said, he had a very important petition to present. It was a petition from the Bishop and Clergy of the diocese of Meath, in synod assembled. They stated that by constant residence in a district extending from the sea to the Shannon, and comprising two and a half counties, they were intimately acquainted with the condition of the country, being connected by interest with property, and with poverty by their duties and profession, and were therefore in a position to judge impartially between them. They denied that neglect of their duty was general among the resident gentry, and that such an assumption could safely be made the basis of legislation. They further denied that it was possible for the landlords of the past or present generation to have rendered the people of Ireland independent of such a calamity as the failure of the potato crop, by any means that would have been sanctioned by public opinion or the feelings of humanity; and they deprecated such statements as suggesting a clearance of estates as the first duty of property and the condition of its security. They recommended, as permanent measures, that a right of relief should be given to the aged, the infirm, and disabled; and that this relief should not necessarily involve the rending asunder the ties of nature. They prayed that for the relief of the able-bodied, a demand for labour should be created, by developing the resources of the country. They earnestly recommended that no outdoor relief should permanently be given to the able-bodied, but that the workhouse test (left available by the out-door relief to the infirm) should be retained as the test of real destitution. They further prayed that food might be given to those who were now perishing, without exacting useless lahour; and that a power of ordering such relief, in time of famine, should be vested in the Lord Lieutenant; and that farmers and landlords might be encouraged by loans to cultivate with the spade land which would otherwise remain unfilled. All this they commended to the consideration of the House, expressing their earnest hope that, in adherence to truth and equity, in the sympathy of England, and in the goodness of God, Ireland might yet be preserved.

called the attention of the House to a question connected with the selection of Members to serve on Railway Committees. He had been named as one of the Members of a Committee, to which some of the Bills promoted by the Great Western Company were referred. But after the Committee was struck, and the list of names had appeared in the papers of the House, he was apprised by his hon. Friend (Sir W. Heathcote) that he was relieved from his attendance on the Committee. No reason was stated; and he only heard afterwards in the House that he had been removed from the list of the Committee in consequence of representations from the parties to the Bill. He thought this conveyed some kind of imputation on that character for impartiality which the Committees possessed; and he wished to ask whether, after a Committee had been nominated, it was regular to remove Members from it on the representation of parties applying for Railway Acts?

said, that he would, in answer to the question of his right hon. Friend, briefly state the course which the Committee of Selection had adopted in the matter. The Committee of Selection, in appointing the Members to take the group of railways over which his right hon. Friend had been appointed chairman (the London and Windsor lines), had taken care to select them from the west and north-west of England. This had been done to avoid the possibility of any partiality being imputed, and the Committee had upon this principle been selected. When it had been selected, the parties had sent in objections to the constitution of the Committee, founded, not on the personal interest of the Members themselves, but of their family connexions. These objections, however, had been so futile, that they had no effect but to excite a distrust of the parties who had put them forward; but the parties interested in that group of railways, and interested on both sides, had subsequently offered to demonstrate to the Committee of Selection the unfitness of the selected Members on another ground. They had been permitted to assign their grounds for saying so; and from published documents they had proved that several Members of the Committee represented towns and cities through or near which extensive lines of railway ran; that the companies connected with those lines were greatly interested in the question of the two gauges; and that thus indirectly the Members of the Committee were interested in the question of the gauges, inasmuch as that question would have to be decided by that Committee. Under these circumstances, the Committee of Selection had thought it to be their duty to discharge the Committees originally selected, and to reconstruct them, to avoid the charge of partiality, which otherwise might have been brought against their decisions.

was not satisfied with the explanation given by his hon. Friend, as he thought, after Members had been selected on a Committee, and had made the declaration required, they should not be discharged without some good reason. He was glad that his hon. Friend had no other objection to allege than that his constituents were supposed to be in favour of the narrow gauge, in consequence of the railway passing through Coventry. It gave him the occasion of again pressing upon the consideration of the House the absolute folly of going on with the present system. In order to show that he was perfectly disinterested on the subject, he would refer to a statement he had already made, hoping that some Member of Her Majesty's Government would propose a resolution by which all competition between the two gauges should be referred to competent judges. The Committee had refused to entertain the consideration of the gauges, on the ground that they did not consider themselves competent judges. The parties interested did not themselves consider the Committees impartial on the question; and it was impossible to find any one Committee upon which there could not be found some Member who had not already formed some opinion on the question. 300,000l. had been spent in the discussion of the question before a Com- mittee of that House last Session; and when such sums were expended, the losing party would be ready enough to accuse the Committee of not being so pure as they supposed themselves to be. He hoped that the House would find a remedy for such a system.

suggested a suspension of the selection of the Committees for a short time, that the subject might be considered.

thought it was extremely unadvisable for a Committee to be appointed, and to examine into the merits of a subject before the report of the Railway Board was made. He begged to ask a question of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Mr. Strutt), whether there had been included in the reference to the Commission the question of the power of railway companies to introduce into their Bills, under cover of station extensions or otherwise, clauses which should enable them to form steam-ship companies. A Bill had been before them that evening, containing a clause, apparently referring only to the extension of a station; but in reality, and on examination, empowering the company to act as a steam-packet company, and without any of the ordinary liabilities. An accident only had discovered this; and for the future it was to be hoped that all Railway Bills would be referred to, and endorsed by, the right hon. Gentleman. Security would then be felt that no objectionable proposal would receive assent. If the right hon. Gentleman did not take the matter in hand, he (Lord Sandon) should consider it his duty to bring forward some Standing Order in reference to this subject.

could assure his noble Friend the Member for Liverpool, that the subject had attracted the attention of the Railway Commission; that he had looked over different Railway Bills; and that he was now aware of the existence of certain clauses which, if acceded to, would have given power to railway companies to become steam-boat companies. Under the terms of the reference suggested by his right hon. Friend the Member for Coventry (Mr. Ellice), such clauses would always come under the notice of the Commission; and it would be a most important matter for them to consider and reject the proposals in different Railway Bills for purposes alien to strictly railway purposes. Clauses of that kind alluded to should not be overlooked.

was convinced that the Committee of Selection had acted most improperly in discharging a Committee, on the ground of the constituencies of various Members being interested in the particular question upon which they would be required to deliberate. The Committees which had been referred to, were composed of most distinguished Members of that House, in every way competent to deal with the subject; and, though the question of the gauges was one unfit to be considered by any Committee, they were as well capable of any other of settling it. He, for his part, was always much more afraid of an incompetent than of an interested Committee.

had never hesitated, as a Member of the Committee of Selection, to recommend to his brother Members to erase the name of an hon. Gentleman from the list of a Committee when it was found, even after he had been named, that there were certain reasons why imputations of partiality might be attached to him.

wished to put a question to the learned Lord the Lord Advocate of Scotland. It had transpired through the medium of the public press, that a riot had taken place in the town of Wick, in the north of Scotland; and that in consequence of that riot the military had dispersed the populace by means of their bayonets, and had subsequently fired upon them, by which several people were seriously wounded. Now, he wished to know from the learned Lord, whether he had received official information of the facts, and whether the facts stated in the public press were or were not correct?

, in answer to the question of the hon. Gentleman, was sorry to be obliged to state that, in consequence of a determined riot in the town of Wick, the military were under the necessity of firing, and that the result was, that a woman had been wounded slightly in the arm; and that another individual, a man, was wounded more severely in the hand. He might take occasion to state, that the conduct of the military had, during the present distress, been on all occasions truly exemplary, and that they had been distinguished by the greatest possible sympathy with the inhabitants, towards whom they had always exhibited the utmost mo- deration, patience, and humanity. With respect to the civil authorities, he thought it proper to state, that, in calling the military into this county, it was done before this occurrence took place, at the instance of the sheriff, who acted in accordance, not only with the provost of Wick, but with all the local magistrates and gentlemen, and every person, without exception, connected with the shipping of the town, who had represented to him that the shipment of corn could not take place without a strong military force. On the morning of the day on which the disturbance took place, a number of special constables were sworn in, to give the necessary protection in conveying corn to a ship that had come into the port; but the sheriff received information in the course of the evening that the vessel would certainly be attacked during the night by determined men; that the corn which had been shipped would be removed from the vessel; that the vessel itself would be scuttled and sunk in the harbour; and that, if any resistance were offered by the crew, they would be thrown overboard. In consequence of that information, the sheriff, with the full concurrence of the provost of Wick and all the magistrates he consulted, was under the necessity of placing a guard of soldiers for the protection of the vessel. But even the presence of these soldiers did not prevent the attempt being made. The people assembled in very great numbers, and obstructed all access to the quay. They assaulted one of the officers in command of the party and many of the soldiers, and this rendered it necessary to send down the whole military force to the assistance and protection of their comrades. In the passage of the force through the town, they were most violently assaulted by the mob, and several prisoners were with great difficulty seized. While a detachment of the military were moving under a piece of high ground, or eminence, the mob, armed with large stones, assailed them from above. The report from the military officers stated, that the party were attacked with a tremendous volley of stones, by which many of them were struck and severely injured. It was in these circumstances that orders were given to fire; and a few shots were discharged, more, he believed, for the purpose of frightening the mob, than inflicting any injury, though, unfortunately, injury had, he was sorry to say, been received. Looking at all the reports he had officially re- ceived, he had no occasion to reflect on the conduct of the civil officers generally; in particular, he had no occasion to reflect upon that of the sheriff, who was a man not only of humanity, but of great firmness of character. There was only one thing to which he felt it necessary specially to advert, and it was this, he could not understand the conduct of the provost of Wick, who appeared to have presided at a public meeting, in which imputations that he must have known to be most unfounded were cast on the conduct of the sheriff of the county, with reference to proceedings in which the sheriff had acted, not only with the concurrence of the provost, but with that of the other magistrates of the burgh, on grounds that the provost must have known to be untrue.

wished to put a question to the Secretary for Ireland relating to the relief works now going on in that country. On the 19th of January, that right hon. Gentleman informed the House that the numbers employed on the relief works were 450,000. We were now at the 4th of March, and the time for putting the seed in the ground was fast passing away. He wished to ask what progress had been made in discharging this large army, and attaching them to the cultivation of the ground; what the numbers now employed on the public works were; and if the right hon. Gentleman had any objection to give to the House a return weekly of the numbers employed on those works?

had not the least objection to give the information required, viz., a weekly return of the persons employed on the public works. As to the number of men now employed on those works, he regretted to say that it had been found impossible to prevent a very great increase of that number since the time when he stated them at 450,000. The hon. Gentleman must recollect, however, that in point of fact the Bill that was to provide a substitute for these public works, had not yet come into operation, and therefore it was impossible to draw off the numbers of men which had been anticipated. As a proof that the distress of Ireland had been greatly increased since he made his former statement, according to the returns he held in his hand, the numbers employed on the relief works for the week ending the 20th of February, amounted to no less than 668,000.

asked the right hon. Gentleman if he was in a position to be able to inform him how much of the 50,000l. to be given for seed had been granted for that purpose?

was not able to answer the question. All he could say was, that it had been referred to the Lord Lieutenant to carry into effect the intentions of the Government in the manner which he thought most advisable. He knew that the Lord Lieutenant had come to a resolution not to give the sum away in money, but by advancing seed, to be repaid a short time hence, to parties who applied for it. By the last letters he had received, he found that the applications had not been very numerous, but he was unable to state the exact number. He might state that the Lord Lieutenant had come to the resolution, in advancing seed, to give seed for green crops only, and not corn seed. He was satisfied that he should be doing more harm by giving corn seed, than would be compensated for by any partial advantage which would be gained, on account of the interference which it would create with the supply of grain in the market.

asked if it was understood that these 668,000 men were to be employed on productive works only till the Bill to which the right hon. Gentleman referred came into operation?

thought the hon. Gentleman must have mistaken him. The men to whom he had referred were those employed on what were called relief works. Some of these works, no doubt, were not of a productive character, but some of them were useful; and not a few were employed on railways. All he would say was, that it was the intention, as soon as practicable, to draw off the men so far as was consistent with the public safety.

asked if the right hon. Gentleman would object to give to the House a statement distinguishing the different occupations of the 668,000 persons employed on the relief works?

said, the monthly report of the Board of Works would be laid on the Table of the House, and the noble Lord would get the information he desired there; but in the weekly returns no such distinctions were made. There was, however, in the monthly return a distinction between those employed on the re- lief works, and those employed, for example, on the Shannon and other public works.

had asked if there was any objection to a return distinguishing the different professions or occupations of those employed? He wished to know from the right hon. Gentleman if he had any objection, whether this return was in the monthly report or not, to give it to the House?

was afraid that if he were required to lay on the Table of the House the professions of those employed, it would take a very long time to make it out; but he would give the noble Lord the character of the works on which they were employed. He had no doubt such information could be given; and if it was not included in the monthly report, he would undertake that it was supplied to the House.

wanted the original occupations of the parties employed. He would undertake to say that in one week such a return could be made—nothing could be more simple.

had every wish to give the fullest information to the House. If he had misunderstood the noble Lord, he was sorry. Did the noble Lord wish to know, for example, how many of them were simply labourers, and how many were farmers, and to distinguish those who were labourers and farmers from those who were mechanics? [Lord G. BENTINCK: Yes.] Then he was afraid it would take a long time to make out such a return; but he would endeavour to meet the wishes of the noble Lord.

wished to know whether the Secretary for Ireland had got any account of the papers moved for by his Colleague (Mr. C. O'Brien)?

said, the hon. Gentleman was, no doubt, anxious to get the information he desired; there were, however, 3,000 or 4,000 names, and it would take a long time to obtain such a return. He had a letter stating that the Board of Works was very anxious to give the information as soon as possible; and the hon. Gentleman might rest assured there was no disposition on the part of the Board of Works to withhold any information that might be required.

inquired what return they were to have with reference to the number of men employed on public works in Ireland—whether of the number employed on reproductive and the number on unproductive works? He considered it a matter of great importance what return they were to have—whether the numbers were to be classed, those employed on reproductive works being distinguished from those employed on unproductive works, or they were to have only the sum total? There could be no objection to a return of their trades or occupations; and he wished to know whether there would be any objection to give the occupation or profession of the 11,000 overseers?

said, that the return which he meant to lay on the Table, in consequence of the Motion of the hon. Member for Mallow, would be the weekly return received by the Treasury of the number of men employed on the whole of the relief works in Ireland, stating in every county the number employed in that county. If any further information should reach the Government, there would be every disposition on their part to lay it before the House.

said, he had put a question to the right hon. Gentleman, in a late debate, which he had reason to think had been misunderstood by the right hon. Gentleman. He would, therefore, repeat the question which he had stated in a note to him, namely, whether the poor-law auditors were entitled to act upon their view of the Act of Parliament, contrary to the opinion of the Crown lawyers?

said, the poor-law auditors did incur some responsibility in acting upon their opinion in opposition to that of the law officers of the Crown. At the same time, the poor-law auditors were bound to exercise their own judgment in the matters within their cognizance, and to satisfy themselves that the accounts they audited contained legal or illegal items. If any party were dissatisfied with the decision of the poor-law auditors, he might appeal to the Court of Queen's Bench or to the Poor Law Commissioners.

