Sitting of 6 August 1840

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a third time:—Court of Chancery Non-Parochial Registers; Bills of Exchange; Imprisonment for Debt.

INFANT FELONS BILL.
On the motion of Lord John Russell, this bill was read a third time.
On the motion that the bill do pass, after various amendments had been made,
Mr. Estcourt Mr. Estcourt moved the insertion in the first clause of words to the effect of requiring that notice should be given to
1362
the parents or guardians of infants, in whose case it was proposed that the bill should come into operation.
Lord John Russelldid not think that any advantage would be derived from the insertion of these words. It would be best to leave the entire power in the hands of the Lord Chancellor.
Lord GranvilleSomerset supported the amendment, which he thought contained a most necessary provision.
The Attorney-Generalin case of a division, would have no hesitation in giving his vote against the amendment. The effect of it would be to convey an intimation to the Lord Chancellor that he must hear both sides before he came to a decision.
The House divided on the amendment: Ayes 12; Noes 53:—Majority 41.

List of the AYES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Langdale, hon. C.

Baldwin, C. B.

Polhill, F.

Botfield, B.

Somerset, Lord G.

Broadley, H.

Trotter, J.

Courtenay, P.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

TELLERS.

Freshfield, J. W.

Briscoe, J. I.

Irton, S.

Estcourt, T.

List of the NOES.

Adam, Admiral

Moreton, hon. A. H.

Alston, R.

Morpeth, Viscount

Baring, rt. hn. F. T.

Morris, D.

Barnard, E. G.

Nicholl, J.

Bernal, R.

Oswald, J.

Bowes, J.

Palmerston, Viscount

Broadwood, H.

Pryme, G.

Bryan, G.

Rice, E. R.

Campbell, Sir J.

Richards, R.

Denison, W. J.

Russell, Lord J.

Duncombe, T.

Salwey, Colonel

Elliot, hon. J. E.

Seymour, Lord

Euston, Earl of

Sheil, rt. hon. R. L.

Fazakerley, J. N.

Sheppard, T.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir C.

Smith, B.

Hawes, B.

Stanley, hon. E. J.

Hector, C. J.

Stock, Doctor

Hobhouse, rt. hn. Sir J.

Style, Sir C.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Thornely, T.

Hoskins, K.

Townley, R. G.

Hume, J.

Troubridge, Sir E. T.

Labouchere, rt. hn. H.

Vigors, N. A.

Leader, J. T.

Warburton, H.

Lushington, C.

Wood, B.

Lushington, rt. hn. S.

Yates, J. A.

Lynch, A. H.

TELLERS.

Macaulay, rt.hn. T. B.

Parker, J.

Maule, hon. F.

Tufnell, H.

Mr. Langdale Mr. Langdale moved, "in line 17, after the word ' direct,' to insert' regard being always had to the religious creed of

1363
such infant, or to that of the parents or surviving parent of such infant.'"
Lord John Russellthought the words might create considerable difficulty, and opposed their insertion.
Mr. Langdalepointed out, that the Lord Chancellor had to direct the education, religious as well as otherwise, of the child, and thought that the clause was highly necessary. The refusal to adopt such a provision would be in direct contravention of the first principles of toleration, and if the noble Lord persevered in his opposition to the amendment, he should feel it to be his duty in the next Session of Parliament, again to bring the same subject under consideration.
Mr. T. B. Estcourtthought, that it was highly requisite that such an amendment should be introduced, and said that he should have great satisfaction in giving his vote in favour of the motion.
Mr. Aglionbywould be well satisfied to find that the amendment was adopted. He had supported the bill throughout as a humane measure, but he thought that it would be incomplete without such a provision.
The House divided:—Ayes 28; Noes 29:—Majority 1.

List of the AYES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Lushington, C.

Barnard, E. G.

Lynch, A. H.

Bowes, J.

Polhill, F.

Broadley, H.

Pryme, G.

Broadwood, H.

Richards, R.

Bryan, G.

Salwey, Colonel

Courtenay, P.

Sheppard, T.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Thornley, T.

Duncombe, T.

Townley, R. G.

Eliot, hon. J. E.

Trotter, J.

Estcourt, T.

Vigors, N. A.

Evans, Sir De L.

Yates, J. A.

Ewart, W.

Hume, J.

TELLERS.

Irton, S.

Langdale, hon. C.

Leader, J. T.

Briscoe, J. I.

List of the NOES.

Adam, Admiral

Maule, hon. F.

Alston, R.

Morris, D.

Baldwin, C. B.

Muskett, G. A.

Burrell, Sir C.

Nicholl, J.

Euston, Earl of

Oswald, J,

Fazakerley, J. N.

Palmerston, Viscount

Grey, rt. hn, Sir C.

Parker, J.

Heathcote, G. J.

Price, Sir R.

Hector, C. J.

Rice, E. R.

Hobhouse, rt. hn. Sir J.

Russell, Lord J.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Smith, B.

Lushington, rt, hn. S.

Stock, Dr.

1364

Style, Sir C.

Wood, B.

Troubridge, Sir E. T.

TELLERS.

Tufnell, H.

Hawes, B.

Warburton, H.

Clay, W.

Mr. Langdaledeclared, that after the division which had just taken place, and which by a majority of one struck a heavy blow at religious liberty, he should feel it to be his duty to divide the House against the passing of the bill.
The House divided:—Ayes 49; Noes 9:—Majority 40.

List of the AYES.

Adam, Admiral

Muskett, G. A.

Aglionby, H. A.

Nicholl, J.

Alston, R.

Oswald, J.

Baldwin, C. B.

Palmerston, Viscount

Baring, rt. hn. F. T.

Pryme, G.

Barnard, E. G.

Rice, E. R.

Bernal, R.

Richards, R.

Bowes, J.

Russell, Lord J.

Broadley, H.

Salwey, Colonel

Burrell, Sir C.

Shaw, rt. hon. F.

Campbell, Sir J.

Sheppard, T.

Clay, W.

Smith, B.

Duncombe, T.

Stanley, hon. E. J.

Elliot, hon. J. E.

Stock, Doctor

Euston, Earl of

Style, Sir C.

Fazakerley, J. N.

Thornley, T.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir C.

Townley, R. G.

Hawes, B.

Trotter, J.

Heathcote, G. J.

Troubridge, Sir E. T.

Hector, C. J.

Vigors, N. A.

Hobhouse, rt. hn. Sir J.

Warburton, H.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Wood, B.

Hume, J.

Yates, J. A.

Lushington, rt. hn. S.

TELLERS.

Maule, rt. hon. F.

Parker, J.

Morris, D.

Tufnell, H.

List of the NOES.

Bryan, G.

Leader, J. T.

Courtenay, P.

Lushington, C.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Polhill, F.

Estcourt, T.

TELLERS.

Ewart, W.

Briscoe, J. I.

Irton, S.

Langdale, hon. C.

Bill passed.

MR. FEARGUS O'CONNOR—ADJOURNED DEBATE.
Lord J. Russell Lord J. Russell moved the order of the day for a committee of ways and means.
Mr. Aglionby Mr. Aglionby moved, as an amendment, the order of the day for the adjourned debate on the motion for an address relating to political offenders.
The House divided on the motion:— Ayes 42; Noes 11:—Majority 31.

List of the AYES.

Adam, Admiral

Alston, R.

1365

Baldwin, C. B.

Morris, D.

Baring, rt. hon. F. T.

Muskett, G. A.

Barnard, E. G.

Nicholl, J.

Bernal, R.

Palmerston, Viscount

Bowes J.

Parker, J.

Broadley, H.

Polhill, F.

Broadwood, H.

Richards, R.

Bryan, G.

Russell, Lord J.

Clay, W.

Shaw, rt. hon. F.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Sheppard, T.

