to Rome, endeavouring to extract some more distinct explanation as to the position assumed in regard to it by the English Government. In the course of this conversation, the Marquis of Lansdowne stated the purport of the French communication to our Government when the expedition was sent out: it was that the measure was adopted with the view of insuring the equilibrium of nations, the independence of the Italian States, and the security of the population of Rome from the evils of anarchy or the dangers of sudden reaction. The noble Marquis produced the correspondence in confirmation of this statement.

Lord Ellenborough observed, that these papers related only to the expedition of 6000 men. Was there any new statement as to the sending of the 30,000?

Lord Aberdeen reiterated questions to elicit what amount of assent or approval or negative sufferance the English Government had manifested.

Lord Lansdowne answered, that Her Majesty's Ministers had expressed neither assent nor approval; they had not disapproved, and had raised no obstacle. With the alteration in the amount of the force and the subsequent measures, they had nothing whatever to do.

Mr. Roebuck a few days afterwards, in the House of Commons, brought the same subject under notice, stigmatizing in severe terms the conduct of France in relation to Rome, and calling upon Lord Palmerston to express his marked, unequivocal, and strong disapprobation of the interference of that nation in the civil affairs of other people. He wished to inquire, whether the noble Lord had expressed distinctly to the French VOL. XCI.

Government, that the transactions passing before the walls of Rome had not only found no favour with the people of England, but were worthy of severe reprobation.

Lord Palmerston replied, that a Minister of the Crown was placed in a delicate position when called upon to pronounce a judgment upon the conduct of a Foreign Power, in respect to matters in which the British Government had declined to be a party; but Her Majesty's Ministers had witnessed the circumstances to which Mr. Roebuck had alluded with deep regret, and more, in the present state of things, he could not be expected to say. They had, from the outset, deprecated the intervention of any Foreign Power in the affairs of Rome, and they thought the course pursued by France an unfortunate

one.

The order of the day for a Committee of Ways and Means having been read on the 21st of July, Mr. Bernal Osborne took the opportunity of raising a discussion upon the affairs of Hungary, which at that moment were creating a lively interest in the English public. He moved for "copies or extracts of: any information connected with the advance of Russian troops into the kingdom of Hungary which might have been received by Her Majesty's Government, and of any communications which might have passed, involving naval or military aid or interference on the part of this country."

Mr. Osborne commenced by asserting and maintaining the historical independence of the kingdom of Hungary, as a free State, ever since the year 1000. Within five years after England obtained her Parliament, Hungary established her own Diet and her own muni[L]

cipal institutions; she then became, and she had remained, an oasis of liberty amidst a desert of despotism. In 1790, Leopold took the oaths as King of Hungary, declaring her to be free and independent; and in 1848, Ferdinand guaranteed her a separate existence, a free press, and a free legis lature; but, in the most perfidious manner, Ferdinand broke this oath in 1849. He explained that the movement in Hungary was no republican movement: the reforming aristocracy headed it. He regretted to hear Lord John Russell lately use the term "insurrection" with reference to this rising of a nation in defence of its rights.

Lord John Russell "I used the word 'insurrection,' but I did not mean to predicate anything as to its being a just or an unjust insurrection.'

Mr. Osborne-The noble Lord was quite correct; he used the term without reflection, which, although signifying illegality in this country, in Hungary signified what was legal and right; for when they made a levy en masse in defence of their liberties, the Hungarian term used was "insurrectio," and when the Hungarian Diet in 1741 said "vitam et sanguinem pro nostro rege," that was "insurrectio" in the Hungarian sense of the word: that was, indeed, an insurrection, in a good sense. It was the legal term of Hungary.

Mr. M. Milnes seconded the motion.

Mr. Roebuck and Colonel Thompson supported the same view. The former observed that, unfortunately, the despot of Russia was not the only guilty infringer of the great principles of international morality and policy: while they directed their shaft at the

great despot of the north, let them not forget the many-headed despot of France, and its attack on the unfortunate people of Rome. But, however strong their indignation, it would go for nothing unless it were aided by some practical proceeding on the part of the Government. He did not concur with those who thought the Minister was necessarily unpopular under whom England went to war; for the people of England liked the Minister, and held him dear in their hearts, who maintained the honour and dignity of this country. All their interests and feelings were not bound up in the mere interchange of commodities for profit.

