention of the House to the new character of that movement—to the hopeful and vital character of a movement which included within itself, and which he might say originated with, and was directed by, the middle classes, for the first time coming upon the battle-field in that unhappy country. He said this movement which was now going on must have convinced them that that fear was unfounded. Well, if that were so, was it not clear that there were only two courses open to the Czar? If Russia were not prepared to retrace her steps, and to go back, if not to the constitution of the ancient kingdom of Poland, at least to what the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Seymour FitzGerald) desired that she should do, the observance of the treaty stipulations by which she was bound—if, he said, Russia were not prepared to retrace her steps, it was necessary for her to meet this portentously rising movement by some definitive policy; and if she could not avert it, it must ultimately be quenched in blood. Now, the peculiar misfortune of the Polish people was this— that to execute that purpose a Polish nobleman had been found — a man of undoubted ability, a man of great force of character and will, but a man of arrogant and perverted views. He would now make a statement which he thought no one would be able to contradict; he ventured to say that when Count Wielopolski accepted the position of Civil Governor of Poland, the faculty in reserve of levying this conscription in the very manner in which it had been brought about was one of the terms of his appointment. If there should be any doubt as to the predetermination in this matter of the Russian Government, there was ample evidence to confirm the view which he took. In the mouth of November last a private circular was issued from the Department of Home Affairs in Poland to the civil Governors of that kingdom. With the permission of the House he would read one or two passages from that document—
  "Considering," it said, "that the persons whose business it would be to select persons for the military conscription from the nominal lists drawn up with this object should possess the necessary information, not only respecting the social position and occupation of those included in such lists, but also of their political conduct; and inasmuch as one of the chief principles and objects of this conscription is to get rid of those people who by their conduct have disturbed public order, these functions are to be performed—"
  916
  Then the letter went on to indicate the persons who were to make out those lists. A little further on was the following:—
  "The Council of Administration also brings to notice that it will be the duty of every recruiting district to provide a certain number of recruits, who shall be especially chosen from among people having no permanent occupation, without work, and at the same time unfavourably noted as to their political conduct during the late events."
  Then the document concluded by impressing the necessity of the closest secrecy in the preparation of the lists—
  "Finally," so ended the despatch, "you will warn the employés concerned that the business relating to the conscription should be carried on with the greatest quickness, energy, and firmness of conduct, and that all instances of neglect or failure in this matter will entail severe responsibility on their authors."
  If that were not confirmatory evidence enough of the predetermination in this matter of the Russian Government, he might, refer to an article in the official journal of St. Petersburg of the 5th of February, in which the writer admitted that this measure of conscription was abnormal, in which he designated it as a political act, and in which he justified it on this ground:—That it not being possible to reach the heads of the insurrectionary movement, it was necessary to make an example, and to collect and remove their miserable instruments who still remained within reach of the Russian Government. He said, then, that this act of the Russian Government was no wanton and unconsidered act; he said it was not an act which admitted of facile reparation, or of avoidance in the future. On the contrary, it was the consummation of a predetermined and deliberate policy. He had almost said that it was the consummation of an inevitable policy. Three great Powers had combined in the original crime of the partition of Poland, and the rest of Europe looked on. Then, after the long wars of Napoleon, came the peace and the Treaties of 1815, when, if there had been virtue—he would say common sense— enough, in the councils of the great Powers, that great error and that great crime would have been redressed. But that occasion was also passed over. Hence they had the movement of 1830; and after a long and weary interval of apparent, but only apparent, submission, they had this new and still more promising and pregnant movement, this insurrection which now existed on Polish soil. That insurrection, it was too true, might, like

  917
  former ones, be quenched in blood; but it would without doubt leave behind it some spark of life, some smouldering fire, sooner or later to burst into a flame which might well become a European conflagration. He desired to take no mere enthusiast's view of this question. He did not, in any degree, ignore the difficulty which must be felt by statesmen to surround its solution; but this at least he would venture to say, that it was impossible to state too strongly the claims of the Polish people on the ground of right, on the ground of treaties, on the grounds of their heroism and their sufferings. He would add, that it would be impossible for this House too loudly and too clearly to express its sympathy with the Polish cause; and however great the difficulties of the solution of this question might be, he would say this to the noble Lord who presided over the councils of this country, that the Polish question had proved itself to be one of those great national questions of which it might be said, that until they were solved, they could have no sure and abiding peace. Now, there was another phase of this question upon which he would ask leave to say one or two words. Prussia had begun to play her part. He would not stop to apply to the part which Prussia had begun to play the epithets which would be necessary to define its character. Suffice it to say, that it constituted so flagrant an outrage upon what he would call the very decencies of international law and usage, and that no great Power could venture to overlook those proceedings without sharing in the shame. Prussia had been volunteering the part of spy and gendarme to Russia. She listened for the footfall of those noble Polish youths, who, urged on by an irrepressible instinct, hurried across her soil to seek their fathers' home; she waylaid, she entrapped, she made prisoners of those young men; and, without the slightest evidence even of the crime of a patriotic intent, she handed them over the frontier to the tender mercies of the Czar. Then there was the convention which had been recently concluded between Prussia and Russia. Was there ever such a degradation heaped upon an enlightened nation by those who should be the guardians and protectors of its honour? Their own soil to be made human shambles, upon which a brutal and foreign soldiery were to come to pursue and slaughter defenceless fugitives! If England could brook such acts as those, then, he said, the day of shame
  918
  in England was come—the time was then come when it would be well that we should at once make confession of our impotence of power or of will, and turning our backs upon Europe, should sit down and count the profits of honour abandoned, and of the most sacred duties of a nation despised and set at naught. It seemed to him that some action on the part of the Government of this country, and some action on the part of that House were imperative in that emergency. Coming now to the Motion of the hon. and learned Gentleman, he must admit that there were in his mind objections to its concluding paragraph. He did not know how they were in a matter of this grave importance to tie the hands of a Government, in which he presumed they all meant in this case to confide; for to no Government in which they could not confide would he intrust the treatment of so difficult a question. But there was another objection, from his own point of view, to the conclusion of the Motion. He did not know how far they would commit themselves by going back upon treaties which had been so often violated, if not without notice, certainly with impunity, by all the Powers of Europe. If he might venture to suggest the course of action for the Government of this country, he would, at least with reference to Prussia, take his stand upon a different, a clearer, and, as he thought, a higher ground. He would appeal to the principle of non-intervention—a principle recognised but only partially observed in the practice of European nations. He had long thought, that if there were a direction in which the course of the future of this country was clear—if there were a function specially fitted for this country to fulfil, one suited to her character, to her position, and to her power—one conducive more than anything else to the freedom and the independence of nations and to lasting peace, it was the practical assertion of that principle, without which the intercourse of nations was but anarchy upon an extended scale. To that principle he would make his appeal, and he ventured to express a confident opinion that that appeal would not be made in vain. Whether the protest of this country were made in conjunction with foreign Powers—and in that case it was needless to say it would have to be made with certain evidently requisite guarantees—or whether it were made, as he confessed to his mind appeared preferable, in the name of this country alone—

  919
  that protest, endorsed as it would be known to be by the unanimous adhesion of the people—that protest could not, he repeated, be made in vain. It could not fail to be of some real service to a gallant and outraged people—it could not fail to result in one step gained towards that which he believed to be essential to the future peace of Europe—towards the real and practical recognition of the principle and law of non-intervention as binding upon all the nations of the world.
  LORD ROBERT CECILsaid, that when he saw the hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld) rise to address the House, he could not look without a feeling approaching to consternation at the prospect of being com polled upon that occasion to vote with the eloquent and accomplished pupil of Mazzini. He had no doubt that he should have to go into the same lobby upon that question with several Gentlemen with whom he did not ordinarily agree; and he was therefore desirous of explaining the grounds on which he should support the Motion. He had never before heard a debate in which so much unanimity prevailed. Every Member who had addressed the House sympathized deeply with the sufferings of the Poles. The debate had been all on one side, with the exception of his hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate).
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he wished to explain. He had done no more than express a hope that the noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston), who he thought might be trusted on that question, would use all his influence for the purpose of mitigating the present state of things in Poland.
  LORD ROBERT CECILsaid, he was glad to be corrected, and to know that so far not one single voice had been raised to defend the conduct of Russia, or to express anything but the deepest sympathy for the sufferings of the Polish people. It was hardly possible, indeed, to conceive any assembly of free men, enjoying peace in their own homes, not sympathizing with such sufferings. It would seem as if the hordes of Zengis Khan had come to life again, and poured down upon the plains of unhappy Poland. If that were a rebellion of the ordinary kind, or even if it were a case of a Government striving to suppress a righteous insurrection of its subjects, however brutal might be the mode of its suppression, he should say it was not the duty of this country to interfere by word or deed. But this was not a case of ordinary
  920
  insurrection, or of brutality practised by the governors on the governed. In the present case we had a direct locus standi, inasmuch as we were parties to a treaty by which the Emperor Alexander had so lemnly engaged that Poland should obtain representative institutions. It was true that treaty had been violated as soon as it was made; but, nevertheless, it still existed. It was made under the sanction of England, and England was pledged in honour never to recognise any infraction, or to omit any legitimate opportunity of recording her indignation at the violation of that great act of international law. He had heard it remarked in the course of the discussion that the treaty had been too often broken to be of any value. That was a mode of arguing insulting to the honour and dignity of England. It was not our business to ask what had happened in other cases. We were bound by a covenant. Our honour was concerned in the fulfilment of a certain promise to which we were parties, and on every occasion when it was in our power we were bound to enforce that promise. It was asked what good could be done by a protest; and it was also said that the Resolution could only mean war. He could see no ground for that interpretation. In fact, even if justifiable, the idea of war was absurd. This country could not reach Poland, and a country which could not be reached by a maritime Power was not one for which we could properly make war. But the great point in this matter was that we were bound to record our protest against a great violation of public law. We were evidently on the eve of great events. The revolution in Poland did not seem likely to be soon suppressed. There was even a probability that it might pass into Russia; and there might possibly be a great disturbance of the European equilibrium. The policy which England now pursued would be that by which she would afterwards be bound, and which would ensure to her either the gratitude or the hatred of the populations concerned. No lapse of time could make a treaty nugatory. No neglect of the provisions of a treaty on former occasions could lessen the obligations of those who were parties to it. He would vote for the Motion, not merely because he sympathized deeply with the sufferings of the people of Poland, but because he desired to vindicate the honour, and dignity, and good faith of England.
  SIR HARRY VERNEYsaid, he must confess that the arguments winch the noble Lord opposite (Lord Robert Cecil) had addressed to the House confirmed him in the belief that England was bound by treaty obligations to interfere; and if we abstained from interference on this occasion, we should make ourselves, to a certain extent, parties to the atrocities that had been inflicted by the Russians upon the Polish nation. Russia had proved, by the efforts of many years, her inability to govern Poland, and this was strongly felt by the Russians themselves. Russia was disorganized by the frequent attempts to crush the spirit of the Poles; the Russian army in Poland was far from being well-affected to the flag under which they served; and the civil service in Poland was so corrupt and unable to discharge the duties devolving upon it as to draw down shame upon the Government of the Emperor. Russia itself was tired of the strife, and this was evidently a time when the state of the country did afford considerable hope that any effort that was now made in the interest of Poland by the various Powers of Europe would be likely to prove successful; and, moreover, he thought it probable that Austria, the Northern States of Europe, and perhaps the whole of Germany, would be ready to combine to assist the Poles in resisting the Russian atrocities; for Poland, reconstituted into an independent kingdom, would form a most important barrier for Germany against Russia, which was at present advanced into the very heart of Germany. He thought that the part which Prussia had taken in this affair had drawn shame and disgrace—not upon the people, for he believed that the Prussian people disapproved of the conduct of the Government—but upon the Monarch and his Government. It should be remembered, with respect to the present strife in Poland, that there had been a fixed purpose on the part of the Russian Government to provoke the Polish nation into an insurrection. The Poles had acquired moral strength by the passive resistance which they had hitherto offered to the Russian rule, and the Russian Government had determined to break it. Domiciliary visits were paid to the inhabitants at the dead of night, in order that the police might satisfy themselves that the conscripts were in their places; and when the Polish noblesse, having been invited by the Russian Government to
  922
  state their grievances, presented a respectful address, they were arrested and thrown into prison, and Count Zamayski, who presented it, was banished to England; and this must have been done by the Russian Government because they knew that these were the very men whose calmness and good sense would be exerted to prevent their countrymen from rising in insurrection. In fact, they must have desired to stir up the Poles to insurrection. He could not concur that the Polish insurrection was powerless against the Russian troops, but it certainly would be powerless unless it met with the assent and encouragement of Europe. It was his firm belief that that House had the power to induce the Government to unite with other Governments to give that encouragement to the Poles which would make the insurrection successful, or, at all events, enable them to prolong their resistance till the other Cabinets of Europe could intervene in a manner that was likely to be successful. It was our duty, alike from motives of policy and humanity, to try and put a stop to the horrors which were being perpetrated in the centre of Europe, and to demand that the stipulations of the Treaty of Vienna should be observed. And if moral interference failed, the Government ought to show that they were ready to interfere in a material way, and to give assistance to those who were in arms to recover their rights. A doubt had been thrown out as to whether the Polish people were worthy of such assistance. He believed that they were; and that if liberty were granted to them, Europe would have no reason to regret it. The marked unanimity with which this subject had been discussed to-night ought to decide the Government to take that course. With them, in a great measure, rested the solution of this important question; and if they acted the part dictated alike by humanity and policy, they would be supported by the public opinion, not only of this country, but of every civilized nation in Europe.
  SIR MINTO FARQUHARsaid, he doubted much whether the part England had taken in this matter had been conducive to her character and high position. We had openly proclaimed our interest in the fate of Poland, and by words and the expression of public opinion had encouraged the Poles to look forward to the time when they might regain their liberty, and throw off the yoke of Russia,