Elliot, hon. J. E.

Smith, B.

Euston, Earl of

Stanley, hon. B. J.

Fazakerley, J. N.

Stock, Dr.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir C.

Style, Sir C.

Heathcote, G. J.

Townley, R. G.

Hobhouse, rt. hn. Sir J.

Trotter, J.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Troubridge, Sir E. T.

Irton, S.

Yates, John A.

Lushington, C.

Lushington, rt. hn. S.

TELLERS.

Macaulay, rt. hn. T. B.

Maule, hon. F.

Morpeth, Viscount

Tufnell, H.

List of the NOES.

Ellis, W.

Thornley, T.

Ewart, W.

Vigors, N. A.

Hector, C. J.

Warburton, H.

Hume, J.

Wood, B.

Langdale, hon. C.

TELLERS.

Leader, J. T.

Duncombe, T.

Salwey, Colonel

Aglionby, H. A.

Order of the day for committee, read and discharged.

RUSSIAN EXPEDITION TO KHIVA.
Mr. Humewished to know from the right hon. the President of the Board of Control whether Government had received any accounts confirming the news that had appeared in the public papers of the Russian expedition against Khiva having arrived there in considerable force, with artillery, and also of their having extended their movement as far as Bokhara.
Sir J. Hobhousedid not believe a single syllable of the reports in question. He had been much surprised to see them. Rumours to the effects of those statements had reached Bombay, but they were wholly improbable, unless these troops and cannon had dropped down from the skies. He had other means of knowing, however, that the reports in question were false. Captain Abbott, an English officer, who had left Khiva at a period subsequent to that of the supposed arrival of the Russians there, stated that no such arrival had taken place; and further, he had come by way of St. Petersburg in company with the Russian general who was to have commanded the expedition had it been able to reach Khiva. But it
1366
was not able, and after two or three inarches it returned to Oremburg. He might also add, that he had received that morning a letter from Herat, to the same effect.

FRANCE AND EGYPT.
Mr. Hume,on rising to call the attention of the House to the relations of this country with France, as regarded the affairs of Egypt and Syria, said that every one knew in what a critical position our situation was as respected France and Russia; but what he was anxious at present to do was, to remove the effect of what had fallen from the noble Secretary for the Colonies on the last occasion. The noble Lord had excepted to the use he then made of the word "insurrection," as applied to the Druses, and denied that British interference had anything to do with that rising. Now the truth was, that the noble Lord very much forgot what was the real state of the case, because there were papers on the table of the House which showed that British authorities had interfered, as he had complained. Besides a despatch of the noble Lord to Colonel Campbell, which justified this assertion, there was another despatch which he held in his hand, and which was from Mr. Mandeville, the British resident at Constantinople in the absence of Lord Ponsonby, to Ibrahim Pacha, bearing date March 29th, 1833, which fully corroborated his assertion. His words were—
"The Sultan has deigned to concede to his Highness Mehemet Ali the government of the whole of Syria."
His position was this—that the authority of Mehemet Ali had subsisted in Egypt and Syria for the last eight years; that it had been established by the admission both of the British and French Courts; that the British authorities and agents in the Levant had acted on that conviction, and therefore the noble Lord was not right in saying that the authority of Mehemet Ali was not fully established there. In reply to an intimation from Mehemet Ali that he would declare himself independent of the Porte, Colonel Campbell said—
"I replied to him that he should remain contented with the status quo, as settled at Kintayah, and trust to the great Powers for any arrangement for the future."
In this state of facts he (Mr Hume)

1367
thought that he had made out his original statement that Mehemet Ali was de facto governor of Syria. But, however that might be, he held in his hand a letter which stated that the insurrection was entirely at an end. It appeared from this letter, written by M. Arago, the nephew of the philosopher, that this rising, which they had been told was to create a revolution, had proceeded from about 1,500 men, and that in quelling it every desire was manifested to spare the effusion of blood. With respect to the war into which it appeared that Great Britain was about to be hurried, without knowing what might be the results, he might mention that he had just seen a naval officer who had arrived in the Alecto from Beyrout, and had told him that Captain Napier, of the Powerful, had said that if he had arrived in time he would have interfered to prevent the event. He hoped the noble Lord would be able to contradict this, because he could not believe that any officer would have so interfered, of his own account, in the present state of our relations with France as regarded this subject. His question then was, whether a convention between England, Prussia, Austria, and Russia, had been signed, and whether there was any objection to laying a copy before the House previous to its adjournment? If the convention had been signed, he must say he could not conceive any policy more disastrous to England. One of the greatest evils under Lord Castlereagh's administration was the system of interference with foreign Powers, and it would be recollected that when Mr. Canning was called to power he declared that the policy of Great Britain should be nonintervention. The same principle was one of the three principles on which Earl Grey came into office. Now, his objection to the present proceeding of the British Government was, that they were thereby joining the holy alliance of the despots of Europe, a name now so odious, and that they were retiring from the alliance with France, the only constitutional Government among the great powers, for the sake of forwarding Russian objects, as he contended. He hoped the noble Lord would be able to deny the orders which had been said to have been given to the British fleet, and which, if acted upon, would risk immediate hostilities. To Lord Ponsonby, and to him alone, we owed, in his opinion, the whole of this
1368
risk. From the expenses which France had been at, war appeared to him to be imminent. Government appeared to him to be playing the part of Russia. He trusted the noble Lord would do nothing that would have the effect of promoting the views of Russia, or advancing her progress into Asia Minor. Mehemet Ali had offered to restore all that he had conquered elsewhere, with the exception of Syria; and he asked the noble Lord to confine the war within Syria. We had postponed a peace through our agent at Constantinople. He protested against the House closing without having some further explanation on the subject. He hoped that if hostilities took place either with Mehemet Ali or with France, that Parliament would be called together, without delay, before the country was involved in war. He begged to move:
"That a humble Address be laid before her Majesty, praying her to lay before the House a copy of the Convention entered into by the four great Powers of Europe."
Viscount Palmerstonsaid, that his hon. Friend, entertaining the opinions on this subject which he did, very sincerely and honestly no doubt, it was impossible for him to have expressed himself more calmly or dispassionately. He entertained opinions on this subject as sincere and honest as those of his hon. Friend, but directly the reverse, and where parties had examined a subject, and entertained such essentially different opinions on that subject, of course, they could only leave it to future events, and to the result, to see which was the correct opinion. As strongly as his hon. Friend believed, that the proceedings that had taken place, and that the convention which had been entered into between this country and other great powers on the subject of Turkey would promote what his hon. Friend believed to be the selfish interests of Russia, so firmly was he convinced, that it would lead to a directly opposite result. Before he began to notice the observations of his hon. Friend, he would just contradict a statement which had been made with regard to the Russian expedition having reached Khiva. He could assure his hon. Friend, that he might be as certain as that he was at present in that House that the Russian expedition did not reach Khiva; but that on its advance, met with so many difficulties, that it was obliged to return to the sea of Aral. The report,

