London, Friday, February 11, 1853 

The political torpor which, under the protection of nature’s dullest 
fog, has for so long a time prevailed here, has been suddenly 
interrupted by the arrival of revolutionary news from Italy. 
Intelligence has been received by electric telegraph, that an 
insurrection took place at Milan on the 6th; that proclamations had 
been posted up, one by Mazzini,’ the other by Kossuth,” exhorting 
the Hungarians in the Austrian army to join the revolutionists; that 
the insurrection had been at first suppressed, but had afterwards 
recommenced; that the Austrians stationed in the arsenal had been 
massacred, &c.; that the gates of Milan were shut up. The French 
Government papers, it is true, communicate two further dispatches, 
dated Berne the 9th, and Turin 8th, which report the definitive 
suppression of the outbreak on the 7th. But the non-arrival of any 
direct information at the English Foreign Office for two days, is 
regarded as a favorable symptom by the friends of Italy. 

Rumors are current in Paris, that great excitement prevailed at 
Pisa, Lucca and in other towns. 

At Turin the ministry met in haste, in consequence of a 
communication from the Austrian Consul, in order to deliberate on 
the aspect of affairs in Lombardy. The day, on which the first 
information reached London, was the 9th of February, which day, 
curiously enough, is also the anniversary of the proclamation of the 
Roman Republic in 1849,?"° of the decapitation of Charles I in 1649, 
and of the deposition of James II in 1689. 

No. 2135u, February 12, 1853.— Ed. 

As regards the chances of the present insurrection at Milan, there 
can be little hope of success, unless some of the Austrian regiments 
pass over to the revolutionary camp. Private letters from Turin, 
which I expect will shortly reach me, will probably enable me to 
furnish you a detailed account of the whole affair. 

Several statements as to the character of the amnesty lately granted 
by Louis Napoleon, have been published on behalf of the French 
refugees. Victor Frondes (a former officer) declares in the Nation, a 
Brussels paper, that he was surprised to see his name in the list of the 
amnestied, he having already amnestied himself, five months ago, by 
making his escape from Algiers. 

The Moniteur? announced at first, that 3,000 exiles were to be 
amnestied, and that only about 1,200 citizens would remain under 
the ban of proscription. A few days later the same authority stated, 
that 4,312 persons” had been pardoned, so that Louis Napoleon 
actually forgave 100 persons more than he had previously con- 
demned. Paris and the Department of the Seine alone numbered 
about 4,000 exiles. Of these only 226 are included in the amnesty. 
The Department of the Hérault counted 2,611 exiles; 299 are 
amnestied. The Niévre furnished 1,478 victims among whom there 
were 1,100 fathers of families averaging three children each; 180 
have been amnestied. In the Department of the Var 687 out of 2,181 
have been released. Among the 1,200 republicans transported to 
Cayenne, only a few have been pardoned, and precisely such as have 
escaped already from that penal settlement. The number of persons 
transported to Algeria and now released, is large, but still in no 
proportion to the immense mass of people that have been carried 
over to Africa, which is said to amount to 12,000. The refugees now 
living in England, Belgium, Switzerland and Spain, with very rare 
exceptions, are entirely excluded from the decree. On the other 
hand, the amnesty lists actually contain a large number of persons 
who have never quitted France, or who have long since been permit- 
ted to re-enter it; nay, more, there are names which figure in the list 
several times. But the most monstrous fact is, that the list is swelled 
with the names of a large number of persons well known to have 
been slaughtered during the sanguinary “battues” of December. 

The new Parliamentary session commenced yesterday. As a 
worthy introduction to the future performances of the Millenarian 
Ministry, the following scene was produced in the House of Lords: 

* of January 31, 1853.— Ed. 
Le Moniteur universel, No. 35, February 4, 1853.— Ed. 

The Earl of Derby asked the Earl of Aberdeen what measures the 
Government proposed to submit to the consideration of Parliament; 
upon which the latter replied that he had already, on a former 
occasion, explained his principles, a repetition of which would be 
inconvenient; and that any further statement, before the communi- 
cation to be made in the House of Commons, would be premature. 
And now ensued a most curious dialogue, in which the Earl of Derby 
spoke, and the Earl of Aberdeen only bowed significantly: * 

The Earl of Derby—‘‘He would ask the noble Lord what measures he intended to 
submit to their Lordships in the course of the Session?” 

After a few seconds’ pause, no noble Lord having risen— 

The Earl of Derby—“Does silence mean no measures?” [A laugh.] 

The Earl of Aberdeen—(Muttering some inaudible words.] 

The Earl of Derby— ‘May I be permitted to ask what measures will be introduced in 
this House?” 

No answer. 

The question of adjournment being put by the Lord Chancellor,” their Lordships 
adjourned. 