  923
  which had for so long crushed them to the ground; but he had often reflected that all this was only outward display, and that we had never shown ourselves ready to act up to what we said. Poland's cup of bitterness was now full; and this was an occasion on which our Government might well come forward and say that the people of Poland should not drink that cup to the dregs. It would be for the noble Viscount the First Minister to tell them what had been done, and whether the Russian Government had offered any explanation of the course they took on the 14th January. What was the public opinion of Europe, the press had declared: it could no longer be concealed that this was a European question; and it depended on the course of our Government whether there should be an intervention to wrest Poland from her present difficulties and oppression, or whether these should some day be the cause of a general European war. They had been told that day that the alleged convention between Russia and Prussia was a mythical convention, and he hoped that that was so; but let it be remembered that the noble Lord at the head of Foreign Affairs, had said a few days ago in another place that he had understood from the Prussian Ambassador, that the Russians would be permitted by that convention to pursue the insurgent Poles, and take them prisoners if they could, on Prussian territory. From what had passed in the Prussian Chambers he hoped there had been some misunderstanding; but if such a convention had been made, he trusted that the Prussian Government, when it saw what were the opinions, not only of Europe, but also of the Prussian people, would withdraw from that convention before it was too late. In the able speech in which he had introduced the subject to the House, the hon. and learned Member for the King's County had referred to the Polish insurrection in 1831. At that time he (Sir Minto Farqubar) was attached to the Embassy at Vienna; and he remembered the interest with which he traced on the map the movements of the Russian and Polish armies. The Poles then had a large army, and the occasion was one on which European intervention might have led to satisfactory results; but neither England nor France was prepared to take active steps in favour of Poland, and the insurrection was suppressed. He had hoped, from the course that the Emperor of Russia had pursued towards the serfs,
  924
  that he had made up his mind to adopt a more liberal policy towards Poland; and he could hardly believe it possible, when he heard of the proceedings of the 14th January, that they could have occurred in this civilized age. He was told that the invasion of the homes of Warsaw by the" Russian soldiery took place in spite of the advice of Russians of high position. As this revolution had been well described as a, revolution of despair, he trusted it would lead to the interference of Europe. He for one protested against the course which had been pursued, and he hoped that they would now hear from the Government that they too would protest against such acts of cruel oppression, and that, in conjunction with France, and, he hoped, Austria, a joint diplomatic intervention would take place which would show that Europe was not prepared to see the Poles oppressed any longer, and that thus at last the hopes they had always entertained would be fully realized.
  MR. GRANT-DUFFsaid, many English and Irish Members have already risen in this debate. I rise as a Scotch Member to say that my countrymen also deeply sympathize in the Polish cause, and to express in their name the same sentiments which have been already repeated in every part of the House. I do not wish to say more upon the general question; but one or two points have incidentally risen in the debate about which I should like to say a few words. And, first, with regard to Prussia. I am extremely glad that every one who has addressed us to-night has drawn a strong distinction between the conduct of the Prussian Government and of the Prussian people. On a former occasion, when the noble Lord opposite (Lord Robert Cecil), drew attention to the misconduct of the Prussian Government, that distinction was unfortunately not so carefully made, and the result was an amount of bad feeling in Germany, which seriously for a time diminished our influence in that country, and did the greatest possible mischief. Sir, it is said that the Polish cause is not so popular in Germany as it is in England, and that is true to a certain extent; but here also a distinction must be taken. The Prussians think of the Poles chiefly as politicians, and as very impracticable, and sometimes very provoking, politicians; but, although disliking them as politicians, they know well, from their own experience, how to sympathize with brave men engaged in a struggle for their independence. Much

  925
  has been said and written in Western Europe about Poland, but nothing, I think, that has been said or written upon that subject—not even those lines to which the hon. Member for the Queen's County so gracefully alluded at the close of his speech, have ever sunk so deeply into the heart of a nation, as those famous German lines which record the adventures, the achievements, and the fate of the 4th Polish Regiment. The hon. Member for Maidstone observed that, in the matter of this convention, it is the King who is to blame. That, Sir, is perfectly true, but he went on to say what was not equally correct. The King of Prussia has not always been the friend of the oppressor, and the enemy of the oppressed. During the Crimean war, he gained the greatest popularity, and put himself for a time at the head of the Liberal party in Germany, by opposing the Russian party, and protesting against the weak and vacillating conduct of his brother's ministers. It is since he came to the throne that he has fallen into the hands of bad advisers—of that detestable military clique which the people of Berlin so well call the 'Anti-intellect in uniform,' by whom he has been led to disgrace himself as a King, a German, and a man. I have only one other remark to make, and that is with regard to Russia. There is no doubt that this debate will be most carefully read at St. Petersburg, and it will have all the more effect there, from the fact that no expression has been used in it, which could lead any Russian to suppose that any of the irritation caused by the late war still lingers in our minds. In truth, Sir, we cannot too strongly express that we in England desire the prosperity, nay, even the aggrandisement of Russia. We desire to see her develop to the utmost her Greek and Sclavonic civilization and we are well content to see her spread that civilization over the vast regions of Northern Asia; but we do not wish to see her, whilst she is still semibarbarous, attempt to crush down the Latin civilization of Poland, a nation which has always been connected with the West, a nation which saved Central Europe in 1683. It is this which we think monstrous, and it is against this that we protest.
  MR. DARBY GRIFFITHsaid, that the atrocious barbarities practised by the Russian Government, so revolting as they were to the sense of humanity, were only part of the Russian system, and the moment any country came under Russian
  926
  rule, these cruelties followed in the natural course of things—the police dogged the steps of every men, and reported his doings in the secret bureau. Everything was ruled by the iron hand of despotism, and the possession of a constitution by an enlightened country under such a despotism was simply and radically incompatible with it. If, therefore, he were to treat this matter logically, he should be obliged to go further than the hon. and learned Member for the King's County, because these facts demonstrated that a civilized country like Poland ought not to be subjected to a barbarous Power like Russia. He was not at all inclined to take that favourable view of the Treaty of Vienna which had been taken by high authorities, and he much doubted whether any of their stipulations were worth much as a security for the liberties of the Poles. The expressions used were so entirely vague, and it was so entirely impossible to bring them down to any defined standard, that be attached very little value to them; and the circumstances under which the treaty was framed entirely confirmed that view. It was well known that it was the great object of Lord Castlereagh to exclude from the possession of Poland Alexander I., whose doctrine was that he was in possession, that he would restore the ancient limits of the kingdom, of which, being Czar of Russia, he would at the same time be King. Lord Castlereagh said it was impossible to have constitutional civilization separated merely by a national boundary from the despotism of Russia; and it was only after a secret treaty had been made in Lord Castlereagh's bedroom, during a ball at Vienna, between France, Austria, and this country, that any impression could be made on the Emperor Alexander. Unfortunately, those who were oppressed were always open to fallacious illusions held out to them by other people, and the Poles had always been open to them. They were the victims of the deception of Napoleon, who made use of their courage at every opportunity and then deserted them. They put faith in the promises of Alexander, welcomed the professions he made, and supported his power; but, by great efforts, Lord Castlereagh prevented the complete consummation of his views, and brought about that ineffective compromise which was to erect the duchy of Warsaw into a kingdom. But it was so inadequate to the aspirations of the Poles that it was a false and fictitious ar-

  927
  rangement—like other fictions of the day, such as the suzerainty of the Porte over the Danubian Provinces, the British Protectorate over the Ionian Islands, and other similar expedients. Alexander did so far fulfil his promise to the Poles as to give them a nominal constitution, but he soon found himself in a collision with them which became perpetual; a revolution occurred, and it had since been held that that revolution annulled the treaty. At any rate, its arrangements were so insincere that it was impossible the Poles could derive any benefit from the treaty, and their aspirations were for the restoration of the original limits of the country. The whole question between Russia and Poland related to the province of Lithuania, and the offence in the address lately presented by the nobles to the Czar was the suggestion that Lithuania should be added to Poland, which was held to he treason. The Poles would not be content with the Duchy of Warsaw; they always referred to the treaty between Russia and Prussia supplemental to the Treaty of Vienna, in which the condition of the country previous to 1772 was referred to, although that reference only related to internal communication, and was, in fact, a mockery and an illusion; and to talk of anything less than that as likely ever to tranquillize or satisfy the Poles was perfectly futile.
  MR. HENRY SEYMOURsaid, that one fact stood out in clear relief in the debate—namely, that if the Government pursued a course consistent with the honour and dignity of England, they would receive the unanimous support and sympathy of the House, which, judging from the tone of the debate, reflected the unanimous feeling of the country. They had heard of conduct on the part of the Russian Government which brought a blush to every cheek, and of conduct on the part of the Prussian Government such as induced him to think that next to the Poles there was no people so much to be pitied as the Prussians. The conduct of the King of Prussia brought dishonour on the nation; and he hoped that the spirit of the Prussians would not be less than that of the Italians and the Greeks, and that they would vindicate in 1863 those principles which made them rise as one man in 1813; and he hoped that the first Protestant State in Europe would not be the last to accept constitutional government. England was, to a certain degree,
  928
  responsible for the state of Poland. We were parties to the Treaties of 1815, and it should not be forgotten that England, France, and Austria agreed to furnish 150,000 troops each against Russia, in certain contingencies. It was that convention which saved the Grand Duchy of Posen from the grip of Russia, and preserved Saxony. The Emperor of Russia had obtained the large slice of Poland which was then allotted to him under false pretences, for he said he wished to unite all the Polish provinces under one Government and to give them a constitution; but the conditions under which he received it had all been violated. If he had given constitutional institutions to that country, the Czar would have secured not only an attached people, but he would have become the bead of the Sclavonic race, and advanced his own country to civilization. At the period of the revolution of 1831, the indignant protests of England had some influence on the Czar. Such a result should induce the House to support the Government in taking a vigorous stand upon this question; and if they could not procure the restoration of Polish nationality, which would be most difficult, and which must, he feared, be fought out between Russia and Poland, the united protests of England, France, and Austria would surely have an effect upon the councils of Russia and Prussia, and at least obtain for Poland some of those institutions which had been guaranteed by treaty. Every debate in this House ought to have, as far as possible, a practical issue, and the Government ought, in conformity with the feeling of the House, at once to protest indignantly against the conduct of Prussia, which had been quite contrary to the usages of modern international law. As to Russia, the Government should unite with France and Austria—not in demanding the performance of the stipulations of the Treaties of 1815, for they could scarcely expect France, whose cry for the last ten years had been, "A has les Traites de 1815!" —hut in protesting against the treatment of the Poles, and in asking that the nation should receive a constitutional government. If this were done, the revolution might have an auspicious ending, and the free institutions conferred upon Poland might open the way for the grant of the same privileges to Russia herself. With regard to the Resolutions, feeling the utmost confidence in the noble Viscount, he should

