, seeing the right hon. Gentleman, the President of the Board of Control, in his place, was anxious to put to him a question in which a great many individuals were interested. It was a repetition of the question which he put last year, namely, as to when it might be expected those persons who served in the last war in India would receive their prize-money? He hoped he would receive a satisfactory answer, as he had every week three or four applications on the subject from pensioners who were advanced in years, and to whom this money was a great object.

, in reply to the question of his hon. Friend, had to state that a year ago the Committee for the distribution of the prize-money notified that from that day the distribution of it would begin to the officers and privates in India; and just at this time a notification had been issued naming all the European officers and men who, after those in India had received the share due to them, would be able to receive theirs in England. But his hon. Friend must perceive that some time would necessarily elapse in the transmission of the names from England. He could assure his hon. Friend, that he was extremely solicitous that a settlement of these claims should take place at as early a period as possible; and in August last the court of directors and himself sent out a despatch in which they urged the necessity for a speedy distribution of the money, and expressed their regret that there had been any delay that had the appearance of being unnecessary. He hoped that his hon. Friend would consider this explanation satisfactory.

wished to ask the Vice-President of the Board of Trade in his place, as he had been chairman of a Select Committee which sat last year to inquire into the system of negro apprenticeship, how it was that the evidence taken before that Committee had been communicated in the West Indies, while it had been thought advisable to withhold it from that House?

could assure the hon. Gentleman that he was in no way implicated in the matter. That Committee had decided that the evidence should not be reported to the House, and he had not, communicated it to any party. Certainly some complaints had reached him of that evidence having transpired in the West Indies, while it was the fact that it had not been communicated to the House. Now he would bring something to the hon. Member's recollection which might account for the matter. The hon. Member would recollect it was proposed and carried in Committee, with no other dissentient than himself (Mr. Labouchere), that those parts of the evidence which bore on the conduct of particular planters should be sent out to them. The resolution was supported by Mr. F. Buxton, by the hon. Member for Leeds, and those Members who thought with them. He had been no party to communicate that evidence, except in so far as he had been directed to do so by the Committee. On |the contrary, one of the grounds of his objection to the resolution was, that the evidence might transpire and give rise to some such misconceptions as appeared to | have taken place. He hoped that the answer would be satisfactory to the hon.; Member, and that he would acquit him (Mr. Labouchere) of any underhand conduct in the matter.

denied in the most unequivocal manner the charge that had been made against him at a public meeting in London, that he had surreptitiously transmitted this evidence through Mr. Burge, the agent for Jamaica. He denied the accusation that had been made against him; but he was sorry to say that it was only one among many to which he had been subject.

felt convinced that it was quite unnecessary, as far as the House was concerned, for the hon. Member to make the denial.

was quite aware of the answer that would be returned when he put the question; but, finding that there had been circulated through the country a report very much to the disadvantage of the Colonial-office, he was determined that an opportunity should be given for the correction of that report.

rose and spoke as follows:—As the bill which I am about to request leave to introduce is the same in substance with one which was read a second time last Session, I might, perhaps, venture to anticipate that there will be no objection to its introduction now, and might content myself with simply naming it. But as the subject then passed without development on my part, or discussion on the part of the House, and as the actual bearing of the law which I seek to alter may not be familiar to the minds of those who are fortunately strangers to the circumstances to which it applies, I think it better in this stage to ask the indulgence of the House for a short time while I state what the grievances are which I shall call on them partially to redress. The subject has reference to the rights of parents in relation to their children, when the natural state of joint superintendence and protection is broken by unhappy differences, which compel or induce them to separate, without involving any breach of the marriage tie on the part of the mother. Many, I believe, there are who pass their years in the tranquil enjoyment of domestic happiness, uniting their exertions to mould the character and contribute to the innocent delights of their children, and sharing in the requital which expanding intellect and ripening affections reflect back upon them, from whom the stern power with which the law arms one of the parents is veiled by the gentler influences, or who, if they have learned its existence, regard it as a dead letter. They may have heard that by the law of England the custody of all legitimate children from the hour of their birth belongs to the father, but they will be startled to learn what is the situation of the mother with respect to them, if circumstances, however urgent, should drive her from his roof, or to what moral torture she may be legally subjected even if she should linger beneath it. Not only may she be prevented from bestowing upon them in their early infancy those solicitudes of love for the absence of which nothing can compensate—not only may she be prevented from tending upon them in the extremity of sickness, but she may be denied the sight of them; and, if she should obtain possession of them, by whatever means, may be compelled by the writ of habeas corpus to resign them to her husband or to his agents without condition—without hope. That is the law—at least such is its recent exposition by the highest authorities; and how is it enforced? By process of contempt, issued at the instance of the husband against his wife, for her refusal to obey it, under which she must be sent to prison, there to remain until she shall yield or until she shall die. And let it not be supposed that this law is one which is rarely brought into operation. The instances in which it is brought before the public cognizance may be few, but it is ever in the background of domestic tyranny, and is felt by those who suffer in silence. There are, however, examples which are recorded in our law books—cases in which all the miseries of public exposure have been already endured, and the parties are beyond the reach of their renewal—to which, and to which only, I shall allude in detail, and which sufficiently exemplify the workings of this hideous injustice. One of these cases is that of the King v. De Manville, reported in 5 East, 221, which related to a female child, of eight months old, receiving nurture from its mother. She was an Englishwoman, who was, unhappily, married to a foreigner, who had quitted him after gross ill-usage, and who had quitted him taking her infant with her. The husband, by stratagem or force, obtained admittance to the house where she had taken refuge, seized the child at the breast, and carried it off, almost naked, in an open carriage. As the child had been violently removed she applied for a writ of habeas corpus. The case was heard on her own statement, as the Court of King's Bench were so clearly of opinion against her that they did not hear the affidavit of the husband in answer, and refused the application, as it did not appear that the child was physically injured for want of nourishment, nor that the husband intended to take it out of the kingdom. And though the Court of Chancery subsequently restrained the father from taking the child abroad, it was wholly without reference to the mother's claim. In Skinner's case (9 Moore, 278) the husband had treated his wife with barbarity; they were separated, he cohabited with a woman named Deverall, and his child of six years of age remained in its mother's care. He sued out a writ of habeas corpus to take it from her, and on the case being heard before Mr. Justice Best, then one of the judges of the Court of King's Bench, a recommendation was made that the rigour of the law should not be enforced, and the child was, by arrangement of the parties, placed in the care of a third person agreed on by them. From this person the father took it by fraud, and gave it into the care of the woman with whom he cohabited, while he himself was a prisoner for debt in Horse-monger-lane gaol, to which place this prostitute resorted with the child. In this state of things the mother applied for a writ of habeas corpus; the case was heard and the court ordered the child to be delivered to its father. In M'Clellan's case (1 Dowling's Practical Cases, 81) the child had been placed at a boarding-school by her father; the mother removed it thence because the child was in declining health, and afflicted with a disease by which she had already lost an elder child, and yet Mr. Justice Patteson said he had no option but to take it from her—he, one of the kindest and most simple-hearted of men, feeling himself compelled to deny to a mother, whose anxieties had been sharpened by the loss of one of her children, the mournful pleasure of watching over the survivor affected by a similar disease. "It might be better (said that learned and excellent person) as the child is in delicate health, that it should be with the mother, but we can make no order on that point." The last case, in which all the authorities were reviewed and the law solemnly declared by the judges of the Court of King's Bench, is so recent that although its details are published in the Law Reports I will only advert to its outline. It was the case of a habeas corpus issued by the father; the mother was admitted to be entirely spotless, and the writ sought to compel her to deliver up three little girls all under six years of age; the infants were brought to the chambers of Mr. Justice Patteson, and, after most strenuous attempts to made between the parties, he made an order for the delivery by the mother to the father. That order was brought before the judges of the Court of King's Bench; by them it was confirmed; by them it was enforced by process of contempt, under which the poor woman must have given up the children or have gone to prison for life, but that she withdrew them from the country became an exile, and, unless happier counsels have since prevailed, retains them in spite of the law. Such is the last decree of the courts of common law—a decision not only honestly but most reluctantly pronounced; but which, I own, seems founded on a rotten or artificial process of reasoning. The father is by law entitled to the custody of his child; all other custody, unless sanctioned by him, is illegal. The illegal custody of a child incapable of personal choice is tantamount to its imprisonment; and as the writ of habeas corpus lies to deliver the subject from illegal restraint, it lies to take a baby from the breast, to deliver it into the freedom of such custody from the prison of its mother's arms. I cannot help attributing the tone of some of the judgments which may seem counter to the strength of the feelings which it was necessary to subdue to the fear that if nature were suffered to interpose, the chain of argument would be severed, and the legal spell dissolved. This, however, the judges of the courts of law have decided, and have felt unequal to mitigate the judgment by any allowance to the mother; holding with Mr. Justice Blackstone, that a "mother, as such, is entitled to no power, but only to reverence and respect," enforcing the father's power, and having none to vender the mockery of reason productive even of compassion. The Court of Chancery, it might be thought, whose jurisdiction is supposed to relax some of the rules of law, could relieve, because it does in some instances interfere with the father's power; it does so, but never on behalf of the mother. There are well-known cases in which, where children by reason of property have been made wards of that court, the father's power has been controlled, and, therefore, it cannot be objected that paternal rights, are, in their nature, too sacred to be subjected to the interference of judges; but while proofs of gross profligacy or even unhappy religious opinion have been thought sufficient to take the children from their father, no regard has been paid to the mother's claim even to be permitted to see them. The case of Ball v. Ball, decided by Sir Anthony Hart in 1827, in. which reference is made to the antecedent authorities, at once illustrates the evil, and points to the remedy I seek to apply. In that case, a petition came on to be heard before the Vice-Chancellor, on behalf of a lady named Ball, and her daughter, a girl of fourteen years of age, her affidavits disclosing conduct of great immorality and violence by the father, which rendered it impossible for his wife to resort to his House. The lady offered to support the daughter out of her own funds, and prayed, if the daughter could not be permitted to reside with her, at least some access of the mother might be secured. The Vice-Chancellor at once rejected the first part of the prayer, asserting that there was nothing alleged to contravene the father's right to the custody of the child. He was then pressed to grant the other and far inferior prayer—a right of access at reasonable times—the question being stated to be this:"Whether a child is to be deprived, by the brutal conduct of the father, of the company, advice, and protection of the mother, against whom no imputation can be raised?" This is the material part of the Vice-Chancellor's answer to this appeal:—

