the Treasury, as to the existing state of relations between Russia and Sweden on the subject of Poland. The noble Viscount at the head of the Government had, on a former occasion, taken rather a sanguine view of the efficacy of the provisions of the treaties which related to Poland, and there was much of the same vague generalities on that subject in the speeches of the noble Lord as in the recent despatches of the Foreign Secretary. Russia appeared to have answered the despatches of the noble Earl by the publication of an amnesty which did not satisfy the claims of Poland, and the important question now was, what was the next step to be taken? The publication of the amnesty had been accompanied by a sanguinary proclamation from the Governor of Warsaw inciting the peasantry to rise and murder their landlords, and other tokens of Russian menace, which showed how little the amnesty was worth, and it had been altogether rejected by the Poles. In short, there was this irreconcilable difference between the Poles and the Russians:-That, whereas the former would never be satisfied without having Lithuania and other parts of ancient Poland restored to them, the Russians contended that those provinces had long been united to Russia, and that nothing should induce them to consent to a separation. But he wished to consider how this subject affected the relations between Russia and Sweden. The designs which Russia had always entertained upon the Baltic had led to an alienation of feeling on the part of Sweden, and the jealousy between both countries had been increased by the circumstance that a steamer, called the Ward Jackson, which had lately left this country carrying Poles who wished to go to the assistance of their countrymen, had put into one of the ports of Sweden; and being threatened by a Russian cruizer, the Poles made their escape into that country. The geographical position of Sweden had always tempted aggression on the part of Russia, as was shown in 1808, when Russia, by precipitating hostilities, obtained the conquest of Finland. The noble Viscount once represented himself as a "judicious bottle-holder" in the great conflicts of Europe, and some such quality might before long be again in requisition. He trusted that the noble Viscount would prevent Russia from making an attack on Sweden. The preparations at Cronstadt were well known throughout Europe to be

most active and extensive at the present moment; and as Stockholm was only twenty-four hours' sail from St. Petersburg the operation of the greater Power upon the less would probably be pressing and immediate. An hon. Member of that House had put into his hands a letter dated the 26th of March last, from a relative in Sweden, a landed proprietor, who stated that 20,000 Norwegians and 40,000 Swedes had been ordered to march for Finland. The writer added, that although war was regarded as a great calamity, yet that the military operation in question was very popular throughout Scandinavia. He presumed that the army had only received orders for preparation, but his information came from so high an authority, that if the noble Viscount felt a desire to know the name of the writer, he should be happy to communicate it to him privately. He trusted that the noble Lord's attention would be directed to the subject.

GREECE-PRINCE WILLIAM OF

DENMARK.-QUESTION

LORD HENRY LENNOX: Sir, I wish to ask a Question of the First Lord of the Treasury respecting the recent election of Prince William of Denmark to the Throne of Greece. I should have preferred asking the Question of the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, but he has requested that I should put it to the noble Lord himself. On Monday night I put down upon the paper notice of a Question which I intended to ask of the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs with respect to the succession to the Crown of Greece, and I also forwarded to him full details of the Question which I intended to put. During Tuesday I was at the House but I received no intimation from the hon. Gentleman that the Question would be inconvenient to the interests of the public service. I therefore rose at the usual time and put my Question. The hon Gentleman the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs said—

"I am sure you will not think that I am guilty of any discourtesy in saying that the only answer which the Government can give is, that they will give no answer."

Thereupon, feeling, as I admit, somewhat snubbed, I told the hon. Gentleman and the House that I would put my Question again the next day, in the hope of getting a more satisfactory answer. The hon. Gentleman, however, told me it would be

useless to do so, as I should receive the same answer; that there was no answer, and that it would not be for the benefit of the public service to make a statement on the subject. The hon. Gentleman was, of course, cheered by hon. Members on the Ministerial Benches, and I left the House half convinced that I had been guilty of an indiscretion. What was my astonishment and surprise, then, when I found that on the Government being addressed on the same subject in another place by a noble Lord who has no doubt far more influence than I have, the noble Earl the Secretary for Foreign Affairs at once rises in his place and gives a full detail of all that has taken place in the matter. But this is not all. Fearful lest the noble Earl had not given enough of information on the subject, up starts his Colleague the Lord President of the Council, and thereupon proceeds to supply a supposed hiatus in the speech of his Colleague. The facts were therefore these. The information, which was denied to the House of Commons in the person of one of its Members, was within forty eight hours afterwards communicated without hesitation to a noble Earl in another place. I do not regard this, in the least, as a personal question, but as a matter affecting the House itself. I ask the Question of which I have given notice on Monday, not with the wish to interfere with the election of Prince William, but because I have reason to know that the conduct of the Foreign Office has been so precipitate as to peril the very object which the Government had in view. Pleasant as it usually is to be contradicted by the noble Viscount, yet that pleasure will be denied to me in the present instance, because I am in a position to assert, that when the telegram was despatched to Mr. Elliot, asking the Assembly to offer the Crown of Greece to Prince William, it was stated that the Government did so with the authority of the King of Denmark. That statement was true; but that authority was given conditionally on the consent of Prince Christian and Prince William being also obtained. And when this telegram was despatched, not only had Prince William not given his adhesion, but no longer ago than yesterday he was still offering innumerable objections to the negotiation. It comes, then, to this, that Her Majesty's Government had telegraphed to Mr. Elliot upon an authority which was not valid. Further, when the King of Denmark and Prince Christian learned that

the National Assembly of Greece had actually proceeded to the election of Prince William, they were extremely surprised at the circumstance, and Prince Christian was suddenly summoned to Copenhagen to explain to the King of Denmark as to how this matter had been brought about. Unless I am misinformed in the matter, the nomination of Prince William was merely taken as a matter of gossip, and was not supposed to assume so serious an aspect, at least for some time. It even appears that the accredited Minister of the Crown of Denmark in London has had no communication made to him as to the candidature of Prince William being upon the tapis. Under these circumstances, I now put the Question which is on the paper in my name. I should not have done so at this length were it not for the unseemly manner in which the House of Commons, through me, has been treated.

