begged to ask his hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford, who was Chairman of the Committee of Selection for the Appointment of Railway Committees, when that Committee would make any Report to the House?

said, he was glad to have that opportunity of explaining to the House that if blame were to be attached to any quarter for the delay, it certainly did not lie with the Committee over which he had the honour to preside. The 20th of March, the day when the House separated for the recess, was the earliest day on which the Committee of Selection could become possessed of the First Report of the Classification Committee, and before they got that Report it was impossible that they could have taken any steps for the appointment of the Committees on Railways. He hoped the House would not suppose them guilty of any negligence since that Report came before them; and, in proof that they were not negligent, he might say, that if hon. Gentlemen would look to the Votes of the next morning, they would probably find the names of the Gentlemen whom the Committee had already selected published with them.

said, he wished to ask a question of considerable importance with regard to the made of transacting business in that House. When the Railway Clauses Consolidation Bill for Scotland was before the House, he was assured that the learned Lord Advocate allowed a clause to be introduced of a very important description, at a very late hour at night, with but a very small attendance of Members present, and without any previous notice of the clause having been given to the House. The clause was to the effect that in every future railway to be constructed in Scotland, the Bill for such railway should contain a clause guaranteeing an indemnity to landed proprietors in Scotland for the loss by any turnpike road which may be affected by that railway. He believed the principle of the clause was one which had excited considerable attention among the public; but without offering any opinion as to the propriety of the clause or otherwise, he thought it was wrong that a Bill of which a Member of the Government had charge, should have a clause of such a nature introduced under the circumstances he had stated, not by the learned Lord himself, but by another Member of the House in his presence, without any previous notice of the clause having been given to the House. He wished to ask the learned Lord Advocate whether the facts were such as he had stated?

said, it was perfectly correct that in Committee on the Bill in question, at a late hour, and when there was no very large attendance of Members, the clause alluded to had been introduced. But the supporters of the Bill were not to be blamed if the House happened to be thinly attended at the time; and with respect to the clause itself, he had only to say that a similar provision had been introduced into the English Act. The clauses proposed were similar to those in all former Railway Bills, with the exception of one, and he believed on that there was a compromise.

wished to ask a question of the right hon. Baronet the Secretary for the Home Department. He had seen a letter in the public papers from M. Mazzini, in which he declared positively that he had had nothing to do with signing any warrant or order for the assassination of Emiliani and others, as was stated the other night by the right hon. Gentleman. That letter stated that it was proved before the proper tribunal that such order was a forgery, and that M. Mazzini was not at the place where it was alleged that this order was given. He wished then to ask the right hon. Baronet whether he still maintained this charge against M. Mazzini; and if he did not, whether he would follow the example of the hon. Member for Shrewsbury, who made an apology for an unfounded accusation against this individual as publicly as he made the accusation? He believed that no Englishman would tolerate a charge of being an assassin. Now M. Mazzini was a foreigner, and they were as much bound to make reparation to him in case of a wrong as to a native of this country.

regretted that the hon. and gallant Officer had not given him notice of his intention to ask this question. He should have thought that when the gallant Officer considered the nature of the question, that he would have done so. But, as he had not done so, he would at once answer it, and state the impression which had been produced on his mind. He had seen the letter of Mr. Mazzini to which the gallant Officer referred; and last night, incompliance with the wish of the hon. Member for Finsbury, he had laid upon the Table papers and despatches having reference to M. Mazzini between the years 1833 and 1844, and bearing on his statement. The House would recollect that when he made the statement to which the gallant Officer referred, he stated distinctly to the House, and he had fixed the attention of the House to what he then said—he stated that what he had to say with respect to the past conduct of Mazzini, was not founded on official documents, but on the authority of a newspaper circulated in France at the time, and which he then held in his hand, and from which he read a translation. He also stated, which he believed, that Mazzini had threatened to prosecute the Moniteur for the publication of this statement; but he had never proceeded against it for libel. The hon. Member for Finsbury had asked him whether he had ever read an article in the Westminster Review respecting M. Mazzini, in which there was a refutation of the charge against him. It was perfectly true that he had never seen that article. The hon. Member stated that a suit was commenced against another party for the publication of this statement, and the hon. Gentleman also stated that Mazzini did not succeed in his action against the author of this alleged libel. He knew no more than this of the circumstances of the case. He did not mean to say that he entertained a firm conviction that the accusation was well founded; but if he were asked whether he believed it to be unfounded, he could not give such an assurance to the House.

wished to ask the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government, on what day he proposed to proceed with his measure respecting Maynooth. He did so in consequence of a communication from a numerous body of Dissenters, who had met that morning on this subject, and who wished their opinion to be expressed, that they were anxious that the Bill should not proceed further for a fortnight or three weeks.

said, that in consequence of the Resolution which was agreed to in Committee last night, and which was afterwards reported to the House, Mr. Greene was ordered to bring in a Bill founded on that Resolution. The Bill, which had already been prepared, was then presented, and read a first time, and ordered to be read a second time on Friday next. On that day it was his intention to move the second reading of the Bill.

was desired by a large religious community to express their anxious hope that all further proceedings would be stopped until the Bill had been before the country for a longer time.

wished to ask the right hon. Secretary for the Home Department a question respecting a Bill on the subject of Charitable Trusts. At the commencement of the Session, in answer to a question put by him, the right hon. Gentleman stated that it was the intention of the Lord Chancellor to introduce a measure on the subject, without delay, into the other House. Two months of the Session had now elapsed, and no Bill on the subject had been introduced; he therefore wished to know when this Bill would be introduced?

replied, that he had seen the draft of the proposed Bill, and he hoped that it would be shortly produced.

I beg to ask a question of the Under Secretary of State for the Colonial Department, and in doing so, I must preface it with a very few observations on a matter personal to myself. Within the last two hours I have seen a statement, purporting to have been made by Lord Ashburton, with respect to a speech I made in this House. Allow me to say, in the first place, that with Lord Ashburton I have always lived in habits of intimacy and friendship; that friendship began when we were both of the same opinion in politics, and the difference of political opinion which took place has never interrupted the cordiality with which we have always lived together whenever it has been my good fortune to meet Lord Ashburton; and nothing could be further from my wish in the discharge of a public duty than to do anything unkind to the noble Lord. But in the course of a discussion on the Navy Estimates, quite unexpectedly by me, there arose a conversation, which begun with the noble Lord (Lord Palmerston) near me, with respect to the Treaty made by Lord Ashburton. The right hon. Gentleman opposite, the First Lord of the Treasury, having taunted my noble Friend and myself with the ill result of the discussion that had taken place on that subject, I referred to the matter, which I conceived to be accurately stated by me as my recollection served. Now, Lord Ashburton is said to have declared that what I stated must have been entirely a dream and a delusion on my part. It is necessary I should repeal what my statement was to the House. I said that some time before the present Government came into office, seeing that the negotiations had not reached a point at which it was likely that either party would recede from its pretensions, I thought it was advisable that there should be some arrangement made by which the forces of the two countries should occupy a certain position—that a provisional boundary should be agreed upon between the two countries; I instructed Lord Sydenham to endeavour to form some such agreement, and I did so in concurrence with my noble Friend the Member for Tiverton; that Lord Sydenham had informed me in his answer that he could not obtain from Mr. Webster terms other than those by which that part of the Madawaska Settlement on the right bank of the St. John should be evacuated; and I signified the approbation of Government to his refusal to carry on the negotiation on those terms. It is quite clear that Lord Ashburton thought I had alluded to a diplomatic negotiation for a permanent settlement of boundary; whereas I thought it was quite clear that I alluded to a provisional arrangement to be made by the Governor of Canada by means of Mr. Fox, our Minister at Washington. If it had been a diplomatic arrangement, instructions would have been given by my noble Friend near me, instead of myself. So far as to the misunderstanding which Lord Ashburton had of the nature of the transaction; but as to the matter of fact, all I wish is, that the Under Secretary for the Colonies will produce any papers there may be on that subject—any instructions I gave to Lord Sydenham, and his answer to me with regard to the Madawaska Settlement; and if there should be, as I believe there were, any instructions to Lord Sydenham approving of his conduct in that respect, they should also be produced. As I have already said, I spoke at the moment from memory, and not expecting any discussion on the point; but that I should have been totally mistaken on the whole of this transaction—that I should have given no instructions for the formation of such a temporary arrangement—and that Lord Sydenham should not have made that objection, seems to me impossible. I wish the hon. Gentleman to have the goodness to look for and to produce any papers that may be at the Colonial Office on this subject. I cannot think that the production of those papers would give rise to any further discussion.