said, he could assure the House, even if his notice did not convince them, that he was not about to enter at length into the wide and important question of emigration. Such a course had been pursued at no very distant occasions by the hon. Members for Sheffield, for Limerick, and for Liskeard, not without its advantages. But, first, he did not possess the eloquence of those Gentlemen; secondly, if he did, they had preceded him; and, thirdly, he hoped to at-chieve some result which they had failed in accomplishing. He could not, however, make the Motion he intended, without giving a short, slight, but, he trusted, a just sketch of the position in which the principle of emigration at present stood. He believed it was admitted on all hands that anything like a system of compulsory emigration would be abhorrent to the feelings of the people, and alien to the popular institutions of which we were so proud. Even the application of a large sum of money for the purpose of any national system, such as had been broached by other hon. Members, would be refused by Her Majesty's Ministers, and would not be urged upon them at present by a majority of the House. On the other hand, however, there had grown up lately in this country, and now existed, a much more favourable feeling towards voluntary emigration. Could any man open any one of those reports upon the state of the population which overwhelmed the tables of Members of Parliament, without discovering that in some portions of this country there was an excessive population choking up the suburban districts of the country, and that human beings were so crowded together as to prove detrimental to health and injurious to morals? Look at the sanitary reports. It appeared that, when fever arose, there was a difficulty of removing those who had recently expired, from those who were just expiring; or, to use the language of one of the physicians, "such was the slaughter of the living by the dead!" Again, in the agricultural districts, the position of the day labourer was such, that it was difficult to imagine how subsistence was procured upon the low wages at which they worked. This was the condition of England, the happiest and at present the palmiest portion of Her Majesty's dominions. What was the state of Scotland—that country whence, let him remind the House, the most energetic and industrious emigrants proceeded? They had heard that very evening a question put by an hon. Member on this subject (Sir A. L. Hay); and the reply that was made to it by the Lord Advocate showed that the most desperate consequences had been the result of distress in Scotland. He need say nothing as to the state of Ireland, inasmuch as it had occupied almost the whole of their time during the Session; and even that night the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland informed them that the number of persons employed on public works in that country had increased to 688,000. If it were necessary, therefore, for them at all times to consider the question of emigration, how much more so was it necessary at the present moment? If such were the physical condition of this country, what were the most recent political movements? In the course of the last year, they had repealed the laws restricting the importation of corn; and yet at this moment they were awaiting with apprehension the ensuing spring to see whether America would send supplies to meet the deficiency of our own harvest. Australia—our own infant Australia—offered her soil, and only asked to till her land by the labour which you could easily spare her. In the last emigration report from thence, it was said that the tillage would be abandoned, in consequence of the markets of England being closed against their produce. His right hon. Friend (Sir G. Grey) was about to alter, if he had not already altered, the system of transportation to the colonies. He did not intend to enter upon that subject, except so far as it was akin to the subject before the House; but, if they were prepared to put an end to it, they should recollect what effect the putting an end to that system would have upon the honest men in this country. He had no doubt the letter of the Secretary of State was familiar to the House. He detailed therein the manner in which he proposed to take under the care of the Government all the juvenile offenders in the country; and let them look at the effect that would have upon the minds and plans of industrious labourers. Suppose a poor man resident in a heavily-rated parish, anxious to maintain and educate his children, is scarcely able to do so from the price of food and pressure of taxation. He is willing to emigrate. Look to the difficulties he has to encounter, and the ignorance under which he labours as to where he is to go, and as to how he is to go. He wishes to take with him his young child, who shall give hope and spirits to his journey and his parent, the memory of whose abandonment would embitter his way. But if his child is under the age of seven, and his parent is above the age of fifty, the bounty regulations, by which alone of late passages have been procured, interfere, and where persons are under the age of seven, or above fifty, a passage is not allowed. Meantime, what is passing in the next cottage, where a profligate and improvident person resides? That man may allow his child to run about the streets, and engage, perhaps, in petty thefts. He is taken up, and placed in what his right hon. Friend said was to be a place rather of reformation than of punishment. After awhile, with his better principles strengthened, with habits of industry confirmed, he is allowed to go to the colonies, leaving nothing behind him but his shame, under the elegant name of exile, with the world all before him, and the British Government his guide. He may succeed in those colonies, and become a man of wealth and reputation. The honest man perceives what has been going on in the family of his dishonest neighbour; but when he proposes to go out to a colony, he is met with every difficulty, and told that no aid will be given to voluntary emigration. To all this, there was one answer with which he was not prepared to cope. It came from the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He turned out his empty pockets, and told them he had no money to spend upon any scheme of emigration, however promising. Now, he (Mr. Vernon Smith) did not mean to propose the adoption of any system that would cause the outlay of 16,000,000l.; but he asked them to give such assistance to voluntary emigration as would be useful to this country and to the colonies; and he hoped he should have their assent to the plan he was about to propose. The Motion of which he had given notice applied most particularly to the system now in practice under what was called the Land and Emigration Board. He was not sure that he ought not to explain to the Members of that House, and certainly to the people of this country, that there was in this city a board to assist emigration from this country; and that three gentlemen, now alive, were engaged in the task, however little their existence might be known to the country at large. He had not the slightest intention of saying one word against the gentlemen who performed the duties of Colonial Commissioners; but they were so limited in the small duties allotted to them, that their superintendence was of very little use. To show that this was not mere impertinence of his, he would read a statement made by the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. C. Buller) in 1844, as showing the manner in which this board was unknown to the public. He stated—

"That a gentleman who had come from Canada, to organize an extensive emigration to a very fertile district on the banks of the river Ottawa, called on me to ask my advice; and at the same time stated, that he had been in communication with the Colonial Office, but could not get any satisfactory information. I referred that gentleman to the Commissioners of the Land and Emigration Board. Now, although that gentleman had been some months in England, and had been engaged in intercourse with people in this country on the subject, he was not aware of the existence of that board."

Even during the present Session of Parliament, a friend of his had told him that he came to "bore" him upon the subject of emigration, knowing that he had once occupied a post at the Colonial Office; and, upon being told that he should betake himself to three persons who received an annual remuneration for submitting to that operation, the same surprise at their being in esse was expressed as by the Ottawa friend of the hon. Member for Liskeard. From having held that position, he was able sometimes to afford information in his own district; but, frequent as were the changes in colonial administration, it was not yet every district that could hope to be blessed with the residence of an ex-Under Secretary of State for the Colonies. The noble Lord at the head of the Government (Lord John Russell) was the founder of the commission in 1840; and in a letter written by the noble Lord, in that admirable style which characterized every thing that came from him, says—

"In your capacity as a general board for the sale of lands and for promoting emigration, your duties may be conveniently arranged under the four following heads: first, the collection and diffusion of accurate statistical knowledge; secondly, the sale in this country of waste lands in the colonies; thirdly, the application of the proceeds of such sales towards the removal of emigrants; and, fourthly, the rendering of periodical accounts, both pecuniary and statistical, of your administration of this trust."

Now, as to the first duty of the Commissioners—the collection and diffusion of accurate statistical knowledge—it no longer occupied a paragraph in their reports of 1845 and 1846, the head upon that subject being omitted; and as to the second, since that letter was written, an Act was passed regulating the sale of waste lands in the colonies, which was one of the most important of their duties; and another Act was passed, namely, the Passengers' Act, which was introduced by his hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Hope), at the suggestion of Lord Stanley. But, the noble Lord having told them that one of the objects they should have in view was to prevent persons being deluded by false pretences to leave this country, a check had been given to some unsound and improper schemes; but he did not see any one instance in which they had suggested or been the advocates of plans for the promotion of a sound system of emigration. He might be asked, in what way he should propose to extend their sphere of action? And the mode of proceeding might be divided into three parts: the manner in which the emigrants would be invited to leave these shores; the manner in which they would pass the seas; and the manner in which they would be received in the colonies. His object was to show, that as regarded emigration from this country, the information which the board spread was so scanty, as to afford no adequate means of knowledge to those who required it. What was the course pursued by private companies when they wished to promote emigration? The first thing they did was to establish an agency in every town of districts whence persons were likely to emigrate. Then, if not very scrupulous, they published inviting placards with pretty pictures of vessels careering over the ocean on their way to happy lauds. Side by side with these showy circulars, he wanted to see promulgated the useful and trustworthy information of Her Majesty's Government. There was no reason why some persons should not be appointed to make searches, and ascertain what parishes were willing to send persons to the colonies, and what proprietors were ready to assist; and in every such district they might institute an agency, which would be at hand to communicate the means by which those who were desirous of going could transport themselves from this country. Or, if a local agency was too expensive, why should not the Commissioners themselves from time to time make journeys through the country for this purpose? Their deficiency of superintendence had, in fact, been shown by succeeding Secretaries of State. Lord Sydenham, when in Canada, proposed that a Government agency should be established to secure the protection of persons on board emigrant vessels; which was objected to, because he was told that it would be impossible to procure such persons, although this country was full of medical practitioners at a low rate of pay, who would be perfectly competent; the salaries of such officers in unions varying from 40l. to 100l. per annum; and the pay of assistant navy surgeons averaging 150l. per annum. Lord Grey himself had proposed a plan to establish villages for the reception of emigrants in Canada, and had been obliged to abandon it, as no company could be persuaded to take the matter up for want of supervision, although such a beginning was almost necessary for his Lordship's favourite policy of municipal institutions as the groundwork of the representative system in colonies. If they wanted to see what such supervision could do, let them look at the reports of their own agents, Messrs. Buchanan and Hawke. He told them of the state in which the German emigrants arrived, and how preferable it was to the condition in which their own countrymen came. They were supplied with abundance of bread, flour, lime-juice, and beer; and, though the voyage had been long, only seven persons out of 902 were in hospital. It appeared from the returns of Mr. Buchanan, the Canadian agent, that numbers of emigrants had arrived from Waterford and its neighbour, New Ross; from Killala, in the county Galway in Ireland; in Great Britain, from Beaumaris, Hull, Plymouth, and Southampton, from which last place the Poor Law Commissioners told us that the south-eastern emigration was proceeding now, instead of from London; and yet at none of these ports were agents situated. There were several other parts from which large bodies of emigrants went similarly circumstanced. At Liverpool, there was only one agent, although not less than 70,000 emigrants left that port in the spring of 1846. However active the agent might be—and that Captain Lear was so, he knew—it was impossible he could do his duty properly. What was the consequence? Why, that proceedings were obliged to be taken against the masters of vessels in the colonies: there were, in the last year, six in Canada, and thirteen in New Brunswick, all which expense might have been saved by proper agency. Of the six in Canada, an account was given in the papers before the House; five obtained convictions—four were against vessels sailing from ports where there were no agents—

"The masters of the barque Glenthorn, from Tralee, and brig Hope, from Westport, for having an excess of passengers over their legal complement. The master of the brig Triton, from Penzance, for not having having the passenger-deck of his vessel properly constructed. The master of the brig Arab, from Bideford, for neglecting to make the issue of provisions during the passage."

The three first of which offences might clearly have been prevented, had there been an agent at Tralee, Westport, or Penzance. When the hon. Member for Limerick brought forward this subject in 1841, the noble Lord the First Lord of the Treasury said, that he had framed the Land Board, in order "that he might be afforded a greater possibility of bringing before the House a more perfect system;" and he trusted the noble Lord would be prepared to support him in so doing in 1847. It was with this view, to the effectual improvement of the system, that he submitted the present Motion to the House. It would be an improvement, as had been suggested by the late Lord Sydenham, if there was a passenger protector on board of each emigrant ship; neither would it be attended by any great additional expense. The third point was, that when emigrants arrived at their place of destination, they should find, not only an agent at the port of entry, but one who should direct and even accompany them to the spot where they could find location or employment. Such a person was well known to private companies, under the name of a dispersing agent. In this manner, the more eloquent than correct description of the duties of the Land Board by Lord Stanley, in 1843, would be fulfilled. That noble Lord had then said, "There is an emigration agent stationed at every port of the United Kingdom,"—whereas, he (Mr. Vernon Smith) had already shown their deficiency — "thus," proceeded his Lordship, "the superintending care of the Government is carried on from point to point—from the time the emigrant leaves his home, at the extremity of Norfolk or Connaught, till he rejoins his friends in the wilds and wastes of Upper Canada." Make this description literal, and he was satisfied. There was one more subject of a most delicate nature that required the deepest attention—the subject of female emigration—when they considered the fearful disparity of the sexes in some of the colonies. According to the last census, there were in Van Diemen's Land 40,788 males and only 18,114 females. In New South Wales an accurate analysis of the proportions had been made; and the result was, that if all the single men now wished to marry, not one in eleven could find wives. Now, this luckily was a subject which he was not obliged to treat upon his own authority alone. There was a lady now in this country, Mrs. Chisholm, to whom the highest compliments had been paid by the immigration com- mittee in New South Wales. They spoke of her as "a lady whose enlightened and benevolent exertions in behalf of immigrants had been such as to merit the acknowledgment and thanks of the whole colony." With an understanding which in our arrogance we were pleased to call masculine, but with a heart that could only be a woman's, Mrs. Chisholm had devoted herself to the advancement of the condition of free settlers arriving in New South Wales; and this was her opinion as to female emigration, in answer to questions from the committee:—

"I would propose that they should be sent under the guardianship of respectable ladies, who would exercise parental control over them. I consider there would be no difficulty in meeting with highly respectable persons who would undertake this charge, and feel an interest in their welfare; such as the widows of clergymen and military officers who might be desirous to make an addition to their income. The object of Government should be to keep experienced and respectable persons in this employment. I quite disapprove of females coming out under what is called the protection of families. A number of the young women informed me that they never saw the parties to whom they were consigned, until they met them on board of ship. I think there are thousands of young females in the United Kingdom, the daughters of highly respectable persons, who must earn their own living; and they would come to this colony to better their circumstances. Under a good system the best would emigrate."

