presented a petition from the inhabitants of several parishes in the hundred of Hindon, county of Wilts, complaining of the extreme distress of the times, and praying for an immediate reduction of Taxation. The petitioners observed, that the change in the currency had greatly raised the salaries of persons in office, and they wished that those salaries should be reduced in a ratio equivalent to the amount and value of wages. They contended that it was extremely hard on them that the price of labour should be reduced so greatly, while no reduction was effected elsewhere. This, be conceived, was a very fair ground of complaint on their parts, and ought to be immediately attended to. They therefore prayed that the House would use its best endeavours to reduce all salaries for public services, and would put an end to all sinecures and useless offices. They argued, that if a new system of taxation were adopted, it would relieve them from one great and most obnoxious burthen, the Malt-tax. But they also argued that we ought not to stop there, but to proceed to a reduction of all the taxes which affected the country. This was an argumentative petition; and he would only say that, looking to the list of names which was affixed to it, he believed that the persons who signed it were as perfectly capable of judging of the cause of the prevailing distress, and of pointing out remedies for it, as any individuals within the walls of that House. The distress bore with peculiar hardship on the labouring classes. In the place where this petition came from, there were five hundred able-bodied men who would be glad to work for almost any price, but they could not procure employment. The cause of the present distress was perfectly obvious. They had heard it attributed to over-production, to thoughtless speculation, to the badness of the seasons, and to various other circumstances; but he wondered that well-informed men would attempt to contend that the alteration in the currency had not produced the present distress. That was the real and decided cause of the evil. He was by no means an advocate as some Gentlemen were, for a return to the old system. He had never advocated the repeal of the Currency-bill; but what he would maintain was, that they must agree to a repeal of taxation. If a system of reduction were not persevered in, the time would come when those who neglected to ward off the distress of the times might justly dread that a convulsion would shake the country.

said, he felt it to be his duty to support the prayer of this petition.—Those by whom it was signed were men of knowledge, experience, and reputation, and their representations were entitled to serious consideration. He thought it necessary to say a few words on this occasion, because last night he heard the Ministers of the Crown again and again deny the existence of general distress throughout the country. Now he did not know how hon. Members who represented counties could for one moment sit mute in that House, and not declare, unequivocally, that the most dreadful distress did prevail in every part of the country. He believed the hon. Member for Wareham (Mr. Calcraft) had it in his power to describe to Ministers the deplorably distressed state of the county to which they both belonged. It was necessary that the Government of the country should meet that distress, and, if not strong enough to do so themselves, they ought to add to their strength, so that they might be enabled to come forward and afford a proper degree of relief. They should remodel the taxation of the country, for at present it was such as could not possibly be borne. They ought to take off the Malt-tax, which would be a relief to the agriculturist and to the consumer. But they must not stop there. They must take every means within their power to lower the taxation generally. His Majesty's Ministers ought to come forward with some strong measures of relief. They ought not only to take off the Malt-tax (for the repeal of which the petitioners prayed), but many other taxes of a similarly burthen some description, and substitute some one general tax which should fall with proportionate weight on every man, and from the operation of which the absentee should be unable to escape. His constituents had hitherto abstained from petitioning; not because they did not sensibly feel distress, but because they waited until they saw what measures his Majesty's Government intended to propose for the relief of the productive classes. Something must be done, and that quickly.

gave notice, that on the 3rd of March he would move for Copies of the Ex-officio Informations which had been recently filed against the Morning Journal; Minutes of the Judges before whom the trials had taken place; a Minute of the exact words in which each Jury found its verdict; and the form in which one of the Juries had expressed its recommendation to mercy.

presented a petition from the Inhabitants of Clare and its vicinity, for the establishment of Poor Laws in Ireland: it complained of severe distress, and prayed that the 43rd of Elizabeth might be ex- tended to Ireland. He observed, that this petition had not been got up to answer the assertions of the Treasury Bench on that subject. The distress in Ireland was so intolerable, that throughout the wide world he believed there was nowhere so much suffering as in that country. In every point of view, whether as respected their houses, their food, or their clothing, the suffering of the Irish was extreme. The hon. Member for Wiltshire had complained of the Weekly wages of a labouring man being only three shillings and sixpence; but it was in evidence before a Committee of that House, that the average daily wages of labour throughout Ireland was only three-pence a head. The great evil in that country was, that there was no moral connexion, no sympathy, no sense of natural obligation, between the rich and the poor. Differing, as he feared, from most of his countrymen in that House, he was prepared to support the prayer of the petitioners for the extension of the Poor Laws to Ireland, as the only method by which the evils endured by the labouring classes in that community could be mitigated.

presented a petition from Bankers, Merchants, Manufacturers, and others of Leeds, against the renewal of the East India Company's Charter. He must support, the prayer of the petition. From the limited removal of restrictions on the trade that had already taken place, he augured that the most favourable results would ensue from a further extension of that principle of relief.

said, that seeing the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his place, he would ask a question; he wished to know if it were the intention of his Majesty's Ministers to give notice to the Court of Directors what would be done with their Charter at the expiration of the three years? For his part, notwithstanding the professions of Government, he could not believe in the neutrality they professed, and be thought it apparent that they had a disposition to compromise this question. It would be difficult to show a case which could justify Ministers in withholding a full investigation of the question. If the people of the country were apathetic on the subject, their right would not be conceded. He was prompted also to express a hope that Ministers would not make up their minds upon the political state of India, without the most full and perfect information that could be procured of what was the actual condition of India at the present moment. He must say that the removal of the monopoly was, in his opinion, absolutely necessary; and it was the duty of Ministers, by its removal, to place the people of that country in a condition to reap some benefit from their connexion with this country. A free trade with India and China would be of the greatest advantage to our people and to the countless multitudes under our sway in India. He hoped that Government would not make up their minds on the still larger branch of the question, the political part of it, without taking into account the working of the present system, and to the existing condition of things in India. He took that opportunity to request the right hon. Gentleman opposite to state whether it was the intention of Ministers to give notice to the Board of East India Directors, in the month of April next (as according to the terms of the Charter they were empowered to do) of their possible intention to propose a cessation of the present Charter in the year 1833?

said, he did not know upon what ground the hon. Member assumed that Government would not act with good faith, in reference to the East India Question; and could only repeat what had been stated by his right hon. friend the Secretary for the Home Department, on the occasion of moving for a select committee, that Ministers went into the inquiry without any pre-engagement as to the particular course which they should adopt, and that, so far from that being the case, they would be free to adopt whatever might appear best for the general interest, after a fair investigation. With respect to the hon. Member's question, it had evidently been asked under misapprehension as to the terms of the Company's Charter, and the nature of the notice required. The hon. Member would find, on reference to the subject, that no notice was necessary till the month of April, 1831; and he would perceive that circumstances might occur before that time to guide the Government as to the course which it ought to adopt, and the decision to be taken in reference to the matter.

said, he regretted that his hon. friend by whom the petition had been presented was not upon the East India Committee, as he had a great deal of practical knowledge. His hon. friend had paid particular attention to the subject, and there ought to be some representatives of the manufacturing interests upon the Committee. He did not mean to reflect on the Members of the Committee, who, he trusted, would do their duty; but it was difficult to suppose that Gentlemen connected with the East India Company in particular could divest themselves entirely of all prejudice and prepossession on the subject. As to the distress of the country, and which affected the manufacturing districts, he would take the opportunity of observing, as the Currency Measure had been spoken of, that he believed the Members of the manufacturing interests in Lancashire would consider a return to a paper currency as one of the greatest evils which could be inflicted upon them: for his part, he thought it extraordinary that any hon. Gentleman should think that the labouring classes would be benefitted by such a change. The petitioners felt that the greatest relief would be afforded by an extinction of a part of our taxation and an extension of commerce; they were anxious that the monopoly of the East India Company should be done away with, and a free trade permitted with India and China.

begged to refer to two cases in which the East India Company had been of the utmost service in relieving the distress that existed in the manufacturing districts. An application was made to Mr. Loch, the Chairman of the Company, a few days ago, by Mr. Heald, vicar of Birstal, who represented the distress that existed in that neighbourhood, and solicited orders for cloth in order to mitigate it. The Company, although not in immediate want of the article, made a considerable purchase, to the great relief of the suffering manufacturers. In Norwich, much suffering prevailed among the working classes in December last, and acts of violence were perpetrated by some of the weavers, but extensive orders from the Company had produced the happiest effects in tranquillizing and affording employment to the people. Facts such as these were the best answer to any imputations cast upon the Company, as to having stood in the way of giving relief to the manufacturers, or impeding their interests.

