Sir, I wish to ask a question of the noble Lord at the head of the Government and of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, and, as the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cockermouth is also present, I would beg to solicit his attention also. No doubt it must be in the recollection of the noble Lord opposite, and of the right hon. Gentleman, that some time since a letter signed "E. Horsman" appeared in the public papers. In that letter—and the reason I put the question is, because I believe the honour of the House is concerned, and that the sooner some explanation of a remarkable circumstance like this is given the better for all parties, and more particularly for the honour of the House and the Administration—the letter charges the noble Lord opposite—I beg the noble Lord's pardon for making use of such phraseology, but such are the terms here—charges him with something like a fraud. The charge is not mine; I hope the noble Lord will under- stand that. It charges the noble Lord opposite with a fraud upon this House—that he, having given a promise to an hon. Member of this House, in the face of this House, employed as the instrument of the fraud—for I can use no other word—the right hon. Gentleman who is now seated on his left hand. And, lest there should be any misunderstanding in the matter, I will read the words of the letter to which I find the hon. Gentleman's name appended, because I wish the House to understand that the charge is not mine; but that there is made against the noble Lord opposite and the right hon. Gentleman a charge which I wish them to explain, and which, I am sure, the country will be glad to have explained. The letter says, respecting the Ecclesiastical Commission—

"But the subsequent proceedings were still more strange. Interviews were sought with the Prime Minister, and a representation made to him of the unlooked-for character of the Bill; and its objectionable clauses having been pointed out, it was urged that it could not give satisfaction, or be accepted as a settlement of the question, unless framed more in accordance with the recommendation of the Committee. Lord J. Russell took time to see the Archbishop of Canterbury, and replied to me by arrangement on the following Tuesday in the House. His words were to this effect—that having conferred with the Archbishop, he was now ready to adopt the alterations which had been suggested to him, and having done so, he expected the Bill to pass without further opposition. Nothing could be a more satisfactory declaration to us that our suggestions had been adopted, and that the recommendations of the Committee would now be carried out in the Bill. And when the noble Lord proceeded to say that he should invite the House to go into Committee on the Bill pro formâ, in order to introduce those Amendments, and asked for a few days' delay, we readily assented. It was true, the delay was very dangerous—it was late in the Session; every day was now precious; and during, not that Session only, but the three antecedent ones, it had been a constant battle for delay on the part of the Government. Nevertheless, we had now the Minister's word—his assurance that the Bill would be put into such a shape as to secure its passing without difficulty, completely satisfied us—and we thus allowed ten more days to be lost. The House then went into Committee pro formâ on the Bill; it was late at night, and the House impatient. The Attorney General was moved into the chair. The Home Secretary handed in his Amendments—they were put, one after another, from the chair—no one heard a word—and no one tried to hear. It was a matter of course that they were the Amendments which the Prime Minister had promised should be introduced in that Committee. I should as soon have dreamt of keeping my eye on a Cabinet Minister lest he should steal my hat, as of suspecting him of substituting one set of Amendments for another which had been promised. So the business was galloped through, as formal business usually is, at half an hour past midnight. The Amendments were reported to the Speaker, and the Bill ordered to be reprinted; and, though some days more must be lost in the reprinting, we left the House with the conviction that at last one step had been achieved in the great and important work of Church reform, and that the days of the Ecclesiastical Commission, in its then mischievous and irresponsible shape, were numbered. You may therefore imagine, but I cannot describe to you, my surprise when the reprinted Bill came out. I could hardly believe my eyes. Not a single one of the promised Amendments had been introduced; nay, it was impossible to discover, from the beginning of the Bill to the end, that one single line or one single syllable had been altered so as to bring it more into conformity with the recommendations of that Committee on whose report it was professedly founded Where, then, were the slips of paper which I saw the Home Secretary hand in, as the promised Amendments, to his Colleague in the chair? I leave you to judge. On the character of that proceeding I will not permit myself to make a single comment. But its result was, that the Government had succeeded in gaining a whole month at the close of the Session; and the raising a remonstrance or reviving a discussion at that late period, with a view of getting a good Bill passed, was entirely hopeless. The Government had accomplished its purpose of postponing an improvement of the Ecclesiastical Commission now for the fourth year."

Now, I heard the hon. Gentleman, when he brought forward a Motion upon this matter the other night, say that he reiterated that charge. [Lord J. RUSSELL dissented.] I beg the pardon of the noble Lord if I am mistaken; I hope I am; but the noble Lord will understand that the charge is one which it is for the dignity of the House and the honour of all of us, should be answered at once. The hon. Member for Cockermouth has not made it hastily—not in a speech in which he could be carried away—but in a letter signed by his name within three weeks of the assembling of Parliament. And he charges the noble Lord opposite distinctly with fraud, and that he employed for his instrument in that transaction the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department. Now, I want to ask the hon. Gentleman whether that charge which he has so gravely, so sedately made, is one to which he now adheres, and what steps are about to be taken to satisfy the country and the House that the charge is true or untrue?

Sir, as the hon. and learned Gentleman has come down to this House for the purpose of reading a paper making a personal attack upon my character, I think it would at least have been civil—perhaps right to the House—that he should have given me some notice. I say that that was the more necessary course, because I have never read one word of the production to which he has alluded. I was told that there was an attack upon my character, signed by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cockermouth, and I thought that, if he had an attack to make, he would come forward in this House and make it, and then I should have been able to answer him on those particulars, so stated. I have, however, I repeat, never read, though I have heard in conversation, some small part of the statement which the hon. and learned Gentleman has read to the House. Now, Sir, with regard to these particular allegations, though I can't say that my memory will enable me to answer as to each particular transaction that took place, yet I will state generally what has been my course in this matter. And, in stating that course, I hope I shall be allowed this credit with the House—that in a matter which concerned the composition of the Ecclesiastical Commission, very much affecting the state of the Church and its welfare, it was my object to obtain the assent of this and the other House of Parliament, including the distinguished prelates of that Church, to an arrangement as beneficial to the Church and the country as possible. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Cockermouth, in the speech he made the other night, totally omitted one part—and, I think, very essential part—in the history of these transactions am sorry that I am obliged to refer to them; but, after the hon. and learned Gentleman has made the statement, and read the paper he has done, I think there is but one course open to me. In the year 1846, when I came into office, I communicated with some persons connected with the Church, and with the Ecclesiastical Commission, that, though I had never made any public remarks upon the conduct of that Commission, I was very ill satisfied with its composition, as being too numerous, as being ill-adapted to conduct the business, and, therefore, requiring amendment. In the beginning of the following Session—that was, in April, 1847, I introduced a Bill which, among other provisions, provided that there should be a paid chairman of an Estates Committee appointed by the Crown—that he, with six others appointed by the Commission, was to form the Committee of Estates, and that without his presence no business should be transacted in that Committee. Another part of the Bill which I intro- duced provided that the offices of treasurer and secretary, formerly united, should be separated, and be no longer held by the same person. I no sooner introduced that Bill than the late Archbishop of Canterbury gave me notice that it would be opposed; and still more strongly, soon afterwards, that he believed it would be opposed in the House of Lords by all the members of the Ecclesiastical Commission belonging to the Church. Upon that course being taken, it appeared to me that the Bill, which had not attracted much public attention, would not, if it went up late, have had much chance of success in the Session of 1847; and that it was advisable that the public generally, and the House especially, should be acquainted with the composition of the Ecclesiastical Commission, and the mode of carrying on business. My hon. Friend the Member for Malton had given notice that he meant to move for a Committee; and I informed the late Archbishop of Canterbury, that as he had taken that step, my only course would be to give my support to the proposition for the appointment of a Select Committee. Now, in the appointment of that Committee, it was stated that there was some arrangement, some understanding, with the late Archbishop of Canterbury. That is so far from being the case, that the Archbishop entirely disapproved of, and dissented from, the appointment of any Committee, which was, however, nevertheless, appointed in the face of that dissent. I state these facts to show that it was not from the House that the proposal to reform and to alter the composition of the Ecclesiastical Commission to a certain extent originated, but from my view and those of each of my Colleagues concerned, that the composition of that Commission had not been satisfactory. I think that that is of some importance, because this part of the case has always been represented in a manner at variance with the facts. Many very able Members of this House were appointed upon that Committee, and they took a view even stronger than I had done, thinking that it was necessary to appoint, not one, but three paid Commissioners, to assist the business of that Estates Committee. I come now to the hon. Gentleman's statement, that he was about to bring forward some question—that he applied to me as to the difference that there was between the Bill which I had introduced and the report of the Select Committee—and that he requested that that Bill should be altered so as to meet his views. I certainly, after hearing his suggestions, communicated with the late Archbishop of Canterbury, and learnt his views upon the subject. I likewise communicated with other members of the Committee, more especially with my right hon. Friend near me, and I learnt from him as well as from others, that they did not put the same interpretation upon the recommendation of the Committee which the hon. Member for Cockermouth had put. I agreed, however, that it was advisable to make some considerable alterations in the Bill as I had proposed it, and especially that several of the proposed members of the Committee should be omitted in the Bill. With regard to other points I certainly did not concur, and I don't remember exactly what were the words I used, but I think I could not have said more than that the suggestions of the hon. Gentleman had been considered, and that we meant to make some alteration in the Bill. If I said that everything he proposed was to be adopted, I certainly used the words that did not imply my meaning, because I had not found any person, either the late Archbishop of Canterbury or any other person, who took exactly the same views as to his recommendations. But after I had gone thus far, upon further communication with the present Archbishop of Canterbury, I found that he had very strong objections to the appointment of more than one commissioner to be paid out of the revenues of the Church. He stated that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners whom he had consulted, and the bishops with whom he had conversed, had concurred in thinking that one Commissioner paid from the revenues of the Church would be quite sufficient, and that any further payment would be depriving the Church of those means of supplying spiritual instruction in the larger parishes which they considered was an object to the Commission and to the country at large. I did not entirely agree with that view, but I certainly did propose to make amendments in the Bill which should, to a certain degree, conciliate the opinion of the Archbishop of Canterbury, and enable us to pass the Bill through the other House of Parliament. In so doing, if I may be allowed to state it, my motive was a double one. First, it was, that I should be enabled to make what I considered was a very great improvement in the construction of the Commission, by which there should be an Estates Committee, having on it a person receiving a salary, and responsible for all the business of that Committee. In the second place, I thought that, unless I carried with me, to a certain extent, the consent of the prelates at the head of the Church—the Ecclesiastical Commission being kept up, and that Estates Committee being decided on by a majority of the House of Lords—there never would be any harmony between the two bodies in the Commission, and the successful working of the Commission would be greatly impeded. With that view, therefore, after many consultations and much consideration, I framed the amendments. With regard to the manner of introducing those amendments, it was done in the same way in which amendments pro formâ are always introduced, namely, the clauses with the alterations are put in at once. The chairman of the Committee does not put the separate question, but the Bill is afterwards printed for the consideration of the House, and some time is allowed before the House is asked to go on with it. Exactly the same course was taken with this Bill. It is very likely that I ought to have explained sooner to the hon. Gentleman, and more in detail, after the various communications I had with him, how far I had adopted the suggestions he had made, and how far the Bill I had introduced was to be altered. I confess it would have been proper that I should have made that communication; but as the Bill was to be printed—as it was to be brought under the consideration of the House again, I own I think the hon. Gentleman's saying he would as soon have thought of my right hon. Friend stealing his hat as putting in any amendment that was not exactly in accordance with his views, appears to me an expression, I won't say exhibiting bitter hostility on his part, but rather the result of inflated vanity. With respect, therefore, to that charge of fraud, I am not going to fly into a passion on that subject. I can only say that I entirely despise any such charge, and that I must rely not on any detailed proof that I can give to the House as to what took place day by day, and what I proposed day by day; but that, having been many years a Member of this House, I may obtain credit for being incapable of the baseness that has been attributed to me. I must rely upon the House, and upon the position which I hold in the House—a position which I should indeed be unworthy of holding if I were capable of committing a disgraceful fraud for the purpose of deceiving the hon. Gentleman about the composition of the Ecclesiastical Commission. I will only add, on the matter of patronage, that any alteration that could he made, proposed rather to diminish than increase any patronage that might be in the Crown. It was very desirable, in a matter of such importance, in which we thought some reform should be made, that the heads of the Church, and especially that he for whom as a man, independently of his high position, I entertain the highest respect—I mean the present Archbishop of Canterbury, should be satisfied. Anxious as I believe he is for the reform and for the spiritual welfare of the people, I thought it but right that I should in some degree conciliate his support and his goodwill towards the measure. These, then, have been the motives on which I have acted. I do not know that I can give any further explanation to the House. I do not think it necessary for me to resent any further the charge that has been made. Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman might have given me notice of his question; but, on the whole, I am very well satisfied with the matter as it stands.

Sir, though the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield has not given me either any notice of his intention to bring forward this question, I wish to say a few words, being somewhat differently circumstanced from my noble Friend, as I had the misfortune to read some weeks ago the letter to the inhabitants of Cockermouth, to which allusion has been made. Having read that letter, I did, at the close of my speech the other night, notice the charge contained in it, though, at the same time, I felt that it was really beneath my notice. ["Hear, hear!"] I noticed it under the apprehension—I use the word advisedly—that if I had not done so, the hon. Gentleman might, in the course of the next twelve months, write another letter to his constituents taunting me with the fact that he had written the former letter containing a charge of wilful fraud against me, and that I had admitted its truth by abstaining from alluding to it. I read the letter, I confess, with feelings of astonishment, not un-mingled with shame—astonishment, not at the charge having been made, but that it should not have been made until the month of December or January last, referring, as it did, to a transaction that had occurred, according to the statement of the hon. Gentleman himself, in the last Session of Parliament, and six weeks before its termination, though every night of that period the hon. Gentleman might have brought forward, in the presence of my noble Friend and myself, the charge which he has thus dressed up for his constituents at Cockermouth, when the charge and the answer to it would have gone forth together. I shall not enter into the subject now, further than to state that I unequivocally deny the imputation that has been made by him against me. I may also say that, from all the communications that I have had with my noble Friend on the subject, I never had the slightest reason to suppose that my noble Friend intended to adopt the suggestions that emanated from the hon. Gentleman. That Bill having been entrusted to my charge, and my noble Friend thinking that the Bill ought to be committed, pro formâ, with a view of having the Amendments printed prior to being considered by the House, I did that which every Member of the House does under such circumstances, and which the hon. Gentleman knows is always done in this House—namely, not hand the Amendments separately, on slips of paper, to the chairman of the Committee, but move that the Bill, as amended, be committed, pro formâ, when the chairman reports the Bill to the House, with a view to its future consideration on a subsequent day. Nothing was gained by the adoption of that course further than meeting the convenience of the House. The Bill was, on the 14th of June, committed, pro formâ, and on the 20th of June it was reprinted—the House sitting until August—and yet this charge was never brought forward by the hon. Gentleman until December, 1849, or, I believe, until January, 1850.