1369
therefore, which had been spread in Asia, and whether it had been done by Russian agents or not, for some purpose or other, he would not stop to inquire, was certainly unfounded. The next point his hon. Friend adverted to was the possession of Syria. His hon. Friend, on a former occasion, stated that although he did not recollect the precise period of the negotiations when this took place, his hon. Friend was satisfied that England had offered to guarantee to Meheraet Ali the possession of Syria: he denied his hon. Friend's assertion at the time, and he now repeated his denial. His hon. Friend now stated that Mr. Mandeville, our minister to Turkey, at the period of the advance of the Egyptian army in Asia Minor, recommended Mehetnet Ali to be content with Syria, and that he consented to this after negotiations. Now, there was nothing in the proceedings of Mr. Mandeville to justify any assumption on the part of his hon. Friend, that the British Government or its representative was prepared to recommend Turkey to give up Syria; on the contrary, the documents from which his hon. Friend had quoted, would, if he had referred to another part of them, have shown that this opinion was not entertained; for in one of the despatches of Mr. Mandeville, in that volume, dated April 14, he stated, that he had had a conversation with Admiral Roussin on the subject of Mehemet Ali and Syria, in which he had assured that Minister, that so far from there being any probable intention of this Government being induced to consent to the cession of Syria, it was a matter with respect to which there could be no doubt as to the opinion of her Majesty's Government, and as to their determination on that point. It was, therefore, clear, that the person representing England in Turkey, could not have given anything like an assent to the cession of Syria. His hon. Friend, however, asserted, that Mr. Mandeville recommended Mehemet Ali, or rather Ibrahim, who was advancing at the head of his army, to be content with Syria; certain, however, it was that it was after that advice, or after the advance of the Russian force through the Bosphorus, he did content himself with the possession of that province. His hon. Friend had spoken as if Egypt was regarded by this country as an independent state; whereas our consul-general in Egypt acted and was appointed under an
1370
exequater from the Sultan as sovereign of Egypt and Turkey; therefore, it was the Sultan and not Mehemet Ali, who was regarded by this country as the Sovereign of Egypt. The revolt, then, as it had been termed, in Syria, took place against the local authorities now in possession of t the country, and was not a revolt against the Sovereign. He could also assure his hon. Friend, that whatever might have been the causes of the revolt, it was in no way caused by the instigation of British authorities, or by British officers. Lord Ponsonby, soon after the news of it reached him, sent his dragoman, Mr. Wood, to Beyrout, to report on what was occurring there. He went there in June, and on his arrival on the coast, he very: properly did not land at Beyrout, for by I doing so he would have exposed himself to insult and danger, as the Egyptian army i was committing; every kind of atrocity and outrage in that place and in the country; but he went elsewhere to get every information that he could on the subject, and after a short time he returned to Constantinople. His hon. Friend said, that the insurrection had been entirely put down, and that Captain Napier had avowed to some one on that coast that he was instructed to take part in it, and to render assistance. Now, with regard to the fact, he could assure his hon. Friend that he had been, altogether misinformed; for although Captain Napier had been ordered to that spot, it had been done only with the view of protecting British property and interests. He had not had instructions sent out to him from home, but that gallant officer had been directed by Sir Robert Stopford, or, in his absence, by Sir John Louis, to proceed to that place, to protect British interests. It was true that benig there, Captain Napier did address himself to the Egyptian commander, and urged him to put a stop to that scene of devastation, of crime, and of outrage, occasioned by the troops under his command. He stated that, without saying whether the instructions of those who had risen for the Sultan were right or wrong, the commander of the Egyptian forces could not be justified in carrying on his proceedings against these people with so much barbarity; and he added, that if a stop was not put to these proceedings, he would inform Mehemet Ali of the acts of atrocity and outrage that had been committed in his name, by which the whole country was

1371
destroyed, and thousands of women and children, who could have taken no part in the rising, were made to perish. The answer of the commander of the Egyptian army was that it was the insurgents that had set fire to and destroyed the neighbouring villages and crops; but he had the satisfaction to believe that the urgent recommendations of Captain Napier had been the means of putting a stop to scenes of this horrible nature. His hon. Friend asked for a copy of the convention that had been entered into with the other great powers; that a convention had been entered into was certain, but it was not fulfilled, until it was ratified and exchanged by each of the powers that was a party to it, and until this was done it was impossible that the document could be made public, or that it could be laid before Parliament. It had not yet been ratified or exchanged, but he had not the slightest doubt that it would be exchanged, but it was impossible for him to tell what the objects of the convention would be until this was done. Whenever the convention was ratified and exchanged, there could be no objection, on the contrary, there would be every desire to lay it on the Table. His hon. Friend stated, that he or the Government had abandoned the alliance with France, and had embarked with the Holy Alliance in the pursuit of interests hostile to those of England, and which could only promote the advantage or interest of one of the five powers, who were parties to the convention, viz., Russia. Now, he could give a most complete and entire contradiction to the conclusion drawn by his hon. Friend. He denied, that there was any disposition on the part of the Government of this country to abandon the alliance or intimate connection which existed with France, and to which he had always attached the greatest importance, knowing, as he did, how beneficial it was to the two countries, and how essential it was for the preservation of the peace of Europe; and although upon this particular subject there had been some, he trusted unimportant differences — for no doubt, there had been some difference of opinion—for that power did not assist in the late convention; yet he spoke with hope and confidence that he did not believe that this could operate on the good feelings which existed between the two countries, and that it would not interfere
1372
with those long-enduring and lasting interests which should connect France and England together, and that it could not lead to a permanent hostile feeling between two great nations which had so many interests in common; on the contrary, so far from any abandonment of France, he could repeat what had been stated elsewhere, that he was happy to say that in these proceedings no concealment had been practised towards France. No exertion had been wanted on the part of this country, or of the other parties to the convention, to bring that nation to adopt something like an unison of views with the other powers on the subject during the negotiations for the last twelve months. For, with respect to the maintenance of the integrity of Turkey under the existing destiny, there never existed any difference between France and the other powers. The French government declared in the most positive manner, that it was as anxious for the maintenance of the Turkish empire in its integrity. In the month of July, last year, France joined in declaring, with the other four powers, that it considered the maintenance of the present dynasty in Turkey essential to the peace of Europe, and that it was determined, with the other powers, to prevent any dismemberment of that empire. Again, the King of the French, in the speech from the throne to the two chambers, at the commencement of the present year, declared that:—
"Our policy is always to secure the preservation and integrity of the Ottoman Empire, whose existence is so essential to the preservation of the general peace. Our efforts have at least succeeded in stopping those hostilities in the East which we had wished to have prevented; and whatever may be the complications which may result from the diversity of interest, I hope that the agreement of the Great Powers will soon end in an equitable and pacific conclusion.''
On this point, there was no more difference between the two Governments than there was between his hon. Friend and himself. There was undoubtedly a difference of opinion as to the tendency of particular measures to contribute to the end which both nations had in view, and the result of events would show which was in the right. When two great countries agreed in the great and leading principles of a particular policy, he could not believe that any divergence as to the mode of