would look for the despatches to which the noble Lord referred, and there would be no objection to their production. At the same time, he might state to the noble Lord that the result of his researches yesterday was, that the noble Lord had been in error in supposing that he returned the answer stated to Lord Sydenham. He did not mean to say that the correspondence between the Foreign Office and Mr. Fox was not to the same effect as had been stated by the noble Lord; he only meant to say that he had not discovered any such despatch from the noble Lord to Lord Sydenham.

What the hon. Gentleman has stated implies that a correspondence took place with respect to this provisional arrangement between Mr. Fox and the Secretary of State.

Yes.

observed, that it was quite obvious, from what had been stated by a noble Lord elsewhere, that he was in possession of five despatches on this subject, which had not been laid on the Table of that House. He hoped the whole would be produced.

had no objection to produce these despatches, if it were found that no inconvenience would result to the Public Service. But as the matters in dispute had been settled by negotiation between this country and the United States, he did not see any public object that could be served by the production now of despatches relating to the very eager and grave contentions which took place during the pendency of the disputes. But whatever was necessary for the satisfaction of the noble Lord should be produced.

did not think that the answer which the right hon. Baronet had given to his hon. Friend the Member for Montrose on the subject of the extracts from the despatches which had been read by Lord Ashburton in another place was altogether satisfactory. He did not know exactly the extracts to which his hon. Friend had alluded; but from what he had heard he understood that Lord Ashburton had read, in his place in the House of Lords, some extracts from certain despatches, for the purpose of showing that some statement that had been made by a Member of that House was erroneous. Now he would assume this to be the fact; and he would ask, when did Lord Ashburton get these despatches which were written to or from him? He must have procured them either as a ne- gotiator, in which case they would be his own despatches, either written by him or sent to him, or they were despatches which had been obtained from the Foreign Office, or they were despatches which had been laid before Parliament. If they were despatches which had been laid before Parliament, he had nothing more to say. The noble Lord had a perfect right to use them. If the despatches were his own—were despatches which had come into his power as a negotiator, having been either written by him or to him; if these despatches had been furnished to him by the Government, then he would say, that, in the first case, he had no right to read his own despatches without having obtained permission of the Government; and if he had obtained that permission, or if they had been furnished to him by the Foreign Office, then it was the invariable practice of Parliament to lay such despatches on the Table, in order that Parliament might know what they contained, instead of being only made acquainted with them merely by extracts read in Parliament. The right hon. Baronet would see that it was not sufficient to say that the despatches merely related to a question which had been settled. The question was not in reality as to anything that had passed in the negotiations between the United States and this country; but it was to see if certain statements made in that House by persons formerly holding official situations were or were not erroneous, and whether or not those statements had been made for the purposes of deceiving.

had not understood the observations of the hon. Member for Montrose. When the noble Lord referred to these papers he was not aware that the noble Lord had referred to documents read elsewhere before he gave an answer. When he said that the papers asked for by the noble Lord should be produced, it must be considered that he meant, if there was no public objection, for he personally had no objection.

had spoken of despatches which had been referred to by a noble Lord in another place, and which had not been laid before that House. It was only fair that they should be laid on the Table.

said, he would on a future day state whether the despatches could be produced as to the returns alluded to by the noble Lord.

wished to ask a question of some importance of the right hon. Baronet on the subject of the present state of our relations with the Brazils. It was well known that our commercial Treaty with that country expired in the month of November last. Under the provisions of the Treaty British subjects residing in the Brazils were entitled to certain privileges, which were not possessed by the Brazilians, in reference to the disposal of their property by will, the English Consul taking care that in the event of the death of a British subject his property went to his heirs. The commercial Treaty expired in November last; and it was the general opinion that the privileges which had been enjoyed by British subjects had expired with it. A case had recently arisen in which considerable alarm had been felt as to the disposal of the property of British subjects dying in the Brazils, or dying in this country, and leaving property in the Brazils. He wished to ask the right hon. Baronet, first, if the Government had taken the matter into their consideration? Secondly, if Mr. Hamilton had made any communication to them on this subject? And thirdly, if he could hold out any hopes that the same privileges would be continued to British subjects in the Brazils which they had enjoyed previously to the expiration of the Treaty?

replied, that it often happened that the merchants of Liverpool and Manchester received earlier intelligence of matters of this nature than was received by the Foreign Office. The Government had not received any account of the transaction to which the hon. Gentleman referred; but he would make this general statement, that by the Treaty which expired in 1844, on the death of any British subject in the Brazils the administration of his effects devolved upon the British Consul, and not upon the Brazilian authorities. Her Majesty's Government had made a proposition to the Brazilian Government on the subject of the Treaty, and that stipulation was a part of the proposal which they had made.

was desirous of making an inquiry on a subject on which he had troubled the right hon Baronet (Sir R. Peel) before. It related to the existing state of discord between Buenos Ayres and Monte Video. His object was twofold: that British persons and British property might be protected, and that peace and commerce in that quarter of South America should be restored. He had been informed, on authority which he could trust, that the present state of affairs in the River Plate was an aggravation of the past. In the first place, the partial blockade of Monte Video had been declared a general blockade. In the next place, the commerce of the River Plate was closed to foreign vessels. Our ships could not proceed up the River Plate to Paraguay. Next, a duty had been levied, which virtually fell on foreign shipping at Buenos Ayres. On the vessels now there it might amount to several thousand pounds sterling. He understood also that the English and Scottish schools had been closed by the act of the Buenos Ayrean Government. The Scottish and English children were compelled to resort, if they went to any school, to the Buenos Ayrean schools. Lastly, the children of British subjects had been naturalized as Buenos Ayreans; consequently they were denaturalized as British subjects. His question, therefore, to the right hon. Baronet was, whether, under such circumstances, there existed (as he would not doubt there did) ample means for the protection of British persons and property in the River Plate, and whether there continued to be a prospect that this important quarter of the world would be speedily reopened to the commerce of Great Britain and of the world?

