The Sun.
London, England, 1863-07-25 00:00:00

Mb SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, JULY 25, 1863.

by deprecating any forcible action in connection with the
Polish question, for whith he said there was no justifica-
tion, either on the gronnd of friendly associations between
England and Poland, or of financial dr temtnercial inte-
rests. If this oohntryjoined in a war with France on ac-
count of Poland their interests would be at Variance; and it
would end as other wars had ended during the last six or
eight years, in giving France some inaterial advantage.

Earl GRANVILLE said it was rot desirable for mem-
bers of tike Government to go deeply into arguments on
this question at a time when they were giving the gravest
consideration as to the course to be adopted, But he de-
sired Co say, in reference to the noble earl's speech, that the
policy he had suggested Was incomprehensible. At first he
had deprecated any interference, even diplomatically ; and
afterwards he had suggested a course which might have
been adopted—the alternative of the non-acceptance of
which, Oft the part of Russia, was to have been the with-
drawal of our ambassador. That was a ten times stronger
step than any which her Majesty's Government had taken,
He denied that there had been any departure from the prin-
ciple of non-intervention. Her Majesty's Government had,
in coejuncticn with the great Powers of Europe, applied
their moral influence, based on treaty rights and interna-
tional law, to point out the course which, in their opinion,
Russia ought to take. Not to have done so would not have
been consistent with the dignity and prestige of this coon-
try, which the noble earl was so anxious to preserve. To
have withdrawn our Ambassador and ceased diplomatic re-
lations with the Court of Russia would have been to inter-
vene in a much more important way, and would have been
much more sure to lead to the disastrous results which he

trusted might yet be averted, than the course pursued by
her Majesty's Government.

After a few words in reply from the Marquis of CLANRI-
CARDE, the motion was withdrawn and the subject dropped.
ATTACHING INDEPENDENT VOLUNTEER
CORPS TO ADMINISTRATIVE BATTALIONS.

The Earl of MALMESBURY moved for a copy of the

letters written to the Lord-Lieutenants of counties by the
Secretary of State for War, on the subject of attaching in-
dependent corps of volunteers to administrative battalions.
He understood that it was to be permissive, and that Lord-
Lieutenants were to give the corps the opportunity of de-
ciding for themselves whether they would be so attached ;
but he had ascertained that in some cases this had not been
done, and that independent corps had been so attached by
the Lord-Lieu enants without having been consulted.
Earl DE GREY, in reply, said that there would be no
objection to lay a copy of that letter on the table. It was de-
sirable that independent corps should be connected with
administrative battalions to receive the services of an adju-
tant as acting paymaster in connection with the distribution
of the capitation grant, and to give the Government the
security necessary as to the efficiency of the members of the
carps. The letter had ben sent on the supposition that in-
dependent corps should not be so attached without their
free consent. Although it was very desirable that the corps
should be united into administrative battalions, to receive
the instruction of the adjutant and the payment of the Go-
vernment grant, yet in places where any local difficulties
existed, the Lord Lieutenant would be empowered to make
such arrangements as would be most acceptable to the corps.
Their lordships adjourned at a quarter to 8 o'clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.—Yesterday.
The SPEAKER took the chair at hall-past 12 o'clock.
RUM DUTY BILL.
This bill was read a third time.
AUGMENTATION OF BENEFICES BILL.

This bill was read a third time.
ALTERATION OF JUDGES' CIRCUITS BILL.
This bill was read a third time.
BRITISH COLUMBIA BOUNDARIES BILL.

This bill, as amended, was considered and agreed to, and
read a third time and passed.
CLERGYMEN (COLONIES) BILL.
This bill was read a third time.
EAST INDIA REVENUE ACCOUNTS.

The report on the resolutions agreed to last night was
brought up and received.

STATUTE LAW REVISION BILL.