1373
carrying out that policy, or their objects, could lead to any permanent difference. His hon. Friend said, that the object of the convention was to weaken and divide Turkey. He could not understand by what process of reasoning his hon. Friend arrived at this conclusion, or how he could suppose that the restoring Syria to the direct authority of the Sultan could have the effect of weakening and dismembering the Turkish empire and destroying its power. He certainly thought that the adoption of the suggestions of his hon. Friend would tend that way, for his hon. Friend would at once give to Mehemet Ali the hereditary government of Egypt and of Syria. By giving him Syria, he would have the constant means of access to some of the most vulnerable parts of the Turkish empire, for the line of separation that was proposed to be drawn would leave open some most important provinces to constant attack. If his hon Friend looked to the documents on this subject, from which he had quoted, he would find amongst the latest papers a letter from Colonel Hodges, in which he stated:—
"The Pacha said that he would persist in retaining Syria, and in the object that he had of making himself independent.''
Now, if this was not a dismemberment of the Turkish empire, he did not know what was. Colonel Hodges then went on to say:—
"Your Lordship will see that Mehemet Ali is using every exertion in his power to endeavour to effect the object with reference to which he is so anxious."
He therefore contended that the direct tendency of the policy advocated by his hon. Friend would be the dismemberment of the Turkish empire; for he would place one third of it under the government of the most bitter enemy to the Porte. Turkey, weakened in this way, and so many of her richest provinces taken from her, and transferred to her formidable rival, would be almost at the constant mercy of the latter. In a case of emergency she could not call upon France, nor could she demand any aid from England, according to the policy of his hon. Friend, of nonintervention; she must then resort to Russia, and by that means they would place the Sultan in a state of weakness and exhaustion, under the protection of that power of which his hon. Friend was so jea-
1374
lous: and this must be at a price most dangerous to the peace of Europe. If Russia, then, entertained the project which his hon. Friend said that she did, his policy would be the most dangerous that could be adopted for the promotion of it. His hon. Friend had asked what had become of the treaty of Unkiar Skelessi? He could tell his hon. Friend that Russia had stated that other powers had mistaken her intentions with respect to that treaty, and that in signing it she had not been actuated by any selfish or exclusive views, and she would consent if the other powers of Europe would join with her, and take the position she held with reference to this treaty between herself and Turkey, that she would not renew it, as she did not wish to have any exclusive control in the matter. Therefore, the distinct policy of her Majesty's Government and the other powers led to a clear understanding, that the separate treaty between Russia and Turkey should expire, and should not be renewed. As to what his hon. Friend had alluded to with respect to the holy alliance, he could only say that his hon. Friend entertained a most unfounded impression on the subject. What on earth had the holy alliance to do with this treaty, which had been entered into for a specific purpose? The treaty, also, was not with the same parties that contracted the holy alliance, for England was no party to that alliance, and France of that day, although not directly a party to it, was by no means adverse to it. It was the anxious desire of the five powers (for he might include Turkey in the number), that France should be induced to join in the proceedings that had taken place, for it must be obvious that it was most desirable that France should give the weight of its moral influence to the alliance, and thus secure the peace of Europe beyond all doubt. It was with the deepest regret, then, that her Majesty's Government found that it could not obtain the consent of France to the proceedings that had recently taken place. But in all the communications with, the government of France since that time, there was no foundation for the impression which had been attempted to be spread in certain places; and, above all, in France, as to certain hostile intentions existing with respect to the arrangements which had been come to by the other powers. He most sincerely hoped, and believed that any mere differences as to the carrying out the same

1375
object would not lead to any interference with the peace and harmony which existed between the two countries. France was a great and powerful nation—France had great interests of her own to advance in peace, and she was governed by men who were too wise rashly and wantonly, and without just cause, to convert Europe into one general scene of war, and thus put a stop to the general peace which now so happily existed. There was nothing in the engagements which had been entered into, which ought to give rise, even in the view of the most jealous mind, to a supposition that any hostile feeling was entertained towards France. And he could assure the House, that in the whole of our proceedings, nothing had been done in any way inimical to the interests of France, and if she did not embark in the same course of policy with us in carrying out the common object, he trusted that the enlightened government of France would not embark in a hostile career as alluded to by his hon. Friend. He would only add, that as the treaty had not been ratified, it could not be produced; but, when that was done, he could assure his hon. Friend there would be no delay in laying it en the table; and when the convention was published, and her Majesty's ministers were enabled to lay before the House the negotiations that had been carried on, and the reasons which had influenced them, and the motives which impelled them in the course which they had thought it to be their duty to pursue on this subject, he felt assured—he had almost said, that his hon. Friend would be convinced—that not only England but Europe at large would admit that the line of policy that had been adopted and carried out was the best calculated to put a stop to those unhappy scenes in the Levant, which, if allowed to continue, must be destructive to the peace of Europe.
Mr. Leaderwas sure, that the House must be gratified that his hon. Friend had brought forward this motion, for the explanation of the noble Lord must have given some satisfaction even to his hon. Friend. For his own part, he was willing to admit, that it was of a much more satisfactory nature than he expected to hear. He was sorry to find, that the exclusion of France from the negotiations on this subject had led to the manifestation of such a feeling of bitter hostility amongst the French on account of the ill-treatment
1376
which they believed they had experienced from this country on this subject. Looking into the French papers, there appeared to be a general feeling of bitterness and disappointment, and a belief, that their honour had been insulted, and that in these proceedings the noble Lord had sacrificed them to the other great powers of Europe. If this feeling was allowed to continue it must lead to the very worst consequences. The noble Lord would allow him to ask whether in the course of their proceedings or negotiations, there had been no concealment, as he had heard from several quarters, and it appeared to be the general feeling in France, that there had been a want of official courtesy towards France in the mode in which these negotiations were carried on. It was stated, that when the convention was signed, the Minister of France in this country did not even know the day. The noble Lord had stated, that France did not take any part towards the conclusion of these negotiations, but when the convention was agreed to by the other powers, and when the negotiations were brought to a close, it had been stated that France should either have an opportunity of assenting to it, or that, at any rate, the French Ambassador should have had an opportunity of giving the reasons which induced France not to assent to it. It was broadly asserted in the French papers that no intimation whatever was given to France on the subject. He might be told that this was a mere matter of form in the negotiations, but unfortunately the French were very nice and touchy on points of honour in matters of this kind, and certainly they could not be blamed for having a nice sense of honour, and there was, in addition to this, a feeling that this country wished to act against them or over-reach them in this matter. He sincerely hoped, that there was no ground for any feeling of the kind, for the newspapers in France exercised a much greater influence over the minds of the people than they did in this country. That strong feeling did not seem to be manifested against the other three powers, Prussia, Austria, or Russia, but was entirely directed against England, for France imagined that there had been something like a breach of confidence in the proceedings, after she had been for the last ten years on such terms of amity with this country. It should be remembered that

1377
France and England were the foremost and most enlightened Governments in Europe, for in them alone was there anything like liberal government or institutions, and, united, these two great countries could secure the peace of Europe: but in this matter France unfortunately imagined that this country had left or abandoned her, to court the alliance of the other powers. Whatever advantages the noble Lord imagined might be obtained in the East by these negotiations, they were as nothing in comparison to the evils that would arise from the breach of the alliance between England and France. He would only add, that he sincerely hoped that this was not the first step towards a change of policy on the part of this country. He hoped that there was no feeling in the present Government, and he hoped that there would be no such feeling in any Tory Government that might succeed it, that there was a too liberal feeling growing up in France for an intimate alliance with this country, and that, therefore, it was expedient to unite with other governments more disposed to these views. He hoped that the noble Lord would distinctly state that no affront whatever was intended to France in any steps of this negotiation, and he must add, that for his own part he did not believe that either the noble Lord or any one else could commit such a blunder.
Viscount Palmerstonsaid, that although it was not exactly in order, he trusted that the House would allow him to make one or two observations in consequence of what had fallen from the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down. He could assure the hon. Member, and he could assure the House, that there was no want of courtesy whatever towards France in the manner in which these negotiations had been carried on. During the course of the last ten months, it was the desire of all the powers to act in concert to secure the important object with respect to which they were all agreed, but it turned out, after a short time, that there was such a difference of opinion between France and the other powers as to the measures which should be adopted to insure the result which all desired, that they could not act together with any probability of arriving at a conclusion. On this being found to be the case a communication was made to France that if this difficulty continued, and the other four powers came to
1378
an understanding on the subject, that must not be a matter of surprise to her. In the course of the negotiations which were then carried on with the view of arriving at a general conclusion, a projet was drawn up on our side which was presented to France, which was answered by a contre projet on her part. Thus there was one plan furnished on our side, and another on the part of France. We then offered a middle course to which France stated, that she could not agree. Again, between two and three months before the convention was signed, a communication was made to her on this subject, and it was distinctly stated to be the extreme to which the other powers were prepared to go. After two months' deliberation she gave pointed and conclusive reasons why she could not be a party to this arrangement. The four powers then determined, in accordance with the regulation already made with France, that they would join in carrying the arrangement into effect, and notice of the same was given to the French Minister two days after it was completed. In the case of the convention made between France and England alone, in reference to Belgium, notice of the same was not communicated to the other powers till some time after.
Motion withdrawn.