Sir, the noble Lord, and still more the right hon. Baronet, have in their speeches, done that which I shall very carefully avoid; they have infused a great deal of warmth and heat into the discussion upon a question which I intend to make one merely of facts and evidence. As I said the other night, I have been some years in this House. I wrote a letter deliberately. I knew the high position held by those who were affected by the charges I made. I knew the cheers they were sure to meet with in this House when they alluded to those charges. I knew the sympathy that men standing in their position ought to command in this House when charges so seriously affecting their charac- ter were made against them. And I knew, as I said the other night, that I must prejudge every honourable and highminded man in this House who either regarded the character of the House or of public men, by the boldness and gravity of the charges which I made. I knew, also, that I must have the greatest difficulty in substantiating those charges if I were called on to substantiate them. And I knew that if I were so called on and could not substantiate them, I must have been held mad to make them. I remember only a few years ago, when a right hon. Gentleman, holding the position which the right hon. Baronet now holds, had similar charges brought against him—I know the course he took. The Member making those charges was asked if he were prepared to substantiate them; and the right hon. Gentleman said, that he could not consent to sit in that place whilst those charges made against him remained unanswered. He offered the hon. Gentleman a Committee. He took that course which, I think, as an honourable man, he was bound to take; and the Member making those charges against a high Minister of State, failing to substantiate them, had the censure of the House pronounced upon him. Well, I knew that that might he my fate, and, as I valued my future position or usefulness in this House, a fate I should look to with dread. Knowing all that—feeling it—foreseeing it—I deliberately made that charge, I advisedly published it, and I stand here, in the presence of this House, to avow, to maintain, to reiterate, and to offer to prove it. I now leave the matter in the hands of the House. The noble Lord speaks of his position in this House and his character as a statesman; well, Sir, I am well aware of that, and it is an appeal to this House which a Prime Minister never can make in vain. It is one I foresaw he would make; and I knew it would meet with sympathy—knowing all this, I repeat, I reiterate that charge in the presence of the noble Lord, in the presence of the right hon. Gentleman, in the presence of this House; and I say to the House that I am prepared to prove it. The hon. Gentleman sat down, but presently after again rose and said—I I have stated that I am prepared to prove that charge; but, at the same time, I wish to remark that I stand here in a different position from the noble Lord or the right hon. Baronet. I stand here unsupported; but having sat in this House for some time, and lest it should appear that this offer on my part is unworthily made, I do say that I think the Government, from a sense of justice to me, and I think I have a right to add, from a sense of justice to themselves, ought to allow me the opportunity which I claim of proving my charge. Supported as I am by no party in this House, I shall leave the question to be decided by the House.

The hon. Gentleman says he has made a charge, and that he reiterates it; but he does not state to the House what that charge is. He refers to some letter which he has written to his constituents, and he says that he reiterates what he states there. What I think the hon. Gentleman should do, if he wishes to prove any charge against my right hon. Friend or me, is to come forward and state what his charges are, and to ask for a Committee to investigate them. I shall not oppose the appointment of such a Committee when he has made his charges and satisfied the House that there is a case for investigation. Subject dropped.

rose to move for leave to bring in a Bill to exempt dwelling-houses below a certain value from local taxation. He stated, that it was similar to the Bill which he had brought under the notice of the House on the same subject on a former occasion; but he had reason to hope for more success for it, or at least for a more candid and attentive consideration of its merits now than he had been then able to secure. He said this because all parties now admitted that the condition of the great mass of the people was not what it ought to be, and that the remedy for the evil ought not to be of a merely charitable nature, but that the Government ought, if possible, to devise some legislative means for improving the position of the labouring classes. There existed a great deficiency in the house-accommodation of the labouring population, not merely in the towns, but in the rural districts, and not merely in the quality of the habitations, but in their numbers. He might appeal in proof of this being the case to the reports of Committees of that House in recent years, to the reports of the Poor Law Commissioners, and of the Board of Health. He might appeal to the able letters that had appeared under the well-known signature of "S. G. O.," in the Times, describing the frightful condition of the peasantry of Dorsetshire, and he might also appeal to the reports which had appeared in the Morning Chronicle on the state of labour and the poor, in which the results of the inquiries instituted were most powerfully and practically set forward by very able and competent writers. They had in these letters accounts of the condition of the working classes in the manufacturing districts, in the metropolis, and in the rural districts of the country. Throughout all these, they had everywhere proofs of the suffering of the working classes arising from the imperfect nature of their house-accommodation, which became a source of the most frightful demoralisation, while it at the same time led to an increase of pauperism, of sickness, and of crime. He would not delay the time of the House by quoting from the reports which he had beside him; but he should content himself with reading a single extract from the evidence of Mr. Granville Pigot, assistant poor-law commissioner, before the Committee on Settlement of 1847. He stated that—

"The inadequacy of cottages leads to evils of the most serious kind to the poor. I do not know anything from which the poor suffer so much, in every possible way, as regards their health and as regards their morals—comfort being wholly out of the question. The great destitution there is of cottages in many parts of England, if the Committee directed their attention to that subject, would be perfectly appalling to them. The medical officers of unions could give evidence upon that point, which, I think, would surprise the Committee. I have made inquiries upon that point, and it is my firm belief that in the southern counties of England, where the population is so rapidly increasing, at the rate of something like 200,000 a year, cottages are absolutely decreasing in number; certainly they are not increasing.

"Mr. Denison: Where do you suppose the increasing population to find dwellings?—They find dwellings where fever and vice and crime of every sort is generated. They find dwellings by huddling together in numbers of six, seven, and eight, in rooms scarcely sufficient for one or two; that is, where dwellings are found. The evil has already, in my opinion, reached its acme.

"Chairman: Is that evil more or less observable through all the districts of which you are assistant commissioner?—I think it is observable in all; in some more than others, unquestionably."

He by no means undervalued the efforts made by the Sanitary Commission to effect improvement; but good drainage, and ventilation, and a sufficient supply of water, were not sufficient while the inmates were so overcrowded together that they could scarcely breathe. The high duties on bricks and timber were a serious impediment to the extension of house-accommodation; and another great evil arose from the law of settlement. It was undeniable that the present law of settlement operated very generally and powerfully as an inducement to the owners and occupiers of land in small parishes to prevent the residence of poor persons within the parish. But that was too large a question to be dealt with by an individual Member. He trusted, however, that even in the course of the present Session the Government would introduce a measure to extend the area of rating and settlement from parishes at least to unions, so as to put an end to the strong motive to the clearance of parishes and the prevention of residence therein which that law at present made so general. His object, at present, was to endeavour to remove another impediment now existing to the supply of adequate dwellings to the poor, namely, the rates to which they were subjected for local objects. He proposed by his Bill to exempt from all local taxation the houses occupied by the poorer classes, under the belief that they would be relieved thereby to the same extent and in the same manner as they would be by the remission of any other tax equally oppressive. He believed that the tax upon the poor man's house pressed quite as severely upon him as the taxes upon his tea, coffee, sugar, soap, or other articles of consumption; and the removal of it would be as useful and important a boon to him as the removal of the duties upon those commodities. To a certain extent, the poor were exempted from rates even as the law stood at present. He had endeavoured to ascertain the number and proportion of houses which were at present excused under the Act of the 59th Geo. III. c. 170, which empowered justices, with consent of vestries, to excuse from rating poor persons whom they judged wholly unable from poverty to pay them. He found that it would be impossible to obtain the returns for the whole country without great trouble and delay. He had therefore contented himself with the returns of four counties, which would serve by way of example, they affording instances of the condition in this respect of the manufacturing, agricultural, and mixed districts. The counties were Lancashire, Gloucestershire, Suffolk, and Hampshire; and the proportion stood thus:—

seconded the Motion.

remarked, that as the hon. Gentleman had gone so fully into the details of the measure, and as it appeared to be in effect the same as that the House had decided against in former Sessions, he hoped the hon. Member would not attribute any want of courtesy to him if he proposed to take the division on the Bill at the present stage, which the hon. Member had selected as the opportunity for taking the discussion upon it. He believed there was no disposition, nor would it be wise, on the part of the House to lessen the amount of property on which the relief of the poor and other local burdens must fall. He also objected that the effect of the Bill would not be to relieve the occupier, but to put so much in addition in the shape of rent into the pockets of the owners of this description of property.

observed, that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Stroud had communicated to him his intention to ask for leave to introduce his Bill, which he (Sir G. Grey) was prepared to accede to; but after the course he had taken in raising the whole question at issue when stating the principle of the proposed measure, the House could not be better informed upon it than they were at present; and although he had not proposed to oppose the introduction of the Bill, if it was pressed to a division now, he must vote against it. He quite agreed with the hon. Member in the importance of doing everything in their power to improve the dwellings of the poor. It was satisfactory to observe what had been done in the metropolis and most of the large towns in that direction. After the perusal of all the hon. Gentleman had written with so much ability on the subject, he was unable to arrive at the same conclusion, for he believed the hon. Gentleman's project offered a premium for the erection of a lower class of houses; and if the standard of rating was fixed at a high rent, a much larger amount of property would be exempted than would be at all desirable. The hon. Member, in writing of the mode in which the existing law worked, brought an argument of a convincing nature against his own Bill, for he declared that cases occurred where the owners of cottage property constituted a majority in the vestry, and carried an exemption from rates in their own favour. [Mr. P. SCROPE; That's not general; it's only a particular case.] Believing the Bill would have a most prejudicial effect on the object of the hon. Gentleman, he must oppose the proposition now, as on every former occasion, and vote against it if it was forced to a division.

gave credit to the hon. Gentleman for his humane and benevolent intentions, but believed that, instead of improving the condition of the poor, and advancing their interests, his plan would tend rather to depreciate their condition. To pass this Bill, would, in his opinion, be to offer a bonus for the worst class of houses, and to stop that progress in improving the dwellings of the poor which was now in operation.

observed, that he had not intended to raise any argument at this stage of the measure, nor was he aware that he had said more than was necessary as a justification for its introduction: if, however, it was the pleasure of the House to reject the measure at once, he must submit, though he had not anticipated such an opposition. He was aware that in a House composed mainly of landowners and ratepayers, it was impossible that the feeling should not prevail, that to relieve the smaller houses from the rates, would increase the rate on the higher classes of houses. He knew that was the general feeling in the country, and that it was impossible to struggle against that feeling until the good sense of the public led them to take up the question; and hon. Members, with that desire with which they were generally actuated to improve the condition of the working classes, should bring themselves to think on the subject, and to consider also all the incidents of local taxation. They would then see that the rate of their houses was as certainly paid by the occupiers or consumers, as they might be called, as surely as the tax on tea, coffee, or any other commodity which the poor consumed, was paid by them; and that to relieve the poor from general or local taxation would be a great alleviation of these burdens, and give a stimulus to capitalists for the erection of good, comfortable, and wholesome houses.

remarked upon the course taken by the hon. Gentleman, who first made a Motion for which he only obtained a seconder from motives of civility, and then imputed an interested bias to the whole House, because the universal feeling was against his measure. The hon. Gentleman talked of the House coming round to his view of the subject. He (Mr. V. Smith) would only reply that a case harder than that of the hon. Gentleman had not been heard of since the famous complaint made by the man who bemoaned his hard fortune in having to deal, whenever he was on a jury, with eleven obstinate and impracticable men. The fact was, there never was a time when so much attention was paid to the condition of the dwellings of the poor. The Bill proposed would work the greatest injury, and would only raise the rents; for even now there were cases where the owners of cottage property having obtained exemption from rates, at once laid the amount on the rents.

could state, from information he possessed, that there were individuals possessing property of this kind to a large extent who made a point of getting their cottages exempted from the rate, and laying the amount on the rent. Anything in the way of exemption had only led to abuse. He believed there was a general desire to improve the physical condition of the poor; and he knew of many who would gladly erect comfortable and wholesome cottages for their occupation, if they could be made to return, he would not say 5 or 4, but even 2 per cent. In this matter it was in the power of the Government to assist materially, by taking off the duty on bricks, which at present weighed very considerably against the erection of good cottages. If Government were really sincere in the desire to promote sanitary improvements, and the physical and moral welfare of the people—and he knew of nothing more conducive to immorality than the manner in which the poor were now herded together—they would not hesitate to abolish this duty. If the duty on bricks, and the remaining duty on timber were abolished, a cottage in the country districts which now cost 60l. might be erected for 40l., and no man would refuse, when he could do it at such a cost, to provide good dwellings for his labourers.

was also of opinion that this Bill would inflict great injustice. In Salford, there were more than 10,000 houses, 9,000 of which were under 10l a year; to exempt these from the rates would be most unjust to the rest of the inhabitants.

seeing the feeling of the House, would not go to a division.

