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

TH.'S rßin 'LONDON, SATITIMAY EVENING, MAY 4, 1861.

.....0.-----.......-----_
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, would
not be debated at any length, but that the house would be
inclined to proceed to the more important propositions com-
prised iu 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The first resolution, which repealed the standing order,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 :hall 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

Mr. M. MILNES moved the insertion in the resolution,
after the word " Thursdays," of the words," after Easte.r."
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 to 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 weak,
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 such little 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 arrangementof 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 that 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 private members, and he trusted that the house would
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 amendment 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. Ho (Sir J. Pakington) therefore earnestly hoped
the house would ha-se 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-
price 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
could 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 beeniutverted to. (A. laugh.) Every
year they found that independent members who, in the
earlier portion of the session, were disposed to take a part in
their proceedings, left the house towards 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. (Ilear, 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 tQ
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 business he 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, oppot ed these resolutions, believing that they
would not effect the object of their proposers, or would
place the whole power of the house practically in the hands
of the Government.
After a lew words from Sir F. GOLDSMID,
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. NEWDEGATE 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-
tmuenLinoltbeyrdroPsf AwpuLot:tliindEgbitequestions.
STON
somewhatad admitted
curtailedi t tedthat
oi thef
be claastei
tsuudpepos
theyed
now enjoyed ; but the case was so rare that it was hardly
worth while to make it an exception to the rule.
Mr. S. ESTCOURT did not think under the new regu-
lations that an adjourned debate would have precedence on
the Friday.
Sir G. C. LEWIS said that when the rare case supposed
'y the hon. member arose provision could be made to meet

V Sir
G. GREY said that the committees of supply were
open except 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
d v ou Friday shall be either supply or ways and means,

and that on that order being read, the motion shall be 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 and motions shall be placed consecutively on the
paper in reference 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. jnember 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 to 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
o a committee of 15 gentlemen any bill which a majority

of the house might think 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 the 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
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 thepunctual

attendance of the members.
Sir J. GRAHAM regretted to differ from the opinion of
the right hon. gentleman, but he 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
happ3n 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 member might so be precluded from all further
opportunity of removing the objectionable matter. For his
past 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 Secretar) —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, and, therefore, the hon. gen-
tleman's question was premature. At present, it was
proposed that any depositor might have the power of
Q","47 hie rnu..oyany part of the United Kingdom.
In order that he might have this convenience, it was ne-
cessary that the accounts should be kept in London. 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- I
dined to produce papers on the subject, for motives which
he could appreciate, he would probably not object to an op-
portunity 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 of the 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 60.
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 in the affairs of other countries, and giving the
opinion of the English Government upon all the recent
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
did not seem to be any demand for a separate kingdom. All
they asked was that the Treaty of Vienna should be practi,
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 natioaal representation and
institutions, forming a distinct kingdom, although under the
sceptre of the Emperor of Russia ! 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 revolution, the other with her Reform Bill, and only
protested. Well, then (it continues), she shall not die. She
lives, 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 remarks 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 t o 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 those 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 than ever upon Russia. The Mar-
quis Wieloysolski, who was gone to St. Petersburg. to nego-
tiate, and who was sent to London on a special mission from
the National patty in 1831, published a letter from a Polish
gentleman to Prince Metternich after the sad events in
Galicia in 1346. In that letter he strongly counselled a
union with. Russia. Would such a union be desirable for the
interests of Europa ? (Hear.) In a debate which took place
in the Russian Chamber of Representatives, on the 22d
inst., M. Niegolewski, a Pole, in the name of the Polish
members, brought forward a motion to the following effect:—
" Considering that the contracting powers at the Con-
gress of Vienna could not come to an agreement respecting
the re-establishment of Poland, which they had at first pro-
jected, but were nevertheless agreed upon this point, that
the peace and tranquillity of Europe imperiously demanded
that Poland should at least retain her existence as a separate
s member in the family of the peoples of Europe, and that the
different parts of ttAcient Poland, despite their partition

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 Vienna,
parts of Poland have been conceded under conditions pre..
viously stipulated."
The Debate 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. Tetersbour
in a note published by way of answer to the accusations
brought f ,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 carefully watch
that the institutions which have been granted are conscien-
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."
The 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 o❑ 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 tning to aeal with th. 'gin& of N.ples 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 I ead " Parcere superbis, et debellare
subjectos." (Laughter.) Still ha 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'EYOY deemed it the duty of this country and
France to support the treaties upon which the nationality
_ _

of Poland rested, and bereved tnat a combined protest by
those two Powers against the existing state of things in
Polanl 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 disappio-
batioa 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'etrinee 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 H. VERNEY sympathized deeply with the feelings
of the hon. member who bad just, spoken. lie 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 displayed 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 miss
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 the 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 even now interfers
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, ho had any objection to submit the re-
port made by Mr. John Ward, C. 8., her Majesty's COll-
- at Hamburg, on the affairs of those duchies,
after a visit which he made there abosit five years ago?
Mr. HENNESSY desired to repeat 4 question which he
had put to the noble lord the Foreign Secretary last week,
but which lee did rot 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 other 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 mee
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 t:oubles
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 Oct')ber 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 sing of
Naples was 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. I gave that opinion. I stated that,
as since the year 1821, the people in both the Roman and
Neapolitan States had suffered misgovernment, which I be-
lieved was worse than that which existed in any ether
country in Europe—a good deal worse than that existing in
Turkey—l could not wonder they had joined the invaders
who had overthrown the authorities who had misgoverned
thew, think I falQuid be attributing more to that despatch,