That this would be the case, was no theory of this lady's. It was known that persons of the class she described undertook the charge of young women to the East Indies. The last subject he should urge on the attention of the Ministry, was the composition of the Emigration Board itself. He did not think it had sufficient dignity and importance; it ought not to be a mere dependency of the Colonial Office. Why not establish a commission similar to the Railway Board? Why not—though he did not especially insist upon it—have a Parliamentary head? The adoption of such a course would add much to the consequence, and, he believed, to the utility, of the institution, and would add but little to the expense. He would sum up the cost, as he had ventured rashly to propose a plan, in order to show the chariest Chancellor of the Exchequer how little he had to fear from him. The additional agency might cost 20,000l.; the female emigration 10,000l.; so that the whole additional cost would not exceed 30,000l. After all, this was the least even of the colonial votes. As to others, only last year they had voted for the improvements in the British Museum a sum of 45,000l. He did not think that money ill laid out. Far from it. He thought it well that the wonders of nature and art, collected in that admirable institution, should be brought familiarly before the eyes of the public. But when he compared the great and extended advantages of emigration, with the objects attained by the British Museum, he felt that as large a sum as had been voted to that institution would be well laid out for advancing the purposes of emigration. He did not, however, mean to ask the House to give any large sums at present; he merely wished to follow the direction which the noble Lord the First Minister had taken, because he must have intended to pursue some more systematic and less desultory course than had hitherto been followed. He wanted, then, to furnish the voluntary emigrant with ready sources of information upon the subject of his wants, at first starting for a distant land—he wished to provide protection for him upon the unknown, and perhaps hitherto unseen ocean; and, above all, when the emigrant should have arrived at the port of his destination, in a place with which he was wholly unacquainted, and in which he had little in common with the inhabitants save the same language, that he should be able to have pointed out to him by responsible agents the best means of at once applying himself to the attainment, not, perhaps, of immediate affluence, but, at least, of that which in his native country had been denied to him, a laborious competence. He hoped he should not receive from his hon. Friends, by way of answer, any of the usual ones given to those unfortunate individuals who might have to bring forward plans of their own. He cared, however, but little for this specific result, if Her Majesty's Ministers would but promise to give ample development and effect to the plans they had themselves proposed. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by moving—

"That, in order to assist and encourage voluntary emigration to the Colonies, it is expedient to increase the importance and authority of the Land and Emigration Board—to add to their agency in Great Britain and Ireland, and promote their vigilant superintendence of the passage and future location of the emigrants."

seconded the Motion. His views completely coincided with those of the hon. Mover. He spoke with some experience upon the subject, having had the honour of being for some time an unsalaried commissioner for the colony of South Australia. There were few subjects upon which so much had been said, and yet of which so little was understood, as the subject of emigration. If gentlemen in the country felt themselves annoyed by what they considered to be an over-population, they immediately came to the House and tried to persuade the Members and the Government that an extensive system of emigration ought to be adopted, the expenses of which should be borne by the country at large. He agreed with these who thought that emigration was most desirable; but he also thought that the less the Government interfered with it, the better. It would not do for the Government to tax the country to such an extent merely as would enable them to send out emigrants to the colonies. They should go further, if they undertook it at all, and raise enough to provide for those emigrants for at least six months, until they would be enabled to earn their own means of living. If they did not make such a provision, they would be committing an act of great cruelty in sending them out at all. They should remember that the individuals of the greatest importance to a colony, were the laborious hardworking people, and those should be provided for until employment could be found for them, if the Government were to undertake to send them out. But they might do much for those emigrants who had means enough to take themselves out, and to cultivate the land which they might get when arrived. Agents of the Government should be allowed to give sufficient portions of land to persons able to purchase. In the colony (South Australia) with which he was connected, they merely took money for the lands allotted and sold to settlers, and applied it to the bringing out of more emigrants. And although he thought that no great expenditure should be incurred, yet if a few thousand pounds were to be well laid out in assisting a good measure of emigration, he should have no objection, remaining still, however, of opinion, that the less the Government interfered directly, the better.

was anxious to take that opportunity of expressing his thanks to the hon. Gentleman who had introduced the question to the consideration of the House; and he did so with the greater pleasure, because he did not generally agree with the hon. Gentleman in his opinions and politics. But he thought the proposal of the hon. Gentleman was at the present time most important; and, however individuals might differ upon the terms of the plan, he believed it would be generally admitted that some mode of carrying its objects into effect should be adopted. When they remembered the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland, as to the measures which had to be adopted for the mere purpose of warding off starvation from the people, they must feel that some measure should be adopted for relieving that country from the pressure of such an over-population. He valued highly the statement of the hon. Gentleman; and he thought that if the object could be accomplished, of having a proper superintendence of the passage of the emigrants, and proper officers appointed for their guidance after their arrival in the colonies, it would be one of the most efficient and best steps that could be taken by Her Majesty's Government. The poor law, even as it stood, gave some assistance to emigration; but a generally extended system would be one of the safest and best modes of conferring a lasting benefit on Ireland. He trusted that the Motion of the hon. Gentleman, if it did no more, would direct the attention of the Government, and of every one who considered deeply the position of Ireland, to it; and all must admit that the question was one of the greatest importance. For his own part, he was ready to give his best assistance to the forwarding of such a plan, if he could be of any use.

thanked the hon. Gentleman who had introduced the resolution. The plan proposed would, in his opinion, effect the most good; indeed, he thought it would be almost the only means, and certainly the most effectual, of relieving the distresses and difficulties of Ireland.

could assure his right hon. Friend who brought forward this Motion, that he had not one word of complaint to urge against him for the manner or the spirit in which he introduced it to the House. The subject was unquestionably one of great importance, though it might be that he did not take quite the same view of it as his right hon. Friend; and he certainly did not think that by giving a parliamentary character to the Emigration Board, they would render it of any greater or more efficient service than it was already. He thought, however, that his right hon. Friend rather under-estimated the exertions of the board as it at present existed. It appeared to him that the board as now constituted was neither intended to promote nor stimulate emigration, but rather to assist and advise emigrants, and remove impediments and difficulties from their way, and thereby allow the even current of voluntary emigration to flow uninterruptedly in whatever direction it might naturally take; and he thought he should be able to show the House by returns of what had been done by the board, that nearly all that could possibly be done by it, constituted as it was for the purposes for which he contended it was intended, had been effected most ably and zealously by the Gentlemen composing it. At the same time it was right for him to say that no suggestion which fell from his right hon. Friend would be overlooked, as there was no desire whatever to retain the board exactly as it was. There was an anxious wish felt by the noble Lord at the head of the Colonial Department that the board should be efficient for the purposes for which it was appointed; and anything tending to that object would receive his attentive consideration. But even if Parliament were to sanction all that his right hon. Friend desired, he thought it would still be almost impossible for the board to do more than they did at present, unless the Legislature contemplated actual payment of the passage money for emigrants; a course which he believed his right hon. Friend did not recommend. He believed he should be able to show that the board was at present far more efficient than his right hon. Friend seemed to imagine, or than the House would be inclined to suppose, from the statement which he had made. The evidence on this head was sufficiently striking to justify him in producing it to the House in a small compass. The board, as the House would bear in mind, had not been very long constituted. His right hon. Friend held, he believed, at the time the office which he had now the honour to fill, of Under Secretary to the Colonies; and in that capacity, his right hon. Friend, no doubt, had frequent communication with the Land and Emigration Commissioners; and if his right hon. Friend would permit him to say so, he was now therefore rather late in discovering the deficiency of the board which the noble Lord, under whom he served, had then established. His right hon. Friend was, he thought, not very successful in the amendments which he proposed. He would for a moment consider what the board had actually done; but he wished first to correct a fact stated by his right hon. Friend, that there was not a vigorous and vigilant superintendence on the part of the board and of their agents. On the contrary, there was a superintending and directing agency exercised on the part of the board, which made the statement of a noble Lord who lately filled the situation of Colonial Secretary, he meant Lord Stanley, strictly, and almost literally true, that the emigrant, from the moment he left his parish until he arrived at the location which he selected, was well and efficiently superintended and directed. Now, he would ask the House to look for a moment to the amount of emigration conducted by the board for the last ten years. Within this period the persons sent out to Australia were 20,000 under the direct management of the office, and 28,000 more under its immediate superintendence; making a total of 48,000 emigrants within ten years. The House would bear in mind that this was a quarter to which emigration had not before been directed. Until his noble Friend at present at the head of the Colonial Department adopted means for making the sale of the waste lands sustain emigration, no free European emigrants had been sent to those colonies. Yet, under that system, 48,000 individuals had been sent out in ten years under the supervision of the board, and had been all provided with necessaries for the voyage, and had, he believed, in the meantime, been successful in locating themselves. One striking proof of the successful operation of the board was afforded by the gradual decrease that had taken place in the mortality on board emigrant ships. At first the mortality was about five per cent; but under the superintendence of the board it had been gradually reduced, until latterly it was not more than one-half per cent. In fact, through the precautions adopted by the board, the mortality during the voyages was at present absolutely less per cent than among the population remaining in the country. But that was not the only instance in which the board successfully superintended emigration, and directed its current. He would refer to the emigration of the Coolies to the West Indies. That plan was introduced by the late Government; and he saw his hon. Friend opposite (Mr. G. W. Hope), who, in conjunction with the noble Lord then at the head of the Colonial Department, adopted that plan of sending labourers from the East Indies to the West India Colonies. In 1845 and 1846, the Emigration Commissioners were called upon to superintend this new system of emigration. Nearly seventy ships were engaged in London by them, and 18,000 Coolies were sent to the West Indies. Here, again, he found a gradual decrease of mortality on board the ships. Those from Calcutta, owing to the prevalence of cholera there, suffered most; but in the vessels which sailed from Madras the mortality was reduced to eight-tenths per cent, and from Sierra Leone the deaths were still less. His right hon. Friend, therefore, had scarcely done justice to the labours of the present Commissioners; and he did not see that any increase of expenditure or any parliamentary expenditure would be more efficient, or that a parliamentary representative for the board would render it more perfect or make it more known. The Commission was under the direction of the Secretary of State for the Colonial Department, who had always a seat in one House or the other; and having, in point of fact, the responsibility of the proceedings of the Board of Land and Emigration Commissioners, he was always present in Parliament to take that responsibility, and to afford either House information. Let him also state to the House the extent of voluntary emigration which, superintended in a great degree by this board, had proceeded from this country. From the year 1837 to the year 1846 inclusive, no less than 856,392 persons had left this country as emigrants; to America, 740,302; to Australia, 100,754; and to other places, 15,536. The hon. Member for Northampton had scarcely given a correct impression of the nature of the agencies connected with emigration. He held in his hand a report from their emigration agent at Kingston, in Canada, giving very minute details of the number of emigrants that had been forwarded by him through the interior parts of the country, which did not bear out the statement made on this point by the right hon. Gentleman. He wished by these details to show that what his right hon. Friend aimed at was already mainly accomplished, and that the system of voluntary emigration now existing was one entitled to their confidence, rather than one which required that the board should be altered, and an unnecessary expense inflicted on the public by increasing the establishment. He wished it to be borne in mind that he did not speak of colonization—there was a great difference between that and emigration; he spoke only of that stream of daily emigration which proceeded voluntarily from this country; and as far as that was concerned, he thought the present board had been successful and of great benefit. His right hon. Friend knew very well that persons not connected with the Government collected people and sent them out to the colonies. Upon that system, he believed, there was but one opinion. He had evidence to show that amongst the colonists there was but one desire, namely, that the Emigration Board should continue to direct emigration. On the part of the shipowners, who might be supposed to be more interested parties, the feeling was to the same effect; and, as far as he knew, on the part of the public, cases of complaint against the proceedings of the Emigration Board were very rare; but when they did occur, they were most carefully and anxiously investigated under the authority of the Secretary for the Colonies, and the active agency of the board itself. His right hon. Friend seemed to have brought on his Motion with reference to the immediate necessity of the present moment; but the Government were quite alive to the importance of the subject, and intended to increase the emigration vote for the present year. There would be more sufficient means provided at the port of Liverpool; and if at any other ports the number of persons desiring to emigrate increased, the number of agents would be increased also; and all that his right hon. Friend recommended, not the less because he did recommend it, would be cheerfully adopted. That would show that there was no indisposition, by every means within the power of the Government, to meet the present emergency, by again directing a voluntary system of emigration. But if his right hon. Friend contemplated colonization through this board, he contemplated that which the board was never constituted to undertake. A system of colonization was a course of policy upon which the Government and that House must decide; it was a much more difficult and comprehensive question than that of emigration. He wished he could speak definitely upon the subject of colonization. His right hon. Friend knew that a question of that sort depended upon the sufficiency of funds; but if systematic colonization, or colonization upon a large scale, was to be encouraged, let them give free institutions and good local government to those colonies. The capital and labour of this country might be bene- ficially directed to them; but the first and great elements of a sound system of colonization were free institutions and good local government. He thought he might say that that end had been at least obtained in the charter and royal instructions for the future government of New Zealand. If there were no Emigration Board established—if nothing were done to regulate the voyage and all the details connected with that long and sometimes dangerous passage—he should say it was within the power of the Government to do much to encourage emigration; but from the experience he had yet had, he thought the present Emigration Board, and the increased vote for the purpose of emigration this year, and the provisions for agents to receive and direct forward emigrants as they arrived, was about all that the Government could do to encourage a system of free emigration which was at all likely to arise under all circumstances. But he must call the attention of the House to one part of his right hon. Friend's speech. His right hon. Friend said, "Increase the number of agents; nay, even appoint commissioners to encourage emigration. Send them into every parish in the country; give every encouragement to incite persons to emigrate." He thought that that would be a very dangerous course, and would lead to great disappointment; for whence were the funds to come? At present, they came from private sources, or the sale of the Crown lands in the colonies; but if they stimulated neighbourhoods and parishes to emigrate, where would they find the funds? The emigrants would be crowding in the ports discontented, and justly so, and the blame would lie at the door of those who so unguardedly incited emigration without supplying the means of paying their passage. Then his right hon. Friend said, that as to the sale of Crown lands nothing had been done. He could show that causes had been in operation to prevent the sale of Crown lands in New South Wales and Australia; but there had been sales of Crown lands, and he found that between 1840 and 1846, the sale of those lands in New South Wales, Port Philip, Van Diemen's Land, Western Australia, South Australia, New Zealand, and the Falkland Islands, amounted to 45,507l.—the whole of which had been devoted to emigration. It was not, however, in the province of the Board of Emigration to direct the sale of Crown lands. He was not aware that he had omitted to touch upon any point raised by his right hon. Friend. He did not wish to meet this Motion by a direct negative, but rather to show his anxious desire to receive any hint that would facilitate free and voluntary emigration. He therefore proposed to meet the Motion of his right hon. Friend by moving the previous question, assuring his right hon. Friend that the subject would receive all the attention that the Government could give to it.

said, the feeling was strong in some of our most remote colonies that the principles of liberty were not sufficiently recognised, and that the influence of despotism was allowed to prevail too strongly. In every portion of the globe where Her Majesty's rule extended, an expectation had been raised that the principles of a representative and responsible government would be established and recognised: and he rose for the purpose of ascertaining the views of the Colonial Office in this respect. It would do infinite honour to Her Majesty's Government if they would allow a general declaration to go abroad, that where British citizens should establish themselves, there the rights of British citizens would be recognised—that they should no longer be under authority of a despotic or tyrannical character, but take with them the same privileges which those enjoyed whom they had left.

said, his hon. Friend would scarcely expect him to give a very distinct or definite answer to his questions. It would be highly imprudent in him; but, at the same time, Gentlemen who attended to subjects of colonial interest would recollect what had fallen from his noble Friend (Lord J. Russell) in the course of last Session. To what his noble Friend then said, he adhered. He cordially adopted the principle then laid down, and the first fruits of it would be found in the constitution conferred upon the colony of New Zealand. The subject was one which occupied the attention of his noble Friend at the head of the Colonial Department. Beyond this assurance, he could hardly be expected to enter.