presented, by command of his Majesty, the Army Estimates. He moved that they be printed. And gave notice that on Friday next he should propose Resolutions on them in a Committee of Supply.

wished to put a question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer in reference to something that fell from him last night, and which seemed to have been misapprehended. The Committee of Supply stood postponed till to-morrow (Wednesday), and it had been understood that the right hon. Gentleman intended to state the reductions which Ministers were prepared to make in our establishments upon that occasion. He now wished to know whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer would go into the subject of these retrenchments on Wednesday, or on a future evening;—he should persevere in resisting Supply, till the nature of the relief to be afforded to the country was stated.

said, he should be obliged to move for a Committee to-morrow evening, in order to found a vote of Ways and Means thereon; but it was not his intention to go into the subject referred to on that occasion. When his gallant friend moved the Army Estimates on Friday, he (Mr. Goulburn) would then state the reductions which Ministers proposed to make upon all the Estimates of the year.

put it to the gallant Secretary at War whether the House ought to be called on to vote any part of the Estimates on Friday, when in all probability Members would only have seen them on the morning of that day. He should wish for a day or two to consider them, particularly as reductions were talked of.

said, the hon. Member should have a printed copy of the Army Estimates in his possession to-morrow evening, or early on Thursday morning.

wished to know whether the House would be put in possession of the number of military officers who held civil situations, including those on full pay as well as half-pay.

replied that he had no intention of bringing forward such a return, but it was competent to the hon. Member to move for the information required if he pleased.

.—Has the right hon. Gentleman any objection to such a Motion?

intimated that he should be prepared with an answer when he saw what was the hon. Member's Motion.

said, if reductions of such a nature as was understood last night were to be brought forward, the House would require some little time to consider them. He believed he was rather obscure in what he stated last night on the subject of the Motion of his hon. friend the Member for Montrose; and there was one point in respect of which he wished to set himself right with the House and his hon. friend. He should be sorry to have it supposed that he had desired in any degree to depreciate the value of the Motion which his hon. friend had brought forward so ably, though he thought that there were other measures of equal or even greater importance which would relieve the depression which was, unfortunately, so prevalent.

hoped, that when the right hon. Gentleman stated, on Friday, the reductions to be made in the Estimates, he would also state what relief was to be afforded to the country in the amount of taxation.

said, no man was more conversant with the details of the Army Estimates than the hon. Member for Montrose; and therefore he would take the liberty of stating that the only difference in the Estimates of this year, as compared with preceding years, would consist in some items of diminished expenditure, and probably a reduction in the amount of force. Under such circumstances, if the Estimates were placed in the hands of the hon. Member to-morrow evening, he would have the whole of Thursday and Friday to consider them. He hoped this would not be inconsistent with entering into the subject in a Committee of Supply on Friday evening, particularly as the Committee had already been delayed a few days by impediments which prevented the introduction of the Estimates so soon as he had expected.

wished to ask the gallant officer if it were decent to press the Estimates forward in that manner? The House required a longer period of examination than had been proposed.

moved for leave to bring in a Bill to ex- plain and amend an Act made in the seventh year of His Majesty's reign, with respect to the assignment and Sub-letting of Lands and Tenements in Ireland.—In making this Motion he wished to be clearly understood that it was not his intention to permit any infraction of the principle of the existing law on the subject. The only object of his Bill was to explain certain doubts that had arisen upon the present Act, and which doubts were not of an unimportant nature. It was held that the existing Act had an ex post facto operation; by the old law considerable injury might be done to those holding leases of dwelling-houses; and one of his objects was to prevent this. He should not, however, detain the House, but move for leave to bring in his Bill to remedy that defect.

desired to express his thanks to the noble Secretary for Ireland, (Lord L. Gower) for the alteration he proposed to make in the Sub-letting Act. It certainly would be something in favour of the Irish tenantry that the first section should not have an ex post facto operation; and if there were doubts on the subject, it was important that they should be removed, and the benefit rendered that was contemplated by the Act. If explained in this sense, the Act would relieve them from one great evil, which might have been inflicted on them by the injustice or avidity of their landlords. He, therefore, in the name of the tenantry of Ireland, thanked his Lordship for his amendment in that part of the law; but there were other parts of it quite as mistaken in principle, and altogether as unjust; indeed, he thought the most prominent injustice was in the last section, which prevented a man in the possession of land, on which he had, perhaps, expended large sums of money, from leaving any portion of that land to the several members of his family, for whom, by the law of nature, he was bound to provide. The tenant was compelled to leave all to one person without the possibility of making a charge for younger children, or for a marriage portion. Now he contended there was no principle of good policy upon which such a system could be maintained; and he accordingly submitted to the noble Secretary that this section called as loudly for repeal as the first. There were other objections which he entertained towards the existing Act, but he would, however, abstain from bringing them forward at present. He repeated that the Act required much revision; for, though it was dear to the landlords, as giving them excessive power over their tenantry, yet had it created much dissatisfaction amongst the peasantry, to whom it was peculiarly odious and oppressive.

said, he concurred with the hon. Member who spoke last, in returning thanks to the noble Secretary for Ireland (Lord L. Gower) for the explanatory Bill which his Lordship proposed to introduce; but in his opinion, it would be better to get rid of the Act altogether; because he thought the Union between Ireland and England never would be complete until the same Statute. Law was made common to both countries. For himself, he saw no good argument on which the continued existence of this Act could be defended, since the alleged reason for its creation (at least the only reason he had ever heard given) had ceased to exist. This Act had been passed to prevent great landholders from sub-dividing their lands for electioneering purposes; but now, by a late and most beneficial and just measure of the House, all temptation to the creation of collusive freeholds had been removed, and therefore the foundation upon which the Bill had been introduced being swept away, the law itself should not be suffered to remain.

begged it might be borne in mind that the predominant feeling in addressing the House upon this question which actuated him, was an anxiety to divest it of all party and political considerations; he wished it to be treated simply upon its own merits, and not as a question between one side of the House and the other. He had bestowed much attention upon this Act, and could conscientiously declare that he believed it mischievous, and in proof of this his belief, he referred to the Report of the Lord Mayor's Committee lately made at Dublin, from which it appeared, that of the seven thousand persons then famishing in that city, the greater number had been driven from the country by the operation of that Act. Now this fact he stated upon testimony that could not be doubted. This Act had met with great disapprobation, and had created great dissatisfaction throughout Ireland. Many petitions had been presented against it last Session, and several had already come in this year. In stating this he begged not to be understood as meaning to oppose the noble Lord's Motion, which was certainly calculated to effect some good, but it did not go far enough. He thought the present Act ought to be abolished. The noble Lord had said that he approved of the principle of the Bill, and wished it to be preserved; he should be glad to learn what that principle was. For himself, he must say, that he could recognise none in it, except that of thinning the population—the pauper-population—and altering contracts in favour of the rich and to the detriment of the poor. He contended, also, that the effect of the Bill had been directly the reverse of what was expected from it; for, under its operation, no man would take more land than he could himself make use of. Besides, it increased the pauper-population in diminishing the quantity of land which each man could hold; and instead of creating a division of the country into large farms, it created a more minute subdivision than ever had before existed. He, therefore, appealed to the right hon. Gentleman opposite, and other Members of the Administration, who had displayed so much anxiety to reform our legal abuses, and entreated them to consider whether it would not be better to repeal this Act altogether. He could assure them, that if it were deemed necessary to make any new law upon the subject, he should be most happy to afford them the full benefit of his humble efforts in arranging the Statute in a new form. But he begged to submit to them, that it was bad legislation to make one act to amend another; because, first, there was the difficulty with respect to understanding each of these Statutes, and then there was the comparison, which gave them a sort of third meaning. As he before said, he considered this law advantageous to the rich and detrimental to the poor; but he was not one of those who considered the class of middlemen injurious to Ireland. He recollected, as a matter of history, that many of the nobility and leading gentry of Ireland had sprung from this class of society. There would henceforth be an end to this; for the Act proceeded upon a principle similar to that which would compel the merchant to retail his own goods in his own proper person, and it tended to check that which had in some degree warded off the ill effects of absenteeism from Ireland; because the middleman was a sort of market for the labouring population; he lived amongst them, and consumed the productions of the soil; he certainly shared the profits of the great proprietors, but he divided them with the people. In conclusion, he would strongly urge on the House the fact that the Act had produced infinite dissatisfaction in Ireland—it was constructed upon a mischievous and mistaken principle—it was injurious to the poor—it was the fruitful cause of litigation—and it contained no beneficial principle which might not be better produced in a new Bill.