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a second time:—Linen Manufactures, &c. (Ireland); Dublin Police; Postage; Highway Rates; Ecclesiastical Courts (No. 1); Stock in Trade (No. 2).—Read a third time:—Militia Pay; Militia Ballots Suspension; East India Shipping; Bank of Ireland; Isle of Man; Slave Trade Treaties (Venezuela); Notice of Elections; Attorneys and Solicitors (Ireland); Slave Trade Treaties; New South Wales and Van Dieman's Land; Pilots; Population (Ireland); Court Houses (Ireland); Joint Stock Banking Companies; Church Temporalities (Ireland); Population; Loan Societies; Commerce and Navigation.
Petitions presented. By Lord Lyndhurst, from the Solicitors in the Metropolis, to reform the Court of Chancery.

HOLYHEAD ROAD.
Viscount Duncannon Viscount Duncannon moved the Order of the Day for the House going into committee on the Holyhead and Shrewsbury Roads bill The object of the bill was the improvement of this line of road. The alteration on the road between London and Dunstable had been executed for less than the estimated sum, while the improvement beyond Dunstable exceeded the estimate, chiefly in consequence of the purchase of lands. The bill provided, that the sum of 2,000 l. which was saved on the estimate of the works between London and Dun-stable should be made applicable to the expence incurred by the works beyond Dunstable.
The Marquess of Salisburysaid, had this bill been introduced earlier in the session, he would have moved, that it be referred to a committee up stairs, in order to show not only the gross negligence, but, to use a harsher phrase, the gross malversation which was observable in the proceedings of (as we understood) the Dunstable trust. He had many objections to this measure. By the former bill the funds necessary for the improvement of the road were voted by Parliament, but by the present measure Sir Henry Parnell, and four commissioners, were authorised to expend any money they pleased without any efficient control. The noble Marquess moved "that the bill be committed this day three months."
Their Lordships divided on the original motion:—Contents 24; Not Contents 23; Majority 1.
Bill went through committee.

CRACOW.
Lord Lyndhursthad to present to their Lordships two petitions, the one from the merchants of the city of London, the other from the merchants of the borough of Birmingham, on the subject of the present state of the republic of Cracow, with reference to its commercial relations. He had been in possession of those petitions for a considerable period, and he rejoiced that he had not presented them sooner, because, from circumstances which had recently occurred, he had some reason to hope, that events were in progress that would beneficially alter the situation of the inhabitants of Cracow. He alluded to the sentiments expressed by the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (who must be taken as the representative of the Government) with respect to the conduct that had been observed towards the republic of Cracow. That noble Lord was stated to have described the proceedings adopted with reference to the republic of Cracow as a gross violation of the treaty of Vienna, and so far an injury, and consequently an affront, to the people of this country. The noble Lord further admitted that the pretence on which those proceedings were founded was false in fact, and afforded no justification for them. It was also, he understood, stated by the noble Lord, and he rejoiced in it, that Her Majesty's Ministers took a deep interest in the prosperity and welfare of this republic; and further, that pressing remonstrances had been made, and were
1346
still making, to Austria, to induce her to withdraw her troops from the territory of that republic, and to restore it to the situation in which it was placed by the treaty of Vienna. All these facts were admitted by Government; and when he heard that a new alliance had been entered into between this country and the courts of St. Petersburg and Vienna, which must, of course, give so much additional influence to Her Majesty's Government at those courts, he could not but express his extreme regret that the remonstrance made by Her Majesty's Government to those courts, earnest as they might have been, were not attended with success. However, he looked forward with hope to the withdrawal of the Austrian troops from the republic of Cracow at no distant period, and the consequent renewal of that state of commercial as well as political independence which was guaranteed to the republic by the treaty of Vienna. The petitions referred merely to the commercial character of the republic. One of them was signed by merchants of the city of London, the other by merchants and manufacturers of the town of Birmingham; and when he adverted to the names by which the former was signed, when he looked at one name which was affixed to the petition that he then lied in his hand, he confidently expected that the appeal would be successful. The second name appended to the petition was that of a firm supporter—nay, he might add, the guide and director of Her Majesty's Government, and he could not suppose that a petition thus signed would not be attended to. The signature was that of "Daniel O'Connell, a Governor and Director of the National Bank of Ireland, No. 13, Old Broad-street." He knew that some persons were inclined to underrate the commercial importance of the republic of Cracow. but that, he believed, arose from a want of knowledge as to the geographical position of the republic, and a gross misunderstanding as to the spirit and enterprise of the merchants of this country, who were anxious to avail themselves for commercial purposes of that advantageous position.
Petitions laid on the table.

ANTI-MINISTERIALPETITIONS.
Lord Lyndhursthad another petition to present, signed by 40,000 operatives of the city of Glasgow; and, from the statements made

1347
to him, he had reason to believe that it was so signed without any recourse to those arts which were usually resorted to on similar occasions. It was, he conceived, of the utmost importance to their Lordships that the petition of such a numerous body of persons of this class should be seriously considered and attended to by their Lordships. With that view he would read the contents of the petition to their Lordships. He did so, because there was no other mode by which he could fairly and properly discharge the duty which he owed to the petitioners. The noble and learned Lord accordingly read the petition.
"That Her Majesty's present Ministers came into office through the support they obtained from the operatives of this country, in the expectation they had held out and the pledge they had given, of effecting the reform of existing abuses, of retrenching lavish and insupportable expenditure, and of preserving the blessings of peace to the empire.
"That, in regard to the reform of abuses that did exist, they have done nothing of that which they promised, and that they have created abuses unknown before. That in regard to the public expenditure, insupportable before, and which they had pledged themselves to retrench, they have done nothing, but, on the contrary, augmented that expenditure. That in regard to peace,— they found peace— they have brought war.
"That these Ministers are the first Ministers of the British Crown who have come into office through popular agitation. That, using with cruelty the power which they had obtained by perfidy, they have directed the worst rigours of the law against the very men by whom they have been raised, while in pursuit of objects identical with those which they had encouraged.
"That at the period when these Ministers obtained the management of public affairs this country was oppressed with an enormous debt, the result of the previous mismanagement of our foreign affairs, was oppressed still more grievously by the injurious mode in which the revenue was assessed, resulting from the miscomprehension of their predecessors of our domestic concerns.
"That the present Ministry have done nothing to reduce that debt, or to correct the false and oppressive mode of taxation, but, on the contrary, commenced their career by an assault upon the last remnants of the constitutional taxation of this empire. That whereas even the previous Administrations had, during peace, diminished the burden of the public debt. That whereas the Administration which immediately preceded them had reduced the taxation of this country to the
1348
amount of several millions sterling yearly, the present Ministers have ceased to pay off that debt, and have furthermore brought about a defalcation in the public revenue, and are now about to impose new taxes, and to make this taxation fall on objects of primary necessity to the working classes.
"That a degrading system of corruption has been introduced on the pretence of commissions to inquire into grievances, through which extensive corruptions of men of ability have taken place, money is expended, and the people have been beguiled by delusive hopes.
"That the prospects of increased expenditure, of additional demands for troops and for ships, are presented in the colonies, at home, and throughout the world, by the universal mismanagement of our affairs, by the violation of the rights of our fellow-subjects, by the submission to insult and to outrage from foreign Powers, by the contempt into which Her Majesty's crown has been brought, and by the injustice inspired into the councils of every foreign stale, through the hopes awakened of the dismemberment of the British empire-
"That Her Majesty's present Ministers found the colonies of North America in a state of tranquillity, that they have brought them into one of insurrection.
"That they found this country allied to France—that they have submitted to the encroachments of that power upon the territories of our allies, and to the violation by her of our commercial rights, and, consequently, they have placed present hostility, and laid the grounds of war, between this country and France.
"That they found Poland an independent slate, and they have reduced it, suffering the violation of a treaty guaranteed by Great Britain, to the condition of a province of Russia.
"That they have suffered, encouraged, and co-operated in the progressive encroachments of Russia, while setting treaties at nought— assaulting our allies—fomenting insurrections and organizing conspiracies throughout the territories that own allegiance to your Majesty's crown.
"That by their concurrence with Russia they have overthrown the strength of Circassia, suffering on its coasts the seizure of a British vessel while engaged in lawful traffic.
"That by secret and treasonable collusion with Russia to set up her protegé on the throne of Persia, they have reduced that state to subserviency to Russia, and led it to join with her for the conquest of India.
"That they have invaded Afghanistan without a declaration of war, and for the purpose of forcing on that people a monarch whom they had thrice expelled, in violation of all laws, human and divine, as in scorn of every British feeling and interest. That they have thus laid prostrate, by treachery and violence, every barrier which withstood the advance of Russia upon India.
"That they found relations of amity and

