The Sun.
London, England, 1861-05-04 00:00:00

THE rSTIN,IIi "'LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, MAY 4, 1861.

into supply.
Mr. PAULL moved, as an amendment, to add the fo.
lowing :—" Questions to be put on going into a Committee
of Supply or of Ways and Means, to a Minister re-
presenting any public department, shall be placed
consecutively on the notice paper, and shall be ,
put by rotation, and thereupon Mr. Speaker shall call on
such Minister to reply." He strongly opposed the altera-
tions contained in these resolutions, and reminded hon.
members that the 3 were there to represent grievances, and
to give full expression" to the feelings of their constituents.
Mr. HENLEY said that he for one would have been dis-
posed to have placed the greatest reliance in the report of
the select committee, but the last proposition of the noble
lot d, illustrated as it had been, had concluded his mind
against these resolutions. It was proposed that a bill which
had once gone before a select committee should not be dis-
-1 cussed in a committee of the whole house. The noble lord's
illustration had convinced him of the danger of that propo-
sition—(hear)--and he objected to any proposal which would
shut out public bills from the consideration of the whole
house, as it would lead to placing them on the same footing
as private bills. It was quite a chapter of accidents how
the select committees were constituted, and a still greater
chapter of accidents how many of the members attended.
The public were not admitted to hear what took place, and
great alterations might be made in bills which the house
would have no power to deal with. He had the strongest
possible objection to these resolutions, and therefore he
should vote for the amendment of his hon. friend the mem-
ber for Norfolk. He feared the effect of these resolutions
would be to do what the noble lord said he had no intention
of doing—namely, to gag the house.
Sir J. GRAHAM said that, having had the honour of
presiding over the committee, he should have preferred re-
maining silent during the present discussion, but he could
remove the apprehensions of the hon. member for North-
amptonshire, as he was no longer able to address the house
at any considerable length. The hon. member for Norfolk
having, however, proposed to negative the resolutions he
must trouble the house with a few observations. The hon.
' member complained that Government and the committee
had been wanting in courtesy to the independent members,
1 but he must say, in justice to his noble friend at the head of
L the Government, at whose request he had taken the
chair of the committee, that his noble friend selected
him especially because he was an independent member,
and that therefore he would be the last to be
wanting in courtesy to the large body of members
who were similarly situated. The object both of the
committee and of the noble lord at the head of the Govern-
ment was that no course should be taken which would in the
slightest degree interfere with the motions or speeches of
independent members. The hon. member for Norfolk com-
plained that the house had been taken by surprise by the pro-
ceedings of the committee, but so far from that being the case,
his right hon. friend the Home Secretary had in the first
instance drawn out a distinct outline of the propositions
which it was wished the committee should consider, and
those propositions, although considerably modified, formed
the basis of the recommendations of the committee.
Mr. BENTINCK explained that the surprise of which
he had complained was that they should be called on so soon
to decide on the report of the committee.
Sir J. GRAHAM said that even then there had been no
surprise, as the report had been in the hands of members
for above a week, and was neither voluminous nor accom-
panied by much evidence. The report might be verbose,
but he trusted it was clear and intelligible. The members
for Norfolk and St. Ives said that the first object they
should seek was to get certainty with respect to the time of
going into committee. He admitted that distinctly, but the
committee could not have approached the object without
proposing changes greater than any they had recommended,
and imposing limitations on hon. members previous to the
Speaker leaving the chair, which would be quite novel and
objectionable in principle. The hon member for Norfolk
said that independent members would have no opportunity
of making motions if this report were adopted, but he was
imistaken, and would find that by proposing an amendment
on the motion for supply there would be greater facilities
for discussion, and even for a division, if the latter was
deemed necessary. The next observation of his hon.
friend was that there was a great wasto of time at the
commencement of the session. He entirely agreed with
his hon. friend, and that it was a great object to have
the business of the Government on the table at an
early period. But it was also an object that the esti-
mates should be passed before Easter, and therefore it
was why committees of supply took precedence of other
measures. Thinking that the resolutions were suitable, he
hoped the house would consent to discuss them seriatim,
and not reject them all because one was disapproved of by
certain hon. members.
Mr. ESTCOURT defended the resolutions, which he
said had been most carefully prepared, and would, in his
opinion, most effectually facilitate the business of the house.