(the Solicitor-General for Ireland) said, he would not follow the hon. Member for Clare through the details upon which he had touched, details which he (Mr. Doherty) thought might be better discussed in the Committee, clause by clause. With respect to the general question, if the political life of the hon. Member (Mr. O'Connell) had commenced on the first day of that Session, he (Mr. Doherty) might perhaps have laboured under the mistake that it should be discussed upon its own merits, without reference to politics or party, as the hon. Member had expressed his desire it might be; but when he happened to know that it had been made the subject of agitation, and had been rendered an object of dissatisfaction in Ireland (though by no means to the extent stated by the hon. Member), he could not bring himself altogether to subscribe to the sincerity of that hon. and learned Gentleman's declaration. Before proceeding further, however, he had to state that he was not the legal adviser of the Secretary for Ireland at the time when this Act was passed. He was the unworthy successor of one whose character ought to have been sufficient to protect this measure from having been at least intended to produce the baneful effects attributed to it by the hon. and learned Gentleman. The hon. Member seemed not to understand the policy or the history of this Act. This Act had emanated from a Committee of the House of Commons, before which there were two objects prominent. One was the Catholic Question, the other that now before the House. In favour of the Catholic Relief Bill there was a preponderance of opinion, resulting from the evidence; but there was no difference of opinion at all as to the necessity of a Sub-letting Act. It was true that nothing could be more fair than for the hon. Member for Clare to advocate the middlemen, but this was not the feeling of the Committee; they thought that these middlemen impoverished the country by interposing between the landlord and the occupying tenant; and the Act had been first contemplated in consequence of a representation from the gentry of Ireland. It had been complained that the gentry had divided their land amongst a pauper tenantry. They said it was not their fault. They declared that they had instructed their agents to take all measures to prevent such a subdivision, but in vain; there was some defect in the law which for ever prevented their success; there was a technical difficulty, and it was this—no matter how strictly you worded the covenant with the person you might select for your tenant, still, in consequence of the power of sub-letting, was there a mode of escape; for though you might choose some respectable man, and say to him, I can rely on your solvency, your industry, and your honesty, and therefore I will intrust to you these five hundred acres of land; but I wish only for you—yet notwithstanding all this, the proprietor would, perhaps, find these five hundred acres divided into as many parts; be that where he had left a flourishing-tenantry, he would afterwards find only a set of paupers. The hon. Member had said he did not see what the principle of the Act was that was worth preserving—it was this, that people should perform their contracts. It never was intended that the tenant should be the only person upon the land; neither as a legal man would he pretend to say (much as he thought of the able Secretary's talents) that he had constructed a perfect statute. No; but then the noble Lord was willing to receive all suggestions for its amendment in the Committee. It was very true this Act was liked by the landlords, because it compelled the tenant to observe his contract; it was evident that the proprietor ought to have absolute power and control over his own property, and was not bound to enter into an agreement with any body but the person he chose. He was also ready to contend that the measure was not contrary to the interests of the peasantry. A great part of the tenantry of Ireland, it was well known, were worse off than the beast that browsed upon the land; it was therefore high time to make an effort to ameliorate their condition; and this Act had been brought forward with the view of raising the peasantry in the scale of civilization, and rendering them beings with whom there might be that degree of communication and interchange of kindness, without which there could be no permanent bond of union between landlord and tenant. It was not, as the hon. Member for Clare would represent it, the act of a haughty aristocracy to exterminate the people. He felt himself almost called on by the situation he held, and certainly by the opportunity he possessed of forming a judgment on the subject, to bear his testimony on that occasion to the excellent effects already produced by the great measure of last year. He would give as the result of his observations, that the settlement of that question had done more for the advantage of Ireland than the most warm friend of Catholic Emancipation could have anticipated. It had done all the good that had been hoped for, and none of the harm that was apprehended. If, without passion or prejudice, they went calmly and steadily forward, looking to Ireland with no other view than that of ameliorating her condition, he was convinced they would soon see her making grand strides in the road of improvement. Already dissentions were vanishing from among the upper classes; and at this moment those in the highest situation of the Catholic Hierarchy, who no longer ago than last year were discontented and dissatisfied, were now employed in pouring forth their admonitions of peace and goodwill. He trusted to God, that in the debates in that House, which ought to be temperate, nothing would pass that might exasperate the people of Ireland. Little would, it avail, however, that all were tranquil here, if topics of exasperation were used nearer the scene to which they applied.

begged leave to give his approbation to the principle of the measure, and to observe that he thought Mr. O'Connell had been improperly attacked, for he had stated his objections to the Bill in a most candid and temperate manner.

wished to express his obligations to the noble Lord who had introduced this measure, which he was sure would be productive of great benefit to Ireland. It was true that there had been petitions in great numbers against the Act, and such petitions deserved the utmost possible attention; but he believed that the complaints made by the petitioners were not against the principle of the Bill, but against some particular clauses in it. It was supposed by some that the Sub-letting Act gave to the landlord the power of removing the tenant. That was a mistake; the Act prevented too great a change of occupiers. The hon. and learned Member for Clare had made a mistake in regard to the cause of the poverty and distress of Ireland, if he imagined that the almost infinite subdivision of land did not contribute to produce that poverty.

said, that as to the fact stated by the hon. and learned Member for Clare, that the Sub-letting Act had tended to produce a large portion of the pauper population of Dublin, he would not deny the statement; but he begged to remark, that it was the subdivision of land which had, in a great measure, created that poverty. There was something in every country, but especially in such a country as Ireland, stronger than Acts of Parliament, and that was the custom of the people. The hon. and learned Member must, on that subject, be better qualified than any other man to give the House information, and to guide them in the attainment of their evident wish for the amelioration of Ireland. He was glad to hear from such an excellent and indisputable authority as the Solicitor-General for Ireland, the salutary effects of the great measure of last Session, and he should indulge with that hon. and learned Member in warm hopes for the future increasing prosperity of that country. But when he heard these statements, and the statements of the same hon. and learned Member, as to the satisfactory falsifications of all the prophecies of the evils that measure would have produced, he could not help asking whether the Member for Clare, more than any other person in the kingdom, was not the man to whom the country was indebted for these advantages? So that in referring to that hon. Member, they ought not to go backward in his career to find cause of blame, and, least of all, to seek to discover it in those expressions which the heats of discussion on that great question had called forth. The present was not a party question, and he trusted it would not be so treated.

stated, that he thought the law of England and Ireland might be advantageously assimilated in many respects; but still there were peculiar circumstances which made a difference in each. They were not then to consider whether a law should be passed to prevent Sub-letting in Ireland. That law had passed: and the only object now was, to provide remedies for some defects which had been discovered in the operation of that Act. The Member for Clare had admitted that one clause of the Act worked much mischief. It had not been the intention of the Legislature that it should do so, nor did these mischiefs result from any want of care in the wording of the Act; for use what care they could, it was impossible to insure success in the use of language that all men would agree to put the same construction upon. He had looked with extreme attention at the Act, and he felt no hesitation in saying that according to the true construction, it could not have an ex post facto operation; but a contrary opinion had been entertained by others, and therefore the Bill proposed by the noble Lord was requisite. He gave his approbation to the clause which did not allow the tenant to take advantage of any implied waiver on the part of his landlord of the express terms of the lease. In that respect he wished the English law was the same, for in this country the doctrine of implied waiver was productive of much needless litigation. He knew that it had been and was the intention of the Government fairly to meet the wishes and the wants of the Irish people; and if ever there was an Act passed with the real desire to ameliorate the condition of the people, this was that Act; and he could assure the hon. and learned Member for Clare, that he would give all the assistance in his power in furtherance of such an object.

said, he should make no observations on the Motion of which he had given notice, as the noble Lord, the Secretary for Ireland, had told him there was no objection to it on the part of the Government. He moved for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the Laws respecting the Leasing Powers of Bishops and Ecclesiastical Corporations in Ireland.