said, he rose for the purpose of making the Motion of which he had given notice, on the subject of the recent negotiations relating to Hungary, and the events of the late Hungarian war. He believed he consulted the convenience of the House by seizing the earliest opportunity for bringing forward this subject, rather than by deferring it to a later period of the Session, when they would be too fully engaged with other business to be inclined to devote their time to matters of foreign policy. His object was to obtain information on the subjects which had excited the attention and the greatest degree of interest in this country and throughout Europe. The noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs had on a former occasion explained with great dearness the principles on which foreign affairs were managed under the English constitution; and he told the House that under this constitution the largest discretion was always granted to Her Majesty's advisers in the conduct of diplomatic negotiations, but, at the same time, that discretion was subject to the revision of Parliament, which revi- sion could not be exercised unless Parliament was furnished with full and ample information; and the noble Lord added that the country was a good deal in the dark with regard to the transactions to which he was referring at the time. And he (Lord D. Stuart) also said that on the matters to which the papers he should now move for related, the House was at this moment in the same position. He wanted some light to be thrown on these transactions, and he contended that the country had a right to be informed as to the part our Government had taken in regard to them; for, as was said in the debate on the Address, the Speech from the Throne merely told the House that we were not at war. There was a paragraph in the Speech, it was true, which referred to some delicate transactions which had been settled without any infraction of our relations of peace with foreign Powers; but as to how they had been settled, no information whatever had been given. The House was aware that during the last year a war had been raging in Europe, which had excited in the minds of the people of this country perhaps more interest than any other war had done in which we ourselves had not been actually engaged as principals; and no wonder, for that war was carried on by a despotic Government, for the purpose of putting down a free people, and depriving them of a free constitution, very similar to our own, and which they had enjoyed as long as we had enjoyed ours. The kingdom of Hungary had never been conquered—it had always remained independent de jure and de facto, until it was put down last summer by the power and treachery of Russia. The monarchy was originally elective. Ferdinand I., the brother of the Emperor Charles V., was elected by the Diet in the year 1526. He took the oath to the constitution, as all his successors had done, except Joseph II., who was in consequence never crowned nor recognised as King of Hungary. Hungary and Austria had had nothing in common except their sovereign, and had never been more united than the kingdom of Hanover was with England. The hereditary prince in the German States—the Archduke of Austria—was not King of Hungary till consecrated at Presburg with the crown of St. Stephen on his brow. In 1670 the Crown was declared hereditary in the male descendants of the House of I Hapsburg; in 1723 that arrangement was extended by the Pragmatic Sanction to females, and it was under that arrangement that the fidelity and generous devotion of the Hungarians secured to Maria Theresa not only the kingdom of Hungary but the other dominions of her father, in spite of a great European coalition. The heiress of the House of Hapsburg was known by the title of Queen of Hungary, that being the most important of the countries over which she ruled; and though her successors obtained the title of Emperor of Germany, and the title of King of Hungary became eclipsed under that more high-sounding appellation, it was Hungary which constituted the chief source of their power. The dignity of Emperor of Germany conferred but the shadow of power; and when the German empire fell to pieces at the beginning of this century, the modern title of Emperor of Austria was introduced, but he still derived his greatest power from his Hungarian dominions. Therefore, if we looked to power rather than titles, when that ancient ally we heard so much of was referred to, in reality what was meant was the King of Hungary, and not the Emperor of Austria. Joseph the Second attempted to overthrow the Hungarian constitution; but what happened in consequence? The Diet refused to recognise him, and exacted fresh guarantees from his successor, Leopold II., who declared that Hungary was free and independent, and not subject to any other people or State, but had a separate existence and constitution, and should be governed only by her own hereditary kings lawfully recognised, and by their own laws and customs, and not according to the rules of other provinces. In 1848, certain reforms were introduced in the constitution of Hungary, and laws passed the Diet for carrying them into effect. These passed both chambers, and received the royal assent, some of them being rather declaratory than new—such as the one which enacted that the Ministry of Hungary should be responsible to the Diet. There were other laws whereby civil and political equality was established, without distinction of language or creed. The privilege of exemption from direct taxation, heretofore enjoyed by the nobles, was taken away, and participation in public imposts was extended to all Hungarians. The labour rent also was not only done away with, but the lands held by that tenure were given Up to the peasants, who received them as their own property, compensation being guaranteed to the landlords; and the suffrage, formerly confined to the nobility, was extended in the counties to all persons possessed of real or personal property to the value of 30l., and in towns to all persons whose income amounted to 10l. per annum, to the holders of diplomas, and workmen having apprentices. These reforms, regularly voted by the House of Commons, were sent up to the House of Lords, and passed; and they received the royal assent from the sovereign on the 11th of April, 1848. But though the Hungarians were carrying out these measures of reform, and were acting strictly according to the spirit and letter of their constitution, that did not protect them from the illegal, and unconstitutional, and violent acts of the Emperor of Austria. Croatia had been united to Hungary for eight centuries longer than England has been united to Wales, by a most intimate union. But some disputes arose between the two countries, chiefly, perhaps solely, in consequence of a measure of the Diet which introduced the use of the Magyar language instead of the Latin in the Parliamentary debates of the House of Commons. The Court of Vienna took pains to exasperate these differences. It appointed Joseph Jellachich, the colonel of a Croatian regiment, Governor or Ban of Croatia; but as his appointment was not countersigned by a Minister, it was not a legal one. Nevertheless the Hungarians did not make objection, and he was invited to take the necessary steps on entering upon his rule. One of his first acts, however, was to forbid communication with the Hungarian Ministry, and to proclaim martial law against all persons who should refer to the connexion between Hungary and Croatia. The Ministry called upon him to withdraw this threat; and the ultimate result was, that a commission was despatched to investigate his conduct. It was then that Jellachich threw off the mask, and declared the nature of the policy he intended to pursue. It had been repeatedly said in this country that Kossuth was a repealer; but, judging by the acts of the man, the real repealer in Hungary was Jellachich; for, unlike Kossuth, who proceeded constitutionally, and supported the rights of the sovereign of Hungary until he made war against the country, Jellachich pushed his measures with force and violence, and endeavoured to separate Croatia from the Hungarian crown. In June, he convoked, contrary to law, a general assembly of Croatia, for the 29th. The Emperor Ferdinand put his veto upon the proceeding. At the conference with the Hungarian Ministers, to which he was summoned, Jellachich did not appear, and by a subsequent ordinance he was suspended from his office. There was a powerful party in Croatia, however, who published a protest, declaring that they desired to remain, as they had always been, united with the kingdom of Hungary. At the same time, the Serbs, inhabiting the north banks of the Danube, became disaffected; and although they had only within a few years settled in the country in any numbers, they now demanded a separate government. The Austrian Government fomented the disaffection of the Serbs, and also of the Wallachian peasantry who are found in the south of Transylvania, and are an extremely wild and uncivilised people. They were armed by the Austrian authorities, and incited against the upper classes; and the horrors they committed surpassed, probably, anything that had been known in history. He held in his hand a book written by a Hungarian lady, Madame Pulszky, who was in that country at the time, and who was now in England—a book which gave a most interesting account of those transactions, and was about to be published. He had been favoured with a sight and loan of it previous to its publication, and he would read a short passage having reference to the atrocities committed by the Austrian Government at that time;—

"The sad consequences of this plot manifested themselves everywhere, but nowhere more dreadfully than in the remote mountain districts of Zalatuya.

"The civil officers of these parts were suddenly surrounded by wildly fanatical Wallachs, arms in hand. In this state of things, above 1,200 faithful servants of their Sovereign assembled. They were of all ranks, from the highest to the lowest, old and young, accompanied by their wives and children. All joined in the purpose to proceed together to the town of Enyed, at several hours' distance from Zalatuya, to be sheltered from the wild hordes, which were ready to attack every one who chanced not to be Wallach, and who were another than a peasant's coat. It was yet at some distance from Zalatuya, when the officers were overtaken by a great troop of armed Wallachs. Not willing to oppose those who pretended to be acting in the name of the monarch, a negotiation was entered upon. Its result was, that the emigrants agreed to deliver up their swords and muskets, under condition that they should not be prevented from freely proceeding to Enyed. Before the disarming was completed, the evening had come on.

"Several carriages were laden with the arms, and they waited for dawn to continue their journey. In the night, the Wallachs sent a messenger to the commander, who was an Austrian officer, at Zalatuya, to inquire 'what they should do with their prisoners.' The messenger returned with the laconic reply, 'Put the wretches to death.'

"When the peremptory order of murder arrived, the riotous people itself was thunderstruck, and for a long while no one attempted to break the pledge of a free passage. Both parties hesitated for some instants to take any decided step; at last the disarmed set themselves in motion. Slowly the procession advanced, until some circumstance, which has never been precisely ascertained, was considered by the Wallachs a signal to attack.

"Now followed a horrifying scene. One part of the disarmed were cudgelled to death, others pierced through with pointed mountain-sticks. Some hanged on trees were mangled with hayforks; others thrown into pits were buried under blocks rolled down upon them. Women and maidens were mutilated and murdered in the most dreadful manner.

"The slaughter lasted long. Rainbold, a German, the inspector of Zalatuya, to whom clung his wife and two grown-up daughters, not seeing any possibility of averting their dreadful fate, drew out his double pistol, which, more distrustful than his companions, he had retained, shot down first his two daughters, loaded again, shot his wife, and lastly killed himself. The haste and the excitement, in which he achieved this awful deed, rendered his hand uncertain, his mutilated wife survived this horrible catastrophe, and related it. Of 1,200 persons, about 110 remained wounded amongst the bodies of their comrades. Of these survivors, about 70 or 80, most of them women, one, the wife of the judge Csás-zár, bleeding from countless wounds, dragged themselves before the gates of the fortress of Gyula Jehárvár (Karlsburgh). But the commander of this place, which was occupied by Austrian troops, drove the exhausted victims, with blows, from the gates, where, after having been refused entrance, they sunk powerless to the ground.

"These horrors never were punished by the Austrians, and when some months later, Pucher was driven from Transylvania by General Bern, and Csanyi, as Hungarian commissary, sentenced several of the instigators and perpetrators of the above-mentioned bloodshed to be hanged, the correspondents of the Austrian party filled the papers of foreign countries which declamations on Hungarian terrorism."