The house divided—
For the amendment 93
Against
committees of means
5155
of questioned
sul supply
h catulide r was wise
or Spirruldie.n7 tioLlitLaaj°koeUrictGoymi'imß.
those days on which notices of motionspy have precedence
of orders of the day. Tuesday, to which he confined his
remarks, was a day reserved for members' notices, and as
take
enotices,
he understood the object a the first resolution, it was to
o f
supplywi t h anda view ways a
toy prevent
s and means
Tuesday afr
h
uncer-
tainty as to when supply and ways and means would be
taken. But he believed that for this purpose the alteration
proposed would fail entirely, because there were generally
10 or 12 motions on the Tuesday's paper, and if the com-
mittees of ways and means appeared upon the orders,
there could be no certainty of their being taken. The
experience of that day week, when the usual miscel-
laneous discussion of the Friday was disposed of earlier than
was expected, and the New Zealand debate, upon going into
committee of supply, was discussed and disposed of in a
house so thin that an attempt was made to count out, and
a great number of votes in supply were takenin three-fourths
of an hour, showed the inexpediency of fixing these com-
mittees on private members' nights. He thought it was for
the convenience of the house at least one days week should
be free from committees of supply and ways and means.
Sir G. C. LEWIS observed that the resolutions before
the house were very unequal importance. The really mate-
rial propositions were the second, third, and fourth. There
were two others which had been proposed by the committee
because they thought these changes would upon the whole
be beneficial, but which they did not consider would have
any great practical effect, and these were the Ist and sth.
With regard to the Ist, it appeared to him the hon. baronet
altogether misunderstood the object with which it was pro-
posed. At present the rule of the house was that the com•
ruittee of supply
should he fixed for Monday, Wedne.sday,
Thursday, and Friday,
but it might not be fixed for Tues-
day. Now
the object of the resolution was to remove this
single excpption ; and if that single exception were not re-
moved, the resolution might as well be withdrawn, for the
modification augge t d wouldentirely destroy its sense. The
s e.
rule with regard to committees of supply was this : that
unless notice was given that votes would be taken on the
night for which it was fixed it stood as a mere formal order
on the paper. There would be a few cases in the course of
the session when, for the Rake of expediting business, it
might be convenient to fix the committeeof supply fur Tues-
day, and in such cases due notice would be given, that
members might not be taken by surprise. To enable the
Government to do this was the whole "cope of the resolu •
lion, and he thought the house might agree to it without
any alarm as to the consequences that might ensue from it.
Tuesday was not now exclusively confined to notices—no-
tices had precedence, but it was competent for any one
to fix orders for that day. With regard to the privilege of
IniTate members the "no house" and the "counts out" upon

--mesa
the last three Tuesdays showed that the opportunities that
members possessed for bringing forward their notices were
at present by no means fully occupied. He trusted that this,
which was in the nature of a mere formal resolution, wolikl
inclined
inbeeddteobaptreodcoaetdantoythlee n
ragtohr,ebiumtptohrtaatutht eprhoopurtiwonsouloodmbe.
prised in the 2d, 3d, and 4th resolutions.
Mr. AYRTON would suggest that any objection to the
resolution might be removed if the Government would only
take a course which they were not always found willing to
take. Ministers could not get through all the business that
they placed upon the paper for one night, and when they
were asked what measures were to be taken a dignified
silence was observed, or the noble lord at the head of the
Government intimated that by remaining in the house
through the evening they would be enabled to ascertain.
The hon. baronet had called attention to a very serious
question, which was this, that if the Government placed the
committee of supply for Tuesday, when there was a great
deal of business of a general character to come on, the minis-
ter could [not tell what progress might be made, and the
committee was likely to come on unexpectedly. What he
would suggest was that the Government should conduct the
business with due courtesy to the house, and if they had a
distinct understanding before 7 o'clock on Tuesday as to
whether or not the committee of supply would be taken, he
could see no objection to passing the resolution.
Lord PALMERSTON said he understood the hon. gen-
tleman to ask whether the Government were prepared to
state that if this order was passed, they would on Tuesdays,
before 7 o'clock, say distinctly whether or not it was their
intention to go into committee of supply on that night. He
had no hesitation in entering into such an agreement.
The first resolution, which repealed the standing order,
was then agreed to.
On the second resolution, " That unless the house shall
otherwise direct, all orders of the day set down in the order
book for Mondays, Wednesdays, Thursdays, and Fridays,
shall be disposed of before the house will proceed upon any
motions of which notices shall have been given, the right
being reserved to her Majesty's Ministers of placing Govern-
ment orders at the head of the list on every order day, ex-
cept Wednesday."
Sir H. WILLOUGHBY thought it would be desirable
to make Tuesday a supply day, and to give one day'in the
week up to motions.