"Some conduct on the part of the father with reference to the management and education of the child, must be shown to warrant an interference with his legal right, and I am bound to say, that in this case there does not appear to me to be sufficient to deprive the father of his common-law right to the care and custody of his child. It resolves itself into a case for authorities, and I must consider what has been looked upon as the law on this point. I do not know that I have any authority to interfere. I do not know of any case similar to this which would authorise my making the order sought, in either alternative. If any could be found I would most gladly adopt it; for, in a moral point of view, I know of no act more harsh or cruel than depriving a mother of proper intercourse with her child. I was myself counsel in two cases in which Lord Eldon refused petitions precisely similar. 'Smith v. Smith,' one of them, was precisely similar in its parts to the present case, except that the father's object there was to compel the mother, by such means as are now complained of, to give up to him some property which was settled to her own separate use. My course of argument in that case was, that as the law allowed the mother of bastards to retain possession of their children till the age of seven, a fortiori, must the law allow the case of legitimate children to be vested in the mother (the child in that case was under seven). The Lord Chancellor, however, refused the order, and before any further proceedings were had, either the mother's or the child's death terminated the question. That was a very strong case, yet the Lord Chancellor held that the court had no jurisdiction."

When Mr. Justice Patteson truly stated "The Court of King's Bench has authority to restore to a father his lights, but has no power to compel a father to perform his duty," one might have hoped that in another court some, counter power might be found: but there is none; and though such gross immorality as may infect the mind of a child, who has property to make him the subject of the Lord Chancellor's protection, may be the ground of removing him from the curse of his father's example, nothing can afford him the blessing of the care of a mother who retires from that father's house. Now, Sir, I only seek to do what the Vice-Chancellor would have gladly done in this case—to confide to the judge at law and in equity the discretionary power of so far mitigating the law which enforces the right of one parent to refuse to the other access, at fitting seasons, to a child of tender age from whom she is divided by unhappy differences with its father. When I think what natural justice requires, I feel ashamed of the slender palliation which I propose, and I own that I should rejoice if I could effect the transfer of the right of custody of children in their earliest infancy, especially female children, from the father to the mother, and engraft the exception upon that altered rule. But the length of time during which the father's paramount right has been recognised by our law, the various by which that power is entwined with our social system, and the difficulty of enabling any court to deal with the property essential to a child's education and maintenance, restrict me to the simple palliation which I ask you to concur in granting. Where is the objection in principle, where the difficulty in practice? In a case before Lord Mansfield—that of Mr. Lytton—where by articles of separation the husband had bound himself to allow the access of the wife to his child, that great judge, admitting that the court could not at any age take a child from its father, said "that as the father had constrained himself by articles to let the mother have access to the child if he chose to take it home he must permit access for the mother to it there." I only ask this most reasonable condition, implied, on behalf of an innocent mother, and the order of the Lord Mansfield is precisely that which I ask the Legislature to sanction. In several cases of this painful description the courts have succeeded in inducing the parties to consent to such arrangements; but experience shows that consent is often asked in vain, and that in mercy to both a power ought to be invested somewhere which may compel that which every judge has desired to induce. In matters which involve only considerations of interest—how falsely fancied to supply the strongest motives to human action!—you may indulge a reasonable expectation that opposing parties will consent to arrangements which are obviously for their mutual good. But you can justify no such confidence in cases of opposing passions—in cases where the dearest relations of life and the affections are armed against each other—where the animosities are not those scarcely worthy of the name—the result of transitory petulance, of party strife, of seeming rivalry, of social misunderstanding, the empty shows and "unreal mockeries" of hatred, which melt and vanish before a touch of kindness—but those hatreds which arise out of the depths of love; and which are fed by pleasant remembrances and by hopes for ever crushed, and which in their very bitterness vindicate the power and the immortality of the affections out of which they sprung. Experience has shown that parties who are thus placed in unnatural opposition can rarely be conciliated in a moment, or induced to listen to reason; and it is almost as much for the benefit of the stronger party as of the weaker that authority apart from either should mitigate a claim which if strained to the utmost must break. A husband who has consented to the extreme measure of suing out a writ of habeas corpusto compel his wife to render his children to his charge, and who must either lose them or enforce his right by sending her to prison, seems to me scarcely less an object of compassion than she whom he pursues; and, therefore, I propose to give to him (leaving his greater right untouched) the opportunity of resorting to the gentler course which is open to the woman. As in the last case, in point of date, if he proceed to extremity he will only obtain a fruitless and a miserable victory. Let the judge award him his writ—let them order his wife to resign her infants unconditionally to his care—let them direct the attachment to issue. A mightier power than theirs—a power against which senators, legislators, and judges decree in vain—the power of affection in the human soul, and the answering sympathy in all who share it—will set at nought their processes, and make them acknowledge what Milton calls "the irresistible might of weakness." But it is not to these extreme cases (in which despair has made a feeble and timid woman bold) that the present law is most to be dreaded. It is the silent operation of its power—the threat which the husband dares scarcely utter—by which he may compel an innocent wife to resign property, or to submit to disgrace, on pain of being excluded for ever from the sight of those who are dearer to her than life. It is in instances in which the sufferer endures unseen, that it is chiefly felt, as a matter of moral torture playing on the finest nerves of agony—

