Sitting of 27 March 1840

MINUTES.
Bill. Read a third time:—Consolidated Fund.
Petitions presented. By Messrs. Muntz, Strutt, W. Evans, Ward, Williams, Hume, Turner, Thorneley, Salway, Baines, and Sir G. Strickland, from an immense number of places, for, and by Messrs. Neild, R. Hill, Christopher, Dugdale, Bell, Captain Duncombe, Sirs R. Inglis, C. Burreil, Lords Mahon, and C. Manners, Colonel Verner, and the O'Conor Don, from an equally great number of places, against, the Total and Immediate Repeal of the Corn-laws.—By Messrs, C, Ward, Hume, and. Turner,
170
from Southwark, Marylebone, and Blackburn, against the Beer Bill.—By Sir Charles Burrell, and Sir R. Inglis, from two places, for, and by Mr. C. Lushington, from, two places, against, Church Extension.—By Mr. Gladstone, from a place in Nova Scotia, for Church Extension there.—By Mr. Hume, from Glasgow, for Universal Suffrage, and the Ballot.—By Sir Charles Burrell, from one place, and Mr. Dugdale, from Warwick, against the Grant to Maynooth College.—By Mr. Pakington, from three places, for Support to the Established Church in Canada.—By Sir G. Strickland, from Darlington, against the Importation of Hill Coolies.—By Mr. Lambton, from Clerical Bodies of Durham, against the Ecclesiastical Duties and Revenues Bill.—By Mr. Lucas, from Monaghan, against the Importation of Foreign Flour into Ireland. —By Mr. Baines, from several places, in favour of Inland Bonding.

TRADE WITH JAVA.
Mr. Colquhounbegged to ask the noble Lord whether the Java duties had yet been placed upon a footing corresponding with the treaty between this country and Holland upon the subject, and whether any steps had been taken by her Majesty's Government with reference to the new settlement at Sumatra.
Viscount Palmerstonsaid, that one of the subjects of discussion between the two Governments related to the difference between the duties imposed upon British and Dutch imports, our Government contending that the existing tariff was not in conformity with the treaty in this respect. In consequence of this discussion a new tariff had been issued by the Dutch authorities, which was quite satisfactory as regarded the difference of duties, for it fixed the duties in such proportions as were consistent with the terms of the treaty. The question which still remained was, whether, according to the correct interpretation of the treaty, the difference of duty should depend upon the nationality of the commodity or upon that of the flag. We had met with this difficulty in supporting the construction of the treaty for which we contended—namely, that we found the East India Company were acting upon the same interpretation of the treaty as was adopted by the Dutch government. The East India Company was not inclined to make any alteration in the course which they had taken in this respect, and it was therefore not just that we should press our construction of the treaty upon the Dutch government, when the East India Company were acting upon an opposite interpretation. The matter had, consequently, been allowed to rest where it was. With regard to the other subject referred to by the hon. Member, her Majesty's Government had applied to the Government at the Hague to ascertain whether the pro-

171
ceedings of the local authorities at Java, with respect to the new settlement, had taken place with the sanction of the Government at home. The answer was, that those proceedings had taken place with such sanction, and therefore there was no ground for any interference on our part with the authorities at Java, nor was there any ground for supposing that the proceedings of the Dutch authorities would prove injurious to British commerce, for, of course, British subjects would be entitled to trade with the new settlement upon the same terms as those on which they traded with settlements already established.

SANDWICH ISLANDS.
Viscount Ingestriebegged to ask a question of the noble Lord. He had heard that in July last a French frigate had gone to the Sandwich Islands, and forcibly insisted that the governor should allow a site of land for the erection of a Roman Catholic church. The parties further stated, that the captain declared war would be the alternative if the demand were not complied with; and they gave the king of the Sandwich Islands twelve hours to deliberate on the matter, and in the meantime they declared the harbour to be in a state of blockade. He wished to know whether the Government had received any official information to this effect? He wished also to know whether any correspondence had been opened with the French government? And, in the third place, he desired to be informed whether those islands which, in the year 1794, and subsequently in the year 1824, when he was there, had been declared to be under the protection of the British Government, were still considered by the noble Lord to remain in the same position.
Mr. O'Connellobjected to questions being asked which involved so many details, without notice being given.
The Speakersaid the noble Lord was not out of order.
Viscount Palmerstonsaid, he had received no report of the transaction to which the noble Lord had referred. He had had a report of a former transaction of a similar nature.
Mr. O'Connellwished to know whether the Government had received any accounts of the case of Roman Catholic missionaries at Otaheite, same of whom had been tortured on the suggestion of Wesleyan ministers, and expelled.
Viscount Palmerstonsaid, the only case he had heard of was that of two French
172
missionaries, who were expelled from Otaheite about two years ago.

KING OF HANOVER.
Mr. Humesaid that, after the motion he made in May 1838, he had hoped it would have been unnecessary for him to bring the subject of the king of Hanover's pension of 21,000 l. a-year before the House again. He perceived by a Parliamentary account, that the Duke of Cumberland had received, since his accession to the throne of Hanover up to the present period, no less than 53,365 l. When he brought forward this motion in 1838, the House did not concur with him, and his motion was lost by a majority of 35. Since that period, the king of Hanover had had time to reflect on the subject, and he was, no doubt, aware of the financial difficulty in which the country was now placed. He had hoped that the king of Hanover would have followed the example of the king of the Belgians, who had never received one shilling of English money, for he repaid his pension to trustees, who delivered it over to the Treasury, deducting certain allowances to the old servants of the Princess Charlotte, and a sum sufficient to maintain the Claremont estate. He had hoped that the king of Hanover would have followed that liberal example, and as he had not done so, he thought that her Majesty's Ministers ought to have attended to the subject. He thought that this money was improperly paid, and he would tell the House why he thought so. In the last debate on this subject, the right hon. Member for Ripon, who he regretted was not now present, admitted, that if an act of Parliament gave a sum for a specific purpose it was competent to Parliament to rescind the grant, if the object for which it was paid did not continue. Now, what was the present case? The money of this country was, in the first place, granted under 18th Geo. 3rd, c. 31. By this act, 60,000 l. was allowed to George 3rd, for his five eldest sons, Prince Ernest being one. This gave each of his sons 12,000 l. a-year, with benefit of survivorship, which increased the King of Hanover's allowance to 15,000 l. And Lord Grenville added to this sum by a grant of 6,000 l.; making the whole annuity what he had stated, 21,000 l. The act stated, that it being just and reasonable to enable his Majesty to make provision for the honourable support and maintenance of the Princes, allowed the sum to which he had referred. Now George 3rd, being

173
without hereditary revenues, it appeared to him, that Parliament granted him this sum for the benefit of his sons, they having no other income. He put this question to the noble Lord, if it had been known at the time that grant was made, that Prince Ernest would ascend the throne of Hanover and obtain 300,000 l. a-year, or at any rate, a sufficiently large sum to maintain his dignity, would the House have consented to it? Her Majesty's Government ought, at any rate, to suspend this grant, because he thought it was quite possible, that the King of Hanover might come to reside in this country; and, if so, he must, of course, surrender what he received from Hanover, and become entitled to his former allowance. What he now contended for was, that his succession to the throne of Hanover, which secured him an ample revenue, did away with the intention and spirit of the act, granting a sum out of the Exchequer of this country for his maintenance and support, as one of the sons of George 3rd. The act of George 4th continued this pension for the same reason as that of George 3rd, and the reason of both being passed no longer existing, the country ought to have the benefit of their repeal. On a former occasion, the right hon. Member for Cambridge said, that the King of Hanover was as much entitled to this money, as any creditor to his dividend. The cases were quite dissimilar, one was a voluntary grant by Parliament, the other the result of a bargain. He was aware, that it was highly proper to preserve public faith, and he never countenanced the smallest violation of it, but it was perfectly consistent with such views to call upon Parliament to deal in an economical spirit with the public money, when the industry of the country was so heavily burdened as it was. This 21,000 l. might be enough to pay the loan which the Chancellor of the Exchequer would, in all probability, have to borrow, in order to carry on the business of the country. At any rate, it would contribute to lessen such a charge. He found that a sum of 720,000 l. was voted this year to the royal family. Now, when he saw the mother of the Queen obliged to rent a house, while the King of Hanover held one half of St. James's Palace, which he locked up, keeping the key, he must say, that it was such an extraordinary circumstance, that he did not see what the Government was about to allow it. It was their business to see that the public
174
property was taken care of, and he did not understand why they did not interfere in such a case. He understood, that the Government was about to resume 400 or 500 acres of land at Kew, which the King of Hanover formerly possessed. If they had the power to do this, why not also withdraw his pension? It had been said, that he acted on the present occasion, from a difference in political views with the King of Hanover. He certainly was directly opposed to his political views, but his only object in submitting the present motion was to guard the public purse against unnecessary extravagance. He put this single proposition to the noble Lord:—Suppose the King of Hanover, as a member of the German Confederacy, declared war against England, should we enable him to carry on that warfare by our means? Again, suppose he succeeded to the throne of England, would not such a change, allowing him a larger means of support, annul his present pension? He held, on sound principle and in point of economy, that this pension should no longer be granted, it having been at first given as "an honourable means of support," and the reason of it now failing, in consequence of the King of Hanover being an independent sovereign. He should conclude, then, by moving for leave to bring in a bill to suspend the pension paid to the King of Hanover.
Lord John Russellsaid, that the present was a motion for the purpose of taking away an annuity granted to his Royal Highness the Duke of Cumberland for life. That simple sentence appeared to contain the whole case. Parliament had granted the annuity for life. For life, therefore, he considered that it became the property of the Duke of Cumberland. So his Royal Highness had a right to consider it, and he might have charged it with debts or otherwise disposed of it as a bona fide annuity granted by Parliament. With respect to the question whether, on becoming King of Hanover, the Duke of Cumberland ought to have surrendered the whole or a part of the income derived from this country, that was a subject upon which individuals had aright to give their opinion; but that was not the question before the House. The question was, whether the House could properly take away, by Act of Parliament, a sum that had been already given; and he was of opinion that, at least, it ought not. He should not go further into the question, and would only allude

175
to what the hon. Gentleman had stated with respect to the conduct of the Administration as to the apartments granted for the use of the Duke of Cumberland. The hon. Gentleman seemed to think that her Majesty's Ministers were to blame for not seeing that those apartments were not properly occupied and taken care of by the persons who enjoyed the use of them. As to the latter point, the Office of Works would certainly take all due pains that the apartments in question should he in a state becoming the royal palace. With regard to the question, whether her Majesty should resume the occupation of those apartments, he apprehended that was a point for the consideration of her Majesty. If her Majesty had seen fit to provide a private residence for her august mother the Duchess of Kent, the expense of that establishment would be defrayed by her Majesty herself, and not by the public; and he conceived that no person would be prepared to institute an inquisition into the expenditure of the privy purse. There were many demands upon the privy purse— many in which her Majesty had no personal interest, but it became her to continue what had been done. The Queen had taken upon herself the debts of his late Royal Highness the Duke of Kent, and various other expenses, for which there was no legal claim upon her Majesty. If, besides those heavy expenses, her Majesty should be disposed to contribute towards the expense of a private residence for the Duchess of Kent, the public would not be called upon to bear any part of the charge. He would make no observation on what might have been the conduct of other persons with respect to these apartments in St. James's Palace; but with regard to her Majesty, her Majesty's advisers could not give any other advice to their Sovereign, than that it would not be proper to alter the noble and generous conduct towards all the members of the Royal Family that had hitherto been pursued.
Colonel Percevalwas satisfied that every Member would join in the eulogy which the noble Lord had so justly pronounced upon the conduct of her Majesty in disposing of the privy purse; but he felt it his duty to take that opportunity of giving a public contradiction to a statement contained in one of the papers supposed to be in the confidence of the Government, setting forth that application had been made for the apartments in St. James's Palace for the accommodation of the Duchess of
176
Kent, by authority of her Majesty, and had been refused. He was authorised to say, not only that that statement was not true; but that, on the contrary, the Duchess of Kent objected to the apartments, as, in every respect, inconvenient for her accommodation. He presumed that what he thus stated was not unknown to the members of the Government. There was nothing in what had fallen from the hon. Member for Kilkenny, in introducing this subject, which called upon him to make any remark with reference to the manner in which he had expressed himself towards the Duke of Cumberland, now King of Hanover; but he could not allow it to be supposed that the King of Hanover derived any advantage from the meadows at Kew. All the profits derived from that land were paid into the office of the Woods and Forests. This he was himself aware of; and he was authorised further to state, that all the profits derived from grazing and otherwise were paid in to the Woods and Forests. Such he knew to have been the case when the Duke of Cumberland resided at Kew; for he sent a horse or two to graze there, and he made his bargain, through a saddler, with a servant of the Woods and Forests. The only advantage that the King of Hanover derived from these meadows was, that some old horses were allowed to graze there. As every man's estate belonged to the owner, so it was competent to the Duke of Cumberland to deal with his income; but he was prepared to show— although he did not suppose the House would think it necessary that he should enter into particulars of private expenditure—he was prepared to show, if necessary, that the income which the King of Hanover derived from this country was applied, as it had always been, to paying the interest on his just debts, and paying off the principal by instalments. He had premises and stables at Kew, and maintained about three and twenty servants there, as he had done when he resided there, for he was not the man, when he became King of Hanover, to turn away any of those servants whom he had retained for so many years. Some of those he had the honour and good fortune to know, and the occasions when he had had the honour of being a guest at Kew not having been unfrequent, he found the same servants at his last visit whom he had met at his first. No man was more highly beloved than the Duke of Cumberland was by the members of his establishment, He continued to all, now that he