While a deputation sent by the Diet, to complain of these atrocities, and demand that measures for the defence of the kingdom should receive the royal assent, was at Vienna, the King sent a letter, dated the 31st of August, which stated that the law of 1838, by which a responsible Ministry had been granted to Hungary, was contrary to the Pragmatic Sanction, and detrimental to the interests of Hungary and Austria; and then it was announced that the King was determined to abrogate the laws, and subject every one in Hungary to the central power of Vienna. Here was the cause of quarrel. Austria was determined that the laws based upon the constitution should not be carried into effect; Hungary was determined to have those laws acted upon. It was exactly the same sort of quarrel which we had had in this country, and which led to our civil wars. In both countries the King was determined to rule by prerogative, and in both countries the people were determined to be governed only with the consent of parliament. It could not be said that the Emperor was coerced by the Hungarians into sanctioning the reforms of 1848, for he came of his own free will to Presburg, and granted his assent. That was the first occasion. The laws passed might not be favourable to the House of Hapsburg; but why then was the royal assent given to them? On the second occasion that this assent was given, the King was not in Hungary but at Vienna, when he commissioned his viceroy to deliver a speech on his behalf, in which he declared his determination to observe the laws which he had sanctioned. As to the pretence of the laws being contrary to the Pragmatic Sanction, there never was one so void of foundation. The Pragmatic Sanction only regulated the order of succession. It was an act of settlement, and nothing more; and the order of succession at the time that pretext was taken, had not been in the slightest degree interfered with. It was not interfered with until long after that: not until one emperor had abdicated, not until after his brother had renounced his claim to the throne, not until after the next in succession had put forward claims with the avowed intention of abrogating laws without the consent of Parliament; not until after the Russians had with his approbation invaded Hungary: not until after the constitution of the 4th of March had been proclaimed, which swept away all the rights and institutions of the kingdom—it was not until after all these things that the throne was declared vacant. But supposing these laws were opposed to the Pragmatic Sanction, what force had it in Hungary, except as a law adopted by the Diet? None at all. It was necessary it should have the sanction of the Diet before it could have any validity in Hungary: and the three estates of the realm which adopted it, had a perfect right either to abrogate it altogether, or to introduce other laws partially to modify it, or to pass laws which, like those they did pass, had no effect upon it. The pretence that the reform carried by the Diet was contrary to the Pragmatic Sanction, was just as if King William IV., after having given the royal assent to the Reform Bill, should have tried to set aside that law, on the plea that it was contrary to the Act of Settlement. No sooner had the Emperor announced his intention of departing from his royal word, than it became evident that a conspiracy had been formed against the constitution of Hungary. Jellachich, who had been formally deprived of power, was, nevertheless, allowed to hold it. After the resignation of the Hungarian Ministry, consequent upon the decree of the King, and the revolt in the provinces, Count Louis Batthyani was commissioned to form a new administration. In the meantime Jellachich crossed the Danube at three different points, with regular Croat troops, aided by Austrian regiments. The Hungarians, in the absence of any regulated ministry, and in consequent confusion, were unable to oppose any considerable force; and the consequence was, that the Croats advanced into the heart of the country, pillaging and plundering as they went. The Diet then offered the command of the army to the Archduke Stephen in his capacity of viceroy; he accepted it, and joined the army, but after having endeavoured in vain to effect arrangements between the opposing forces, he left the camp and returned through Pesth to Vienna, where he tendered his resignation, which was accepted. On the 25th of September a royal ordinance, which had not been countersigned, placed all the Hungarian troops under Count Lamberg; but the Diet declared the appointment of the Count illegal, and required the counter signature. Lamberg braved the decree, and was proceeding towards the citadel of Buda, to take possession, as it was supposed, in the name of the Austrian Government, when he was met on the bridge by a crowd, dragged from the carriage in which he was seated, and murdered. A great handle had been made against the Hungarians of this event, and most deplorable it was. But acts of this nature perpetrated by mobs were not the acts by which a country could be fairly judged, and they affixed no stain to any nation, unless indeed it appeared that that nation had manifested indifference to the crime. The Hungarian Diet, however, had passed a resolution expressive of horror at what had occurred, and they directed measures to be taken to bring the criminals to justice. A battle was soon afterwards fought, Jellachich was beaten, an armistice was signed, but he took to flight, and before long the King placed the country in a state of siege, and the whole military force under the command of Jellachich. The Diet, persuaded that the King had no right to abolish the constitution, declared the royal ordinance in favour of Jellachich null and void, and proclaimed him and all who aided him to be traitors. Jellachich continued his retreat towards Vienna, and threatened that city; then Count Latour, the Minister of War in Vienna, who had denied all complicity with the proceedings of Jellachich, was discovered to he secretly in correspondence with him, and to have abetted him in his designs: the enraged populace of Vienna seized upon Count Latour, and put him to death. With the acts of the people of Vienna, the Hungarians had nothing to do, although the Austrian Government had circulated a report that Count Louis Batthyani was implicated in this murder. They failed, however, in bringing any proofs to justify such an accusation, and it had in fact been made merely in order to justify a murder still more atrocious than that of Count Latour, the murder of Count Louis Batthyani himself—a murder more atrocious because it was the murder of an innocent man. He suffered death on the anniversary of the murder of Count Latour, the Austrian Government thereby insinuating against him what they dared not openly charge him with—a participation in the death of Count Latour. The Austrian Government knew that imputation to be false, and the sentence upon Count Louis Batthyani did not contain one word of accusation against him upon this account. The Hungarians had hesitated to advance against Vienna, but at last they did advance, when it was too late, and they fought a battle, the only one they waged on soil which was not Hungarian. General Bern, who took the command in December of 8,000 men, had by the middle of March cleared the province of Transylvania of the Austrians, and had forced the Russians who came to their assistance to fly into the Turkish territory with great loss. The Hungarians who had been driven from Pesth, rallied on the line of the Theiss, and having beaten Windischgratz, Weldon, and other generals, drove the Austrians to the very frontier of their country. In the mean time the Austrian Camarilla had adopted certain measures of importance. The Emperor Ferdinand was induced or forced to abandon his crown, and his brother's son, the Emperor Francis Joseph, a youth of 18, ascended the throne of Austria. On the 4th of March the new constitution drawn up by Count Stadion and the celebrated democrat Dr. Bach was published, which abolished all the laws, customs, and institutions of all the nations placed under the Austrian Government, however ancient, however useful, however suited to the wants of the people in which they were established. A vicious form of government was introduced, the object of which was to throw all the power into the hands of the bureauocracy at Vienna. The Austrian constitution of the 4th of March, was a measure more sweeping and more revolutionary than the violent changes which had been introduced by the Constituent Assembly of France during the first Revolution. If the Hungarians had been the frantic revolutionists their enemies wished to represent them, they might have been content with this constitution; but they, like us, being attached to an ancient constitution which they had enjoyed for centuries—they, like us, being anxious to adapt their constitution to the times in which they lived, and to make it of practical utility—being anxious to advance safely and gradually, and being reformers and not revolutionists, could not be content with such a constitution as that; and, above all, they, like us, could not accept a constitution, which, not agreed to by all the different orders of the State, was only granted as a favour by the Austrians, and, being so granted, might the next day be withdrawn. When the Diet saw their legitimate Sovereign deposed, they adopted the precedent set them by the Lords and Commons of England, and declared the throne vacant, and that the line of Haps-burg should be for ever excluded. It had been repeatedly declared by the Austrians that the Hungarians had proclaimed a Republic. They had done no such thing. The tendency of the Hungarian people had always been monarchical. The "Governor President," which was the title given to Kossuth, was one known to the constitutional history of Hungary; and the Hungarians would have been very willing to receive any prince as their king who in his turn would have been willing to give them guarantees that he would adhere to the spirit of their constitution. In fact, the Hungarians had all but succeeded in their wishes; the Austrian troops were beaten until they held only a narrow strip in one part of the country, and then Prince Schwartzenburg adopted the suicidal policy of calling in the Russians. Not even the talents of the Hungarian generals, Klapka, Aulich, and Perczet, assisted by the intrepid daring of Bern, the experienced valour of Dembinski, and the ardent courage of our own countryman, Guyon, could prevail against the numbers of the Russians, aided by the broken forces of Austria, but still more effectively seconded by the fatal treachery of Görgey. The influence of this intervention would be most pernicious. The constitution of Hungary was no modern experiment. It had been rooted in the affections and habits of the people. If it had been permitted to flourish, its example would have extended to other countries. Free trade would have been established, the Austrian prohibitory tariff would have been done away with, and a large market opened to England—all of which facts would be made manifest if one of the papers he should move for were laid on the table, as he hoped it would be. Besides this, Hungary had been the most efficient barrier against Russia on the side of Turkey; but such was the detestation with which the conduct of the Austrians had inspired the Hungarians, that they would much prefer the rule of that Power which they had hitherto regarded with horror, to a continuance of the Austrian rule. He had always regarded the interference of Russia in the affairs of Hungary as a violation of the law of nations. It was an interference with the internal affairs of an independent country, with which Russia had nothing to do; and the pretext advanced by the Czar in excuse for his interference, that a large number of his subjects were serving in the Hungarian army, was entirely without foundation, for there were not 4,000 Poles in that army altogether, and of these only a few hundreds were from Russian Poland—the rest came from the neighbouring province of Gallicia. The Emperor of Russia had not even a shadow of right to interfere, because the Emperor of Austria, who had sent for Russian troops to invade Hungary, was not the King of Hungary either de jure or de facto at the time that demand was made. He was not king de jure for the constitutional reasons he (Lord D. Stuart) had given, and he was not king de facto, because the bravery of the Hungarians had driven his army out of the country. He should also move for papers with respect to the occupation by Russia of the Danubian provinces of Wallachia and Moldavia. This occupancy was a violation of the law of nations, and of the independence of Turkey. Russia not only induced Turkey to forego certain reforms which she wished to introduce, but prevailed on the Turkish Government to sign what was called the Convention of Balta Liman, by which it was stipulated that neither Power should have more than 10,000 troops in the Wallachian and Moldavian provinces. She had not adhered, however, even to her own convention signed on the 1st of May last, but had still a much larger army in the principalities. Now, one of the papers which he should move for was a circular addressed by Count Nesselrode to the various ambassadors of Russia when this occupation of the Danubian provinces took place. He would read an extract from it, which he was enabled to do, the noble Lord having read an extract from it last Session. This circular stated that

—"from the moment that in Moldavia and Wallachia law shall have been established and guaranteed, the troops shall be withdrawn from them, to go and occupy immediately the strictly defensive position which they occupied before."

Now, he would ask the noble Lord whether he believed he had not a sufficient guarantee for the future peace of these provinces? The noble Lord knew full well that the Porte was most anxious to have these troops withdrawn, and that the Convention of Balta Liman should be carried out. How was it possible, that with such a declaration as this, so stringent, so precise—how could it be believed—that Russia still maintained in that country an army of not less than 46,000 men? He had communications from that country to a late period, and he was able to state that there was at least that number of Russians stationed there. Now, the noble Lord at the head of the Foreign Department, in reply to some observations which fell from his hon. Friend the Member for Youghal a few nights ago, stated his belief and conviction that those Russian troops would soon be withdrawn. He hoped his noble Friend would excuse him if he was not altogether satisfied with that assurance on his part, and that he was not altogether persuaded of the good intentions of the Russians. He remembered his noble Friend, in the debate to which he had just referred, said of course it was open to say, if a Minister stated his belief that such and such things were likely to happen, it was open to any Member, if he pleased, to say that he did not partake of that opinion. But in stating that he could not altogether partake of the noble Lord's opinion, he would tell the House why he dissented from it. The noble Lord would recollect that when these troops first entered Moldavia, he called his attention to the subject. The noble Lord then said, that they had entered without being authorised by the Russian Government. But whether authorised or not, they remained. When he again spoke to him on the subject, his answer was that they were in Moldavia, but that they would not enter Wallachia. They did enter Wallachia. Then he thought they would withdraw very soon, but a year and three quarters had elapsed and they had not withdrawn. And the noble Lord said this was only a question of time, and thought that an answer. He should like to ask him if he had a troop of soldiers quartered in his house, living, with their horses, at his expense, what he would say if he complained of it, and his friend replied, "Never mind, my good fellow, it is only a question of time." What would be think of that if he had to pay the weekly bills? That was exactly the case in Moldavia and Wallachia, because the Government did not maintain the troops; but the inhabitants were obliged to maintain them. Those troops were probably there to carry on the designs of Russia against Hungary last year, and against Turkey this year. He thought his noble Friend, in the supposititious case he had put, would feel himself aggrieved, and would take the first opportunity of driving the intruders out of his domain. And this, no donbt, Turkey would do, if she had it in her power. This tyranny ought not to be allowed. If his noble Friend had made an energetic protest against it in the first instance, it was his confident belief that the troops which entered these provinces unauthorised—that was a convenient mode for Russia to feel her way—would never have been authorised to remain, and the catastrophe in Hungary would, in all probability, have been avoided. Not only in England, but all over Europe, the people were enthusiastic in their wish for the success of the Hungarian cause; and the noble contagion even stretched across the Atlantic, where they heard of honour done to the Hungarians by the first magistrate of the land, and where resolutions, he believed, were at this moment under discussion for suspending all intercourse with the Austrian Government in consequence of its treatment of the Hungarians. If the noble Lord, when this encroachment was first made, had set his face against it, it was his conviction that Russia would have backed out of it. He could not help feeling sorry the other evening on hearing his noble Friend say, that allowances ought to be made for Russia. He (Lord D. Stuart) did not like these allowances, which were always made for the strong and powerful. He would rather see allowances made for the weak, over whom generosity should extend a shield. He hoped his noble Friend would this evening take an opportunity of explaining what the circumstances were for which he would make allowances. He thought that a subject more important could not be pressed upon the attention of his noble Friend. He was well aware that it had not, when first he brought it forward, rivetted the attention of the country; and he thought that was a reason, perhaps, why his noble Friend did not employ more energetic measures at the time than he did. But the country was now roused upon the subject. It was determined to maintain the integrity of the Ottoman empire. Every Government in succession had declared that, as well the Government of the Duke of Wellington, and of the right hon. Member for Tamworth, as that of his noble Friend; and even the Protectionist Government, whose advent they had been led to expect, would, he presumed, follow the same course; for, on a former occasion, the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire had in strong, and, he must say, in very eloquent and forcible terms, recorded his conviction that it is the interest of this country and of Europe to follow that course. Now, in arguing this matter, he would not he supposed to be an advocate of war. He believed that in the present instance war was altogether unnecessary. A great deal had been said about Russophobia, and he was considered to he affected with that malady. He would tell them how far he was a Russophobist. He was quite convinced that when this country spoke in earnest to Russia, and told her that she would not have certain things done, that the voice of this country would be obeyed, and that she would have no occasion to make it heard by the roar of cannon. He knew that it was a perfect farce to talk of Russia resisting the power of this country for a single day. At the same time, he was so far infected with Russophobia, that he was not disposed to take such a course as would turn that weakness into an overpowering might. He was not disposed to allow Russia to possess the most fertile portion of the globe, nor the first maritime station; because, if that were done, she would no longer be weak—she would no longer be obliged to come into such measures as this country should approve, but she would have made a great stride towards universal empire. She would threaten our Indian empire and our commerce, and then force us into a war, of which there was now no danger, nor was there any occasion for it. Russia would not abandon her cautious policy for the sake of her designs of national aggrandisement; but though she was patient in her designs, and wished to aggrandise herself, not by conquest but by insidious means, still whenever there was a question of putting liberty down, all her selfpossession seemed to abandon her; then she no longer acted by slow and measured means, but came forward directly and impetuously, in order to destroy all really sound and wholesome reforms, wherever she found them. What occasioned the last partition of Poland in 1791 but the introduction of reforms? In 1829 why did she interfere with Turkey? Because she found that Turkey was engaged in effecting reforms. In 1848 she interfered with Wallachia from the same cause, and in 1849 she interfered with Hungary because that country preferred the most legitimate of all claims—to be governed by the constitution they had for ages enjoyed. But the Czar had received a check which he had not experienced for a long time. They would remember the claim that he made for the extradition of the refugees from Hungary. He was before triumphant; he had everything his own way. His armies had carried all before them, by their numbers, or the treachery of their enemies: at any rate he was successful; he had stamped out liberty in Hungary; he had obtained a footing in the Danubian provinces, and everything smiled upon him. But when he came to demand the extradition of these brave but unfortunate refugees from Hungary, in order that he might slake his thirst for vengeance upon them, then he found a noble Sultan on the throne of Turkey, who magnanimously opposed, and said 'No' to his nefarious demand. The Emperordemanded these refugees that he might put them to death. His ambassador, in an insolent tone, claimed them from the Sultan. It was even said that Prince Radzivil had the audacity to appear in the presence of the Sultan without uncovering his head. The language employed was most offensive, and, though it was said that the Russian ambassadors exceeded their instructions, he had some reason to believe that that was not the case, but that they were ordered to employ almost the very language that they did. The Emperor of Russia was determined to succeed, and to use his utmost influence for that purpose. But all that influence was exerted in vain, because the Sultan was supported by this country. The honour of the Sultan and the honour of the British Minister prevented so foul a deed from disgracing Europe. When the Czar could not get what he wanted because there was a British fleet in the Levant (for that was the only reason), he said he should be contented with a minor success. Though he (Lord D. Stuart) had spoken in strong terms of his satisfaction that Kossuth and those noble men were not given up to the fury of the Emperor of Russia, he could not say that he was satisfied with the result of the negotiation. He was not convinced that the fleet at the Dardanelles obtained all that it ought to have obtained, or that all had been accomplished by the British Government which might have been accomplished. He did not think that the people of this country would be satisfied when they found that although the Hungarians and the Poles were not given up, still that the Poles were expelled from Turkey, and most likely would arrive here before long in a state of indigence, and that Kossuth and his brave companions were to he kept in prison for a considerable time. The people of this country would not be pleased to find that the Emperor of Austria had, in this at least, had his way, because he had no doubt the aim of the Austrian Government was to prevent these men from coming to this country, because it dreaded the effect their presence would have upon public opinion. He must say that he thought the noble Lord ought to produce to this House all the information that he (Lord D. Stuart) had asked for with regard to this transaction. This transaction, at least so far as the refugees were concerned, the Speech from the Throne said had terminated satisfactorily, but they wanted to know what had been done. The House had a right to know what had been done in this matter, that they might exercise that supervision over the acts of the Government which the noble Lord on a former occasion said it was its right and duty to do. His noble Friend would do right by the country in so doing; and give him (Lord D. Stuart) leave to say it was exceedingly desirable for his own character as a Minister, and in order that he might stand right with the people of this country, and continue to have that good opinion which, he was happy to say, he had for a long period enjoyed. It was necessary for this purpose that he should furnish the House with all the information demanded. He the more confidently called on the noble Lord to give all the information he could, as he had been, in former times, extremely energetic in getting other Governments to produce information for the guidance of the House, and as he had made a boast that the Government to which he belonged was always extremely ready to furnish such papers as might be required.

seconded the Motion.