"as on joint and limb

With answerable pains, but more intense."

In palliation of these miseries, I do not seek to alter the law of England as to the father's right—I do not ask you to place the unspotted matron on a level with the frail mother of illegitimate children, who is by law entitled to their custody while of tender age—I do not seek to restore to infants those habitual influences of maternal love which, through all classes of society, mould the early affections to value, and are now felt and blessed in its most exalted region; but I do ask some mitigation of the mother's lot—some intervals in which forsaken nature may be cheered and waning strength repaired by the sight of the objects of far looking hope—some slight control over the operation of that tyranny which one sex has exerted over the helplessness of the other. With these feelings I move that leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the access of parents who live apart from each other to their children of tender age.

I have great pleasure in seconding the motion of my learned Friend. In his admirable speech he has shown what the law now is upon this subject, and where it is peculiarly harsh and cruel. No man who has given this subject the smallest consideration can deny that the law requires some alteration, if in making and executing laws regard should be had to common sense, and justice, and humanity, and if in those laws especially which relate to the intercourse of the sexes, fair protection should be afforded by the stronger sex, who make the laws, to the weaker sex, for whom the law is made, who have no voice whatever in making the law, whose interests are entirely in the hands and at the mercy of the law-makers, and who, having nothing to do with the law but to obey it, ask merely for protection against the cruelty and injustice which may be (and I grieve to say is too often) perpetrated by a brutal tyrant, fortified by the letter of the law. As it stands at present, the law is entirely in favour of the husband and oppressive to the wife. A man who may be drunken, immoral, vicious, and utterly brutalized, may place his wife, who seeks to live separately from him, in this cruel dilemma—"You shall either continue to live with me, or you shall be deprived of your children." The wife, in such a case, has no redress. It may be notorious that she has just grounds for complaint, that it would be misery for her to live with her husband; it may be well known that she possesses her children's sympathy and affection, and that the husband disregards his children, and is disregarded, if not disliked by them. It may be admitted that the wife is the fitter person to have the care of the early education of her children, to form their habits, to minister to their childish wants to soothe them in trouble, and to tend them in sickness. All this may be admitted; but the law sternly refuses to listen to the pleadings of natural sympathies and affections, gives to the husband the charge and possession of the children, and denies even the sight of them to the beloved and loving mother. How many mothers, rather than submit to such a deprivation, are driven to choose the other alternative, and endure a life of harassing ill-treatment and vexation and misery? This is no imaginary case: I know many such cases, which, at this moment, present themselves to my memory. There can scarcely be a Member in this House to whom some such case is not known; there are hundreds of women now suffering in silence, pining for the children whom a stern law has torn from them, now looking anxiously to the decision of this House—now eagerly hoping that the representatives of the people will save them from the terrible alternative which forces them to choose between being the abject slaves of a brutal husband or of being deprived of the very sight of their own children. This is no party question; and I do sincerely hope that the noble Lord the Secretary for the Home Department and the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth will coalesce on this occasion at least, and exert their united authority to induce the House to give that protection to the feeble and to afford that justice to the aggrieved which the learned Member for Reading, in the name of many, too many, of our country women, now prays for at our hands.

believed that men had very little notion of the intensity of a mother's affection for her children. But the question to be considered was whether the Bill proposed by the hon. and learned Member would not present a motive to induce separations between husbands and wives. The cases which the hon. and learned Member had cited were cases in which the fault was on the side of the husband; while those acquainted with life must well know that there were many cases in which the faults were on the part of the wife. In a future stage he should take the sense of the House respecting the Bill.

observed, that the Bill he proposed made no change in the custody of the children, but permitted access to them, and that only to be obtained upon application to the Lord Chancellor, Vice-Chancellor, or some of the twelve judges.

, in moving for leave to bring in a bill to amend the law of copyright, observed that the Bill he now proposed was in substance similar to that which had been read a second time in the last session. It differed however in two points. The bill of last session was not confined to literary works, but also combined within its objects painting and engraving. It was suggested to him that the clauses referring to these matters only encumbered his Bill. He considered that the law relative to painting and engraving, and especially statuary, was in a most degraded state. When he had carried through the present bill he intended to introduce another, which would consolidate the laws relating to the fine arts. With respect to the second point, international copyright, it had been suggested to him that it could be most safely left in the hands of the Government. He suggested that a power should be given by which the Queen by an order in council, should extend protection to the works of the natives of any country in which protection was afforded to the copyright of British authors. He moved for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the law of copyright.

sincerely thanked the hon. and learned Member for his introduction of such a Bill. He was sure the House could not be aware of the extent to which literary piracy had gone. As soon as a book was published the press of France reprinted it at one-fifth the original price, and the country thus became deluged with foreign piracies. He thought the Government ought to take steps to prevent such occurrences.

said, the hon. Gentleman had acted wisely in leaving the part of this Bill relating to piracies to the Government, which had already taken the matter into serious consideration. He removed many objections to the Bill by confining it to copyrights at home, for the other matter was so mixed up with Custom-house regulations that it was full of difficulties. He trusted, however, that Government would be enabled to succeed, and it had already considerable negotiations going forward upon the subject. He would early after the recess, introduce a measure on the subject, which would, he hoped, insure the result of the explanation he had caused to be entered into with foreign countries, establishing with those countries a reciprocity of interest with respect to copyrights.

thought that the hon. and Learned Gentleman had acted wisely in separating that part of his Bill which related to the fine arts from that which applied to authors. He was of opinion that it would have been more convenient to enter into the discussion upon these two subjects as two separate measures; but he was sure that the same principle applied to the fine arts which applied to others. The sculptor and painter were entitled to similar protection. The present state of the law was exceedingly complicated with respect to the right of those parties to protection. At present the rights of the painter and engraver appeared to stand on very different grounds from those of the author. He believed the subject had not been thoroughly inquired into before a Committee, and doubted very much if his hon. and learned Friend's purpose would not be materially aided if he moved for the appointment of a select Committee to consider the question of sculpture and painting. The subject, might have been inquired into by some former Committee; but, if not, it was so difficult that they could not approach it without great disadvantage, unless some inquiry was previously made.

would be extremely happy if an expeditious and inexpensive mode of redress could be established against the system of piracy that was carried on. He had been requested to give his support to the Bill by some of the most eminent literary characters. It would give him great pleasure if the subject was taken up by her Majesty's present Government, and he would be glad if the law was perfected even under their auspices.