said, that this was a most important question, and he could not say much more than he said on the former occasion when he was questioned on the subject. The English Minister had proceeded to Buenos Ayres; and he, with the Minister of France, would exercise all their influence to put an end to the war in those countries. He believed that the Representatives of England and France would adopt such steps as would insure the restoration of tranquillity. With respect to the protection of British property, there was now, or there would shortly be, a British force in the River Plate of six ships of war; this force would be sufficient to protect British property. With respect to the schools, the hon. Gentleman must have much more recent information on the subject than any that had reached the Government. They had not received any recent communication from the British Minister on the subject. As he understood the matter, last year an edict was issued by the Governor of Buenos Ayres, which professed to regulate the schools there; and the question now put to him was, whether certain British and Scotch schools in connexion with the British and Scotch churches there, were subject to this edict. The only answer which he considered necessary was, that the British and Scotch subjects of Her Majesty at Buenos Ayres had a right to have schools for the education of their children. If any such edict for the putting down those schools had been issued, the hon. Member might depend upon it that effective remonstrances would be adopted by the Government to get it rescinded. Of course, however, the Government could not interfere unless it appeared that the Buenos Ayrean Government trespassed on the rights of British subjects. The last question of the hon. Gentleman was also one of importance. It was as to the naturalization of the children of British subjects at Buenos Ayres. It appeared that the general law was this—That the son or grandson of a British subject born abroad was also a British subject. But he could not deny that children born in a Foreign State were not also subjects of that State. Such was the law in this country, for the children of foreigners born in Her Majesty's dominions were British subjects. If the children of British residents at Buenos Ayres were born out of that State, the authorities there had no right to make them Buenos Ayrean subjects. If, however, the children of British subjects were born at Buenos Ayres, and continued to reside there, they obtained the rights of citizenship in that place; but with those rights they also had imposed upon them the burdens and duties of citizens and were liable to the law of Buenos Ayres.

said: I do not think that it is necessary for me to make any apology to the House for calling its attention to the important subject of which I have given notice; but I must apologize for the very imperfect manner in which I feel that I shall discharge the duty which I have under- taken, on account of the difficulties connected with the subject, which is at once intricate and obscure. It is not my intention or wish to call in question the general foreign policy of the Government, or the policy which they may have adopted in this particular question which I intend to bring under the consideration of the House. I asked, in a former Session of Parliament—I think two years ago — a question as to the state of the negotiations between this country and the United States with respect to Oregon. The hon. and learned Member for Bath also asked a question on this subject during the present Session; and I understood that he intended to bring the subject before the House, if he had not felt that he might embarrass the Government by so doing. I should have pursued the same course as the hon. Gentleman, had it not been for the inaugural address of the new President of the United States, which appears to me to take the question out of the ordinary course of diplomatic relations, and to require some notice on the part of Members of this House. If this question had been left to be negotiated by the Executive Government of this country, and the Executive Government of the United States, whatever might be the degree of confidence which I repose in the foreign policy of the present Administration, I never would have interfered; but should have waited until the conclusion of the negotiations before I gave any opinion as to any Treaty or Convention made by the authority of the Government of this country. But, if I am not totally mistaken, the President of the United States has adopted a course entirely new—a course which, if not met by something unusual on our part, threatens to embarrass all intercourse between the Executive Departments of nations. It leaves general questions between nations to be decided by the popular addresses of the head of the Government, and by popular action of the people under that Government, irrespective of all considerations which should induce the two Governments to preserve relations of peace and amity, and settle every question of difference between them, on the one hand with regard to national honour and dignity, and with regard, on the other, to the preservation of the rights of the subjects under their rule. I must first mention—although it is a subject to which I intend to make no more than a passing allusion—that this same Message, amongst other subjects, alludes to a vast increase of the territory of the United States — it alludes to the annexation of Texas; but I shall say nothing of the extent of that country, and of its limits and boundaries, for they are still left undefined, and may yet be carried forward far beyond what are at present understood to be the limits of the independent State of Mexico. It covers at all events a vast extent of territory of a most fruitful soil, and fertile in the production of cotton, and all the other descriptions of produce which are usually to be found in those climates—an extent of rich country to be cultivated, as no doubt it will be, by slave labour, and extending, as it will, over a large area of that portion of the globe. I allude to this subject in passing in order to show that the present policy of the Government of the United States tends towards territorial aggrandizement; and this, let me here remark, is a course of policy in direct contradiction of the policy which was declared to be that of the United States by Mr. Webster when he was Secretary. He declared that, in his opinion the true policy of the United States was to increase her strength and power, not by territorial agrandizement or advantages, but by a cultivation of the resources which were possessed by her in the immense territory already included in the United States. I believe that such a policy as that contained in the declaration of Mr. Webster would be not only more likely to preserve peace with Foreign Powers, but also to advance the interests of his own country. That policy, however, has been now evidently departed from. I do not know what course Her Majesty's Government will take with respect to that altered policy; but from the answer of the Secretary for Foreign Affairs to the Committee of the Anti-Slavery Society, I understand that communications have been sent to the United States, to Mexico, and to Texas, on the subject, I suppose, of what is part of the now declared policy of the United States. The next portion of the Message to which I will call the attention of the House is as follows:—The President, after observing—

"I shall, on the broad principle which formed the basis and produced the adoption of our Constitution, and not in any narrow spirit of sectional policy, endeavour by all constitutional, honourable, and appropriate means, to consummate the expressed will of the people and Government of the United States, by the re-annexation of Texas to our Union at the earliest practicable period;"

goes on to state in another paragraph certain views with respect to the Oregon Territory, and that paragraph I feel it necessary to read:—

"Nor will it become in a less degree my duty to assert and maintain, by all constitutional means, the right of the United States to that portion of our territory which lies beyond the Rocky Mountains. Our title to the country of the Oregon is clear and unquestionable; and already are our people preparing to perfect that title by occupying it with their wives and children. But eighty years ago our population was confined on the West by the ridge of the Alleghanies. Within that period, within the lifetime, I might say, of some of my hearers, our people, increasing to many millions, have filled the Eastern valley of the Mississipi, adventurously ascended the Missouri to its head springs, and are already engaged in establishing the blessings of self-government in valleys of which the rivers flow to the Pacific. The world beholds the peaceful triumphs of the industry of our emigrants. To us belongs the duly of protecting them adequately, wherever they may be upon our soil. The jurisdiction of our laws, and the benefits of our republican institutions should be extended over them, in the distant regions which they have selected for their homes. The increasing facilities of intercourse will easily bring the States, of which the formation in that part of our territory cannot be long delayed, within the sphere of our Federative Union. In the meantime, every obligation imposed by treaty or conventional stipulations, should be sacredly respected."