Mr. M. MILNES moved the insertion in the resolution,
after the word " Thursdays," of the words." after Easter."
He could not agree with those who thought that because
accidentally on two or three Tuesdays the time of the house
had not been fully occupied by non-official members, that
therefore a general rule of this kind should be adopted, the
effect of which would be to leave them without one single
day during the whole of the session. If the Government
were determined to take away from hon. members this ad-
ditional day, the effect would only be to throw more notices
of motion on the supply days.
Lord STANLEY thought that the proposal of the Go-
vernment did in fact secure a day for private members.
Mr. PAULL suggested that the words " after Easter"
should be inserted after the word " Fridays."
Sir G. C. LEWIS said it would be a great mistake to sup-
pose that this was a personal question as between hon. mem-
bers and the Government, and unofficial members of that
house. All the Government could to do was to turn te the
best account the time which the house assigned to them.
The ordinary state of things at the present moment was
this : —that on two nights in the week—Mondays and Thurs •
days—the Government orders had precedence of other
orders, and on Tuesdays and Fridays notices of motion had
precedence of the orders. Then there was Wednesday,
which was exclusively assigned to orders and bills of non-
, official members. Three out of the five nights in the week,
therefore, were allotted to independent members, and he be-
lieved that before Easter the Government had the exclusive
use of no more than one night in the week. The result of this
state of things was, that the Government time before Easter
was almost exclusively occupied with finances. In fact,
the army estimates had this year made suchlittle progress,
that it became necessary to take a vote on account. It had
been said that the real cause of the delay in public business
was, that the Government did not bring forward their bills
at an early period, but a more unfounded complaint was
never made. The Bankruptcy Bill was the only legislative
measure which it was possible to bring forward before
Easter. The result of the present arrangement of the busi-
ness of the house was, that with regard to legislation, the
initiative was wholly taken from the Government for the
first half of the session, and practically vested in private
members. What the Government proposed was thht the
house should give them the remnant of Fridays for their
orders. Friday being fixed as an order night, the Govern-
ment would, as a matter of course, make supply the first
order, and thus give hon. members an opportunity of making
speeches and bringing forward motions. The committee
upon this subject bad before them a return of the number
of hours devoted to independent members on the motions
for the adjournment last year. It appeared that the motions
of hon. members did not terminate until past 9 o'clock, and
in a few instances not until 11 o'clock. He thought the re-
commendation now before the house would enable the Go-
vernment, on some few Fridays, to bring forward those
bills which it had hitherto been found necessary for them to
postpone. The present system did not work conveniently
to ?rivale lalOtabcms, and bo tICLIJAQ.a. +.11.40, U,, ms-sla
not think that the proportion of time assigned to the Go-
vernment and that allotted to private members was unrea-
sonably distributed by the proposed arrangement. He
would, therefore, vote against the amendmext of the hon.
member for Pontefract.
Sir J. PAKINGTON was astonished to hear a friend of
progress, like the hon. member for Pontefract, submit to
the house a motion of a retrograde character. The object
of the committee was to expedite the transaction of public
business, but his amendment would make it slower than
at present. He proposed to repeal that great improvement
made last year, namely, allowing the Government to have
Thursdays instead of Fridays; to give Thursdays to pri-
vate members, and to let the Government have, not the
whole of Friday, but only the remnant of that evening
which remained alter the motion for adjournment had been
agreed to. He (Sir J. Pakington) therefore earnestly hoped
the house would have nothing to do with such a proposal.
The report of the select committee recommended that they
should get rid of the inconvenience of all sorts of desultory
discussions being brought on on the motion for adjournment
on Friday; but their proposition, if adopted, would not de-
prive non-official members of any of the privileges which
they now possessed. On the contrary, it would give them
a power which they did not have under the existing prac-
tice in regard to bringing on discussions. Some misappre-
hensions prevailed as to the privileges of independent mem-
bers being curtailed with respect to the motion for going into
committee of supply. Now, although no other proceedings
cou'd be taken and no other question discussed until that
motion was disposed of, yet after it had been disposed of the
main question would be that the Speaker do leave the chair,
and upon that different subjects could be brought forward
in succession, just as at present on the motion for adjourn-
ment. He hoped there would be no indisposition on the
part of the house to adopt the proposed changes which the
committee had suggested with a view to expedite the public
business. The reason, he thought, why independent mem-
bers were disinclined to avail themselves of Tuesdays and
Fridays was that they dreaded on those nights the arithme-
tical process which had beenadverted to. (A laugh.) Every
year they found that independent members who, in the
earlier portion of the session, were disposed to take a pelt in
their proceedings, left the house tiwards the end of July,
and that in the month of August, when there only remained
some 40 or 60 members, what was left of legislation was
hurried through in a manner which did not redound to the
honour or credit of the house. (Hear, hear.)
