poral punishment altogether with the present army; but he would force the Government to establish a better mode of constituting the army; and he suggested that the experiment of total abolition should be tried upon the Household Brigade.

Mr. Wakley said, that a current of opinion had set in against the practice of flogging, which the House would find it difficult to resist, and he expressed his surprise that the Government were not prepared to consent to its entire abolition. He then proceeded to vindicate his own conduct against some reflections which had been made upon it in reference to the late inquest which he had held as Coroner upon the soldier named White, whose case has been already adverted to. He strongly supported Dr. Bowring's amendment, not being satisfied with the diminution in the punishment made by the recent order at the Horse Guards.

Mr. Fox Maule, adverting to Dr. Bowring's statements respecting the soldier White's case, said, it was very easy to dress up this question in such a way as would harrow up men's feelings; but he called upon those who would not permit the practice of flogging to be justified on the stern plea of recessity, to state what punishment they would substitute in its stead. The public mind had been moved on this subject by an unfortunate occurrence, and but for that occurrence, he believed that no notice would have been taken this Session of the code of punishment inflicted in the army. In justice to those whose names had been mixed up with that occurrence, he was bound to say that every thing which they had done had been done in conformity with the rules of the VOL. LXXXVIII.

service. Having defended the conduct of Colonel Whyte, as the commanding officer of the 7th Hussars, he proceeded to express his regret at the manner in which the privates of that regiment had been called to give evidence against their officers, and to state that it must undergo further investigation. He also expressed his regret at the death of private White. When the Duke of Wellington heard of it, he said at once, "This shall not occur again; though I believe that corporal punishment cannot be dispensed with, yet I will not sanction that degree of it which shall lead to loss of life and limb." He therefore suggested at once that all punishments should be reduced to fifty lashes. In that suggestion the Government willingly concurred, and he trusted that when they had succeeded in raising the character of the British soldier, the power of corporal punishment would become dormant, and the use of the lash unknown to the British army.

After some further discussion, chiefly in reference to the soldier White's case, and the inquest upon it, the House divided, when there appeared

For Dr. Bowring's reso-
lution
Against it.

37 97

60

Mr. Osborne subsequently moved another amendment, which was also rejected.

A few nights afterwards, the same subject was brought under notice in the House of Lords by the presentation of some petitions against flogging, when the Duke of Wellington took the opportunity [P]

of making the following statement. He said:

"It has long been the wish of all those connected with the command of the army, and particularly of the illustrious individual who was my predecessor in that command, that the punishment should be diminished in the greatest possible degree. It has been my invariable practice, since I first had the honour of a command in the army, to make every endeavour to diminish the punishment, so as, if possible, to lead by degrees to its entire discontinuance. My Lords, this has been the object of all my arrangements throughout the service, ever since I first commanded a regiment, now not less than fifty years ago. But really, my Lords, the fact is, that it is impossible to carry on the discipline of the British Army without some punishment of that description which the individual shall feel."After stating that the experiment adopted in the East Indies had failed; the troops among whom the lash had been abolished having mutinied in a most disgraceful manner, the noble Duke continued, My Lords, in consequence of the feeling of the Government, of the Parliament, and of the public, on this subject, I have taken upon myself to issue an order greatly to diminish the severity of the punishment; and I hope, with the arrangements made in future, and with an alteration in the law, it may still further be diminished, so as to lead to its final discontinuance. I must, however, beg your lordships to observe, that if we are to have an army, we must have it in a state of discipline-a state of subordination to command and of obedience to the State. This country does not like an army

under any circumstances; but in no case would it bear any but the best troops that can be had. We must have the very best troops, in this country, and in every part of the world where we employ them. We require the best conduct and the most perfect subordination and order; for I assure your lordships, that our troops are now at this moment engaged, and are constantly engaged, in the daily performance of services which you could not require-nay, I will go further and say, which you could not have from any other troops in the world. Small parties of soldiers, under the command of a subaltern, are constantly employed in guarding from 300 to 400 convicts on a long voyage. No misfortune' has ever occurred. Where shipwrecks have taken place, the troops have conducted themselves in the most creditable and exemplary manner. It is necessary for me now to remark, and I entreat your lordships to remark, that you cannot have an army if unfortunately it should lose its discipline and habits of subordination and good order; but your lordships may rely upon it that I will continue to do what I have always endeavoured to do, that is, to diminish the punishment as much as possible; and I hope I may live to see it abolished altogether."