Now here we have in the first place an assertion that the claim of the United States to this territory is "clear and unquestionable;" and in the next place, we have the assertion that its title to the territory was perfected by emigration and settlement on the part of the United States; and, thirdly, we have the assertion that before a very long time the institutions of the United States will be extended to the Territory of Oregon, and that a new State, forming part of the Federal Union, will be established in that territory. After this appeal to the people of the United States on the subject of the Oregon Territory, I wish—indeed, I feel myself compelled to do so—to call the attention of this House and this country to the real state of the question, and to how far the President of the United States is justified in declaring that the right of the United States to that territory is "clear and unquestionable;" and how far he is justified in declaring the intention which he has announced, without the sanction of those treaties and conventions which are usually the bonds of peace between inde- pendent States. Before discussing this question, I must tresspass for a short time on the attention of the House, in order to inquire into the usual modes by which the right to every territory has been hitherto maintained and established, and the manner in which such questions have been settled. With respect to uninhabited territories, in the first place, there may be a title by ancient discovery — in the second place, there may be a title by treaty or convention—and, in the third place, there may be a title by discovery, and an ancient or recent perfection of the title by settlement and occupation. With regard to those various modes of establishing a right to a territory, I shall now address myself to the claims of the United States to the Oregon territory, so far as I can gather them from Reports made by Committees of the House of Representatives so long ago as the years 1825 and 1826, and from all that I have since seen put forward on the subject. In the first place, with regard to the claim founded on ancient discovery, it appears that the United States claim all the rights which may be derived in that way from the discoveries of the Spaniards. If I were to go into that question, I should say at once that a claim founded on discoveries at the end of the sixteenth century—that merely visiting a coast, landing for a few hours at a particular portion of it, and which title was not in any way perfected by occupation or settlement for more than two centuries afterwards—that neither on the part of this country or the United States could such a title be maintained to be effectual. If I were of a different opinion on this subject—if I thought otherwise than I do with respect to such a title—I would discuss the question of how far the President of the United States could maintain such a title; and I think I could show by a tenable argument that this country had a title on the ground of ancient discovery; and that the discoveries of Sir Francis Drake in 1578, as compared with the discoveries of Juan de Fuca, and other Spaniards, in 1592, and the commencement of the seventeenth century, would establish that title on the part of England. Sir Francis Drake went at that time as far north as the latitude of 48; and although I am not, as I before observed, going into the question of that title, I think I could show that we should be able, without farther evidence, to make a valid claim to a title founded on that claim of ancient discovery. The next description of title to which we come is that founded on treaties and conventions; and here I will, before I proceed further, state what I conceive to be the position of the Oregon Territory. It may be considered to be the territory which extends east and west between the Rocky Mountains and the Pacific Ocean, and which extends north and south between latitude 42 and latitude 54. So far as I can ascertain this large territory does not appear to have been a subject of stipulation between any of the countries of Europe until late in the last century. It is said, I believe, by the Americans, that the Treaty of Utrecht referred to the territory; but I have found nothing, either in that Treaty, or in the history of the negotiations which preceded it, to show that it was so mentioned. It has been said, on the part of America, that the Treaty of 1763, at the Peace of Paris, gave to France or Spain, to one or the other—for it has been put variously by American claimants—all the territory to the west of the Mississipi. I have carefully read all the negotiations, which took place previously to the Peace of Paris, as well as the Treaty itself, made in 1763. I have recently had occasion to read the Despatches of the Duke of Bedford and the Due de Choiseul with respect to that Treaty; and it appears to my mind quite clear, from all those documents, and from the Articles of the Treaty which was afterwards agreed to, that the only question at that time between France and England was the settlement of the Territories of Canada and Louisiana. The whole of Canada was given by that Treaty to England—the Territory of Louisiana was given to France, with the exception of Mobile, part of the Territory of Mississipi, and New Orleans. There was also a stipulation with respect to a district between the Mississipi and the Iroquois in the Treaty; but in no part of the Treaty itself, or the Despatches which preceded it, is there any reference to the countries beyond the Rocky Mountains as a territory to which either country had a claim. The only question then to consider, in order to ascertain if the Oregon Territory was included in that Treaty, was whether Louisiana included any of the territory to the west of the Rocky Mountains. In an able pamphlet, written by Mr. Falconer, an extract from the Instructions of Louis XIV. to Monsieur Crozat is given; and from those instructions it does not appear that Louisiana extended at that period so far as the Rocky Mountains—it extended to the countries washed by the Mississipi, the Missouri, and the Ohio; and it was placed under the authority of the French Governor General of Canada. That is the description given by Louis XIV. in his instructions; and it does not appear from them that Louisiana comprised any territory extending beyond live Rocky Mountains; nor does the Treaty of 1763, either in express terms or by implication, refer to any place beyond the Rocky Mountains. We come at a subsequent period to claims which are made, not from ancient discovery, or under any Treaty between France and England, settling the title to Canada or Louisiana, or to any of the provinces on the Atlantic side of the great chain of mountains, but from the discoveries of navigation, and settlements made in consequence of those discoveries upon the coast of the Pacific. In 1789, a question arose with regard to the settlement of Nootka Sound, which was held by English subjects, and which settlement was disturbed and destroyed by the Spaniards, under Captain Martinez. The English Government, on that occasion, demanded redress; and the result of that demand on the part of England was, that the redress which was demanded was given; the settlers were restored to their possession at Nootka Sound, and a Treaty was agreed upon with regard to the future occupation of that district. The claims of England and Spain to settle in that district were defined and agreed to by that Treaty; and I find in Hertzlett's Commercial Treaties, that the 5th Article of the Treaty to which I am now referring, which was signed at the Escurial on the 28th of October, 1790, secured those rights. By the 5th Article of that Treaty, it was agreed, that—

"In all other parts of the north-western coasts of North America, or of the islands adjacent, situated to the north of the parts of the said territory already occupied by Spain, wherever the subjects of either of the two Powers shall have made settlements since the month of April, 1789, or shall hereafter make any, the subjects of the other shall have free access, and carry on their trading without disturbance or molestation."