was sorry that so limited a character had been given to this debate. He should have been happy if an early opportunity had been taken this Session of entering upon the whole question of colonization. Colonization was very different from emigration; but as the question was likely to be brought before the House, and measures adopted in the colonies whereby emigration might be carried on to the greatest advantage, he should confine his attention to some of the points adverted to by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton. With many of the right hon. Gentleman's suggestions he entirely concurred. He believed himself that sufficient pains had not been taken by the Land and Emigration Committee to extend emigration. He did not think they had been sufficiently impressed with the importance of communicating throughout the United Kingdom information upon the state of emigration prospects, particularly at the commencement of the season. Would there be any objection to lay upon the Table an estimate of the number of emigrants that might annually be received in the British colonies, and also to repeal the emigration tax? No colonization circular had been published during the present year, and great numbers of people therefore were necessarily in entire ignorance as to which of the colonies it would be most advantageous to them to direct their attention. As to agents, not a single port ought to be left unprovided with them; and agents should be established in every one of the colonies to receive and attend to the emigrants. It would also be desirable that when the emigrants arrived out, a minister of their own persuasion should be appointed to watch over their spiritual welfare. The boards of guardians in Ireland ought to have greater power to assist emigration. By these various means he was convinced a greater number of emigrants might obtain improved prospects of bettering their condition in the British colonies, and of becoming the possessors of land. Considering the present state of Ireland, he really did not know any measure more deserving the serious attention of the House than emigration, as a means of extricating that country from its present deplorable position.

would endeavour to answer some of the particular questions which had been put by the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Gentleman first asked whether any estimate could be given of the number of persons who could be annually received in the British North American colonies. It was impossible for the Government to form any estimate of that kind. They would be leading the House and the public into error if they attempted to furnish any estimate of the number of persons who could be received in those colonies in any one year; and it was because they were unable to form any such esti- mate, that, after a great deal of consideration, they thought it unadvisable to undertake the payment of the passage of emigrants thither. The hon. Gentleman must see, if he turned his attention to the subject with a practical view, that when a great number of emigrants arrived in a colony, for whom, or for whose labour, there was no demand, great difficulties would arise in the first place to those poor persons who had crossed the seas without being able to better their condition, and that next a feeling would arise among the colonists most injurious to the welfare of the colony. It was, therefore, in the opinion of the Government, better to leave emigration to be carried on first by the voluntary disposition towards it which there was on the part of many in this country, with the assistance that might be given by landlords or parishes to poor persons; and, in the next place, to the intelligence which was received from the colonies and from the United States of America, with regard to the prospects of employment. The hon. Gentleman knew very well—and it was a most honourable service on the part of those Irish who had gone before—that a very large sum, not less than 100,000l., had been transmitted by them within the last few months to their relatives, for the purpose of facilitating their emigration. This fact showed that voluntary exertions, where the Government had not taken any particular direction, were providing funds for the purpose. But the hon. Gentleman had asked whether it was the opinion of Government that the emigration tax should be continued, that tax being, as he must allow, to a certain amount, an apparent obstruction to emigration. He said "an apparent obstruction to emigration," because he did not think it was a real obstruction; and for that reason he thought it ought to be continued. The emigrants arriving at Quebec used formerly to be in a destitute condition; many of them utterly unable to go further; while, at the same time, there was not in the ports of Canada a sufficient demand for labour to afford the means of employing them beneficially. The proceeds of the emigration tax, which did not exceed 5s. per head, were devoted, in the first place, to provide hospitals and care for those who arrived sick, and were unable to proceed into the country; another object of it was, to enable those persons who were unable from want of means to proceed into the country, to reach the places where there was a sufficient demand for their labour. It seemed to him, therefore, that there could not be a tax with a better object, or one which had more fully answered its purpose. The consequence had been, that of late years emigration had very considerably increased; and, whilst it had so increased, it appeared from the reports of the agents in our North American provinces, that the demand for labour had been promoted; there were none of those sad complaints of numbers lying sick in the streets, and of the failure of emigration, which in former years were common. Last year, 1846, the total number of emigrants from this country to British North America, Australia, and other places, was 129,851. The only assistance given at present was a small sum, which he himself recommended, for the purpose of conveying emigrants from Quebec and other ports into the interior of the country, because he thought as there was proof, by their going out and paying for their passage across the seas, that they had some means, a small amount might be granted to assist the emigration tax. He did not exactly know how much that sum was, but it appeared to him that there was no necessity why it should be increased; at the same time, he was quite ready to say, that if next year the tendency to emigration appeared strong and decided, the sum allowed for assisting emigrants might be increased. He had just been informed that the sum was 5,000l. for the present year, and he did not see any grounds for its increase; but though he now expressed that opinion, it would not preclude the Government from taking into consideration the circumstances of the mother country and of the colonies at a future time. To apply at present any further or additional stimulus, might only add to the general distress, and might have the effect of inundating the colonies with labourers for whom no employment could be found. He had been told, that at the present moment the State of New York was about to impose an emigration tax, and to take other measures, in consequence of the number of persons who had arrived there, with a view of checking them. He assured the hon. Gentleman, that if the Government thought the voting of an inconsiderable sum, or even a considerable sum, for the purposes of emigration, would be conducive to the benefit of Ireland and the colonies, they would be ready to agree to it; but, after full consideration, and after seeing the great benefit derived from leaving emigra- tion to the voluntary efforts of individuals, he was not of opinion that any large assistance on the part of the Government was desirable. With regard to the details of the poor law as to emigration, he would look to the clauses which the hon. Gentleman had pointed out, and if they were defective, he should be happy to confer with the hon. Gentleman upon their amendment. With respect to the Motion before the House, he thought the Under Secretary for the Colonies had fully answered the points in dispute; and ho, therefore, had confined himself to answering the questions of the hon. Gentleman.

said, it was all very well to lay down general theories upon such a subject as this, but it was much more difficult to carry them into practice. He had often had to defend the Colonial Department for not doing more in this direction; but when he was in office, it was deemed best not to attempt what they foresaw could not be accomplished. The Land and Emigration Board had been charged with want of energy and activity; but if that charge could be maintained, it was owing to the want of the sinews of war. The Australian Board, which was supplied with funds from the sale of land, had shown great activity and energy, so also had the Coolie and West Indian Boards. He contended that the Commissioners, so far from showing a want of activity, had displayed the greatest skill and energy. As regarded emigration from this country, the right hon. Gentleman had stated that their office was so little known, that persons could scarcely find it out. If that were so, it did not result from any fault in the constitution of the board. He knew, however, that the number of letters answered in one year by that board was nearly as great as those answered by the Colonial Department. The applications were most numerous, and he believed that the information given had been most full and satisfactory. The hon. Gentleman complained that a measure which had been brought in under the Administration of the noble Lord (Lord Stanley) had been abandoned. That was so; but it was upon the recommendation and report of Lord Sydenham that that had been done. Lord Sydenham said, that he had no hesitation in pronouncing such a measure inexpedient, for the sum that could be obtained from Parliament would be inconsiderable—it would open up an opportunity of jobbing, and would paralyse all individual exertion. Upon that report the scheme had been abandoned, and not, he believed, at the suggestion of the noble Lord (Lord Stanley) himself.

admitted that he had propounded to the House a plan which some might have thought visionary; which certainly was so comprehensive that he himself could scarcely have hoped for its adoption; but yet which he thought might have removed some of the great obstacles in the way of emigration. His noble Friend also had thought, that by making an immediate effort in the way of emigration to the colonies, some beneficial consequence might result to Ireland. Both plans were large, and both had undoubtedly failed; but he asked, whether it was any discredit, either to his noble Friend or to himself, that they had proposed and had done their best to carry out plans which they believed would be useful in their results, and which they, therefore, thought it their duty to submit to the House? He certainly could not apply that charge to the right hon. Gentleman opposite, or to the noble Lord under whom he acted. They had made theory and practice perfectly coincide. Their theory was, that it was unadvisable to take any steps to found British settlements in any part of the globe; and most amply did they carry out their theory. Now, with respect to the question which had been brought forward by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton (Mr. V. Smith), he had little to add to what had been stated by his right hon. Friend the Under Secretary for the Colonies. Any deficiency in the organization of the Land and Emigration Board was not in reality the difficulty in the way of colonization. There were, in his opinion, two great difficulties. One was the extremely imperfect state of the Colonial Governments; and the other was the utter impossibility of getting any land fund from which to defray the expenses of emigration. In Upper Canada, where there was the largest extent of unoccupied land in the British dominions, it had been so appropriated in former times, in consequence of profuse grants from the Crown to absentee landlords, that when Lord Durham presented his report, it appeared that out of 17,000,000 acres of surveyed and occupied land, only 600,000 acres had been left in the occupation of the Crown. Now, let them look at Prince Edward's Island. That block of land contained about 1,000,000 acres. Its insular position, genial climate, and fertile soil, gave it an advantage over almost every other part of the British dominions. That island now supported a population of 12,000 people. But society there was in a stagnant, unproductive, most hopeless state. The blight of that colony occurred in a single day, the day when the king of this country was advised to grant the whole of that island to persons in London who knew nothing about it or its capabilities. The next colony which was available for emigration—which he should say presented the noblest field of enterprise to the English race, which was admirably situated for commerce, superior in climate to any portion of the world, and of great extent—was the colony commencing with the Cape of Good Hope. They all knew the difficulty there—the presence of a savage enemy whom no colonists would venture to encounter. The only colonies left as a seat of colonization, were the Australian Colonies and New Zealand. The Commissioners had used the land there as it had been entrusted to them; they had sent out emigrants on an improved plan—all they could do was simply to superintend their emigration. Then there was a large voluntary emigration to the United States and to Canada—the Commissioners superintended that also. Now, he did not mean to say when the British colonies should be laid open, and should afford that field to the industry of this country which they ought to afford, that the office of Colonial Land and Emigration Commissioner might not be one of far greater importance and utility; but he did say that to commence with a reform of the Colonial Land and Emigration Board at the present moment, would be to fit it for functions which at present it had no opportunity of discharging. Their operations should tend in two other directions. First, they should concede to every body of Englishmen who went out to plant a colony, the right which Englishmen had of self-government; and secondly, they should in every colony establish such a sound system for the disposal of land, as would, whilst concentrating the efforts of the population, at the same time afford an ample fund for conveying emigrants from this country to the most distant parts of the world.

said, some plan must be devised to provide the means of extensive emigration from Ireland, or there would be no resource for the people there but to lie down and die of starvation. It would be better that something should be done such as had been indicated by the noble Lord, than that such a result should ensue. At the same time, he thought that the devotion of so miserable a sum as 5,000l. a year for such a purpose, was only calculated to act as a damper on the expectations of the people of this country, and to produce the impression that the Government were not doing all they could.

, in reply, said, after the statement of his hon. Friend the Under Secretary for the Colonies, of course it was not his intention to divide the House upon his Motion. During the discussion, it had been said that he was rather late in bringing the question under the notice of the House. Now, undoubtedly, the Emigration Board was established when he had the honour of serving in the Colonial Office, under his noble Friend below him (Lord J. Russell), and he heartily approved of its institution; but he had always understood that it was the intention of his noble Friend to improve and extend the original scope of the duties of the board, and it was to urge on that improvement that he had ventured to call the attention of the House to the question. It had also been assumed that he was desirous of stimulating and encouraging emigration by means of agents of the board being distributed throughout the country. He had said no such thing. All he wanted was, that correct information upon the subject should be given to the people, in place of that delusive information which was so frequently put before them, and which was so calculated to mislead.

said, that in rising to call the attention of the House to the subject of which he had given notice, namely, the annexation of Cracow, he could not avoid expressing a hope, that the cause which he supported would not suffer in consequence of his inability to do that justice to it which the importance of the subject deserved. However feeble his efforts might be, he was unwilling to allow any longer time to elapse without bringing the matter under the notice of the House; and he therefore availed himself of this opportunity of doing so. It would be in the recollection of the House that towards the close of last Session he called its attention to the state of continental affairs, in consequence of the free State of Cracow being at that time occupied by Russian and Aus- train troops, which troops he then thought were very likely to retain possession of Cracow. He urged upon our Government the propriety of giving attention to the condition of the free State of Cracow—an attention which was more especially required from them, inasmuch as we were parties to the Treaty of Vienna, and it was therefore to be expected that we would not allow the free State of Cracow to remain subjected to occupation by those soldiers, without any remark or remonstrance on our part. In 1831, there was a previous occupation and military possession; and in 1836 there was another military occupation—both directly contrary to the Treaty of Vienna. Those occupations he described last Session, and in addition he showed that he had reason to doubt the intention to cause the troops to retire from Cracow; but, on that occasion, the noble Lord at the head of the Foreign Department, whom he saw in his place, begged of the House not to give credence to the statements which he (Mr. Hume) then made, as the noble Lord (Lord Palmerston) was in possession of better information, and he was convinced that the occupation of Cracow was only a temporary occupation; and a noble Duke in another place was equally confident that his old allies and friends would not require more than a temporary occupation of Cracow, and that, before long, the territory of Cracow would be free from the presence of those troops. He (Mr. Hume) stated on that occasion what he would now repeat, that this was not the first infraction of the Treaty of Vienna which he had remarked; and he expressed his regret that this country should have been a party to a treaty which she was not capable of enforcing. He found that we had kept faith and honour so far as our part was concerned; but he had not found that those Powers to which he had alluded had kept their faith and honour on any occasion where their own interests were concerned. He, on that occasion, and with those views, directed the attention of the House to the occupation of Cracow by foreign troops; but he would now call on hon. Members to take a view of Cracow under different circumstances from those in which she was placed when he last brought forward the subject. When he called attention to it towards the end of last Session, it was stated that there had been no infraction of the Treaty of Vienna; but since that occasion, namely, on the 19th of January, at the opening of the Session of Parliament, it was alluded to in the Queen's Speech in the following terms:—

"The extinction of the free State of Cracow has appeared to me to be so manifest a violation of the Treaty of Vienna, that I have commanded that a protest against that Act should be delivered to the Courts of Vienna, St. Petersburg, and Berlin, which were parties to it. Copies of these papers will be laid before you."