Sir, my noble Friend has travelled over so wide a field, that I am persuaded the House will not expect I should follow him in detail through all those various important transactions to which his speech has related. I can assure my noble Friend that it is the wish of Her Majesty's Government to give all the information upon those transactions which it may he consistent with the public interest, and consistent with those courtesies that are due between Governments and countries, to afford. The Motion with which he has concluded embraces so large a mass of correspondence, comprising not only all the confidential communications of Her Majesty's Government to our Ambassadors and Ministers abroad, but also communications between other Governments, of which knowledge may have been given to the Government of Her Majesty, that I trust my noble Friend and the House will think I am not asking too much of their forbearance if I entreat them not to press the Motion in the words in which my noble Friend has put it, but to allow me to select out of that great mass of papers such documents as may explain to the House the course which Her Majesty's Government has pursued, without giving details which would be inconvenient to the public service, or laying before the House those confidential communications that may have passed between Her Majesty's Government and Her Ministers abroad, or between them and the Ministers of other countries. With regard to the war in Hungary, I had an opportunity last Session of stating the views which I entertain of that great question. I can only say, that those feelings and opinions which I know are entertained upon that matter by the great majority of the people of this country, are opinions and feelings which have done great credit to the country, and which, I trust, I might almost say I know, no Englishman will differ from in any respect whatever. At the same time, I am sure the House will feel, that in a matter in which England had no direct right to interfere, the functions of the British Government with regard to the direction of events must be necessarily extremely limited. Therefore, however strong may be the interest which the Government of England, as representing the public opinion of this country, might take in those events, the House will naturally suppose that the active interference of the British Government must necessarily have been restricted within limits perhaps far more narrow than those to which their feelings might wish them to extend. With regard to the principalities of Wallachia and Moldavia, my noble Friend and myself have discussed that question before. The House is aware that Russia does stand, in regard to those principalities, upon a footing different from that upon which the Government of one country usually stands in respect to provinces belonging to another country. There was concluded in the course of last year an arrangement—it was not a treaty, it was an exchange of notes, standing in the shape of a convention—by which the two Governments of Russia and Turkey engaged that the forces of Russia and Turkey in those provinces should, after a certain period, be reduced to the amount of 10,000 men. My noble Friend is correct in stating that the Turkish Government has carried that engagement into effect, and that the Russian Government has not hitherto done so. I stated on a former evening that I believed, and it is my conviction, that the Russian Government is about to carry that engagement into execution. My noble Friend, perhaps, does not partake of my conviction. I can only say, that the information we have received very lately, leads me to think that the Turkish Ambassador recently sent to St. Petersburgh has received an assurance to that effect from the Government of Russia, and that the amount of the Russian troops in those provinces will very speedily be reduced to 10,000 men. I can assure my noble Friend that I fully agree with him as to the severe pressure which the presence of those troops must occasion to the inhabitants of those principalities. It is perfectly evident that the obligation under which they have been laid for supporting and providing for so large a body, must have imposed upon them sacrifices and privations of a very painful and extensive character. With regard to that more important transaction connected with the demand for the refugees, that which took place between the Governments of England and France on the one hand, and the Governments of Russia and Austria and the Government of Turkey on the other, is generally so well known that little remains for me to state which is not already within the cognisance of the public at large. I shall be perfectly ready to give such papers as will show the course we pursued on that occasion. It is well known, that after the termination of the war in Hungary a very considerable number of persons, Hungarians, Poles, and some Italians, took refuge in the Turkish provinces. A demand was made by the Governments of Austria and Russia on Turkey for the surrender of such of those individuals as were Austrian or Russian subjects. That demand was founded upon the Treaty of Kaimardji with regard to Russia, and upon the Treaty of Belgrade in regard to Austria. The Sultan, feeling that the obligations of hospitality, which are considered even more paramount, if possible, in the East than in any other part of the world, precluded him from complying with that demand; and looking at the terms of the Treaty of Kaimardji, and seeing that he had clearly an alternative, and that the engagement contracted by that treaty permitted him to choose that alternative, he refused to comply with the demand made by Russia of surrendering those individuals, but stated that he was ready to fulfil the other condition of the treaty, namely, that of expelling other individuals, chiefly Poles, from his territory. With regard to the demand of Austria, it certainly did not appear, by the Treaty of Belgrade, that there was any condition which required the Sultan to surrender Austrian subjects who might have sought refuge within his territories; with regard to Austria's demand, therefore, he was still more at liberty to refuse compliance, than he was with respect to the demand made by Russia. The manner in which those demands were made at Constantinople, by the organs of the Russian and Austrian Governments, excited alarm in the Government of Turkey as to the consequences which might follow from a refusal to comply with those demands, even though the Government of Turkey felt that they were not by treaty compelled or liable to comply with them. In that state of things, the Turkish Government turned its eyes to those friendly Powers to whom it might look for support, and an appeal was made to the Government of England, and also to the Government of France, for their friendly support in the critical circumstances in which Turkey might find itself. Her Majesty's Government, acting, as I think they did, in strict unison with the universal feeling of the country as it was manifested on that occasion, determined to give the Sultan the support which he had asked. Friendly representations were made to the Government of Austria and the Government of Russia, explaining the grounds upon which it appeared to Her Majesty's Government that the Sultan was not bound to comply with the demands which had been made. It is but due, however, to the Russian Government to state, that the Sultan having sent a special ambassador to St. Petersburgh, for the purpose of requesting the Emperor to desist from the demand which he had made, and to accept the other alternative of the treaty—it is but due, I say, to Russia to state, that the day before our friendly representation reached St. Petersburgh, the Russian Government had made a communication to the Turkish ambassador, stating that Russia no longer insisted on demanding a surrender of the Poles, but consented to the alternative for their expulsion. There followed upon that, however, a long negotiation with regard to detailed conditions which were proposed on the one side, and objected to, in a certain degree, on the other. Those negotiations ended at last in an arrangement between the Turkish Government and the Emperor of Russia, by which the Turkish Government agreed to expel, as by treaty it was bound to do, the Polish refugees from the Turkish territories. With regard to Austria, the Turkish Government undertook to remove the Hungarians—not to put them in prison, as my noble Friend has stated—[Lord D. STUART: To detain them]—but to remove them to a distance from the Austrian territories, and there detain them under that description of observation of which, happily, no English word conveys the meaning—under surveillance for a certain limited time. The diplomatic relations between Russia and Turkey have been re-established. Diplomatic relations between Austria and Turkey were not actually re-established, but there was every reason to suppose they would be within a few days after the last despatches came away. During the negotiations which took place at Constantinople, the most perfect harmony and co-operation existed between Her Majesty's Ambassador and the Ambassador of the Republic of France; and no doubt it was greatly owing to the friendly offices of those diplomatic representatives that those questions, involving great difficulty and complications of various kinds, were brought to a successful issue; and I am bound to say, that it is impossible for any man to have acquitted himself in such difficult circumstances, and in the execution of such an arduous duty, with more ability, more judgment, and more discretion, than Sir Stratford Canning had done in the task which it had fallen to his lot to perform. My noble Friend has expressed an opinion in respect to the arrangement that has been made, and has declared that that arrangement is not altogether satisfactory to his wishes and views. I am free to confess that if it had been a matter depending solely upon the will and decision of Her Majesty's Government, there are many circumstances connected with that arrangement that we should have wished to be different from what they turn out to be. But there were treaties to be observed—there were offers which had been spontaneously made—engagements which had been voluntarily offered, and which could not altogether be retracted; and acting under the circumstances as they stood, and bearing in mind that although it was desirable to support the Turkish Government in resisting the demands which it would have been unfitting for that Government to comply with; yet, on the other hand, we should have been acting an unfriendly part if we had urged that Government to place itself, without necessity, in the perilous position of a rupture with its two great and powerful neighbours. Considering, on the one hand, the difficulties from which it was desirable to extricate the Turkish Government, and, on the other hand, considering the concessions which the Turkish Government ought not to be compelled to make, I believe the arrangement such as has been made is the best which, under all the circumstances of the case, it was possible Her Majesty's Government could see accomplished. None of the refuges have been given up. The Polish part of them are free to depart to other portions of Europe, where they will be in a state of complete liberty; and those Hungarians who are for a time detained in the Turkish territory, I hope will not be detained there long. At all events, I am quite satisfied that the Turkish Government, from its generous feelings and from its sense of the duties of hospitality, will take care that while they are within its territories every attention will be paid to them which is consistent with their unfortunate position, and with the eminent qualities by which they are distinguished. In conclusion, I beg to express a hope that my noble Friend will consent to accept the offer I have made to him, and allow me to submit to the House such portions of the papers he has moved for as can be laid upon the table without being injurious to the public interest. I trust the House will believe me when I say that there are substantial reasons why it is not in my power to accede to the Motion in the form in which it has been moved by my noble Friend.

saw no reason, after what had occurred, to alter the opinion he had expressed on a former occasion as to the conduct pursued by Her Majesty's Government with respect to the extradition of the Hungarian and other refugees now in Turkey. He was glad to see that upon this occasion they had broken through the line of policy adopted for many years of truckling to Russia, and he hoped they would continue to do so. He saw that the noble sentiments expressed by the Sultan had not failed to make a due impression upon the Cabinet, and he hoped the impression would be a long and lasting one. He could not help saying that the accommodation agreed to was unsatisfactory; but he could not conceal from himself the difficulties alluded to by the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs. He could not forget that the chief difficulty to which he had adverted, though not in express language, was created by the treaty of 1841, and that, with the stipulations of that treaty staring them in the face, it was impossible for their Ambassador, or the French Ambassador, to offer to the Sultan that prompt and immediate assistance which would be necessary to effect a more satisfactory accommodation. He must say that the arrangement which had been made was due not so much to Sir Stratford Canning, or the French Ambassador, as to the skilful conduct of the Minister of the Porte. He hoped our Government would hence be taught not again so to fetter themselves as not to be able to repel promptly the aggressions of Russia. The ever-memorable and glorious declaration of the Sultan, on receiving the insolent message of the Czar, was—

"Am I, the Master of this Empire, to be debarred from the exercise of aright enjoyed by my meanest subject, and in the exercise of which I dare not disturb the meanest vassal? Sooner let me cease to reign; sooner let the Empire perish than be so degraded."

He quoted these words from an authentic report which he had received from Constantinople. He regretted that the spirit of this noble sentiment had not been more thoroughly acted on by our Government. On the question of the Hungarian refugees, he had only to express his entire concurrence in what fell from both the noble Lords; and with respect to the other question raised by his noble Friend the Member for Marylebone, and to which a great portion of the documents demanded had reference, he had a few words to say. He could not understand on what principle it was that the noble Lord could come down to the House and allege that the public service would suffer from the publication of the entire of every document of the class indicated in the notice of the noble Lord the Member for Marylebone. The general observation applied particularly to the question of the Danubian principalities; and it appeared that the case in which those papers were asked respected the performance of a solemn obligation entered into with the assistance at least, if not on the mediation, of the British Sovereign, in the course of the last year. The obligation entered into had been set aside by one of the contracting parties, while the other party observed it most religiously. It had been violated by Christian Russia—it had been observed by unchristian Turkey. The noble Lord said, that, although the treaty had been broken by Russia, it was now going to be kept; but when they knew there was a time fixed for the performance of the arrangement, and that that time was the 31st December, 1849, a day now long since passed, so that it was, consequently, not now in the power of the Government to obtain the literal performance of the treaty, it appeared to him that the House should require something more than the assurance of the noble Lord that Russia meant to fix some other day, and adhere to it with more of fidelity than she did to recent arrangement. It should be recollected that the treaty was more or less guaranteed by England, and they had no assurance that reparation would be made. There was no reason to apprehend that the forces now quartered amongst the people of the Danubian principalities would be employed against the sovereign Power; and this, therefore, was not a question of time, but a question calling for immediate decision. With regard to the other question, which would occupy less of their attention than the former one—he meant the question lately pending between Austria and Hungary—he concurred in what fell from the noble Lord the Member for Marylebone, and would merely observe that the noble Lord the Secretary of State, when he said that England had no immediate right or obligation to interfere in the settlement of that question, or in forcing the performance of the constitutional obligations which bound the House of Hapsburg to the people of Hungary, forgot that England was a party to, and had guaranteed, the Pragmatic Sanction. That arrangement adopted by the Hungarians, and applying to this very question now before them—he meant the question as to the constitutional prerogatives of the House of Hapsburg on the one hand, and the constitutional rights of the people of Hungary on the other—was rather a Hungarian than an Austrian one. Having wasted their blood and treasure in the enterprise, they had not only a right, but also the duty, to see that the stipulations accorded to the people of Hungary by that House were performed. On the whole, he thought that, looking to the perfidious and perjured violation by Russia of all pre-existing treaties, Ministers should now be prepared with something more than a vague and general assurance of trust to justify the House in coming to an unanimous vote on the Address, or in refusing to qualify it with the expression of their hope that Her Majesty will take care, with respect to all subsisting or future treaties, to exact some real security for their performance.