.—In rising to bring forward the Question of which I have given notice, I beg to state, that in proposing it, my object has been rather to obtain a declaration from the right hon. Gentleman opposite, than to enter on any hostile discussion of this subject. The events that have recently passed, and the explanations lately given in another place by the Ministers of the Crown, have tended a good deal to meet the views I had in bringing forward the Motion. I am very glad that, by what has already taken place, I am relieved from the necessity of founding this Motion on any detail of the history of the late war between Russia and Turkey, for I feel how difficult it would be to undertake such a discussion without having access to those papers which his Majesty's Government alone at present possess; but there are one or two points with regard to the settlement of Greece, which settlement must soon take place, that call for some explanation. The first regards the form of the government that is intended to be established in Greece. On this point there have been sinister rumours circulated with respect to the intention of the Allied Powers, who, it was said intended to introduce a despotic Government into Greece. I am happy to say that these rumours have been dispelled by the declarations recently made by one of the Secretaries of State, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will have no objection to renew that declaration, and will state that his Majesty's Government has no intention to interfere to prevent the Greeks from governing themselves according to their wishes, wants, and views. Such a declaration would gratify me exceedingly; for while, on the one hand, there is nothing more odious than the introduction, by such a nation as this, of a despotic government into any country; so, on the other hand, I am aware how difficult it is to adapt any constitution to a people composed of a number of different classes of men, whoso habits and origin are essentially different; and I, therefore, see no course that is likely to be effectual in establishing a permanent government in Greece, except by consulting the feelings of the people who are to be ruled by it. At the same time, I feel as an Englishman, and as a citizen of a free country, that as a new State is to be established, freedom—political freedom—should be a constituent part of the principles on which its government is to be established. There is another point, of a more doubtful nature, to which I will now allude; I mean the question of the territory to be given to Greece. I can state to the House, without fear of opposition, that as the question of Greece has been taken up by the Allied Powers—as it had been the object of a treaty, and of hostile operations, in order to effect the settlement of its Government, it is necessary that that settlement should be such as is likely to be permanent, and that the frontier to be given to Greece should be such as may enable her to preserve herself in independence, without a prospect of the repetition of those evils which are stated in the preamble to the Treaty of July. If that point, obvious and necessary as it is, were the declared policy of the Government, I should hardly feel it necessary to make any motion on the subject; but having received information from various persons of such credit and authority as to make it hardly possible to doubt what they say, that for a considerable time it was the object of the Allied Governments to restrict the new State of Greece to the Morea. I feel myself called on to ask for information. When I heard this I was, indeed, surprised and disappointed (I speak from the testimony of those who know the fact better than I do); such a limitation of territory would make it rather a place of refuge for freebooters and pirates, than one fit to contain the proper elements of a state able to govern and direct itself. Much of that sorrow I felt at this information was, indeed, removed by the copy of the Protocol in which Arta and Volo were stated as the intended boundaries of the new State on the North; I was the more pleased with this declaration, as Sir F. Adam, whose opinion on this subject is deserving of much consideration, had stated that the country within these boundaries would possess a good defensive frontier. But, after that Protocol was published, and after I had heard that opinion, I must confess it was with considerable apprehensions I heard that other arrangements were intended, and that Arta and Volo were not to be the boundaries of the new State. On that question I hope to obtain either the expression of the opinion of the House, or the declaration of the right hon. Gentleman. Besides this question of Arta and Volo, there is another relating to an opinion expressed in another place with respect to Candia. For my own part I am not prepared to say, that Candia is in such a situation that it is necessary to insist that it should be given up to Greece; but if it be true that there has been war there, and that the Greeks are in possession of the greater part of that Island, it is clear that you will hazard the tranquillity and settlement of Greece, unless you provide at the same time for the settlement of Candia. There has been one assertion made which is essentially erroneous. It has been said, that so far from Candia having been in the possession of the Greeks at the time of the Treaty of July 1827, it was not even in a state of insurrection, and that the insurrection which did arise was only in consequence of that Treaty of the Allies; but I have been informed, and I have no hesitation to name the authority from whom I derived the information—I say I have been informed by Sir Edward Codrington, that when he arrived in the Mediterranean Cape Buso was in the possession of the Greeks, and from that point they excited insurrection in Candia. With regard to Candia being directly comprehended in the Treaty of 1827, I am not prepared to say that it was; but I know of no sufficient evidence to justify me in saying that it was not. The words used in the Treaty were, "the islands of Greece." It was not stated what the islands were, nor was Candia actually named; and perhaps I might go further, and say, that it was generally supposed that Candia was not included, but Saraos was; and that island, I believe, is not to be comprehended in the new State of Greece under the now proposed arrangements. I wish to speak on one point more. The favourable opinion of Mr. Fox towards Turkey was alluded to by the right hon. Gentleman on a former night, and the same opinion has likewise been mentioned elsewhere. It is true that Mr. Fox, or those who acted with him (for I believe it was about the time of his last illness), did agree with France in a proposal to undertake the guarantee of Turkey, that neither France on the one hand, nor Russia on the other, should invade that country; but those who rely on that fact ought to recollect the circumstances of that time, when aggressions to an enormous amount had been made by France, which had before then made an irruption into Egypt, and when it became necessary, to preserve anything like a balance of power, to agree to the proposed guarantee. That was the only course that could then be adopted to prevent the recurrence of war; and when, therefore, it was proposed by France, it was the object of England to accept it; for it was, in fact, a guarantee against France, that neither that Empire nor Russia should be allowed to disturb the balance of power as it was then proposed to be adjusted. But in 1791, when Russia invaded Turkey, Mr. Fox uttered that speech—the words of which may not have been correctly given, but the uniform tenor of it can hardly be mistaken—in which he said, that he was not afraid of the aggressions of Russia on Turkey; in which there is not one monosyllable against the seizure of the Crimea by Russia, but in which there is also the statement of his opinion that Russia is that power with which of all others, hardly excepting Holland itself, it is our interest to form political ties. Such, Sir, was the opinion of Mr. Fox, expressed under circumstances much more similar to those at present existing than those of the year 1806, when the whole state and balance of power in Europe had been overturned. I cannot conclude without expressing my satisfaction that the time is approaching when the objects of the Treaty of July are about to be accomplished. I feel the greatest satisfaction that another State is about to be added to the family of European nations, and that that people who for centuries had been afflicted with the calamities, and debased by the vices of slavery, will now take their chance of improvement from the free communication of the knowledge and the arts of other countries. Into the feelings of those who seem to think the pacification of Europe a misfortune, I confess I cannot enter. I have nothing in common with them. I know that in 1790 the Earl of Liverpool made a speech which gained for him a high character within these walls, in which he recommended England to support Turkey as a counterpoise to Austria: all I will say upon that point is, that how fatal, or at least how dangerous, are such speculations, such theories, and such wire-drawn refinements on the preservation of the balance of power, has been established by our own experience. Supposing them, however, to be well-founded, when we look to the advantages gained for Moldavia, Wallachia, Servia, and, last of all, for Greece; when we witness the attainment of freedom from thraldom, and the prospect of increased commerce and increased knowledge from communication between that country and the rest of Europe, we cannot regret that, that balance had been disturbed. Putting those political refinements out of sight, it cannot be said that England, as a free and commercial country, will not have gained by the late establishment of peace in the East of Europe. To those who do not participate in these opinions, I will say that I never will consent to be classed with those who think that the improvement of mankind in any part of the globe, and in any manner, can be hostile to the interests of Great Britain—

"Dî meliora piis, crroremque hostibus ilium."

