This question has been so often discussed that I can only repeat what I have said in former Parliaments.  It is well known that when we came into office in 1830, Europe was in a state which, in the opinion of any impartial man, and of the best political judges, threatened to break out into a general war.  I remember being told by a right hon. gentleman, in the course of a private conversation in the House, that ’if an angel came down from heaven to write my dispatches, I could not prevent Europe from a war in six months’.  Well, Sir, not months, but years, rolled by, and no war took place.  It was the anxious desire of the Government of Earl Grey to prevent war; and the maintenance of peace was one of the objects at which they expressly aimed, and succeeded.  What were the dangers which threatened the peace of Europe?  There had just been a great revolution in France, there had been another in Belgium, and these had been followed by a great rising of the Poles against the sway of Russia.  In these struggles there was a conflict of principle as well as one of political relations.  There was the popular principle in France, in Belgium, and in Poland, to be resisted by the monarchical principle of Austria, of Russia, and of Prussia.  The danger apprehended in 1831 was, that these three Powers should attempt by a hostile attack to control France in the exercise of her judgement with respect to who should be her sovereign, or what should be her constitution.  The British Government, under the Duke of Wellington, with the most laudable regard for the public interests, not only of England but of Europe, hastened to acknowledge the new Sovereign of France, and to withdraw their country from the ranks of any confederacy against her; and this conduct laid the foundation of that peace which it was our duty to maintain and cultivate.  The great anxiety of England was that peace should be maintained.  There was no doubt great sympathy with the Poles in their contest against Russia; and it was thought there was a chance of their succeeding in their attempt.  The result, however, was different; but then it was said by the hon. member, ’Oh, it is the fault of England that she did not establish the independence of Poland.  If she had joined with France and Austria (which now for the first time I am told was anxious to favour the cause of Poland), the Poles would have been in full enjoyment of their constitutional freedom.’  The hon. gentleman actually said that Austria, in 1831, was in favour of the Poles, who were closely pressed by the Russians and Prussians, who had already got possession of Militsch, and felt, if the kingdom of Poland were independent, the chances were that she (Militsch) would rise also to assert her liberties.  This statement is excessively extraordinary.  I am quite surprised even that the hon. member for Youghal should have made it.  I will tell him what was passing in his mind when, he said so, and what led him to make this statement; for I am at least desirous of giving a rational solution