  929
  be unable to vote for the last paragraph, and he hoped, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman would substitute a paragraph expressive of that confidence, thus enabling the whole House to join in a unanimous vote on this subject.
  MR. MAGUIREsaid, he entirely adopted the last paragraph of the Resolution of his hon. Friend (Mr. Hennessy), and thought the House would come to a lame conclusion if, after admitting the preamble of the Address, and expressing a unanimous feeling in favour of this oppressed and afflicted nation, they did not come to something like a practical conclusion on the subject. It might be, that if there had been no treaties to which England was a party, it would not be our province to interfere; but there were treaties to which we were party, and which guaranteed certain rights to the oppressed Polish nation. The noble Lord at the head of the Government had formerly declared that there had been an infraction of treaties and a violation of rights, but since he made that declaration there had been a still grosser violation of those rights. It was not right to say that his hon. Friend asked the House to pledge itself to a vote of hostility against Russia, but he did ask the Government to interfere. And, surely, there was no Government which was more accustomed to interfering with other countries than the Government which now occupied the official benches. The noble Lord's Government was frankly invited not to send bayonets but to make representations of the strong and indignant feeling of the country against continued oppression, and to do on behalf of England what the other nations of Europe were doing to express sympathy with the oppressed, and to restrain the hand of the oppressor from further violence. They all knew that the noble Lord had interfered, and sometimes when it was believed by some persons such interference was not warranted; but if ever there was a case where interference was not only justified but commanded, the case of Poland was that one. There had appeared in The Times an important document, a confidential report of the civil Governor of Lublin to the authorities at Warsaw, seeking the protection of the Russian Government for the citizens against the troops sent to suppress the insurrection. That report showed a state of things which called for the interference of every humane Government. It stated—
  930
  "On the 5th, about 5 a.m., a detachment of the Imperial army, consisting of infantry and Cossacks, surrounded the town of Tomaszow on all sides. The insurgents, some of whom were on guard and the rest in the barracks, perceiving this, assembled, and, after pushing through the ranks of the troops, took up a position outside the town. After a few shots on both sides, the army, not attempting to pursue the insurgents, rushed into the town, and fired several strong volleys with their rifles at the houses occupied by employés and citizens, after which the soldiers scattered themselves over all the streets of the town, and began to rob and murder innocent and unarmed people."
  The document gave a long list of victims, and concluded with a long and detailed description of the miserable condition of the whole neighbourhood, which had been desolated and deprived of its inhabitants, who, taking with them all they could, fled, no one knew whither, before the robbing and murdering soldiery. The Polish nation wanted no armed intervention, because they desired to achieve their own independence; but if the facts stated by his hon. Friend wore true, and they were admitted to be so, then the Parliament of Great Britain ought to do something more than pass a mere vague Resolution. If the Government did not interfere now, they must never speak of sympathy for oppressed nationalities and struggling peoples. The Government would falsify all their past professions, and disappoint the people of this country, if they did not adopt some practical Resolution upon the present occasion.
  MR. WALPOLE: Sir, I never listened to a debate in which I have heard more unanimity and more discord. There has been the greatest possible unanimity of sentiment, and the greatest possible diversity of opinion as to the nature of the practical resolution which we should adopt under the circumstances in which Europe is now placed. We are painfully unanimous in the deep sympathy expressed for the much-oppressed, much-suffering people of Poland. We are indignantly unanimous at the terrible oppression which has now been wrought upon that people more violently than ever—crushed as they are under the iron heel of Russia in a manner more cruel even than has been inflicted upon them before. And we are, I think, sadly unanimous in thinking that there is another Power, with whom we are nearly allied, which has been betrayed into what I could almost call a mean and infatuated compact with reference to a people over part of whom she reigns herself, and with

  931
  the rest of whom she ought to sympathize by every feeling of honour. Thus far we are unanimous. The real question seems to be how we are practically to deal with this subject, and what is the practical test to which we should bring it. Now, here arises an amount of diversity equal to the unanimity which has been expressed by the House upon the former point. My hon. Friend the Member for the King's County, in a speech which does him infinite credit for its ability, for its information, for the knowledge it evinced, and for its extraordinary temper and moderation, concluded his Resolution with a paragraph concerning which two of his supporters can so little agree as to its meaning and purport, that while one of them, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Denman), thinks it so weak as to require strengthening, the other, the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. S. FitzGerald), thinks it so strong, that if acted upon—and I confess I concur in that opinion— it must, if not necessarily, at least probably, lead to war.
  MR. DENMAN: I certainly did not consider the Resolution too weak; on the contrary, I objected to it because I felt that such a Resolution could not be on the records of this House without meaning almost immediate war.
  MR. WALPOLE: That observation was confirmed by the proposition of the hon. Member for Berkshire (Mr. Walter); and this should lead us to consider whether at this moment we are prepared to adopt a Resolution which will inevitably lead you step by step into war. Before we arrive at that conclusion we ought to pause. My right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham, in one of those speeches which come home to the heart of every one, for the feeling and ability it displayed, has recommended us to press on the Government the propriety of offering, in conjunction with France and Austria, an immediate remonstrance; and, possibly, that would be the most effective course. But I apprehend that this Resolution would lead to a war— that the concurrence of three Powers remonstrating with such a Power as that remonstrated against would lead to a war which would not end in freeing the Poles, but which might end in a war which we do not intend or contemplate, probably in the Rhenish provinces. The hon. Gentleman opposite says—but I do not think he could have seriously intimated it to the House— he thinks that we should add to the Reso-
  932
  lution that we will proceed on the principle of non-intervention. My noble Friend the Member for Stamford (Lord R. Cecil) urged an argument which would lead us immediately into action, if it were an argument solely applicable to the present difficulty. He told us there is such a violation of treaties and engagements that we are bound in honour and public faith to take up this question immediately. Well, but I ask you—these treaties and engagements having been violated for forty-five years, why this argument was not as applicable during that time as now, when the matter has assumed a new phase owing to the misconduct of Russia? Well, the two last hon. Gentlemen who have spoken have stated their desire to bring the question to a practical conclusion. I believe the most practical conclusion you can bring this question to is not to destroy the unanimity of this House, which will go out to Europe and the world—do not, I say, destroy that unanimity by anything which shall seem to approach to anything like division among you. The question, therefore, seems to me to resolve itself into this. Is the Government prepared to echo the sentiments which have been expressed in this House? If they are prepared to echo those sentiments, is the House prepared or not to leave to them the responsibility of enforcing those sentiments? I think there is danger in this House assuming a responsibility it cannot exercise for itself; and I think there is no danger in leaving the responsibility to the Government, who have expressed themselves already upon this question in terms as cogent and forcible as any that have been used in this debate; and I, for one, am prepared to support the Government in leaving to them the responsibility, if they will only give an assurance to the House that they will honestly carry it out.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON:—Sir, it is natural, on a subject which excites so much feeling, not only in this country but on the Continent, and especially in a neighbouring nation, that this House should re-echo the sentiment which prevails so strongly out of doors; and I must do the hon. Member who moved these Resolutions the justice to say, that in the manner in which he has brought the matter forward there was nothing of which anybody had a right to complain. With regard to myself, who have been quoted by the hon. Member, both as to what I have said and what I have written,

  933
  I have only to say that I do not stand here to unsay anything which I may formerly have said, nor to retract anything which I may formerly have written. The Governments of which I have been a Member have always entertained the opinion which it was my duty to express, that in this matter of Poland, the engagements of the Treaty of Vienna, especially as regards Russia, have been systematically and long violated. It is impossible not to feel the deepest sympathy for the Polish nation. They have for a century been most singularly unfortunate. They were unfortunate before the Partition in having a constitution which, whatever some of its merits may have been, was tainted with the gravest possible defects. They were unfortunate in the successive Partitions which deprived them of their nationality. They were unfortunate when the First Napoleon entered the Polish territory on his way to Russia, because he did not then think it expedient to take advantage of that occupation for the purpose of restoring Poland either to entire or modified nationality. They were unfortunate at the Congress of Vienna, because at that time, however anxious the British Plenipotentiary was to restore Poland to a considerable degree of nationality, the power of Russia prevented it, and when Lord Londonderry (then Lord Castlereagh) urged certain conditions, the answer of the Emperor of Russia was, "I have 200,000 men in Poland, and I cannot agree to the proposal you make." They wore unfortunate afterwards, inasmuch as the good and liberal intentions which I believe animated the Emperor Alexander at the time when the Treaty of Vienna was signed were not afterwards adhered to and carried into execution. It is well known that at the time the late Prince Czartoryski was the confidential adviser of the Emperor of Russia, and you see in the provisions of the first article of the Treaty of Vienna the hand of a friend to Poland— a person interested, who looked forward to a better futurity for his countrymen—for in that Article it is said that the Emperor of Russia reserves to himself to give such internal extension to the kingdom of Poland as he may think fit; the meaning of which, I believe, was, that the Emperor contemplated at that time adding to the kingdom of Poland some of the ancient provinces which had been incorporated in the Russian Empire. But, Sir, it is the fate of despotic Governments that much depends on personal influence; and when
  934
  personal advisers change, the policy of the Government changes too, and so it happened these good intentions were laid aside. And although a constitution was given to the kingdom of Poland in accordance with the provisions of the Treaty of Vienna, yet that constitution soon became a dead letter, and in the administration of the kingdom of Poland under the Grand Duke Constantine, there were grievances that justified the insurrection which took place in 1831. Then, Sir, I say, it is impossible for any man seeing, on the one hand, the great and distinguished qualities that belonged to the Polish nation, and, on the other, the calamities which from time to time have befallen them, not to take a deep and lively interest in their fate.
  We have been reproached in some degree by the hon. Member for the King's County, for not having in 1831 and 1832 availed ourselves of a communication made by France for the purpose of inviting some action at that time in favour of the Poles, then in arms against Russia. We had at that time to consider a great many balanced circumstances and motives; and with every disposition to do what we might think useful to Poland, we did not think that particular proposal was one which would have led to any good or useful result. It might have embarrassed us on other questions then pending, and could not, as far as we could foresee, be attended with any good practical result to the Poles themselves. We therefore declined at that time to interfere otherwise than diplomatically, but we have always held that the conduct of Russia towards Poland has been a violation of the stipulations of the Treaty of Vienna. Prussia and Austria have not been liable to the same degree of reproach. Literally they have carried into execution, in regard to their respective portions of Poland, the stipulations of the Treaty of Vienna, because in the duchy of Posen and Galicia there is a national representation sitting in the aggregate Parliament; the language is preserved, the religion is respected, and the rights and privileges stipulated have been enjoyed. And, speaking of Prussia, I must here remark, that however we may condemn the spirit and intention of that convention which we understand was signed lately between Prussia and Russia, I am inclined to think, from information we have received, that the apprehensions which we have been led to entertain with regard to that con-

  935
  vention are not likely to be realized in the result. I believe that convention has not been ratified—no ratifications have been exchanged, and I am inclined to think, not only from what passed in the Prussian Chambers, but also from the information we have received, that it is not likely that convention will, in its objectional parts, be carried practically into execution. I am speaking, however, not officially, but from information we have received; for we have not yet had a copy of the convention itself. I trust that it may be so; because such an interference of Prussia with what is now passing in Poland would excite, as it has already excited, great condemnation everywhere; and if that conventional interference were followed by acts, it would cast discredit on the Government of Prussia. Sir, the present Emperor of Russia has, in regard to Poland, been placed in a very difficult position. It is a great misfortune for anybody to succeed to an inheritance of triumphant wrong; and it is difficult for a person so circumstanced to disentangle himself from the poisonous folds of so fatal a bequest. There is in the mind of man a strong passion — a determination — to maintain and to vindicate his own personal liberties; but there is also a strong passion, and I doubt whether it is not as strong a passion, which makes men cling to the power of exercising oppression on others; and when long-rooted habits have accustomed the authorities of a Government to administer a tyrannical system, it requires great perseverance and activity on the part of the Sovereign to undo the evil and restore things to their proper condition. I do believe that the present Emperor of Russia, a kind-hearted and benevolent man, does mean, and has meant for some time past, to improve the condition of his Polish subjects. That would be in perfect unison with the system on which he is governing his Russian subjects. The Sovereign who has emancipated the serfs—the Sovereign who is establishing a system of jurisprudence founded upon an imitation of the best judicial codes of Europe—a Sovereign who is introducing into his Russian dominions a vast number of modern improvements—cannot surely have it in his heart intentionally and systematically to crush and oppress any portion of his subjects, whether Russian or Polish. Well, Sir, there can be no doubt that this last act, called a conscription, but which has else-
  936
  where been more properly designated a proscription, was an act wholly foreign to that disposition which, I believe, really animates the breast of the Emperor of I Russia; and it accounts entirely for the; outbreak which has occurred in Poland. It was a most barbarous measure—it was a most cruel piece of political tyranny under the semblance of a merely military arrangement. No wonder that the Poles should have taken up arms to prevent the further execution of a measure of that kind. I believe that, as far as one hears, that has in some degree now been stopped, and has ceased.
  But, Sir, the question mooted by the Resolution before us relates to the conduct of Her Majesty's Government, with a view to communications about to be made to Russia. Now, I cannot conceive that a Sovereign gifted with the qualities which I believe are possessed by the Emperor of Russia, should not see that, in the contest in which he is now unfortunately engaged with the Polish nation, military success would be a great and signal calamity. Why, what would be the effect of military success—what would be the result if, by the action of his troops—by the overpowering force of the 100,000 men who had been sent to Poland—he were entirely to suppress and put down this extensive insurrection? Why, he would have a country in which the desert plains would be bathed in blood—in which there would be nothing seen but the smoking ashes of ruined villages and towns. Is that an object which any Sovereign can wish to arrive at, and should be deem it an advantage to him to obtain a success of that kind? Sir, if the Emperor of Russia saw his own interest—and we give him credit for being an enlightened man —he would think the course best calculated for his own advantage—the course best adapted to secure the permanence of his own authority as well as to promote the happiness of his people—would be to put an end to that revolt by an act of generous amnesty, and by, at the same time, re-establishing in Poland those institutions which the Emperor Alexander gave in execution of the Treaty of Vienna. I cannot believe but that, if that were done, peace would be restored in Poland, and might continue to exist there, and that Europe might be saved from those disturbances which the continued misgovernment of Poland, and the discontent thereby engendered among the Poles, cannot