That was the statement in the Queen's Speech, showing that it was regarded as a direct violation of the Treaty of Vienna; and lest it might be supposed, as he believed it had been already stated, that the opinions of the House had been fully expressed on the subject in the Answer to the Address, he would beg to remind hon. Members of what was invariably the case, namely, that the Answer to the Queen's Speech did not prevent a full consideration of any subject mentioned in it at any later period of the Session; and he, therefore, hoped that the universal practice of the House would be a sufficient answer to any allegation to the effect that this subject had been finally disposed of in the Answer to the Address. He now held in his hand a paper laid on the Table of the House by command of her Majesty; it was a paper relative to the suppression of the free State of Cracow by Austria, Russia, and Prussia. He was not the only person, it would appear, who was alarmed at the occupation of Cracow by foreign troops; for that occupation had been made the subject of a correspondence so early as February last year, although it was then stated, as it had been since, that the occupation was to be but temporary. In one of the letters of Mr. Magennis, from Vienna, he stated to Lord Aberdeen that a messenger had been despatched to London, with a view to give a full explanation of the occupation of Cracow. He regretted that he did not find the papers containing those explanations in the correspondence presented to Parliament; but he presumed they satisfied the noble Lord then at the head of Foreign Affairs, that the assurances and statements he received from foreign Courts were to be credited. It was somewhat remarkable, that from January to August no definite answer appeared to have been made either by Lord Aberdeen or by the noble Lord now at the head of Foreign Affairs. It did not appear that they had issued any instructions respecting the occupation of Cracow, although, after the attention given to it in Parliament and in the country, the House was entited to expect that some notice would have been taken of it. On the 25th of June, Lord Aberdeen wrote a letter, in which, with all the prudence and caution for which that noble Lord was noted, he said he would suspend his opinion at present respecting the occupation of Cracow, and would abstain from active interference on behalf of that republic. The noble Lord now at the head of Foreign Affairs said, in his letter of August 4th, that he hoped nothing would be done in regard to the State of Cracow which was at variance with the stipulations of the Treaty of Vienna. That letter was written within a few days of his (Mr. Hume's) Motion respecting the occupation of Cracow; and he gave the noble Lord credit for believing that the Allied Powers would not be guilty of such a violation of the Treaty of Vienna as had since taken place. The papers laid on the Table of the House afforded full means of judging of the real nature of the transactions in connexion with the occupation of Cracow; and in alluding to them he would say of Prince Metternich's letter that it was one of the most discreditable documents which he could imagine, coming as it did from a man of the high character of Prince Metternich, who ought to maintain the honour of the nation he represented, and the character of a diplomatist. The document was, he repeated, discreditable to Prince Metternich; for although it might be the policy of a diplomatist, judging of public faith, to justify himself by the magnitude of smallness of the territory concerned, yet he (Mr. Hume) could not agree to that, and therefore when Prince Metternich satisfied himself that Cracow was only an atom—"a geographical atom"—he could not recognise that as an element which ought to affect faith in keeping a treaty; but when the independence of that State was guaranteed in four or five separate articles of the Treaty of Vienna, it showed great laxity of principle to put an end to the liberty of its inhabitants; and the word of honour of a statesman who could advise its annexation was not worth the paper on which it was written. He would say, too, that the word and honour of a man who, in violation of the Treaty of Vienna, advised the annexation of Cracow, was not worthy of consideration. It appeared that on the 11th of November, the Austrian Government published to the world, a declaration on the subject of Cracow, which contained the following passages:—

"The State of Cracow has of its own accord, and without being thereunto driven by any foreign material force, precipitated itself into the gulf of the vast conspiracy which, having for its object to re-establish the former revolutionary Government, was to have directed the measures by which this enterprise was to have been carried into effect."

Now there was not one word of truth in that statement on the part of Austria, as Lord Palmerston completely demonstrated in his able answer. Indeed, after reading that answer of the noble Lord, no man within the walls of that House would believe that there was one word of truth in the paragraph which he had quoted. The next paragraph whieh he would quote from that declaration of Austria, was of a similar character; it was—

"In direct violation of treaties, those Poles, subjects of the Three Powers, who had been imprisoned in the revolution of the kingdom of Poland, and who wished to find an asylum in the territory of Cracow, were received, and their machinations protected and supported."

Of that paragraph he might say, as he said of "the former, that it did not contain one word of truth. By the Treaty of Vienna, the State of Cracow was bound to deliver up on requisition all persons who engaged in political conspiracies against the States which were parties to the Treaty; but in the case of Cracow no requisition for the delivery of such conspirators was made, and no conspirators were delivered up, for there were none to deliver. These were the futile pretences on which the Governments engaged in the suppression of the free State of Cracow acted. The declaration went on to state, as would be seen at page 35, that—

"The Courts of Austria, Russia, and Prussia, having under these circumstances to deliberate as to the measures to be adopted by them in order to prevent the recurrence of events similar to those which have lately taken place, have been unanimously of opinion that the political body created in 1815, and destroyed by the revolution itself, has been productive of results too fatal to the maintenance of peace; that it has shown itself too incompatible with the condition of the internal tranquillity of their own States, and with the maintenance of the principles of general peace, to render it possible for them to reconstruct it."

The noble Lord (Lord Palmerston) the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, with his great talent, pointed out clearly how erroneous those grounds were, and truly said that if there were any danger to be apprehended from the State of Cracow, it was not for only three parties to the treaty to take upon themselves to annul that free State; that the other Powers parties to the treaty ought to have been consulted; and that measures might then be taken to prevent the recurrence of a state of things in Cracow similar to that which had been complained of, if such a state of things existed. If residence had been afforded to conspirators in Cracow, the Allies would be warranted in preventing it; but it did not follow that three out of eight or nine parties to the Treaty of Vienna should destroy the independence of Cracow without the consent of the other parties, and without the sanction of any law or custom amongst civilized nations. The noble Lord (Lord Palmerston) said that the laws of Cracow and its police regulations might be modified, in order to prevent mischief arising from conspiracies, or the presence of strangers, if such mischiefs existed; but no modifications were proposed, and they were not proposed for the reasons which he (Mr. Hume) had already stated—namely, that there were no conspirators, and therefore, the annexation was founded on injustice. Lord Palmerston, in his answer to the declaration, also said—

"It is alleged that Cracow has long been, and if it remains independent will still continue to be, the centre of intrigues, having for their object the disturbance of the tranquillity of adjoining territories; and the question is in what degree the present political condition of Cracow affords facilities for the carrying on of such practices. Now such intrigues and plots must be carried on either by strangers coming to Craeow, or by the native inhabitants themselves. But no stranger can reach Cracow except by traversing a vast extent of territory belonging to one or other of the Three Powers; and it is difficult to imagine that any Polish exile, or any conspirator from any foreign country, could so far elude the vigilance of the police of the Power whose territory he would have to pass through, as to be able to penetrate to Cracow. The population of Cracow is not large in number; and not only would the arrival of a suspicious stranger amongst them be quickly known to the police, but it would be scarcely possible for such a stranger or for any resident inhabitant of the State, long to carry on a correspondence with the people of neighbouring districts for the purpose of exciting disturbances therein, without such correspondence coming to the knowledge of the Government, and through them to that of the three residents."

And the noble Lord proceeded to say, that, if necessary for this purpose, the police regulations and the laws of Cracow might be made more stringent, without destroying the independence of the State; and then added—

"It is no doubt the duty of Cracow to give to those Powers such security; for freedom and independence were given to Cracow for the wellbeing and happiness of its own people, and not in order to enable that people to create disturbances and confusion in adjoining countries. It appears, then, to Her Majesty's Government that no sufficient proof has yet been given to show that full security might not be afforded to the internal tranquillity of the territories of the Three Powers, without destroying the separate and independent existence of the State of Cracow. But Her Majesty's Government must, at all events, deny the competency of the Three Powers to decide upon, and to execute, such a measure of their own separate authority, and without the concurrence of the other Powers who were parties to the Treaty of Vienna, of June, 1815. There is no doubt that the erection of Cracow and its territory into a free and independent State, together with many of the details of its organization, are matters which were first recorded by the Treaty of the 3rd of May, 1815. But that Treaty merely recorded one part of the various arrangements made by the general Congress of Vienna; and it was by Article 118 of the general Treaty declared to be an integral part of the arrangements of the Congress of the European Powers, and to have everywhere the same force and value as if it had been inserted word for word in the general Treaty.

"But besides this, the leading stipulations about Cracow which are contained in the separate Treaty of the 3rd May, concluded between the Three Powers, are inserted, word for word, in the general Treaty to which all the Powers are parties, and those stipulations constituted the Articles 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10, of that general Treaty … For these reasons, Her Majesty's Government are of opinion that the execution of the intentions which the Three Powers have announced, would be a measure justifiable by no adequate necessity, and would involve a violation of positive stipulations contained in the general Treaty of Vienna; and Her Majesty's Government, deeply impressed with the conviction that it is above all things important that the engagements of treaties should at all times be faithfully observed, most earnestly hope that means may be devised for guarding the territories of the Three Powers against the dangers adverted to in their identical communications without any breach of the Treaty of 1815."

He (Mr. Hume) hoped, after reading these extracts, no difficulty would be found in showing that the annexation of Cracow was a direct violation of the Treaty of Vienna. One might have expected that a nation like Austria, who owed so much to the efforts of England—but for whose large expenditure of blood and money all the German States, with Austria, would have been slaves to the military government of Napoleon—would have behaved differently. In her last struggle, England had incurred no less than 600,000,000l. of debt, with a view to secure the liberties of the Continent of Europe; and there could be no doubt that the Continental States owed their independence to the exertions of England. It appeared to him, therefore, to be insulting beyond anything, that they should have acted in the manner which they had done. He would next notice the declaration made by the Emperor Ferdinand of the 11th November last—

"We accordingly, by these presents, take possession of the city of Cracow and of its territory, such as it has existed up to the present time, unite it to our Crown, and declare it to form an integral portion of our empire, in which we incorporate it henceforth."

He asked if that was not an infraction of the Treaty of Vienna, and if it did not set aside the whole of the Treaty? If that was not sufficient to induce Her Majesty's Government to take decided steps, he knew nothing that could make them. To show the House, however, what views he took on this question, he was disposed not to make a simple protest—for what did people who had violated such obligations care for protests? Nothing of that kind would do for them, and therefore he was disposed to deal with them in a stronger manner, and he trusted that the Commons of England would support him. They would be very much blamed if, when it was in their power to show their displeasure at the conduct of the Northern Powers, they did not manifest it in a manner not to be mistaken. He had been asked that morning, "Do you wish to go to war?" and his answer was, "No, I do not wish for war; I am a man of peace; but having it in our power, by a legislative enactment, to say whether we shall continue to pay a sum of money in pursuance of stipulations contained in the Treaty of Vienna, we ought not to allow one portion of the bargain to be broken, and keep the other." It appeared to him to be quite clear, that if Russia had not kept to the bargain made on her part, we were liberated from the payment of the money. With that view, therefore, he proposed to submit to the House four resolutions, the fourth being, in his view, the most important. The Speech from the Throne might satisfy any hon. Member that the violation of the Treaty of Vienna had been complete; but the House of Commons required that certain forms should be observed, and he had therefore prefaced the fourth resolution by three others. The whole Treaty of Vienna was framed and carried out with a view of maintaining the balance of power, in order that it might be the basis of a permanent peace; and no country, under any circumstances, at any time, ever made so many sacrifices for the great object then contemplated as Great Britain then did, giving up everything herself, and showing the greatest disinterestedness. It was important, therefore, to look at the grounds on which this treaty was based, and to consider whether, if any of its stipulations were violated, the whole treaty did not fall to the ground. He admitted that he was one who had always objected to that treaty. He was anxious for peace, because, after twenty years of war, no one could fail to see the evils which must arise from its continuance; and on that account he was as anxious to see the treaty concluded as any man who was a party to it. But there were stipulations in the Treaty of Vienna to which he had always objected. Up to the day on which that treaty was concluded, England stood free from the disgrace to which all were subjected who had been parties to the partition of Poland. He would remind the House of what had taken place with respect to Poland in 1772, in 1793, and again in 1795. In 1772, Poland lost 3,600 square miles of territory, and 6,356,000 inhabitants; in 1793, 6,000 square miles of territory, and 7,100,000 persons; and again, in 1795, 4,593 square miles of territory, and 6,500,000 persons. Thus, on the whole, a population of 20,000,000 of persons, and 14,000 square miles, were divided among Prussia, Russia, and Austria. Up to the time of the Treaty of Vienna, England was innocent of the guilt of that partition; but she participated in it by the arrangements which were then made at Vienna by the assembled Powers. When the House considered the sacrifice of honour that England made by her concurrence in that partition and unholy robbery, it was not too much to say, that we were as bad as the robbers ourselves. It was on that ground he had always considered that if ever a treaty was carried out, it ought to be carried out by those for whom we had made such great sacrifices, and that they should make us some reparation. He could not look at Austria without considering that she was guilty of the grossest ingratitude. In the days of her greatest trouble, when Napoleon was at the gates of Vienna, and she had no means of raising money, this country came to her assistance, and accommodated her with two loans, which enabled her to make head against her enemies. The Emperor of Austria had a very short memory; but he ought to be reminded that in 1822 we had received, out of a debt owing us by Austria of 17,500,000l., but 2,500,000l.; and that in that year the country sanctioned a vote whitewashing the Austrian Government. Shame ought to be on their foreheads in whatever place they went, when they paid no attention to the remonstrances of England after so much liberality. He was anxious, however, that it should not by any means be considered, from what he had stated, that no violation of the Treaty of Vienna had taken place before. He looked to the general Treaty of Congress, signed at Vienna on the 9th of June, 1815, and he saw there the signatures of Austria, France, Great Britain, Portugal, Prussia, Russia, and Sweden—every great European State, in fact, except Spain, that omission arising from the circumstance of there being no representative from that country at the Court of Vienna at the time. He believed that we gave a million of money to Denmark, and sanctioned the robbery that was then committed by giving Norway to Sweden instead of Denmark, to which Norway belonged. He had read with very great pleasure a letter written by Lord Castlereagh, whom he had always previously considered a very cold-hearted man, in which he said that nothing had ever given him more pain than to take Norway from Denmark and give it to Sweden. We made ourselves a party to that crime. To return, however, to Cracow. Lest there should be any hon. Member who had the least doubt on the subject, he would allude only to two paragraphs of the additional Treaty relative to Cracow, between Austria, Prussia, and Russia, of the 21st of April, 1815, which, by the 118th Article of the Treaty of Vienna, was declared to have the same force and validity as if it had been inserted in the general treaty. This, therefore, formed part of the Treaty of Vienna, and the 6th Article of the additional Treaty ran thus:—

"The three Courts engage to respect, and to cause to be respected at all times, the neutrality of the free city of Cracow and its territory, and no armed force shall enter it under any pretence whatsoever. On the other hand, it is understood and expressly stipulated, that the free city and territory of Cracow shall not afford any asylum or protection to runaways, deserters, or persons under prosecution, belonging to the countries of either of the three contracting Powers, and that, on the demand of their surrender by the competent authorities, such individuals shall be arrested without delay, and delivered up, under a proper escort, to the guard appointed to receive them at the frontier."

The noble Lord had very properly stated in his despatch that no such requisition was made; and it would not be until after the Senate of Cracow had refused to deliver up such persons that Cracow could be in justice visited with the penalty which the Three Powers had inflicted upon that city. The occurrence to which he was now calling the attention of the House was not the first violation of the Treaty of Vienna that had been committed by the Three Powers. The First Article of the Treaty of Vienna provided, that Poland should be united to Russia "by its constitution;" and the Emperor Nicholas, on his accession to the throne in 1825, took the following oath:—

"I swear and promise before God, and upon the holy Evangelists, to maintain and execute to the utmost of my power the Constitutional Charter."