177
was King of Hanover, the same allowances which they had enjoyed before. There was no part of the statement of which he (Col. P.) was not authorised to give an explanation, but he trusted that the House would be satisfied with these general remarks; and that, although the motion of the hon. Member for Kilkenny was reconcilable with his usual views of economy, the House would not think it its duty to take away that which had been granted by the authority of Parliament, and over which they had no more control than he had over the property of any other individual.
Lord John Russellunderstood the hon. and gallant Colonel to say, that the apartments of the King of Hanover in St. James's-palace had been declined by her Royal Highness the Duchess of Kent, as being inconvenient, and that that circumstance was known to her Majesty's Ministers. If that was the statement of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, lie must say, that it was a statement altogether new to him. He was not aware of anything of the kind.
Colonel Percevalread a statement from a written paper, to the effect, that "it had been erroneously supposed, that the apartments had been desired by the Duchess of Kent. So far from that being the case, her Royal Highness did not wish for them, and considered them inconvenient" [Name, name]. He had no objection to name the authority—he was reading the statement of Sir Frederick Watson, the gentleman who managed the affairs of the King of Hanover in this country.
Mr. Warburtonasked if it could be denied, that when the income was given to the Duke of Cumberland, it was not in contemplation of the Parliament which granted it, that it should be granted or continued to a foreign potentate? It was given to a prince of the blood royal of the English race. The case stood upon a sense of propriety both on the part of the Duke of Cumberland and of the House. Whether it was proper that an income derived from this country should be received by a fereign potentate—an income voted to him when he was Duke of Cumberland, in support of his dignity in that character. What had induced the Marquess Camden to give up the large income to which he was entitled as teller of the Exchequer. He was aware, that the country was in difficulties, and it was his sense of duty that made him give up the emoluments
178
of his office. If the present was merely a case of pensioning off old servants, or of paying just debts, as had been hinted at by the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite, he (Mr. Warburton) was sure, that no one would be more ready than his hon. Friend the Member for Kilkenny to mate an allowance on that account; but if the whole income of the Duke of Cumberland was devoted to those purposes, it followed as a matter of course, that his Majesty of Hanover, had he remained in this country, would have had no income at all to live upon. If reasonable and just demands upon the income of the King of Hanover could be made out, the hon. Member for Kilkenny would be the first to admit the justice of meeting them; but until such, demands were made out, it was quite right that some such proposition should be made, as that now before the House.
Mr. Aglionby, in calling the attention of the House to the terms of the Act of Parliament, said that these grants were originally made in consideration of the large family of George 3rd, and no such change as one of the princes becoming the sovereign of a foreign state was then contemplated.
Lord Worsleybelieved, it was the general wish throughout the country that the King of Hanover should relinquish this pension, but, at the same time, he was bound to say, that although certain words might have been used in the act of Parliament without reference to circumstances that might afterwards take place, he did not think it was fair to put such a construction as had been attempted to be put upon the act. He could not, however, express too strongly his wish that the King of Hanover would give up this pension; nor could he express too strongly his opinion, that he ought to have done so before this time. But, at the same time, he recollected, that during the debates upon the pension list, one of the grounds of objection was that those pensions were under the guarantee of an act of Parliament. On the same principle, he conceived, that this pension had been guaranteed to the King of Hanover by act of Parliament, and, therefore, however strongly he might feel that the income ought to be relinquished, he should not act honestly, if he did not vote against the motion of the hon. Member for Kilkenny.
Mr. Handleywould vote with the hon. Member for Kilkenny, because he believed that the present state of things was not

179
contemplated when the income was granted to the King of Hanover. He would ask if the King of Hanover were engaged at war with this country, would hon. Members think proper to continue the allowance. He apprehended that that Sovereign had already waged war against the commerce of this country, by levying and collecting a system of duties more galling than any that could be conceived. As to the payment of the profits of the meadows, that had been alluded to, he would ask, if they had been spontaneously paid, or had they not been withheld until the King had been called to account for rents, which, otherwise he was prepared to put into his own pocket.
Colonel Sibthorpcontended, that as the annuity to the King of Hanover had been granted by an act of Parliament, that House had no right to deprive him of it, at the same time, he must say, if he were in the situation of the King of Hanover, he would give it up. They had no right, however, to compel any man to surrender up aright enjoyed by act of Parliament, and, on that ground, he certainly should not vote for the motion of the hon. Member for Kilkenny.
Sir R. Pricesaid, he could not, for his own part, understand how the King of Hanover could consent to receive this annuity under such circumstances. His opinion was, that when a member of the Royal Family became entitled to the crown of another country, he should cease to draw money which was intended for his use while resident in England, and he only wished, that in this respect, his Hanoverian Majesty had followed the example of King Leopold, not to mention that set by Lord Camden. When this debate reached Hanover, he hoped his Majesty would be advised not to accept this 21,000 l. in future, but although his opinion was, that the King of Hanover should not accept this annuity, he nevertheless did not feel, that he could vote on this occasion with the hon. Member for Kilkenny. He was quite aware how easy it was to draw distinctions between cases, but, at the same time, he thought, that in matters, of this kind, the honour of this country should be consulted, and that they had no right to withdraw by force, that which was given by act of Parliament.
Mr. Goulburnsaid, that the hon. Member for Kilkenny seemed to suppose that, because the original act was for the maintenance and support of the Duke
180
of Cumberland, the House was now to judge whether he required that support, and, judging that he did not so require it, were at liberty to take it away. This was merely a technical objection, but the hon. Gentleman ought to have assured himself, that the words he quoted were in the act, which they were not. When the King died, it was expressly stated, that these annuities were no longer payable out of the hereditary revenues, and Parliament proceeded to charge them upon the consolidated fund. If the House admitted the principle contended for by the hon. Member, there was not an annuity granted to a single individual, that might not be destroyed.
The House divided:—Ayes 63; Noes 76: Majority 13.

List of the AYES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Morris, D.

Barry, G. S.

O'Connell, D.

Berkeley, hon. H.

O'Connell, M. J.

Berkeley, hon. C.

Pattison, J.

Bewes, T.

Philips, M.

Blake, W. J.

Ponsonby, hon. J.

Bridgman, H.

Power, J.

Brotherton, J.

Protheroe, E.

Collier, J.

Pryrne, G.

Dashwood, G. H.

Rice, E. R.

Denison, W. J.

Rundle, J.

Dennistoun, J.

Salwey, Colonel

Duke, Sir J.

Stansfield, W. R. C.

Duncombe, T.

Staunton, Sir G.T.

Evans, Sir De L.

Strickland, Sir G.

Ewart, W.

Strutt, E.

Fort, J.

Style, Sir C.

Greg, R. H.

Tancred, H. W.

Hall, Sir B.

Thornley, T.

Handley, H.

Turner, E.

Hawes, B.

Turner, W.

Hawkins, J. H.

Vigors, N. A.

Hodges, T. L.

Wakley, T.

Horsman, E.

Wallace, R.

Humphrey, J,

White, A.

Hutton, R.

Wilbraham, G.

Jervis, S.

Williams, W.

Lambton, H.

Wilshere, W.

Lister, E. C.

Wood, B.

Lushington, C.

Yates, J. A.

M'Taggart, J.

TELLERS.

Marshall, W.

Hume, J.

Marsland, H.

Warburton, H.

List of the NOES.

Bagge, W.

Clay, W.

Baillie, Colonel

Darby, G.

Baring, rt. hon. F. T.

Drummond, H. H.

Barnard, E. G.

Eastnor, Viscount

Blackburne, I.

Egerton, W. T.

Boldero, H. G.

Fector, J. M.

Bruges, W. H. L.

Feilden, W.

Christopher, R, A.

Fellowes, E.

181

Fitzroy, hon. H.

Pakington, J. S.

Follett, Sir W.

Palmerston, Viscount

Forester, hon. G.

Parnell, rt. hn. Sir H.

Gladstone, W. E.

Peel, rt. hon. Sir H.

Goddard, A.

Pemberton, T.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Perceval, hon. G. J.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir C.

Polhill, F.

Hamilton, Lord C.

Pollock, Sir F.

Hardinge, rt. hon. Sir H.

Praed, W.T.

Pringle, A.

Hepburn, Sir T. B.

Pusey, P.

Hodgson, R.

Rae, rt. hon. Sir W.

Holmes, hon. W. A.

Richards, R.

Holmes, W.

Rose, rt. hn. Sir. G.

Hope, hon. C.

Round, C. G.

Hurst, R. H.

Round, J.

Ingham, R.

Rushout, G.

Irving, J.

Russell, Lord J.

Jackson, Sergeant

Sandon, Viscount

Jones, J.

Shaw, rt. hon. F.

Kemble, H.

Smyth, Sir G. H.

Lincoln, Earl of

Steuart, R.

Lygon, hon. General

Sutton, hn. J.H.T.M.

Mackenzie, W. F.

Teignmouth, Lord

Mackenzie, T.

Thornhill, G.

Mackinnon, W. A.

Trench, Sir F.

Marsland, T.

Verner, Colonel

Mathew, G. B.

Wood, Colonel T.

Maule, hon. F.

Worsley, Lord

Miller, W. H.

TELLERS.

Neeld, J.

Sibthorp, Colonel

Nicholl, J.

Perceval, Colonel

TURKEY AND EGYPT.
Mr. Humerose to move, pursuant to his notice—
"An Address to Her Majesty, that she will be graciously pleased to lay before this House such parts of the correspondence between Lord Ponsonby, the British Minister at Constantinople, and Lord Viscount Palmerston, Her Majesty's Secretary for Foreign Affairs, as relate to the negotiations in the years 1839 and 1840, between the Sultan of the Sublime Porte and Mehemet Ali, for the hereditary possession of Egypt and other provinces claimed by Mehemet Ali, and for the settlement of peace between him and the Sultan; and for the delivery by Mehemet Ali of the Turkish fleet to the Sultan."
The hon. Member said, the papers already laid before the House by the noble Lord at the head of the Foreign Affairs, were very deficient in information, and he had hoped, that, after what had passed in July last, the noble Lord would have, before this time, given the House the fullest explanation on the state of affairs in the east of Europe. It was announced in her Majesty's speech from the throne, on opening the present Session on the 16th of January last, that—
"The affairs of the Levant have continued to occupy my most anxious attention. The
182
concord which has prevailed amongst the Five Powers has prevented a renewal of hostilities in that quarter; and I hope that the same unanimity will brine: those important and difficult matters to a final settlement in such a manner as to uphold the integrity and independence of the Ottoman empire, and to give additional security to the peace of Europe."
Now, he (Mr. Hume) wished the House to have from the noble Lord some explanation of the nature of that concord, which was stated in the speech from the throne, to exist between these Five Powers. He believed, as far as he could learn, that out of these transactions instead of concord, the greatest discord had grown up, and he was sorry to find that, as regarded France in particular, the policy and conduct of the noble Lord had produced so great indifference of opinion, as to risk the good feeling and cordial co-operation which before had existed, and which it was so highly desirable should continue to exist between that country and ourselves on all questions affecting the peace of Europe. If it were true, as stated in her Majesty's speech, that the utmost concord and unanimity existed between the Five Powers, how did it happen that the question of peace or war between Turkey and Egypt, after a lapse of eight months, still remained unsettled? Independent of other disadvantages arising to the trade of this country, and to that of the Ottoman Empire, from the present unsettled state of things, the expense of maintaining our large naval armament in the Mediterranean had already cost this country an annual amount of upwards of half a million sterling. He did not think the Government, in the present state of financial difficulty, had acted fairly and candidly in the information they had given the House in her Majesty's Speech upon this subject. The whole proceedings of these Five Great Powers were involved in a mystery which required to be speedily explained. As the matter at present was understood, he must say, that the noble Lord had departed from the course of policy he formerly pretended to follow:—instead of promoting peace between the Sultan and Mohamed Ali, and thereby supporting the integrity of the Ottoman empire, he had been the chief cause of increasing discord when peace was about to be concluded; and of keeping up hostilities, and all those evils which invariably resulted to every country from a state of civil war. For his own part, he (Mr. Hume) believed, and should be able to prove to the House, if the correspondence he asked for was pro-

183
duced, that, had it not been for the improper interference of Great Britain; and of the other four powers with the Divan at Constantinople, peace would have been established between Turkey and Egypt eight months ago. The erroneous policy of the noble Lord had, in fact, put the people of England to an annual expense of between 500,000 l. and 600,000 l.; and, at the same time had kept the Turkish empire in a state of civil war. This required to be explained and he asked for the information. It was not his purpose at this time to discuss the character of Mohamed Ali; but this, at least, he might observe, that Egypt and Syria and Arabia were now much better governed under him than they had been for many years before. The noble Lord judging from his conduct, seemed to be quite ignorant of what the condition of those countries was in former times as compared with their present state: but he (Mr. Hume) could speak of it from his own knowledge, having been a traveller in several parts of Turkey and Egypt thirty years ago, and experienced how dangerous it was, at that time, to travel without a strong military escort: but now since these provinces had been some years under the government of Mohamed Ali, the European traveller could move from one extremity of that country to the other without personal danger or pecuniary extortion. It was said by the noble Lord and the other four powers that the integrity of the Ottoman empire must be maintained; and he (Mr. Hume) was anxious that such should be the case: but when he looked back to the proceedings of four of these five powers, against the Turkish empire, there were good grounds to doubt their sincerity. He found that Austria now held many districts formerly Turkish; and that England had separated Greece, and lately taken Aden from Turkey: — that France had seized Algiers; and that Russia had been a spoliator on a grand scale, and he was, therefore, desirous to have the word integrity defined by the noble Lord. But let the House consider for one moment, who the parties were who thus united and acted with such concord to preserve its integrity? Russia was one of them; but surely France, England, and Austria were more interested in securing that object; and yet the noble Lord appeared, in all the negotiations, to lend himself to the policy of Russia. He would ask, could any man, knowing her general conduct, say that the object, the real desire of Russia, was to preserve the
184
integrity of the Turkish empire? For many years past, had not the undeviating policy of Russia been to encroach upon the provinces of her weaker neighbours; and, year after year, to proceed on a general system of aggression,—the ultimate object of which was to render the dismemberment of Turkey as complete as that of Poland? Was the House aware of the spoliations of that power from her neighbours? He would state some of them. At the death of Catherine in 1796, the population of the Russian empire was about 36,000,000; at the death of Alexander it was 58,000,000. The acquisition of territory by Russia from Sweden, was greater than what remains of that kingdom. The spoliations of Poland are nearly equal to the whole of the Austrian empire; and the acquisitions from Turkey in Europe are of greater extent than the Prussian dominions, exclusive of the Rhemish provinces; her acquisitions from Turkey in Asia are nearly equal in dimensions to the whole of the smaller states of Germany: the spoliations from Persia are equal in extent to England— whilst her acquisitions in Tartary have an area, not less than that of Turkey in Europe, of Greece, Italy and Spain. In fact, Russia has, within sixty-four years, doubled the size and population of the whole empire. She has advanced her frontier 700 miles towards Berlin, Venice, and Paris—500 miles towards Constantinople—630 towards Stockholm, and 1,000 towards the capital of Persia; and yet the noble Lord, with these facts staring him in the face, had chosen to make himself the ally of Russia; —had submitted to become, apparently, the subservient tool of the crafty statesmen of that country; and his present policy seemed very materially to hasten the dismemberment of an empire which he professed his anxiety to preserve entire, as completely as if he had been one of the council of that Autocrat. He should be glad to hear from the noble Lord upon what grounds he risked the abandonment of the French alliance by joining in preference his policy with that of Russia. He should be glad, also, to know upon what ground or pretence it was that Mohamed Ali was now to be stripped of the hereditary government of Egypt, and of the possession of Syria, which was understood to have been guaranteed to him in 1833 by Mr. Mandeville, the representative of the British Government, after the defeat of the Sultan's troops at Koniah. From the papers laid before this House last year, it was quite evident