Another subject which claimed the attention of Parliament shortly before the recess, was the occupation of Cracow by the Austrian Government. A strong feeling of sympathy for this republic deprived of the independence which under the treaty of Vienna had been guaranteed to it, was aroused in this country when the intelligence arrived of its seizure by Austria; and the subject was shortly after

wards mooted in both Houses of Parliament. In the Upper House, Lord Beaumont moved for the production of papers and correspondence between this country and the courts of Vienna, Petersburgh, and Berlin, respecting events which had lately taken place at Cracow in violation of the treaty of Vienna. The noble Lord said that he brought forward this motion upon three grounds-first, that it was necessary for this country to enforce treaties to which the Sovereign of this realm had become a party; secondly, that it became necessary to do so with a view to the maintenance of the balance of power in Europe; and thirdly, on the broad ground of humanity; and proceeded at great length to prove that the independence of Cracow had been guaranteed at the Congress of Vienna, and was now violated by the steps taken to quell the late insurrection in Gallicia. He also referred to the butchery of the nobles by the peasants in that part of Poland, and while he believed that the Government at Vienna had been ignorant of those excesses, he charged them with neglect in not taking sufficient precautions to prevent the outbreak. In conclusion, he expressed his confidence in the noble lord at the head of Foreign Affairs, and hoped that all peaceful and proper means would be taken to prevent the like atrocities in future.

The Marquis of Lansdowne agreed with Lord Beaumont in thinking that the independent existence of Cracow was guaranteed by the treaty of Vienna, and lamented that any thing should have happened to justify a departure, however temporary, from that independence-there could be no doubt, however, that Cracow had

been the focus from which the revolutionary movement had spread itself over Gallicia, and a temporary occupation of the city had been the necessary consequence. It was desirable that this occupation should be as short as possible, and at this moment conferences were going on having for their object the reconstruction of the civil Government of Cracow. With respect to the excesses in Gallicia, he could not contradict the noble lord's statement, but until it was officially proved he could never believe that the Austrian Government had played the part which some of the accounts represented.

The Duke of Wellington concurred in the sentiments expressed by Lord Lansdowne. It was clear that, under the treaty, Cracow could not be occupied by foreign troops: but when that treaty was made, the state of things which existed when the recent occupation took place was not contemplated. It was not thought possible that committees would be sitting in many of the great metropolises of Europe in order to carry on a secret conspiracy, and to organize insurrection against an actual Government of a country; which occurred in this very city of Cracow; and this circumstance could not have been foreseen at the time of the treaty of Vienna. quite certain that the measures adopted as to Cracow were contrary to the treaty, and could only be justified by the circumstances of the time. He had no hesitation in saying, that if ever a breach of treaty was justifiable it was the one which had occurred. But it was not to be supposed that because the Austrians were left alone in Cracow, therefore the independence of that town was destroyed.

It was

He did not know what circumstances now existed there; but he understood, when he was in Her Majesty's councils, that the three Sovereigns had then under their consideration measures for re-establishing an independent Government in the town of Cracow, and placing it in a state of independence: and of course the old articles of the treaty would be revived, and no troops would remain in the place.

Lord Kinnaird expressed similar views with Lord Beaumont on the conduct of Austria. He said, it was admitted that a conspiracy did exist in Cracow; but neither the Marquis of Lansdowne nor the Duke of Wellington could explain why the Austrian troops, together with all the local authorities, left the town as they did. Lord Kinnaird knew from history, and from the mode of government adopted by Foreign Powers, that it not unfrequently happened and he believed it was so in the present case-that they deemed that the best means of quashing a conspiracy was urging it on, and bringing it to a head.

Lord Beaumont's motion was then agreed to.