Now, what had been the result? By that constitution, the liberty of the person was guaranteed; but Constantine, without even the form of a trial, condemned numerous inhabitants of Warsaw, and degraded many of the most eminent amongst them to clean away the dirt in the streets; and even members of the Diet were imprisoned for uttering opinions delivered by them in their official capacity. The liberty of the press was also guaranteed by the constitution; but the liberty of the press did not exist even for a single day. The moment Russia took possession of Cracow under the stipulations of the Treaty of Vienna, the liberty of the press was destroyed. He (Mr. Hume) must here observe that he thought the opinion expressed by the late Lord Castlereagh on this subject did him great credit. That noble Lord, in alluding to this provision of the treaty, said that he considered the liberty of the press essential to the protection of public liberty. He (Mr. Hume) was of opinion that we ought long ago to have protested against these breaches of the treaty; and it was alleged that protests were made, in 1830, by the late Earl Grey. He wished the noble Lord (Lord Palmerston) would lay those protests on the Table of the House. He publicly asked for their production at the time, but he was unable to obtain them; and why, he would ask, were they not produced? Why was not the conduct of those wretched men—the tyrants of their people, and the violators of treaties—laid open to the public in all its deformity and wickedness? He thought, when they saw how utterly reckless the Emperor of Russia had been in his violations of the Treaty of Vienna, that they ought to learn wisdom by experience, and abandon all connexion with such faithless and unprincipled men. We ought to stand alone, and not participate in their wicked- ness. The Emperor of Russia had violated all his promises with respect to Poland. The Poles had been promised the right of agreeing to a budget, and they had been promised that the Diet should be assembled at least once in four years. This had not been done. He wanted to show that a deliberate violation of the Treaty of Vienna was not confined to the case of Cracow. It had been stipulated by Russia that Russian troops should not be introduced into Poland, except upon particular occasions, and that then they should be supported at the expense of Russia. But the ink of the treaty was scarcely dry, before 10,000 Russians were marched into Poland, and permanently quartered at Warsaw. Those troops were maintained chiefly by the inhabitants; England stood by and allowed that outrage to be committed. In 1832, the constitution of Poland was formally abolished, and replaced by an organic statute. Since that time the Government of Russia had not ceased to oppress the people of Poland, by the confiscation of numerous estates; by transporting hundreds of wretched creatures, for political offences, to the deserts of Siberia; by carrying off great numbers of children into the interior of Russia, in order to bring them up as Russians; by the forcible transplantation of families to the military colonies; by excessive levies of recruits destined to perish in the Caucasus; by intolerable taxation; by the suppression of universities and spoliation of public and private libraries; and, above all, by the appropriation of the revenues of the national church to the purposes of another creed; and by an unrelenting system of persecution on account of religion. The Bishopric of Cracow, the maintenance of which had been guaranteed, had also been abolished; and he thought, under these circumstances, he might fairly claim the vote of the hon. Member for Oxford (Sir R. Inglis), who had evinced so much interest on behalf of ecclesiastical and academical institutions in this country. There had, however, been many other violations of the Treaty of Vienna. The first article of that treaty stipulated that the Poles who were respective subjects of Russia, Austria, and Prussia, should obtain a representation, and national institutions. Now we, who enjoyed all the advantages of a representative system, would have rejoiced at the extension to Poland of so valable an institution; and as we were parties to the treaty which held out hopes to the Polish people of such a boon, he considered that we were bound to expose the injustice of its violation. Prussia had granted to her Polish subjects a national representation, although, perhaps, not a very effective one; Austria had granted that which could only be considered as the pretence or shadow of a representation; Russia, however, had not conceded to her Polish subjects (except to that small portion inhabiting what was called the kingdom of Poland) any representation whatever, or even the semblance of one. Nay, Russia had even forbidden them the use of their own language. He thought the atrocity of Russia was fully shown by these facts—that she had robbed the Poles of their public institutions, that she had forbidden them the use of their language, and had interfered with their religion. He begged to observe, that some of the statements with reference to the conduct of Russia contained in two of the letters of the late Lord Castlereagh, well deserved the attention of the House. Having noticed the advances which Russia had made towards Prussia, by Poland, and the encroachments she had made on the south-east, in Moldavia, Wallachia, and Bessarabia, the noble Lord cautioned the Emperor of Russia to be careful, lest, by proceeding too far, he might excite jealousy and alarm. Lord Castlereagh then referred to the various arrangements and allotments of territory which were made under the Treaty of Vienna. Why was all this done? In order, as was professed, that the balance of power in Europe might be preserved, and that permanent peace for the advantage of all Europe might be established. If they were to permit the stipulations of the treaty to be violated—to be torn away piecemeal—of what use was it to have the treaty at all? By these late proceedings, the legal sanction given by the Congress of Vienna to the settlement which it guaranteed, was gone. The partition of Poland was no longer legal. It was no longer legal, because the parties had violated the stipulations of the treaty under which it took place. All Europe was liberated from the yoke of the Treaty of Vienna. Every State, every country, was at liberty to assert its own independence. The recent proceeding had accomplished that. Poland had a full right to reassert her own freedom; and he knew no reason why the same rule should not prevail on the Rhine, the Po, and the Danube. He saw no reason why the States partitioned by the Treaty of Vienna should not be restored to their old proprietors. When rogues quarrelled, honest men came by their own. In this case, the rogues had quarrelled; and, therefore, honest men might expect a restoration of what belonged to them. Could the people of Austria, Russia, and Prussia, have any confidence in their Governments? Was it not the duty of every individual to assert his rights, always supposing he had the power? He would not advise him to anything of the kind, if he had not. But he repeated, that by the violation of the Treaty of Vienna the people were absolved from their allegiance; and the day might come when the twenty-two or twenty-three millions of Poles would be roused either for or against us. What had occurred had taken from every small State its security. It rendered physical force the rule of the day; and if physical force were to be the rule of the day, he should be glad to know what was to be the consequence. Many might not think, but he thought—and hon. Members might differ from him—but he repeated, he did think that the suppression of the State of Cracow destroyed every pretext of European law. There was no international law which could now be maintained in Europe. The effect of treaties was gone; let every man who might answer him assert to the contrary. Those proceedings had destroyed the security of the peace of Europe. They formed the first step to still further changes. Let hon. Members read the correspondence which had taken place relative to Switzerland, between that Government and those of Austria, Prussia, and Russia. How they could dare to be so impudent—if he knew any stronger word he would use it—how they could dare to be so impudent he knew not, as to assert, as Austria, in a note agreed to by the other Powers, had asserted, that—

"The Austrian Court respects the authority which Article 10 of the Federal Compact has appointed to direct the affairs of the Confederation. The Austrian Court, faithful to its international obligations" (the annexation of Cracow, for instance), "as well as to its feelings of sincere friendship for Switzerland, will constantly endeavour to cultivate its relations with the Confederation through the medium of this authority, so long as the basis from which the power given to the Directory for the time being emanates, and by virtue of which that power is at present exercised by Berne, shall not be invaded in its essence or violated in its spirit."

Now, this basis was no other than the federal compact of the 7th of August, 1845; and he thought that three Powers, less warranted in making such a declaration, had never appeared before any criminal judge in the world. The proceedings in reference to Cracow were but the commencement of evil: they led to the most imminent risk of a breach of the general peace; and seeing the sacrifices made to obtain that peace, he did say that when such encroachments as these had taken place—encroachments so glaring that Her Majesty was compelled to take notice of them in her Address to the House—he did say that it was time that the Legislature should express, in language not to be mistaken, their detestation, their abhorrence of such practices, and their determination never to sanction or countenance them. They trampled upon all nationalities. They set all treaties at defiance. And he repeated, that at the least they ought to manifest their abhorrence, so far as they could, by stopping the payment of money only due under those treaties. Before proceeding, however, to this part of the subject, he might be allowed to say a few words on what had fallen from the noble Lord opposite (Lord G. Bentinck) with reference to the act of the annexation of the city of Cracow. The noble Lord stated that the inhabitants, to mark their joy and satisfaction at the event, had indulged in all manner of festive proceedings—in music, dancing, bonfires, and so forth. Now, he could assert, on the authority of documents coming directly from Cracow, and for the authenticity of which he would pledge himself, that such was anything but a correct statement of what had occurred. The writers of the letters in question stated, that it was utterly false that Cracow had ever been a focus of revolution, and that arms or warlike ammunition had ever been collected there; and then they went on to state that the citizens were utterly unable to make the slightest resistance to the military force which had interfered with them, and consequently that the demonstrations alluded to were demonstrations of the parties who were the aggressors, not those who were aggrieved. To return to the main subject. In order to be able to ask the House to agree to his fourth resolution, he must show that the money we had so long paid to Russia we were not bound longer to pay. By the Fourth Article of the Treaty of Vienna, an agreement was entered into between England, Russia, and Holland, respecting the Russian-Dutch loan, borrowed by Holland from Russia, and payable upon two conditions. So long as Bel- gium should continue to remain a portion of the Netherlands, we bound ourselves to pay in a certain proportion upon the capital of the loan, until the whole should have been cleared off. Upon the ratification of this treaty, Parliament passed an Act, the 55th of Geo. III., to enable the Government to carry its stipulations into effect, and the money was accordingly regularly paid until 1831. It was known to hon. Members, that, in 1830, the revolution in Belgium separated that country from Holland, and that that revolution was one which we supported and sanctioned. As he had stated, we continued to pay the money until 1831. He had then objected to the continuance of that payment. He then told them that they were paying money which they had no right to pay; and he said that he would show that by the original Treaty of 1815 they were absolved from continuing their payments. The Government of the day objected to his proposition, but they were ultimately obliged to bring in an Act to carry out the new convention which was then made. This convention was made betwixt Russia and England. Holland had nothing to do with it. She was out of the question. What then did that convention say? It stated that its object was to render the spirit of the Convention of 1815 more consonant than it had come to be to the then existing state of things, and went on to state that the object of the Convention of 1815 was—

"To afford to Great Britain a guarantee that Russia would, on all questions concerning Belgium, identify her policy with that which the Court of London had deemed the best adapted for the maintenance of a just balance of power in Europe; and, on the other hand, to secure to Russia the payment of a portion of her old Dutch debt, in consideration of the general arrangements of the Congress of Vienna to which she has given her adhesion—arrangements which remain in full force."

Now, he asked the House—such being the case—the stipulations being just as distinct as those of the former treaty—he asked the House to set aside the second as they had set aside the first convention. Russia had violated her engagements. Ought she to be allowed to profit by her own faults? He did not bring forward these opinions on his own unsupported authority: a learned civilian had already stated his views upon the subject—had already declared that in his opinion we were absolved by international law from the necessity of continuing our payments. There might be ground for the Government to say that there existed political reasons why we should continue to pay. But then we should need another Act of Parliament. It was impossible that we could continue our payments under the present law. He was indebted to the hon. and learned Member for Kinsale (Mr. Watson), who was prevented from being present, for some extracts bearing upon the subject from Vattel. The clear opinion of his hon. and learned Friend was, that no legal claim for a continuance of payment existed, and that no such continued payments ought to be made, unless indeed they were warranted by peculiar political reasons. The extracts from Vattel entrusted to him by his hon. and learned Friend, went to prove that articles of treaties should not be construed as so many distinct and separate treaties—that they were all linked together—and that an infraction of one, injured the validity of the whole. Vattel said—

"The party, therefore, who is offended or injured in those particulars which constitute the basis of the treaty, is at liberty to choose the alternative of either compelling a faithless ally to fulfil his agreements, or of declining the treaty dissolved by his violation of it …We cannot consider the several articles of the same treaty as so many distinct and independent treaties; for, though we do not see any immediate connexion between some of those articles, they are all connected by this common relation, namely, that the contracting Powers have agreed to some of them, in consideration of the others, and by way of compensation."

No doubt, the Treaty of Vienna was framed expressly upon that principle. We disliked some of the articles of that treaty, but we accepted them because we obtained others which we approved of; and it was not impossible that each of the contracting parties was influenced by the same motives. If, therefore, the treaty was violated in one article, it became altogether null and void. Martin's Law of Nations contained a passage which was worthy of the attention of the House:—

"If of many treaties between two contracting Powers, one should happen to be violated, the others do not, on that account merely, cease to be obligatory; but since the perfect right of the injured party allows him to violate the perfect rights of the other party till he has obtained due satisfaction, a Power that justly complains of the violation of one treaty, may, by way of retaliation, successively transgress another treaty even so far as to declare forfeited the rights resulting to the other party from such treaty."

It was on that principle that the Treaty of Vienna had been framed and agreed to. There were portions of it to which we entertained objections; and were any stipulation broken, the whole treaty would be violated. The Russian-Dutch loan had been regularly paid from 1816 until 1846—during that period the sum total of our disbursements amounted to no less than 3,374,000l.—a pretty fair amount from a distressed country—intended, too, to be continued during the next financial year, when they had only an estimated surplus of 60,000l. to calculate upon; and, worse still, to be continued in the face of a flagrant violation of the treaty under which it was originally made payable. He had put his view of this part of the case in his third resolution, which was as follows:—

"That the Convention of the 16th day of November, 1831, between His Majesty the King of Great Britain and Ireland, and the Emperor of all the Russias, was made to explain the stipulations of the Treaty between Great Britain, Russia, and the Netherlands, signed at London on the 19th day of May, 1815, and included in the Treaty of Vienna; and, by that Convention, it was agreed by Great Britain 'to secure to Russia the payment of a portion of her old Dutch debt, in consideration of the general arrangements of the Congress of Vienna, to which she had given her adhesion; arrangements which remain in full force.'"

He had, he thought, step by step, shown what aggressions had been made, until we had arrived at our present situation. It had been his object—and he hoped he had succeeded in effecting it—to bring under the consideration of the House the present position of the question—to show the sacrifices which had been made by England up to 1815—to show that the object of the Treaty of Vienna was to establish the balance of power in Europe—to show that seventeen treaties were included in the Treaty of Vienna, by one of which it was stipulated that Cracow was to remain for ever a free city—to show that the act which Russia, Prussia, and Austria had perpetrated with respect to Cracow was a flagrant violation of that treaty. These were the objects which he had in view, and he hoped that he had succeeded in effecting them. He had referred the House to Lord Palmerston's opinion, on the Table, to the effect that the conduct pursued towards Cracow was a violation of the Treaty of Vienna, and an injury done to this country. Russia had withdrawn her adhesion from the treaty—then, let the British Government withdraw from the payment of the loan. Russia had broken all her engagements with us: why, then, should we continue to uphold ours with her? It was the duty of that House to give weight to Her Majesty's protest, and to strengthen the hands of Ministers. Oh! he wished that Ministers had the moral courage not to be frightened by Russia; he wished they had the moral courage to act rightly, and to relieve the people of this country from the payment of any more money to Russia. By acting in that manner, they would relieve themselves from the degradation of remaining quiescent under an act of injustice, and would show the civilized world that, as far as lay in their power, they would not suffer the infraction of a treaty. The hon. Momber concluded by submitting the following resolutions:—

"1. That this House, considering the faithful observance of the General Act of Congress, or Treaty of Vienna, of the 9th day of June, 1815, as the basis of the peace and welfare of Europe, views with alarm and indignation the incorporation of the free City of Cracow, and of its Territory, into the Empire of Austria, by virtue of a Convention entered into at Vienna, on the 6th day of November, 1846, by Russia, Prussia, and Austria, in manifest violation of the said Treaty.