1349
friendship with China. That they have brought about a state of war.
"That they found India tranquil within, at peace with its neighbours, and defended by a powerful army. That they have fomented revolts and conspiracies, at once by acts of injustice, and by the disbanding of troops, while they have engaged in war in Central and in Eastern Asia, and rendered the whole population of that quarter of the globe, our enemies.
"That they found the differences with the United States, in respect to the North American boundary, adjusted by treaty, that they have broken up that adjustment, and that they have sown the seeds of war between the United States and Great Britain.
"That they have suffered the violation of British rights, and the interruption of British commerce throughout Poland, throughout Germany, along the shores of the Gulf of Mexico, around the whole coast of South America, along the northern and the eastern coasts of Africa, through the kingdom of Persia, and by a voluntary act have interfered to upset the lights of British commerce in Turkey.
"That, under the pretext of settling the affairs of the Peninsula, they have deluged it with blood, and filled it with convulsion.
"That, prolonging' the disasters of Spain, they have expended British blood and treasure in an assault on the rights of British commerce, guaranteed in the institutions of that country, which they have assailed.
"That they have paid to Russia the Russio-Dutch loan, in opposition to the spirit of the original compact, and after existing treaties between Russia and England had been abrogated by her act.
"That they have betrayed to Russia a nation who had placed its independence in the hands of Great Britain—Greece; sacrificing many millions sterling to effect that purpose, and abrogating the rights of the British bondholders in order to transfer the same to Russia.
"That by a secret conclave established in London they have overthrown the internal liberties, and the external independence of all the minor states of Europe, Asia, and America, and have done so in conjunction with two powers, our enemies—Russia and France.
"That, while prostituting the power of England in every region of the globe for the advancement of the hostile designs of powers whom their treason has rallied against England, they have sacrificed British property or British money, and British commerce, to an extent of 50,000,000 l. sterling.
"That they have suffered the decay of the strength of Britain in her navy — that the shores of England are unprotected—that the vessels they possess are sent to distant stations where they are useful only to advance the designs of foreign powers, and that they suffered armaments in peace only calculated for war,
1350
and which enable other powers to insult this country with impunity, and to endanger its existence.
"That this dilapidation of the public affairs has imposed the necessity of increased taxation, the weight of which must fall upon the operatives, and fall the more severely, because of their intention to make this new taxation rest upon the necessaries of life.
"That the sacrifice of commercial rights, and the further diminution of our commerce, must fall on the working classes, throwing them out of work, and depriving them of food.
"That the prospect held out by the past presents increase of taxation, loss of commerce, further expenditure of our blood and treasure, and ultimately war with the states whose hostility has been created, and the dismemberment of the colonies whose affections have been lost.
"While, therefore, the present Ministers of her Majesty have come into power on the confidence they have falsely created in the industrial population of this land by professions of reform, by pledges of peace, by hopes of retrenchment, they have introduced new abuses, increased expenditure, involved this land in unjust and injurious wars with small states, and rendered next to inevitable collision with the great powers of Europe and America. That they are, therefore, unworthy of confidence, and that their removal and punishment is necessary to save this country from ruin,"
He had another petition, the noble Lord continued, of a similar description, from the merchants, manufacturers, operatives, and other inhabitants of the town of Newcastle - upon - Tyne; it differed, however, from the other in two particulars for it condemned the course taken by Ministers in making an assault upon the kingdom of the Two Sicilies, and thus attacking the weak, while they crouched to the strong; and it complained of the alienation which existed between England and the power whose good-will it was especially our interest to preserve, namely, Austria. Having stated to their Lordships the contents of these petitions, he had performed that which his duty prescribed to him, and should not trouble their Lordships any further.
Viscount Melbournesaid, that with respect to the observations which the noble and learned Lord had made on the subject of Cracow, they required no remark on his part, nor was it necessary, that the noble and learned Lord should have given him any notice of his intention to present that petition. The noble and learned Lord had stated with

1351
perfect accuracy both the language and the intentions of her Majesty's Government upon the subject, and he might depend upon it that those intentions would be fully acted up to, and every exertion made, in order to induce Russia to observe the terms of the treaty entered into at Vienna. With respect to the petitions from Glasgow, and from Newcastle-upon-Tyne, which the noble and learned Lord had rather in an unusual, and according to the strict usage of the House, in a somewhat irregular manner read at length to the House, he did not know whether the noble and learned Lord concurred with the statements contained in those petitions or not. The noble and learned Lord contented himself with reading them, without stating, whether he agreed with all, or any, and if with any, what part of those statements, or whether he disagreed with them, and what part of them. Perhaps, the noble and learned Lord, finding such petitions placed in his hands, thought it very fair to make them stand in lieu of and serve for that speech he generally made at the end of every Session of Parliament. The first petition certainly was very much like the speeches which the noble and learned Lord usually delivered at the close of their sessional labours. It was just as unmeasured in language, just as unfounded in assertion, and precisely tending to the same end, namely, to cast obloquy on her Majesty's Ministers, to produce if possible, their dismissal, and to serve as a theme during the whole vacation for speeches at Conservative meetings and Conservative dinners. The noble and learned Lord had said, that the petition was put into his hands early in the Session, therefore it was quite fair to conclude that he reserved it for this period exactly on that account, and because he conceived it would serve that purpose. But he knew not how much of that petition the noble and learned Lord adopted as expressive of his own opinions, or how much of it he did not adopt. It professed to be the petition of certain operatives of Glasgow, but it was pretty clear that no operative had anything to do with its concoction. It was tolerably clear where the document came from. It was impossible not to know the style, and that if it were not from the noble and learned Lord's own pen, it was from the pen of one entertaining kindred feelings with the noble
1352
and learned Lord on many topics. However, all that he felt it necessary to say was, that if the noble and learned Lord should at any time think it his duty to bring forward as matter of charge against her Majesty's Ministers any of the allegations contained in the petition from the operatives of Glasgow, they would be ready to meet him and defend themselves against any such accusations.
Lord Lyndhurstsaid, in explanation that he either must have stated the substance of the petition, or must have read it, to enable their Lordships to understand the grounds of its prayer; and from the complicated nature of the things to which it referred, and from the expressions it used, he thought it much safer to read the petition at length. He did not know to whom the noble Viscount alluded when speaking of the probable author of the petition, but he presumed that the noble Viscount did not mean to suggest that he had had anything to do with it.
The Marquess of Londonderrydid not agree in all that the petitioners alleged. He regretted that the noble and learned Lord had not given regular notice of his intention before the close of the Session to bring forward the question of our foreign policy, because he felt strongly that if the Session were allowed to terminate without some discussion and some understanding as to the course which her Majesty's Ministers were determined to pursue with respect to Spain, and with respect to the new alliance which the British Government had recently formed, the noble Viscount would incur a responsibility heavier than had ever rested upon any Minister. He remembered (and he lamented it extremely) that in the course of the last year a sort of an itinerant orator went about thecountry—in the north more particularly—and made harangues at public meetings on our foreign policy, and gave out opinions which were calculated to mislead persons not accustomed to look into such questions. He talked about Russia, and Austria and Prussia, and a great deal more which he would venture to say the speaker himself knew very little about: and there was no doubt that these petitions were got up at that time. With respect to our policy in Spain, what he would ask their Lordships, had been the fruits of the quadruple alliance ever since 1834? That alliance, which had been followed by a new quadruple