On the motion that this bill be read a third time,

Mr. HENNESSY repeated several of his objections to
this bill, which he said would repeal some enactments
which ought not to be repealed, and leave untouched others
which were virtually of no use on the statute-book. The
hill, which consisted of 198 clauses, was full of anomalies,
and ought not to be hurriedly passed at the fag end of the
session. Some old acts would be mutilated, such as Magna
Charter, and for all practical purposes the bill would be in-
operative. In conclusion, he moved, as an amendment,
that it be read a third time this day week.
Mr. L YGON seconded the motion.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL replied—The bill had
been carefully prepared by eminent gentlemen of the greatest
legal experience, who had devoted years to its compilation.
All the objections raised by the hon. and learned gentlemen
were utterly baseless. The hon. and learned gentleman had
evidently employed his leisure in dipping into some legal
books, and the result was his picking up a smattering of
information of the most superficial nature, which he had

abundantly displayed in his opposition to the bill.
He had raised no real objection to the bill, which,
in the opinion of lawyers on both sides of the house,
would constitute a great boon to the professors of the law
and the general public. In truth, the hon. and learned
gentleman evinced no knowledge on the subjects with which
he had dealt, and yet asked the house to withdraw its confi-

d,nce from those who possessed great knowledge on the
matter, as abundantly evinced in the laborious preparation
of this measure, which had been in preparation since 1859.
Mr. HENNESSY withdrew his motion, and the bill was
read a third time, and passed.

which was necessary for the effective prosecution of the
purposes of the instittition, inblitcling, above all; its religious
purposes, and at the same time make every practical con-
cession to those who were without.

Mr. LYGON expressed his opinion that subscription
was amongst the most effectual means of preventing reli-
gious animosities, and ieinded the house that although
the petition was signed by 106 persons, 73 of the ntriber
were laymen. The document could not, therefore, be taken
as expressing the views of any important section of the
clergy.

Mr. G. DUFF said that the petition represented the
views of the elite of the blue blood of the university, and
that, although many di,tinguished members had not signed
it, the spread of liberal sentiments was so great since the
secession of Dr. Newman that a very strong feeling existed
in favour of the abolition of tests:

Mr. NEWDEGATE hoped the house would not, with-
out mature reflection, give any countenance to a proposi-
tion to open to persons holding different religious opinions
the only university now limited to members of the Church
of England

Mr. B UXTON thought the question was not whether
we should abolish tests, but whether those particular tests
complained of were not cumbersome and unnecessary.
Moreover, Parliament had already, in the caseof the Uni-
versity of Cambridge, condemned those tests.
The subject then dropped.
THE lONIAN ISLANDS.

Mr. C. BENTINCK directed attention to the proposed
cession of the lonian Islands to Greece, and charged the
Government with an altered policy on the question,arguing
that in the present state of Greece the mere placing of a
young and inexperienced prince on the throne constituted
no guarantee for the settlement and tranquillity of that
country.

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS.