  937
  fail to reproduce from year to year, as has been the case in years that have gone by.
  But, with regard to the particular Motion of the hon. Member for the King's County, I should hope that he would he satisfied with the unanimous expression of opinion which has been the result of this discussion, and not press to a division the Resolution he has placed, Sir, in your hands. The objections to this Motion are really very great. It proceeds upon an erroneous foundation. The hon. Member assumes that by the Treaty of Vienna we are under an obligation to interfere in the affairs of Poland. We have a right to interfere, but we are under no obligation to do so. And although to those who have not turned their minds to diplomatic document sthis may appear to be a nice distinction, yet there is a real, substantial, and most important distinction between treaties which give you the right to interfere and those which impose on you the obligation to interfere. Now, in the Treaty of Vienna—in that treaty of June 15— there is only one obligation by which we should be compelled to interfere in a case that might arise—namely, that article of the treaty which stipulates that the Powers guarantee to Prussia the continued possession of the portion of Saxony which was allotted to Prussia by that arrangement. But there was no guarantee whatever in the engagement which relates to the kingdom of Poland, nor in any other part of the treaty—except, indeed, that which concerns the independence and integrity of Switzerland. Now, the hon. Gentleman throughout his Resolution proceeds on the assumption that we are under an obligation to interfere; and, consistently with that assumption, in the concluding passage he calls upon the Government to interpose, and vindicate the public faith and solemn engagements of the Crown. Why, Sir, if in truth we were under an obligation to interfere, the Resolution would he right and fitting, and would, as has been observed by hon. Gentlemen who have spoken in this debate, amount to this—that unless the remonstrance which might be made in virtue of that obligation were attended with success, the Crown would be compelled to call upon this House to give it the means of enforcing by arms those stipulations, the just fulfilment of which was refused when urged by diplomatic communication. Therefore, there is that grave objection to that particular Motion of the hon. Member. And if, as I think everybody must admit,
  938
  unanimity is desirable, we already see that there have been two or three Amendments proposed to his Resolution, and that consequently it is not likely either one or other of the three would secure the unanimous assent of this House. There are other less material criticisms to be made. The hon. Member proposes that which I believe to be unusual — namely, to record, in an Address of this House, quotations from Hansard of that which a Member of this House may or may not have spoken on some former occasion. I apprehend he does me the honour — and I am sure I am much obliged to him for it—of proposing to insert in a solemn Address of this House extracts from speeches which I am supposed to have made. But I do not think that a course, which would be altogether consistent either with the usages or the dignity of this House. Then, Sir, in the interest of that cause which the hon. Member has at heart—which the whole House have at heart — which I believe the country has at heart, and which I am sure that he and all who hear me must wish to see promoted in the best manner possible for the advantage of those whom it concerns, I should say that the course best adapted to accomplish the purpose he has in view would be to content himself with that unanimous expression of opinion which has been elicited to-night—to let it go forth to the world, as it will go to-morrow, that of all the hon. Members who have spoken on this occasion there was not one who had a different opinion from the rest in regard to his interest in the fate of Poland or as to his sense of the injuries which the Polish nation have sustained. I submit that, as was well stated by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Walpole), it is better to leave it to the responsible Government of the country to give to the Sovereign on this matter such advice as they may think best calculated to attain the object which all desire, and not to take upon the House a responsibility of detail which belongs properly to Her Majesty's Ministers; resting assured that the sentiments expressed by the House this evening are equally shared by those who have the honour of holding office under the Crown. I would, therefore, suggest to the hon. Gentleman that he should now allow the House to go into Committee of Supply, and be satisfied with the result—which, I am sure, is honourable to him, and must be satisfactory to all who take an interest in this subject—of the

  939
  discussion in which so many Members have expressed opinions entirely in accord with each other.
  MR. DISRAELI: Sir, we often hear it said, in the course of these discussions, that the Partition of Poland was a great crime. If it were a great crime, it was a crime shared by the Polish people. The political existence of twenty millions is not destroyed without there being some faults on their side. But whether or not it was a great crime, there is no doubt for Europe it was a great misfortune. Since that Partition, let us recollect what has occurred in Europe. The greatest events which have ever happened in Europe have happened since the Partition of Poland. The whole of the French Revolution, and all those immense results which flowed from that great ebullition, have since then occurred. Since then there has appeared a character on the European stage who alone in modern times could be classed with the Alexanders and the Caesars of antiquity. All the boundaries of the kingdoms which existed -when Poland was partitioned have been altered; the laws of almost every country in Europe have been remodelled; new codes have been introduced; and new Governments called into being. In short, greater and more numerous changes have occurred in the eighty years since that event than were probably ever before crowded into any similar period of the history of man. Sir, I think it very much to the honour of an English statesman—and of an English statesman who had not in his time that credit for his sagacity which I believe posterity now accords to him—I think it much to the honour of Lord Castlereagh that after such immense events, being called upon to take a leading part in the settlement of Europe, he should not have been blind to the importance of restoring, if possible, the political integrity of Poland; and that, with all those arduous and onerous duties which devolved upon him at the Congress of Vienna, he felt that the restoration of the political independence of Poland was a result necessary to the future ease and tranquillity of Europe. Let us remember what were the circumstances under which Lord Castlereagh, as the representative of British policy, conceived and counselled the restoration of the political independence of the kingdom of Poland. He was supported in that policy by Austria and France; he was opposed by Russia. Austria and
  940
  France were then exhausted Powers; England was suffering from immense exertions; but Russia, from a combination of circumstances, was in a position of irresistible and unprecedented strength. It was under those conditions that Lord Castlereagh, though aided by the sympathy of France and Austria, felt that he was obliged to relinquish the plan which he was then of opinion would be of most eminent advantage to the future prosperity and tranquillity of Europe. But what are the circumstances under which we are now considering the question? England is not suffering from the consequences of an unprecedented exertion of its energies continued for twenty years — England was never so powerful, never so united as it is now: France is not an exhausted Power; and I am happy to believe that Austria is daily gaining strength and authority— strength and authority due not merely to the possession of the great resources which have always belonged to that empire, but to the prudence, sagacity, and wisdom which distinguish her counsels. But if the position of England, France, and Austria is so strong and so promising, what is the position of Russia? The position of Russia is not that which dictated the answer that the noble Lord has quoted— the haughty reply that 200,000 Russians were in possession of Poland, and that that was the only answer that would be given to the politic counsels of the English Plenipotentiary. Well, Sir, Lord Castlereagh under those circumstances, representing with great ability and foresight the interests not only of England but of Europe, gave up the restoration of the independence of Poland, and had recourse to another scheme. He secured by treaty to Poland a certain form of independent government. But although England relinquished his policy, still under that treaty she possessed rights, and had the opportunity of standing upon them. I cannot agree with the noble Lord that the hon. Gentleman who introduced this question to-night with so much ability, laid down the position that there are obligations under the Treaty of Vienna which force England into action; but there are moral obligations which the noble Lord cannot deny, resulting from the position that we occupy under that treaty — moral obligations of the duty of fulfilling which we may avail ourselves whenever the opportunity is afforded. The present

  941
  position of affairs in Poland is that another insurrection has occurred. The hon. Gentleman who has introduced the question has expressed in his speech, and, indeed, in his Motion, what is justly described as the unanimous feeling of Parliament and of the country with respect to that insurrection. The noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston) objects to the mode in which the expression of the opinion of the House is called for. Under the circumstances of the case, the great object is to elicit an expression of opinion on the part of the House; but how far the hon. Member ought to proceed depends upon the conduct of the Government. If the Government, for example, had adopted a line of policy opposite to the course recommended by the hon. Gentleman, he would have been perfectly justified in asking the House to support cither a Resolution or an Address which asserted the policy that he advocated. On the other band, if the policy recommended by the Government was one similar to that which was advocated by the hon. Gentleman himself, such a proceeding would be quite unnecessary. There is, however, a third position which I think has not been sufficiently considered—that of a Government which does not frankly communicate to the House the policy—the general policy—which it intends to pursue. Because I must say, that although I listened to the noble Lord with great attention, I did not at all collect from him what was the general course which Her Majesty's Government intended to pursue with regard to this matter. To expect that we should become acquainted in detail with the measures which the Government may think it desirable to adopt at this moment would he most unreasonable; but I did not hear from the noble Lord any expression of opinion as to what he thought might he desirable or practical, or even as lo the spirit in which Her Majesty would be advised by her Ministers with respect to the present state of affairs in Poland. I think that is much to be regretted. The hon. Gentleman must decide for himself as to the course which he should pursue in the matter. I myself think it would he extremely unadvisable to have any appearance of a difference on this subject. At the same time, I entirely disagree with the critics who have found fault with the language of portions of the Address. If the House is in a position in which an Address is necessary, there is nothing in the
  942
  Address of the hon. Gentleman which could he cavilled at. It is, of course, in the power of any hon. Gentleman to place his own interpretation upon the words of that Address. One hon. Member smells gunpowder in the last sentence. I should not myself, if I thought an Address requisite under the circumstances, shrink from the adoption of this form of words. Putting upon this Address the natural interpretation of its phraseology, I understand that it means this:—That Her Majesty's Ministers are not to pass the present state of Poland over in silence, that they are to avail themselves of their rights under the treaty, and to take every other proceeding which they think wise and expedient to carry into action a policy favourable to the Poles. In my opinion that does not necessarily mean war, and I think that we must all of us indulge in more than the hope that great and beneficial changes will take place in the condition of Poland without an appeal to the last arbiter of human destiny. I do not presume to give counsel to the hon. Gentleman; but I will venture to give him this advice, either to proceed with his Address, or, yielding to what I think is the general feeling of the House and for the sake of unanimity, to withdraw it, but not on account of false scruples to consent to have the Address which he has proposed in a very spirited manner, and which very effectively represents his sentiments, emasculated in its language or changed in its expressions. I think that the hon. Gentleman must feel that he has obtained his main object in originating a discussion which has been sustained with power, and which has, no doubt, made Her Majesty's Ministers clearly understand that in the House of Commons there are not two opinions respecting the state of affairs in Poland. I always shrink from any expression of political sentimentalism, I do not know any people who have suffered so much from political sentimentalism as the Poles. Year after year there have been people living in Paris and London, some of them in a state of comparative luxury, stimulating their unfortunate countrymen in Poland to fruitless insurrection and to useless revolt; and all this time we have been favoured by them with expressions of feeling, which—if expression of feeling would effect the salvation of nations—have certainly been abundant and profuse. But what makes me hope that in the present state of circum-