1353
alliance of a very different character? Certainly a most extraordinary, a most desirable, and a most delightful change seemed to have taken place in the opinions and "foreign sentiments" of her Majesty's Ministers. Their Lordships had arrived at a most extraordinary era, when they found the same Ministry who, almost within "six months," concocted and framed a quadruple alliance to keep the despots of the north (as they were designated) in subjection, now entering into au alliance with those very powers. Their Lordships knew that great apprehensions were entertained that France would not act up to the terms of the quadruple alliance, and that repeated complaints had been made as to the course she was taking, not only in Spain, but in the north, in Egypt, and at Buenos Ayres; that she had never given any explanation respecting her retaining possession of Algiers. Altogether she had not acted with that openness and fairness, and with that intimate and cordial friendship towards England that she was bound by treaty to do. The same Ministers were now turning about and making a treaty, and wisely so, with the very powers against whom the former quadruple treaty was formed, and what to do? Why, to keep France in awe. Could these Powers trust the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in the same way as they would an individual who had not been, as he had been, connected with all those former transactions with respect to the original quadruple treaty? The conduct of the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs was, to use a vulgar expression, like what the song described in the words:—"Wheel about, turn about, jump Jim Crow." He did not, however, wish it to be supposed that he was the individual who disapproved of the line her Majesty's Ministers had taken with respcet to the new negotiation. With every wish to keep on the very best terms with France, and with every desire to preserve that state of amity and mutual co-operation that had so long existed, he was not willing that the British Government should allow France to cajole us, or that they should suffer it to be supposed that England was afraid of France, or that she was not determined to do her duty because France chose to put off, by negotiation and delay, an important arrangement of European affairs. He
1354
congratulated her Majesty's Ministers at having taken a decided and bold line of policy, and if they were determined to pursue it, humble as his support was, he would readily give it to them. He believed that the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs was coming round to the Conservative policy, and he heartily congratulated him upon it. He would now state what had been the result of the first quadruple treaty. It was this; first, that from twenty-five millions to thirty millions of pounds sterling had been obtained from the capitalists of this country by loans, of which the lenders, he believed, found great difficulty to obtain the interest. Secondly, there had been two millions in stores supplied by the Government; and thirdly, 10,000 lives had been sacrificed. These were the fruits of the first quadruple alliance. He wished to know, now that that treaty was at an end, what were the relations of this country with Spain? Were they disposed to support the queen and her ministers, or Espartero? There might be a difference of opinion between those who were parties to the new quadruple alliance and those who signed the old quadruple alliance with respect to the course of policy to be pursued in relation to the affairs of Spain. The old quadruple alliance had now ceased. Don Carlos being in France the treaty was at an end; but our ambassadors and ministers were there, and what he wished to know was to whom were they accredited? Were they accredited to the queen's government or to Espartero? He called upon the noble Viscount to state the course he intended to pursue with respect to the civil war that still existed in Spain. He could not for his life and soul help thinking that the foreign policy of her Majesty's Ministers was, like other things, made an open question. After eulogizing the Emperor of Russia, whom the noble Marquess described as the most able, the most accomplished, and the soundest politician in the world, the noble Marquess concluded by saying that he looked upon the new alliance formed by this country as a means of preserving the peace of Europe. He never could believe that France failing, as she had done, in her engagements, would be mad enough to attempt unnecessarily to embark in a war. He gave her Majesty's Ministers credit for the course they were pursuing. He hoped, before the Session closed, they

1355
would come down and ask for a vote of an additional number of seamen. When he saw France adding eight or ten sail of the line to her fleet, and looked at the preparations she was making in every quarter, he could not but hope that the noble Viscount would take effective measures in time to show to France, that though we were most desirous of preserving an alliance and an intimacy with France, yet we never would submit either to be deluded or kept in ignorance, month after month, of what were her intentions, or ever submit to be dictated to in any shape as to what were the true principles we ought to pursue for the best interests of Europe.
Lord Broughamsaid, the petition presented by my noble and learned Friend embraces so wide a scope, and goes over such an unlimited length of time, and matters of such various kinds, and alludes so much to almost every topic of policy of this country, whether foreign, colonial, or domestic, that I can hardly imagine any observations upon any branch of our policy which would not be strictly regular upon the question that the petition be laid on the table. I do not, however, mean to be tempted by the noble Marquess to follow him over any one part of that wide field to which his observations have been applied. I rise simply to guard myself against any misconstruction or misapprehension of what I stated the other evening, and to which the noble Marquess has referred this night, and which I shall do in one single sentence. Upon facts not before us, upon matters which were unknown to me, and upon which I could only speak hypothetically, of course I could give no opinion; but I meant to state, and if I did not then distinctly stale it, I will state it now, that I should most deeply lament (and herein, I think, however we may differ on other matters, even the noble Marquess and I shall be found to be in alliance)—that I should most deeply lament not only anything which tended to shake, still more to interrupt, but anything which even had a tendency to endanger that good understanding between England and France which has happily for so many years prevailed— and by prevailing, preserved the peace of the world; and that I should in proportion to that feeling disapprove, and pointedly disapprove, of any alteration in our policy which could lead so to endanger
1356
that alliance.—Petitions laid on the table.

MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (IRELAND).
Viscount Duncannon Viscount Duncannon moved the Order of the Day for their Lordships taking into consideration the Commons' amendments to the Lords' amendments of the Municipal Corporations (Ireland) Bill.
Lord Lyndhurstsaid, that he understood the amendments of the other House were to be merely verbal, but instead of that being the case, they opened up every question which their Lordships had been discussing for the last three months. Whatever other noble Lords might do, he would not discuss these questions over again, but when the amendments were moved would simply state whether he agreed or disagreed with them.
The amendments were then read seriatim. Those which Lord Lyndhurst objected to were negatived without a division; the others were adopted.
The Marquess of Lansdownesaid, he had not objected to the course which the noble Lord had adopted, in dealing with these amendments, solely because he wished to bring the question to a determination, and without reference to the course which, under other circumstances, he should have felt himself bound to have followed. He was desirous of taking the present opportunity of stating, without wishing to revive discussion, that he thought the House of Commons had given the strongest proof that it was possible for them to give of their desire to come to some agreement with their Lordships, by abstaining from re-introducing into this bill, and by assenting to the amendment of their Lordships, for withdrawing any provision for the better administration and delivery of the prisons in Dublin. He had reason to know, that nothing but a desire to see the question set at rest could have induced the House of Commons to concur in the withdrawal of that provision. It was partly for a like reason that he now offered no opposition to the proceedings of the noble and learned Lord, and partly because the subject was one which was capable of being re-considered, as indeed it ought to be, in conjunction with the state of prisons, and separately from the objects of the present bill. The subject would be considered in another Session, which he hoped would not terminate without giving to Dublin a more frequent

1357
delivery of prisons, for their present state was such as to call for the interference of the Legislature, and the vigorous determination of Government. There was no sacrifice which he was not prepared to make to carry out this important measure, which he hoped would work for the happiness of Ireland, and for the benefit of the United Kingdom.
Lord Broughamperfectly agreed with the noble Marquess who had just spoken, that great sacrifices had been made to carry this bill; but in regard to the other measure adverted to by the noble Marquess, namely, that relating to a general delivery of prisons, he hoped that Government would not stop there, but that they would proceed at an early period next Session, not only with that particular measure, but with that other one to which reference had been made some time ago— he meant the general measure for the purpose of excluding all judicial officers— not from their Lordships' House, for there was no need of that, but from holding a seat in the other House of Parliament.
On the motion of Lord Lyndhurst, a committee was named to draw up reasons for not agreeing to the amendments of the Commons, and a conference requested for the following day.