said, as his noble Friend the Foreign Secretary had assured him that he was prepared to lay on the table of the House a considerable number of the documents moved for, if the Motion were withdrawn, and the selection left to himself, he should be very happy to accept that arrangement; but, before doing so, he should like to know whether the noble Lord meant to give some papers on each of the different transactions to which he had alluded, whether he would give some of the correspondence with regard to the Hungarian war, some with regard to the Moldavian question, and whether he would give the proposal for commercial regulations made by the Hungarian Government. He should like to know what the offer was, and what he had to expect, before he agreed to accept it. The noble Lord had said he did not expect that those persons who were at present detained in Turkey would be deprived of their liberty for any length of time; that their captivity, for it was nothing else, would at least be short; and he had also expressed his persuasion that the generosity of the Turkish Government would be such as to take care that, during the time they were kept in its territory, they should receive every protection and every comfort they could desire. He hoped so too; but he was not quite convinced that it was in the power of the Turkish Government to provide either for their comfort or their protection while they were in Turkey. It was known that the Austrian Government was unscrupulous in the means to which it resorted to obtain its ends; witness Gallicia, and the scenes which had occurred in Hungary, at the instigation of Austria, of which he had read a description in the early part of the evening. In Austria such a thing had happened before now, as that persons disagreeable to the Government had been put out of the way by assassination. He had information to the effect that something of the kind had been attempted—at any rate, had been planned—with regard to Kossuth, and other eminent Hungarians now detained in Turkey. Some months ago—he had this from a person who was then present with Kossuth at Widdin—a stranger arrived there, and took great pains to come into communication with the cook who dressed the food supplied to Kossuth, and with the physician who rendered him medical assistance. And shortly after it was found that some of the liquor which came to the table had been practised on, and had had something infused into it which gave great suspicion that poison was intended. Later still, in the course of December, a number of persons were reported to have arrived at Shumla, where Kossuth and his brave companions then were; these persons were Austrians, or at least furnished with Austrian passports, and the Turkish authorities gave notice to Kossuth that they had reason to believe these persons had come to Shumla with a design upon his life and that of some of his companions. Having given this notice (this he knew from Kossuth himself), the Turkish authorities added that they were unable to interfere with those persons whose murderous intentions they suspected, on account of their being furnished with Austrian passports. If this was the protection and comfort which these unfortunate, but noble and brave, patriots were to enjoy during their captivity, or during that species of surveillance which it pleased the Emperor of Austria to subject them to, there was no reason to be by any means satisfied with the arrangement that had been made. And he thought that the Sultan, if any such proceedings could be brought home to the Austrian Government, would be perfectly justified in departing from any engagement to which he had come with reference to those refugees, and immediately setting them at liberty. Nay, more, if he could not protect them in his dominions, he was bound, doubly bound, to set them at liberty. He trusted the noble Lord would direct his attention to this matter, and would use his influence with Turkey, in order that Turkey might see that these men, who were imprisoned under the requirements of a treaty, which treaty however, was not so positive that it might not be read two ways, might not be assassinated in her dominions. It was very true that they had no right to press on Turkey a particular line of policy, however desirous they might be to do so in the present case; but they had a right, at the same time, to see that Turkey was not compelled by any other Power to adopt a line of conduct which would be pleasing to that Power. He was happy to say that the noble Lord had exerted that right most efficiently. But his noble Friend might be sure that, although they had no right to dictate to Turkey, there was a thorough persuasion in the minds of the people of this country, that such was the influence of England with Turkey, they never would believe that Turkey would adopt any line of policy which would be disagreeable to this country. And if they saw the Turkish Government disposed to falter in the cause in which they had so nobly embarked, they would not be brought to believe but that it was owing to her not being properly sustained by the legitimate influence of England. He should be glad if his noble Friend laid before them such papers as might be satisfactory.

said, that there was nothing in the noble Lord's first address which called for any serious observation. Any person acquainted with the history of Hungary must be aware of the extraordinary errors into which the noble Lord had fallen; and the condition of the House—the empty benches, and the frigid manner in which page after page of the observations he had read to the House from a bulky manuscript were received by the few who remained to hear him—demonstrated the little interest which was felt in the subject; but, for the honour of the House and the country, he (Lord C. Hamilton) hoped he would be supported in calling upon the noble Lord, if he believed in the truth of the insinuations which he had thrown out against the Austrian Government, of entertaining the base and inhuman design of assassination, to come forward like a man, and make the charge distinctly and without circumlocution. An accusation of such extreme gravity ought not to be introduced into a sort of reply made on withdrawing a Motion. The noble Lord had employed the usual phrases of an old woman's tale, "it was strongly reported," and "it was seriously believed," that somebody came to the place where Kossuth was residing, and had a mysterious interview with his cook, and, because the wine afterwards was supposed to present an unusual appearance, it was assumed that it had been tampered with. It was derogatory to the dignity of the House that such a gross charge should have been insinuated by one of its Members against an old ally of this country, and one which in past days bad stood by us bravely and faithfully. What! impute to the Emperor of Austria the intention of carrying off by poison unfortunate men whom circumstances had compelled to take refuge in Turkey! The House must, he was sure, have listened with indignation to the base calumny directed against a Government which, with all its faults—and he was not there to approve of all the proceedings of Austria—had always acted in an upright and open manner, and had often been to this country a useful and faithful ally. He would stake his existence as to the groundlessness of the charge, which could only have entered into the mind of a man who, like the noble Lord, was ready to swallow anything against Austria. Of course the noble Lord was not the originator of the atrocious calumny; he was merely put forward by others to utter it; but the noble Lord having insinuated it in an assembly of Gentlemen, in a hesitating manner, whilst withdrawing a Motion, he (Lord C. Hamilton) felt that it would not have redounded to the credit of the House if some one had not stood up and called upon the noble Lord either to make the accusation openly and explicitly, or to withdraw it wholly. To show the state of misty ignorance in which the noble Lord had existed with respect to the Hungarian question, it was only necessary to remind the House that the noble Lord had spoken of Hungary as having been always an independent nation, and in possession of a free constitution. The noble Lord had evidently never heard that between the first and the second battle of Mohatz, a period of more than a century and a half, Hungary was under the dominion of the Porte—that a Turkish bashaw dictated laws to her from Buda—and that the House of Hapsburgh drove back the Turk, and restored her constitution to Hungary. With respect to the murders committed on Count Latour at Vienna, and on Count Lemberg at Pesth, which the noble Lord represented to be the unpremeditated acts of a mob, it was well known that they were planned and determined on beforehand.

said, he hoped his noble Friend the Member for Marylebone would not press his Motion, but would rest satisfied with the assurance of the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, that he would produce such papers as would throw sufficient light on the course of policy pursued by the Government in these matters. Otherwise it would seem to him that his noble Friend would imply a doubt of the perfect propriety of the course of conduct adopted by Her Majesty's Government. He thought the explanations given by the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, on the present occasion, and on a former occasion, when he made a speech that gave great satisfaction to the House and to the country, should be a sufficient guarantee that the course pursued by Her Majesty's Government, and by the noble Lord, towards Austria and Russia, in the present instance, was such as became the honour, the dignity, and the interests of this coun- try; and, therefore, he thought his noble Friend ought to be satisfied with such papers as might be produced by the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs. He should not have trespassed on the House on the present occasion were it not for the extraordinary speech of the noble Lord opposite, the Member for Tyrone. He could quite well understand that a difference of opinion might exist as to the right and justice of the struggle in which Hungary had been engaged with Austria. But whilst he allowed that a difference of opinion might exist on that point between hon. Members of that House, he did not mean it to be inferred that he did not himself consider that the cause for which Hungary had been engaged in that frightful struggle with Austria, was one of the greatest and most righteous in which any country could be involved. He believed it to have been a struggle for the maintenance of an ancient constitution and established laws, and that it was improperly and unjustly designated as a rebellion against a lawful sovereign. He was not, however, about to enter upon the discussion of that matter now. But when, after what had taken place—after Austria had, by the aid of foreign bayonets and barbarian hordes—succeeded in putting down the Hungarian cause—when they recollected what had since passed—the frightful executions and the bloody murders which ensued—he was surprised to hear an English nobleman, with a zeal worthy of a better cause, but discreditable when employed in such a cause as that which the noble Lord had just pleaded, enter upon the defence of Austria, after the conduct of which she had been guilty before the world. He held in his hand a list, extracted from official documents, published by the Austrian authorities, of the number of executions since the termination of the struggle; and he had no hesitation in calling it one of the foulest and bloodiest death-rolls his eye had ever fallen on. After Hungary had fallen—not by the power of Austria—but by the intervention of Russia, by foreign invasion and domestic treason—when Austria had succeeded by these means, and when, if at all times the victorious party should show forbearance, there never was a time when forgiveness and forbearance were more appropriate and necessary, Austria entered upon those bloody and atrocious executions which were a disgrace to humanity, at least in modern times. He confessed he felt the greatest surprise at hearing any person defending and advocating Austria in those abominable proceedings. He would read a list of those executions, and punishments which had been inflicted, and the House would, he was sure, feel horror-struck at the noble and illustrious blood shed on this occasion; and it should be observed, that the number of persons of inferior rank executed or imprisoned was infinitely greater.

said, that he had indulged the hope that this unnecessary debate would before this time have arrived at its natural conclusion; but the observations which the hon. and learned Gentleman had just made, rendered it necessary for him to say one word in vindication of the course—the proper course, as he thought—which had been taken by the noble Lord near him (the Member for Tyrone). He congratulated the hon. and learned Gentleman upon the friendship and sympathy which he and his friends felt for a President of a House of Lords, and especially for bishops. Such indications of right feeling in such a quarter must be very satisfactory to the Conservative party. The hon. and learned Gentleman had read to the House a list of some victims of the unhappy and unfortunate civil war which had taken place in Hungary. They must all deeply deplore such events, but they could form no opinion from such circumstances whether the course which the hon. and learned Gentleman advocated was a just one. The catastrophe did not in anyway prove whether the persons who were victims were criminals or heroes. He might open the History of England in many places, and might read a list of confiscations and executions which took place, even when the present illustrious family—to whom they were all so much indebted for their liberties and progress—were upon the Throne. He mightrefer to the confiscation and execution of the Earl of Derwentwater, to the execution of the accomplished and gallant Balmarino; and he might say, what do you think of a cause which has recourse to such remedies, and which can only substantiate its position by countenancing such atrocities? The hon. and learned Gentleman, therefore, in giving the House the list—even if it be authentic—of the calamities of the late civil war between Hungary and Austria, proved nothing whatever. Indeed, he needed not to go back to 1745, he might refer to the echo of that debate which was still lingering in the House—he might refer to the speech of his hon. Friend the Member for Inverness-shire yesterday—he might refer to courts-martial, to executions by mistake, hurried on with such a want of common investigation, that it was acknowledged by the judges, not even legally appointed, that the victims were not the criminals in many instances; and he might ask, what do you think of a Government which could sanction such proceedings, and what can you think of a state of society which can tolerate, for a moment, their occurrence? He might refer to what had recently taken place in those Greek islands which were under our patronage and protection—to the wholesale executions perpetrated in those dependencies; and he might ask, what do you think of the conduct of England, and what do you think of the manner in which a country placed under the protection of a great and enlightened Power is treated? And yet he might—for he was not giving any opinion upon those circumstances, which would probably come under the consideration of the House in a few days—form a very wrong judgment, and draw a very erroneous inference from them. He thought that the noble Lord the Member for Tyrone was perfectly justified in expressing his indignation at the speech of the noble Lord the Member for Marylebone; and he (Mr. Disraeli) thought that if the noble Lord had a conviction that the statement which he had made with respect to the Government of Austria was one founded upon facts, it ought to have taken a much more prominent part in this debate, rather than in an epilogue which was brought forward when the noble Lord found that the steam had not been got up as expected. When he found that none of his anticipations were realised as to the effects of his Motion, he had recourse to an insinuation of assassination against one of the allies of Her Majesty, and, in so doing, made use of ex- pressions the most unwarrantable which had probably ever been delivered in that House. If the noble Lord had a sincere conviction that one of Her Majesty's allies was at this moment planning the assassination and the poisoning of individuals placed to a certain degree under the protection of the Government of England, the statement was one which ought to have been made in the opening speech of the noble Lord. He (Mr. Disraeli) could perfectly understand and entirely sympathise with the feeling of indignation so properly expressed by the noble Lord the Member for Tyrone. As he was on his legs he would make one observation upon the general subject before the House. Nothing gratified him more than to observe the general feeling in that House in favour of the independence and integrity of the Turkish empire. He had always believed that to maintain the independence and integrity of that empire was essential to the peace and permanent prosperity of the civilised world. He had often endeavoured to express that opinion, and had found himself sometimes in a minority in the House upon the subject. But what was the independence and integrity of the Turkish empire? Why was the Turkish empire at this moment, he would not say a falling, but, at any rate, a feeble Power? It was the crusade of the Liberal party—which, in total ignorance of the political and social condition of that country, in total ignorance of its resources, of the nature of its laws, the character of its institutions, the genius of its people, and of the absolute necessity of its existence to the cause of good government and of real liberty, five and twenty years ago commenced a crusade which only latterly has been recognised by them as a fatal error—a crusade which excited the passions of all Europe against a generous and interesting people, and against a country the political independence of which was so important both to the interests of England and Europe generally. The passions of the people of Christendom were lashed up by the Liberal party till their policy ended in the catastrophe of Navarino and in bringing the Russians to Adrianople; and those who had done all the mischief now came forward to make Motions upon which no division could take place, and to express the sympathy of England with the country, which the ignorance and prejudice of the English, fostered and stimulated by themselves, had endangered. The state of Turkey—he would not say the fallen state of Turkey, because he believed the resources of that country were very considerable, and, generally speaking, under the government which it had experienced of late years, had been considerably developed; but the critical state of Turkey, at least, was now the cause of indignation to the Liberal party of England—the party now represented by the noble Lord the Member for Marylebone—who came forward upon all occasions to denounce the usurpations, or to enlighten the House upon the subject of Russian aggression—the very party who for years played into the hands of that Power, however unconsciously—if it were so—and which created in this country a most inveterate prejudice against the character and conduct of the Turkish Government. He was very glad that they had arrived at the present result, and that, at last, the noble Lord and his friends had had their eyes opened to those errors which they had so long pursued. He considered that the barren Motions brought forward, generally in scanty Houses, upon this subject, were really a series of recantations by the Liberal party of their diplomatic ignorance. He congratulated the noble Lord at the head of the Foreign Office, upon an hon. and learned Member, who had previously signalised himself by moving his impeachment, doing justice to-night to what he styled the admirable readiness with which the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary came forward to vindicate the interests of the Turkish empire. He (Mr. Disraeli) never had considered that noble Lord, on the one hand, as a traitor, nor had he, on the other, given him credit for that consummate policy which some of his admirers, who had previously denounced him, were now ready to attribute to him. He had always thought that, generally speaking, the noble Lord would have managed affairs pretty well, had it not been for the Liberal party in the House, who, upon all occasions, in their ignorance of the subject upon which they spoke, adopted extreme opinions, and who, first of all, hallooed this country on against the Turkish empire, and, when they had done incalculable mischief, suddenly found out that the existence of that State was essential to the interests of England. The policy adopted by that party with respect to foreign affairs, resembled their policy on domestic topics, happily described by their Friend the First Minister as the policy of contracted minds. They had imperfect knowledge, but, unfortunately, they possessed with it some power, which they used for dangerous purposes; for the last six or seven years, they had taken every opportunity of coming forward to uphold the interests and to vindicate the cause of Turkey, the critical state of which Power was entirely attributable to the excited passions of Europe, which they had roused against that State, in ignorance how important was the existence of Turkey to this country and to Europe in general.