I have now only to conclude by reading my Motion:—which is "that this House learnt, with satisfaction, that his Majesty, having recently concerted with his Allies measures for the pacification and final settlement of Greece, trusts that he shall be enabled, at an early period, to communicate to Parliament the particulars of this arrangement, with such information as may explain the course which his Majesty has pursued throughout the progress of these important transactions. That it is the confident hope of this House, that such final settlement will be found to secure to Greece a territory sufficient for national defence, and a government provided with full powers to adapt its institutions to the wishes and wants of the people."

said, notwithstanding the peculiar circumstances in which I am placed, I trust that I shall be enabled to give such general explanations to the noble Lord as may induce him to be of opinion that it is not necessary to take the sense of the House upon his Motion. I say that I am placed under peculiar circumstances, because the House will recollect that on the first day of the Session, in the Speech from the Throne, his Majesty stated, that in conjunction with his Allies, and in conformity with the Treaty of the 6th of July, he was on the point of concluding a final arrangement for the pacification of Greece, and for the determination of its relations with the rest of Europe: and his Majesty was pleased to add, that all the papers connected with that arrangement, sufficient to explain the course he had taken, should be laid before Parliament at an early period. In my official capacity I am, of course, cognizant of those papers; and I cannot help thinking that nothing could be more inconvenient than for me at the present moment to be drawn into an untimely discussion which may involve that information of which ere long the House will be in possession. Were I drawn into such a discussion, I do not know how I could avoid availing myself of that information, thus obtaining an advantage in debate which others do not enjoy. I therefore trust that the object of the noble Lord will be attained, although I do not enter into that discussion; but if it should hereafter arise, and if the noble Lord should deem it necessary to take the sense of the House, I hope that the forms of the House will not prevent my offering some further observations. The noble Lord avows that his main object is, if possible, to procure an explanation on two points which he deems of pressing importance.—First, the nature of the institutions provided by the Allies for the future government of Greece; second, the territorial limits to be assigned to the new State. On the first point I apprehend I shall be enabled to give complete satisfaction. I can assure the noble Lord, that in the arrangements, the bases of which have been laid by the Allies who are parties to the Treaty of the 6th of July, although the noble Lord seems to have heard rumours to the contrary, no attempt has been made to dictate despotic Monarchy to Greece. No provision is made in the arrangements which can control the establishment of such institutions as may be compatible with the present situation of Greece. I can also venture to disclaim, certainly on the part of my own country, and I believe on the part of France and Russia, any wish to interfere with the formation of such institutions as are best calculated to secure the liberty and promote the happiness of Greece. Into the second point, which relates to the limits of the new State, I can scarcely enter without an infringement of the principle to which I referred at the commencement of my observations. On the 22nd of March the Protocol was issued to which the noble Lord referred, and which in some way or other obtained publicity in the continental Journals, relating to the limits of Greece, and the noble Lord has expressed his apprehensions that the boundaries now about to be assigned will be less than those mentioned in the Protocol. I feel that the present is not the occasion for entering into the details, but I can venture to assure the noble Lord, that the arrangement now in progress for the independence, happiness, and security of Greece is, in my opinion, much more favourable than that which was contemplated in the Protocol. The territorial limits may be less extensive, but the compensation for the more confined limits will, I think, be found ample. The noble Lord justly observes, that it must be the policy of those countries which entered into the Treaty of the 6th of July to give Greece such security as in her infancy will protect her from foreign interference: he, therefore, wishes that she shall have a frontier capable of being easily defended. It may be sufficient for me to assure the noble Lord that there is no such limitation of the new State as he appears to believe is contemplated—that the boundaries will be far more extensive than the Morea, and that will include all those places with which our historical recollections are gratefully associated, and that the nature of the frontier will in a considerable degree afford the means of defence. But the question of limits is of much less importance, provided those States which entered into the Treaty of the 6th of July have completed that arrangement, which we hope will be a fulfilment of that engagement—provided also, that those States, under whose fostering care this new Government is to be established, feel that interest in its prosperity which will induce them, until its resources are of themselves sufficient, to undertake the guarantee of its independence. With regard to the anxiety of this country to support the government of Turkey, it will be recollected by the noble Lord, that on a former occasion some sarcastic remarks were made upon the supposed attachment of Ministers to Turkish institutions—as if, because they did not wish for the dismemberment of the Ottoman Power, they necessarily admired its institutions. At that time I protested against any such inference, and I added that I thought I could prove, by the opinions of statesmen strongly attached to liberty and liberal institutions, that it was possible to entertain a desire to preserve the integrity of Turkey without the implication that, it was fit to support its system of internal government. The noble Lord has spoken of the opinion entertained by Mr. Fox in 1791, but in 1806 the circumstances of Europe were certainly such as to induce Mr. Fox to think that it was for the general interest of Europe—for the sake of the preservation of the tranquillity of the world, that the independence of Turkey should be secured. There was another proof of the opinions of Mr. Fox on this subject, which I did not bring forward. In the course of the discussions with the French government in 1806, a proposition was made by Prince Talleyrand, that some compensation should be made to Sicily, by the establishment of a new State, consisting of Albania and the Morea. Mr. Fox protested against this proposed dismemberment of Turkey, contending that it ought to be part of the policy of Great Britain, France, and Russia, to preserve the integrity of the Turkish power. Mr. Fox, therefore, attached great importance to the maintenance of Turkey as an independent State; but I hope that the mention of this topic will not tend to introduce discussion. I did not on a former day mean to state Mr. Fox's views as to the general system of European policy. I only wished to show by that instance, that public men, in accordance with the example of their predecessors, might attach importance to the preservation of the integrity of Turkey without necessarily leading to the inference that they approved the system of internal government in Turkey. If the noble Lord had brought forward his Motion in a hostile manner; if he himself had not said that he rather introduced it in order to procure from Ministers such an answer and such information as they could give consistently with their duty; and if I thought he meant to press it to a division, I should feel under the necessity of at once opposing it; but considering the promise of the Crown at the earliest period to afford information, I do not think there is any thing in the complicated relations of this country with regard to Greece, as they have existed during the last three years, to entitle this House so far to withhold its confidence from the present servants of the Crown, that it should undertake to express an opinion before it has obtained the information on which an opinion ought to be founded. I beg the House to recollect that when the present Government (I mean the administration of the Duke of Wel- lington) came into office, they found the Treaty of the 6th July in existence; the objects of that Treaty were necessarily vague and imperfect, but the intention of it was, to apply an immediate remedy to an enormous evil affecting the interests of every commercial country. Although the present Ministry were not the authors of that Treaty, yet, throughout the whole progress of its execution, we were as desirous to fulfil its objects in the spirit of the Treaty as was Mr. Canning himself. What were the facts? Shortly after the accession of the Duke of Wellington to power, one of the parties to the Treaty found herself, on grounds quite extrinsic, involved in a war with Turkey. Against the right of Russia to enter into that war we did not protest, but left her to pursue the line of policy she deemed it proper to take. It has been said, that my noble friend at the head of the Cabinet, and the Government generally, were in some respects responsible for the precipitation and rashness with which Turkey commenced hostilities, and for the obstinacy with which she persevered in them; it has also been contended that we were deceived as to the result, and thought that Turkey could maintain a successful resistance. The main charge against us, however, has been, that Turkey was in some way improperly induced to place reliance on the friendship and good will of Great Britain, particularly after she had been termed in the Speech from the Throne, our "Ancient Ally," and that in consequence of that reliance, she was led to embroil herself in war. Now, a simple reference to a few dates, without entering into any argument, will totally disprove this charge. I vindicate not only the Government of the Duke of Wellington, but that of Lord Goderich, from the imputation of having created an impression on the part of Turkey, that she might rely upon the assistance of England, either directly or indirectly. It so happens that the battle of Navarino was fought on the 20th October, 1827, and the account of it reached Constantinople on the 1st Nov. following. The Ambassadors of the Allied Powers, and the Minister of England as one of those Powers, in consequence of their total dissatisfaction with the assurances given by Turkey, left Constantinople about the 20th December, 1827. Turkey had, therefore, at that time, first, the proof that England had taken her share in the battle of Navarino; and next, the proof that England was displeased with the course she had taken, by the departure of her Ambassador from the capital. It was on the very day that the British Ambassador left Constantinople that the Porte was infatuated enough to issue that document called a Hatti-scherriff, and which was the immediate cause of the war. It was issued on the 20th December, and it was not until the 3rd January that my noble friend was made Prime Minister. When he was so appointed, it was not known that the Hatti-scherriff had been published by Turkey, nor did that fact transpire until after she had been designated in the King's Speech the "Ancient Ally" of this country. These facts show that it was impossible that any foolish reliance on the friendship and assistance of England could have induced Turkey to enter into the war with Russia; for that war Turkey is alone responsible, and for her perseverance in it she is also alone responsible; in both cases she acted not only without the encouragement, but directly against the advice and remonstrances of Great Britain. It may be said, indeed, that although she entered into that war upon the consideration of her own case, and without any such reliance upon Great Britain, still it should have been the policy of this Government to interfere actively to prevent the disastrous issue of the war. Here I must say, as indeed has been already said, that before England is induced to second a war of that nature, it becomes her first to ask the question whether the proposed hostilities are just and necessary. In the Hatti-scherriff, which was the cause of the aggression of Russia, three declarations were publicly given:—First, a religious appeal was made to all Mahometans to take up arms against Russia; next, there was a positive statement that Turkey would only enter into negotiations with Russia to deceive her and to gain time, the better to prepare new means of resistance; thirdly, that she had signed the Treaty of Ackermann with the intention of violating it, and that she never would fulfil any of its conditions.—Therefore, not only were we not responsible for the conduct of that power in engaging in the war, but if we had undertaken her defence, we must have undertaken it upon grounds which no honest Minister could approve. Whatever importance we might attach to the integrity of Turkey, and whatever wish we might entertain to see an amicable settlement of the matters in dispute, I must protest against the notion that England ought to be bound by the rashness or folly which might influence the councils of others. The conduct of England in attempting to mediate was perfectly consistent with wisdom; but there was no obligation, express or implied, of treaty, of good faith, or of policy, which could induce or justify her in actively interfering by means of war with the issue of the pending contest. Still, notwithstanding that war, and notwithstanding the peculiar circumstances in which England and France were placed as neutral powers, having to execute the Treaty of 6th July with Russia, a belligerent, we felt it so important to Europe, and, above all, we had contracted such obligations to Greece, that we were compelled to overcome every minor difficulty, and to persevere in the attainment of the objects of the Treaty. I am happy to say that we have succeeded: that Treaty is on the eve of its final accomplishment: peace has been preserved; and whatever may have been the original intentions of the authors of the Treaty, I will venture to say that in the result it will be found that the three great parties to the Protocol never at first contemplated any settlement so favourable to Greece as that which, I think, consistently with justice to Turkey, we have been enabled to make. Let me remind the House that by the Treaty of the 6th July nothing more was contemplated than the establishment of that sort of qualified independence which would have left the State of Greece the vassal to the Porte, and subject to the payment of a consider-able tribute: the Porte would even have had the power to interfere in the nomination of the Greek governors. By intervening events, and by negotiation, we have been able to establish the complete independence of Greece. She no longer holds the rank of a mere vassal dependent upon the Porte, but she will take her place among the independent nations of Europe. Having effected these objects, notwithstanding the difficulties opposed to us, I apprehend it will be felt, from what I have stated, that there has been that degree of harmony and good faith in the councils of the "three great powers, Great Britain, France, and Russia," which will at least induce the House to suspend its judgment until the promised Papers can be laid upon the Table. Surely there is nothing in the course of these transactions to justify suspicion, I concur with the noble Lord, that it must be the policy of this country to see that a new State thus formed is placed in a situation in which it can be prosperous; and I join with him heartily in the earnest wish he has expressed, that the Greeks of the present day may recover from the torpor of long slavery, and be enabled to emulate the glory of their predecessors, while, at the same time, they enjoy all the advantages that arise from the progress of knowledge and from the establishment of those institutions which, in happy countries like this, are calculated to insure the possession of civil and religious liberty.