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: My hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. D. Griffith) will excuse me if I do not follow him into the dissertation upon which he entered with regard to the Polish question, and the matters connected with it; but I will answer the Question which he has put upon the paper with regard to the relations now subsisting between the Court of Sweden and the Court of Russia. Her Majesty's Government are not aware that anything has interrupted the good relations between those two Governments. But, of course, the hon. Member and the House will feel that we do not stand here to answer for that which may be passing between foreign Governments. As far as we know, there is no reason to suppose that there is any unfriendly feeling between the two.

It

The noble Lord who has just sat down, I think, made an unfair charge against my hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. The noble Lord seems to have overlooked the distinction between the nature of a question and the nature of an answer. is quite possible that a question may not be indiscreet, though it may be very indiscreet to give an answer to it. No blame attaches to the noble Lord for the question he put to my hon. Friend, but some blame would have attached to my hon. Friend if he had gone into those details which were necessarily involved in an answer to the question. Now, the noble Lord has, I think, mistaken what passed in another place, because, if he will look back to the

WAYS AND MEANS.-REPORT.

Resolutions [April 16] reported,

(1.) "That, towards raising the Supply granted to Iler Majesty, in lieu of the Duties of Customs now charged on the articles undermentioned, the following Duties of Customs shall, on and after

the 17th day of April 1863, be charged thereon on importation into Great Britain and Ireland: viz. Chicory, or any other vegetable matter applicable to the uses of Chicory or Coffee, raw or kiln-dried the cwt. £1 68. 6d." (2.) “That, towards raising the Supply granted to Her Majesty, there shall be charged and paid for and upon all Chicory, or any other vegetable matter applicable to the uses of Chicory or Coffee, grown in the United Kingdom, for every hundredweight thereof, raw or kiln-dried, the Excise Duty of twenty-four shillings and three pence, and so in proportion for any greater or less quantity than a hundredweight.

In lieu of the Excise Duty now chargeable on Chicory, or such vegetable matter as aforesaid."

SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE said, there were several questions in connection with the Budget which he supposed the House would discuss separately as they came on. He did not wish to express any premature opinion on details, which could better be dealt with as they arose in due order; but he thought that was an occasion on which he might make a few remarks as to the general character of the Budget, and he was sorry his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not in his place, that he might have an opportunity of making those remarks in the right hon. Gentleman's presence. He thought the general feeling of the House, and the general feeling of the country, with regard to the Budget, would be one of satisfaction; and certainly it was not his intention to offer any hostile remarks on the general character and complexion of the financial statement which they had heard on the previous night. He was of opinion, that, as a rule, it was not desirable to criticise the financial statement at the moment it was delivered, because there were a number of important questions raised by it which required careful consideration on the part of those who desired to criticise the propositions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in a fair and satisfactory manner. But he must say that the statement on the previous night was of such a character that it would have been easier to remark upon it on the moment than it would have been to do so in the case of most of the Budgets which had been brought under the notice of the House in former years; because the re

commendations of his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer were such as the House and the country had been pretty well prepared for. Though, perhaps, they had not been prepared to find the surplus as great as the Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated it to be, they had been generally aware both that there was a surplus and that propositions of the nature brought forward by his right hon. Friend would be made to the House. The

For three

first remark which he wished to offer was, that he was afraid his right hon. Friend had fallen that year into the error which he had fallen into during three consecutive years in respect to one item of revenue he meant the Excise. consecutive years he had always over-estimated the Excise revenue. Last year he took the liberty of telling his right hon. Friend that he had over-estimated it. The Chancellor of the Exchequer assured him that he did not, and that he was in possession of particular information with respect to the malt duty which led him to believe that he would obtain the amount which he calculated on receiving. However, the result had been as he (Sir Stafford Northcote) had predicted. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had been wrong for three years; and his accumulated error amounted, he thought, to no less than £3,500,000. He underrated the Customs and over-estimated the Excise. He attri buted that to what he thought was one of the weaknesses of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. One of his right hon. Friend's views, which he thought was his besetting sin, consisted in the belief that he would always get an amount of Excise revenue from spirits in excess of the amount which experience proved to be the actual receipt from that source. In 1860, when he raised the duty on British spirits from 88. to 10s. per gallon, he thought he would get an increased revenue of £1,000,000 a year from that addition to the duty. He had never yet got such amount from it; but so obstinately did he cling to his opinion on the point, that on the previous night he produced figures to show it was a mistake to suppose that he had not got an increased revenue from spirits. From those figures it appeared that the year before the duty was raised the revenue from the duty on spirits amounted to £9,750,000; last year it amounted to £9,837,000; so that he had only got £87,000 out of his expected £1,000,000, after an expe