185
that the representatives of the British Government used their influence to settle peace with Mohamed Ali in that year; and that they in reality, afterwards, also guaranteed all the possessions which the Sultan had given to him. If there was no specific treaty for that object to which Great Britain became a signing party, there was a printed correspondence between Mohamed Ali and the five powers which he had in his hands, which ought to preclude* the noble Lord from denying, that a clear and decided sanction was given by Great Britain to the treaty between the Porte and the Pacha, if it was not a guarantee in strictly diplomatic language. The noble Lord had admitted that there was a convention at Kutaya; but he had, at the same time, denied that England was a party to it. He was sorry to differ from the noble Lord, being quite confident, if the correspondence of Lord Ponsonby was produced, that the proof of that guarantee would appear to the House to be complete.—On the 29th March, 1833, Mr. Mandeville writes, from Constantinople, to Ibrahim Pacha, that as the Baron de Varenne had been commissioned by the French ambassador to proceed to Ibrahim's camp with the Sultan's messenger to aid him in settling peace, "to inform him that the Sultan had conceded to Mohamed Ali, in addition to Egypt which he held, the government of the whole of Syria, with the towns of Aleppo and Damascus." And, in the name of the British Government, Mr. Mandeville requests him to accept the terms and to agree to peace. And, again, on the 4th of May, Mr. Mandeville informs Lord Palmerston, that the Sultan had conceded the administration of the Pashalic of Adana to Ibrahim, in addition to the government of Syria, which completed the requests of Mohamed Ali. I also hold in my hand the annual official list published by the Sultan, on the 15th April in that year, of the governors of the several provinces of the Turkish Empire, and in that list Egypt, Aleppo, Damascus, Safad and Beyrout, Tripoli in Syria, Crete with the military command of the fortress of Candia, and also Jerusalem, are all entered in the name of Mohamed Ali; and Abyssinia is given to Ibrahim Pasha. On these conditions being agreed to and settled, Ibrahim Pasha informed Monsieur de Varenne, in answer to a question, whether he had any answer to the letter which he
* See Parliamentary paper, 1833.
186
had brought from Mr. Mandeville, that his retreat from Kutaya with his army was the best answer to the English Minister's letter, requesting him to agree to the conditions of which Monsieur de Varenne was the bearer. He held in his hand Admiral Roussin's letter to Mohamed Ali, afterwards stating these facts in a manner not to be misunderstood. The Sultan had in 1833 refused, for some time, to grant Adana to Mohamed Ali, and it is also well known, that when Orloff the Russian ambassador heard that the Sultan had conceded the Pashalic of Adana, by which peace was concluded with the Pasha, he exerted all his influence with the Sultan to have that grant recalled: but, it is equally well known that Lord Ponsonby's interference prevented the Sultan from doing so; and thus gave the sanction of the British Government to these concessions to Mohamed Ali: and the noble Lord must know from the correspondence at that time and now in his office, that what I state is correct; and that Lord Ponsonby claimed and deserved from his Lordship joint credit for that part of his conduct. After these proceedings, on which Mohamed Ali placed perfect confidence, and by which the British Government was bound, why should it now refuse its sanction a second time? He should also be glad to know why, in the interval between 1833 and 1838, if we were really desirous to see peace in Turkey, the conduct of the British Government, and of her ambassador at Constantinople, had been such as to promote rather than allay the animosity and disposition to hostilities that remained on the part of the Sultan towards Mohamed Ali. It is generally stated that our ambassador at Constantinople, instead of exerting himself to lessen the unpleasant differences that existed between the Porte and the Pacha of Egypt, had acted in such a manner as, in the opinion of many well-informed persons, was calculated to bring on open hostilities; and Lord Ponsonby was considered to have been, by his personal hostility to the Pacha, the cause of that state of affairs which brought on the defeat of the Sultan's troops at Nezib, on the 25th of June 1839; and which had produced the present disastrous state of things in the East. Acting, as is believed, mainly upon the advice of the British ambassador, the Sultan had become the aggressor—had, contrary to the existing Convention of 1833, passed beyond the bounds of his own frontier, and invaded the territory of Mohamed Ali. If the corre-

187
spondence he now called for were produced, he (Mr. Hume) could satisfy the House from documents, extracts of which he held in his hand, that whilst Mohamed Ali was absent in Soudon from Nov. 1838 to March 1839, the Sultan sent a large army into Asia Minor, under the command of Hafiz Pacha, who, in April 1839, passed the Euphrates at Beer with his army; whilst. Ibrahim Pacha did not advance his army until that event: —that on the 28th of May, Hafiz Pacha took possession of fourteen villages in the province of Aintab, belonging to Mohamed Ali, urging the inhabitants to take arms against the Pacha, and thus commenced hostilities, which terminated so disastrously for the Sultan's troops. It would also clearly appear that the English minister had urged on and excited the animosity of the Sultan against the Pacha, until, at length, the lamentable catastrophe he has stated took place. He (Mr. Hume) regretted to say, that Lord Ponsonby appeared to have been acting really in accordance with the policy of Russia, which was well known to be hostile to, and against the integrity of the Turkish empire, which we had been avowedly anxious to maintain: and for which we had kept up a large and costly naval armament. In short, what he (Mr. Hume) complained of was, that the Government of this country had all along been, by their erroneous policy, keeping up a state of civil war between the Sultan and the Pacha, and lending itself, most injuriously for the Ottoman empire, to the policy of Russia. It was reported in Constantinople within the last month, that a stipulation had been lately entered into in England between M. Brunow and the noble Lord (Lord Palmerston) that Russia should advance 30 or 40,000 troops into Asia Minor, and that England should send a powerful fleet to Alexandria, for the purpose of coercing Mohamed Ali to submit to the stipulations proposed by England; but as he (Mr. Hume) feared, only to produce a second "untoward event" as at Navarino. This line of conduct was in strict accordance with the policy of Russia, which, acting on a spirit of aggression, desired, beyond everything else, to obtain a footing, by fair means or foul upon the soil of Turkey; and nothing could favour the ultimate views of Russia so effectually as the keeping the Sultan and Mohamed Ali in a state of civil war, in which both their resources of men and money would, as they had been, be completely exhausted, when that country must fall, without a struggle, into
188
the power of Russia. How could the noble Lord blind himself to the real designs of a power which, for the last fifty years, had been unceasingly engaged in extending its own territory at the cost of its weaker neighbours? Yet the noble Lord, abandoning the alliance and friendly co-operation of France, which was valuable in so many respects, chose to unite himself with Russia, the whole of whose policy ran counter to the interests of this country, and of the representative governments of Europe. France had been charged with duplicity in her conduct towards the other four Powers and towards the Porte; but as far as he (Mr. Hume) could learn from the documents published in France and in Egypt, the charge was wholly without foundation. France was sincerely anxious to maintain the integrity of Turkey, and had taken the best means of securing it, by exerting her influence with the Sultan in 1838–9 to prevent his attacking Mohamed Ali, as can clearly be proved; and, then after the defeat of the Sultan's army, France had acted the friendly part, by preventing the destruction of the fleet at Alexandria, which might have been the case, but for the firmness of France in resisting the policy and the orders of the noble Viscount (Viscount Palmerston). He believed that the noble Viscount, instead of exerting the British influence to diminish the personal hostility that had unfortunately existed for some years past between the Porte and Egypt, had materially aggravated it: and his (Mr. Hume's) principal complaint against the noble Lord was this —that after in 1833, having recommended peace, he had interfered to prevent the mutual adjustment of differences between the young Sultan and Mohamed Ali, which would certainly have taken place after the battle of Nezib, if the five powers of Europe had not interfered in a most extraordinary manner to prevent it. It is now notorious, that amongst the first acts of the young Sultan was a proposition sent to Egypt of peace and friendship between himself and Mohamed Ali, to which the latter willingly assented. Mohamed Ali agreed to continue the vassal of the Sultan provided he was secured in the hereditary possession of Egypt, and Syria, provinces which he had held before the battle of Nezib; and he agreed also to pay a greater amount of tribute for those districts than had ever before been paid by any former Pacha when nominally subject to the Porte. Could it be

189
expected that Mohamed AH after the second victory at Nezib, would relinquish the provinces he had had granted to him after the first battle of Koniah? The Divan acceded to these propositions, and an officer was appointed to proceed from Constantinople on the 29th of July in a steamer to Alexandria to settle a treaty; and in a few days peace would have been restored between the Sultan and the Pacha. But, unhappily, on the 27th of July, a note was presented to the Divan by the representatives of the five great European powers, stating that the Sultan and the Pacha must not presume to settle their own affairs, but that the adjustment of the terms, upon which peace was to be re-established, must be left to the five great powers. He had, in his hand, a letter from a public functionary at Constantinople, which explained what followed the delivery of the note on the 27th of July. The Divan objected to the interference of Christian powers in the affairs of the Porte with her vassal; but as the representatives of the European Governments had interfered and insisted that no peace should be agreed to with Mohamed Ali, except through their mediation, the Divan had very reluctantly stopped their messenger to, and the negotiation with, the Pasha. What was the result? Why, that, from that moment, up to the present time, a period of eight months, everything had remained in the same state. Both parties had been thus kept in a state of suspended war, with all the expenses and great uncertainty arising from that state of affairs—nothing had been done. Under these circumstances, it became a matter of great importance to this House to know what the policy of the Five Powers really was, in which they were in concord and unanimity; and when it was probable that a state of things which entailed so much expense upon England, and imposed so many difficulties upon Turkey and Egypt, was likely to terminate. What hopes could the noble Lord have of making any impression on Egypt by force? Mohamed Ali was thus forced most unwillingly, as he (Mr. Hume) believed, to look to an alliance with France, and to protection from that country; and consequently, of becoming an enemy to this country;—events necessarily to arise from the mistaken policy pursued towards Mohamed Ali by the noble Lord. He was told, indeed, that there was no dependence to be placed on the declarations of, or on any treaty with,
190
Mohamed Ali. Now, for his part, from all experience of the past, he knew of nothing that secured the good faith of one state on another, but that which States considered to be for their mutual interest. Did history ever show any country that felt more for the interests of other states than for its own? Upon this principle they must judge of, and depend upon, Mohamed Ali. He (Mr. Hume) would ask the House to consider what was it his obvious interest to do? Looking at the situation of Syria, Arabia, and of Egypt, it must at once be seen that it was most essential to the interests of Mohamed Ali to have a friendly alliance with England. Looking to the interests of Great Britain in India, as well as in Europe, was it not equally our interest to be in friendly alliance with Mohamed Ali? Instead, therefore, of regarding him with suspicion, he ought to be considered as having a strong interest to be the friend of England, and the faithful vassal, as he was disposed to be, of the Sultan: and, there was every reason to believe, if the treaty between him and the Sultan were guaranteed by England and France, which the Pasha only required to be certain of not being attacked again, in a similar manner to the attack upon him of last year, that Mohamed Ali would observe the stipulated terms. He (Mr. Hume) should be glad to know whether the course which England was now taking to irritate and oppose the Pasha was not calculated to throw him and Egypt into the hands of France? France had evinced a sincere desire to co-oporate with England and to be the friend of Mohamed Ali. She had indeed been his friend, and had declared that England should not burn the Egyptian fleet, nor attack Mohamed Ali, as report states to have been the intention of the noble Lord. France had very wisely prevented this additional calamity to the Ottoman empire, as she was fully justified in doing, in the view she took of strengthening the Ottoman empire by uniting all Mussulmen. Was it, he would ask, a wise or a just policy, that British means should be applied to keep up the civil war with all its evils, which existed between Turkey and Egypt? It was said that Mohamed Ali was treacherous, and had been especially so in the case of the Turkish fleet. Now, in his (Mr. Hume's) opinion, formed on documents believed to be correct and published to Europe, Mohamed Ali knew no more of the treachery of the Turkish fleet or of the intention of its going to Alexandria than

