and consulted most earnestly with Austria, whose treatment of her Polish subjects he highly praised, and asked why Russia could not follow so good an example. He defended the proposed armistice and amnesty, and denied that such propositions were as impracticable as represented. He reviewed the various terms proposed to Russia, and observed that, as we had based our proposals on the Treaty of Vienna, we were bound to presume that Russia was to rule in Poland, and to propose such terms as Russia could accept. The six propositions, if agreed to by Russia, would be a charter for the Poles, and a guarantee to Europe of proper government in Poland. He denied that our diplomatic interference would be prejudicial to Poland, being of opinion that if any thing was to be obtained for Poland, it could only be obtained by the interference of the great Powers, insisting that the faith due to treaties should be observed. The noble lord added, that as yet there were no papers to be produced, but as soon as an answer should be received from Russia, he would lay the papers before Parliament.

Lord BROUGHAM considered that armed interference in Poland was not to be thought of.

The Earl of DERBY, having expressed his sympathy with the sufferings and gallantry of the Poles, lamented the discussions on the subject which often occurred in Parliament, as tending to cherish hopes in the Poles which could not be gratified. Entering on the general question, he expressed his surprise that Lord Russell had submitted the subject to discussion at the present time, but entirely approved his declaration that in no case would this country be dragged into a war on behalf of Poland. He wished to know whether the Government had considered, in case of the rejection of the proposals by Russia, what should be the next step they should take in conjunction with their allies. He regretted exceedingly that Lord Russell founded his proposals on the Treaty of Vienna, because if Russia refused to accede to our terms, we must either have to proceed to force, or to accept an insult. He much doubted, however, whether Lord Russell's clients would be pleased with his proposals, as they would be content with nothing short of independence. He anticipated that Russia would acquiesce in our proposals, that a conference would meet, and that during its prolonged session the revolution would be gradually suppressed. He pointed out the hazardous policy which we were pursuing, and looked with some apprehension upon the course the Government had taken to accomplish their object. The debate had elicited a declaration that we were not to be dragged into a war, a declaration that would be most beneficial in crushing false hopes which might have been entertained.

Earl GRANVILLE was surprised at Lord Derby in finding fault with Her Majesty's Government for having done something, rather than nothing, after the numerous appeals which had been made to the Government to make some attempt to stop the cruelties

[1863. perpetrated in Poland. He defended the policy which had been pursued by the Government.

Lord HARROWBY said the Treaty of Vienna was the only sanction given by Europe to the partition of Poland, and the title gained thereby had been torn to pieces by the violation of that treaty by Russia.

Earl GREY explained that he did not mean that this country should always adopt a non-interference policy, but that if we were not prepared to back our representations by force, we ought not to interfere, as no useful result could ensue. He ultimately

withdrew his motion.

In the House of Commons, a few days afterwards, Mr. HORSMAN moved the following Resolution :

"That the arrangements made with regard to Poland by the Treaty of Vienna have failed to secure the good government of Poland or the peace of Europe, and any further attempt to replace Poland under the conditions of that treaty must cause calamities to Poland, and embarrassment and danger to Europe." He began by expressing the feelings of perplexity and alarm with which he had read the papers laid before the House. Poland, he said, had been diplomatized to death. If the despatches of the Foreign Secretary had been written with a clear object in view, that of arriving at a settlement of the Polish question, that would be the only justification, to his mind, of this diplomacy; but if all the virtue and energy of the Cabinet was to be exhausted in discussion, and the Government were to say, "We have performed our duty, and can go no further," Parliament would be warranted in saying, "You have gone too far, and lighted a blaze in Europe which is beyond your power to extinguish." He then took up the Polish question at the period of the Treaty of Vienna, reading extracts from the despatches of Lord Castlereagh during the negotiations, and dwelling upon the warnings they contained, and the apprehensions which it appeared were entertained by the Plenipotentiaries regarding the issue of the question, the Emperor of Russia having gained a point in the negotiations. He then passed to the insurrection of 1831, and contended that the attitude taken by the Emperor rendered the path of diplomacy from that time clear, affording a guide to the policy of this country. France and England sustained a defeat on that occasion; the Emperor of Russia repudiated his obligations to Europe, and made Poland a Russian province. Lord Palmerston, as the Minister of England, in fulfilment of what was the duty of this country, called upon the Emperor of Russia to redeem his pledge, but he was compelled to succumb, because England was not prepared for war, and he abstained from diplomatic action. The events of the present year were merely a repetition of those of 1831; an insurrection was caused by the same irregularities and cruelties on the part of Russia. The Government, however, had not pursued the same prudent course as in 1831. Was the course they had taken, he