rose and said, that recollecting how he had been admonished in the course of last Session, he would on the present occasion confine himself to the object of his motion. It was said that we ought not to be surprised at anything in human affairs. Now, he was not so far advanced in life as to be incapable of feeling surprise. He had felt surprised on many occasions, and he certainly felt much surprised that her Majesty's Ministers should have met Parliament, and that neither in the speech from the Throne, nor from any of her Majesty's Ministers since, had they heard a single word respecting the distress that existed amongst the industrious classes. He was also surprised at the indifference of her Majesty's Ministers as to the position which Russia was assuming in the affairs of Europe. They had been engaged in petty discussions about nasty matters that were unworthy the attention of the politicians of a village pot-house; and this, too, while Russia was gathering up her strength to make a horrible war on England at her proper time. He would take the liberty of reading one or two paragraphs from a pamphlet which had been written by an excellent officer, Captain Crawford, respecting the present strength and condition of the Russian navy, In that pamphlet it was stated that Russia had at present, in the Baltic Sea, no less than twenty-six ships of the line, with a proper proportion of frigates and sloops of war, all well manned and instructed in the mode adopted in the English service. The object in bringing forward this motion was to vindicate the honour of England and to see that our interests were not seriously compromised through the supineness of the present Government. The hon. Member read a long extract from the pamphlet referred to, the object of which was to show that Russia had at this mo-moment, besides twenty-six sail of the line in the Baltic, eighteen sail of the line in the Black Sea, whilst England had but seven sail of the line on our own coasts in a state of preparation, and even these were not fully manned. Captain Crawford said, that on seeing this he trembled for the preservation of our ancient sovereignty of the seas. He (Mr. Attwood) did not care whether Russia was our friend or our foe, this he did not take into consideration for a moment, for the moment that any country depended upon the friendship of a tyrant, that moment the people became slaves. The moment that Russia acquired power to injure us, that moment she acquired dominion over us, and yet while this was going on, her Majesty's Ministers Session after Session sat apparently sleeping on the Treasury benches. He had warned them three or four years ago to take care what they were doing about the Russians—that the Russians might be awkward fellows to deal with, and that, if they continued to pursue their, career of degradation, they would not dare to look an enemy in the face. [Laughter.] What did they laugh at, he would like to know? [Great laughter.] They might reserve their laughter for a better occasion. They would not laugh when they heard of eighty Russian men of war appearing off the coast of Norfolk, [A laugh.] They might laugh, but the Russian navy might appear at the mouth of the Thames, and they had not a fleet to prevent it. "You, Sir, (said the hon. Member, addressing the Speaker)—you, Sir, who are at the head of the people of this country, have not the power of preventing the Russian navy passing through the British channel with a broom at their mast head." He would assert that the people of England last autumn had not the power of preventing the Russian navy from coming with a broom at their mast head and entering the mouth of the Thames, and burning Sheerness. It was very disagreeable to him to have to bring these painful truths before an assembly of Englishmen. He might be told that we had six ships of the line at Lisbon. The ostensible excuse for maintaining so many ships there was to protect the life of the Queen of Portugal; but they did not care so much about the life of the Queen; the real object was to put down liberty, to support despotism and fraud, and to destroy the constitution which the Queen of Portugal had sworn to defend and maintain. But even if they brought home those six ships, they would then have but thirteen, and what could thirteen ships do against twenty-six? A distinguished sailor had told him that as a last resource they might cut away the buoys at the mouth of the Thames, and that then the Russian navy could not enter the Thames, or, at all events, they would not be able to pass Tilbury Fort. They ought to be prepared to meet the Russians every hour. They ought to be prepared to meet France, Holland, and America, combined with Russia. Why not? Ancient quarrels and bitter hatreds and burning jealousies would arise; and France, Holland, and America would be certain to declare war upon us as soon as we were entangled in a war with Russia. England ought, therefore, to be in a condition to crush the fleet of Russia in an instant. The dominion of the seas was their sole hope; it was the patrimony of their fathers, the glorious patrimony which had made England what she was; and they could not preserve England if they lost this patrimony. What had their Saxon ancestors done? They lost the dominion of the seas, and with it their freedom. When the Danes invaded this country our Saxon ancestors lay down on their faces and sung psalms and allowed themselves to be butchered. He hoped he had stated enough to show that the Russian fleet ought to be looked to. He would ask the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs one question before he brought forward his resolutions, and that was, whether any steps had been taken by her Majesty's Ministers to prevent the formation of the Russian fleet, or to compel its breaking up? He was not much acquainted with the law of nations, but every tyro in politics knew that if a neighbouring country got up a great army or fleet, it was the duty and right of another nation to go and ask what was the object of this army or fleet, for what it was intended, against whom it was directed, was it against us or our allies? If the answers were not satisfactory, they had a right to break up the fleet or army. He should like to know what representations had been made to the Russian Government about its fleet? This country ought to have prevented the formation of that fleet. He would not trouble the House further on this point, though he might speak for an hour or two upon it. They were told in her Majesty's speech that we had received assurances of continued good feeling and amity on the part of Russia. Why, the robber while he was striving to break into their houses told them he was their friend, that he would not hurt them, hut the moment the robber got in he plundered them and cut their throats. He did not put any faith in the assurances of Russian amity. Russia was holding a pistol at the breast of England at Cronstadt. The noble Lord knew well that it was not for any good purpose that Russia had acted as she had. Why had not the noble Lord moved a fleet through the Dardanelles and destroyed the Russian fleet in the Black Sea? The noble Lord, as a Gentleman and as a Statesman, must, he was sure, feel our degradation; and he wondered only that the noble Lord had endured it so long. He felt as deeply as any man could how much the country was indebted to Lord Grey for the Reform Bill, but at the same time he must say that Lord Grey had disgraced England by suffering Poland to be lost, when a British fleet might have saved that country without firing a shot, but by the mere dread of its attack. The Duke of Wellington had begun the system of English degradation. In 1829 he had consented to the peace of Adrianople; in 1828 he had consented to the Russians passing the Pruth, although a word from him would have made them retire to a dead certainty. Although he knew that they had deluded Mr. Canning's Government into the destruction of Navarino, he suffered himself to be soothed by a promise that they would not carry the war beyond the Black Sea. Nevertheless, they did carry the war into the Mediterranean, and blockaded the Dardanelles; and this insult, too, the Duke of Wellington pocketed, when Count Nesselrode had the audacity to assure him that no affront was intended to Great Britain, and that no British vessel which had cleared out before the 24th of October previous should be prevented entering the Dardanelles. Thus the Duke of Wellington suffered the honour and the interests of England to be compromised for a paltry commercial consideration, the whole value of the few ships which had the benefit of this stipulation not exceeding 10,000l. Lord Grey followed up the system of degradation, and it appeared to him that Lord Melbourne was destined to complete it, and to make us drain the bitter cup of national disgrace to the last dregs. It was impossible that such a man as the Duke of Wellington should have acted in this way from his own mind, his powers must have been strangled by some deadly influences at home, and similar unholy influences were now strangling Lord Melbourne. He now came to his second subject—the Russian war against Circassia. Some Gentlemen thought that if the Russians established their dominion in Circassia, and, through it, in Persia and Turkey, our Indian empire would be in danger. Now he was at present of opinion that English India could threaten Petersburg much more effectually than Russia could Calcutta. But that might not be his opinion twenty years hence. We could produce 100 millions of subjects in India as faithful and attached to us as any of our countrymen; and if Russia fixed her dominion in Poland, in Persia, Turkey, and Circassia, why might she not create a similar feeling in her own favour there? The noble Lord had declared last year that Russia had no right to blockade the ports of Circassia against English ships. Why, then, had not the noble Lord taken means to break up that blockade? But the true question was not whether Russia had a right, but whether it was our interest that she should occupy that coast? Last year, or any year for the fast ten years, we could have crushed Russia; but she was now more formidable, and would every year become more and more so. He came now to the case of the Vixen, which was seized, her captain and crew imprisoned, and no reparation made until they were set at liberty as an act of condescension on the part of the Emperor of Russia. The proprietors of this vessel had asked the noble Lord three several times, whether a blockade existed on the coast of Circassia? The noble Lord made no other answer but to refer Mr. Bell to The London Gazette, which, was indeed the only quarter to which a British merchant should refer for such information, and not to the ukases of the Emperor of Russia. Well, Mr. Bell did refer to The London Gazette, and there no mention was made of a blockade on the coast of Circassia, and thither accordingly he sent his ship, which, although unarmed, was seized by the Russians, and its crew made prisoners, though the latter were subsequently, as an act of grace on the part of the captors, released. Now he maintained that this seizure, even under the supposition that a blockade did exist at the time, was not justified by the circumstances of the case. He had the authority of Sir T. Hardy for saying that when he commanded the fleet on the South American station, the patriotic fleet being commanded by Lord Cochrane, whenever an English ship approached too near the shore it was warned off before it was attacked; and in cases where a ship was seized without such notice he (Sir T. Hardy) insisted upon its being restored. Now, was England to be bully to the weak, and coward to the strong? He hoped that this was not to be the character of England. He knew that the sentiments of the people of England were with him on this question; but unfortunately, they had no means of making their feelings known throughout the country, and in the face of Europe. The press was notoriously the tool of parties. Some of the papers were the tool of the Tories, others of the Whigs, others of the Radicals; but not one of them was the tool of the people of England—in none of them ever could one word of the real sentiments of their writers be found. Under these circumstances he felt himself bound to stand forward as he did, to awaken the people of England to the dangers and the disgrace which surrounded them; and the culpable neglect of their interests by those to whom the management of their affairs had lately been intrusted. What! were the glories and the laurels which had been handed down to us for seven or eight centuries, won for us by better men than ourselves, to be torn piecemeal from us? Were we who had hurled Napoleon from his throne to stand still and be devoured by the Russian bear? No; he announced it, he predicted it confidently, the people of England would not bear it; and, if they were not righted by others, they would find a way to right themselves. What had David Hume said seventy years ago—a man, by the way, who, though an economist, and a political economist too, and of the same name, was very different from his hon. Friend, the Member for Kilkenny, who was sure to be out of the way whenever anything of importance was going forward. [Mr. Hume entered at this instant.] He was glad his hon. Friend had come in; he had been complimenting him. David Hume had said, seventy years ago, that the national debt would be the destruction of England—that the time would come when it would press so heavy as to strangle her—that foreign nations would respect her former glory, and would exercise their encroachments with measured insolence. And yet such was the announcement that the Whigs, aided by the Radicals, made for poor England. He had entertained a great respect for Lord Durham, and, when he went to Russia, thought he was going for something worth having; but he must say, as the mountain in labour brought forth a mouse, Lord Durham had brought forth something less than a mouse. He had brought back shame and degradation to this country. He said, he had settled the question of the Vixen! "Bully to the weak and coward to the strong;"—was this to be the character of England? The base and infernal press, which was talked of as our best possible public instructor, but which he looked upon as the greatest curse we had, and the most infernal deluder upon the face of the earth, concealed all these truths. All branches of it—he did not care who were connected with them—were attached to some party or other, and it was impossible to get the sincere and honest sentiments of any one editor in the kingdom. If they were the tools, not of the Tories or the Whigs, or the Radicals, but of the people, it would not be necessary for him to make these remonstrances; but, as it was, he was compelled to point out the degradation—he meant the danger, for a country like this could not incur degradation without danger. He asked, what efforts had been made to recover the unbought glories of 700 years?—not, indeed, unbought, for they had been purchased with the blood of better men than ourselves. Were we, who had struck Napoleon from the throne, to stand still and be devoured by the Russian bear? There was one other subject which he had to touch upon. It was not seven years since an hon. Member said in that House, that England was bound in recognizances of 800 millions never to go to war again; and another hon. Member said he knew it, and he thanked God for it. He (Mr. Attwood) was inclined to thank God that he had not been behind that hon. Member with a Birmingham sledge-hammer in his hand, or he might almost have been tempted to prevent him from ever thanking God again. [Laughter.] What! thank God that we should never be able to defend ourselves! What would be thought of a fat fool, who should go along the Strand with a paper before him proclaiming that his pocket was full of money, and his heart of cowardice, and inviting every one who chose to rob and ill-treat him, as he was determined never to fight or go to law again? What could the fat fool expect but that every thief should rob him, and every scoundrel beat him? He believed upon his honour, as a gentleman, that the bitterest and most remorseless enemies that the industry and honour of England had were the Radicals in that House, although he was one of them; but he hoped he was not quite so bad. He wished for real liberty—not the mere degradation of the aristocracy. He would not give a curse for such liberty as that. The liberty he meant was, neither the degradation of the aristocracy nor the subversion of the monarchy—it was not the pulling down of any class; but the liberty he meant was, the raising up of the lower classes, so that every man might live by his labour, prosperous, happy, and comfortable. The Radicals had some fine notions in their heads, but as to bread and cheese, and life and death, they were trifles to them. He would come now to the treaty of Unkiar Skelessi. This treaty was said to be one of reciprocity—the noble Lord had so designated it on a former occasion; that reciprocity being, that if the Dardanelles should be closed against England in the event of a war, they should be closed against Russia also. This certainly was Irish reciprocity, for it was all on one side. Why, he begged to ask, did not the noble Lord, when he found the Sultan too weak to contend with Russia, and before the signing of the treaty of Unkiar Skelessi—why, he asked, did not the noble Lord take possession of the Dardanelles? Why did he not take up that position now? The French had taken possession of Algiers, upon the ground, as they said, of some quarrel with the Dey; they had also taken possession of Ancona, one of the cities belonging to the Pope of Rome. But what was the real reason why they had possessed themselves of these places?—it was, because they considered them necessary to the interests of France. If, with such an object, the French government had taken possession of Ancona and Algiers, he asked why the noble Lord had not, on the same ground, taken possession of the Dardanelles? The noble Lord might have done so three years ago with six line-of-battle ships, two years ago with twelve, and with twenty he might have possession of that position by the month of April next. With the twenty line-of-battle ships, which would require 20,000 sailors, and with twenty battalions of soldiers, the Dardanelles might be taken possession of by the time he had stated; and if such a course were pursued, it would effectually prevent future aggression against this country, either by Russia, Austria, or France. He came now to the point of the absolute necessity which existed of an increase in the naval force. Well, then, he felt persuaded that, at this moment, there ought to be an addition to our naval force of twenty line-of-battle ships, which would create the necessity for procuring 20,000 sailors. He might, he knew, be told by his gallant Friend near him (Admiral Codrington) that they could not get a sufficient number of men to man a frigate. Why? Because they did not hold out a sufficient inducement in the shape of pay. Let it be announced that the Government was preparing to wage war with Russia, and a more popular war was never yet undertaken; let there be a bounty of 51. given to every common sailor, and 101. to every petty officer, and he was satisfied that a force of 20,000 men could be raised in three months. But if they were not successful in obtaining so large a number, let them take half of the present marine force, which consisted, he believed, of 9,000 men, and he thought he should have the authority of his gallant Friend for saying that in a short time they would make excellent sailors. This might cost an additional million to the country; but if it were to cost ten, such a consideration ought to be a secondary one. Of what consequence was the emancipation of the negroes compared to the maintenance of our national character? The motion which he had to move, comprised several questions which he should then submit to the noble Lord (Palmerston). What measure had been adopted by her Majesty's Government to prevent the building and equipment of the Russian fleet at Cronstadt? Was it the intention of her Majesty's Government to give any assistance to Circassia, or to allow Russia to take possession of that important country, which formed the gate to Asia? Was it the intention of the Government to seek no redress for the atrocious insult offered to this country by the capture of the Vixen? Was it the intention of the Government to compel Russia to abandon the treaty of Unkiar Skelessi? The resolutions which he should move in conformity with these questions were, that an humble address be presented to her Majesty, praying that her Majesty might be graciously pleased to make such addition to the royal navy as the vindication of the national honour and the preservation of the national interest shall require under the present circumstances of the country, assuring her Majesty that this House will cheerfully make good the necessary expenses incurred for such a purpose. Next, that an humble address be presented to her Majesty. praying that she be graciously pleased to lay before the House copies of all communications between the Government of this country and Russia with regard to the naval armament of Cronstadt, the war between Russia and Circassia, and the treaty of Unkiar Skelessi.