191
he or any other person in the House did until the determination had been come to by the admiral and officers commanding. The fleet was lying at the Dardanelles when the account of the death of the Sultan was received. Thereupon the chief officers of the fleet met and determined to communicate with and to proceed to Mohamed Ali, as they could not go back to Constantinople, where they feared there was treachery; that they would not, in fact, trust the fleet into the hands of those who were believed to be in alliance with, and favoured the interests of Russia. A council, consisting of five of the leading officers of the fleet, are reported to have come to the determination that the only way to save the fleet for the future protection of Turkey, was to go down and deliver it over to Mohamed Ali, the man to whom the Ottomans look as the future saviour of their empire. That course they considered was the only one by which they would be able to assist the new Sultan to regain that power which the Turkish Empire ought to possess. After the council had so resolved, a steamer was despatched to Alexandria to announce the determination of the officers, and the approach of the fleet— and that it is well known was the first notice which Mohamed Ali had of the disaffection of the fleet! But what had Mohamed Ali since done? He had offered to restore the fleet, and to proceed himself in a steamer and do homage to the Sultan at Constantinople, provided he could obtain the settlement of the hereditary possession of Egypt and Syria in his family as was requested by him, and the guarantee of Great Britain and France thereto. For the statements he had ventured to make, he had the authority of public and private documents, which he held in his hand, and his object in now moving for the production of the official documents was, that hon. Members might be able to ascertain how far those statements were correct, and how far the policy of England towards Egypt and Turkey was wise. If the statements made by him were correct, as he (Mr. Hume) believed them to be, then there was great culpability attached to the noble Lord, or to the agents of the British Government in the whole of this affair—there was a courting of Russia and a support of her well-known policy in all our proceedings that was not creditable to this country. Before he sat down, he again called upon the noble Lord seriously to consider what were the probable consequences to be ex-
192
pected to follow from his present hostile policy towards Egypt. What was the situation of English interests in Egypt and in the Red Sea. There England had recently taken possession of the fort of Aden. Now, if Mohamed Ali should become the enemy of this country, and be allied with France, he might take Aden from England, and interfere very prejudiciously with the communications with India, with Persia, and Afghanistan. How, he asked, would it be possible that the fort of Aden could be retained, if we made Mohamed Ali our enemy, unless at an expense to this country, too great to be justified? On the whole, there appeared to him to be a natural alliance between France, England, and Egypt, which it would be equally the interest of all three countries to cultivate. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving an address to her Majesty,
"That she will be graciously pleased to lay before this House such parts of the correspondence between Lord Ponsonby, the British minister at Constantinople, and Lord Viscount Palmerston, her Majesty's Secretary for Foreign Affairs, as relate to the negotiations in the years 1839 and 1840, between the Sultan of the Sublime Porte and Mehemet Ali, for the hereditary possession of Egypt and other provinces claimed by Mehemet Ali, and for the settlement of peace between him and the Sultan; and for the delivery by Mehemet Ali of the Turkish fleet to the Sultan."
Viscount Palmerstonfelt, in the first place, persuaded that his hon. Friend and the House could not suppose that it was possible for him to agree to the motion for the production of these papers, because, if there was any one point more settled than another in the practice of that House, it was, not to call for papers of this kind pending the negotiations to which those papers related. For the same reason, he also presumed that the House would not expect that he should follow his hon. Friend through the long disquisition into which he had entered, with respect to the policy of this country and the other powers of Europe, with regard to the question to which his observations related. His hon. Friend had stated, that he entertained the opinions he had expressed honestly, and from a sincere conviction that they were for the good and the interest of this country. He was the last man in the world to dispute that fact, though most certainly he thought his hon. Friend was entirely mistaken in his views, and was altogether misled in the greater part of the information he had received,

193
while he was sure that his hon. Friend was mistaken in many of his facts. He was also convinced that if his hon. Friend could see things as they were, and if he were in possession of all the various information which was to be obtained upon the subject, his opinions would be entirely different. With regard to the paragraph in the Queen's Speech, that, he thought, required no explanation whatever. It was in that paragraph stated, that the concord of the five great powers had maintained the peace of Europe with regard to the affairs of the East, and it expressed a hope that the same concord would bring those difficult negotiations to a satisfactory and peaceful issue. But his hon. Friend had stated one or two matters which he could not pass without observation. He had again stated that after the battle of Koniah, a convention took place between Ibrahim Pacha and Khosrew Pacha, in which the British representative guaranteed the cession of Syria to Mehemet Ali. No convention was made at Koniah between the two parties, neither was any guarantee given by the British Government on that occasion; but there was a negotiation, which ended, not in the cession of any part of Turkey to Mehemet Ali, but in the appointment of his son Ibrahim to the government of certain provinces in that country. But England was no guarantee to that transaction. His hon. Friend, indeed, seemed to hare no objection to using the word guarantee, nor did he object to the British Government becoming a guarantee; but he had asserted that England had given a guarantee where she had not, while he wanted her to become a guarantee, but on the other side of the question. His hon. Friend thought that the British Government and Lord Ponsonby, the British Ambassador at Constantinople, had stimulated the Sultan to renew hostilities against the Pacha of Egypt. He (Lord Palmerston) could assure him that he was entirely mistaken. In the first place, it was the Pacha who was the aggressor, and not the Sultan, inasmuch as it was the Pacha who, in the first instance, publicly declared his determination to throw off his allegiance, and make himself the independent sovereign of the provinces over which he was appointed to govern. In the next place, the Pacha of Egypt was the first who last year sent an army into Syria, and the battle which was fought between the two parties was fought at Nezib, beyond the limits of the territory of which the Pacha was governor, which
194
limits ended near the river Sadjour. The force under Ibrahim Pacha was the attacking party; the soldiers of the Sultan having at that moment been ordered to stand upon the defensive, and retire if they were attacked. Therefore, the Sultan was the attacked instead of being the attacking party. His hon. Friend had said, that if Russia could have had a person who was exclusively devoted to her interests in the British cabinet, he could not have served her more sincerely than he (Viscount Palmerston) had unconsciously done; that he had been labouring to destroy the Turkish empire, and put an end to its integrity, and subject such portion of it as would remain under the nominal sway of the Sultan entirely to the views of Russia. Now, he was bound to say, in justice and in candour, that it was impossible for any government to have acted with more honour and good faith in any matter than the Russian government had acted with the other powers in respect to Turkey. He was bound to say this, from a thorough knowledge of all the facts of the case. They could only judge of the intention from the conduct; and, speaking of Russia at the present time he must say that it was not just to impute to that power that her present conduct had any tendency whatever inimical to the integrity of the Turkish Empire. But if Russia really did entertain any such views, it appeared to him that the course which his hon. Friend had taken was the readiest course to further that policy; because the policy which he would pursue led immediately to the dismemberment of the Turkish Empire, and would lay all that remained to the Sultan, prostrate at the foot of Russia, or any other power that might wish to overcome him. With the best intentions, his hon. Friend would pursue a course that, if adopted, must inevitably end in a manner the most opposite to his wishes. What would any man say, supposing he were to argue that the best way for maintaining the integrity of the British Empire would be to make the Lord-lieutenant of Ireland a separate hereditary sovereign over Ireland and Scotland; and then were to tell the House that by that means they would more firmly unite the population of the British islands: and that the best friends of the British Empire therefore could do nothing better to maintain the integrity of Great Britain than to divide it between two independent sovereigns? And yet that was the policy which his hon. Friend wished to pursue. His hon. Friend had stated that

195
in former days, when he happened to be in Egypt, great perils existed in travelling there;—that travelling was very insecure; —that in fact the whole of the Turkish Empire was in a state of comparative anarchy: whereas, at the present day there was every security afforded to travellers throughout that part of the world. It was perfectly true, that in Egypt, and indeed in every other part of the Turkish Empire, things in that respect were greatly changed. Now, persons might travel, not only through Egypt, but through Syria, Asia Minor, and Turkey in Europe with perfect safety, without risking any of those dangers to which, in former times, every person was exposed. At the same time he could not see how the internal improvement of the police in Egypt told either one way or the other on a great political question, namely, whether it was for the interest of this country or not to maintain the integrity of the Turkish Empire- His hon. Friend had further stated, that there were papers published in this country which he imagined to be influenced by considerations proceeding from Russia. He did not know what the papers might be which his hon. Friend alluded to, but he would ask his hon. Friend whether he thought there were any papers or individuals in this country who were swayed in their opinions upon this question by considerations coming from Mehemet Ali? If it were found that there were opinions coming from Egypt similar to those entertained by his hon. Friend, might it not be suggested whether they were not dictated by personal feelings towards the individual, and not by general principles of public policy? His hon. Friend had likewise stated, that he had been informed of certain circumstances with regard to the going over of the Turkish fleet to Mehemet Ali. Now, he also had received an authentic account of that transaction, but a very different statement from that which had been mentioned by his hon. Friend. His hon. Friend had stated that all the officers of the fleet concurred in going over to the Pacha of Egypt. Now the account he had received was from a person on board the fleet, and his statement was that none of the officers of the fleet knew of the intention of the admiral to go to Alexandria; nor any one on board, except one or two who were about his person; that the admiral sent a steamer as soon as the fleet got out of the Dardanelles to communicate with Mehemet Ali
196
and make arrangements with him; that when the fleet came in sight of the Egyptian fleet at Alexandria, so little did the captains of the ships know of the purpose for which they were taken there, that many of the ships actually prepared for action, thinking they were in sight of an enemy instead of going to join a friend. In point of fact, the whole fleet thought they were, throughout, going to meet an enemy. That account he had from a person who was an eye witness, and upon whose accuracy he could place an entire reliance. He thought, as this account was so very different from the statement made by his noble Friend, that it would be well if in future he were to receive with some distrust statements from others of so opposite a character. His noble Friend was equally mistaken in what he had stated respecting Col. Hodges, our resident consul at Alexandria, having been denied and barred access to the Pacha. So far from this being the fact, on the contrary, accounts had been received very lately from Colonel Hodges, in which he stated that he had recently transacted business with the Pacha and his minister (Boghos Bey), and which was carried on by him personally with the Pacha. He was sure the House would feel that nothing could be so inconvenient as for a person holding the responsible office which he had the honour to hold, to be called upon in this incidental way to discuss matters of the highest importance, and which were matters of negotiation not only on the part of this country with Egypt, but with all the other powers of Europe. Therefore, if he did not enter into this matter, or explain the policy of her Majesty's Government, farther than to say that they still adhered to those opinions which were stated in the speech from the throne; and that it was, in their opinion, for the interests of this country that the independence of the Turkish empire should be maintained—an opinion in which his hon. Friend concurred, though he went to work in a very different manner to give it effect. If he resumed his seat without entering into a detailed statement of the present position of those negotiations, either with France or with Russia, or with Austria, or with Turkey, or with the Pacha of Egypt, he trusted the House would feel that he was only following what he considered to be an imperious duty, and acting from a deep sense of the great public inconvenience that would result from a premature discussion

197
of important matters still in negotiation, and under the responsibility of one acting on the part of her Majesty's Government. But he should be perfectly prepared, when these matters should be brought to a close, let the result be what it might, to defend the course which her Majesty's Government were pursuing. He was convinced that when that time arrived he should be able to state grounds for the course which had been so pursued, which would be satisfactory both to the House and to the country.
Mr. Fector: Sir, I cannot allow this discussion to come to a conclusion without offering my thanks to the hon. Member for Kilkenny, for having brought this important subject under the consideration of the House. I have listened attentively to the speech of the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and I must confess that I am by no means satisfied with the explanation which he has given. It appears to me that the noble Lord has introduced into the discussion of his foreign policy a principle of very doubtful expediency. The noble Lord says, whilst negotiations are pending that it is detrimental to the public service to give any information concerning them, and when they are concluded, then he tells us, if we object to their results, that the public faith is pledged that our objections should have been urged before, and he thus takes a very unfair advantage of our forbearance. I should ill discharge a duty, which I owe to a country in which I have received kindness and hospitality from all classes, if f did not express to the House my sense of the weakness of the basis on which the policy of the noble Lord is founded. If the Turkish empire were now in the same state as before the battle of Navarino, then it might be possible to talk of the independence and integrity of the Turkish empire. But now we must look to Alexandria rather than to Constantinople, if we wish to maintain the independence of that empire. When I was in Egypt, I found all the most intelligent persons residing there, both natives and foreigners, agreeing as to the great improvements introduced into the country by Mohammed Ali. Thirty years ago it was impossible to travel in Egypt with any security either to life or to property; but at present, owing to the active and enlightened exertions of the Pacha, travelling in Egypt is as secure as travelling in England. At that period it was unsafe to go from Cairo to Boulac,
198
a distance of not more than two miles; now that road is as safe as any street in London. Formerly the Bedouins were in the habit of making descents upon and pillaging the villages, now Mohammed Ali has converted them into the peaceful guides and carriers of the desert—and had he done nothing else for Egypt, his success in effecting an object which each succeeding government had attempted in vain, would have entitled him to the gratitude of the people of Egypt, and to the admiration of posterity. It has been asserted that Mohammed Ali is the oppressor of his subjects. [Here Lord Palmerston nodded assent] I will tell the noble Lord that the main cause of any distress which may exist in Egypt arises from his own policy. So long as the noble Lord leaves Egypt in its present uncertain condition, the only security of the people of that country for their lives and property depends on the maintenance of a force sufficient to repel invasion. I have it from the lips of his highness the Pacha himself, that no person can be more anxious than he is to diminish the number of his army and navy, and to reduce the burdens which now press heavily on the industry of the country, but that he cannot do so as long as he is exposed to the invasions of an enemy, upon whom the European powers will not allow him to retaliate. The noble Lord has said, that in the late contest the Pacha was the aggressor, but the very reverse was the fact. The Turkish army entered the Egyptian territory, took possession of fourteen villages, whose municipal authorities were changed by the Turkish general before the Pacha resorted to hostilities. I consider that justice and humanity, as well as sound policy, call for an early settlement of this question, on a basis calculated at once to secure our political and commercial interests and the education and permanent improvement of the Egyptian people.
Lord C. Hamiltonhad certainly entertained a hope, that the noble Lord (Palmerston), would have felt it to be incumbent on him to afford the House some information on the important topics touched upon by the hon. Member for Kilkenny, but that hope had been entirely superseded by the manner in which the noble Lord had met the motion of the hon. Member. Nor was even the very slender information which the noble Lord had ventured to offer to the House, at all in accordance with the knowledge of the facts which he (Lord C. Hamilton) had obtained on the