"2. That it appears, by Returns laid before Parliament, that there has already been paid from the British Treasury towards the principal and for the interest of the debt, called Russo-Dutch Loan, between the years 1816 and 1846, both inclusive, the sum of 40,493,750 florins, equal to 3,374,479l. sterling money; and that the liquidation of the principal and interest of the remaining part of the loan, as stipulated by the Act of 2 and 3 Will. IV, c. 81, will require further annual payments from the British Treasury until the year 1915, amounting to 47,006,250 florins, equal to 3,917,187l., sterling money, making then the aggregate payment 7,291,666l., and the average, for each of the hundred years, of 72,916l.

"3. That the Convention of the 16th day of November, 1831, between His Majesty the King of Great Britain and Ireland and the Emperor of all the Russias, was made to explain the stipulations of the Treaty between Great Britain, Russia, and the Netherlands, signed at London on the 19th day of May, 1815, and included in the Treaty of Vienna; and, by that Convention, it was agreed by Great Britain 'to secure to Russia the payment of a portion of her old Dutch debt in consideration of the general arrangements of the Congress of Vienna, to which she had given her adhesion; arrangements which remain in full force.'

"4. That this House is, therefore, of opinion, that Russia having withdrawn that adhesion, and those arrangements being, through her act, no longer in force, the payments from this country, on account of that debt, should be henceforth suspended."

was happy in being able to second the hon. Member's Motion, although he could not go the length of endorsing every expression which the hon. Member had used. Some of the expressions which the hon. Member had employed, with respect to Powers with whom we were on terms of friendly alliance, were hardly consistent with the courtesy which was due to them under those circumstances. At the same time, he felt that the hon. Member was so far right, in the main object which he had in view, in bringing the question under the notice of the House, that he (Lord Sandon) felt himself fully warranted in rising to second the Motion. Perhaps the most remarkable feature in the whole transaction was the undisguised consciousness which the Three Powers betrayed that they were engaged in a proceeding which could not be justified in the face of the world. From the beginning they were anxious that their movements should be concealed from the observation of the European Powers, especially of France and England. There was a constant endeavour on the part of the Three Powers to keep the other Powers, with whom they were in alliance, in the dark as to the course which it was their intention to pursue towards Cracow. As soon as it became notorious that the Three Powers meditated something with respect to Cracow, the matter, of course, became the subject of communications to our Government from the British agents established at the various continental Courts; and in the earlier of those communications it was evident that the impression conveyed to the mind of those functionaries was, that the Three Powers had no intention of doing anything else than effecting such modifications in the political existence of Cracow as would suit the altered circumstances of the time. In proof of this, he begged to call the attention of the House to the following passage in a despatch from the Earl of Westmorland to the Earl of Aberdeen, dated Berlin, April 1, 1846:—

"The Chargéd' Affaires of France, M. Humann, has communicated to me a despatch which he has received from M. Guizot, and which he is directed to lay before Baron Canitz, in which he expresses his conviction that the Prussian Government will act with clemency towards the persons engaged in the late conspiracy in Poland, whenever the opportunity of so doing is afforded them; and that the independence of the State of Cracow, such as it was established by the Treaty of Vienna, will not be broken in upon. M. Guizot states that upon this latter point he has already received the assurances of the Governments both of Austria and Prussia."

The next despatch, from the Earl of Westmorland to the Earl of Aberdeen, communicated the result of a communication which he had held with the Prussian Minister for Foreign Affairs. His Lordship said—

"The remark he stated to me that he made upon it was, that he had not authorized any declaration to be made as to the future conduct of his Government with respect to the affairs of Cracow, either by the Marquis de Dalmatie or by the Prussian Chargé d'Affaires at Paris; there was, therefore, some misapprehension in that part of M. Guizot's letter which alluded to it; at the same time he was ready to admit that the present military occupation of the State of Cracow ought not to be continued beyond the time that it should be considered necessary for the maintenance of the peace and tranquillity of that State and of the countries around it. With respect to the future government to be established in Cracow, it was now quite impossible to form an opinion."

That still left the matter in obscurity, and no distinct impression was conveyed to the mind of the British Minister as to the intention of the Allied Powers with respect to Cracow at that period. In the Earl of Westmorland's despatch on the 17th of April, something was more distinctly stated on the subject. His Lordship said—

"General Canitz has stated to me, that as soon as the proceedings against the prisoners in Cracow have been completed, the question of the establishment of the government of the State of Cracow will be entertained, and the proposals of the three protecting Powers upon that subject referred to the allied Governments of England and France; but that they will be such as are entirely in accordance with the stipulations of the Treaty of Vienna, to which Prussia will most rigidly adhere."

There, at least, was no absurdity; nothing could be more positive than the assurance given by the Prussian Minister for Foreign Affairs to our Ambassador, that there should be no infraction of the Treaty of Vienna; and yet Prussia subsequently co-operated in suppressing the independence of Cracow! Another observation arose out of that passage: it was evident that the impression on the Prussian Minister's mind was, that everything which concerned Cracow was a matter of peculiar interest, not to the Three Powers alone, but to the whole of Europe. It was taken for granted that the question of the future government of Cracow must be referred to England and France. This showed that the pretence subsequently advanced as to the affairs of Cracow being properly a matter of private arrangement between the Three Powers, with which the rest of Europe had no concern, was resorted to in mere hopelessness of being able to satisfy England and France of the justice of the proceedings in which those Three Powers were engaged. The Earl of Aberdeen's despatch, of the 25th of June, to our Minister at Warsaw, showed the impression made upon his mind by the information which he had received:—

"In the present stage of the business, then, and until something positive shall have occurred which is calculated to throw a light on the future intentions of the Three Powers more immediately concerned in the affairs of Cracow, Her Majesty's Government will suspend their judgment, and abstain from active interference on behalf of that republic. Whenever the intended proceedings of the Three Powers shall be more certainly known, or may be more correctly conjectured, Her Majesty's Government will be prepared to act in such a manner as the circumstances of the case and the obligations of existing treaties may seem to require."

It was quite clear, therefore, that the impression on Lord Aberdeen's mind at that time, drawn both from consideration of the treaty itself, and the communications from the representatives of England at those Courts, was that all the parties to the Treaty of Vienna should be consulted before the final decision as to the State of Cracow should be made. Indeed, the last communication from Sir R. Gordon, dated the 14th of August, was the most important as to the impression produced by what passed between the Ministers of the Three Powers:—

"Excepting this, I do not believe in the existence of any conferences. But if there exists, generally, on the part of Austria, Russia, and Prussia, a disinclination to confer freely with British and French authorities upon the question of Cracow, it proceeds not, in my opinion, from any intention in these Powers to violate the act of the Congress of Vienna which guaranteed the independence of that republic; but rather that they have not as yet themselves determined to what extent their interference may be required in preventing the State of Cracow from becoming again a focus of insurrection in respect of the adjoining provinces under their dominion."

From that period an ominous silence prevailed, and doubts arose in the minds of the foreign representatives as to what the result of that silence would be. At last, after three months' suspense, a formidable despatch appeared, containing a laboured attempt on the part of Prince Metternich, by means of great detail, to establish two points—the first, that Cracow had forfeited all title to independence; the second, that none but the contiguous and protecting Powers had any right to be consulted in the decision. These points had been well reasoned by the Ministers of France and England in the papers he held in his hand; and it certainly was not unnatural that the House of Commons should have taken an early opportunity of expressing its acquiescence with the Government on this question. The pretence that it was a mere particular and special matter, a kind of domestic question, which the other Powers of Europe had no right to consider, was the most extraordinary part of the whole transaction. It seemed strange that the protecting Powers should have thought Europe had forgotten all that passed with respect to the affairs of Poland in the great diplomatic discussions at the Congress of Vienna. The settlement of Poland was one of the most difficult and critical points in all the arrangements of the Congress. The question was not then considered a peculiar and separate affair, concerning only the three protecting Powers. So far from it, the arrangement claimed by Russia was on the point of setting all Europe in the flames of war in the months of December and January. The records of the negotiations proved that all the great Powers of Europe were called on to consult on these points. The proposal of Count Nesselrode, on the 31st of December, with regard to the duchy of Warsaw and the adjacent territory, proves the arrangement to have been one of common concern; it was not made to Austria and Prussia alone, but to Austria, Prussia, and Great Britain; the independence of Poland was one of the stipulations expressly submitted to England. After that, how was it possible the protecting Powers could consider it a mere matter of peculiar and separate arrangement, with which the rest of Europe had no concern? It was clear to any one who had read the interesting correspondence between Lord Castlereagh and the Emperor Alexander, that the arrangement was one of the deepest importance to the whole of Europe, and was never considered a matter of separate adjustment. And the Powers immediately affected had no right to pick out a petty corner of the transaction and say, "this is of no importance," without consulting the other parties, that they might at least express an opinion as to that importance. They were told that other changes had been made in the articles of the Treaty of Vienna; there certainly had been such changes, the most important of which was the separation of Belgium from Holland. But what was the course then pursued? The independent existence of Belgium was not considered a settled thing, till all the five Powers agreed to it; Belgium was not admitted to the great court of European nations, till the whole of the five Powers had been consulted upon it. As to the extent of Cracow as a State, the importance of the question was not to be measured by geographical surface, or the number of souls; its importance was political, not material; it must be regarded as part of a great transaction which was intended to preserve the idea of Polish nationality, and prevent what had been called the "palpitating fragments" of the body of Poland merging their vitality into the great masses with which they had become connected, and by so much adding to the strength of those Powers, and increasing their ability to continue their aggressions on the rest of Europe. As to the right, then, of England and France to be parties to the consultation, it was unnecessary to press it further; it was evidently the opinion of the Minister of Foreign Affairs for Prussia, till he was admitted into the plot; it was the natural impression of all the statesmen who had anything to do with the transaction. Whether Cracow had, or had not, forfeited her right to the modified independence she possessed, was a question rather difficult to discuss. The language of the noble Lord (Lord Palmerston) was very strong on that point. It was impossible to conceive that in a population of 30,000 or 40,000 souls planted in the midst of such empires as Austria, Russia, and Prussia, measures of police would not have effectually prevented the evils those Powers said they experienced. If the sedition was not suppressed, it was impossible not to think it must have been allowed to grow to a head for the purpose of destroying the last remains of the independence of Poland. It was possible some inconveniences might have arisen; but it seemed to him those great Powers had been guilty of that with which the noble Lord was once reproached—neglecting the great policy for the small. To avoid some petty inconvenience of measures of police, to avoid the necessity of employing a few troops round the frontier, they had engaged themselves in a transaction which had shaken the general faith in the stability of treaties, and produced inconveniences far more serious than any they might have sustained from the former measures. It was impossible to deny the mischief of this transaction, without recurring to former discussions on the state of Poland; it was impossible to deny that the general stability of Europe was shaken by this transaction. On the public mind of Europe, it had the effect of the first great invasion of the Treaty of Vienna; whether they argued rightly or not, people had lost confidence in that arrangement by which, during the last thirty years, the general peace of Europe had been maintained. The consequences of this step would inevitably be felt by all the smaller States of Europe. They were only protected by the general feeling of respect for engagements, for independence, and for public opinion: and the present transaction had shaken all that confidence, and made everybody feel that they had henceforth to trust in their own strength alone, and not in respect for treaties which could be thus lightly broken. The latter part of the resolution of the hon. Member for Montrose, was one respecting which he did not feel so confident; although he should be glad to hear the opinion of the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, because the strength of the contract seemed to exist in the ambiguity of its terms. In 1831, when it was quite clear that the letter of the convention under which England engaged to pay Russia the old Dutch debt alluded to, had been broken, it was found necessary, as the House would remember, to negotiate a new convention, with the view of carrying out the spirit, rather than the letter, of the original convention, and to make a contract substantially equivalent to the one which a change of circumstances rendered no longer applicable. For the first time there was found the appearance of the words—

"To secure to Russia the payment of a portion of her old Dutch debt, in consideration of the general arrangements of the Congress of Vienna, to which she had given her adhesion—arrangements which still remain in full force."

His first impression from these words, and they certainly seemed to justify that inference, was, that upon making a new arrangement upon the old basis, it had become necessary to introduce a consideration which should as effectively limit the payment of the debt as the original one; and as it was no longer possible to stipulate that the debt should be paid in consideration of the union between Holland and Belgium, a new consideration should be inserted, viz., that it should be paid—

"In consideration of the general arrangements of the Congress of Vienna, to which she had given her adhesion"—

More especially as these arrangements "still remained in full force." As if it had been meant to say, that if these arrangements had not been in full force, the payment would not be continued. That was certainly his first impression on reading the new convention, that they were at liberty to withhold payment of the debt when the arrangements referred to ceased to continue in full force; and, such being his impression, he thought the House was only doing its duty in expressing the mildest sense which every party in it entertained of the great mischief of the breach of treaty which had been committed by the Three Powers, and by Russia in particular, in abolishing the free State of Cracow. But upon this point, he felt that the lawyers in the House would be better able to express an opinion than he was; and perhaps the noble Lord who negotiated the new convention might also help to remove his doubts. With respect to the first resolution, the latter part of it was a mere echo of Her Majesty's Speech, and implied a hearty acquiescence in the views of Her Majesty's Government; and he hoped there would not be found within the walls of that House any difference of opinion upon it, viz., that all the three parties had been guilty of a gross violation of treaty, and that they had, for the sake of a minor policy, sacrificed the greater policy upon which the peace of Europe rested. He would also take the liberty of expressing a hope that the Emperor of Russia especially would recollect the sentiments of his distinguished brother, through whose hands the negotiation originally passed, as to the importance of adhering to the faith of treaties. He should wish him, if possible, to recall to his consideration some of those noble expressions which were reported by Lord Castlereagh to have been used by his predecessor; and that the Emperor would, like him, do all he could to maintain inviolate the peace of Europe; and that he would act in accordance with the spirit which his brother endeavoured to breathe into his subjects. He sincerely trusted that the Russian Emperor would see it to be his interest to extend instead of diminish the liberties of the people, and that he would take warning from the expressions which had been made use of by M. Guizot, the French Minister, on this subject.

"Nothing," said that statesman, "can more compromise a Government, than for it to declare that it is not in a condition, even slowly and by force of time, to fulfil its promises, and the hopes which it has itself raised. The destruction of the small State of Cracow may create for Polish conspiracy and insurrection some means of action; but it may also keep up and even irritate the feelings which these deplorable enterprises so obstinately excite and revive. In the meantime, it takes from the influence which might prevent them a great portion of its authority. It weakens throughout Europe on this painful question the principles of order and conservatism, to the strengthening of blind passions and violent designs."