Passing from the House of Lords to “Her Majesty’s liege 
Commons,” we shall observe that the Earl of Aberdeen has 
expounded the programme of the Ministry much more strikingly by 
his silence than Lord John Russell by his long and grave speech last 
night. The short resumé of the latter was: ‘““No Measures, but Men” ; 
adjournment of all questions of Parliamentary importance for one 
year; and strict payment of the salaries of her Majesty’s Ministers 
during that time. Lord John Russell stated the intention of the 
Government in nearly these words: 

“With regard to the number of men to be voted for the Army, the Navy, and 
Ordnance, there will be no increase beyond the number voted before the Christmas 
holidays. With regard to the amounts in the various estimates, there will be found a 
considerable increase upon the estimates of last year.... A bill will be brought in to 
enable the Legislature of Canada to dispose of the Clergy Reserves in Canada.... The 
President of the Board of Trade“ will move for the introduction of a Pilotage bill.... 
The disabilities of her Majesty’s Jewish subjects will be removed.... Propositions will be 
made on the subject of Education. I am not prepared to say that I am about to 
introduce, on the part of her Majesty’s Government, a very large plan on that subject. 
It will include educational measures for the poorer classes, and propositions with 
respect to the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge.... Transportation to Australia 
will cease.... There will be made a proposal with respect to the system of secondary 
punishments.... Immediately aiter the Easter recess, or as soon as possible after that 
period, the Chancellor of the Exchequer ~ will propose the financial statement for the 

in The Times, No. 21349, February 11, 1853.— Ed. 

year.... The Lord Chancellor will state in a few days what are the measures he 
proposes to bring in for the improvement of the law.... It is the intention of the Chief 
Secretary for Ireland,” in a few days, to move the appointment of a select Committee 
with regard to the law of Landlord and Tenant in Ireland.... Ministers would 
endeavor to effect a renewal of the Income Tax for the present year, without any 
observation or discussion whatever.” 

In reference to Parliamentary Reform, Lord John Russell declares 
that it may perhaps be taken into consideration in the next session. 
Accordingly, no Reform Bill at present. Nay more, Johnny was at 
great pains to disclaim the idea of ever having promised to give a 
more liberal measure of representative reform than his bill of last 
session.”'' He was even indignant that words to that effect should 
have been ascribed to him. He never said nor meant anything of the 
kind. Nor does he promise that his intended bill of next session will 
be as comprehensive as that of 1852. With respect to bribery and 
corruption, he said: 

“T think it better to defer giving an opinion as to whether any further measures 
may be necessary to check bribery and corruption. I will only say that the subject is one 
of the highest importance.” 

It is impossible to describe the cool amazement with which this 
speech of Finality-John *” was received by the House of Commons. It 
would be difficult to state, which was greater, the perplexity of his 
friends, or the hilarity of his foes. All seemed to regard his speech as 
a complete refutation of Lucretius’s doctrine, that ‘ Nil de nihilo fit.” » 
Lord John at least made something out of nothing; a dry, long and 
very tedious speech. 

There were two subjects upon which Ministers were supposed to 
mean to stand or fall—a new assessment of the Income Tax and a 
new Reform Bill. Now, as to the Income Tax it is proposed to 
continue it for a year in its present form. As to a Reform Bill, even of 
Whig dimensions, it is declared that Ministers intend to introduce it 
only on the condition that they remain in office for a whole year. It is 
altogether the programme of the late Russell Administration, minus 
the Reform Bill. Even the financial statement is postponed till after 
the Easter recess,so that Ministers may be able, in any event, to touch 
their quarterly pay. 

The particular reform propositions are nearly all of them 
borrowed from Mr. Disraeli’s programme. Thus for instance, the 
law amendment, the abolition of transportation to Australia, the 
Pilotage bill, the Committee on the Tenant-Right question, etc. The 

only points belonging properly to the present Ministry, are the 
proposed educational reform which Lord John assures us will be of 
no larger size than himself, and the removal of Baronet Lionel 
Rothschild’s disabilities. It may be questioned, whether the English 
people will be very contented with this extension of the suffrage toa 
Jewish usurer, who was notoriously one of the accomplices of the 
Bonapartist coup d’état. 

This impudence of a Ministry, composed of two parties that were 
completely beaten at the late general elections, it would be difficult to 
explain, were it not for the circumstance that any new Reform Bill 
would necessitate a dissolution of the present House of Commons, 
the majority of which stick to their dearly-bought seats, gained by 
narrow majorities. 

Nothing is more delightful than the manner in which The Times 
attempts to comfort its readers: 

“Next session is not quite so uncertain an epoch as to-morrow; for to-morrow 
depends not only on the will, but even on the life of the procrastinator, while, if the 
world endures, next session will certainly arrive. Then put off to next session—the 
whole Parliamentary reform—give the Ministry a rest for one year!” * 

I, for my part, am of opinion, that it is highly beneficial to the 
people, that no Reform Bill is to be octroyed by Ministers, in the 
present dull state of the public mind, and “under the cold shadow of 
an aristocratic Coalition Cabinet.” It must not be forgotten that Lord 
Aberdeen was a member of the Tory Cabinet, which, in 1830, 
refused to agree to any measure of reform. National reforms must 
be won by National agitation, and not by the grace of my Lord 
Aberdeen. . 

In conclusion let me mention that, at a special meeting of the 
General Committee of the National Association for the Protection of 
British Industry and Capital, held in the South-Sea House, on Monday 
last, under the Presidency of the Duke of Richmond, this Society 
wisely resolved to dissolve itself.*!” 

Written on February 11, 1853 Reproduced from the New-York 

Tribune, No. 3701, February 25, 1853;