199
spot. It was on record, as far as the diplomatic documents had been made public, that the Sultan, after the disastrous campaign of Hafiz Pacha, had expressed his willingness to concede the claims of Mehemet Ali, and to confirm him in his independent government of Egypt and Syria, when at the very moment that this mode of settlement was being negotiated, the five powers stepped in, and said "No— nothing shall be settled until we are satisfied that it is right and proper;" and up to the hour at which he addressed the House, nothing more, had been done in the matter, notwithstanding the noble Lord had professed his satisfaction -with the present aspect of affairs at Constantinople. The noble Lord in the very short speech which he had addressed to the House, had taken occasion to deny several of the facts and assertions put forward by the hon. Member for Kilkenny. It was greatly to be desired, and indeed it was very reasonable to expect, that the noble Lord would have specified more particularly what the facts really were, in contradiction to the statement of the hon. Member; for he (Lord C. Hamilton) must really say, that he having been cognizant of many of the occurrences which took place in Egypt during the last year, could vouch for the accuracy of several of the facts advanced by the hon. Member for Kilkenny. He was present, on one occasion, when Mehemet Ali entered upon the topic of the advance of the Turkish army beyond the Euphrates; and he was, upon inquiry, informed by the Viceroy that he had sent the most positive instructions to his son (Ibrahim Pacha), by no means to advance beyond his own territory to meet the Turkish general, nor even to approach the frontier, but, on the contrary, in case Hafiz Pacha should advance into Syria, to withdraw gradually within his own boundaries, until the whole of the Turkish army should be on Syrian ground, and then, and not till then, to repel any attempt at aggression by the most determined resistance. Now it ought to be shown by something more stringent and conclusive, than the vague denial of the noble Viscount opposite, that the facts were not as he had stated; and it was information elucidating this and other disputed points in the proceedings of Mehemet Ali and the Sultan, that the country wanted. The noble Viscount had also alluded to the declaration of independence which Mehemet Ali had expressed it to be his inten-
200
tion to put forth in the course of the last spring, and had cited that as an evidence of the restless and ambitious spirit which animated the Viceroy in all his proceedings towards the Porte. Now, as far as he (Lord C. Hamilton) could understand the motives and intentions of Mehemet Ali, he must assert, that the intimation of the Pacha afforded no such indications as those drawn from it by the noble Viscount; on the contrary, it was pro tanto an evidence of the earnest desire entertained by the Viceroy to relieve himself and the countries under his rule from the evils attendant upon the continual state of irritation and exhaustion into which they were thrown, and in which they were kept by the menaces and intrigues of Mahmoud, the late Sultan. Mehemet Ali could not witness the daily increase of the army in Karamania (near his own frontier city of Aleppo), the constant transmission of supplies and of warlike stores to that army, and the ill-disguised preparations in the arsenal at Constantinople, without great irritation and inquietude, and without feeling that his very existence was menaced by these displays. His commerce was also, by these means, kept in a state of feverish weakness; his expenses for the maintenance of a standing army and fleet, to enable him to repel his adversary, were enormous, and were felt as a drain upon the resources of his kingdom, and it was, therefore, in order to put an end to this ruinous state of things, that he had expressed his determination to the consuls at Alexandria, openly to declare his independence of the enemy by whom he was threatened. The proof that his designs extended no further than to secure his own safety, might be found in his extreme moderation after the decisive victory over the Turkish army at Nezib; for though there was not a single soldier to oppose the march of his troops between the spot where the action was fought and Kutaya, still he sent the most positive orders to his son not to advance one foot into the Turkish territory, which order was punctually obeyed; nor had he altered or advanced his pretensions one step beyond the mark at which they stood previous to the encounter of the two armies.
Sir R. Peelsaid, that, the noble Viscount opposite had urged in excuse for his unwillingness to produce the information asked for by the hon. Member for Middlesex, that it was quite unusual for any

201
Government to bring forward any documents during the period that the negotiation to which those documents referred was pending. Now, he certainly did not feel himself authorized to press for the production of papers or information which he was formally assured by a Cabinet Minister could not be laid before Parliament without great inconvenience to the public service; but, he must also observe, that the noble Viscount had not given the House to understand, that such was the case in this instance, nor did he so comprehend the terms in which the noble Viscount had refused to accede to the motion of the hon. Member for Kilkenny. If the noble Viscount would ground his refusal upon that reason he (Sir R. Peel) was convinced, that no House of Commons would, for one instant, contemplate forcing a Minister to produce papers under such circumstances. But now, with all due consideration to the prudent reserve which must necessarily envelope the proceedings of a Government under the circumstances of such a negotiation as that now pending with the five powers, he really did think there was a limit to which such reserve ought to be confined, and that it ought not to be a perennial reserve, but should terminate within some reasonable period of the occurrences to which it related. The negotiation in question might be pending during a very long time, and the House of Commons was, according to this view of ministerial decorum and of expediency, to be precluded from obtaining any official information on the subject, and consequently debarred from exercising any discretion or control over the actions of the Government. Now, he really did think the noble Viscount ought to afford some answer to the inquiries of the hon. Member for Kilkenny. What did the Speech from the Throne, at the commencement of the present Session, say? Why, it says: —
"The concord which has prevailed amongst the five powers has prevented a renewal of hostilities in the Levant, and I hope, that the same unanimity will bring these important and difficult matters to a final settlement in such a manner as to uphold the integrity and independence of the Ottoman empire, and to give additional security to the peace of Europe."
It was the duty, he thought, of the noble Lord to state now whether there was an approximation towards a settlement of that important matter thus treated in the paragraph which he had read, The inter-
202
vention of the European powers had prevented war; but had it produced any results approaching towards an approximate termination to the difficulties between the Porte and the Viceroy? If there was, as had been broadly asserted, a difference between three of the negotiating powers and France, upon some important points under discussion, then he must candidly state his fears, that the next Session of Parliament would still find the parties negociating, and, according to the noble Lord's doctrine of ministerial reserve and secrecy, the country would, in the interval, be wholly deprived" of all information to be relied on in the matter. The noble Viscount had in his observations referred to the position of Ireland and Scotland towards the British throne, and had attempted to draw a sort of parallel between the state of Turkey, with Egypt and Syria independent of her, and that of Great Britain. Did the noble Viscount, he must ask, mean by that comparison to insinuate that there was in his opinion any similarity between the relation of the Porte and Mehemet Ali, and those of Ireland and Scotland towards the throne? The Lord-lieutenant of Ireland differed in his position from that of Mehemet Ali, in not being an hereditary and independent governor, but, on the contrary, an officer removable at the slightest turn of the balance of power in the Ministry. The noble Viscount had expressed his hopes that the congress of the five powers would be able to maintain the integrity of the Turkish empire; but did the noble Viscount mean to treat Mehemet Ali during the negotiations that were going on, as if he were in the same relative position towards the Porte that the Lord-lieutenant of Ireland held towards her Majesty? He (Sir R. Peel) recollected during his official life many changes of Lord-lieutenants, and some fifteen or sixteen changes of the Irish Secretary since he held that post, whereas the Viceroy of Egypt had maintained himself in his kingdom in direct and open opposition to the efforts and orders of the Sultan, his less than nominal sovereign; and if the noble Viscount persisted in treating with the Viceroy upon that footing, and had given directions to the British Minister at Constantinople to put Mehemet Ali upon the same category with a Lord lieutenant of Ireland, then he (Sir R. Peel) must confess he was not at all surprised at the differences which were said to exist between France and the other negociating powers.

203
Now there were four great points of foreign policy which had been pending for some very considerable period, and upon which it was really of importance that the House should possess some information. He considered; those four points to be the Levant; Persia, which also was alluded to in the speech from the Throne, and which was in the same position with respect to this country as the Levant; the third point was the north-western boundary question in America, on which the whole of the relations of Great Britain with the United States partly depended; though the negotiations were, and had been for a long time, pending, still in this particular case there was this difference from the other negotiations to which he had referred, that England was indebted to the Americans for all the information she possessed as to its progress. The noble Lord had entered into a sort of pledge that, as the American papers brought the news of what was doing in this matter, he would dole it out to the House; but he was afraid the noble Lord had forgotten his pledge; for since he had last touched on the subject, a fresh batch of newspapers arrived from America, and he hoped the noble Lord would be prepared to afford shortly some further scraps of information. The fourth point to which he referred, was the present state of the relations with China, and in this case he did think, that if the noble Lord's rule with respect to withholding information, pending the settlement of a misunderstanding or of a negotiation had been departed from, and that some intelligence on the state of things had been given to the house in the Session of 1838–9, respecting the condition of trade and the opium question— he must repeat, had this course been pursued, the House would have been enabled to have offered the Government some advice upon the matter, and the situation of affairs in that quarter would have been materially improved. There were instances in which the rule of the noble Lord, that whilst negotiations were pending, no communication ought to pass between the Crown and the House, might with great advantage and safety be departed from, and the instances he had referred to proved his assertion. But if the whole of the correspondence asked for could not be produced, did the noble Viscount mean that no part of it, not even any extracts from it, could be made public. If so, he would adhere to the rule he had laid down, not to press
204
for the production of papers which, in the opinion of Ministers, would be attended with danger or inconvenience; but he must express a hope, that the noble Viscount would think proper to afford some answer to his inquiry, whether there was, any approximation towards a final and satisfactory settlement of the dissensions which had recently agitated the Ottoman empire.
Viscount Palmerstonwas understood to decline pledging his official responsibility to the assertion that the production of the papers asked for, would be attended with danger; but the inconvenience and risk which would be consequent upon such a course, were sufficient to induce him to persist in his desire to maintain a cautious reserve upon their contents; nor could any extracts from them, calculated to convey any useful information, be with safety made known. With respect to the approximation of a definitive and satisfactory settlement of the Turco-Egyptian question, that consideration involved points which he was precluded from discussing; but as far as he could answer the inquiry of the right hon. Baronet, he was happy to be able to say, that the negotiations, as far as they had hitherto gone, had been such as to afford satisfaction.
Mr. Charles Bullerwished to show one inference from the doctrine which the noble Lord had laid down, that whilst he was doing anything the House of Commons should never know what he was about, that it would lead to this inconvenience, that whether the noble Lord was doing anything or nothing, the House would never know what he was about. He would take as an instance the question of the north western boundary. The House and the English public hardly knew anything about it, whilst year after year reports were published by the Senates of the United States upon the subject. The public there might be misinformed, or even partially informed, still they were much excited from all the publications, which were urging the public mind there on one side, whilst the English had no information except the driblets of despatches that were published after a fresh arrival from America. Again, on this eastern question, when they found that we had twelve ships of-the line in the Mediterranean, when they were told that there was likely to be an attack, and that one power (France) would take one side, and other powers another, he, for one, wanted to know what

205
was going on, and. what they were going to quarrel about. His impression was, that they were going to war against the only civilized Ottoman Prince in the world, and with the man who holds the key of our Indian possessions, to bring him to the condition of a kind of Lord-lieutenant of Ireland to the Sublime Porte. The noble Lord might be all right in what he was doing, but the House ought to know something about it. He did not say, that he should differ from the noble Lord when he had done, but he would be glad if, from any information he could obtain, he should be able to come to the same conclusion as soon as possible.
Lord John Russellsaid, that there had been so much discussion on the general principle adopted by the House, in respect to information to be sought on foreign affairs, and on the reports which ought to be laid before Parliament and the country, that he must make a few remarks, because, differing little from the right hon. Gentleman as to the general rule, and disagreeing in his assertion that there should be a limit to that rule, he could not agree in this particular instance with that right hon. Gentleman, and still less with the hon. Member for Liskeard. He took the general rule to be, that the House of Commons was not accustomed to press for information, when the Secretary of State for that department said that public inconvenience or danger would arise from the disclosure, and he thought that the determination of the House of Commons in that respect was founded on a wise and enlarged view of public policy. If it were said that negotiations should go on, not between government and government, but between popular assembly and popular assembly, he could only say that no principle could be worse; and he thought that it was the duty of the Secretary of State to ask the House to place that limit for which he had contended. With regard to the production of papers relating to public affairs, he thought that there was not much reason to complain of the noble Lord. Had there been no documents produced with regard to Persia, with regard to China, or with regard to North America? There had been many papers laid before the House relating to those subjects, but they were produced at a time when no inconvenience could result from their publication. But supposing he took another matter, which related to Russia. There was at one time a strong feeling in exist-
206
ence against the proceedings of that power in the East. The British Government received information with regard to those proceedings, or with regard to the proceedings of some persons who were supposed to be the agents of Russia, which it felt itself bound to notice, and it was determined that some steps should be taken in the matter. The manner in which it was deemed most prudent that it should be brought to issue was, that the noble Viscount, the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, should state all that he had heard upon the subject to the Russian authorities, and should ask for a candid and honourable explanation of the circumstances alleged. The despatch was drawn up, but it contained a great deal that, if it had been produced in the House of Commons on the first day of the session, before an answer was obtained, would have been productive of much indignant and angry feeling. The noble Viscount did not bring forward the despatch, but when the papers were compared, when on the one hand the statement of the explanation required appeared, and on the other hand the full and complete explanation appeared, which had been given on the part of Russia, and which consisted of a positive disavowal of the acts which were supposed to have been its agent's, peace was found to have been placed on a more sound basis than that on which it before rested, and no objection any longer existed to the production of the papers. This was one instance; but he would give another, to which his noble Friend had alluded—he meant the question of the eastern boundary in America. Papers were produced two years ago before the senate of America. Their production led to a great deal of discussion and angry declamation against England: but when the accounts reached this country, no discussion was raised in the House of Commons. He had been told that when intelligence was carried back to America that there had been no discussion complaining of the conduct of the United States, it relieved the minds of many, who thought that what had taken place might have led to some recrimination on the part of this House; and he was sure that if, instead of sending despatches, such matters were made the subject of speeches, the danger of disturbing the harmony of countries would be greatly increased. Now, having spoken as to the general rule to be observed, he must say that he had no objection to produce those documents, which were produced

