The Sun.
London, England, 1864-07-05 00:00:00

THE GREAT GAOL AT CALCUTTA.

Mr LESLIE asked the Secretary of State for India,
whether there was any foundation for the statements con-
tained in the letter of the Indian correspondent in the Times,
which appeared in that paper on Friday last, regarding the
condition of the great gaol at Calcutta, " that it is a den
of iniquity, a sink of filth; that no one could inform the
President of the Sanitary Commission how many pri-
soners died in the gaol; that the medical attendant could
not say fur certain what the mortality was; and that
some prisoners have been murdered by the native
gaolers in the attempt to extort bribes from them and their
friends." And, whether her Majesty's Government would
consent to lay upon the table of the house the report of Mr
Strachey, the President of the Sanitary Commission, on
the subject of the Calcutta and other Indian prisons.

Sir C. WOOD said he had received no information on the
subject.

THE DANO-GEItMAN QUESTION,

Lord PALMERSTON said that he had received a
communication from the Prussian Ambassador to the effect
that the correspondence which was published in the papers
on this subject was a pure invention. (Hear, hear, and
laughter.) Under the circumstances, he had no statement
to make to the house at present.

Mr DISRAELI, who was received with loud cheery, rose
to move the following :—" That an humble address be pre-
sented to her Majesty for directing the correspondence on
Denmark and Germany, and the protocols of the Confer
ence recently held in London, to be laid before Parliament;
to assure het Majesty that we have heard with deep con-
cern that the sittings of that Conference have been brought
to a close without accomplishing the important purposes
for which it was cunvened ; to express to her Majesty our
great regret that, while the course pursued by her Majesey's
Government has failed to maintain their avowed policy of
upholding the integrity and independence of Denmark, it
has lowered the just influence of this country in the coun-
sels of Europe, and thereby diminished the securities for
peace." The right hon. gentleman said—Mr. Speaker—Sir,
the longest and most disastrous wars of modern Europe have
been wars of succession. The Thirty Years' War was a
war of succession. It arose from a dispute respecting the
inheritance to a duchy in the north of Europe, not very dis-
tant from that duchy of Holstein which now engages the
attention of Europe. Sir, there are two causes that occa-
sion wars which originate from a disputed succession to
become usually of a prolonged and obstinate character.
They arise first from internal discord, and in the second
place from foreign ambition, Sometimes a domestic party,
under these circumstances, has an understanding with a
foreign potentate; while again the ambition of that foreign
potentate excites the distrust, and sometimes the envy of
brother Powers, and the consequence is that, generally
speaking, these dissensions thus created tend to prolonged
and complicated struggles. Sir, I apprehend—and, indeed,
I have not a doubt of it—that it was in contemplation of
the possibility of such circumstances occurring in our time
that the statesmen of Europe, some 13 years ago or so—
knowing it was probable that the Royal line of Denmark
would cease, and shut upon the death of the then king, his
dominions would be divided, and that in all probability dis-
putes as to the succession would occur—l say I have no
doubt it was because they wet e duly aware of these con.
tingencies that the statesmen of Europe gave their best con-
sideration to avert, if possible, such calamities to Europe.
Sit, in these days it is not possible, fortunately, that the
Powers of Europe should act under such circumstances as
they might have done 100 years ago. Then they would
have met in conclave, and would have decided under what
arrangements the internal government of an independent
kingdom, in the position of affairs to which I have ad-
verted, should be conducted ; and it is possible that evil
might have been prevented, or it might have resulted
ultimately in foreign wars. But although the Powers
of the present day very properly do not act in that
manner, they said to the King of Denmark, If you
and your people among yourselves cm make arrangements,
in the contingency of your death without issue, which may
put an end to all internal discord, we at least will do this :
we will in your lifetime recognise the settlement thus wide,
and, so far as the influence of the great Powers can be exer-
cised, we will at least guard you from one of the great causes
which in cases of disputed succession have led to long wars
in Europe. We will guard Denmark from the consequences
of foreign interference, foreign ambition,and foreign aggres-
sion. Tnat is, I believe, a correct account of that cele-
brated treaty of May, 1852, of which we heard so much, and
of which some descriptions are given which, in my opinion,
are utterly unauthorised and unfounded. Sir, there can be
no doubt that the purpose of that treaty was one entitled to
the respect of the communities of Europe. The language
of that treaty is simple, and expresses its purpose. The
Powers which concluded that treaty announced that they
concluded it not from their own will or arbitrary impulse,
but at the instigation of his Danish Majesty, in order to
give to the arrangements relative to the order of succession
an additional pledge of stability by an act of European re-
cognition—and if hon. gentlemen will look at that treaty
—and I do not doubt many of them are familiar with it—
they will find that the first article recites the efforts of the
King of Denmark to make the necessary arrangements with
the principal states and personages of his kingdom, in order
to effect the necessary al terationa in the lex reqta, and ending
with an appeal to the Powers of Europe that, he having
settled internal difficulties, they would, by their recognition
of the settlement, protect him from the risk of external dan-
ger. Under that treaty England incurred no legal responsi-
bility. England entered into no engagement other than that
which was entered into by France or by Russia. If, indeed, I
were to dwell upon moral obligations—which I think are too,
dangerous a theme to introduce into debates of this kind—
I might say that the moral obligations which France, of
example, had incurred towards Denmark, were of no or-
dinary character—that Denmark had been the ally of
France in that severe struggle which formed a most consi-
derable portion of modern history, and had proved herselt
a moat valuable and a most faithful ally. Even at St Helena,
when contemplating his marvellous career, and meditating
over the past, the first Emperor, and founder of the dynasty
which now governs France, said the Kings of Denmark and
Saxony were the only sovereigns who were faithful to him
in his extreme adversity. Whereas if we look to our moral
obligations to Denmark, certainly they do not unite us to
that country, because we found in Denmark, in the same
struggle, a persevering and gallant foe. Therefore, as far as
moral obligations are concerned, while there is none on our
part, there is a sense of gratitude which might have influ-
enced the counsels of France. But in the treaty, and look,
ing to the treaty, there is no legal obligation incurred by
England to Denmark which was not equally incurred by
Russia and France. (Hear, hear.) Now the question which
J would first ask the house is this—How is it, under these
circumstances, that the position of France relative to Den-
mark is ono se free from embarrassment—one might say so
dignified—(hear, hoar, and a laugh)—that it has recently
received a tribute to its demeanour and unimpeachable con-
duct in this respect from her Majesty's Secretary of Stet::—
(hear, hear)—while the position of England, under the same
obligations contained in the same treaty with relation to
Denmark, is one, all will admit, of infinite embarrassment
—(hear, hear)—and I am afraid of terrible mortification.
tHear, hear.) That is the first question I will put to the
house, and which I think ought to receive a satisfactory
answer among other questions to alight, and I think the
first answer that occurs to me, the logical inference from
the circumstances is this, that the affairs of this country,
with respect to our obligations under this treaty, must have
been very much mismanaged to have produced conse-
quences so different from the relations of another Power
which cecupies in that treaty a similar and identical
position. The house is well aware that the dominions
of the King of Denmark have been occupied by Aus-
trian and by Prussian armies: in former times. In
1818, when the great European insurrection took place,
there was no position of Europe that was more influenced
by it than Germany. There is scarcely a political constitu•
thin in Germany that wse net changed at that peeled, and