said, he must compliment the noble Lord on the candid tone of his whole speech, and the right hon. Secretary on the corresponding character of the earlier part of what he had addressed to the House. He would not follow the latter over the debateable ground of the policy of employing the influence of England in preventing the late war between Russia and Turkey, but he would say, expressly, what the right hon. Gentleman had said by implication, that the success of Russia in that just war (for such he admitted it to be) had enabled the three Allied Powers to bring the Treaty of the 6th July to a happy conclusion. He did not know that it was a matter of serious importance to inquire what had been the opinions of Mr. Fox thirty years ago relative to the independence of Turkey, but the case might be stated in a few words. In the course of the correspondence between Mr. Fox, as the head of the Foreign Office, and the Ministers of France in 1806, an opinion was expressed which had reference to that time, and to the then peculiar circumstances of England and France. It was wished to consolidate the peace of Europe, and for this purpose it was thought that the two powers should guarantee the integrity of Turkey. Such was the opinion of Mr. Fox at that single moment of his life, and under a peculiar combination of circumstances; but to that opinion was opposed what was well known to all the friends of Mr. Fox, that as an Englishman and as a lover of liberty, as a citizen of the world, he was an enemy to the institutions of Turkey—that he detested her tyrannical and barbarous principles—and that he heartily wished the Turks expelled from the boundaries of Europe, Mr. Fox did not consider them a member of the great European family; but he thought nevertheless, at that time, that the preservation of the integrity of the Ottoman power was a legitimate object. What had just fallen from the right hon. Gentleman as to the exemption of Greece from foreign influence, and as to the establishment of a limited Monarchy and free Institutions, (for such he inferred to be the nature of the reply) gave him (Sir J. M.) sincere gratification. He had heard with joy the same sentiment before in another place, and it compensated for much else of a different character that proceeded from the same quarter. He had heard it said elsewhere, "Let the prince and the people of Greece settle their own Institutions," and if that simple pledge were adhered to, all would be well. He believed that he was the first who had presented a petition for the establishment of the independence of Greece; and he congratulated them that the end was about to be attained by the simple, but effectual means pointed out in that petition. He felt the utmost joy that the Treaty of the 6th July was about to be carried into complete execution, after the unworthy manner in which that compact had been used, after that unworthy language uniformly applied to the person to whom Greece was indebted for it, and who might justly be termed the deliverer and pacificator of the East of Europe. He was glad to see that those who were formerly opposed to him on this very point, now took credit for carrying into effect the great measure which his genius had conceived. On these points his joy was unmixed, his satisfaction perfect; and were he called upon to vote upon this Resolution, he should support it on no ground of hostility to, or distrust of Ministers, but upon what he had heard before, and which had been this night confirmed, that the present Government of this country had formerly been disposed to adopt a mischievous arrangement regarding the limits of the territory of Greece, and to justify that arrangement upon false principles. The right hon. Gentleman had intimated that Greece was to have something better than an extended line—that she was to have compensation for the narrowing of her boundaries: but it was not denied that she was not to have the frontier which would have been assigned to her under the Treaty of 6th July. The frontier now proposed was not that which had been formerly designed. Acarnania was to be ceded to the Turks; so also was the Acheloüs, and yet such boundaries could be of no use to Turkey, except for offensive purposes, while they might be of much service as a defensive line to the Greeks. What had most surprised him, however, was the principle adopted by Ministers with reference to Candia. Looking to the Treaty of the 6th of July, he felt himself justified in assuming, that when a new State was to be formed, as Greece was, that the right of claiming such portion of the Turkish territory as was essential to the defence of Greece belonged as much to that country as did the right of making a similar demand for similar purposes belong to Turkey. The Treaty of the 6th of July proceeded upon the principle that Turkish territory was to be taken to such extent as would secure the means of military defence to the new State, and neither Turkey nor any of the Allies would be at liberty at a future day to impeach the acts done under it. Nothing could be more clear and express than the language of the Treaty of the 6th of July; it declares that the territory and the designation of the islands which were to belong to Greece were to form the subject of negotiation between the two contending parties; that Greece should be free to endeavour to limit the territory of Turkey, as that power might, on the other hand, contend for the limitation of Greece; that nothing" could be plainer than that the independence of Greece should be secured, and the means of its military defence provided for. Now the withholding Candia from Greece went upon grounds strikingly at variance with the Treaty of the 6th of July, However, he would reserve the expression of his full judgment upon the subject until the papers were before the House, and he should sincerely rejoice in the dissent—if such should be the result—of those worldly-wise persons who mistook craft for sagacity. If in making these few observations he had gone beyond the strict rules which on ordinary occasions were observed in discussing subjects of that nature, he hoped it would be attributed to the deep interest such a question was calculated to excite.