Col. FRENCH did not think that giving the Government
Thursday instead of Friday was an improvement. So far.
as unofficial members were concerned, the arrangement was
most objectionable.
Lord HOT HAM had arrived at the conclusion that no
Government was likely in the face of three or four hostile
motions to keep a house in the hope of possibly being able
after they were disposed of to proceed with some Govern-
ment business. The noble lord at the head of the Govern-
ment had been facetious on the counts out, but he ought to
have recollected that these were greatly brought about by
the exertions of subordinate members of the Government,
whose movements on such occasions were familiar to the
house, and that the inevitable result of the practice was to
increase the number of motions on going into committee of
supply. As one mode of expediting bus"ness be would
suggest that the estimates should be laid on the table on the
day Parliament met, because if that were done they would
be able to get through them at a much earlier period. He,
however, oppce ed these resolutions, Lelieving that they
would not effect the object sof their proposers, or would
place the whole power of the house practically in the hands
of the Government.
After a tew words from Sir F. GOLDS3IID,
The amendment was negatived without a division.
On the third resolution, " That the house at its rising on
Friday do stand adjourned until the following Monday,
without any question being put, unless the house shall
otherwise resolve," being put,
Mr. AYRTON moved to insert after the word " that,"
the words "while the committee of supply and ways and
means are open."
Mr. NE WDEGATE said that if a debate took place on
Thursday, and was adjourned over till Friday, that debate
would take precedence on the Friday of the committee of
supply, and therefore members would not have an oppor-
tunity of putt'ng questions.
Lord
alnotois
noivonrber.
mne
srj
dbeEaubodßtejuoStshußTo r admittednemOTeeN case
somewhat
ac su h
oyed ;
that an
rst:
re
aaia curtailed
eort
htthha ete
it was
supposed
tausdheardtheyly
wort`b while to make it an exception to the rule.
e dd i dd
enboatt
et hwi no ku u
hdaelr, e the
p re ne
eedwe
nrceeg
oun-
the Ft iday.
Sir G. C. LEWIS said that when the rare case supposed
by the hon. member arose provision could be made to meet

Sir G.• GREY said that the committees of supply were
open esc ept on very few days. Therefore he had no ob-
jection to ;the amendment of the hon. member for the Tower
Hamlets.
The resolution as amended was then agreed to.
On the fourth resolution, " That while the committees of
supply and ways and means are open, the first order of the
day on Fridsor shall be either supply or ways and mow,

and that on that order beieig read, the motion shall bo made
' That Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair.' "
Mr. GRIFFITH proposed to add, "and in order to regu-
late the order of questions put to ministers or of motions on
going into committee of supply and ways and means, such
questions annnotions shall be placed consecutively on the
paper in referencs to the particular minister to whom they
may be addressed, in such order between the several minis-
ters as to the Speaker may appear convenient."
Sir G. LEWIS said the motion of the hon. member was
not, properly speaking., an amendment, because the resolu.
tion was special. It was entirely a matter for the decision
of the house. At present, when questions were put down
on the paper, they stood in the order of precedence; but
what the hon. member proposed was that a discretionary
power should be given to the Speaker to pass any questions
by. If that power should be given to the Speaker he should
suggest to the hon. member to omit allusion to ministers.
Sir J. GRAHAM said the Speaker deprecated having
thrown on him the responsibility of giving preference or
precedence to any member of the house which would place
him in an invidious position.
After a few words from Lord J. RussELL,
Mr. GRIFFITH said he would withdraw the suggested
addition io the resolution.
The resolution was agreed to.
On the fifth resolution, which proposed that when a
public bill has been committed to a select committee, and
reported to the house, the bill, as amended, shall be ap-
pointed for consideration on a future day ; when, unless
the house shall order the bill generally or specially in re-
spect of any particular clause or clauses thereof, to be re-
committed to a committee of the whole house, the bill, after
the consideration of the report, may be ordered to be read a
third time.