207
before the senate of the United States, though he might find it necessary to add some papers to them, in order to explain some transactions which had been alluded to in them. He would mention an instance, which was not of great consequence, but which would serve to illustrate his observations. Mr. Fox complained, on the part of Great Britain, of certain incursions on the state of Maine, and the answer which the Secretary of State of the United States gave was, that it was very astonishing that that complaint should be made, because an attack had been made on one of the block-houses, in which were some citizens of the United States, which had been led by an officer of militia. The fact was, that one night a sort of a mob of persons went to attack this block-house, and among them was an officer of militia. The Governor, Sir John Harvey, disapproved of the conduct of this person, but the militia officer having expressed his deep regret that he had done anything so contrary to orders, Sir John Harvey wrote a despatch to the Colonial Secretary, saying that he thought it would be sufficient to give him a strong reprimand. He however, thought that that would not be enough, and that the adoption of such a course as that suggested would be to give encouragement either to the American side or to our side to continue the system of warfare which had prevailed; and being of opinion that the dismissal of the officer was necessary, he conveyed the Queen's commands that he should be accordingly dismissed. Now, this would not appear upon the face of the papers which would be, under ordinary circumstances, produced; and perfect justice, therefore, would not be done unless he produced some others besides those asked for. There were two questions; the one was that of the boundary, with respect to which a proposition had been made in the course of the last year. The other was as to the effect of the violation of the agreement which had been made. He did not think that, either on the general question, or on the particular question as to certain transactions, that that union and peace which now prevailed was likely to be interrupted; on the contrary, the governments of the two countries were both too much impressed with the advantages arising from peace to these two great and enlightened countries, and were too well convinced that there was no question with respect to the boundary of the Maine, which might not be satisfactorily settled,
208
if they were both determined, as he believed they both were, to abide by the principles of justice, not to feel that these discussions on the subject, though they might be interrupted at times by the wild and unsettled state of the country, would end in an amicable arrangement. After what had passed in the course of the debate, he did not wish to enter into a discussion on the Eastern question; but he thought that all our acts and negotiations on this subject proceeded, first, on the great principle of wishing to preserve the integrity of the Turkish empire; and secondly, on the representations made by the five powers to the Sultan last summer. On those two points, the five powers were agreed; and if the House thought that the integrity of the Turkish empire should not be an object with England, and that the other four powers, as well as ourselves, were wrong in saying that it was, then we must not interfere, but at present the opinion was the other way. In the case of France the words were strong, that they wished to preserve the integrity of the Turkish empire, and all the powers agreed to the same principle, and signed the declaration to that effect last year. The matter itself was a matter of great difficulty; but so long as the policy of this country remained unchanged, we were bound to maintain the integrity of that empire. Quite sure he was, that the course proposed by the hon. Member for Kilkenny, that we should abandon the Sultan altogether, would be at once saying to Russia, "We do not mean to abide by our policy," or declaring that she remained as the sole protector of Turkey; that Turkey should have no defence from the whole of the powers, but only such as Russia might give her. He was speaking now upon general views of our policy; there were differences of opinion on certain points, but he trusted that no difference existed upon the subject of giving a greater security to the integrity of the Turkish empire.
Mr. H. G. Knightspoke to the following effect:—I am not surprised that the noble Lord, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, should have wrapped himself up in his diplomatic mantle; but I regret that the little information which he has condescended to afford, should not be of a nature to remove the anxiety with which the public are beginning to watch the progress of the Eastern question. The only point upon which any great stress appears

209
to be laid, is the complete integrity of the Turkish empire. But how is that integrity to be maintained? Not by the Turkish force, for it is confessedly incompetent to measure its strength with the Egyptian. Unfortunately that problem was solved, in the sight of the world, in 1832, at the battle of Koniah. How then is this integrity to be enforced? Are we to believe the accounts which we read in the newspapers? Is it true that a Russian army is to be permitted to descend in Asia Minor? By no other means, I admit, can the object be achieved; but the remedy is worse than the disease. Nothing, in my mind, should be more pertinaciously resisted by those who wish to keep the Sultan on his throne. The presence of a Russian army in Asia Minor would be seen with the greatest anxiety by all who really wish well to our ancient ally, and who desire that Europe should remain at peace. Such an army, once admitted, would not be easily dislodged; and, perhaps, would not return home by the same way that it came. At any rate it would be the beginning of a bad habit. It would familiarise the public mind with a dangerous thing. It might lead hereafter to events which would set all Europe in a flame. The very means to which the Sultan, in his alarm and his helplessness, seems to be willing to fly for protection, might, eventually, lead to the subversion of his throne. And what is it that Mehemet Ali asks? Nothing more than, in fact, he possesses already. Nothing which the Sultan, at least, can now take from him—all he asks is a change of name. Of what importance would it be to this country if the authority which Mehemet Ali possesses for life over Syria and Egypt should be transmitted to his posterity? Would British interests be, in that case, less secure than if those countries reverted to a distant, a feeble, and, perhaps, disputed sway? But it would be of great importance were we to allow Mehemet Ali to feel himself under great obligations, not to England, but to France. I should have thought the noble Lord had had enough of such mistakes. By a similar error, on a former occasion, we gave the advantage to Russia. Are we now going to give the advantage to France? Are we to be outwitted by all the world? The only point upon which it is necessary for this country to insist, is the restoration of the Turkish fleet—that is indispensable—for never did the world behold a more disgraceful transaction. An officer, high in command, de-
210
serting the son of his Sovereign, to whom he owed his elevation, deserting him at his utmost need, depriving him of his means of defence, and putting his most powerful armament in the hands of his enemy ! It would be unworthy of this country to permit so black an act of treason to be crowned with success. The restoration of the fleet should be insisted upon as a sine qua non. With this single exception, I trust that British interference in the affairs of the East, will not go beyond mediation, that we shall show ourselves in that quarter only in the character of a friend, and not as an enemy to either party. The alarming hints which dropped from the noble Lord, have induced me to make these few observations; but, as the noble Lord says, that the production of the papers moved for by the hon. Member for Kilkenny, would be of detriment to the public service, I shall not think of pressing him further on that subject; and, for the present, content myself with expressing the hope, that the noble Lord may be able to steer his bark in safety through the perilous and intricate straits into which he has been drawn, by a current which is now the more irresistible, because it was not resisted at an earlier period.
Mr. Hume, in reply, said, that he had refrained from reading the documents which were in his hand, and on which he relied for the statements he had made, lest he should take up too much time of the House. But as the noble Viscount had denied some of the assertions, he (Mr. Hume) had made, and as the noble Lord, the Secretary for the Colonies, had also made some statements which could be refuted, he must be allowed to notice some of them. The noble Lord (Palmerston) had said, that England was no guarantee to the convention of Kutayah, which could not be reconciled with the printed correspondence of the British Minister at Constantinople. He would now read a letter of Admiral Roussin of the 8th of May, 1833, to prove that France was also a party and a guarantee to that convention.
"LETTER ADDRESSED TO HIS HIGHNESS MOHAMED ALI PACHA, BY ADMIRAL ROUSSIN, FRENCH AMBASSADOR, DATED
"Therapia, May 8th, 1833.
"Illustrious, magnificent, and magnanimous Prince.
"I feel satisfaction in being one of the first to announce to you the happy conclusion of peace, between the Grand Seignior and your Highness, on conditions equally advantageous and honourable to Egypt,

211
"Your. Highness had already learned that all the Pachalics of Syria had been conceded to you, in consequence of the mission with which I charged M. le Baron Varenne to your illustrious son. The point of Adana remained in dispute, and I will not dissimulate that the abandonment of that position by the Ottoman empire has experienced much resistance; the munificence of the Grand Seignior has made it disappear, and Adana is a gift of his goodness.
"The peace so much desired by the friends of Egypt, and the Ottoman empire, is therefore concluded, to the regret of their enemies who wished to profit by the war in order to gratify their ambition.
"Your Highness will be just enough to recognise to which side France has constantly been inclined; attentive to the events of the East, she has felt that the immediate termination of war between the Mussulmans was the condition of their safety. She has desired this peace, sincerely and ardently. Such was the object of the steps taken by me on the 23rd of February, in proposing terms, which circumstances rendered at that time suitable; and which your Highness from principle might have adopted, fully persuaded that France would not have withheld her endeavours to ameliorate them.
"Your adhesion, at that time, would have prevented the aggravation of actual events. May Heaven dispel the danger with which they menace.
"Notwithstanding the just dissatisfaction felt by France, she has followed the enlightened and generous views that direct her.
"What is passing* in the Bosphorus, has convinced her of the necessity of strengthening Egypt still more, she has obtained for Egypt the whole of Syria, and can say that in that, she has done for your Highness more than any other power.
"Such have been the fruits of three months' uninterrupted efforts, the results of which will testify whether the interest of France has been wanting to your Highness, and if the unfavourable impressions attributed to her ambassador, have been justified.
"You could not have believed it, magnificent Seignior; but I am happy to be able to prove to you that they had no foundation, and that in all that has passed, general interests alone have regulated my conduct.
"I beg your Highness to accept, &c.
"ROUSSIN."
To shew that Colonel Campbell, the British Consul at Alexandria, considered that England was a guarantee, he (Mr. Hume) would read one paragraph from a letter † dated Alexandria, the 12th of July, 1838, addressed to Viscount Palmerston.—
* The Russian fleet and army were there.
†See Parliamentary Papers on the Table, 1839,
212
In a conference with Mohamed Ali, Colonel Campbell says,
"I replied to him, that I thought he ought to remain contented with the status quo, as settled at Kutayah, and trust to the great powers for any arrangement for the future."
And it appears by other parts of Colonel Campbell's correspondence, that the status quo was what had been agreed to in 1833, and which Lord Ponsonby not only used his influence to have settled, but pledged the British Government to support; and it will be proved, if the papers be produced, that his Lordship claimed and obtained as I have before stated, great credit for what he had done at that time. The noble Lord had also charged the Pacha with having commenced hostilities, although the facts and dates stated by him (Mr. Hume) had not been contradicted. He (Mr. Hume) repeated that the Sultan, urged on, as generally believed, by Lord Ponsonby, collected troops and attacked Syria, whilst Mohamed Ali was in Upper Egypt. That Hafiz Pacha, at the head of the Sultan's army, on the 28th of May 1839 entered the province of Aintab, took fourteen villages belonging to Mohamed Ali, and put arms into the hands of the inhabitants to urge them to rise against the Egyptians. That Ibrahim Pacha, at the head of Mohamed Ali's army, demanded an explanation from Hafiz Pacha, who refused—that, in fact, Hafiz Pacha began on the 23rd of June, the warfare which ended so ruinously to the Sultan's troops on the 25th. The noble Lord was, therefore, in error in the assertion he had made. It is well-known, that Ibrahim Pacha had received orders to stand on the defensive, which he did. The noble Lord also accused Mohamed Ali of treachery in obtaining possession of the Sultan's fleet; but he (Mr. Hume) would read a letter from Alexandria, which explains the cause of the defection of the Turkish fleet, and the reasons why Mohamed Ali demanded the dismissal of Housroff Pacha.
"Whilst the Ottoman fleet was at anchor at the Dardanelles, the Capitan Pacha learnt the death of Sultan Mahmoud the 2nd, the elevation to the throne of his son Abdel Medjit, and the nomination of Housroff Pacha to the post of Grand Vizir with unlimited authority. Immediately after the receipt of this last intelligence at the fleet, the chief officers presented themselves in a body to the admiral and addressed him in the following terms:—' We know well Housroff Pacha, and are not ignorant of all his past intrigues. Now that he is placed at the head of the government, and invested with full powers, we shall see the