  943
  stances there is a chance of the great English policy which Lord Castlereagh counselled and recommended being carried into effect is, not only that the position of England, of France, and of Austria is very different from what it was in 1814 and 1815, not only that the position of Russia is very different from what it was at that critical period, but that in Poland we have at present a sheer insurrection of the people against oppression. It is a movement not originated and not stimulated by foreign emissaries. It has not been created by conspiracies in other countries; it has not been fostered in order to promote local ambition or the objects of faction. It is a national movement; it possesses all the elements of a sacred cause, the love of country, the memory of a glorious past, and, as I hope and will believe, the inspiration of a triumphant future.
  SIR ROBERT CLIFTONrose, to express a hope that the hon. Member for the King's County would go to a division. The House was entitled to some more definite answer from Her Majesty's Government
  MR. WYLDsaid, that since they were not going to a division, he could not allow this opportunity to pass without entering his protest, as an individual in a free State, and as a Member of this House, against the atrocities that were now being committed in Poland. The policy of Russia since 1831 had been utterly to ignore the Treaty of Vienna. He wished, on behalf of his constituents, to enter his protest against the conduct of the Prussian Government in this matter.
  MR. HENNESSYsaid, he thought he should only be acting in accordance with the general wish if, after the debate which had taken place, he withdrew his Motion. He did so, however, with the object of enabling any other Gentleman to bring forward the same or a similar Motion on a future occassion if necessary.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE IONIAN ISLANDS.—OBSERVATIONS.
LORD WILLIAM GRAHAMcalled the attention of the Secretary of State for War to the increased expenditure for the Ionian Islands in the Army Estimates of this year—the sum set down being £189,000 against £158,000 last year. He did not wish to go into the question of the cession of the Ionian Islands—a dependency concerning the surrender of
944
which the noble Lord at the head of the Government seemed to think very lightly. A time would come for discussing that subject. But, at the same time, he did wish to know why, under such circumstances, we were called upon to pay a larger sum on account of those Islands, than we had paid in preceding years. The Government had certainly clogged the surrender of the Protectorate, by the introduction of so many "ifs" that it was nearly impossible to know under what combination of circumstances the cession was to take place. What were the conditions which had been laid down? If the new Assembly of the Greek nation should prove faithful to their declaration, if they should maintain constitutional monarchy, if they should refrain from all aggression, if they should choose a Sovereign against whom no well-founded objection could be raised, Her Majesty would wish to see the Ionian Isles united to Greece; and if this wish should also be expressed by the Ionian Parliament, and if the parties to the treaty were willing to agree, why then the detailed arrangements could be the subject of future communication. The fulfilment of all these conditions appeared to be exceedingly remote, for there was no King, no Republic, and whatever semblance of a Government did exist had been destroyed within the last few days. The addition of the Ionian Isles to the kingdom of Greece, so far from promoting a desirable settlement, would only add one more item to the anarchical mass.
SIR GEORGE LEWIS:—A communication was made by Her Majesty's Government to the Provisional Government of Greece to the effect which the noble Lord has just stated; but that communication was only of a preliminary nature, and no negotiation has been hitherto entered into with any of the great Powers who signed the Treaty of Vienna, without whose consent it would be impossible to take the first step for transferring the Ionian Islands to the kingdom of Greece, When the time arrives for making this communication, there will be ample opportunity afforded to this House to express their opinion on the subject, and it would be premature to enter into any detailed discussion of the subject at the present moment. I shall therefore confine myself to the question which the noble Lord has placed upon the Notices. The portion of the Estimates to which he refers is a document appended to the Estimates, giving

945
an account of the military expenditure on each Colony, as calculated for the present year, and compared with a similar Return appended to the Estimates of last year. These figures do not represent the amount voted by the House, but are calculations based on the best information in the possession of the War Department at the beginning of each year. It appears that the expenditure last year was not altogether taken from precise data, and fell short of the outlay actually incurred. The Estimate for future years will be rectified upon the information afforded by the Comptroller of Military accounts, and the sum put down for the financial year beginning the first of April next will correctly represent the expenses necessary to be incurred if the present number of troops should continue in the island for the whole year. The expense for the present year will be substantially similar to that of last year, as no alteration will be made in the number. There is no Estimate for public works or fortifications in the Ionian Islands for the present year.
LORD WILLIAM GRAHAMsaid, that the expense of the four battalions had been greater than was calculated in the Estimate of last year.
SIR GEORGE LEWISwould admit that the expense was under-calculated in the document appended to the Estimates.
COLONEL DUNNEasked why, if the Government had determined to cede these Islands, they should go on incurring the present expenditure, which was not confined to the maintenance of four battalions of infantry. And as to these four battalions, they must be kept somewhere, and therefore it was not fair to charge the expense of them to the Protectorate of these Islands. What was to be done with the fortifications, upon which, within his knowledge, a great expenditure had been incurred? They were placed eighty miles to the north of the boundary of Greece; and, from his own survey of the country, he did not hesitate to say that the Power that possessed Corfu could turn the whole position of the line of Turkey. Would the Government, then, place in the hands of Greece the best point for an attack upon Turkey? No foreign Prince could go to Greece without being a party to a policy of aggression, and the military point of aggression would be Corfu. What he wanted to know was, whether Her Majesty's Government meant, to blow up the fortifications of Corfu, or to hand them over to
946
Greece? If they wished to destroy the Turkish empire, they would adopt the latter course, although he did not think the Corfiotes would benefit much by being handed over to Greece. Had the Government taken any measures with the four Powers who were parties to the Treaty of Vienna, for the arrangement of the cession, and were they likely to agree to it?
SIR GEORGE LEWIS: Her Majesty's Government have not entered into any negotiation with the other Powers who were parties to the Treaty of Vienna about the cession of the Ionian Islands.
SIR GEORGE BOWYERthought the statement just made rather extraordinary, because Her Majesty's Government ought, out of mere courtesy, to have communicated with those Powers in order to ascertain their views. He wished to ask whether Her Majesty's Government had received at any time any intimation of the views of the other Powers who were parties to the Treaty of Vienna, as to the cession of the Ionian Islands? He asked this question with especial reference to Austria, because he believed that Austria was peculiarly interested in the matter.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: The case anticipated in the Queen's Speech has not occurred, and there has therefore been no communication with any other Power.
MR. ROEBUCK: I am rather surprised at that answer of the noble Lord, because, being at Vienna at that time, I made inquiry of the Austrian Government whether they knew anything about the matter. I was told that Her Majesty's Government had communicated with them on the subject, and a member of the Administration of Austria showed me the reply to that communication. I saw that reply. It was exceedingly well reasoned, and I should like to see it on that table.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: My hon. and learned Friend saw a despatch which was read to my noble Friend (Earl Russell) but which was not given to him.
Main Question put, and agreed to.
Supply considered in Committee.
House resumed.
Committee report Progress; to sit again on Monday next.

TOBACCO DUTIES BILL— [BILL 21.]

  SECOND READING. ADJOURNED DEBATE.
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed to Ques-

  947
  tion [23rd February], "That the Bill be now read a second time;" and which Amendment was,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the expediency of altering the Laws for raising a Revenue on Tobacco,"— (Mr. Ayrton,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  Debate resumed.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton) having stated at great length his objections to this Bill, he should be compelled to trouble the House with a few observations in reply. He should first wish to advert to two objections of a general character. One was that this Bill ought to have been considered in connection with the financial arrangements of the year. He thought, on the other hand, that it was more convenient and advantageous to bring in this Bill at a period of the Session when the House could give greater attention to its details. The period when the financial measures of the year were submitted to the House was generally a time of great pressure; and if this Bill had been mixed up with the questions of far greater interest which were usually connected with the Budget, its details could not have been so carefully examined as the interests concerned were entitled. There was another objection — which rested on an entire misunderstanding—it was said that this Bill cheapened the commodity to the rich man, and took no cognizance of the commodity consumed by the poor man. This objection was very wide of the truth. No doubt this Bill tended to cheapen tobacco and cigars of the highest quality, such as were consumed by the rich man, but it also applied alike to every kind of manufactured tobacco. It had been argued by a portion of the press as if there were a difference between the poor and rich in this respect, that while the rich man consumed manufactured tobacco, the poor man consumed tobacco in leaf. But the poor man did no such thing, for even the sale of the tobacco in the leaf was illegal. The leaf was unfit for consumption until it was manufactured, and the effect of the Bill was not to cheapen the high-priced cigar of the
  948
  rich man, but to open the door of a fair and healthy competition in a commodity which had been excluded from our imports, not by an absolute prohibition, but by a duty so extravagant as practically to amount to a prohibition. So far as the poor consumer was concerned, the present system was as complete a monopoly as if there existed an entire prohibition; while in the case of the rich man the grievance involved was of so trifling a character, if, indeed, one existed at all, as to be hardly worth the consideration of the House. Having made those observations, he should proceed to deal with the Motion of the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets, which he hoped the House would not be disposed seriously to entertain; for if they should do so, they would be setting a course entirely at variance with established practice. The case at issue, it should be remembered, was one in which the executive Government proposed to the representatives of the people a reduction of taxes levied on the people; and in the history of the last twenty years, during which period more than a thousand proposals of a similar character had been made by different Governments, he was aware of no instance in which one had been met by a Motion similar to that which the hon. and learned Member had brought forward; although on several occasions particular propositions had been characterized as unwise, or of such a nature that they ought not to receive the sanction of Parliament; and sometimes it has been proposed to substitute another proposal in its stead. The present proposition of the hon. and learned Gentleman would do neither of these. The Motion, in effect, went the length of saying, that the executive Government, which was responsible for the taxation of the country, having laid before the House of Commons a Bill the object of which was the reduction of certain duties, a private Member was justified in rising in his place, and while declining to take the sense of the House as to whether the measure was or was not a wise or a good one, seeking to postpone it for an indefinite period. Now, the universal practice of the House, which, he ventured to contend, was founded on wisdom, was altogether opposed to such a mode of proceeding—a mode of proceeding which, if it had been pursued in former years, would have rendered progress in our commercial legislation almost impossible. The minute examination of details which it was the

  949
  duty of the Government to institute with regard to such questions as the present, and which they submitted to the consideration of hon. Members on the floor of that House when making the proposals which they deemed it to be their duty to lay before Parliament, had hitherto, he might add, been found the practical mode of carrying out great commercial reforms; but if the whole of those details were, because some timid interest or another happened to be the victim of imaginary danger, instead of being taken on the responsibility of the Government, to be sent upstairs to a Committee, to be dealt with by a system of examination and cross-examination, the progress by which our legislation had of late years been distinguished would never have been made. He should, therefore, without hesitation, appeal to hon. Members to say whether they would abandon the wholesome practice which had hitherto prevailed, and lend themselves to sanction a course which amounted to nothing more than an evasion of the question at issue. He would not, in the course of the observations which was about to make, trouble the House by entering into a lengthened explanation of those details of the Bill which might more conveniently he discussed at a future stage; but would enter at once into the general merits of the subject, premising that he was at a loss, after having heard the speech of the hon, and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets, to know why he had adopted the particular course which he had taken—why he had not conic forward like a man and asked them to reject the proposition. The hon. Member said, he had plenty of reasons for doing so. He had stated that he stood out as the supporter of the existing law, which he seemed to regard as one of a perfect character—a law which had been devised, as he would have it, in 1823, for the purpose of benefiting the revenue and to suppress smuggling, in both of which objects the hon. Gentleman maintained it had succeeded to as great a degree as in human affairs was practicable. Why was it, then, that entertaining that view, the hon. Gentleman had not moved the rejection of the Bill before the House?—a Bill which he appeared to think would have the effect of introducing innumerable horrors into our commercial system. He had conjured up every horror in connection with the ruin of the British manufacturer for the benefit of the foreigner, and, indeed, he had gone so
  950
  far in his opposition to it as to picture the foreigner gloating over the deserted dwellings of the great manufacturers in this country, and to conjure up images of starving operatives which were quite harrowing. He saw the slave-owner taking the benefit of the Bill; and he saw the Royal monopolist of Manilla deriving incalculable advantages at the expense of the ruined British workman. Those, however, were but old stories after all, and required something in the nature of proof before they could be implicitly relied upon, for prophecies such as those of the hon. Gentleman had been discredited by uniform experience. The hon. Gentleman seemed to think that by the proposal he had made he was giving effect to the wishes of the tobacco trade; but the justice of that supposition he for one disputed. A statement on behalf of two respectable members of the trade had, indeed, been circulated which might be said to be on the hon. Gentleman's side; but their share in the matter was, after all, but infinitesimal, and he himself, who had daily communications either directly or indirectly with the largest manufacturers in the three kingdoms, could safely say that not one of them had made of him the requirement which the hon. Gentleman had made of the House of Commons. On the contary, they had approached the question like practical men, and while submitting that the duty on a particular description of tobacco was fixed at too high a rate, or that certain regulations ought to be relaxed—points which were perfectly legitimate subjects for discussion—never advocated the relegation of the question to a Committee—a course which could lead to no other result than an indefinite waste of time. Now, passing by the minute details connected with the question, it became his duty to show good grounds for introducing the Bill, and for seeking to disturb the present state of things. Those grounds were four, and any one of them would, in his opinion, be sufficient to justify the step which he asked the House to take, while combined they were perfectly irresistible as arguments in its favour. He might perhaps, in the first instance, state that he had that very day received a communication from the Anti-Tobacco society—which, perhaps, had been put in motion by the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Ayrton)—protesting against the Bill, as being calculated to have the effect of increasing the consump-