seconded the motion, which he considered one of great importance, and deserving the serious attention of the House and of the country. He fully concurred in the praise bestowed on the manner in which Captain Crawford had made his observation on the Russian fleet. He had performed the duty imposed on him in a manner which reflected great honour upon him. To the efficiency of the Russian fleet he (Sir E. Codrington) could bear witness. It bore a strong contrast to the condition of the navy of this country, which was in a state much too lowered, and which exposed us to reproach to which we had never been subjected during our history, namely, that we were unable to send forth instantly on the commission of an offence a squadron to repel an insult offered, come from what quarter it might. He held that the navy was treated in a way unbecoming the character of this country, when compared to the favour shown to every other branch of her Majesty's service. In a pecuniary point of view the officers of the British navy were very hardly dealt with; and he was satisfied that, in order to ensure the safety of the country and our dominion over the sea, justice must be done to that class of her Majesty's servants. There was another point connected with this subject to which he wished to refer. So far from blaming Russia for the war with Turkey, he thought she was drawn into that war by the conduct of her allies. Shortly after the battle of Navarino it would be seen by a reference to certain Greek papers, which must be in the recollection of old Members, and which he recommended young Members to consult, that the Emperor of Russia made a proposal that in consequence of the insult to the united flags of England, France, and Russia, if Turkey did not agree to the treaty of London, those three nations would declare war against her. By that proposal Wallachia and Moldavia were to continue in the hands of Russia; and he (Sir E. Codrington) was to have the command of the fleet, and take possession of the Dardanelles. If this agreement had been entered into, the consequence would have been, if they were driven to the necessity of dictating terms at the steps of the Seraglio, Turkey must have ultimately submitted; and by a provision of the treaty, after that event occurred, each nation was to resume its original position. If Russia had not retired from Wallachia and Moldavia, she would have been compelled to do so by the united force of England, France, and Tuikey united. This proposal was not however, carried into effect, in consequence of the spirit which dictated what he should ever consider a most expensive expression to this country—namely, designating the battle of Navarino as an "untoward event." What was the consequence? Why Turkey was allowed to say to Russia, "It is very true that we entered into a treaty with you, but we were always determined to break it when it offered us no separate advantages." He had no doubt that the Emperor of Russia was sincere in his proposal, and his intention was proved by his subsequent acts. The hon. Member who made the present motion had dwelt much on the power of the Russian navy. Why had that fleet been shown to him and to Captain Crawford? Why, to prove the power the Emperor of Russia had in enforcing any measure which he might think proper to pursue over us, who were encumbered with a debt. But ought this country to remain in a supine situation? He contended that we ought to have a fleet which would be fully adequate to defend us against insult. With respect to the difficulty of manning a fleet, he thought it would be easier to procure men than officers. He should conclude by impressing on the House the serious importance of this motion.