213
Ottoman empire go from bad to worse—we will not return to Constantinople to make over the fleet to such an intriguer as Housroff Pacha, being persuaded that it will be employed to the greatest possible prejudice of the Sublime Porte. We entreat you to direct your course towards him who is an old and devoted servant of our magnificent Sovereign. Let us proceed to Mohamed Ali, and entreat him to deliver the Mussulman nation from ' the yoke of this minister so fatal to the empire.—The Capitan Pacha seeing little chance of altering the determination of his officers, and being moreover persuaded of the truth of their statements, gave orders for the fleet to make sail towards Alexandria.
"Before Housroff Pacha had taken up his abode at Constantinople, and had occupied different public situations there, Mohamed Ali lived uninterruptedly in good harmony with his Sovereign, and sought for every opportunity of giving him proofs of his entire devotion, having on many occasions rendered very eminent services to the Sublime Porte. These facts are known to all the world; but from the moment that Housroff Pacha arrived at Constantinople, misunderstandings arose between the Sultan and the Pacha—and it is, in fact, from that period that their enmity commenced —the consequences which have been so disastrous for the Mussulman nation are generally known. In this state of things, Housroff Pacha, availing himself of the great power vested in him by the high functions to which he has been promoted, is proceeding to involve the empire in new dangers, and thus to accomplish its ruin, In order to put an end to his intrigues, and to render his evil propensities less detrimental to the empire, Mohamed Ali determined to adhere to the wishes expressed by the officers of the fleet.
"In soliciting the removal of Housroff Pacha from the direction of public affairs, Mohamed AH feels convinced that he is working for the adoption of a measure that will be productive of the greatest national utility. This result being once obtained, Constantinopolitans and Egyptians will, thenceforward, form but one body, and will unite their efforts for the consolidation of the Ottoman throne, and for the advancement of its prosperity. It will then be seen, whether Mohamed Ali will or will not give convincing proofs of what has now been advanced."
With respect to the noble Lord's praises of the conduct of Russia, he (Mr. Hume) must leave the House and the public to judge from the general policy and encroachments of that power for the last fifty years without intermission, rather than rely on the noble Lord's opinion. The comparison made by the noble Lord that Mohamed Ali, the conqueror of the Sultan in two great battles, and the possessor of several provinces by the sword, was to be compared with the viceroy of Ireland, was too ridi
214
culous to require further notice than had been taken of it by the right hon. Baronet. The noble Lord, the Secretary to the Colonies, had said, that the policy of the fire great powers WHS to preserve the integrity of Turkey, as they had stated in their joint note of the 27th of July, 1839; and that the policy of England in that respect remained unchanged. He (Mr. Hume) desired to say, that there was no such principle or policy stated in that note to which the noble Lord alluded, and which he would now read—
"Constantinople, 27th July, 1839.
"The undersigned have received from their respective Governments, instructions in virtue of which they have the honour to inform the Sublime Porte, that the accord upon the Eastern Question is confirmed among the great powers, and to invite her to suspend all definitive determination without their concurrence, in anticipation of the effect of the interest they feel towards her.
(Signed) "PONSONBY,
Ambassador of England.
"BARON STüMER,
Internuncio of Austria.
"ROUSSIN,
Ambassador of France.
"A. BONTENIEFF,
The Minister of Russia.
"COUNT KöNIGSMAECK,
The Minister of Prussia."
The House would see, that the only thing in that note was a request to the Sultan to suspend settling with Mohamed Ali; and, from that day to this, the suspension of hostilities continued, and no progress to peace, so anxiously desired by both the Sultan and by Mohamed Ali had been made. He (Mr. Hume) was called upon to prove what he had asserted to the House, that peace might have been settled in August 1839, if the British Government and the other powers had not interfered by the presentation of that note, to prevent it; and the British people were burthened to support a large fleet which had been the means of doing all the mischief which had arisen from protracted war, and preparations for new war, for eight months. He (Mr. Hume) would read three letters—the first to show that Mohamed Ali had on the 17th of July, received, in a friendly manner, the proposition sent by the Divan for peace—
"Reply given by Mohamed Ali on 17th July, 1839, to the Representatives of the Five Great Powers on the subject of the communications received from Constantinople, to be by them transmitted to their respective Ambassadors at Constantinople.
"In two days hence, Akiff Effendi will set

215
out on his return to Constantinople. He will be the bearer of a letter of congratulation and submission on my part to the new Sultan Abdel Medjid. I shall write a letter also to Housroff Pacha, in which I shall represent to him.
"1st. That the late Sultan Mahmoud had some time ago, through Sari in Effendi made to me more advantageous proposals than those which his Highness, now addressed to me; the hereditary succession of Egypt having at that time been offered me, as well as of the Ayalet of Seida, and of the Sandjakat of Tripoli.
"2nd. That under present circumstances, I solicit the hereditary succession of Egypt with that of Syria and Candia, that is to say, of all the territory I now possess, as before notified by me.
"3rd. That on that condition, and by observing good faith towards me, I will be the most faithful of the servants and vassals of his Highness, and will defend him when and against whomsoever he may desire.
"It is in this sense that I propose writing to Constantinople. I shall refrain from any allusion to the fleet in my letter to the Grand Vizir out of delicacy; but I beg you will have the kindness to assure the representatives of the great courts at Constantinople, that I never had any intention to retain it, or to make use of it with any hostile design against the Sultan; on the contrary, I engage finally to restore it as soon as my proposals have been accepted; In that case, all the vessels composing the fleet of the Sultan, to the last, will be sent back to Constantinople; as to the Ottoman Admirals, those who are afraid of returning to Turkey may remain in Egypt, which forms a portion of the same monarchy. As soon as the Sultan shall have acceded to ray prayer, and Housroff Pacha shall have been removed from the direction of affairs, I shall without hesitation, at the first invitation of his Highness repair in person to Constantinople; and it will not be with the fleet that I shall proceed thither, but alone on board a steam vessel, and with the sole object of presenting my personal homage to my Sovereign, and for the purpose of tendering my services to him.
"I declare to you, finally, that if my proposals are not accepted, I shall not make war, but maintain my present position and wait."
The letter from Housroff Pacha to Mohamed Ali of the 30th of July 1839, sent by Mouffet Bey, the envoy of Mohamed Ali, proves that the Divan had agreed to the demands of Mohamed Ali; and that a special messenger would have been dispatched on the 29th of July to Egypt, to conclude a treaty, if the note of the five great powers had not been presented.
"Letter of Housroff Pacha to Mohamed Ali, by Mouffet Bey, about 30th July, 1839.
"By the return of Akiff Effendi, I received the reply to the letter which I had the honour
216
to address to your Excellency by that envoy, and have understood its contents, as well as the report of Akiff Effendi, and in particular what passed between your Excellency and him. I have deposed both at the feet of his Highness our august master, who took cognizance of their contents, and I communicated them subsequently to the principal dignitaries of the Sublime Porte assembled in council.
"We are rejoiced to learn that your Excellency, who is an ancient feudatory of the empire, who has rendered more real services to the state than all the others, and who on that account, is become one of the greatest of our colleagues, had evinced the noble determination to make common cause with the most influential and most devoted members of the Mussulman nation, and we pray to God that our mutual prayers for union may be accomplished for the prosperity of the empire.
"In the letter which I had the houour to address to your Excellency by Akiff Effendi, I spoke of the transmission by hereditary succession of the Egyptian provinces only, but that was merely a form adopted for announcing your pardon to your Excellency. Akiff Effendi, moreover, was not charged to treat of any such matters. He was only entrusted with the communication of the most desirable of all intelligence, your restoration to favour; and for that reason, I omitted to give more ample explanations to your Excellency. All the great dignitaries of the Sublime Porte, however, being equally desirous with myself that you should have all the security and all the necessary guarantees, and being ready to unite their efforts with yours for the prosperity of the empire, I had, after obtaining the sanction of his Highness, our august master, given orders to his Excellency Saib Effendi, one of the ministers of the Sublime Porte, to proceed to Egypt for the purpose of concerting with your Excellency respecting the demands which you had presented, the services which you intended to render, and the measures to be adopted under present circumstances.
"This envoy was about to depart on board the steam vessel, when the ambassadors of the five great powers presented to the Sublime Porte a note signed by them of which a translation is enclosed, and the purport of which was to make known that the five great powers had come to an understanding for the discussion and adjustment of the affairs of the East. Immediately after the presentation of that note, the high dignitaries of the Porte again assembled in Council and expressed their opinion that the interference of strangers in a question between Suzerain and Vassal was by no means proper; but, considering that the five great powers had already come to an understanding upon the subject, the refusal of their mediation being contrary to European custom, might cause offence to them and occasion disturbances and difficulties to the Mussulman nation. Looking, therefore, to the general state of things, and reflecting that in

217
Consequence of your pardon being granted and plans for a reunion being in progress, the guarantees of foreign concurrence become superfluous, and the intervention or non-intervention of the powers in the settlement of the question of no importance, the great dignitaries assembled at the same time that they put up their prayers that we may never have occasion to appeal to strangers, did not think it advisable under present circumstances to reject the unforeseen demand of the five ambassadors and accordingly gave their consent to it.
"We are desirous, and it is the will of his Highness that you should, in the first instance be informed of what has just taken place; the departure of the envoy has been in consequence suspended. I have taken the liberty to address the present letter to your Excellency by the steam vessel. As soon as your Excellency shall have been made acquainted with its contents as well as with the communication from the ambassadors to the consuls general, I beg you will be pleased to convey to me your sentiments thereon.
(Signed) "HOUSROFF PACHA."
P.S. "It has been arranged that your Chargé d'Affaires at Constantinople, Mouffit Bey, should himself be the bearer of this letter to your Excellency in order to elucidate its contents by viva voce explanations. Your Excellency will thus know more fully the real state of things."
The answer of Mohamed AH, of the 9th of August, to Housroff Pacha, would, he believed, be conclusive with every considerate person, that the five great powers had at that time prevented peace—England taking the lead.
"Translation from the Turkish Language of the Reply of Mohamed Ali to Housroff Pacha, dated 9th Aug. 1839.
"I have received the letter which your Excellency was pleased to address to me by Mouffit Bey, my Chargé d'Affaires at Constantinople.
"Your excellency informs me that you had perused the despatch which I had the honour to address to you by the return of Akiff Effendi, together with the report made by that envoy; and that the high dignitaries of the Sublime Porte assembled in council, after receiving communications of my letter and of the report of Akiff Effendi, and in order to give course to my demand as well as to ascertain the nature of the services which I could render to the empire, and to determine what measures it was proper to adopt under present circumstances, had agreed to send to me the minister Saib Effendi by the steam-boat. Meanwhile the ambassadors of the five great powers presented a note to your excellency of which a translation is stated to accompany your despatch, and on the subject of which you add that the consuls general of the five great powers residing at Alexandria would make the
218
necessary communications, which with the verbal reports of my Chargé d'Affaires would assist me in understanding the matters now in agitation.
"The Consuls General have communicated to me the instructions received by them from their respective Ambassadors, and Mouffit Bey has explained to me what he was charged to state.
"My sole desire and object is to make my submission, and to devote all any services to our magnanimous and all powerful Lord and Master. But I have very humbly supplicated his Highness, that in consideration of my quality as an old servant of the empire and out of regard for my past services, he would generously be pleased to grant two prayers which I ventured to address to him. I pray to God that he may continue on the throne till the end of the World, the august person of our Lord and Master.
"When my Chargé d'Affaires received the order to come to me, he was admitted to the distinguished honour of doing homage at the feet of his Highness, who was pleased to say to him, ' Mouffet Bey, make my compliments to the Pacha. Tell him that I have acceded to the prayer he has addressed to my throne for the hereditary government of Egypt and its dependencies, and that I have given orders to arrange that affair.'
"These benevolent expressions of his Highness have rejoiced my heart inasmuch as they accomplish my most ardent prayer for the hereditary succession, and rank me among the grandees of the empire.
"The high dignitaries of the Sublime Porte, assembled in Council subsequently stated to Mouffet Bey, 'Our august Lord and Master has just granted the object of the prayer presented by Mohamed Ali Pacha at the foot of the throne, for the hereditary succession to Egypt and its dependencies; but in the ' meantime the Ambassadors of the five great powers have presented this note of which it is necessary that Mohamed Ali should take cognizance.'
"In consequence of what has been said and done, I rejoice that one of my prayers has been accomplished, and I perceive that for the moment the other has been neglected. Nevertheless, I trust, that that also will be conceded to me by the high benevolence of his Highness. In this case, I conclude, that it would not be necessary to have recourse to the mediation of the five great powers.
"Your Excellency will further learn my opinion on these affairs from the communications of the Ambassadors after the receipt of the dispatch as addressed to them by their respective Consuls General at Alexandria.
"This is the purport of the letter which I have now the honour to address to your Excellency by my Chargé d'Affaires Mouffit Bey."
The proofs might be multiplied in support of the view he (Mr. Hume) had given to the House of the policy and conduct of

219
England, and of the other four powers towards Egypt; but he had stated enough to satisfy the House as to the statements he had made, as the grounds for his motion. He was confident that the reports of the Consuls of the five powers at Alexandria, published to all Europe, would bear out all he had stated: and he would only add that, in agreeing to withdraw his motion, in consequence of the declaration of the noble Lord, that it would be injurious to the public service to produce those papers now, he would give notice that in one month or so from this time, he (Mr. Hume) would renew his motion; and then he hoped the House would support him in demanding a full explanation of the policy of the noble Lord (Palmerston) which was maintained at so heavy an expense to England at this time of financial distress.
The motion was then withdrawn.

GLASGOW UNIVERSITY.
Mr. Wallacemoved for "a return, in columns, of the names of the professors in the University of Glasgow whose duties are at present performed by assistants, or substitutes, with the names of these; stating the professor-snip, and duration of the incumbency of each such professor; also the length of time during which the duties of his office, in whole or in part, respectively, have been discharged by an assistant or substitute, with the cause which rendered it necessary to have recourse to such services, and the authority under which any professor was empowered to delegate his duties."
Sir James Graham, while he disputed the right of the House to order such a return as that moved for by the hon. Gentleman, would not, on the part of the learned body to which the motion referred, oppose it, as it might appear to arise from a desire on their part to evade inquiry. Brat he believed that it would be found that those professors of the University of Glasgow, who had given their lectures by deputy, were regius professors, who were compelled by age and sickness to do so, and who were induced to continue to hold their offices, tinder such circumstances, because no retiring allowances were provided for them.
Motion agreed to.

SOUTH AUSTRALIAN EMIGRATION COMMISSION.
Lord Eliotthen moved "that the South Australian papers (ordered 14th February), be laid before the House forthwith." These papers were now rendered
220
still more necessary from the summary dismissal of the late commission, which had thrown the management of colonial emigration affairs into other hands. Six weeks had elapsed since the papers were moved for, and he thought they could not be accused of precipitancy in urging the immediate production of these papers.
Mr. Vernon Smithsaid, that the delay in the production of the papers had arisen from the circumstances attendant on the change of the commission to which the noble Lord had referred. The Colonial Office, however, had nothing to do with the production of these papers. Such a motion as the present, where papers had been moved for by an address, was most unusual; but if the noble Lord saw nothing unusual or discourteous in it, he would not offer any opposition to the motion.
Mr. Huttwas glad that the noble Lord had moved for these papers, but, at the same time, he could, from his own knowledge, state, that the production of them would be attended with very considerable labour.
Lord G. Somersetcould not understand how the hon. Gentleman, the Under-Secretary for the Colonies, could conceive that his department was not responsible for the returns in question. If the Colonial Office was not responsible, who was? The immediate production of these papers was most important at a time when the Colonial Secretary had turned out one commission and appointed a paid commission in their room. Nor did he see that there was any want of courtesy in calling for the production of papers six weeks after the House had agreed to an address.
Mr. V. Smithhad been quite unaware that the motion for these papers was intended as an attack on the Colonial Office, for their conduct with regard to the commission.
Mr. Mackinnonsaid, that the late commission would be most desirous that the information sought for should be given.
Mr. Goulburnsaid, that there had been of late a most unreasonable delay in the production of papers moved for and ordered by that House,
Mr. V. Smithsaid, that the apparent delay arose from the fact that many of the papers were not now laid on the Table until they were ready to be delivered to Members generally in a printed form.
Motion agreed to.