Vos±.--WhateYer may have been the intention
of the Legislatbre in parsing the ForeignEanle
et
ment Act, it seems tolerably cleat that it w
with the view of protecting friendly statesThw:huieeet
happened to be at war with each other.
s
of munitions of war is not prohibited, nor any
e
restrietidn imposed upon export trade. British
subjects are forbidden to fttrnish, arm, or equip' ves-
sels of war with the intent that they shall be used
against a friendly State, but they era in nowiseed
prevented from doing the name acts for the sake
e
the profits to be realised on the sale of such ships
when completed. It was an error to suppose that
the departure of the Alabama from these shores was
an infringement of the Foreign Enlistment Ace.
For many reasons there was in her case no violation
of the law. She was neither furnished, armed, nor
equipped when she left the port of Liverpool ; and
as, from what subsequently occurred, it is evident
that it was never the intention of her builders that
she should have been Equipped in an English port,
her seizure by the Government would have been
unjustifiable. The Messrs. Laird, of Birkenhead,
built and sold, as they had a perfect right to do, a
vessel which, when duly armed, became a ship of
war. The transformation, however, the " furnish-
ing, arming, and equipping," which are alone pro-
hibited by the Foreign Enlistment Act, if done
with the intent that hostilities should be carried
on against a friendly Power, took place out of
her Majesty's dominions. The Alabama received
her armament at Terceira, and in that port
for the first time became iavested with the cheese •
ter of a ship of war. In the case of the Alexandra
the ship had nearly reached that stage of construc-
tion when seized in which the Alabama was when
she left the Mersey, and, assuming that she was
equally intended for the use of the Southern Confe-
deracy, would, if unmolested, have taken her equip
ment on board, like the Alabama, in a foreign port,
or possibly, like the Japan, in the English Channel.
If, then, the interpretation put by the Lord Chief
Baron on the provisions of the Foreign Enlistment
Act he correct, and although exceptions have been
taken to it by the law officers of the Crown, there
seems no reason to doubt that it will be sustained ;
the obstacles in the way of supplying a belligerent
either with armed ships, or vessels easily convertible
into ships of war, are purely nominal. Under such
circumstances it was not surprising that those who
still hope to see the American Union restored
should have protested against a condition of the law
which permitted the S euthern States with blockaded
ports to create a navy at a distant part of the a °tea,
Hence sprang the memorial which certain ship-
owners at Liverpool a short time since presented to
the Government, praying for a revision of the
Foreign Enlistment Act, and hence the speech of
Mr. Cobden in the House of Commons, onThursday
evening, in which that gentleman supported the
views of the Liverpool shipowners. It was scarcely
relevant for the member for Rochdale to refer
abama
to the
injury inflicted on American trade by
the Al
and other vessels which the Southern Confedeeacy
have been enabled to purchase and equip in Euro-
pean waters. No one doubts that the shipowners
of the North are great sufferers. But their suffer-
ings prove, nothing. Great injury has been inflicted
on the Southern population by tneans of artillery
and rifles and gunpowder purchased in this coun-
try, but that fact 'would not justify the friends of
the South in demanding from the Government an
alteration in the law which would have the effect
of checking the exportation of munitions of war.
Mr. Cobden says there is tee distinction between
supplying a belligerent with are,;fd ships, which
can. only be applied to one use, and fur2ish
with gunpowder which
ing or sporting may be employed foiel3f)lhasitm-
Purposes. But to what use, let .118
ask the member for Rochdale, can some thousands
of Minie rifles and some hundreds of At mstrong er
Whitworth guns, which have been exported from
England, be turned, and does he pretend to be
ignorant of the manner in which they have been
actually employed ? If the sufferings of the respec-
tive belligerents, occasioned through war material
supplied from these shores, were to be taken into
account, the claims of the South for redress would
be infinitely greater than those of the North. But
as Mr. Cobden candidly confesses that he does not
believe in the future existence of two independent
Federations in North America, he appeals to our
sense of fear, by conjuring up the consequences of
exciting the enmity of the Federate overnment.
The North will ultimately triumph, Union will
be restored, and then the day of retribution will
come. It may not be generally known Mr. Cobden
told his hearers that the American Government
estimate the value of every vessel destroyed by
Confederate privateers, and make formal claims for
reparation on her Majesty's Governtnent, which
claims are disallowed. But so soon as the rebellion
is crushed, we are left to suppose that the Govern-
ment of the then United States will not only again
advance those claims, but will enforce compliance