Now, that Article shows clearly that all the part north of the part of the coast occupied by Spain, was a part which was subject to be settled by either Power, and that no separate jurisdiction was claimed by England or Spain over the portion of the country to the north of that part of the coast. Spain was allowed to carry on trade in the dis- trict to the west of the British settlements; but she was allowed no jurisdiction over the subjects of England in those settlements; and the only part which was left indefinite by the Treaty was, the part of the coast occupied by Spain. It does not appear that at the period of the Treaty there were any settlements to the north of latitude 40 in the occupation of Spain, or at the Columbia River, or Nootka Sound, or in any of the districts adjacent to the Columbia River. Such, then, is the state of the Treaties between Great Britain and Spain on that subject; and it is manifest that it remained open to Great Britain or Spain to perfect their discoveries on the coast by making such settlements as they thought proper. It appears that Captain Vancouver was sent out by the British Government after the settlement, and that he was ordered to discover the line of coast and to take possession of certain parts which were laid down in his instructions; and we come now to another part of the claims of the United States. The United States put in a claim to this territory on the ground of discovery, and that is founded on transactions which I shall proceed now to relate. It appears that a merchant vessel, called the Columbia, the commander, named Grey, discovered an inlet, which he supposed to be the inlet of a river, and that he spent some days there in May, 1792, those days having been spent partly at anchor, and partly in endeavouring to ascertain the limits of the bay which he discovered. After a few days spent in that manner, the vessel again sailed into the Pacific Ocean; and I think it is very clear that the commander of the merchant vessel, Captain Grey, thought he was mistaken in supposing that he found the inlet of a river, and having endeavoured to penetrate the river, he was obliged to return, after a few days, without having discovered the river. Shortly after Captain Grey left the coast and sailed into the Pacific, Captain Vancouver arrived at the inlet, and sent his lieutenant, Mr. Broughton, to explore the river. Lieutenant Broughton was more successful than Mr. Grey, and he discovered the entrance of the Columbia river, and went up ninety or one hundred miles—he remained several days in making his explorations, and having discovered the territories on the banks of the river, he returned to the ship. Captain Vancouver then took possession of the territory, and the coasts adjacent to Nootka Sound, in the name of His Majesty the King of England. And here we have something like a valid title established on the principle of taking possession of the territory, not by the casual visit of a merchant vessel, but by an officer in the uniform of his Majesty the King of England. The possession was thus taken for the purpose of occupation and settlement. These, then, are the most important transactions which took place with respect to the title to this territory. There are other transactions, however, on which the Committee of the House of Representatives founded a claim; and these are not, in my opinion, sufficient to sustain a valid title. It appears that France, in 1803, made a cession of Louisiana, and that all the rights which France possessed in Louisiana passed with that cession to the United States. There was a subsequent Treaty, in 1819, by which the Floridas were given up to the United States, and that all the rights which Spain possessed in connexion with that territory were also given up. But I must here remark, that unless France or Spain had rights over a territory in America, they could not give them up by a Treaty. It is manifest that no cession could give up to the United States, on the part of France or Spain, a right which neither of these countries possessed. It is stated in a pamphlet which I have here, and which is an American publication, that the purchase of Louisiana included all the lands on the east side of the Mississipi not then belonging to the United States, as far as the great chain of mountains which divide the waters running into the Pacific, and those falling into the Atlantic Ocean; and from the said chain to the Pacific Ocean, between the territory claimed by Great Britain on the one side, and Spain on the other. To this I say, that unless Lousiana did include any part of that territory to the west of the Rocky Mountains, there can be no valid claim. But Louisiana never did include any such territory; therefore this article is useless. But suppose it were a valid article, it would only give them the territory between what was claimed by Great Britain on the one side, and by Spain on the other. It does not say "to what Great Britain has made good her claim, or which is acknowledged to be hers;" but only "that part which is claimed by Great Britain." With regard to that cession by Spain, I should think it could only be a cession of any rights which Spain may have held under a convention with Great Britain relative to Nootka Sound. That was a convention between Spain on the one side, and Great Britain on the other. The two Powers afterwards went to war; and it has been said I know by some, arguing, I believe, on the part of the United States, that that war took away any title Great Britain might have held. There is no reason for any such assumption. But the fact is, that convention was renewed at the peace in 1814, between this country and Spain. Therefore, the United States, by any agreement they made, any Treaty they entered into in 1819, could only inherit and succeed to such a title as Spain held in 1814. Now, what was that title? It was a title to settle in and to trade to parts in which English subjects had already settled and traded, to settle and trade for themselves. Well, then, I come to the third question, which I think the most important of all these modes of establishing a title—I mean the title of occupancy and settlement. The question for the House now to consider is, whether there is what the President of the United States calls "a title clear and unquestionable" to be made out by occupation and settlement. I have already stated that a British settlement was formed at Nootka Sound, and I have to add that subsequently settlements were established by the Hudson's Bay Company in various parts of the Oregon Territory. The United States, on the other hand, established a settlement in that district; and I will tell you what was the fate of that settlement, as described by an American writer, Mr. Farnham, who is also very anxious to stand up for the claims of America to this territory. It appears that in 1810 or 1811, a settlement was established in a territory which was called Astoria; and with the proceedings connected with the origin and subsequent fate of those settlements or forts, we have all been made perfectly acquainted by the beautiful manner in which their history has been related by a gentleman, whom I am happy to call a friend of mine, Mr. Washington Irving. Mr. Astor, in 1810 or 1811, made a settlement which he called Astoria, at the mouth of the Columbia River. Not long after the settlement was formed by Mr. Astor, a war broke out between England and the United States, and a question arose as to what should become of Astoria, as those who were residing there feared, as they naturally might, that a maritime expedition might be sent out from England to attack the settlement. In consequence of this fear on the part of those in the settlement, the American company took means for the sale of the settlement, and the sale was accordingly effected to the North West Company. After the Treaty of 1815, however, some misconception took place in this country with respect to the settlement which was sold; and Lord Bathurst thought it right to restore to the subjects of the United States the possession of the settlement under an Article in the Treaty of 1815, which Article declared "that all possessions of the United States which had been captured by this country should be restored to the United States." It was urged by the North West Company, who bought the settlement, that the settlement had not been captured by England, but had been, regularly sold to them. It appears, however, that in point of fact the settlement was, after the war, given up to the agent of the United States, and that in point of fact the United States did not establish a new settlement after it had been so given up to the United States' agent. It appears, according to the statement of Mr. Farnham, that the two British companies which were established in this territory, the North West Company and the Hudson's Bay, soon after this period, were joined together by an Act of Parliament, and became one company; and they then built a fort at the mouth of the Columbia River, which they called Fort George; and Mr. Farnham describes this fort as having been presided over by a gentleman, on the part of the Hudson's Bay Company, who was possessed of great influence over the people, and was, as Mr. Farnham states, called the King of the Indians in that territory, and was the only person in authority there. Mr. Farnham gives an account of another American company which was formed by the United States, and which was called by them the Pacific Fur Company; but that company was a total failure; and it failed not on account of any violence or aggression on the part of British subjects, but because the Hudson's Bay Company entered on their trade with a larger spirit of enterprise and more extended views; that they understood the mode of conducting trade in a better manner; and that their particular operations were in consequence more successful and on a more extensive principle. The effect of this superiority was, that the Pacific Fur Company sold out their settlements to the Hudson's Bay Company. What account does Mr. Farnham give of the Hudson's Bay Company, though all the time complaining that any British subject should settle in those parts, and above all, that Americans should be subject to any authority exercised by Englishmen? He says,—

"There are no less than eighteen settlements or ports in this part of the territory of the Oregon. There are several along the River Columbia. One part called Vancouver, contains a great number of people within a sort of stockade or entrenchment. There is also a farm of 3,000 acres well cultivated. The inhabitants dwell in a village, and are subject to the authority and control of the Hudson's Bay Company."

He describes all their settlements to be in admirable condition. He says,—

"While they give a better price for their furs, they bargain with the savages more advantageously to the Indians than any other persons can do for the manufactured goods and various articles they sell."

And I like to quote these American authorities, because they bear a high testimony, not only to the intelligence, but to the integrity and benevolence of this Company in these transactions. We well know the story, so terrible in the history of American civilization, that civilized people have prevailed upon savages, by giving them intoxicating drinks, to part with such goods and furs as they possessed, and could part with; and at the same time they brutalized these unfortunate savages by the use of rum and brandy, which they thus sold to them. Now, mark what is said by a Lieutenant in the American service,—

"The Hudson's Bay Company have done every thing possible to prevent such transactions on the part of the agents of their Company with the Indians with whom they are concerned. And although they have in their stores large quantities of rum, they are not permitted to be sold to those savages. When a ship came into Columbia laden with spirits, the Company at once bought the whole cargo, in order to prevent the degradation and demoralization of the Indian character by the immoderate and excessive use of these spirits, which has been the case formerly."