I will, Sir, in the first place, answer the questions put to me by the hon. Member for Birmingham before I make the remarks which I consider called for by his motion. His question is, whether any measures have been adopted by the Government to prevent Russia from proceeding with the naval armament at Cronstadt? With regard to the building and equipping of a fleet, no Government can say to another what ships are you about to fit out; but unquestionably one government is entitled to speak to another when raising a considerable force which appears to indicate an intention to give cause of uneasiness to her allies; and, beyond doubt, the presence and equipage of the seamen of the whole of the Russian fleet, as it was collected in the Baltic two or three years ago, called for explanation between the Governments of England and Russia. That explanation was satisfactory as it regarded this Government; and although since that time a large number of vessels have been fitted out for the purposes of review, there has not been any-such display of naval force in the Baltic as might be reasonably looked upon as indicating a hostile intention on the part of Russia towards any other power. With regard to the second question, whether it be the intention of her Majesty's Government to give assistance to Circassia, my answer is, that, undoubtedly, we do not mean to interfere in a war carrying on between Russia and Circassia. The next question is, whether Government intends to take any measures for the redress of the alleged insult offered to England by the seizure of the Vixen? It must be fresh in the recollection of the House that I laid the papers connected with this question before the House last Session, showing what had taken place, and proving that Russia had given such explanations of her conduct as ought to satisfy the Government of this country that no further proceedings were called for either by a just regard to the honour of England, or by any claims on the part of the individuals concerned. That ship was not taken during a blockade in the sense used by the hon. Member for Birmingham: it was captured because those who had the management of it contravened the municipal and custom-house regulations of Russia. At a particular period it was impossible to deny that Russia was placed in a position in which she felt called upon to prohibit any vessel from landing her cargo except in a naval depot where there was a custom-house, This regulation was violated by the ship in question. The fourth question is, whether we mean to press Russia to abandon the treaty of Unkiar Skelessi? The papers connected with that treaty were laid before the House three years ago; and I can say with reference to it, that it is not the intention of the Government to have recourse to hostile measures to compel Russia and Turkey—two independent powers—to cancel the treaty made between them. With respect to what has fallen from the hon. Gentleman, I shall not follow him in his dissertation on the wars of the Saxons and Danes; nor do I feel it necessary to vindicate the conduct of the Duke of Wellington's Government in the years 1828 and 1829. It is sufficient for me to contend that the Governments of Lord Grey and Lord Melbourne, to which I have had the honour to belong, have not rendered themselves deserving of the censure which has been cast upon them, of sacrificing the honour of England, or of being at all insensible to her interests and independence. Indeed, I think that the statement made by the hon. Gentleman ought to have satisfied him, when he came to reflect on what he said, that the extreme alarm which he expressed could not be founded on good and reasonable grounds; for what was the complaint made in various parts of his speech? He said,

"I have alone stated what I know will not excite the sympathy of my Radical friends. I am alone in favour of something which the House of Commons, by their attendance on the present occasion, do not seem to approve, and to which those who are present do not appear, by their postures and countenances, to attend to with a very lively interest, or to partake in the alarm which I have expressed. Out of doors no notice is taken of my project by a base, unfeeling, and heedless press, which seems to be unconscious of the insult which is offered to our country. I have no support from the Government of the country, and the people of England do not concur in my remarks."