  951
  tion of tobacco. It would be a piece of the most ridiculous purism to presume that an article which constituted a comfort to the masses ought to be proscribed and repressed, and that for the sake of proscribing and repressing it they should endeavour to keep up something in the shape of a monopoly. There was no reason why the consumer of tobacco should be subjected to disadvantages imposed by the restrictions of the present law when the people were freed from restrictions with regard to every other article. If our fiscal necessities compelled us to levy high duties on tobacco, it was a very good reason, in adjusting the duties on the manufactured article, for being especially careful not to do injustice to the manufacturers of tobacco at home. But, on the other hand, as soon as that object was attained, the price of the article should not be enhanced by artificial and arbitrary restrictions. The next ground upon which the Bill might be supported was the prevention of smuggling. He was astonished at the courage of the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Ayrton) who, with perfect self-possession, could state to the House, that so perfect was the present system, there was no smuggling in tobacco. The opinions of the Government, of the Revenue Department, of the Committee of this House, and of every witness examined before it, were against the hon. and learned Member. The fact was notorious, that smuggling existed to a great extent. Whether they would get rid of it altogether he could not pretend to say, but the provisions of the Bill were of a character which would tend to diminish the inducements and the means of smuggling. It would be a good argument for the present system if it could be said that certain descriptions of tobacco, being prohibited, wherever they were caught they might be seized; but the present law did not prohibit the entry of foreign manufactured tobacco, and while, perhaps, 100 lb. of Cavendish paid the duty of 9s. 6d. per lb., it was known that there were many thousands of pounds in the country which could not be seized because it was difficult to say which were the particular pounds on which the duty had been paid. In order to operate against smuggling, it was proposed to give the British manufacturer the power of manufacturing Cavendish tobacco in bonded warehouses, and in consideration of the extra expense in respect of the premises,
  952
  and the disadvantage in disposing of the stalks and refuse, to allow him 4d, per lb. The present system charged 9s. 6d. per lb. on foreign Cavendish, and prohibited its manufacture by the British trader. He proposed to establish a system under which the British trader could manufacture in bond, paying a duty of 3s. 8d., and the foreigner would pay on introducing the foreign-manufactured Cavendish 4s. per lb. He asked the House which system was most likely to prevent smuggling? and he asked the hon. Gentleman whether he was prepared to support the paradox in the face of the House that the duty on cigars at 5s. was more likely to promote smuggling than the present duty of 9s. 6d. per lb. The hon. Gentleman took up the cudgels in favour of the revenue; but if there was any reason for relying on the opinions of the best-informed men, he could confidently state that the change could not be otherwise than favourable to the revenue. he now came to the interest of the manufacturer, and not only did he hope that the Bill would not realize the phantoms and visions which the hon. Member had conjured from the limbo to which he trusted they had long ago been quietly consigned, but he must express his belief that well-considered legislation would materially improve the position of the British trade. He did not say that with reference to alterations, but with reference to additions to the Bill. Very early in the discussion the question was raised, whether it would not be possible to extend to traders in cigars the privilege of manufacturing them in bond. He had examined that question attentively, and he had come to the conclusion that there was no mode in which such manufacture could be carried on in bond, because there was such a number of persons of small means engaged in the trade that it would be impossible to reconcile the operation with the requirements of the bonding system. Neither would it be possible to permit the manufacture of common tobacco in bond. If it was thought by any hon. Member that they ought to revert to the practice of 1840, and permit the mixture of all sorts of things with tobacco, he could not concur with him. But he did think it might be in the power of the Government to propose something better for the trade than allowing the manufacture in bond—namely, the readjustment of the present system of drawbacks, which would have the effect of opening up advantageously to the

  953
  British manufacturer the export trade. The duty of the Government was to make the measure as favourable as possible to the British trader.
  MR. AYRTONsaid, he did not pretend to represent the manufacturers of tobacco generally; but the manufacturers of cigars of all England had met together and placed a Resolution in his hands, which they requested him to support in the House.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERdid not admit that all the manufacturers of cigars were present on that committee. The secretary of the committee, who was the principal person upon it, had no share whatever in the circulars which had been placed in the hands of hon. Members. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) begged to state, that, over and above the trade which was open to the British manufacturer by the Bill as it stood, he was sanguine of being able to submit to the House a proposal which would give the manufacturers of all descriptions of tobacco power to enter into the export trade. The present system of drawbacks took no cognizance of the different kinds of tobacco, and was founded on the assumption that the exporter would put as much moisture as possible into his tobacco, in order to get as large a drawback as he could; and the effect of that was, that the tobacco which was exported as ship's stores was in a very moist state. But he was prevented from entering into details, in consequence of the hon. and learned Member's Amendment standing in the way. The question which was before them now was whether the hon. Gentleman would permit them to discuss the subject. He could show, if there was an opportunity of doing so, that many of the hon. Member's statements were unfounded; for instance, the manufacture of cigars, as explained by him, was unknown to the vast majority of the manufacturers of the country. The question was not one of starving operatives at home and bloated foreigners, but simply this: — What measure of relief could be given to the consumer, and how they could at the same time put the manufacturer and trader in a good position without damage to the revenue of the country? That was the principle upon which he proposed to go into Committee, and upon which he asked the House to reject the present Motion.
  MR. ROEBUCKsaid, the right hon. Gentleman was so emphatic and so peremptory that it almost daunted a timid
  954
  person like himself. The right hon. Gentleman had referred to him.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER:—I never made any reference to the hon. and learned Member.
  MR. ROEBUCKthought he had, from the manner in which the right hon. Gentleman pointed his finger. The right hon. Gentleman, however, stated distinctly that the proposition of the hon. and learned Gentleman to refer the question to a Select Committee was an unusual and improper one, because it interfered with the conduct of the Government in a matter of fiscal arrangement. But he (Mr. Roebuck) had known the timber duties to be referred to a Select Committee, and he wanted to know why the tobacco duties should not also be referred to a Select Committee. The right hon. Gentleman's rhetoric was like the proboscis of an elephant, which could pick up a pin or lift a cannon. Bishop Berkeley had written an admirable metaphysical treatise on the question of tar-water; and so, in like manlier, the right hon. Gentleman had delivered a discourse on political economy à propos of the making of cigars. The plain state of the case appeared to him (Mr. Roebuck) to be this:—In this town 10,000 persons were employed in making cigars, and he was told that the effect of the plan of the right hon. Gentleman would be to bring the home maker of cigars into unfair competition with the foreign maker, as the former worked with an article paying a very high duty, while the latter worked with an article which paid no duty at all; and therefore, if the duty were reduced from 9s. to 5s., all these people would he thrown out of work. He was also told that the foreign maker of cigars took the leaf, extracted the oil from it, and thereby diminished the weight one-half. The English maker could not do that, because it would diminish the weight of the material, on which he had already paid duty. He understood many workmen in the trade had already been thrown out of work by the terror created by the right hon. Gentleman's Bill. He wished the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider these points.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERexplained, that he did not mean to say that Select Committees had never sat on commercial duties. What he intended to state was, that he had never known an instance since the commercial legislation of 1842, when the Government on their responsibility proposed a particular plan

  955
  bringing to issue the whole question, of the House refusing to entertain that plan in consequence of the interposition of a general Motion for inquiry.
  MR. LOCKEthought, that if the question had been complicated before, the right hon. Gentleman's speech only made it more complicated than ever. If the matter were submitted to a Select Committee, the House would have something to act upon. If the matter were so complicated as it now appeared to be, his hon. and learned Friend was not open to animadversion for seeking to obtain an investigation. It was an inquiry into the hop duties which led to the final settlement of the question. The right hon. Gentleman, feeling the injustice which was going to be done to the British tobacco manufacturer, said he hoped that he might some day become an exporter. He said his proposal was for the benefit of the consumer. What consumer? If he meant by that that it would benefit the great body of the people, he denied it altogether. At present a large portion of manufactured tobacco paid a duty of 500 per cent; and he contended that the working man would derive no benefit, unless it were by the reduction of the duty on cavendish and negro-head. The great bulk of tobacco was left entirely untouched. As to smuggling, it took place chiefly in cavendish and negro-head, and the other manufactured tobaccos. The smuggling of cigars was on a very small scale indeed, and he held it would not be put an end to by this measure.
  MR. T. BARINGsaid, he had always thought that tobacco duties ought to he treated with the greatest caution in making any change, not only because of the amount of revenue which they produced, but also on account of the difficulties incidental to the manufacture of tobacco. It was said that this was the last remnant of a bad system. He begged to remind the House that hitherto they had always gone upon the principle of taking off duty on raw material before subjecting their own manufacturers to foreign competition; but here was a heavy duty which would still remain on the raw material in this country, while in other countries there was no duty at all. He confessed that he could not ascertain what was likely to be the effect of the proposed change. It might prevent smuggling, benefit the munufacturers, and lower the price to the consumer; but they had no sufficient data to guide them—nothing, in short, but the
  956
  authority of the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman intimated that lie had a scheme for enabling the manufacturers of this country to export; but he had not told them what it was. There had hardly ever been a great change of duties without the propositions having been considered in Committee, and this question had never yet been specially considered by any Committee—the proposal rested entirely on the recommendation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer; and he (Mr. Baring) did not think it ought to be adopted without a further examination of those who were specially interested.
  MR. BRADYthought there ought to be a thorough investigation of the subject before they went any further. In the interior of the county there were no bonded warehouses in which the manufacture could be carried on. Moreover, the supervision of the manufacture would involve a large expenditure. These matters required careful consideration, and he would move the adjournment of the debate.
  MR. MAGUIREseconded the Motion. It was clear that smuggling had not increased, for during the year 1862 the revenue from this source had increased £110,000. Ireland was deeply interested in this question, for £2,000,000 of this revenue came from that country. It was the opinion of persons connected with the trade, who had much more complete information than the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the trade were not properly protected. They state that to make a pound of snuff required a pound and a half of stalks, on which 4s. 9d. duty was paid to the Crown. [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: Oh, no!] Would the right hon. Gentleman allow the point to be investigated by a Committee, then? Let him have the matter thoroughly sifted; and if the right hon. Gentleman were shown to be right, he would gladly support the Bill. By his own speech the right hon. Gentleman had completely condemned his plan for manufacturing in bond, for in a moment of unofficial candour he called it "at best but a defective, clumsy, and costly expedient." And yet he called this unfair competition with the foreigner "free trade." Would the right hon. Gentleman consider, too, the justice of releasing the trades from the burden of the Excise regulations? It was because he believed that the right hon. Gentleman had been earwigged by some Department of the Excise or Customs which found itself without work at the

  957
  present moment, and that he was groping blindly about in the dark, that he supported the Motion for adjournment.
  MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, he was a little astonished at the alarm felt at this proposal for cheapening in some degree the price of tobacco. It was said that the rates of duty proposed by his right hon. Friend were not what they ought to be. That was a very fit question to he discussed in a Committee of the Whole House. he had seen a whole tariff, containing hundreds of different articles, discussed in such a Committee, and no proposition made to refer any of the rates of duty to a Select Committee. A Select Committee on duties had generally been proposed by Members of that House in order to force on the Government the reduction of some duty; but this was the first time he had known an hon. Member to come forward, on a proposition by the Government for a reduction in favour of the consumer, with an Amendment to refer the question to a Select Committee. He must set the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. T. Baring) right on one point, and remind him the case of the duty on malt showed that the principle to which he had referred was not the one that had been acted on in this country. The duty levied on foreign malt was in excess of that paid on the home article only to the amount barely necessary to allow for the expense of carrying on the manufacture under the Excise.
  MR. T. BARINGwished to explain that he had spoken of the Customs duty, and said that the duty was either taken off or reduced on the raw material before competition was allowed on the part of the foreign manufacturer.
  MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, that the case of refined sugar was one in point against the hon. Gentleman. The foreign refiner was allowed to compete with the English on other terms than those referred to by the hon. Member. This was a consumer's question. The consumer was now subjected to an additional charge arising from the monopoly price demanded for tobacco by the home manufacturer. He hoped the House would not consent to the proposition to refer this matter to a Select Committee.
  COLONEL DUNNEsupported the proposition for further inquiry, and said it was ridiculous to call this a free-trade question while there was an absolute prohibition against the agriculturist growing tobacco at home.
  MR. AYRTONappealed to the Government to consent to the adjournment of the debate, in consequence of the absence of an hon. Gentleman on the opposite side of the House who took a leading part in financial questions. Another reason for adjourning the debate was, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had entered into no explanation of the provisions of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman had promised on a former occasion to make a statement to the House; but his speech to-night had been confined to personal allusions and other matters foreign to the merits of the Bill.
  THE CHANCELLOR or THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he could not consent to the adjournment of the debate on account of the absence of an hon. Member who had not so much as intimated his intention to take part in the discussion.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That the Debate be now adjourned."
  The House divided:—Ayes 71; Noes 137: Majority 66.
  Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  SIR HUGH CAIRNShoped the Government would now see the propriety of allowing the debate to be postponed till another day. There were a great many hon. Members who were anxious to express their views upon the subject. In substance the present discussion was a discussion on the second reading; and if it were to be closed now, there would be no subsequent debate until the House went into Committee. The President of the Board of Trade had made the strange assertion that the question of rates, which was the only question in dispute, ought to be discussed in Committee. It was utterly impossible for any hon. Member in Committee on the Bill to propose to increase rates which had been settled by a Committee of the Whole House.
  MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, it would be quite competent to discuss in Committee any rates lower than those now chargeable by law. He did not suppose there was any intention to propose higher rates.
  SIR HUGH CAIRNSsaid, that if the question of rates could be discussed in Committee, he was at a loss to conceive why the Chancellor of the Exchequer had thought it necessary to go into Committee of the Whole House for the purpose of considering that very point.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERhad already stated that there was no necessity for going into Committee of I the Whole House, and that he had printed I the Resolutions merely for the convenience and information of hon. Members.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That this House do now adjourn."
  The House divided:—Ayes 70; Noes 134: Majority 64.
  Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out, stand part of the Question."
  COLONEL DUNNEmoved the adjournment of the debate.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERwould not continue an unprofitable controversy, and would yield to the proposal of the hon. and gallant Gentleman.
  Debate adjourned till Monday next.