Mr. Hume originated a similar discussion in the House of Commons, by a motion for copies or extracts of any correspondence between the Governments of Cracow, Russia, Prussia, or Austria, relative to the appointment of a British consular agent at Cracow since the declaration made by the Minister of Foreign Affairs in the House of Commons in the year 1836 of his intention of sending a consul to reside at Cracow. The honourable Member having alluded to the capture of the town of Cracow by the Austrian troops in February 1846, and to the atrocitics which subsequently took place in Gallicia, ob

served that, although he was the last person to interfere in any question that might risk the peace of the world, he still thought that England, for her own honour, ought to insist upon the maintenance of the treaties to which she was a party. By the treaty of Vienna we were bound to obtain a constitution for Poland, and independence for Cracow; and yet, though our allies were bound to grant both, we had not had courage to demand from them the fulfilment of their engagements. He thought that the House ought to hear from Lord Palmerston some exculpation, or at least some explanation, of the conduct of the English Government. He conceived that our not having a consul at Cracow had led to those melancholy results, which Sir R. Peel declared to be scarcely credible.

Mr. M. Milnes, in seconding the motion, contended that the Three Powers had been guilty of a gross violation of their engagements towards us, when they took armed possession of Cracow. He gave a history of the brutal massacres which the Austrian Government had organized in Gallicia, and declared that no less than 1,478 landed proprietors had perished in them. Ought such things to be done without drawing forth a remark from the Government of Great Britain?

Lord Palmerston observed that nothing could be more painful to any man of proper feelings than a discussion turning on the fate of the people of Poland, who, by injustice of the greatest magnitude, had been deprived of their national existence, and had been absorbed into the dominions of other Powers. But those events were now matter of history; and what

on

ever might be the aspirations of those gallant men, who looked forward to the re-establishment of the ancient glories of their country, members of Parliament, knowing the engagements by which the present distribution of the nations of Europe was regulated, could not go further back than the treaty of Vienna. But to that treaty we had a right to go back; and on that treaty we could take our stand. Consistently with his duty he could not consent to the motion of Mr. Hume as it then stood. He had formerly stated the reasons which he had opposed a similar motion. He had then said that there were circumstances in operation which created much irritation in the parties to the treaty of Vienna-that the correspondence between them was of an angry character, and that there were differences of opinion on rights and facts with respect to the matter then at issue. The Three Powers held opinions different from ours: we maintained our own; and, if he were at liberty to produce the correspondence, he could show that we had maintained our opinions with adequate firmness and dignity. It would, however, be very injurious to rake up that correspondence after an interval of ten years from the time when it took place; and he thought that the interests which Mr. Hume had at heart would be injured rather than benefited by its production. He had never attached any value to the appointment of a consul at Cracow. Whether the treaty of Vienna was or was not violated by any of the parties to it depended on their own conduct, and was quite independent of the appointment of a consular agent at that place, who could not have furnished

The

us with information which we had in abundance from other sources. It was impossible to deny that the treaty of Vienna had been violated by the late transactions at Cracow; and he proceeded to explain at considerable length the history of the events which had taken place in that town and its vicinity. treaty of Vienna must be upheld; it could not be permitted to any Government to pick out with one hand the articles of a treaty which it would observe, and with the other the articles which it was determined to violate; and he therefore hoped that the Governments of Austria, Russia, and Prussia, would recollect that if the treaty of Vienna was not good on the Vistula, it might be equally invalid on the Rhine and on the Po. With respect to the atrocities in Gallicia, he believed that Mr. Milnes had not exaggerated them, and that they were without example in modern times. He believed, however, that they had their origin with the local authorities of the province, and had not been sanctioned by the Government of Vienna. He concluded by assuring Mr. Hume that no representations should be wanting on his part to insure respect for the provisions of the treaty of Vienna.

Dr. Bowring, Mr. M. Gore, Mr. J. A. Smith, Mr. Wyse, and Mr. P. M. Stewart, all expressed warm approbation of the speech of Lord Palmerston, and thanked him for his public declaration that the treaty of Vienna had been violated by the occupation of Cracow. Mr. Hume then withdrew his motion.

The motion made in the two preceding Sessions by Earl Powis, for the rescinding of the proposed union between the sees of St.