CANADA—CLERGY RESERVES.
On the motion of Lord Duncannon, the Canada Clergy Reserves Bill was read a third time.
The Archbishop of Canterburywas sorry to see that a noble Lord (Lord Ellen-borough), who had on a former night moved an amendment on this subject, was not in his place; that amendment, which their Lordships had adopted, would bear most heavily on the Church. It was to give a power to the Crown to give its consent to any bill which the colonial legislature might pass, enacting that the proceeds arising from the sale of the clergy reserves should form a separate debt, and should bear a uniform rate of interest. He thought that it would be inconvenient not to make this question final; but their Lordships would observe, that such an amendment would give a power to the colonial Legislature and the Crown, to apply all the money received from the sale of clergy reserves to the use of the province —the interest proposed to be allowed to the clergy for the use of the money was five per cent,, to be paid before any other
1358
debt. But even with this advantage, he asked their Lordships whether they would consent to dispose of their own funds or property in this way. The security was not very good; the interest was limited to five per cent.; and the clergy would be without the power of drawing out any amount of principal, however much it might be required. More than this, the stock so proposed to be created would be naturally affected by any resolution which might take place in the province. He, therefore, moved that the clause be struck out.
Agreed to.—Bill passed.

ECCLESIASTICAL DUTIES AND REVENUES.
The Ecclesiastical Duties and Revenues Bill was committed, and several amendments agreed to.
The House having resumed, the standing orders, Nos. 26 and 155 were dispensed with, after the Earl of Harrowby had warmly protested against this indecent haste.
The report ordered to be received.
The Bishop of Exeterrose to move a proviso to be added to the 24th clause, to exempt the deanery of Exeter from the general operation of the clause. The ground upon which he made this motion would be gathered from the following facts:—The crown lawyers applied to the Court of Queen's Bench to issue a mandamus to compel the chapter of Exeter to admit the person whom the Crown had chosen to appoint as dean. After a full and careful consideration, the court came to an unanimous decision, which it delivered in the following terms:—
"We are of opinion that no court would be justified in originating proceedings, of which the termination desired by the applicant could be obtained only by a jury affirming by their verdict, as a fact, that which the said court is fully persuaded to be false, and no man acquainted with the subject believes to be true."
Language so strong as that was seldom employed by the Court of Queen's Bench in its decisions. But that was not all. The Crown having insisted that it had the right to recommend the dean to the adoption of the chapter, the court proceeded in its decision, to say:—
"The deanery of Exeter is a private foundation, of which the Crown is not the patron or founder, and cannot furnish any ground on which the court would be warranted in issuing

1359
a writ of mandamus. The writ, therefore, must be discharged."
If this decision of the court had been given before the ecclesiastical commissioners drew up their recommendations, he was perfectly certain that the deanery of Exeter would have been excepted. The decision of the court, however, was comparatively recent, whilst the recommendations of the commissioners were made in 1837. Under the circumstances he had stated, he was sure their Lordships would have no difficulty in agreeing to the proviso he now proposed, which was to take the deanery of Exeter out of the operation of the clause.
Viscount Melbournesaid, that notwithstanding the peculiar circumstances which had no doubt been accurately detailed by the right rev. Prelate, he apprehended that as the appointment of the deanery of Exeter had been for more than two hundred years in the recommendation of the Crown, and as fourteen successive appointments had been thus made, their Lordships would not see fit to alter the clause. Unquestionably the matter had been brought before the Queen's Bench, and that court had decided they could not give relief in the form in which it was brought before them, but at the same time the court had intimated a strong opinion on the main question of right. Upon the grounds, then, of ancient usage—upon the ground that the deanery in question bad been for such a length of time in the recommendation, and, in fact, in the gift of the Crown—upon the ground of public policy that these high dignities should be in the gift of the Crown—he thought that Parliament ought to continue in the Crown that which had been attached to it so long. Upon these general grounds, not disguising that the question was one of no small difficulty, he considered their Lordships would do well to keep the clause in its present form.
Their Lordships divided—Contents 21; Not contents 31: Majority 10.
Proviso rejected.
The Bishop of Salisburysaid, he had a another proviso to propose, which he trusted would meet with their Lordship's approbation. It related to the residentiary prebends of the old foundation, whose stipends it was proposed to vest in the hands of the commissioners for the improvement of the livings of the parochial clergy. Agreeing with the proposition of
1360
the commissioners, that these offices should be retained as honorary distinctions, he wished that this object should be attained in such a manner as at once to promote the efficiency of the cathedral establishments, and of the parochial administrations. Although these offices were termed sinecures, the holders of them had some statuteable duty to perform, such as preaching at the cathedral at certain periods. Now, it was highly desirable that this duty should be continued or resumed, if for some time back omitted; and the distinction might with great benefit be conferred on the rural deans; but though the attendance at the cathedral would cost but little, it was a charge which these clergymen could not conveniently bear. He therefore merely asked what would cover these expenses. His proviso was to this effect:—"That, under the authority hereinafter mentioned, such stipend, not exceeding 20 l., shall be provided out of the said endowments, as by that authority shall be deemed sufficient."
The Bishop of London:The bill retained these prebends as honorary distinctions. Nothing more was asked for in all the petitions presented on the subject; and he thought they preserved that character much better by having no allowance, than if 20 l. a year were assigned to each. Indeed, in his opinion, they were absolutely useless, except as marks of honour; and so generally was this view adopted, that one of the most able opponents of the bill in that House (the Bishop of Exeter) declared his opinion that the proceeds would be much better devoted in increasing small curacies. He could state as to his own diocese that these prebends seldom attended, and when they did they preached to very small audiences.
The Bishop of Salisbury,in reply, observed that this bill was drawn up too much in accordance with the wants of the diocese of London alone, and maintained that his right rev. Friend the Bishop of Exeter was favourable to his proposition.
Lord Lytteltonproposed a clause, providing that the four canonries of Ely should be attached to the fifteen professorships of Cambridge, and that selection should be with the bishops. He also proposed that the master of Jesus should be included amongst the persons eligible to these canonries.
The Bishop of Lichfieldexpressed his entire approval of the general principles

1361
of this important measure, and also of the clause now proposed, which was in entire accordance with the spirit of this measure. This clause would act as a stimulus to the profession, and he had no doubt that these four stalls would be always filled by the most eminent men in the University.
The Archbishop of Canterburyopposed the clause, as the subject had been deliberately considered by the commissioners, and the resolution they came to was embodied in the bill as it now stood.
The Bishop of Gloucestersupported the clause on the ground that, with the exception of that of divinity, the professorships of Cambridge had no other remuneration beyond 40 l. a year, and were, therefore, obliged to seek to increase their incomes by other employments. The present clause would lend to put these gentlemen upon a footing which the interests of learning deserved.
The Marquess of Lansdowneopposed the clause as being a very inconvenient infraction of the general rule on which the bill was founded.
Their Lordships divided—Contents 20; Not-contents 20: Majority 0.
By the rules of the House, therefore, the not-contents had it, and the clause was rejected.
Lord Lytteltonthen proposed a clause that certain stalls should be appropriated to professorships in the University of Cambridge.
The Archbishop of Canterbury opposed the clause.
Their Lordships divided—Contents 19; Not-contents 25: Majority 6.
The report with amendments was adopted, and the bill read a third time and passed.