  INNKEEPERS' LIABILITY (NO. 2) BILL.
  Bill to define and limit the Liability of Innkeepers, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Bun and Dr. BRADY.
  Bill presented, and read 1°. [Bill 43.]
  House adjourned at One o'clock, till Monday next.

MINUTES.
PDBLIC BILIS.—Second Reading.— Prince and Princess of Wales' Annuities (No. 24).
Committee.—Gardens in Towns Protection [H.L.] (No. 14).
Report.—Gardens in Towns Protection [H.L.] (No. 14).
Third Reading.—English Church Services in Wales [H.L.] (No. 7); and passed.

POLAND—OBSERVATIONS.
THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGH: I have observed that the Minister of the King of Prussia has stated in the Prussian Parliament that the Government of the King has not concluded a Convention with the Emperor of Russia, such as the expressions of the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in this House on a former evening could be applicable to. I do not think it necessary to put any question to the noble Earl upon this subject. I remain in the continued belief that the noble Earl had full authority for making the statement which he made in this House, and that it is correct; nor do I think it necessary to take this opportunity to say anything further upon the Polish question. The speech of the noble Earl the other evening satisfied me that the question may be safely left in the hands of Her Majesty's Ministers. I believe that they will in their communications with foreign Powers use language in conformity with the general feeling of this country. And I trust I may add, that if these deplorable events should result in any more serious complications, Her Majesty's Ministers will not hesitate to come at once to Parliament for support.
EARL RUSSELL: With respect to the telegram to which my noble Friend has alluded, I can only say that it does not appear very clear what it was that Count Bismark meant to convey when he contradicted the statement relative to the Convention between Prussia and Russia which
858
I made to your Lordships. The statement which I made in this House was, that I had spoken to the Russian and Prussian Ambassadors with respect to the rumour that such a Convention existed, and that they said—both of them—certainly the Russian Ambassador—that they were not in possession of the text of the Convention; but I gathered from them that the substance of the Convention was, that in certain cases if the Russian troops should pursue Polish insurgents into the Prussian territory, the Russian troops should be allowed, with arms in their hands, to follow them into the Prussian territory. I believe that that was a correct statement; and I may add that the Russian Ambassador told me that he had no objection to give me the nature of the terms of the Convention. All that I have since learnt goes to show that there is an article, of which I was not aware, which requires that in some way or other the permission of the Prussian authorities shall be obtained before the Russian troops are allowed to enter the Prussian territory; but it does not appear clear whether this permission is to issue from the central Government at Berlin, or whether it is to be given by the local authorities.
THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY: I wish to ask the noble Earl whether he has received any confirmation of the statement that certain Polish students were arrested by the Prussian authorities and handed over to the Russian Government.
EARL RUSSELL: I can only speak upon the authority of local newspapers. I cannot say more than this—that certain persons—Polish students—were arrested in the Prussian territory, and sent across the frontier into Russian Poland; but whether they were handed over to the Russian authorities, or merely put across the frontier, I cannot state.

WESTERN AUSTRALIA—TRANS PORTATION.

  ADDRESS FOR A PAPER.
  EARL STANHOPE, in rising to move an Address for Copy of a Memorial presented to the Duke of Newcastle by a deputation of Colonists from Western Australia, and of the Answer thereto, said, they had had several short discussions this Session upon the system of tickets of leave, and the treatment of prisoners in gaols; and they were much indebted to his noble Friend (the Earl of Carnarvon)

  859
  for the able manner in which he brought the subject forward, and to the President of the Council for the practical suggestion of a Committee. The Committee was now sitting, and he trusted that good would result from its deliberations. But he contended that, whatever might be their recommendations, the root of the evil could not be reached without a return, with some modifications, to the system of transportation. The subject of penal discipline had been referred to a Royal Commission, and it would be for them to say whether convicts should be sent to colonies which, after a long interval since they formerly received them, might be ready to receive them again, or whether new penal settlements should be founded. But, in the mean while, they should remember that the colony of Western Australia had never ceased to receive our convicts, and only complained that they were not sent with due selection and in sufficient numbers. Their Lordships were entitled to inquire how far the recommendations of the Committee of that House, which sat in 1856, had been carried out; and he desired to know how far the Government were prepared to accede to the prayer of the memorial which had recently been presented by colonists from Western Australia. He first called attention to this subject in the other House twenty-two years ago, when the Government at that time, in which the noble Earl opposite (Earl Russell) was Home Secretary, were abandoning the system of transportation, and resorting to the system of confining criminals in the hulks. It appeared to him that the hulk system was open to every possible objection. In April, 1841, he had carried an Address to the Crown against it by a majority of the House of Commons. The hulk system was, in consequence of that Vote, abandoned; but some years later, and from a train of other circumstances, transportation to New South Wales and to Tasmania came to be abolished. In 1856 he had moved for a Committee of their Lordships' House, which was appointed, and made some special recommendations, to which he hoped their Lordships would direct their attention. It was said, that under the existing system prisoners were not reformed, and that they only waited to be free in order to revert to evil courses. He would concede, if it were necessary, that every convict was desirous to live honestly; but in an overcrowded country like this, where the
  860
  demand for labour did not equal the supply, there were insuperable difficulties in the way of men obtaining employment in the absence of good character. In the case of women the difficulty was much greater. Every one knew how unforgivingly women regarded those of their own sex who had fallen from the paths of virtue; and a woman released from prison, if she desired to get her living honestly, had but two courses open to her—either she had to assume some name and character which was not her own, or she had to take employment in her own, at the risk of seeing all those who worked with her rise up against her, and declare that they would leave unless she were immediately dismissed. The state of the labour-market in this country was a serious obstacle to persons in this position getting employment. In the colonies, however, the case was very different. There was always a demand for labour there, and it was the recognised system to ask no questions as to anybody's antecedents in the old country. The difficulty of which he had spoken had been so much felt, that at various times numerous institutions had been set up for the purpose of assisting persons released from imprisonment to obtain employment. No sooner, however, had they begun to work well than they were assailed by the cry that they were interfering with honest labour, and were seeking to place convicts in the stations which honest labourers would have filled. There could be no doubt as to the advantage to this country of a well-organized system of transportation. On this point he would cite only the opinion of the late Lord Campbell, who had said that—
  "He had passed a good deal of time in continental cities, and had conversed with the most eminent jurists there, and he had found a general concurrence of opinion as to the inestimable advantage enjoyed by this country in having colonies to which to send her convicts."
  But then it was, or should be, a necessary and indispensable condition, that a system so beneficial to the mother country should also be beneficial to the colony in which it was applied. This point was very well stated by his Committee of 1856, which came to this general conclusion—
  "That a continuance of the system of transportation to some colony or colonies, with such improvements as experience has suggested or may suggest, would he highly desirable, provided that the system can be carried on with advantage to the colony and with satisfaction to the colonists."

  861
  The colony of Western Australia had always been willing to receive our convicts; in 1855 there were grievous and general complaints of the class of convicts sent out in the ship Nile. Since that time a better system of selection had prevailed. There was, however, stated to be of late one exception to the general discretion of the system on which convicts had been sent out to that colony; and this was a point on which he should be glad to receive some explanation from the noble Duke. Her Majesty's Government had lately decided to break up the convict establishment at Bermuda. That might be a very wise decision; but he understood that the Government had disposed of the convicts by sending them all en masse to Western Australia. If that were so, they had departed from the principle they had hitherto adopted with respect to convicts sent to that colony; for the practice had been to send out selected convicts only. Another point was as to the upset price of land in Western Australia. According to the recommendation of the Committee of 1850 the upset price of land had been reduced from 20 s. to 10 s. per acre, but there still remained the question whether, as to the gradual payment of that upset price in successive years, the system might not be assimilated to that in the colony of Victoria. On this point also he should be glad to receive some information. The noble Earl then moved—
  "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty for, Copy of a Memorial presented on the 12th of February 1863 by a Deputation of Colonists from Western Australia to the Duke of Newcastle, and praying for a more extended System of Transportation to that Colony: Also,
  "Copy of any Answer to the same."
  THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLEsaid, he was sure his noble Friend did not expect that on this occasion he should enter into either the general question of the best system of punishment for offenders, or that of the comparative merits of imprisonment at home and transportation to the colonies. These questions were before two bodies at the present time—a Committee of their Lordships' House and a Royal Commission. Their Lordships would feel that it would be unbecoming in him, as a Member of the Government, to prejudge either of these questions after gentlemen of station, position, ability, and knowledge of the subjects, had consented to give much time to the investigation of the im-
  862
  portant problem of the treatment of our convicts. But before he proceeded to the subject of Western Australia, he wished to undeceive his noble Friend as to the circumstances connected with the transfer of convicts from Bermuda to Western Australia. Three years ago a discussion was raised in reference to the prisons of Bermuda. After full consideration of the whole question the Government came to the conclusion that it would be desirable to diminish the number of convicts sent there, and ultimately to abandon the practice of sending convicts to that island. This was a most important element in the consideration of the question—that transportation to Bermuda was not like transportation to Western Australia—Bermuda was nothing but a colonial prison. But under the system, adopted several years ago the number of prisoners available for removal from this country had been greatly diminished, and the Government had to consider which of three places—Western Australia, Gibraltar, or Bermuda—they would abandon as a place for convicts under sentence of transportation. Bermuda appeared to them to be the least desirable place of the three, on the grounds of climate and facilities for enforcing discipline; and, in addition to these considerations, the fortifications and other works on which convicts had been employed there were nearly finished. It was therefore determined that the establishment there should be abandoned, and that such of its inmates as had not completed their period of punishment should be removed to Western Australia. His noble Friend, however, seemed to be mistaken as to the number of convicts so sent to the latter colony. The fact was, they only amounted to one shipload; and though there was no selection, the convicts at Bermuda, when the removal took place, were by no means of that extremely bad class which his noble Friend was led to suppose. The sending away of those convicts was hastened somewhat by the fact that the colonists of Western Australia were asking for more convict labour. In sending out convicts from this country, though some care was taken, it was impossible under existing circumstances to be so careful as to avoid sending out some very bad cases. Of the convicts sent to Western Australia in 1860 15 had been convicted of murder, 23 of manslaughter, 29 of assaults with intent to murder, 95 of robbery with violence— garotters and others of that very class

  863
  respecting whom there had been so much discussion of late—31 of robbery without violence, and 16 of cutting and wounding. His noble Friend seemed to think that it would be advisable to adopt the regulations respecting land introduced in the colony of Victoria; but if he had made inquiries from persons who had had experience of that system, he would have found that the changes lately made in Victoria had not proved so successful as they were expected to he, and a wish was now expressed that they had never been adopted. At any rate, it would not be prudent to introduce such a change in the colony in question without more consideration than the subject had yet received. With regard to the cost of conveying the families of convicts to the colony, a change had been made in the repayment of this cost, and with good effects. He did not think it would be desirable to charge such an outlay upon the parishes to which these families belonged, because it was not for the sake of the parishes that they were sent out, but for the sake of morality and good order in the colony; and the Government, therefore, thought it right that that expense should be defrayed out of the Imperial Exchequer. In order to counterbalance the convict element in Western Australia, it was necessary to carry out a system of free emigration; and therefore while the number of convicts sent there during the last eleven years was 7,000, there had been a simultaneous introduction within the same period of 7,300 free labourers. It was necessary to take care not to overdo transportation in Western Australia, and this was one of the chief dangers to the continuance of the system. It was this overbalancing the free by the convict class that led to the outcry in Tasmania, and the ultimate abolition of transportation thither; and if the same system were pursued in Western Australia, precisely the same results would ensue. He could not agree with his noble Friend that the time for action had arrived, for he thought they ought to wait for the Report of the Commission; and even then it would be requisite to proceed with caution, in order that the danger he had alluded to should be avoided, and that the fears entertained by other Australian Colonies should be dispelled. As regarded the memorial lately presented to him, he should, of course, have no objection to lay it upon the table, as indeed it appeared in The Times on the day after its presen-
  864
  tation. As his answer to this memorial was not in writing, having been made verbally to the deputation, he could not produce it; but the substance of the answer was, that although Her Majesty's Government desired to do all that they could to continue and improve the present system of transportation, he could give no pledge on the subject until the Report of the Commission was forthcoming; pending which time it was not the intention of the Government to make any important alteration.
  Motion agreed to.