said, in adverting to the recommendation of his right hon. friend (Mr. Peel) that they should postpone the discussion of the present question till the papers were before them, he could not but complain that the right hon. Gentleman had himself deviated from his own recommendation, while he desired others to confine themselves to the simple question which the noble Lord had brought under consideration. Having set them such an example, he could scarcely expect that they should very closely confine themselves on a discussion so interesting and important as the present. In making one or two observations upon the character of the Treaty of London, and the mode of its execution, he would not inquire into the origin of the war between Russia and Turkey, neither would he investigate the question as to the party which might have been the instigator of that war. It might be perfectly true that that war arose out of aggressions committed by Turkey upon the trade of Russia, and upon its commercial rights; and he was perfectly ready to admit that the commencement of that war took place before the present Government came into office. On one point he should be glad to see his Majesty's Ministers acquit themselves—namely, with respect to the influence which their conduct had upon the progress, duration, and termination, of that war, and the degree in which their conduct might have affected the course adopted by the Turks in rejecting those terms of peace which it was the duty, as it was the interest, of England to promote. When the papers came to be laid upon the Table of the House, many of the dispatches would prove abundantly plausible; but no dispatch, however smoothly it might read, would, by the mere force of its diction, or the plausibility of its statements, convince him that England had done all that she might have done for the purpose of putting an end to that war. It was his earnest wish to see England, upon all such occasions, speak a straight-forward language; but on that point he could not help apprehending that had she taken the honourable and upright course, hostilities would not have been continued to so recent a period. His right hon. friend had taken credit, on behalf of his Majesty's Government, for the great merit of having had the Treaty of the 6th of July executed according to the spirit in which it was framed, and that its execution was attended with results even more gratifying to the parties interested than their first expectations had led them to anticipate. From that sentiment, however, he begged to dissent, though his unwillingness on the present occasion to enter into details would prevent his assigning the reasons which influenced his dissent; but he must be allowed to say, generally, that he could not see that the spirit of the Treaty had been at all adhered to; and to that single remark he would add, that if the Treaty had been more closely adhered to, the interests of Greece and of England would have been more effectually advanced. At length, however, there was a prospect that something like independence might be achieved for Greece; but the House would judge how much more of that was owing to the arms of Russia than any interference on the part of England to see the Treaty of the 6th of July executed in the spirit in which it had been framed. When the papers came before the House, he should be extremely glad to see the propositions made by his Majesty's Government to the Allies for settling and securing to Greece a territory sufficient for the purposes of an independent State, and a frontier calculated to secure the continuance of that independence. He hoped as they would have the pleasure of seeing what could not fail to be gratifying to the national feelings and flattering to the national honour—to collect from the lips of the English Minister that the people of Greece would enjoy the rights of freemen, and be no longer confined in the shackles and fetters of despotism. When it shall be shewn to the House from the expected documents that his Majesty's Government had done all in their power to secure the accomplishment of that object, then would his right hon. friend be entitled to the thanks of the House and of the country. But so far as the right hon. Secretary went, his statement was far from satisfactory. He had altogether failed in shewing that the addition of Candia to the territory of Greece was not essential to the well-being and independence of the new State. This was but small matter of surprise, for no man who had turned his attention to the subject could doubt that the political existence and the military defence of Greece would mainly depend upon the possession of Candia. What would form a more immediate ground of complaint—if it proved to be well-founded—would be, that this country had not fulfilled her engagements, in seeing the Treaty executed in its true spirit; than which nothing was more important, as affecting the honour and interest of England. It was in a high degree interesting to England that the new State should have the means of maintaining her own independence; for, if left in a helpless or undefended state, the first aggression made upon her would be the signal for calling upon the powers who were parties to the Treaty of the 6th of July to come forward in support of the stipulations of that Treaty. Thus would England be involved in difficulties, which a little regard to good faith in the first instance might easily avert. They might be told that the powers had guaranteed the independence of Greece. That might be perfectly true, and at the same time it might be true that the relations of those powers towards Greece and towards each other would, in a very short time, undergo such changes as should leave little chance of their being in a situation to redeem those pledges which they had given for the maintenance of that country in a separate and substantive form. The only effectual security which Greece and England could have, would be, to give to the former such a territory and such boundaries as would render any aggression very unpromising. To leave Greece in a situation incapable of self-defence, was to do England one of the most serious injuries which she could sustain in her relations with the East of Europe; it would open at once a door for the exercise of foreign influence, and render the new State of Greece an arena for the struggles of foreign influence, and, perhaps, for the contests of armed men. The gulfs of Volo and Arta, at opposite sides, ought to form two 'of the boundaries of the new State; that, he thought, could be very easily established; but those who wished to circumscribe Greece within the narrowest possible limits would confine it to the Morea. Austria, and those who with Austria desired to fix the minimum of territory, called out for the Morea as the boundary. When the official papers, however came before them, it would then be apparent that the English Government had either supported the true interest of Greece, or had sacrificed them to the wishes of Austria. It would then be seen whether proper means had been taken for securing Thessaly and Epirus, and whether the Gulf of Volo on the East, and the Gulf of Arta on the West, were or were not to form the boundaries of Greece. These he certainly considered as limits essential to the military defence of Greece, as was the natural boundary formed by the range o mountains at the North running like a back-bone behind Greece—that was a barrier which nature pointed out, and one which the habits of the people, and the physical circumstances of the country, rendered obvious and convenient. On the South, it was of importance that Greece should be in possession of a territory which would afford her a good military defence, for there it was of peculiar importance that she should be preserved from collision with her neighbours. It seemed to him one of the strangest assertions which had ever been made, that Greece ought to be made to pay a price in territory for the political independence conferred upon her—she was given a nominal independence, but a real dependence, with such a territory as that given to her, destitute as it was of the means of military defence. The natural defence of Greece on the South would be Candia; for with that island left in the possession of the Turks, the means of aggression would be continually in their hands. The ports of Turkey were too distant to admit of frequent or formidable attacks upon the Greeks; but with Candia in their possession, undertakings of that nature became comparatively easy. If, then, any thing had been done which tended to compromise the independence of the new State in the manner to which he alluded, he entreated his Majesty's Ministers to reconsider the steps they had taken, and shut the door against future contention in the East, by providing for the political security and military defence of Greece, thus really executing the Treaty of London in spirit, satisfying the just expectations of Greece, and doing credit to themselves and their Allies. He professed to know nothing upon those topics except what any man might learn at the corners of the streets in common conversation, or from the newspapers; but he believed he should be borne out in this assertion, that if the wishes of England were decisively made known upon the subject, the Allies would accede to them, and that it rested with the Cabinet of England to decide whether or not the new State was to be rendered secure or insecure. It had been said, that to give Candia to the Greeks it must be conquered from Turkey. What made that necessary?—what, but the wavering and undecided conduct of the Cabinet of England? It was also alleged that Candia had taken no part in the insurrection against the Turkish power in Greece: that could scarcely be the fact; for early in the year 1827, the President of the Greek Legislative Assembly was known to be in that island, and it was not at all likely that he would have been there, if there had not subsisted a community of feeling between the Greek inhabitants of that island and their brethren elsewhere. It was also to be remembered that Candia was one of the latest acquisitions of Turkey—it had not been conquered by the Turks until the year 1679; and it was likewise an important fact, that out of the two hundred and forty thousand souls forming the population of that island, the greater part were Greeks. The Turks however, were now in possession of Candia, and that he believed was mainly owing to the interference of our non-interfering Government. It was one of the thousand and one instances in which our Government professed not to intermeddle, yet did so, contrary to its professions. The Turks had wrongfully preserved possession of Candia, and now it was contended that they should be allowed to profit by that wrong. It was a principle of law that no man should profit by his own wrong—it was a maxim of justice, that the infliction of one injury should not stand good as a reason for the infliction of further and deep injuries. It was acknowledged that at the present moment a civil war was going on in Candia. Were they to have another Treaty of London for the pacification of Candia, or was that devoted and unhappy island to be left exposed to the pouring forth of the vials of Turkish wrath in all its inhuman and atrocious barbarity, to a repetition of the atrocities of Ipsara and Scio? There had been a talk of amnesty; they must all, by this time, know pretty well what amnesty meant, when translated into the languages of Spain, or Portugal, or Turkey. In Turkey they had a proverb that there were three merciless things—Time, Fire, and the Sultan; and if he knew anything of the history of Turkey, he would say there was little probability of that being less true at the present than at any former period. Let Candia remain in the hands of the Turks, and what probability was there that the Greeks in that island would remain patient under that yoke which their brethren had shaken off? and even though they were disposed to do so, how unlikely was it that the Turks would allow themselves to remain without a pretext for glutting that vengeance which the other Greeks might defy. How then was England to act? Was she to keep an agent in Candia to preserve the peace there between the Greeks and Turks in that Island? It was contended that to conquer Candia would be contrary to the Treaty of London, but an objection of that nature did not arise when the French conquered the Morea, and when many similar acts were done, in the course of the late struggle. Candia, even in a maritime point of view, was essential to the safety of Greece, it was to Greece what Cuba was to Mexico, and could not be excluded from its territory without endangering the existence of the new State. Would it be possible for the sovereign of Greece to stand by and see thousands of his subjects, countrymen, slaughtered by the Turks, without interference? and yet, should he interfere, the certain consequence would be a war with Turkey. In that event England would undoubtedly be brought into the contest; or if, both England and the sovereign of Greece refused to interfere, the Greeks themselves would fly to the succour of their brethren, and then of what advantage would it be that the State was nominally at peace? There was another argument which he might mention, and which perhaps had still more force. It was not in the nature of things that Candia could long continue in the possession of Turkey, for it was too rich a prize not to tempt the surrounding States, and he would therefore venture to predict that, if Candia was not united to Greece, it would fall to our lot to be at war with some State or other, in the course of a few years, on account of this very Candia. They were told that the transactions were still pending; and, therefore, the papers and documents on the subject were still withheld from the House; but he did not see that this ought to have any weight in stopping the discussion of the present night; because they well knew the strength that an expressed opinion of Parliament must have on such a subject; and he, therefore, trusted, that if there were other Gentlemen who had the same feeling on the subject, and entertained the same opinion with himself, they would give their support to the Motion of the noble Lord.