We are told by the authority which I am now quoting, that the Hudson's Bay Company did every thing in their power, every thing that was possible, to prevent the infliction of the evils produced by these intoxicating drinks upon the Indians; and that although they have large stores of rum in their settlements they do not permit it to be sold to the savages. Such is the mode in which they carry out their views, that at one time, when a ship arrived in the Columbia river, laden with spirits, they bought the whole cargo, in order effectually to prevent the injury to the Indians which always was produced by the immoderate use of spirits. Such is the high character of the Company—such is the extent of their operations—and such is the spirit in which their operations are carried on. It is stated on good authority that there are 20,000 persons living in the Oregon Territory, and that scarcely 100 of these are citizens of the United States; whilst, on the other hand, the Hudson's Bay Company have many settlements in the territory. I know not what the value of the fur trade may be, but it is obvious that it must be a trade of considerable value. There are other considerations, however, which attach importance to this question. The Columbia is the only port, I believe, on that coast, which is, I believe, a very dangerous coast; whilst, in order to show the extent of the river, it is enough to state that it is 1,600 yards wide, at a distance of 90 miles from the mouth. It is obvious that the increase of trade which must take place between this country and China will render it more important, as that is the only port on that part of the coast. There may be one established near Nootka Sound; but it is not, I believe, approachable, and is surrounded by high mountains; and probably will not for hundreds of years, if even then, be made available. I have now given to the House an account of the transactions which relate to this difficult subject; and the result is, that so far as ancient discovery establishes a claim, England has a superior claim to the United States. With regard to the question of treaty or convention, the United States have no claim whatever; nor have they any claim upon the territory on the ground of settlement, occupancy, or trading, on the part of their subjects. With respect to the question of recent discoveries and occupation, it appears that there was a perfect discovery and possession under the authority and sanction of our Government, and the settlement consequent thereon; and, therefore, it appears to me, that on these grounds also this country has a claim to the Oregon Territory stronger than the United States. Captain Vancouver took possession of the coast, and an officer under his command went many miles up the river; and English subjects belonging to the Hudson's Bay Company, going from Canada, are, by their skill and enter- prise, carrying on traffic of great importance in that territory. Sir, having stated in this manner the general nature of these claims, I will now allude to what has been done in the way of negotiation between this country and the United States. What I am going first to allude to is an important negotiation that took place in London, between Mr. Rush, on the part of the United States, and Mr. Huskisson and Sir Stratford Canning, acting under Mr. Canning, on the part of Great Britain. Propositions were made by Mr. Rush, on the part of the United States; and it was then alleged, with reference to a declaration of the President of the United States, that no colonization should thereafter take place on the American Continent. This claim was peremptorily denied by Mr. Canning and Mr. Huskisson. The claim to the whole of the Oregon Territory was as peremptorily denied. At the same time, with a proper appreciation, as I think, of the value of a good understanding between the two countries, Mr. Canning authorized Mr. Huskisson to propose a compromise. A line was agreed to be carried to where the 49th degree of north latitude intersects the Rocky Mountains, and to be carried on beyond that point to a branch of the Columbia River called the M'Gillivray, and thence on to the main stream of the Columbia, and that the river Columbia was then to form the boundary of the territories of the two countries. This was giving a very considerable territory to the United States. It was giving them a valley, watered by a river as large as the Columbia, where it joins the M'Gillivray, called the Willoughby, and all the territory to the south of the Columbia, and between the Columbia and latitude 42, where the British possessions commenced. That extent of territory is described as the most fertile, the best adapted for the cultivation of wheat and other valuable productions. It was proposed by Mr. Canning, that all that country should belong to the United States; but he was not ready to give up the territory or to give up the forts or settlements to the north of the Columbia, which, for the purpose of harbours, were important to the subjects of this country. It appears to me that this proposal was an equitable proposal on the part of Mr. Canning; and that considering the value of the claims which we have, and considering the claims which the United States have, to make the proposal was as fair as they could reasonably expect. It was, however, rejected by the American Government; and it became necessary to renew a convention that had been agreed upon, that both Great Britain and the United States should have power to trade, to occupy, and to settle, without claiming any right of sovereignty in any portion of that territory. Such, Sir, was the state of the question down to the present time; but at the present time we have a new circumstance, a new event upon which the whole question must be finally brought to issue. The President of the United States has made, as I have already read to the House, a peremptory claim to the whole of this territory. He has claimed the whole possession of it for the United States, and has in an unusual manner called upon the people of the United States, with their wives and children, to occupy that territory. That district is becoming, on account of the forts on the river Columbia, more important every year. After that statement of the President of the United States, I consider it impossible that Her Majesty's Government should not endeavour to obtain a speedy solution of this question. I am sure they will feel it impossible to allow the present undefined and unsettled state of relations between the two countries to continue, without incurring great danger that the people of the United States, acting upon the suggestion of the President, may endeavour to disturb British subjects in rights which they hold by virtue of Treaties, and may produce a state of things dangerous to the peace of the two countries. For my own part, I will say, in all moderation, that I am not prepared to affirm that this country ought to put forward any arrogant pretensions. I do not pretend to define—what it belongs to Her Majesty's advisers to define—the diplomatic proposals that should be made. I will not pretend to say what line ought to be laid down; but this I will say, that I do not think we can make any proposal which shall be less than the proposal made by Mr. Canning, with any regard for our own interests, or our own honour. I may be told that it does not matter if this rocky and barren territory should be claimed, or occupied, or taken by the United States. Yes, Sir, but I must say it does matter. It cannot be a matter of indifference, that a large territory to which we have a better and a juster title, should be yielded to what I must call a blustering announcement on the part of the President of the United States. It cannot be a matter of indifference that the communication between that country, west of the Rocky Mountains, and China, the East Indies, and the whole of South America, should be surrendered at once to a Foreign Power; but, above all, it cannot be a matter of indifference, that the tone or the character of England should be lowered in any transaction which we may have to carry on with the United States. With this feeling, then, I beg to thank the House for having listened to the statement which I have very imperfectly made as to the claim which this country possesses to that territory. I should have abstained altogether from entering upon this subject if it had been left to diplomatic negotiation between Lord Aberdeen and Mr. Buchanan, the Secretary of State for the United States. I feel the difficulty, and the objectionable course which I am myself pursuing; but I feel that it is forced upon me, and I feel that I can do what it is quite impossible for any Minister of the Crown to do—satisfy the House and the people of this country as to what are their rights. With this statement, therefore, I leave the matter in the hands of the Government of the country; and I will not express the smallest doubt that in all their proceedings they will duly consult the interests of the country and the honour of the Crown which they serve.