was confident that the emancipation of the Greek people was an event which neither the majority of that House, nor the majority of the nation, would look back to with regret. His noble Friend the Member for Marylebone had been accused of historical ignorance; but when the assertion of his noble Friend, that Hungary had an ancient constitution, was contradicted, he ventured to say, without making any pretensions to historical knowledge, that the assertion implied no ignorance whatsoever. The constitution of Hungary was an old one. [Lord C. HAMILTON: I never said the contrary.] That was one of the points on which ignorance was imputed. The noble Lord alluded also to the misfortunes of the Hungarians in the wars with Turkey. But he forgot that the Hungarians conferred benefits on Austria similar to those which he said Austria had conferred on Hungary. He forgot to tell the House that John Sobieski was the man who relieved Vienna, and saved Austria. Was it, or was it not, that Hungary had possessed one of the most ancient constitutions in Europe? [Lord C. HAMILTON: Certainly.] With reference to the execution of Hungarians by the Austrian Government, the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire spoke of the uncertainty of information on such matters, and thence concluded that they ought not to indulge in strictures on the Austrian Government. He alluded to what had occurred in Ceylon and the Ionian Islands; but if severities had been inflicted in these two dependencies of this country, was there any reason to believe that they would be vindicated by a majority of that House? That one of the most bloody and horrible lists of punishments ever put on record, should be treated so lightly as it had been attempted to be treated by the hon. Gentleman, was a matter of extreme astonishment. The Government of Austria stood distinguished from the others as being the only Government in Europe which had bombarded every great city in its dominions. He was glad to find that hon. Gentlemen had not uttered a single word in disapproval of the conduct of Her Majesty's Government on the subject of debate; and he hoped it would go forth to the country and to Europe that this House unanimously approved of the judicious and discreet course which Her Majesty's Government had pursued.

had never said the Hungarian constitution was not an old one. It took date seven years after Magna Charta was granted, namely, in the year 1222. He heard the noble Lord the Member for Marylebone say the Hungarians were always independent, and always enjoyed that constitution. The ignorance charged against the noble Lord was, that he did not seem to be aware that at the first battle of Mohatz the Turks appended Hungary to their empire; that for a century and a half a Turkish Pasha dictated laws from Buda; and that the ancient constitution was restored to Hungary by the House of Hapsburgh.

observed, that whatever support the Hungarians might have given to the House of Hapsburgh, John Sohieski, at least, was not a Hungarian—he was a Pole. He rose merely to make the remark, lest it should go forth that these statements of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Westminster had, by passing uncontradicted, received the unanimous assent of the House of Commons.

had said nothing with respect to the nativity of John Sohieski, but he believed that Hungarian troops were chiefly instrumental on that occasion in rescuing Vienna.

said, the hon. and eloquent Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire had been compelled, with all his ingenuity, to adopt a line of argument quite unworthy of his intellect, namely, vindicating certain atrocities by citing others equally wicked. He was surprised that that Gentleman should have recalled to them the past events in the commencement of the last century, when, after the rebellion of 1745, even with an adverse Sovereign on the Throne, he believed not more than twenty-five noblemen suffered execution. That took place 100 years ago, and he would then ask, were the Austrians determined to recede one hundred years in the world's history? He regretted there could be found in that assemblage a single Gentleman prepared not to vindicate but to palliate such atrocities. In France, when the question was discussed before the Chambers, where the majority was decidedly conservative, not a single voice was raised to vindicate these atrocities. But he would not say a word about the executions that had taken place—he would not regret them in accents of pity; because he believed it vain and futile, not alone in Austria, but in any other country, to seek to quench a noble cause in the blood of its advocates. However, he would wish to close that debate by referring to a matter that had not been, as yet, alluded to. He would say a word as to the fatal imprudence of such violence as regarded the Austrian empire. Austria had achieved all she could desire, not by her own armies; but was the state of Hungary one that could be looked on with satisfaction, as tending to secure the peace or tranquillity of Austria or of Europe? He trusted his noble Friend the Member for Marylebone would not press for a division, because he believed his noble Friend the Secretary of the Foreign Department would judiciously select such documents as would bear most strongly on the case; and he believed he would do so, not from a desire solely to gratify the House, but because he would find in these documents a powerful vindication of his own policy, as well as of the wisdom of the course which this cocntry had pursued.

rose to adduce another instance of punishment inflicted under the authority of the Austrian Government, in order to allow the noble Lord the Member for Tyrone another opportunity of displaying his generous humanity and fine national feeling. The case was described in a paper which was from authority—not from a bishop or a president, but—a lady. [A cry of "Question!"] Question! It was the question. He should like to see the Member who called "Question!" The document was what he had a right to read. It was a letter from an Hungarian Countess, and said—

"In our immediate neighbourhood an army of Hungarians, amounting to 10,000 men, with 40 cannons, surrendered at discretion. Two days afterwards, some Imperial troops, a detachment of Liechtenstein's Light Horse, commanded by a captain, a native of this town, entered Ruskley. I was torn from the arms of my husband and children, from the hallowed sanctuary of home, and hurried before no judge—but I, a woman, a wife, a mother, in my own native town, before the people, who were accustomed to treat me with respect, was dragged into a square of soldiers, and there I was scourged with rods,"

Was there any one in that House who could listen to the narrative of such an outrage without indignation? Had the noble Lord common feelings of humanity, that he "could rise in that House and desecrate its sanctuary by parasitical adulation of women-floggers? She proceeded—

"I can write this without dropping my head for shame. But my husband killed himself. He drew a pistol and shot himself."

That letter was signed by the Countess de Madersfrach. There was a time when, in such a cause, "a thousand swords," to use the language of Burke, "would have leaped from their scabbards in her defence." If the Marchioness of Abercorn were taken and flogged before the Grenadier Guards, what would the noble Lord think? Or what would be say if the Duchess of Devonshire were taken and flogged in the streets of London? Who with a laugh on his face could hope to walk through the streets of London without being spit upon by the women and children for his base unfeeling sentiments? They might yet succeed, before the end of the Session, in calling up a blush of shame to the cheek of the noble Lord. He (Mr. Grattan) had seen another lady, the Countess Wolkonski, whose husband was a friend of the Duke of Wellington; he had seen her selling her diamonds to procure the means of subsistence. It was the emperors of Austria and Russia who sanctioned such atrocities that were thought worthy of praise in that assembly. They began by bribing Görgey, they went on to murdering Batthyani, and he should not be surprised if they ended by poisoning Kossuth. Those northern eagles were fit emblems of those double-necked tyrants that had pounced on Hungary to destroy its independence. Thank God, he had lived to utter his execrations of those tyrants! He never could think them anything but murderers with diadems on their heads; and if they poisoned this atmosphere with their pestilential principles and presence, he trusted there was spirit enough in the British lion to humble them and repel them from these shores.

hoped the House would have the same patience with him which they had had with the Motion just disposed of. His case was simply this. He saw two vacant seats in that House caused by the disfranchisement of Sudbury, while on the other hand he saw four compact parishes, with a population of 125,000 inhabitants, 18,000 of whom paid a rental of 10l. and upwards. His resolution was, that they should, by Act of Parliament, erect Kensington, Chelsea, Fulham, and Hammersmith, into a Parliamentary borough, returning two Members. Lord Chatham once said, that taxation without representation was tyranny. Looking at the electoral distribution of the country, he found 40 boroughs returning two Members each, or 80 Members for a population which, according to the census of 1841, did not exceed 220,000 inhabitants. According to this ratio, the four parishes to which his Motion referred, would return 62 Members, and yet he only asked two. The case was precisely parallel with that of East Retford in 1829. Mr. Huskisson proposed that the representation of that borough should be transferred to Birmingham. The Government, however, resisted it and with success, but in 1830 a new Government came into power, and the Reform Bill was the consequence, and by Schedule A, not only East Retford, but many others were disfranchised. He verily believed, that if they refused to agree to this resolution, he result would be a second Schedule A. He merely claimed this moderate instalmant of Parliamentary reform that they might have an opportunity of showing the people that, when amendment was really necessary, they were ready to carry it out. [The hon. Member then went into voluminous details for the purpose of showing the unequal manner in which the representation of the country was distributed.] He placed the claim of the inhabitants of these four parishes upon the footing that they paid taxes, and ought to be represented. It would be impossible for the country to go on with its present representation, and every Member who voted against him that night would be regarded as opposed to all reform.

seconded the Motion.

observed, that as a petition had been presented in the course of the evening from Sudbury for the re-enfranchisement of that borough, he felt bound to state, as he first drew his Parliamentary breath in that place, that he knew that a large body of young men had grown up in Sudbury, who would never be guilty of such practices as had been alleged against the late constituency; they, therefore, wished their right of choosing representatives should be restored to them.

was sure the speech of the hon. Member for Glasgow had been productive of great pleasure on the other side of the House. The first point which presented itself on the consideration of the subject, was the disfranchisement of Sudbury. The hon. Member for Glasgow seemed to think that this circumstance had entailed a kind of privation on the constitution of the country. The hon. Member therefore proposed that this privation should be made up by their creating a new and large constituency. Now he (Mr. Campbell) wished to ask the House two questions on this subject. The first was, whether this proposed new constituency was calculated to improve the House of Commons?—and the second was, whether this new constituency was calculated to give representatives to a class of opinions or interests which had not been represented before? As an illustration he would take Birmingham, whose members represented a class of opinions which were entertained, as he believed, nowhere else in the British empire. He would also take the hon. Member for Manchester as an exponent of peculiar opinions as to the constitution of King, Lords, and Commons; and he (Mr. Campbell) must express his earnest hope, if such opinions were entertained in that borough, that they prevailed in no other town in the country. The hon. Member for Glasgow had not told them what peculiar opinions prevailed in these compact parishes. He (Mr. Campbell) would ask with what class of new boroughs was this proposed constituency to be associated? Was it to be a new metropolitan constituency? It was not a manufacturing district, as it was notorious that no manufacturing or commercial interest existed there. Residing in the vicinity of this district in 1847, he (Mr. Campbell) had attended a public meeting and parochial dinner, in consequence of a pressing invitation, and was then brought into collision with certain inhabitants of this proposed borough; and it appeared to him that they were unwilling to be the objects of the hon. Gentleman's experiment. The fact was, that the passions of those who called for the erection of these new institutions were led away by the worthy knight the Member for Bolton. He thought the Motion should be rejected; and the argument on which he rested his opinion was, that by its adoption a gross injustice would be inflicted on a district in the neighbourhood of these compact parishes. The question should be put as to what ground there was why Knightsbridge should be excluded from this arrangement? The hon. Gentleman the Member for Glasgow had seemed to have forgotten that there was between Hyde-park-corner and Kensington, a district, the inhabitants of which in point of civilisation and in other qualities, were as fully capable of exercising the elective franchise as any other district. Knightsbridge was a hamlet in the county of Middlesex, and was contiguous to these four compact parishes. On what ground, then, was it to be excluded from the boundary of this new borough? He thought this was a sufficient ground for the rejection of the Motion, which, however, he trusted the hon. Member would be induced to withdraw. If, however, the hon. Gentleman should persist in pushing it, and should carry the House with him, he (Mr. Campbell) certainly should, in the Committee on the Bill, propose that Knightsbridge should have the benefit of enjoying the franchise with these compact parishes.