.—I am extremely sorry, that when I stated that his Majesty's Government had been able to execute the Treaty in the spirit in which it had been conceived, and even to carry it further, any one should suppose that I thereby intended to draw a contrast between the present Government and the original framers of the Treaty. I said that we had carried the Treaty further than Mr. Canning, but that has been because events have arisen which Mr. Canning was not able to foresee. But, Sir, I think that I have a right to complain of the manner in which my noble friend has called the attention of the House to the subject; there were first addressed some questions to me, and when they were answered, the noble Lord (Palmerston) has risen to found a statement upon them; I therefore think that I have a right to complain, because I certainly did not conceive that these answers would form the groundwork of the unpremeditated impromptu delivered by my noble friend. What a situation am I placed in by answering these questions? Was it fair on such a ground to enter into the description of boundaries—was it proper to enter into the discussion of attaching Candia to Greece? Can I in reply state and argue upon all those circumstances of which the House is not yet in possession? Can I enter into the reasons why, because there has been a rebellion, not only England, but all the other powers have forced Turkey to a submission, to which, under other circumstances, they would not have consented? But, Sir, even if my noble friend shall succeed in procuring a majority for the noble Lord's Motion, it will still leave the Government unfettered as to Candia, for the noble Lord's motion has nothing to do with that: and I protest that I will not be drawn to enter into the discussion by the course pursued, trusting the House will feel the situation in which I am placed, and that the time is not yet arrived for that discussion. I feel that I cannot in fairness enter into that discussion, and I will not enter into it; but I trust that the House will not, from this resolution of mine, draw any unfair conclusion. My noble friend has stated, that if England would consent to enlarge the limits of Greece, he was pretty sure that the other powers who have joined in the Treaty would not be opposed to such extension. Certainly this is a statement which I did not expect to hear from my noble friend. I do not, however, know in whose confidence he may be, or whom he may undertake to represent in making that statement, unless he comes to that conclusion from having been in office at the time of the execution of the Treaty. This, however, at all events, I can state to the House, that the most perfect harmony on the question of boundaries exists between the contracting powers; and that the arrangements will be found worthy of the sanction of Parliament.

said: Nothing that has fallen from my right hon. friend shall tempt me to deviate from that temper which I believe is always most successful in argument. My right hon. friend has told the House that he does not know whose representative I am. I will tell him. I stand here, humble as I am, as one of the Representatives of the People of England; and next, as the Representative of my own opinions—opinions, Sir, which I will never shape to suit the opinions of any other individual, let his situation be what it may, either in this House, or out of this House. I stand here as the Representative of my own opinions, and I think I can appeal to the recollection of my right hon. friend himself, to bear witness that those opinions have not changed since I had the honour of acting with him. I also stand here, I trust, as one of that body which represents, or which at least ought to be the maintainers of the honour and interests of England; and I can assure the House that I shall never be deterred from that duty by any taunts which my right hon. friend may not think unworthy of himself, or by any taunts which may extract a reluctant and unfrequent cheer from those who sit behind the Treasury Bench. Neither, Sir, will I ever be deterred by any of those—I will not call them unfair—but by any skilful dexterities of debate, from stating to the House those opinions which I honestly entertain on the public affairs of the country; and little shall I care whom those opinions may please or displease, or what motive may be imputed to me for doing what I most firmly believe to be my duty. But my right hon. friend has insinuated that I have availed myself of information obtained while in office; now my belief is, that I have stated nothing which every man who reads the newspapers of Europe, or who mixes in the society of any country he may happen to be in, might not have stated just as fully; and if the Ministry think that nothing of all this is known beyond the corner of Downing-street, except that which they are pleased to communicate, they are most grievously mistaken, for much more of the political state of Greece is known to the whole of Europe than perhaps they would desire. My right hon. friend has also been pleased to talk of my unpremeditated impromptu. I can, however, assure him, that when I entered the House, it was my intention to confine myself to the question of the territorial limits of Greece, and that I should not have said a syllable on any other point, but for his own departure from a rule which he entreated all others sacredly to observe.

.—I can assure my noble friend that I admit his perfect right to express his opinions, and to have them considered expressly as his own; and if I had objected to it, I should have been justly subject to censure. But I was not speaking of opinions, but of facts. Neither did I impute to my noble friend any improper disclosure of the information he obtained while in office; all that I stated was, that having made a speech, I was placed under a disadvantage when my noble friend entered into details. The fact to which I referred was this—that my noble friend stated certain circumstances in such a manner as must have led those who heard him, to suppose that he spoke from authority, and that he was in possession of the negotiations between the powers, thereby leading those who heard him to conclude that England stood alone on the question of limits; and that if she would waive her objections on that head, there was reason to believe that the other powers would also waive theirs. For this reason I thought it necessary to state that the three contracting powers were agreed upon this point, and that there was no such want of harmony as my noble friend would have made out. It was for these reasons that I made the observations I did; and I beg to assure him, that in making them I did not in the least intend to impute to him any improper disclosures.

.—I can assure my right hon. friend that nothing which may pass between him and me in this House will impair the friendship which exists between us: but I am sure the House could not imagine, when I was stating my opinion as to the boundaries of Greece, after having been two years out of office, that I was taking upon myself to insure what were the sentiments of Russia or France.

wished to know whether the noble lord (lord J. Russell) intended to press his Motion to a division: because, if he did not, he (Sir R. Wilson) would not trouble the House with his opinions on the question in its present state. He also thought that it would be unfair to press the matter to a division, as the papers were not before the House.

said, it was not his intention to divide the House on the Motion, which was then negatived without a division.

moved, that an Address be presented to his Majesty for Copies or Extracts of all correspondence which may have taken place between his Majesty's Government and Foreign Powers, relating to the Slave Trade, since 1st of January 1829, and not already laid before this House: of all correspondence between his Majesty's Government and the British Commissioners of the mixed Commission Courts at Sierra Leone, the Havannah, Rio de Janeiro, and Surinam, relative to the Slave Trade, since 1st of January 1828, and not already laid before this House: of all correspondence which may have taken place between the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty and the Naval Officers stationed on the Coast of Africa, at the Cape of Good Hope, or elsewhere, relative to the Slave Trade, since 1st of January 1828, and not already laid before this House: and of all correspondence touching the Slave Trade received from the Governors of Sierra Leone, and other British Possessions on the Coast of Africa, and from the Governors of the Mauritius and the Cape of Good Hope, since 1st of January 1828, and not already laid before this House.