asked, English policy, or was it Ministerial levity? He examined the printed papers in order to discover the aim of the Cabinet and the key of its policy upon this question, and he inferred that the policy of the Government was changed from what it was in 1831. The condition of Russia, of Poland, and of the continent of Europe was different, and Russia had now quailed before the three combined Powers. What, however, was it proposed to do? Nothing more nor less than a complete settlement of the Polish difficulty, by reviving the exploded hypocrisy of 1815. As a practical settlement of the question the six points would be laughed at by the Emperor of the French. But England made two additions-an armistice and a conference of the Powers. To every thing proposed by England Russia had given an unqualified rejection. This reduced the question to the narrowest compass. The Poles were fighting for independence; the Cabinet were the instigators and advisers of the Poles; did they mean to give them their nationality? Did they mean to apply to the Poles the principles they had applied to Italy? How could we, without violating the laws of justice and morality, without committing a fresh crime, deliver up the Poles once more into the hands of their oppressor? Poland for the Poles. Let us repair the wrongs of Poland by welcoming her into the brotherhood of nations. Then, could the restoration of Poland be accomplished without recourse to war? It depended upon whether Austria would give up Galicia. We had, however, raised the flame, and must meet the exigency wisely. The Polish question was the special property of Lord Palmerston. It was to him he looked to correct the feeble utterances, and to repudiate the ignoble sentiments of others in high places.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, on behalf of the Government, that, with one exception, he had no reason to complain of the spirit in which Mr. Horsman had discussed this question. There were parts of his speech, however, which did not cohere with others. The present position of the Emperor of Russia, he observed, had some claim upon our consideration, recollecting the nature of the inheritance to which he had succeeded, the great things he had achieved, and the success which had attended his wise efforts. He then proceeded to discuss the policy which it behoved the Government to pursue upon this question, and the argument of Mr. Horsman, which amounted to this, — that their choice was between war and doing nothing. After disposing of the former alternative, he demurred to the proposition that the Government should have remained idle, which, he said, would have been highly inexpedient, considering the state of feeling, not only in this country, but on the continent, and especially in France. He remarked upon the inference drawn by Mr. Horsman from a particular despatch of Lord Russell, as indicating a change in the policy of the Government, and as containing a menace of war; and he contended that such a conclusion could

not be maintained. Mr. Horsman had argued that the Poles had been encouraged by hopes of aid from without, and that the British Government had kindled the flame; but he had adduced no proof of this allegation. As to the position in which matters now stood, Mr. Horsman had not sought for any declaration from the Government, and the present was not the moment when a development of our future policy would be expedient. As to the motion which called for a solemn condemnation of the Treaty of Vienna-a motion which fell short of the opinions and language of the mover-he urged various reasons why it was not desirable that it should be adopted by the House.

Mr. HENNESSEY, adverting to the interest taken in this question by the people of England, showed, from the petitions presented to the House, what they wanted. They declared that Russia had forfeited, by her gross and barbarous outrages upon the people of Poland, all right to the kingdom; that her conduct tended to disturb the peace of Europe, and that Poland was entitled to independence. The House was justified, therefore, in asking what were the intentions of the Government. He defended Austria, whose position, he observed, was a difficult one. There existed in Austria a strong feeling in favour of the Poles, even in the army. He believed that the Emperor of Austria himself was in favour of Poland; in fact, the whole of Europe participated in that feeling, and the Emperor of the French would gain an immense moral advantage by establishing the independence of Poland. He denied, and disproved by evidence, the assertion of Prince Gortschakoff that the Polish movement originated in foreign influence, and he showed the provocations which had driven the landholders and the moderate party to join the insurrection, which was aided and fostered, according to Russian witnesses, by the whole population. Poland had a national Government, which preserved order, made laws, and levied taxes. He disproved, in like manner, the denial of Prince Gortschakoff of the barbarities charged against the Russian troops. On the one hand, therefore, was found a national Government in Poland supported by the whole population, on the other was found the Russian Government openly ignoring legality.

Mr. KINGLAKE observed that one of the difficulties in the way of the Government was that the Polish authorities had no name. Mr. Horsman had, in his comments upon recent transactions, laid it down that there must be no such thing as negotiation; that we must make up our minds at once, and act upon the determination. He did not accede to this view, and he thought that in the present case it was impossible that the Government could have acted otherwise than they had done. In other respects he dissented from the views and doctrines put forth by Mr. Horsman; and with regard to his suggestion that Austria should relinquish Galicia, he showed that the Galicians desired to remain under the rule of Austria. He thought the

time was most inapt for the adoption of the proposed Resolution.

Lord PALMERSTON said it appeared to him that the speech of Mr. Horsman was not consistent with itself or with his motion. He had told the House that there was no alternative between our remaining passive or insisting upon the establishment of Poland in its ancient state. If all the Powers of Europe were prepared to go to war to force Russia to relinquish her possession, this might be done; but it was clear that it could not be accomplished by persuasion. The only ground that could justify our remonstrance with Russia was the Treaty of Vienna; if that was abandoned, we should deliver the Poles, bound hand and foot, to Russia. He hoped, therefore, the House would not agree to the motion, nor press the Government to declare the course they should pursue. It would be their duty to communicate with the Governments of Austria and France.

Mr. Horsman, after a brief reply, withdrew his motion.

The circumstances which led before the close of the preceding year to the cessation of diplomatic intercourse between this country and the Government of the Emperor of Brazil, afforded occasion for animadversion on more than one occasion to opponents of the Ministry. The misunderstanding arose, it will be recollected, out of the wreck of the "Prince of Wales," which took place on the coast of Rio Grande, in June, 1861. Reports arose that the wreck had been plundered and the crew murdered. A demand was in consequence made upon the Brazilian Government for compensation, on the ground that they had not used due diligence in procuring justice to be done. After a good deal of time spent in contentious negotiation, Mr. Christie, our Minister to Brazil, was instructed to propose arbitration, but this offer was declined, it being accompanied, as was alleged on the part of the Brazilian Government, by conditions which they could not, consistently with their honour, accept. Reprisals were then authorized to be made, and amicable relations between the two countries were suspended.

These proceedings, arising out of transactions involving many disputed matters of fact, and a great deal of contradictory evidence, afforded ground for much difference of opinion, and the case was taken up with considerable zeal by members of the Opposition in both Houses, who reflected strongly on the course taken in the matter by the Foreign Office and its agents. The Earl of Derby, in particular, characterized the conduct of our Government very forcibly, saying that, "certainly more unjustifiable proceedings were never taken by any representative of the Crown against a friendly Government than appeared to have been taken by Mr. Christie, and he trusted to hear that they had been disapproved of by Her Majesty's Ministers'." In answer to this censure, Earl

Speech in the House of Lords, Feb. 16.