Mr. HENLEY opposed the resolution, which involved,
in his opinion, a great principle. He objected to hand over
to a committee of 15 gentlemen any bill which a majority
of the house might thick fit to refer to them for considera-
tion. He hoped the house would not, for the sake of sav-
ing time, consent to make such an important alteration in
the practice of the house. When bills were considered by
select committees, and when Lac clauses were modified and
finally settled, the committee of the whole house ought not
to be shut out from considering those bills, and ex-
pressing their opinion on the modifications or amendments
introduced by the committees upstairs. He hoped the Go-
vernment would consent to withdraw the resolution, or at
all events to postpone its consideration, in order that an
opportunity might be afforded the house of seeing whether
certain safe grounds might not be introduced into the pro-
posed alteration of the present practice of the house. One
thing at all events was quite certain, namely, that if the
resolutions were carried they must come to some decision
so as to secure the thoroughly important and competent
constitution of select committees, and to enjoin therpunctual
attendance of the members.
Sir J. GRAHAM regretted to differ from the opinion of
the right hon. gentleman, but ho maintained that the reso-
lution objected to would greatly conduce to the despatch of
public business. That was the opinion of the highest
authority in the house, as well as of his predecessor.
Lord J. RUSSELL said he shared very largely in
the jealousy expressed by the right hon. gentleman op-
posite, the member for Oxfordshire. It might possibly
happen that an hon. member who had an objection to some
particular clauses of a bill might consent to the bill being
referred to a select committee, in the hope of their being re-
moved, and that the committee might retain those clauses,
and that the membor might so be precluded from all further
opportunity of removing the objectionable matter. For his
part he should be disposed to accede to the resolution,
with the additional proviso that any one member should
have the power of moving that the bill be afterwards re-
ferred to a committee of the whole house. His right hon.
friend said that if the resolution would promote expedition
the house should agree to it, but expedition was not the
most important point to be had in view in legislation.
Lord STANLEY said he quite agreed with the right
hon. gentleman the chairman of the committee, that the
house should have some time to consider the question,
which was a large one.
Sir G. C. LEWIS said that, as regarded Consolidation
bills, it would certainly be necessary to adopt the sugges-
tion of his noble friend the Foreign Secretary —that the ope-
ration of the resolution should be confined to such bills, or
that of the hon. member for Kent. The latter would give
ample security to the house against the abuse of power
given to individual members. The best course, however,
would be to withdraw the resolution, and the Government
would then reconsider it.
The resolution was then withdrawn.
POST-OFFICE SAVINGS BANKS.
Mr. VANCE asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer
whether it was the intention of Government, in carrying
out the provisions of the Post-office Savings Banks Bill, to
keep the accounts of the Irish and Scotch depositors in the
principal offices in Dublin and Edinburgh respectively, or
to transfer them to London.
Mr. F. PEEL said the Post-office savings bill had
not yet passed into law, an,l, therefore, the hon. gen-
tleman's question was premature. At present, is was
proposed that any depositor might have the power of
getting his money in any part of the United Kingdom.
In order that he might have this convenience, it was ne-
cessary that the aCcounth altuuld be kept in Lennon. If
the bill should pass, of course there would be only one
place for keeping the accounts.
POLAND.

Mr. COCHRANE, in rising to call attention to the affairs
of Poland, said that though the noble lord had already de-
clined to produce papers on the subject, for motives which
he could appreciate, he would probably not object to an op-
poitunity of expressing his opinion on matters of such ex-
treme European importance, and the more so as he could
not entirely separate himself from these melancholy events.
It was after the publication orthe noble lord's famous de-
spatch to Sir James Hudson, in which he laid it down that
a people might at any time judge for themselves by whom
they would be governed, and might throw off their allegi-
ance whenever the majority thought fit, that these events
took place. That appeal to nationalities and to the revolu-
tionary instincts of Europe had led to the movement in
Hungary, and would lead to movements in Greece. The
last accounts he had received from that kingdom stated that
it was not expected the King would be on his throne for
two months. It had led to these melancholy events at War-
saw ; and if there was a movement in the lonian Islands, it
would be owing to this unfortunate despatch. The hon.
gentleman, after giving an account of the events which led
to the conflicts between the troops and the people at 'War-
, saw, said that it was because there were serious discrepancies
in the accounts which had appeared in the public journals
that he wished to ask the noble lord for some explanation.
Some of the accounts represented that 400 persons had lost
their lives, and others stated the numbers to be 40 or 50.