With the expression of his hope that sentiments like these would penetrate the bosoms of those Powers, in whose hands the destinies of Poland were placed, he would sit down, by asking the hearty and unanimous consent of the House to at least the first resolution which lay upon the Table.

said: The hon. Member for Montrose having made his Motion, I shall, without entering on the general argument which has been stated by him, and by my noble Friend opposite, shortly state to the House the view which I take of the Motion which he has made. With respect to the argument which has been stated, that the Three Powers were not justified by the Treaty of Vienna in concluding for themselves the consideration, whether the free State of Cracow should be maintained or extinguished—with respect to that argument I cannot but concur with my hon. Friend who made the Motion, and my noble Friend who seconded it. I think it is clear from the words of the Treaty of Vienna, and from the prominence which the arrangement respecting Poland took, both in the conferences which preceded that treaty, and in the articles of the treaty itself, that these articles were not immaterial parts of the treaty, but did form one of the principal stipulations upon which the great Powers of Europe agreed at the termination of a bloody and destructive war. Nor can I think that while the arrangement which placed the Duchy of Warsaw under the dominion of the Emperor of Russia, formed the subject of many discussions and a long correspondence, not only between the Ministers of the different Courts, but also of a singular correspondence between the Minister for Foreign Affairs in this country and the Emperor of Russia himself—I say I cannot think, that while that arrangement formed a principal part of the treaty, the arrangement which left one small portion, "a mere atom," as the Allied Powers called it, free and independent, was an immaterial, or an insignificant part of it. It cannot but appear, I think, however small the territory—however small the population of that State—that yet the treaty formed, first between the Three Powers and then by all the Powers who were the concurring parties in the Treaty of Vienna, meant that freedom and independence should leave to Poland—should leave to some part of the Polish nation—a separate existence; and that, giving up much, admitting much, to the Emperor of Russia, it was still consecrated, as a principle, that some part of the Polish nation should retain an independent and separate existence. For this reason, therefore, I consider the existence of Cracow as a State, having been thus secured by general treaty—whatever the complaints the Three Powers had made, that Cracow was the focus of disturbances; that revolutionary intrigues there found a centre and a means of organization; that there arose from that small State insurrection against the three surrounding Powers; that it was impossible to preserve those Powers from this insurrection: that if these reasons were good and valid—if they were felt to be strong—they should have been stated to England and to France; that England and France should have been invited to a congress, or some species of conference, in which their consent should have been asked to put an end to a state of things which those Three Powers declared to be intolerable, and which they could no longer permit with safety to themselves. So much, I think, is clear from the papers which record the general transaction of the Treaty of Vienna; and so much also, I think, is clear from the passage which my noble Friend opposite (Lord Sandon) has read from the statement of the Prussian Minister of Foreign Affairs, in which he, in words, admits that if the arrangement of the Treaty of Vienna were to be altered and set aside, agreement and concurrence with England and France would previously have been necessary. In the next place, with regard to the reasons which are given by the three great Powers, and which are stated more especially by Prince Metternich, on the part of the Court of Austria, those reasons appear to me insufficient for the violent proceeding which has taken place. I cannot myself imagine that there could not have been precautions taken, which, however they limited the action of the free and independent State of Cracow, would yet have been a security that its name and its independence would have been maintained; while all danger from refugees, from its being made a place where strangers from all parts of the Continent came and planned conspiracy, might have been encountered and prevented. It does seem to me most extraordinary that, with this little State—this mere atom, surrounded by Russia, by Austria, and by Prussia—these three great and mighty monarchies, with such vast military forces, with such unbounded means, having command of all the roads which lead to Cracow, having the power of marching their troops at any moment into the city of Cracow, having certain rights which were constituted and assigned to them in the Treaty of Vienna—should have found themselves so powerless as to be unable to prevent Cracow becoming dangerous to their peace and welfare. I cannot, indeed, but suspect, especially looking at the latter part of this transaction, when government was dissolved in Cracow—when disorganization took place—that it was not unwelcome, or altogether unpalatable to those Three Powers, to be enabled to say, "All means of government are gone; Cracow is a scene of anarchy and disorder, and no remedy remains but the total abolition of the existence of that republic." Therefore, Sir, both on the grounds of the Treaty of Vienna, the distinctness of the stipulations referring to Cracow, and with regard to the reasons which were urged for its extinction, I think, in the first place, there was a manifest violation of the Treaty of Vienna; and I believe, in the second, that, if the question had been discussed in a congress or conference among the Powers, thare is no sufficient proof, so far as we have hitherto seen, that the Three Powers would have been in a position to show good cause for the course they have adopted. Neither, Sir, am I convinced by the instances that are furnished by the Minister of Austria, as to various stipulations of the Treaty of Vienna, which have been altered by uncontested agreement between Powers who were concerned, and whose territories were affected, such as small parts of principalities given by the Duke of Coburg, or others, transferred in consideration of some equivalents to other princes, for the mutual convenience of their respective territories, for the purpose of giving a fair equivalent to each, and of sometimes making a more satisfactory arrangement for all. These are, naturally and obviously, alterations of the Treaty of Vienna, which might take place without any general appeal to all the Powers who have signed that treaty. Such alterations bear, in my mind, no resemblance to an infraction of one of those great and leading and master stipulations in which all the Powers of Europe are deeply interested. Supposing that some arrangement were made between Austria and Prussia for the extinction of Saxony, and that the great Powers were to ask how they, only two of the parties to the Treaty of Vienna, could agree to extinguish Saxony, what answer would it be—that some little bit of territory had before been exchanged between some of the minor princes, and that then we made no protest? And, as I consider it, the extinction of this free State is an alteration of one of the main and leading provisions of the treaty. But my hon. Friend, Sir, not satisfied with the protest which my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs has directed to be delivered at the Courts of the Three Powers principally concerned, wishes this House to agree to certain resolutions. With respect to the first of these resolutions, my noble Friend opposite (Lord Sandon), who seconds the Motion, is in complete accordance. With regard to the last he is not so far agreed, and he doubts whether the House ought to affirm it. As to the first of these resolutions, "That this House views with alarm and indignation the incorporation of the free State of Cracow into the dominions of the Emperor of Austria, in manifest violation of the Treaty of Vienna," I should beg the House to consider that there is a very great difference between that which has been done by my noble Friend (Lord Palmerston) in obedience to Her Majesty's commands, and that which it is proposed to this House to do. It is the prerogative of the Crown to make treaties, to carry on the correspondence and relations of this country with foreign Powers. Every public and every personal communication is agreed on in the name of the Sovereign, and by the command of the Sovereign. If a treaty has been signed and ratified, as this Treaty of Vienna was signed and ratified, by the Minister of England in the name of George III., and of the Prince Regent of England; and if any violation or contravention of that treaty takes place, the person to whom it devolves to make any representation, is obviously again the Minister of the Sovereign—the Minister of the Sovereign of England, who has made the original treaty. But with regard to the functions of this House, they are of a very different nature. When there is a treaty made, or a correspondence takes place, upon which it is thought necessary that the opinion and concurrence of this House should be taken, it is usual then for the Ministers of the Crown to ask for that general concurrence. If a treaty of commerce or a treaty of subsidy is signed, that requires the intervention of Parliament, it is usual for the Minister of the Crown to ask for the sanction or concurrence of Parliament to that treaty. But to affirm a resolution which is not thus brought by necessity before the House of Commons—to affirm a resolution merely declaratory of an opinion, that is not the correct nor the regular course of proceeding in this House. For my own part it appears to me, that while it is obviously incumbent on the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and on the advisers of Her Majesty to declare their sense of any violation of treaty, or of any matter which concerns the foreign relations of this country with other countries, it is not advisable that the House of Commons should affirm resolutions with respect to the conduct of those foreign Powers, unless it be intended to follow up those resolutions by some measures or actions on the part of the Executive Government. For my part I have never admired—and I have always declared in this House that I never admired in this respect—the conduct of the French Chambers with regard to Poland. It has been the custom of the Chamber of Deputies in France annually to protest at the commencement of the Session against the acts of the Emperor Nicholas, and to make a declaration in favour of the nationality of Poland. I think that such annual declarations are illusive; for while they have been made in this manner, they have been followed up by no measures; they are made by a representative assembly, without any action following on that declaration. Be it observed how great is the difference between that and a protest on the part of a Sovereign. The Sovereign, by prerogative, entrusted with this power of making treaties, is forced of necessity to some opinion or other—of tacit acquiescence, of favourable and applauding concurrence, or one involving remonstrance and reproach—some course or other is forced upon the Executive Government of the country. But with regard to the House of Commons, it is not necessary, in the ordinary course of foreign affairs, that this House should at all interfere or declare its opinion on these subjects. I can see no advantage in altering that usual course. I do not think there would be any advantage in bringing these subjects frequently or constantly before the House, with a view to a declaration of opinion—I think the House would gain no respect by a deviation from its usual custom. That is my reason, therefore, while I could have no objections to urge in opinion against this resolution—for I have already declared what is my opinion with regard to the extinction of the free State of Cracow—why I object to its being made a resolution of the House of Commons; and on that point I should be disposed to move the previous question. With regard to the other resolution, I should act in like manner. That resolution says that—

"Russia, having withdrawn that adhesion (to the Treaty of Vienna), and those arrangements being through her act no longer in force, the payments from this country on account of the loan should be henceforth suspended."

Now, that is entirely a different question. The arrangements at the time of the Treaty of Vienna involved a union of Belgium with Holland; and there being a debt in Holland which was payable, and the interest of which was payable by Russia, Great Britain took upon herself the payment of the interest of that debt, in consideration of Russia being a party to that arrangement. When, after that, these two countries were separated, Russia no longer attempted to maintain that arrangement; and, therefore, by the letter of the treaty, England might then have said, "You no longer maintain the union of Belgium with Holland; and therefore as you do not comply with the letter of that treaty, we are free from the discharge of the interest of that debt." But although this would have been in perfect and entire conformity with the letter of the treaty, it would have been most inconsistent with the justice of the case; because the Power that had favoured the separation, and which, from the moment the insurrection in Belgium was successful, favoured, recognised, and aided that separation, was especially England; and for England to come forward and say, "You did not maintain the union between Holland and Belgium, an union which we did not wish, which we wanted to see dissolved, but now that it is dissolved, we declare ourselves free from the payment of that debt"—to have said so would have been such an evasion of an engagement, that I certainly could not have taken any part in adopting it, But it was not evaded. England being free from the letter of the engagement, made a new engagement with Russia; and in that engagement she agreed to continue the payment of the interest of that debt. The actual ground for continuing the payment of that interest was, that Russia did abide by the general arrangement of the Treaty of Vienna; and that it was only in consequence of the acts of England herself that she did not maintain the union between Holland and Belgium. But undoubtedly the words were introduced into that convention which were a security to Russia for payment of

—"her old Dutch debt, in consideration of the general arrangements of the Congress of Vienna, to which she had given her adhesion—arrangements which remain in full force."

Now, these words were certainly used. They were introduced at the request of the representatives of Russia in this country. They were put in in order to show that, whilst Russia had departed in one principal respect from this arrangement, yet she was not to be accused of any violation of the general treaty, of any bad faith in the matter, because she had only done so at the request of England. But still, as I think, the original arrangement and the general reason of the arrangement, remain in full force; and what was that original arrangement? It was, that Russia had agreed with England with respect to the territorial disposition of Holland and Belgium. There was no question at that time of any other arrangement, or of the Treaty of Vienna being violated or disturbed. Russia desired these words to be inserted in the treaty. So far as England was concerned, she did not wish those words to be inserted. It was not the expression of any desire of hers that they were so; but it seemed to be a matter of good faith, that as Russia still maintained the original arrangement, therefore it was right to continue to pay the interest of the debt. Now, I say with respect to the spirit of the agreement, that I do not think it would be just to take advantage of the insertion of these words, and that Russia having, so far as Belgium and Holland are concerned, faithfully preserved those stipulations, having never attempted either to disturb this arrangement, and still less refused her aid to England with regard to any question respecting them, I do not think, in point of fair dealing, we should be justified in refusing to pay the interest of the debt. I do think, however, that according to these words, we might now, as we formerly might have done, refuse to pay this interest. We might say to Russia,—"You have permitted these words to be inserted—they were inserted with your sanction; and, as they were inserted with your sanction, we will take advantage of these words, and we will refuse any longer to pay the sum." That would be conformable to one interpretation of the treaty. Those whom we consulted, who were the highest authorities that we could consult with regard to the interpretation of Acts of Parliament bearing upon treaties—the legal authorities who are usually consulted on those subjects—have told us, that they think, according to the spirit of the arrangement, according to the spirit of the convention, the money ought still to be paid. It is at most, state it as favourably as you can for the hon. Gentleman's Motion, a doubtful point, upon which, if you wish to take advantage, you might claim that advantage from words inserted in the convention. According to my opinion, you would be acting against the spirit of the treaty in order to take advantage of a plea which, I think, in a court of law, might perhaps be urged in order to get rid of a contract, but which, as between nations, ought not to be used. I think, in so considering this question, we should lower our position. I think we should deprive ourselves of that advantage which we now have if we were to reduce this to a transaction of pounds, shillings, and pence. I consider that in late transactions in Europe, although, on more than one occasion, and by different Powers, our wishes have not been complied with, our desires have not been listened to, our protests may have been disregarded, yet there does remain with us a moral strength nothing can take away. There is no treaty the stipulations of which it can be imputed to England that she has violated, evaded, or set at nought. We are ready, in the face of Europe, however inconvenient some of those stipulations may be, to hold ourselves bound, by all our engagements, to keep the fame, and the name, and the honour of the Crown of England unsullied, and to guard that unsullied honour as a jewel which we will not have tarnished. With that sentiment, Sir, if I should ask my noble Friend to go to the Court of Russia, and say, "To be sure you have violated a treaty—to be sure you have extinguished an independent State. We have allowed this to be done. You shall hear no threat of war. We will not arm for the purpose. We will admit that the State of Cracow is extinguished. We will admit that her inhabitants are reduced to subjection, The names of freedom and of independence to them are lost for ever. But this we will do. There is a claim of some thousand pounds which we can make against you, which we now pay, and which we will now throw upon your shoulders; and in that way we will revenge ourselves for your violation of treaties." We should be taking a part, we should be using language which is not becoming the position England has hitherto held; which is not becoming the position I wish her in future to hold against the world. Having thus stated as shortly as I could the views I entertain upon the subject, I ask you not to come in this House of Commons, which does not usually interfere with the foreign relations of this country, to any idle resolution upon which you don't intend to act; and I ask you, in the next place, not to lower this question to a mere question of money value, not to go and demand how much this Russian-Dutch stock may be worth in the market, but to preserve that which, as I think, is of inestimable value; I wish you to allow, as this House has hitherto allowed, by its silent acquiescence, the protest which the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs has delivered, to remain in full force as a declaration upon our part—a declaration which will have its value, depend upon it, in regard to future transactions—that we do not abstain from the observance of treaties which we believe to have been violated; and let us be able to say that we have sought no interest of England in this matter. We have not looked to any interest, either large or petty, in regard to ourselves; we have regarded the great interests of Europe; we have desired that the settlement which put an end to a century of bloodshed should remain in full force and vigour. We have declared that sentiment to the world, and we trust that the reprobation with which this transaction has been met, will, in future, lead all Powers, whoever they may be, who may be induced to violate treaties, to consider that they will meet with the disinterested protest of England, so that her character shall stand before the world untarnished by any act of her own.