Lord Claud Hamilton protested against the assumption that in this cause the Hungarian people were fighting for their privileges. Never had people been more ground to the earth by a privileged aristocracy than the unfortunate Hungarian peasants. Changes had been made in the old constitution; but it was astonishing that any reference to those changes could be made without an allusion to a venerated Hungarian nobleman, whose efforts to improve the condition of the people had been opposed by the party of magnates, of which Kossuth was now the head, and whose disappointment and despair, and the shock his mind received from the infamous conduct of Kossuth, had deprived him of reason. They should look for some better indication of the popular feeling than the statements of agents sent here to support a particular cause. Let the House, before it gave any decision upon this subject, ascertain whether it might not be trying to fix on the Hungarians the remains of a feudal

constitution which was the greatest curse of that country.

Lord Palmerston delivered a long and elaborate speech, in which he entered at length into the merits of the question. He said that, in the observations he would make, he wished to guard himself against the possible imputation of unfriendly feelings towards Austria. "I know well, that imputations have been cast upon Her Majesty's Government, and upon myself as the organ of that Government, in regard to our foreign relations-imputations of being guided and impelled, in our intercourse with the powers of Europe, by personal feelings of hatred to this power and to that. Such imputations, let them come from what quarter they may, and whether they be written or spoken, if they be sincere, are the result of ignorance and folly-if they are insincere, I leave others to qualify them as they may.

It is true, that for a long time Austria has not been a favourite with the liberal party in Europe. Austria, by the course of policy which she has pursued, has, in the opinion of a great part of the Continent, been identified with obstruction to progress. That circumstance, unfortunately, has made her proportionately a favourite in the eyes of some; and when we hear such declamations in favour of Austria, I would warn the Austrian Government not to trust too much to those protestations. It is not as the ancient ally of England during war-it is not as the medium of resistance in the centre of Europe to any general disturbance of the balance of power -it is as the former (though I trust it is no longer so)-the former symbol of resistance to improvement, political and social-it

is in that capacity that Austria has won the affections of some men in the conduct of public affairs. There are persons who see in the relations of countries nothing but the intercourse of Cabinets, who value a country not for its political weight, but for its political opinions, and consider that the relations between countries are sufficiently intimate when the personal intercourse of their Governments is placed on a complimentary footing. Sir, there are men, who, having passed their whole lives in adoring the Government of Austria, because they deemed it the great symbol of the opinions which they entertained, at last became fickle in their attachment, and transferred their allegiance to the Government of France, because they thought that in that Government they saw an almost equal degree of leaning to the arbitrary principle, and because they, forsooth, suspected that Government of designs hostile to the interests of freedom. We have heard of persons of that sort making use of the expression old women.' Public men ought not to deal in egotism, and I will not apply to them the expression that has fallen from their own mouths; I will only say, that the conduct of such men is an example of antiquated imbecility."

The House would not expect him to pass judgment between the Austrian Government and the Hungarian nation. "I say the Hungarian nation, because, in spite of what has fallen from the noble Lord opposite (Lord C. Hamilton), I do believe, from the information I have received-though I do not pretend I may not be mistaken-but I firmly believe, that in this war between Austria and Hungary there are enlisted on the

side of Hungary the hearts and souls of the whole people of that country. (Cheers.) I believe that the other races, distinct from the Magyars, have forgotten the former feuds that existed between them and the Magyar population, and that the greater portion of the people have engaged in what they consider a great national contest. It is true, as an honourable and gallant Member has said, that Hungary has for centuries been a State which, though united with Austria by the link of the crown, has nevertheless been separate and distinct from Austria by its own complete constitution. That constitution had many defects; but some of those defects were, I believe, remedied not long ago; and it is not the only ancient constitution on the Continent that was susceptible of great improvement..... I take the question I take the question that is now to be fought for on the plains of Hungary to be this whether Hungary shall continue to maintain its separate nationality as a distinct kingdom, and with a constitution of its own, or whether it is to be incorporated more or less in the aggregate constitution that is to be given to the Austrain empire? Such a contest is most painful to behold; as, whatever may be the result, Austria cannot but be weakened. If the Hungarians should be successful, and their success should end in the entire separation of Hungary from Austria, it is impossible not to see that this will be such a dismemberment of the Austrian empire as will prevent Austria from continuing to occupy the great position she has hitherto held among European powers. If, on the other hand, the war being fought out to the uttermost, Hun