He should wish to hear these discrepancies cleared up ; but,
whatever might have been the number of those who fell,
this, at least, was certain that a most distressing state of
things had occurred, and that the city was in a state of
mourning. At the present moment there was a lull, and
as the noble lord the Foreign Secretary was so fond of in-
terfering
opinion
of i n
thetheEnglish
affairs of other
Governmentcou countries, t
uponrie s
alland the recent giving the
,
events on the Continent, he thought this was an occasion
when he might fairly endeavour to bring the disputing
parties to terms. (Hear.) On the part of the Poles there
Idid not seem to be any demand for a separate kingdom. All
they asked was that the Treaty of Vienna should be practie
tally fulfilled. That treaty gave them a constitutional go-
vernment and almost all the advantages of an independent
existence. The noble lord must have seen it stated that
those disturbances had been brought about at the instiga-
tion of the French Government; and, undoubtedly, know-
ing as we did that every newspaper in France was under
Ministerial control, it was difficult to resist the conclusion
that the French Government had been cognizant of the
events at 'Warsaw, and to some extent had incited them.
He found in one of the French papers—the Debats—these
comments :
"Those treaties of 1815, which are invoked every day
against the people, why should not the people invoke them
also? As Austria invokes them, why should we not ask
Austria what she has done with Cracow ? As Russia in-
vokes them, why should we not call Russia to account for
the violation of rights guaranteed to Poland by these treaties?
Is it, or is it not true that by the treaties of 1815 Poland
ought to form a separate kingdom, with a separate consti-
tution, a separate Government, a national representation and
institutions, forming a distinct kingdom, although under the
sceptre of the Emperor of Russia I Is it, or is it not true that
those engagements were guaranteed by all Europe ? When,
in 1831, the Emperor Alexander suppressed the Polish na-
tionality, France and England were occupied, the one with
her revolutien, the other with her Reform Bill, and only
protested. Well, then (it continues), she shall not die. She
jives, she hopes, she believes; her generous blood shall
flow ; its incense shall mount to Heaven, while it fertilises
that land of soldiers, of poets, of heroes, of martyrs."
When they found xemarks such as those in the Debats,
they might fairly suppose that the French Government had,
to a certain extent, excited these occurrences in Poland.
There were persons who attributed these movements to the
instigations of Russia, alleging that the object of that Power
was lo place an iron hand upon Poland, but we saw nothing
in the correspondence on the subject that could lead him to
such a conclusion ; on the contrary, it appeared to him that
the Poles who took part in tho occurrences were acting
upon what they considered to be a moral principle. Many
of them took the Sacrament on- the morning of the day on
which those disturbances took place, and they seemed to
have been perfectly aware of what would occur. What
would be the result of what had taken place ? If they were
to judge by some documents that had appeared, Poland
would be thrown more thin ever upon hupAia. The Mar-
quis Wieloysolski, who was gone to St. Petersburg to nego-
tiate, and who was sent to London on a special mission from
t
member
h eempbeea
reb
and tranquillity
family
the National paity in 1831, published a letter from a Polish
e
gentleman to Prince Maternich after the sad events in
union with Russia. Would such a union be desirable for the
Galicia in ISIG. In that letter he strongly counselled a
interests of Europe ? (Hear.) In a debate which took place
in the Russian Chamber of Representatives, on the 22d
M. Njegolewski, a Po!e, in the name of the Polish
" Considering that the contracting Powers at the Con-
minestm.
'bore, brought forward a motion to the followingeffect:—
tress of Vienna could not come to an agreement respecting
the re-establishment of Poland, which they had at first pro-
jected,neverheless agreed.upon.this point, that
e imperiously demanded
that Poland should at least retain her existence as a separate
rt:anquillity of Europe
of the peoples of Europe, and that the
&aqua parts of ancient Poland, despite their partit4

under three sceptres, should be recognised as forming one
homogeneous whole, with the guarantee of their nationality,
the author of the motion proposes that it may please the
Chamber of Representatives to decide that finally the terri-
torial unity of the ancient Polish State of 1772, guaranteed
by the formal right of peoples, as well as the national and
political rights appertaining to the Poles within those limits,
may at least hold good and be carried out, and that those
rights may not henceforth be arbitrarily restricted by the
signing Powers to whom, in virtue of the treaties of Viennet,
parts of Poland have been conceded under conditions pre-
viously stipulated."
The Debats contained the following observations :
" In the midst of all these troubles we still hear of nego-
tiations. The Government has made proposals to the men
who possess the confidence of the country, and who were
members of the Agricultural Society, so unfortunately dis-
solved. These gentlemen demand the independence of the
country ; the creation of a Council of State, the members of
which should be chosen by the Government from a list of
twice their number ; the organisation of the National
Guard ; and, lastly, the return of the Russian troops to the
fortresses. This state of things would be far inferior to that
promised us in the treaties of Vienna, which even guaran-
teed a Polish army and Parliamentary institutions ; and
those treaties are, after all, the legal bases of our connexion
with Russia."