Why, if what the hon. Member has stated be true—if neither his own Friends, nor her Majesty's Government, nor the press, nor the people entertain the alarm which the hon. Member has endeavoured to inspire into their minds, must not the hon. Member be led on reflection to believe that he himself must have misunderstood the grounds on which his propositions are founded? I will tell the hon. Gentleman, however, that her Majesty's Government, the House, and the country fully participate in the anxiety for the safety and jealousy of the honour of this kingdom which he has expressed in the course of his speech. It is not on principles that we differ; it is on the application of those principles to the circumstances in which we are placed. The hon. Member seems to me to be rather desirous to find out an occasion for war than to entertain any serious apprehension that a war would be forced upon us. Indeed, the hon. Member, feeling, perhaps, the necessity of explaining the reason for going into war with our eyes open, has furnished us with an imitation of the bland and conciliatory temper of a noble Lord who once led this House, and is now a Member of the other House of Parliament, who, it seems, used to accomplish things by his good humour which could not be effected by more vigorous or pugnacious proceedings, and has told us in the best-tempered and civil manner possible, that without any war, but as an act of precaution, we should go and destroy the Russian fleet in the Baltic, then sink the Russian ships that were in the Black Sea and show our friendship to a friendly and allied power, by taking forcible possession of the Dardanelles, and assuring those from whom we seized this position, that we should keep it until they were themselves able to defend it from attack. This, no doubt, is a very tempting way of sliding into war; but still I can't think that there is any necessity for pressing such measures, or that, if adopted, they would lead to the result which the hon. Gentleman so anxiously desires. The hon. Gentleman has expressed, in rather comical terms, his eagerness for the interests of this country. Such is his zeal and devoted attachment to the institutions and honour of the country, that he would sacrifice the House of Commons, the House of Lords, and I understood him to say, even the throne itself; aye, and that he would throw the drop of the national debt into the ocean of oblivion, rather than impair in any way the establishments and independence of the country. When he has made a national bankruptcy, destroyed the Houses of Commons and Lords, and overturned the throne, I should be glad to learn what that remainder of "the honour and institutions" of the country is which the hon. Gentleman would persuade us to go to war to save. Now, as to the Russian fleet in the Baltic, I am quite ready to concede to the hon. Member, as, indeed, the Government acted in some degree on the principles which he has laid down, that England has a right to look with jealousy on a great and ostentatious force displayed on the part of Russia, or any other naval power. That is no proof of hostility on our part; it proceeds from the just regard which a country is bound to pay to its own security; and no country of which the question was asked, "Why make this display—whom are you going to attack; nobody is attacking you, and whom do you threaten?" would construe it as of an unfriendly or unreasonable character. But the hon. Gentleman tells us, that such a naval establishment is required as it would be necessary to maintain, if we were carrying on a war against this or that foreign power. Now that is a doctrine which I do not think wise in itself or prudent to pursue. It is a matter of very nice discretion, and one which should be left to the consideration of the executive Government, which knows the nature of the relations from day to day with foreign powers, to determine in a time of peace, and when there is no immediate prospect (and I trust no prospect at all, as far as I can see,) of a war before us, what ought to be maintained as a peace establishment, so that whilst, on the one hand, we should not be left utterly defenceless and without protection, we should not on the other unnecessarily add to the burdens of the country. Now, the hon. Gentleman must recollect that two years ago his Majesty's then Government proposed, and this House adopted, an augmentation of the naval force; and though we did not state that the display made by this or that power was the cause of that step which we took, yet the Secretary for the Admiralty did very strongly dwell on the armament of Russia, and the periodical fitting out of her fleet, as one of the grounds on which we considered it right to make a change in our naval force. Now, I do not admit that we are in the defenceless position which the hon. Gentleman has represented. I do not admit, if we conceive that Russia or any other naval power had the intention of insulting or attacking us, that we have not in ships now at sea, as well as those which might be sent to sea within a very short period, the means of defending the nation, not merely from aggression, but even from insult. But I think the House will be of opinion that they ought to place at least such a degree of confidence in the executive Government as to leave them on their own responsibility to consider what, under the circumstances, is fair and expedient to propose to Parliament. I say, therefore, with regard to the first point—not at all dissembling, that I think Russia does keep a larger force than is required for the defence of her own possessions, and than is consistent with the general well-being of other nations at peace with her—not at all dissembling, that it is a matter upon which not only the Government but the people of this country should keep a jealous and watchful eye—that having no reason to believe that the intention of Russia is otherwise than friendly towards this country, having reason, on the contrary, to believe (whatever her policy or ultimate intentions may prompt) that she has no wish or design to embark in a war with England, I feel that it is not necessary to make a further increase to our naval force on the ground which the hon. Member has stated. As to the allusion of the hon. Gentleman to the aggression of Russia on the coast of Circassia, the hon. Gentleman must see, in quoting an expression of mine, that if he tax his memory it did not convey the meaning which he asserts it was intended to express. I stated, undoubtedly, on a former occasion what I mean to repeat on the present, that I did not think the claim which Russia had put forth to the Sovereignty of Circassia was warranted on the grounds on which she asserted it; but when I made that declaration it did not refer to the case of the Vixen. I assure the hon. Member that he is mistaken if he supposes that I gave an opinion on a matter which was in the course of explanation between the two countries. All I said was, that if the explanation was not satisfactory, I should feel it my duty to state the fact to the House. The explanation, as I think was shown by the papers laid before Parliament, was such that this country had not a just ground for pressing the matter further. The hon. Gentleman, however, not content with the observations which he made in a good-humoured spirit, and with strangling one Minister after another, has indulged in remarks entirely unfounded as to the manner in which Lord Durham discharged the duties imposed on him as ambassador to St. Petersburg. Nobody can better than myself speak to the fact, because with me my noble Friend corresponded, and it was in connection with me that he acted; and I can undertake to say in behalf of Lord Durham, that so far from exhibiting an indifference to the honour and interests of this country, it was impossible for any public servant at a foreign court to have served his country with more zeal and firmness. He has rendered this country very important services which obtained the sanction of his late Majesty, and for which he has received a very just and merited token of approbation. The hon. Gentleman is entirely mistaken if he thinks that the interests of the country were not guarded as zealously and as firmly in that noble Lord's hands as they could have, been if intrusted to the care of the hon. Gentleman himself. With regard to the affair of the Vixen, the whole matter is at an end for the reasons I have already stated. But the hon. Gentleman errs much if he thinks that, while we are disposed to put forth the thunders of our naval force to terrify so insignificant a place as Venezuela, we shrink from demanding satisfaction when required in such a case as that of the Vixen, or in another similar one, though not of the same description: I allude to that of the Lord Charles Spencer, which, though not captured, was stopped by a Russian cruiser, and, after being taken out of its course and detained some time, was after wards released. We remonstrated with the Government of Russia on the last subject of complaint, and the result was, that an apology was made to the Government, and compensation was given to the owners of the vessel for the injury which she had sustained. Now, Sir, with regard to the treaty of Unkiar Skelessi, that, also, is a matter which has gone by: it is a treaty which, at present, is not one of the acknowledged treaties of Europe, and, consequently, can form no ground whatever for England to declare war with Russia. It was a treaty entered into for a limited period, and to meet peculiar circumstances; and that period having expired, and those circumstances having disappeared, and the probability also being that the two powers parties to it will not find it necessary that its engagements should be renewed, I think I am justified in saying that its introduction by the hon. Member upon the present occasion is wholly unecessary and uncalled for. Having said thus much separately on each of the parts into which the hon. Member's speech divided itself, I would observe generally, with respect to his statement, that, doing him full justice for his motives in bringing the subject under consideration, concurring with him in the principles on which his arguments are founded, I differ with him as to their proper application to the circumstances in which we stand. I deny most confidently that there has been anything in the conduct of the Ministers of England tending to prove them indifferent to the interests, or insensible to the honour, of their country. I deny utterly that through our policy the safety of the country has been diminished, or that its honour has been tarnished. I say that there never was a period when England was more secure from any aggression of a foreign enemy than at present, or when her honour stood higher than it does now. The hon. Member has told us that England had given security to the world at large, to the amount of eight hundred millions of pounds, to keep the peace; but let me ask, Sir, does the hon. Member suppose that England is the only country in which financial difficulties constitute an obstacle to aggressive warfare? Does he suppose that Russia—ay, even that same Russia which he seems so desirous to convert into a general alarm-giver—is in a more warlike position, as regards financial matters, than Great Britain? I beg to tell him he is quite as much mistaken in thinking that Russia at this moment would find means to commence an offensive war as he is in asserting that England is in such a state as to render her unable to provide for a defensive one. Was it exclusively from her own resources that Russia defrayed her own portion of the expenses of the war which terminated in 1816? Certainly not. Between the beginning of 1814 and the end of 1815 Russia received seven millions by way of subsidies from England, and four millions as part of a war contribution from France; and it was these same eleven millions which enabled her to bring under arms those 160,000 men whom I myself saw in the plains of Champagne. Since the peace, Russia has been exhausting her means daily. In pomps and shows, in reviews in the north and reviews in the south, she has expended any surplus revenue her vast territory may give her; and although she has a large number of men under arms, yet when we consider the little means she possesses to muster them from various distant places, and then to train and bring them into the shape of an offensive army, the hon. Member may depend upon it she is not in a situation to give reasonable cause of alarm to any power ranked among the first powers of Europe. I say that Russia gives the world quite as much security for the preservation of peace as England. I assert that Russia would find it more difficult to undertake a war which had not for its object self-defence than England; and such being my firm and decided opinion, I do not think I shall be going too far in assuring the alarmed and hon. Member for Birmingham that Sheer-ness is not likely to be invaded, that there will be no necessity to cut the navigation buoys of the coast, and that, if he likes it, he may with confidence proceed to his nightly slumbers between this and the 1st of April next—ay, or this day twelve months—without the least fear of being awoke by the news either that the Russian fleet is anchored in the pool, or that the crews of their ships were parading the streets of London.