said: Sir, I cannot be surprised, and I must say I cannot complain, that the noble Lord should have taken this opportunity of delivering the sentiments which he has expressed on the present occasion. I think the noble Lord has justly defined the limits within which it is wise to introduce in a popular assembly, and pending the negotiation of measures materially affecting the important interests of two great nations—he has justly defined, I say, the rule which Members of Parliament should lay down to themselves in the exercise of their privileges. While negotiations are pending, through the means of persons regularly constituted with a distinct authority for that purpose, unless there be plain reasons for the exercise of their right, it is politic to abstain from the exercise of free discussion in popular assemblies upon topics of this description. It is so easy to excite public feeling in such assemblies, that, unless there be grave and cogent arguments for the contrary course, it is better to leave such matters to the discretion of those who are entrusted with the care of the honour and the interests of the country. But if the noble Lord has felt it his duty to depart from that course, I must say, he is not responsible for any of the consequences that may arise from that deviation. The noble Lord says, and says with truth, that, from the latest accounts, the President of the United States would appear, in this important matter, to have withdrawn it from the cognizance of the authorities to whom, up to a very recent period, it had been entrusted, and to appeal for a decision of the question to other authorities than those to whom the power of its adjustment was entrusted. The noble Lord has truly said that, in speaking of such a subject as this, a Minister of the Crown speaks under an obligation and an engagement from which the noble Lord, as an individual Member of Parliament, is free. I do not think it would be consistent with my duty to follow the noble Lord in a discussion of the grounds which the United States urged in regard to their claim. It would be impossible to do so without expressing, or at least without implying, opinions which I think it more consistent with my duty not to proclaim in this House. I shall only correct the statement of the noble Lord in one particular in which I think he was in error. The noble Lord, in speaking of the propositions made by Mr. Huskisson, under the authority of Mr. Canning, in 1827—[Lord J. Russell had referred, not to 1827, but to 1818]—I do not know whether the noble Lord is aware that the subject was under discussion at a subsequent period, in the year 1827, which discussion was carried on first by Mr. Huskisson, and afterwards by Mr. Grant. The last propoposition, made on the authority of Mr. Canning, was not what the noble Lord supposes. The noble Lord states that the last proposal made by the authority of Mr. Canning was, that a line should be drawn from the point where the 49th parallel of latitude intercepts the Rocky Mountains to a branch of the River Columbia called the M'Gillivray, and should continue down to where that river joins the Columbia and thence to the Pacific. The proposal made by Mr. Canning was, that in addition to this, the United States should have this further advantage—that in the harbour of Juan de Fuca there should be free access for American vessels, and that they should have a certain peninsula, comprising a considerable extent of land to the north of the Columbia river, but that the south of the strait should be ceded in sovereignty to the United States. That was the proposal made by Mr. Huskisson at the instance of Mr. Canning. I think it right to abstain from all further discussion as to the claims of the United States; but I feel it perfectly open to me to inform the House of the present general state of our negotiations with the United States. It may be convenient — at least to some Gentlemen—that I should shortly refer to a statement which I made the other night, in consequence of some observations made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bath. In the Convention of 1819, the Northern Boundary of the United States and of the British possessions was defined. The line was carried to where the 49th degree of latitude intersects the Rocky Mountains. No agreement was made with respect to the country west of the Rocky Mountains; but the Convention of 1819 gave a right of joint occupation, which was to endure for ten years. In the course of the year 1824 and the year 1826, efforts were made by Mr. Canning to come to an amicable adjustment of the respective claims of the United States and this country. Those efforts, conducted under the auspices of men of great ability, were entirely unavailing. The proposals which we made to the United States were rejected by them, and the proposals which they made were rejected by us. At the expiration of the term of ten years the Convention would expire. A new Convention was, therefore, entered into in 1827, which was to be continued in force for a further term of ten years, from the Convention of 1819, with an additional proviso—and this distinguished the more recent Convention from the former one—that the Convention of 1827 was not to be necessarily determined by the lapse of time, but was to continue in force for an indefinite period, each party, however, having the power of terminating it at the end of a year, by giving notice the year before; and in that case the rights of the two parties were not to be prejudiced. That is the agreement under which we are now acting. That is the Convention which determines the relations between this country and the United States, with respect to this territory, which I will call the Oregon Territory. Thinking it of great importance that the causes of future differences should be prevented, by an amicable settlement of the respective claims, Mr. Pakenham, our Minister, was directed to enter into negotiations with the Government of the United States, for the purpose of effecting an amicable adjustment on principles which should be equitable and just to the two countries. Those negotiations were continued during the presidency of Mr. Tyler, and almost to the period when Mr. Pakenham entered upon his duties in the United States; and it may be useful that I should read the notice which was taken of the progress of those negotiations in a Message addressed by the President of the United States to the two Houses of Congress, at so late a period as the 3rd of December, 1844. The then President, Mr. Tyler, on the 3rd of December last, said:—

"Since the closing of your last Session, a negotiation has been formally entered upon between the Secretary of State, and Her Britannic Majesty's Minister Plenipotentiary and Envoy Extraordinary, residing at Washington, relative to the rights of their respective nations in and over the Oregon Territory. That negotiation is still pending. Should it, during your Session, be brought to a definite conclusion, the result will be promptly communicated to Congress. I would, however, again call your attention to the recommendations contained in previous Messages, designed to protect and facilitate emigration to that territory. The establishment of military posts at suitable points upon the extended line of land travel, would enable our citizens to migrate in comparative safety to the fertile regions below the Falls of the Columbia, and make the provisions of the existing Convention for the joint occupation of the territory by subjects of Great Britain and the citizens of the United States more available than heretofore to the latter. These posts would constitute places of rest for the weary emigrant, where he would be sheltered securely against the danger of attack from the Indians, and be enabled to recover from the exhaustion of a long line of travel. Legislative enactments should also be made which would spread over him the ægis of our laws, so as to afford protection to his person and property when he shall have reached his distant home. In this latter respect, the British Government has been much more careful of the interests of such of her people as are to be found in that country, than the United States."

That refers to an Act passed by the Imperial Parliament in the year 1821, which Act introduced British laws in this disputed territory.

"She has made necessary provision for their security and protection against the acts of the viciously disposed and lawless; and her emi- grant reposes in safety under the panoply of the laws. Whatever may be the result of the pending negotiation, such measures are necessary. It will afford me the greatest pleasure to witness a happy and favourable termination to the existing negotiation, upon terms compatible with the public honour; and the best efforts of the Government will continue to be directed to this end."

This was the Address delivered to the two Houses of Congress by the late President Tyler, at so late a period as the 3rd of December, 1844. I think the general spirit of this Message must show a sincere desire to obtain an amicable adjustment of the claims by means of negotiation; but at a later period than the 3rd of December, a Motion was made in Congress for an Address to the Executive Government, praying that all Papers relating to the negotiations might be laid upon the Table of the House. It was necessary for Mr. Tyler to reply to that Motion, which he did at so late a date as the 19th of February, 1845, about a fortnight before the Inaugural Speech made by the present President, to which the noble Lord has referred; find what was the answer given by Mr. Tyler? It is as follows:—

"TO THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES.

"In answer to the Resolution of the Senate of the 11th of December, 1844, requesting the President to lay before the Senate, if in his judgment that may be done without prejudice to the public interests, a copy of any instructions which may have been given by the Executive to the American Minister in England, on the subject of the title to and occupation of the territory of Oregon, since the 4th day of March, 1841; also a copy of any correspondence which may have passed between this Government and that of Great Britain, or between either of the two Governments and the Minister of the other, in relation to that subject since that time—I have to say, that in my opinion, as the negotiation is still pending, the information sought for cannot be communicated without prejudice to the public service. I deem it, however, proper to add, that considerable progress has been made in the discussion, which has been carried on in a very amicable spirit between the two Governments; and that there is reason to hope that it may be terminated, and the negotiation be brought to a close within a short period. I have delayed answering the Resolution under the expectation expressed in my Annual Message, that the negotiation would have been terminated before the close of the present Session of Congress, and that the information called for by the Resolution of the Senate might be communicated. "JOHN TYLER.

"Washington, Feb. 19, 1845."