The present seemed a favourable opportunity for her Ma-
jesty's Government to make use of their influence to bring
those miseries to an end, for the Journal de St. Petersbourg,
in a note published by way of answer to the accusations
brought I rward against the Russian authorities on the oc-
casion of the events at Warsaw, contained this statement :
" We may mention that the painful impression produced
by the first events of Warsaw have not in any way arrested
the kind intentions of the Sovereign towards the kingdom
of Poland. The Imperial Government will carefullywatch
that the institutions which have been granted are consciene
tiously carried out. All regular progress accomplished in
that manner will be anxiously encouraged and aided. But,
at the same time, any attempt at disturbance, under what-
ever pretext it may be concealed, will be repressed with in..
flexible firmness. If the kind intentions of the Sovereign
are paralyzed, the responsibility of that circumstance can
only fall on those who shall have rendered their realisation
impossible by resorting to violence when the Imperial Go-
vernment only appealed to conciliation and to the intelli-
gence and serious interests of the country."
Ihe noble lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs had ad-
mitted the right of one country to invade another in alliance
with it for the purpose of imposing oil the people a foreign
Sovereign, upon the ground of nationality, and therefore the
people of Poland had a fair right to demand the noble lord's
opinion and advice. (Hear, hear.) He was quite aware
that it was one thing to deal with the King of Naples and
another thing to deal with the Emperor of Russia, and he
had observed that the noble lord was inclined to reverse the
maxim, and make it read " Pareere superbis, et debellare
subjectos." (Laughter.) Still he would ask the noble lord
whether he could give them certain despatches which he
presumed must have been received from that able and ex-
cellent man, our Consul-General at Warsaw. (Cheers.)
Mr. M'EVOY deemed it the duty of this country and
France to support the treaties upon which the nationality
of Poland rested, and believed that a combined protest by
those two Powers against the existing state of things in
Poland would be attended with beneficial results. There
was no country in the world which deserved so much sym-
pathy, admiration, and respect as the noble country of
Poland. Since its first partition, now 89 years ago, its his-
tory had been one long martyrdom, and the sufferings and,
patience of the people must have endeared them to all who
were capable of generous feelings. The noble lord at the
head of the Government had expressed his strong disappro-
bation of those criminal Governments—Austria, Russia,
and Prussia—who confederated together to destroy Poland,
and he hoped to hear from the noble lord a condemnation
of the present proceedings of Russia in language as plain
and as forcible. (Hear, hear.) Poland had been in much
the same state as that of a place in a state of siege ever
since the repression of the insurrection in 1831 by the late
Emperor of Russia. The people were ground down and
oppressed. Neither life nor property was secure, and the
inhabitants were subjected to a detestable system of
espionage. The Russian Government wielded an un-
limited power of taxation, and thought they had stamped
out of the minds of the Poles all hopes of independence and
nationality. Insidious attempts had been made to divide
the Polish peasants against the Polish aristocracy, but
those attempts had not been altogether successful. From
information published, it appeared that on the Bth of
April the troops, without any provocation, fired upon
the unarmed people, and that all subsequent testimony
went to show that the massacre was prearranged. Some of
the military officers, however, raised their voices against
such a fell deed of blood. A correspondent wrote :
" It is said that General Liprandi, General-in-Chief of
the corps d'arnme at present stationed in Poland, was
strongly opposed to it, as also the military governor of the
town, General Paniutin. The colonel of a regiment sta-
tioned in the Castle, when informed by the Prince on the
Monday morning what would be required of him in the
evening, refused to obey, and on retiring to his own quarters
within the precincts of the Castle shot himself."
Whatever credit the Emperor of Russia had gained for his
emancipation of the serfs had been forfeited by the counte-
nance and approval which he had given to the massacre at
Warsaw. The evidence which they possessed on this sub-
ject was ample and trustworthy, and he hoped that the
noble lord the Foreign Secretary would not fail to express
the strongest condemnation of the conduct of the Russian
Government. (Hear, hear.)
Sir 11. VERNEY sympathized deeply with the feelings
of the hon. member who bad just spoken. He trusted that
Her Majesty's Government would unite with the Govern-
ment of France in an endeavour to obtain protection and
relief for a people who had dis7layed such moderation and
fortitude under their heavy sufferings. (Hear, hear.) He
trusted also that the noble lord the Foreign Secretary would
exert his influence to prevent an outbreak in Schleswig and
Holstein. If the French Government could be persuaded
to adopt the same view as the noble lord, he believed that the
present agitation in these provinces might be subdued, and
that, instead of being a source of weakness and vexation to
Denmark, they might be converted into a means of strength.