contended, that the declarations made by the noble Lord in the course of his speech were at variance with those which he had made on a former occasion. In a former debate, the noble Lord had censured the conduct of Russia with respect to Circassia. On that occasion the noble Lord had stated that though Russia was not bound to that particular step by the treaty of London, yet she had entered voluntarily into its engagements, and was bound so far as a voluntary declaration. It had been distinctly understood on the part of Russia that she would not look for the acquisition of territory, yet, notwithstanding, she had obtained an acquisition of territory of 200 miles extent from the south of Cuban to Fort Nicole. The hon. Member referred to the letter of the noble Lord, the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, addressed to Lord Durham in May, 1837, and urged that our Government sanctioned the occupation by Russia of the Coast of Circassia. In the treaty of 1783, a treaty fully acknowledged by Russia, Circassia was guaranteed as Turkish territory. There could be now no question that Russia was bond fide in possession of the whole of the coast of Circassia. The noble Lord must recollect that the Russian Government claimed a right to establish sanatory regulations along the coast; but they went farther, for they claimed a right to search vessels approaching that coast. Whilst Circassia was in the possession of Turkey this country had the same right to trade there, by paying the same dues paid as to trade to any other Turkish port, but upon that coast she was now forbidden to land goods of any description which were not included in the Russian tariff, and the commerce of England was in this respect greatly impeded. With respect to the treaty of Unkiar Skelessi, the fact of a large armament in the Black Sea would seem to argue some ulterior designs on the part of Russia, and if Russia was secure in her confidence in that treaty, for what purpose was she keeping up a large armament in that mare clausum, unless to guard the coast of Circassia? It was a subject of great importance to our commercial interests. The trade of Trebizond alone was worth a million a-year to this country. It was a question of too much importance to be lost sight of, and should be brought forward again. Under these circumstances he trusted the hon. Member would not press his motion to a division, as he must see from the then state of the benches on the Opposition side of the House, as well as from the manner in which the question had been received at the other side, that it could not be said to have received the attention of the House.

, seeing that the sense of the House was against his pressing the question to a division, felt it his duty to yield to it. But he would tell the Government that, if they did not change their policy, the day would come when this question would be forced upon them in a manner they could neither avert nor avoid. He begged to withdraw the resolutions.

, after calling attention to a petition he had presented on a former day from the spirit dealers of Glasgow, respecting the existing licensing system, moved for leave to bring in a bill to amend a law relating to the granting of spirit licences in Scotland. His object was to do away with the necessity of a spirit retailer seeking a renewal of his licence each year, and to provide that, having once obtained a licence upon the requisite certificate of character, he should be allowed to sell under that licence without question until objection should be made to him. In addition to the trouble and inconvenience inseparable from the system of annual licences, it placed, in his opinion, too much unnecessary power in the hands of unpaid and irresponsible magistrates, who not unfrequently used that power in the promotion of their political views.

seconded the motion.

observed, that the subject matter of the hon. Member's bill was one, not of revenue, but police consideration, and that it was exclusively in that point of view it was to be considered. He had long felt the system of annual licensing must act as a hardship upon the spirit dealers, while, as a matter of police, the licence being in the first instance duly obtained upon the production of certificate of character, it struck him that the annual renewal was wholly unnecessary. He therefore did not object to the motion, and on the proper occasion would be ready to give it every due consideration.

said, that in Ireland the practice of annual licensing had been altogether discontinued, and now a man having once obtained a licence, unless objected to, was not required to come before the magistrates to seek for a renewal. This plan had been found to work well, and might serve the hon. Mover as a precedent.

was happy to hear the statement made by the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer; for he hoped that it opened a prospect of legislating on good principles upon this subject. The system adopted in Ireland was working well there. Why not apply equal justice to the beer and spirit dealers in England?

recommended caution on the subject. He would not oppose the bringing in of a bill, but he reserved to himself the right of stating his objections to it in its progress. He did not know what might be the case at Glasgow; but with reference to any part of Scotland with which he was acquainted, he did not believe that licences were ever refused on political grounds.