Whilst there is yet time, therefore,
with them. W
Mr. Cobden implores us to modify our law
appease to pro-
tect the commerce of the North, and thus
the just wrath of the American e Governm Lords last
Times.--The debate in the Hous of
night on the subject of Poland will do little to allay
the anxiety which is taking posseseion of the pubt
mind. We look to that assembly for wise and mode-
rate counsels, for temperance in the midst of passion,
calm, far-sighted, and impartial wisdom. We are
sop to say that in the present momentous instance
rry
we look in vain. How heavy is the responsibility
which devolves on any one who at the present mo-
ment says a single word to inflame popular passion,
or to irritate susceptibilities already too much ex-
cited, can hardly, we think, have been considered
by those who ave treated this grave and important
subject as a fitting theme foe stinging invective and
high-sounding declamatioint n.
of eloquence, scarcely
Lord Elienborough,
admirable as usual in pot. He dwelt upon the
condescended to arg umen
enormities of General IVlouravieff, and observed how
impossible it was for the Poles to be content when
they had been treated with so much cruelty since,
but justice is due
1831. This is perfectly true
even to Russia; and we may
not unreasonably ask
whether the wounded nationalitye Government of
of Poland wou:d
have been contented even had he
best and most humane in the world.
Russia been the
Lord Ellenborough thinks that there is an end of
diplemacy in the Polish question—that it would be
vain, and even degrading, to pursue it further, and
that there is nothing left for us but to act. Lord
Malmesbury had eio difficulty in exposing the ex-
travagant language and unreasonable inferences of
Lord Ellenborough, but he concluded by a prop.
sition the most in and the most dangerous
that could be conceived. He wishes that we should
withdraw our ambassador from St. Petersburg !
We confess, for our own part, that, such a step once
taken, we should have little hope indeed of escap-
ing an European war. Let us once admit that our
interest in the affairs of Poland is strong enough to
beyond the mere language of ex-
oblige us to go
postulation and remonstrance, and something more
than a diplomatic rupture becomes inevitable. The
opinion which we ourselves should have created
would end by forcing us along with it, and many
who had no desire to involve themselves in the
qul would feel that our honour would not per-
mit us to
to wit In the absence, then, of that
withdraw'
wise counsel for which we had a right to look
under circumstances of so much danger and diffi-
culty, we will endeavour to set before the country
the real nature of our position with regard to the
Polish question. The Treaty of Vienna did, no
doubt, stipulate that Poland should be a constitu-
tional kingdom under the government of the Empee
ror of Russia. The power of the Emperor over that
kiugdom was not the result of the Treaty of
Vienna, but of that great crime, the partition of
1772, consummated in 1794. The treaty gave us a
rigbt to call upon Russia to constitute the kingdom
of Poland, and to make war upon her in case
she destroyed it. The case provided for in the
Treaty was not long in arising. In 1831 the con-
stitutional Monarchy of Poland was destroyed, and
Poland itself, was incorporated with the dominions
of the Empire of Russia. We did not see fit to avail
ourselves the rights which the Treaty of 1815
gave us. Again, in 1846, the Republic of Cracow
woodesio and we did not see fit to draw the
swr for its preservation. In 1856 we made peace
with Russia after the close of the Crimean War.
Then, if ever, was the time for us to come to a defie
g with regard to Poland, but we
nits understendin
passed the question over in silence, and concluded a
treaty of peace with Russia in which not a single
word is to be found bearing on this double violation
of the Treaty of Vienna. Seven years after the con-
clusion of this -reaty, when we had by our silence
and acquiescence of
ht twotak-ande a stand o-twenty yn
the fears effectreaty
u-
ally waived our rig.to
of Vienna, we see fit to recur to an instrument which
we have so long treated as obsolete, and to propose
to Russia that she should grant an armistice, and
P ropositions based on the heaty of
entertain six
Vienna, and not in the least calculated to restore
confidence to Poland or to give secarity to Russia.
We cannot expect that if Poland received though
the agency of the Western Powers a constitutional
Government, a mme
native Minhe would not , the use of her own
laws and language, that si
employ all these advantages for the purpose of doing
ny
to Russia all the evil in her power. We ask Russia
place arms in the hands of her adversary. This is
uns
our recommendation. It has been refused. The R
sian Government will grant no
armistice whheil, deathe.
Poles are in open insurrection
against
declines to suns it
bm to foreign Powers the regulation
teschtliniis•
cally it is so, for it appears to
of her relatio with her revolted subjects.
a case of war ?
We do not believe that even
its that
yataby long
gh t andt
o
distinct acquiescence we have
interfere under the Treaty of 1815. Butn whetherri