It had been alleged on high authority in another place that
the Schleswig-Holstein dispute originated with the German
inhabitants of those provinces. That was altogether a mis-
take. At Copenhagen there had always been a strong
national party, who wished to get rid of the German ele-
ment in Schleswig, and to incorporate that province with
Denmark. In July, 1846, Christian 111. issued letters patent
decreeing the separation of Schleswig and Holstein, and in-
corporating the former with Denmark; but was obliged two
months afterwards to annul that decree, on account of the
indignation and ill-feeling which it had excited in the pro-
vinces in question. When Christian died, in 1848, his suc-
cessor confirmed the inhabitants of the Duchies in their
ancient privileges. Soon after, however, the national, or
"Eider-Dane" party, taking advantage of the revolutionary
feeling which was then pervading Denmark, made a great
demonstration at Copenhagen, and compelled the King to
issue a proclamation incorporating Schleswig with Den-
mark, changing the laws of succession, and in fact repeal-
ing all they ancient privileges which the Duchies had
enjoyed for four centuries. Nor was it true that the in••
habitants of either Schleswig or Holstein had manifested
the slightest desire to be separated from Denmark and
united to Germany. All that they demanded was their
ancient constitutional rights, and he was sorry to say that
from a letter which he bad received a few days ago he
learnt that the Danish Government was oven now interfere
ing with those rights, and persecuting those who sought to
establish them. The hon. member concluded by asking
the noble lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs
whether, together with the correspondence on the affairs of
Schleswig and Holstein which he was about to lay on the
table of the house, he had any objection to submit the re-
port made by Mr. John Ward, C. 8., her Majesty's Con-
sul .General at Hamburg, on the affairs of those duchies,
after a visit which he made there about five years ago ?
Mr. HENNESSY desired to repeat a question which he
had put to the noble lord the Foreign Secretary last week,
but which he did not then answer—viz., whether he had
received from Mr. Elliot any reports or despatches con-
cerning the so-called reactionary movements in Naples;
and, if he had, whether he had presented them to the house,
or would do so ?
Sir S. M. PETO denied that the conduct of the Danish
Government towards the inhabitants of the duchies of
Schleswig and Holstein had been at all unconciliatory or
unkind. There was no part of Germany in which so much
liberty was enjoyed as was possessed by the people of those
duchies, and if Prussia and Germany left them alone and
allowed Denmark to administer her own affairs we should
hear nothing of these continual disturbances. But no
sooner did Denmark make one concession than it was made
the starting point for a new demand. The people of the
duchies were perfectly satisfied, but there was a party called
the professorial or professor party which was continually
intermeddling, and with which it was perfectly impossible
for any Government which had a practical aim to agree.
(Hear, hear.) Although he differed so much from the hon.
baronet who had asked the question upon this subject on so
many ether points, he agreed with him in hoping that the
noble lord would do his best to settle the differences between
Denmark and the duchies, and he was satisfied that he
would find the Government of Denmark prepared to nice
him in a conciliatory spirit. (Hear, hear.)
Lord J. RUSSELL—It is a somewhat anxious task to
have to give any opinion with regard to various countries of
Europe and the merits of different parties upon imperfect
information, and without going into the history of troubles
which generally date from long years back. The hon. mem-
ber for Honiton began by saying that I had made an appeal
to nationalities, and that that appeal, which was contained
in a despatch of mine of October last, had produced the oc-
currences at Warsaw, and those which are now taking
place in Hungary. The hon. member is mistaken in sup-
posing that I made my appeal to nationalities. I stated
what were then the views of the Government with regard
to Italy, and especially with regard to Naples and Sicily ;
and I was induced to do so because Russia and Prussia had
already pronounced their opinions, and because there must
sooner or later arise a question, which has arisen, whether
the Government which superseded that of the late King of
Naples wits such a Government that we could acknowledge
it as a regular Government in Europe. It was on that ac-
count necessary to give some opinion as to what was
taking place in Italy. 1 gave that opinion. I stated that,
as since the year 1821, the people in both the Roman and
Neapolitan States bad suffered misgovernment, which I be-
lieved was worse than that which existed in any ether
country in Europe—a good deal worse
ined than that existing in
Turkey—l could not wonder they had jonvaders
who had overthrown the authorities who had misgoverned
I tbem, I think I should be attributing more to that despatch