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a third time:—Mutiny; Marine Mutiny.
Petitions presented. By the Marquess of Westminster, and the Earl of Lovelace, from several places, for, and by Lords Fitzgerald, and Wharncliffe, and the Duke of Buckingham, from a number of places, against, the Total and Immediate Repeal of the Corn-laws.—By the Dukes of Richmond, and Buccleugh, the Marquesses of Bute, and Londonderry, and the Earl of Aberdeen, from a great many places, against the existing system of Church Patronage, and in favour of Non-Intrusion.

CORN LAWS.
The Marques of Westminster, in presenting a petition from a place in Lancashire, praying for a repeal of the Corn-laws, supported the prayer of the petition. At the same time he must observe, that he thought the change which the petitioners desired to see effected, would not tend so far to lower the price of bread as to afford them any material advantage, and if that were true, as he fully believed it was, the landlords and the farmers would not have so much reason to dread the proposed repeal. He was surprised at the inconsistency of a noble Lord opposite, (Ashburton), who was now opposed to the alteration of the Corn-laws, but who some years since in the House of Commons had strenuously opposed a motion which had for its object to increase the protection to agriculture.
Lord Ashburtonsaid, that just five-and-twenty years ago, he had, being then a Member of the House of Commons, resisted further protection to the agricultural interest. The proposition at that time had been the establishment of such provisions as would keep the price of wheat up to 60 s. per quarter; but there were in those days, men who contended that the price ought to be kept up to 80 s., and even some who went so far as to say that the protection ought to go so high as 120 s. He had re-

163
sisted that increased protection to the agricultural interest, and now, after the lapse of a quarter of a century, he should do the same. He hoped it would be borne in mind, that there was a wide difference between supporting an existing arrangement and establishing a new system.
The Duke of Richmondwas surprised at the statement of the noble Marquess, that the repeal of the Corn-laws would not have the effect of injuring the agricultural interest, because it would not reduce the price of corn. Then why all this agitation for their repeal? It was no such thing. The agitators knew that if they could persuade Parliament to repeal the protection of the agriculturists their interests would be destroyed. The farmers would not be able to employ half the men, nor to pay them half the wages they now did and what would be its effect in Scotland and Ireland? He complained of this, and the landed interest had a right to complain, that year after year this question was agitated, and thereby no landed proprietor could sell his land, nor any tenant think it safe to take a lease, while certain paid parties went about the country teaching the labourer not to look with confidence to his employer, and preaching that the interest of the landlord and the tenant was not one and the same. Neither was this a question on which all the manufacturers Were agreed, for many looked forward to these discussions year after year with great alarm. He hoped no bill on the subject would pass the House of Commons. He believed it would not, because he believed the House of Commons represented the people; but if such a bill should unfortunately pass that House, he hoped that their Lordships would, on the second reading, reject it by a large and triumphant majority.
Petition laid on the table.

LORD SEATON — THE QUEEN'S MESSAGE.
The order of the day for considering her Majesty's most gracious message in relation to Lord Seaton, having been read,
Viscount Melbournesaid—I now rise my Lords, to move that an humble address be presented to her Majesty, expressive of your Lordships' approbation of the sentiments contained in her Majesty's message, and to assure her Majesty, that your Lordships will be happy to concur with me in carrying those wishes into effect. Upon the early life and career
164
of the noble Lord who is the subject of the present message, it is not my intention to expatiate, particularly in the presence of so many noble Lords whom I see around me, who are so much better able to speak upon such subjects than I can possibly be; suffice it to say, that from his youth he has been a soldier, and a distinguished soldier—that he has held the most confidential situations under the most distinguished commanders, and borne a considerable share in that series of triumphs which have shed such a lustre upon the British nation, and conferred so much glory upon the British arms, and so much advantage to the country and the world. Allow me, my Lords, now briefly to call your attention to the subject of the present message. After having been governor of Upper Canada, the noble Lord became commander of her Majesty's forces in both these provinces. During the period of that command, there broke out that unfortunate insurrection, which, for a time, entirely unsettled that country, and which he met with the promptitude and decision, and prudence and precaution, which rendered it of very short duration, and speedily restored the tranquillity of that country. This happened under the government of Lord Gosford; and when he left Canada, Lord Seaton succeeded to the government of the provinces. When her Majesty was advised to send out Lord Durham as Governor-general of the Canadas, the noble Lord instantly accepted, under the new Governor-general, the post he had formerly held as commander of the forces in these provinces; not, in my opinion, the least prudent or signal act of his Lordship's life, and evincing, at the same time, the moderation of his character, and his anxiety to serve her Majesty in any capacity which he might be called upon to do. He put aside all personal feeling, and acted in the most cordial manner with the new Governor-general. I think, my Lords, this was not the least noble trait in his character. He acted in a manner which did honour to the service, in performing the duty required of him, without regard to personal considerations, or to circumstances which might by others be considered humiliating. Next year, when the civil war broke out again, he acted with the same promptitude and prudence, and the disturbances were soon put down. I say, my Lords, that the prudence and wisdom of his civil services were equally conspicuous and valuable, and such, I believe I may say, as to command

165
the universal approbation of the House and the country, and to merit the honours which her Majesty had been advised to bestow upon him. I call upon your Lordships to concur with the other House of Parliament to give him the means of supporting that honour. To this application there has been but one exception, and that a most honourable one. The only obstacle was a doubt in the mind of the noble and gallant Lord himself, whether the services which he had rendered were such as to merit the honours and rewards bestowed on him. That doubt was communicated to the Commander of the forces, and I believe that was the only doubt expressed in any quarter—it is the only one I have heard of. I trust that the House rather agree with the general voice of the country, than with the modest doubt expressed by the noble and gallant Lord himself; and, therefore, in the confident, expectation of your Lordships' assent, I move, "That an humble address be presented to her Majesty for her most gracious message, informing the House that her Majesty, having taken into consideration the services of John Lord Seaton, as Governor-general of Canada and Commander of the forces in that province, had determined to confer upon him some signal mark of her favour; and to assure her Majesty, that this House will most cheerfully concur in any measure necessary to accomplish that most important purpose."
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, I entirely concur in the motion which has been made by the noble Viscount. My Lords, I will not weaken what the noble Viscount has said, in respect to my noble and gallant Friend, by adverting to the topics which the noble Viscount has enumerated with so much feeling and ability. I have had the honour of being connected in service; with my noble and gallant Friend at an; early period of his life, and I must say, that at all times, and under all circumstances, he gave that promise of prudence, of zeal, of devotion to the service of his country,; which he has since so nobly fulfilled. With respect, my Lords, to those services which he has rendered his country on the occasion mentioned by the noble viscount, which have led to the message we are now considering, I can only say that I entirely concur with the noble Viscount in all that he has said respecting the noble and gallant Lord, in resuming his post, and taking the command of her Majesty's troops, notwithstanding it was deemed expedient that the
166
government should be placed in the hands of another. I entirely agree with the noble Viscount in wishing that such examples as that shown by the noble and gallant Lord may be always followed by those who are in her Majesty's service; but I must say that there never has been a brighter example than this manifested by the noble and gallant Lord, respecting which the noble Viscount has so strongly declared his approbation. I must say I derive the greatest satisfaction on hearing the intimation of her Majesty's gracious favour to the noble Lord, and her Majesty's approbation of the great services he has rendered his country. I concur, my Lords, most cordially in the course proposed by the noble Viscount, in order to enable her Majesty to complete her gracious intentions in making provision for the noble Lord to support those honours which have been conferred on him.
The Duke of Richmond—My Lords, having served under my noble and gallant Friend, I beg your Lordships to allow me to express the gratification I feel on the present occasion in concurring in the sentiments expressed by the noble Viscount at the head of the Government, and more particularly in what has been stated by the noble Duke with respect to my noble and gallant Friend. When I first heard of the rebellion breaking out in Canada, it was a great consolation to me to know that he who had commanded the 52d light infantry in the Peninsula, who had gained the good-will of the inhabitants of the country through which he passed—who had obtained the love and respect of the officers and soldiers whom he commanded —who administered justice to all with an equal measure —was now in the command of her Majesty's troops in Canada, and I had the highest confidence in him. I agree with the noble Viscount in what he has stated, in thinking that to my noble and gallant Friend is mainly to be attributed the tranquillity which followed. Having had the honour of serving under his command, I thought I was justified in addressing your Lordships, and I beg to say, that I have never been called upon to give n vote which I shall give with more satisfaction than this for a provision for Lord Seaton, who has a greater claim upon the country for his services than any man alive.
Motion agreed to, nemine conlradicenle.

METROPOLITAN POLICE COURTS.
House in committee on the Metropolitan Police Courts Bill.
On the first clause,
Lord Wynfordobjected to the attempt that was now made to supersede the magistracy of the counties near London by the appointment of stipendiary magistrates. In most parts of Surrey, and more particularly in Kent, with which he was well acquainted, there were on the bench in the towns in the neighbourhood of town, men calculated from their knowledge, as common or civil lawyers, to preside ably upon the bench. In this point of view he confessed he thought the appointment of paid magistrates, with clerks, courts, and court-keepers, at a very great expense to the county, was perfectly unnecessary. The duty of such a magistrate could not occupy more than two hours a day, for which he was to receive, as he was informed, 800 l. per annum. His greatest objection to the bill was, that it provided that when the unpaid county magistrates were sitting in the discharge of their duty, should one of those paid magistrates come upon the bench, instantly their jurisdiction ended, and the whole jurisdiction was confined to the stipendiary magistrate only. He thought such a provision derogatory to the magistracy, who must resent this attempt to degrade them in the eyes of the public. They, if the bill were to pass, would feel it their duty to, at least, absent themselves from all proceedings in which the paid magistrates might, in virtue of their office and appointment, interfere. He thought the proper line dividing the metropolitan district and the rural district was sufficiently designated by the bill establishing the Central Criminal Court. He should therefore propose that the jurisdiction of such magistrates should be co-extensive with the boundaries of the jurisdiction of the Central Criminal Court, and that no court having a paid magistrate should be erected outside the circuit of the present criminal court's jurisdiction, which embraced the county as far on the side of Kent as Dept-ford and Greenwich. By pushing this system further out from the metropolis, the criminals in the rural districts would be mixed with and imprisoned in the gaols of the metropolis, which must have a tendency to corrupt them, and teach even the younger classes a more perfect system of fraud and plunder than they ever could arrive at without such means of instruction. He perfectly understood, and so did
168
others too, that this was only a feeler to try the pulse of the public, and that if this bill was suffered to pass, the system of paid magistracy would be extended far and wide, and the independent magistrates throughout the whole country would be totally superseded, an event which he could not contemplate but with regret and alarm. In order to carry the object he had in view, he should move that the second clause of the bill be altered, by substituting for the words in it "Metropolitan police district," the words "the limits of the jurisdiction of the Central Criminal Court," which alteration he thought would effect that part of the object he contemplated. He should also propose that at the end of the second section, the power of appointing magistrates be limited by the insertion of the words, "and further, that there be not appointed more than twenty-seven paid magistrates to perform the duties of the said courts."
The Marquess of Normanbysaid, he should certainly be opposed to any attempts thus to curtail the power given to the Crown by the bill of last year respecting the appointment of these suburban courts. The restriction was the less necessary, as there was already a provision in the bill of last year, giving the power to pay only twenty-seven such magistrates. He could not see the advantage that would be gained by the noble Lord's amendment, which substituted the words "limits of the jurisdiction of the Central Criminal Court," for the words "Metropolitan police district;" for in many instances the former was known to comprise places and towns distant fourteen miles from town or further. There was no danger, therefore, that if this bill were adopted, there would be any greater chance of the people in the rural districts being corrupted by mixing in these courts or in the gaols in town with metropolitan offenders, than already existed under the hill establishing the jurisdiction of the Central Criminal Court. It could not be fairly imputed to him, that he had given an invidious preference to the stipendiary over the county magistrates. That power, of which his noble and learned Friend complained, was given by the Police Bill of last year—namely, the power to act when sitting alone, which power could only be exercised now by two county magistrates. That power was now, upon the appearance of the police magistrates, virtually transferred to that functionary upon the bench. This had been

169
determined on after due consideration and deliberation. Indeed, it was reckoned essential, in order to make the police effective; and, sooner than agree to a proposition which would impair the effectiveness of the police, he would prefer withdrawing the measure altogether, and let the bill drop.
Viscount Sydneyhoped a limit to the appointment of these courts, under the control of paid magistrates, would be fixed. The average number of cases inquired into by the magistracy in his own district was not more than 105 annually, for which the magistrate was to be paid at the enormously disproportionate rate of 800 l. a year.
The Lord Chancellorsaid the principal object of this bill was to fix what ought to be the construction put upon the bill passed last session on this subject, and to ascertain more precisely the limits of the jurisdiction then established for courts of this description.
Lord Wynfordrenewed his objection, stating, that he did not like to trust to the promisses of Ministers, nor permit the Government to get the wedge in so as to authorise a system of jobbing the magistracy throughout the country in a wholesale way hereafter.
The Duke of Wellingtonsuggested, that it might be better he should now report progress, and suffer his learned Friend to print these amendments, so as to enable himself and other noble Lords to ascertain what the amendments really were.
The Marquess of Normanbythought it desirable the bill should pass as soon as possible, in order to settle the point in doubt, whether the bill of last year sufficiently authorised the exercise of this jurisdiction by the magistrates under that bill. He should not hesitate to acquiesce in the proposition of the noble Duke. He moved that the chairman report progress.
House resumed.