said, it certainly appeared to him, from what had passed during the debate, that the House had not arrived at that precise degree of information which would warrant them in coming to a final decision on the question to which so important a Motion referred. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge gave notice of his intention to propose a clause in the Bill of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Glasgow if it should pass a second reading; but there was only a resolution now before the House, which had been recommended to them, not only by the arguments of the hon. Gentleman's speech, but by those which were set forth in the notice on the paper. The first question involved in the resolution was, whether, if the vacancy of two Members should be filled up at all, they ought, without a much fuller consideration of the existing claims of many parts of the country, independently of the claims on the part of Ireland, to increase the number of the metropolitan Members. He apprehended that the representation of the metropolis had been very fully considered at the passing of the Reform Bill, and he contended they ought not lightly, and without deliberation, to disturb that proportion which had been assigned to it. On that ground alone he would resist the Motion; but there were other principles involved in it equally objectionable. The population returns showed the number of the inhabitants of the different parishes, no doubt; but it did not appear to him that the number of acres, or the density of population on a certain number of acres, constituted a fair claim to the franchise. As to the question of rental, he did not believe there was any information on which Parliament could rely. He did not doubt but that the industry of the hon. Member might have obtained full information on that point; but, in the absence of authentic information in the shape of Parliamentary returns, the House could not decide the question. A notice had been given last Session, which they were given to understand would be renewed during the present year, that if the House proceeded to dispose of the vacancy, a claim would be made on the part of his constituency by the hon. Member for Cork, which would, no doubt, be supported by a strong circumstantial statement. But the hon. Gentleman went on to state in the resolution that, "in consideration of so great a number of inhabitants and of houses unrepresented directly in this House, it is expedient," &c. Now, he really did not understand what the hon. Gentleman meant by "houses unrepresented" independently of their inhabitants. There might, in some places, be a certain number of inhabitants of houses unrepresented, but he could not at all admit that houses had a claim to the franchise. He was prepared also to take issue with the hon. Member on the arbitrary selection he had made. Knightsbridge was comprised in three parishes—Fulham, Chelsea, and St. Margaret. So far, the claim of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge was unfounded. But why did the hon. Member stop short—why had he not taken Turnham-green? Why had he left out Chiswick? Those districts contained as many inhabitants unrepresented as the parishes the hon. Gentleman had selected. He cordially concurred with the hon. Gentleman in hoping that the Motion would be withdrawn, or, if pressed to a division, that the House would not pledge itself on such vague information to a resolution so important.

said, that in the course of the last Session he had presented a petition from the inhabitants of the four parishes, which contained their view of the case. They looked upon the House as incomplete—as wanting two Members—and they considered that according to the constitution of the House the proper number of its Members ought to he completed, and they suggested that the two Members should be elected from their parishes; and they prayed that they might be created into a metropolitan borough for that purpose. He (Mr. Hume) considered that they were in a worse position with regard to representation than any other portion of the country; and he thought that they ought at the time of the Reform Bill to have received equal consideration with Marylebone, and to have been included in the change. We had been acting contrary to the prinples alleged at the time of the Reform Bill. When a general reconsideration of the system of representation took place, the present inconsistent method must be altered. He had expected that the noble Lord at the head of the Government would have avowed the intention of Government as to reform of Parliament, and that he would soon take the opportunity of stating a general plan. The power of the Peers half filled the House, and the promise of the noble Lord had not been fairly and properly kept. Still, however, he advised the hon. Gentleman not to divide the House on the present occasion.

stated, that if the present Motion were pressed to a division, his hon. Friend the Member for Cork would move an Amendment in favour of giving the two new representatives to places in Ireland. He wished to make this observation for the purpose of showing that the Irish Members were not inattentive to their duty on the present occasion.

said, that after the statement of the right hon. the Home Secretary, and after the recommendation of the hon. Member for Montrose, he should not press the matter to a division. So great a population could not remain long unrepresented in Parliament. He was certain that Scotland and other places would be duly represented.

, in moving for leave to bring in the Bill of which he had given notice, said, he believed he should best consult the convenience of the House by refraining from entering upon the merits of the question. When he had introduced a measure upon this subject, upon a former occasion, he had deemed it respectful to the House to make a statement of his views; but, as a general rule, it was not a convenient course to discuss the principle of a Bill on the first reading. He would therefore merely state that the main object of this Bill was the same as the former one; but to meet the more important objections that had been made by some of his Friends around him, and by some hon. Gentlemen opposite, he had introduced Amendments, the purport of which he would state. One of the Amendments which he intended to introduce, would have the effect of protecting parties to marriages recently contracted, from any consequences arising out of the law of the land, as well as that of rendering their issue legitimate; the second would have reference to the clergy. Now, one of the chief objections to the former Bill was, that it protected the clergy from the consequences of celebrating these marriages. He did not now mean to interfere in that respect with the law or the discipline of the Church, but leave it to the clergy to celebrate those marriages or not, according to their own consciences, without any fear of civil consequences, the law of the Church being left as before. He had felt that there was force in the objections made last Session, and, after deliberation and consultation with his friends, he had come to the conclusion that it would be wise to omit those provisions to which such objections had been made, and to leave the rules and discipline of the Church perfectly untouched by the Bill he now proposed. It was not his intention to interfere at all with the Church. He reminded the House that in the course of last Session, after three nights of full debate, the main object of the measure had been sanctioned by a House consisting of 320 or 330 Members.

said, that sooner than the principle of the measure should receive the assent of the House, as he apprehended it would if the introduction of the Bill were permitted without discussion and opposition, he would himself oppose the Motion. He was sanctioned in his opposition by the opinion of the House, as expressed on a former occasion. When his noble Friend behind him, who was inferior to none in talents and character, asked leave to introduce such a measure, he felt bound to resist it, and the House rejected the proposition. He placed his objections to it on three grounds: that it was an alteration of the law of the land, an alteration of the law of the Church, and an alteration, if man could make it, of the law of God. It was a violation of that which he believed to be scriptural truth. But it was not necessary for him to take ground so high; it was enough to justify his opposition to the measure that it was equally against the law of the land, and of the Church; but he believed it was equally against the feeling of the great body of the people, and it certainly was against the unanimous feelings of one sex in this country. How often had this Bill occupied the attention of the House before? The result of it all was, that the Bill was adjourned for six months—in other words, abandoned. He appealed to his hon. Friends the Members connected with Scotland, and particularly him whom he might term, without disrespect, that venerable Member for Scotland the Member for Montrose, whether the public sentiment of that division of the empire was not against the change? Did anybody deny that? Did anybody deny that the almost universal feeling of the women of the empire was against it? Did anybody deny that a very large proportion of the men of the country were against it? When the principle of the Bill was, for the first time, carried last year, leave only having been given on former occasions to bring it in, it was by a majority of no more than 33, and he believed there was a growing feeling against any secular legislation on the subject. He hoped there were many who would feel that this question, if not a scriptural one, as he contended it was, was so much connected with religion that the voice of its ministers ought to be heard upon it with great respect, whilst those who constituted the great body of professing Christians in this country, namely, the adherents of the Established Church, gave it their strong and decided opposition. The law, as it now stood, was upheld alike by Greek, Armenian, Protestant, and Roman Catholic. He believed that the proposed change would be a violation of the interests of social life, that it affected the peace of families, and might prove the source of the greatest unhappiness. He therefore earnestly entreated the House to refuse leave for the introduction of the Bill.

could not but feel that the measure was now brought forward on different ground from that of last Session, affecting, as that did, both the civil law of the country and the ecclesiastical law of the Church of England. Speaking for himself as a member of the Church of England, he had not only no wish to see the law altered, but he must deprecate an alteration of the law which, so far as it affected his religious communion, would have a mischievous effect on society. But here, having to deal with persons of other communions, who did not recognise the same ecclesiastical law—with the Roman Catholics, who by dispensation tolerated marriages such as those proposed by the Bill—there being also Protestant churches in Europe and Protestant denominations in this country, who recognised the validity, ecclesiastically speaking, of such marriages—it was impossible not to feel that the civil law which declared the illegality of such marriages, bastardised the children, and imposed a heavy penalty on persons who, by contracting them, did not contravene the tenets of their religious persuasion. The proposition made last year was so objectionable that it was not then in his power to support the Bill. It was a direct interference by Parliament with the discipline of the Church, of which he was a member. No body, however trivial its objects, could maintain itself if it was not to be allowed to uphold, for its own purposes, its own discipline, and the by-laws by which it was to be governed. He thought the proposed interference by Parliament so objectionable, that no advantage to be derived from other parts of the measure could induce him to give it his sanction. But this great alteration having been made, the change being to affect the civil law only, without touching the ecclesiastical law, he thought it would be an ungracious act towards religious denominations dissenting from the Church of England to say that this Bill, so affecting their civil rights, should not be allowed to he read a first time. If, therefore, the hon. Member for the University of Oxford should persist in moving the rejection of the Bill in its present stage, he should, without pledging himself in any way as to the course he might think it proper to take at a future point of its progress, think it his duty to vote against the Amendment.

thought it a fatal objection to the Bill that it retrospectively made such marriages legal, and legitimated the issue of them. A greater violation of the law, in his opinion, could not be offered than in the present measure. But his opposition to the Bill would be founded on higher principles—on the opinion, as expressed by the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of Oxford, that it was contrary to the notions of the Church of England, and he should have thought, until he heard the opposite opinion, contrary to all Christian notions from the earliest times, and contrary, also, to the Jewish notion. The so-called marriages already contracted were mere void ceremonies; it was, in fact, a concubinage which had been entered into by those parties in violation of the existing law, and they might as well legalise the cohabitation of any number of persons with their mistresses for the last ten years, and say, that if they went to church all should be reckoned as if they had married ten years ago—

"Conjugium vocat; hoc prætexit nomine culpam."

There had been nothing in such cases approaching to an honest religious ceremony; but if they had done it with the sanction of a minister of the Church, it was by an impudent fraud, and by representing that they knew of no obstacle why marriage should not be contracted with the permission of the Church. The present proposition would give a premium on the violation of the law and deception of the clergyman, and was absolutely insulting to the moral sense of the Legislature.

said, that the only passage from the Scripture that was relied on in opposition to this Bill, had in his opinion quite an opposite interpretation, and they had the best of all human testimony that it was so in the fact that those to whom that law had been delivered took the same view of it for which he contended. There was another point which he thought had not been before raised, and it was this. He believed that the law as it stood opera- ted as a delusion and a snare among honest people, as it provided to effect that by Act of Parliament which could only be done by the law of nature in professing to establish between a man and the sister of his wife the feelings which were impressed upon his heart by the law of nature towards his sister in blood.

said, that if he had not risen immediately after his right hon. Friend to oppose his Motion, it was not because his opinions had undergone any change upon this matter, but because his right hon. Friend, not having stated the new grounds on which he intended to rely for the support of his Bill, he thought it better to wait until the question would come again before the House before stating his grounds of objection to it. The hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had told them that he would act on the law of God as written on the heart alone—

I said no such thing. What I stated was, that we sought to create a sacred feeling by Act of Parliament with regard to a wife's sister, which God had implanted in our hearts towards sisters in blood.

said, that then the argument of the hon. Gentleman came to this—that he would set the restrictions made by the law of affinity entirely aside. It was plain that the hon. Gentleman had not read the chapter in Leviticus, and he should therefore advise him to do so before the second reading of the Bill came on.

moved for leave to bring in a Bill for the repeal of penal Acts against the Roman Catholic religion. The hon. and learned Member said, he would make no statement of the nature and purport of the measure, further than saying that with some verbal alterations it was substantially the same as that which, the year before last, reached the second reading.

appealed to the right hon. Baronet the Home Secretary, to say in the first instance whether he was now prepared to support or to oppose a Bill which last year Her Majesty's Ministers concurred with the House in rejecting. If the right hon. Gentleman would at once express his intention to oppose it, he would save himself and many other Members the vexation of coming down to the House week after week upon a fruitless waste of time.

joined in the application of his hon. Friend, and trusted the right hon. Baronet would, by his answer, enable the House to escape from the nuisance which would otherwise be found to exist on Wednesdays. He hoped the House would be saved from the torture and infliction of hearing repeated speeches from his hon. and learned Friend on this subject; for his hon. and learned Friend, even when he had no opponent, was ambitious of anticipating objections that were never raised or meant to be raised. Last year he (Mr. Law) met the measure by a simple nega- tive, without entering into any argument at all. His hon. and learned Friend spoke for one hour and twenty minutes in answer to a speech that was never made at all. The Bill would redress no single grievance; and even if it did, it would violate a compact long since entered into with the Roman Catholic interests.

replied, that with regard to the first of the two questions asked him by the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of Oxford, he should appeal to the former course he had taken with regard to the Bill. He did not then support the whole of it, but he supported the portion which proposed to repeal certain obsolete statutes. He should repeat what he had then stated, that he did not think those obsolete statutes could ever again be enforced, and that they offered no safeguard or security whatsoever to the constitution. Whilst, therefore, he should wish to see them repealed, he did not think it made any difference whether they were repealed or not. As to the second question, with regard to the time of the House being wasted by the discussion upon the Bill, when there existed a very great doubt of its finally receiving its sanction, that, he considered, was a matter for the consideration rather of the hon. and learned Gentleman who introduced the Bill. He (Sir G. Grey) did not think it would be a sufficient ground for his opposing it; but if the hon. and learned Gentleman would take his advice, he would refrain from persevering with it. But if he went to a division, and the majority of the House were opposed to the introduction of the Bill, the time of the House might be saved.

, in moving that the Speaker should leave the chair for the purpose of the House resolving itself into Committee upon this Bill, begged to state that the object of it was to alter the law with regard to certain collections of county cess. The collectors were obliged, on their appointment, to give their bonds with security for the payment of the full amount named in their warrants; but the distress of the last three or four years in Ireland having caused a great deal of land to be thrown out of cultivation, they were unable to collect the cess. He would give one instance of a barony in the county of Limerick, containing upwards of 9,000 acres, of which no less than 3,000 acres were now lying waste. Under these circumstances a Bill had been introduced last Session to protect the collectors from being obliged to make up the difference out of their own pockets, which they would be actually compelled to do under the existing law; but from the lateness of the period at which it passed (the close of July), some of the assizes had terminated before the Act came into operation; and as the provisions could only be complied with at the assizes, the collectors in the districts where they had terminated were deprived of its advantages. The present Bill was, therefore, intended to place those districts upon precisely the same footing as the remainder of the kingdom; and the tribunal to which he proposed to refer the collectors was, in the first instance, a committee of three of the grand jury, who should examine the statement of the collector as to the amount likely to be obtained, and refer the final adjudication to the full grand jury.

moved the adjournment of the House.

seconded the Motion.

objected to going into Committee on the ground that the Bill had not been printed, and he thought it an objectionable measure.

remarked that the Bill was read a second time by mistake.

observed that if the Bill were to pass at all, it was necessary that no time should be lost. Everybody seemed to agree in the necessity of passing such a Bill, and, therefore, unless hon. Gentlemen really intended to throw out the Bill, he hoped they would go on with it to-night.

said he could bear testimony to the necessity of the case.

said, he hoped after what had passed, the Motion for Adjournment would be withdrawn.