PRINCE AND PRINCESS OF WALES' ANNUITIES BILL— [No. 24.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, I rise to move the second reading of this Bill. In consequence of the manner in which the announcement of the Prince's marriage was received by your Lordships the other evening, I venture to anticipate that the provisions of this Bill will prove very satisfactory to your Lordships. What has passed in another place, and the feeling shown by the public, has tended to confirm that anticipation. It is hardly necessary in your Lordships' House to advert to the general topics which make your Lordships desire to give to the Prince of Wales an annuity suitable to the dignity of the Heir to the Crown. I believe there never was a country which has had so much reason to rejoice in the form of monarchical Government which has existed in this country; and it is not merely a sentimental or traditionary feeling, but is founded on what we do feel— namely, affectionate loyalty to the Sovereign on the Throne, and a desire to honour her in every possible way. In the last century, in 1715 and 1745, Parliament granted to the Prince of Wales, exclusive of the revenue of the Duchy of Cornwall, £100,000 a year. In 1795 a larger income, under peculiar circumstances, was given, amounting to £138,000; but a portion was applied to the payment of debts unfortunately contracted before by the Prince of Wales. In 1806 those debts were paid, and the Prince of Wales came into the receipt of the whole income. When your Lordships consider the different value of money, and the fact that many of your Lordships possess larger

  865
  incomes, it is quite clear that the proposed provision is not immoderate. After careful examination, it appears that the net income of the Duchy of Cornwall is £60,000 a year. By this Bill it is proposed to add £40,000 a year. It is further proposed to grant £10,000 a year to the Princess of Wales as a personal annuity, and to grant her a dower in case of the decease of her husband of £30,000 a year. I believe that the Bill will meet with the cordial assent of your Lordships, and I beg to move that it be now read a second time.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2°.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

DURHAM UNIVERSITY COMMISSION.

  MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS.
  THE BISHOP OF EXETER, who had given notice—
  "To move that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying Her Majesty to withhold Her Assent to the Sixteen Ordinances framed by the Durham University Commissioners, on the 13th of June 1862, for the Government and Administration of that University,"
  said, he felt himself in a position of great difficulty, because the observations he should feel called upon to make, would seem to demand an answer which their Lordships could not give or understand, unless they had read the Ordinances, and made themselves masters of the whole subject. The right rev. Prelate, whose name stood first in the Commission (the Bishop of Durham), and who would probably think it his duty to reply on behalf of his brother Commissioners, was absent, not having had notice of his Motion; and he (the Bishop of Exeter) should be most unwilling to proceed in his right rev. Brother's absence. This, however, was the last day on which the question could be brought forward within the forty days limited by the statute; and he wished to know, therefore, whether, if the matter were now postponed, the Government would give further time for the consideration of the subject, as though it had been discussed within the forty days specified? The right rev. Prelate then formally made' his Motion.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, it was impossible that the Government could agree to the Motion, the effect of which, if
  866
  carried, would be to render absolutely null and void the Ordinances agreed upon eight months since by the Commission, which was now extinct. That Commission was appointed, not by the Government, but by the Act of Parliament — which received the assent of the Legislature. The Commissioners were named in the Act, including the Bishop of Durham, the late master of Harrow, Dr. Vaughan, and four Members of the other House of Parliament selected from either side of the House. He had been told that the recommendations of the Commissioners were unanimously adopted. There could be no difficulty in raising the question as to these Ordinances, because by the Act it was expressly provided that any person connected with the University might appeal to the Privy Council. It was also provided that the Ordinances should be laid before Parliament for forty days, and upon an Address from either House within that time they should at once fall to the ground. The right rev. Prelate on the previous evening had questioned the legality of including within the prescribed period of forty days the sixteen days of last Session during which the Ordinances were upon the table of Parliament; but the Law Officers of the Crown had given an opinion upon the point which was quite in accordance with the view stated by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack. The Government were required by the Act to lay the Ordinances at once before Parliament; and there was no hardship in reckoning the sixteen days of last Session, because the public had had the advantage of considering the Ordinances during the whole of the recess. Upon the first day of the Session an hon. Member of the other House connected with the county of Durham asked a question, which was answered; but no further steps were taken. As he might be called upon to act in this matter, as presiding over the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, he did not wish to form or to express any preconceived opinion. The right rev. Prelate asked, whether, Parliament having by its silence given its consent to these Ordinances, if at any future time a Motion upon the subject should be made, the Government would be influenced by the views of the majority. Their Lordships must exercise their veto now or never. Of course, if Parliament at any time expressed a distinct opinion upon the subject, it would be the duty of the Government to give it a careful considera-

  867
  tion; but he could not take upon himself to say what would be the course of Government without knowing what arguments would be used in the course of do-bate. It was with reluctance that he found himself unable to answer the appeal of the right rev. Prelate in the affirmative; but their Lordships must exercise their veto now or never, and he trusted they would not take the strong step of rejecting the Ordinances without knowing anything of the facts.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, he thought the noble Earl (Earl Granville) had in some degree misapprehended the appeal made to him by the right rev. Prelate. He heard with surprise portions of the reasons why the noble Earl could not comply with that request; for, as he understood them, they were opposed to the general views entertained by the noble Earl. The noble Earl said it was impossible to comply with the request which had been made, because the Motion, if successful, would overthrow the whole of the labours of the Royal Commission and their recommendations. Of course, the result would be that the Ordinances would become null, and therefore the labours of the Commission would be rendered useless; but if it was not intended to give Parliament the power to exercise such a veto, what was the object of allowing the forty days within which Parliament should have the power of moving an Address for the rejection of the whole or part of the Ordinances? This power would be quite useless if they were to be told that they could not agree to such a Motion because the Commissioners had unanimously agreed to those Ordinances. When the noble Earl said that Parliament ought not to decide this question without being acquainted with the merits of the case, he (the Earl of Derby) quite concurred with him; but they were not, as the right rev. Prelate rightly observed, in a position to discuss Ordinances which were only placed in their Lordships' hands that morning. Without expressing any opinion as to the construction of the term of forty days, he would remind the noble Earl that the mere laying papers on the table without calling attention to them and without printing them, was no notice at all. It would have been much more convenient if at that time the Motion for their being printed had been made, and then the Members of both Houses would have had them during the six months' recess. The noble Earl was
  868
  mistaken in the representation which he gave of what occurred in the other House. He said that at a very early period of the Session a question was asked by an hon. Member nearly connected with Durham; that having received an answer, he took no further steps; and that therefore it was to be assumed that it was not then thought convenient to discuss the question in the presence of four Members of the Commission. That is not a correct representation. The fact was, the hon. Gentleman asked the question as to those Ordinances, and followed it up by a question asking the Government to allow the evidence taken before the Commission to be printed, so that the House might form a better judgment on the merits of the case. Was that refused? Certainly not; it was assented to, the Government acknowledging the reasonableness of Parliament having the evidence before them, and they promised to lay that evidence before the House; but it had not yet been printed, so that all the cause of the delay was not attributable to those who questioned the excellence of these Ordinances. The question of the right rev. Prelate was simply whether the Government would undertake not to decide, notwithstanding the expiration of the forty days, to recommend Her Majesty to give Her sanction to these Ordinances. He was aware that if Her Majesty confirmed these Ordinances Parliament had no longer any power to overthrow the whole or part of them; but he was fully convinced, though their legal power might have ceased to exist, that any Address to the Crown from either House of Parliament would not be treated by Her Majesty's Government or any other servants of the Crown, who knew their duty to it and the country, with indifference. He thought the request of the right rev. Prelate a most reasonable one, and one which should be acceded to; more particularly when they remembered that there was a petition on this subject before the Privy Council, and that the Crown could not give its assent till that petition was disposed of. He did not therefore think they were asking much in requesting that the Royal Assent should be withheld until they had an opportunity of acquainting themselves with the facts and discussing the question. He begged to call their Lordships' attention to what the circumstances were under which this Motion was made. The right rev. Prelate who made this appeal was, he believed, the

  869
  sole survivor of the original founders of that institution, which was now about to be remodelled. Thirty years had not yet elapsed since its original foundation, and some of the donors to that foundation were still living. The right rev. Prelate was a member of the Chapter when the foundation took place; and he must say that a very strong case was necessary in order to justify them in overriding the intentions of the founders within a period of thirty years, and in the lifetime of the donors to divert to purposes wholly alien the funds they had subscribed. He would mention one case:—A lady was still living who had founded a fellowship and a scholarship; the fellowship was, he believed, of £100 a year, for ten years; but the amount of the scholarship he had forgotten. These were by the Ordinances to be thrown into the common fund, and during the lifetime of this lady a scheme had been proposed by which the funds were to be diverted from the purposes she had intended. The Commissioners, however, had had the kindness to assure her, as a matter of grace and favour, that no alteration should be made during her lifetime; but the moment of her death, her intentions were to be wholly disregarded. He would not enter into the merits of this question, his only object being to show that the application of the right rev. Prelate to have these Ordinances discussed was not an unreasonable one; while, on the other hand, there seemed something gratuitous in the noble Earl's refusal.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he thought the noble Earl opposite had stated this question rather unfairly. He (Earl Granville) had already stated, and he was ready to repeat, that not only on this question, but on all others, it became the duty of the Government, after the lapse of the specified period, and in absence of any Address in either House of Parliament, to advise Her Majesty to give effect to the Ordinances which had been issued. The Government were prepared to give the most respectful consideration to any decision of their Lordships' House—but the noble Earl asked them to go beyond the period limited by Act of Parliament. He could not help saying that would be making a, most dangerous precedent. A certain time was given by Act of Parliament during which either House might interpose; it was perfectly clear that all parties were cognizant of the Ordinances
  870
  for seven months; and it would be unwise in such a case for Government to exceed the limit prescribed by Parliament. But beyond this the question was really a most useless one; for the noble Earl had proved that practically the matter was in the hands of the Dean and Chapter of Durham, because until every one of the petitions before the Privy Council had been withdrawn, or had been discussed, it would be utterly impossible for the Government to advise the Queen to give her sanction to these Ordinances. Both the question and answer therefore appeared to him the most delusive that could well be proposed.
  THE BISHOP OF EXETERsaid, that the noble Earl (Earl Granville) had said very truly that it was no surprise upon him (the Bishop of Exeter) that the consideration of these Ordinances was to take place before the Privy Council. But he had never professed to be surprised at all. He had only wanted that their Lordships should have an opportunity of exercising their constitutional power when they should be properly informed of the merits of the case. He must, however, be permitted to say that these measures which delegated Parliamentary powers to Commissioners seemed to him, who was an old-fashioned fellow, to require very cautious consideration. He would say that he did not think that he was speaking in an unconstitutional spirit when he said that they demanded a special jealousy. A Commission was issued, and the Commissioners were to make inquiries, and upon these inquiries to make Ordinances, which Ordinances were to obtain the absolute stringency of law unless Parliament assumed its power in proper time of addressing the Crown to withhold its sanction.
  THE EARL OF DERBY, interposing, said, that the Ordinances would not have the force of law if simply Parliament did not interpose. If Parliament did not interpose, it would then be lawful for the Crown to give or withhold its sanction.
  THE BISHOP OF EXETERthanked the noble Earl for correcting him. The Crown was permitted, in the event of Parliament not interfering, to legislate without the co-operation of Parliament. He had no fear of the noble Earl (Earl Granville) exercising any such power unconstitutionally or unfairly, but they were bound to look to possibilities when the prerogative and the interests of the people were con-

  871
  cerned; and it seemed to him that they were also bound to be extremely cautious in. suffering power to be given to the Crown to issue Commissions which were to frame ordinances and to exercise corresponding powers. The noble Earl said there would be an opportunity for them to take cognizance of this matter. But had their Lordships at present had time to do so? The other House of Parliament was interested, and the whole country was interested; and yet, he would ask, did the country or even their Lordships know anything about the matter? These Ordinances had only been put into their hands that morning, and beyond himself, he did not believe that any other Member of their Lordships' House had previously been in possession of them. As far as that House was concerned, they had not had the evidence printed, and therefore it had been kept from the knowledge of their Lordships. He agreed that it would be unfair to the right rev. Prelate who was upon the Commission (the Bishop of Durham) to discuss this question in his absence, especially as he was the only Member of the Commission who was in their Lordships' House, and he therefore felt that it would be much better to leave the discussion to take its course before the Privy Council than at present to induce their Lordships to come to a vote upon the subject. He would, therefore, not press his Motion.
  THE EARL OF DERBYhoped that the noble Earl would not object to lay upon the table the evidence taken before the Commission, and which had been laid upon the table of the other House.
  Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Seven o'clock, to Monday next, Eleven o'clock.