gary should, by superior forces, be entirely crushed, Austria in that battle will have crushed her own right arm. Every field that is laid waste is an Austrian resource destroyed; every man that perishes upon the field among the Hungarian ranks is an Austrian soldier deducted from the defensive forces of the empire. There are two objects which England ought peculiarly to aim at; one is to maintain peace, the other is to count for something in the transactions of the world. It is not fitting that a country occupying such a proud position as England-that a country having such various and extensive interests-should lock herself up in a simple regard to her own internal affairs, and should be a passive and mute spectator of everything that is going on around. It it quite true that it may be said, Your opinions are but opinions; and you express them against our opinions, who have at our command large armies to back them-what are opinions against armies?' Sir, my answer is, opinions are stronger than armies. (Cheers.) I say, then, that it is our duty not to remain passive spectators of events that in their immediate consequences affect other countries, but which in their remote and certain consequences are sure to come back with disastrous effect upon ourselves; that, so far as the courtesies of international intercourse may permit us to do so, it is our duty, especially when our opinion is asked-as it has been on many occasions on which we have been blamed for giving it-to state our opinions, founded on the experience of this country-an experience that might be, and ought to have been, an example to less fortunate countries. We are not entitled to interpose in any

manner that will commit this country to embark in those hostili ties. All we can justly do, is to take advantage of any opportunities that may present themselves, in which the counsels of friendship and peace may be offered to the contending parties. Her Majesty's Government have not, in the present state of the matter, thought that any opportunity has as yet presented itself that could enable them with any prospect of advantage to make an official communication of those opinions which they entertain on this subject-I say official, as contradistinguished from opinions expressed in a more private and confidential manner: but undoubtedly, if any occasion were to occur that should lead them to think the expression of such opinions would tend to a favourable result, it would be the duty of the Government not to let such an opportunity pass by." "Sir," said the noble Lord, in conclusion, "to suppose that any Government of England can wish to excite revolutionary movements in any part of the world—to suppose that any Government of England can have any other wish or desire than to confirm and maintain peace between nations, and tranquillity and harmony between governments and subjects-shows really a degree of ignorance and folly which I never supposed any public man could have been guilty of-which may do very well for a newspaper article, but which it astonishes me to find is made the subject of a speech in Parliament." The noble Lord sat down amidst much cheering.

Lord Dudley Stuart said he looked upon the speech which had been delivered by Mr. Osborne, followed up as it had been by Mr. Roebuck

and Lord Palmerston, as one of the most important events of the Session.

After a few remarks from Mr. Wyld, who commented on the almost unanimous feeling which had been elicited, Mr. Osborne, finding that there had been in fact no official communications upon the subject, withdrew his motion.

The last occurrence which it appears necessary to include in this brief summary of the debates on foreign transactions is, the_acknowledgment rendered by Parliament to the British officers and troops, for their brilliant and successful exploits in the recent campaign in the Punjaub. In the House of Lords, on the 24th of April, the Marquis of Lansdowne rose to move that the thanks of the House should be presented to the Governor-General of India, the Commander-in-Chief, and the officers and soldiers of the army in India, for their services in the late actions. In the course of a very able and eloquent speech, the noble Lord recapitulated the train of events which had rendered a series of military operations inevitable in the Punjaub, and, touching lightly on the earlier parts of the campaign, called the attention of the House to its brilliant termination by the capture of Mooltan and the crowning victory of Goojerat. The noble Lord concluded by moving the vote of thanks in the usual form.

Lord Stanley had the greatest pleasure in seconding the motion, not because he felt that he had any pretension to speak on such a subject in the presence of the highest military authority, but because he wished it to appear that on such an occasion party spirit had no power, and that every one