I am bound to confirm this statement so far as relates to the amicable spirit of the negotiation. I cannot confirm it as to the progress of the negotiation, and the prospect of its speedy termination; but nothing could be more friendly than the spirit in which the late President declined to give the information required. On the 4th of March, 1845, the present President of the United States made that Inaugural Address to which the noble Lord has referred. It is right to state that since that Inaugural Address we have had no communication from our Minister in the United States. He wrote a letter transmitting the Address, but had not time to make any comment upon it. No diplomatic negotiations have taken place between him and the present Government of the United States that we are aware of. When I say that no such negotiation has taken place, I do not mean up to the present time, but at the date of the last accounts. We have had no direct communication; but I think it highly probable that Mr. Pakenham would have continued with the present Government the negotiations that were in progress; but since the resignation of Mr. Calhoun and the appointment of Mr. Buchanan as Secretary of State, we have had no communication. All we know is what is contained in the President's Address. I think it highly probable, as I have said, that the negotiations have been renewed, or rather continued, by Mr. Pakenham. At no distant period the result of that renewed negotiation must be known. I think it my duty not to despair of a favourable result of the negotiation; but in case there should be an unfavourable result, if the measure which we have already proposed should be rejected, and if no counter proposals should be made by the United States which are likely to lead to an amicable adjustment of these differences—if that should be the issue, it will then be the duty of the Government to lay upon the Table of the House all the communications that have taken place. I trust, however, still, that that will not be the case; I still hope that an amicable adjustment of the claims of the two countries may be made, notwithstanding the last Address of the President. I must, however, express my deep regret that while the negotiations were pending, the chief Executive Authority of the United States should, in a public Address, contrary to all usage, have referred to other contingencies than a friendly and satisfactory termination of these differences. Such a reference is not likely to lead to that issue which may tend to the maintenance of the amicable relations between the two countries which we desire to see—namely, an amicable, honourable, and equitable settlement of the differences which have arisen respecting this territory. I deeply regret, not only the reference which was so made, but I deeply regret the tone and temper in which that reference was made. As the subject has been brought under discussion — I think not improperly by the noble Lord—I feel it my imperative duty, on the part of the British Government, to state in language the most temperate, but, at the same time, the most decided, that we consider we have rights respecting this territory of Oregon which are clear and unquestionable. We trust still to arrive at an amicable adjustment—we desire to effect an amicable adjustment of our claim; but having exhausted every effort to effect that settlement, if our rights shall be invaded, we are resolved—and we are prepared—to maintain them. Perhaps that declaration may induce the House—although each individual Member has a right to participate in a discussion with reference to a public question—to abstain from a discussion in a popular assembly. Such, although it be a matter of right, might have a tendency to prevent that result which we must all desire—a satisfactory adjustment of the question; and I trust individual Members will be content to leave the matter where it is placed, in the hands of Her Majesty's Government.

said, he had not been aware of the more recent proposals of Mr. Canning, to which the right hon. Baronet adverted, otherwise he should not have omitted to notice them. After what the right hon. Gentlemen had said, he should leave the matter where it was. He had made no Motion—he had carefully abstained from making any Motion; and after what the right hon. Gentleman had stated, he should abstain from making any Motion until the Government were prepared to communicate the necessary information to the House.

said: Sir, I quite agree with the the right hon. Baronet that it would not be now expedient for Members of this House to pursue the sub- ject further; but I wish to avail myself of this opportunity to state, with reference to what has passed in an earlier part of the evening, that, looking at the quotations that had been made by a noble Lord in another place, as I understand from Despatches which I myself placed on the Table in connexion with the negotiations on the Boundary Question, I am inclined to think that when the right hon. Baronet looks into them he will find that the noble Lord has quoted nothing but what he was perfectly justified in quoting. After the manner in which things which I have said in debate have been elsewhere alluded to, I might perhaps take advantage of this opportunity to answer what has been said elsewhere. I shall only say with regard to the observations that have been made upon statements and arguments of mine on the Boundary Question and the Ashburton Negotiation, nothing which has been said in another place appears to me to contain any answer to the detailed arguments which I, nearly two years ago, addressed to this House, and to the despatches which have been laid before the two Houses of Parliament; and the opinions which I expressed and entertained have been in no degree invalidated. It is true that the late Government adopted the award of the King of the Netherlands. They did so because they thought it a point of honour to abide by his decision. It is quite true, also, that it was less advantageous to the country than the proposal which we afterwards made for dividing the disputed territory into two. It is true that it would have left to the Americans the territory south of the St. John; but we did not stand on the ground that such cession ought not, under any circumstances, to be made, but our negotiator had said that it would be cruel and unjust to make the cession without the consent of the inhabitants. The Americans had said that the river was the natural boundary; but he afterwards, in reference to another portion of the territory, did not stand upon the river, but consented to go beyond it in deference to their wishes. It has been said in another place that my arguments were at variance with my acts; but if any one will take the trouble of referring to what I said, he will find that I refuted all the arguments founded upon that assumption. Objections have also been taken to the manner in which I have stated my views on this subject. I trust that on every occasion when it has been my duty to state my opinions to the House, I have always abstained as much as circumstances would permit from any personal attack upon any individual; but if individuals choose to accept great and important public functions, they must expect that their public conduct and their public acts will be liable to such observations as any one may think it his duty to make. And I can only say, when observations are made by persons who, in my opinion, have in the discharge of great important public trusts, from whatever motive it may have arisen—whether it be from natural incapacity, or from opinions—speculative opinions—inconsistent with the duties they have to perform, whenever such persons sacrifice the honour or the interest of this country, it will be a matter of entire indifference to me in what manner such individuals may speak of any strictures I feel it my duty to make upon them. I never feel any concern if I find the opinions of these persons, upon great political questions, at variance with my own. I am, Sir, rather inclined to think that where they do differ from me, it is a presumption of my view being the correct one.

rose to move, in pursuance of the terms of his Notice,—

"That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, that She will be graciously pleased to give directions, that there be laid before the House, a Copy of any Warrant or Warrants sent to the Postmaster General by any Secretary of State, directing the detaining or opening of any Letter or Letters addressed to or written by Thomas Slingsby Duncombe, Esq., a Member of this House."

He was unwilling to bring forward this Motion at the present moment, as his hon. Colleague laboured under the impression that it was not to be brought forward until Monday next. If he did not now bring it forward, he would be precluded from doing so for some time to come. The right hon. Baronet opposite could, however, relieve him from the necessity of discussing this question, by producing the warrants—his not doing so compelled him to submit his Motion, and to take the sense of the House upon it. He reminded the House, that immediately before Easter he had presented a petition from the inhabitants of Finsbury, complaining of the wrong done to their Representative, and praying for an inquiry into it. Upon this subject he could assure them that the feeling in the borough of Finsbury was deep-rooted and intense. He then quoted the statement of the right hon. Baronet (Sir James Graham), made when this subject was last before the House, and containing a full statement of the circumstances under which that right hon. Baronet had been induced to open Mr. Mazzini's letters. The course pursued in that case was different from that adopted towards his hon. Colleague. His hon. Colleague had stated that his letters had been opened at the Post Office; but he could get no acknowledgment from the right hon. Gentleman as to whether his letters had been opened or not. His hon. Colleague's letters having been opened, he had a right to know who were his calumniators—who it was that had been acting as spies and informers against him, and inducing the right hon. Gentleman to believe that he had been guilty of improper practices. His hon. Colleague was utterly in the dark as to the whole of this transaction. It was known that his name had been traduced—that his conduct had been misrepresented; and, placed in these circumstances, he had a right to complain to that House, and his constituents also had a right to complain, that one who had so honestly, so faithfully performed his duty, should be so maligned and so injured. When, too, these constituents found that Her Majesty's Government had been opening the letters of their Representative—that his correspondence had been violated, then they conceived they had a right to know what were the circumstances under which these things were done. If the Government was justified in opening the letters of his hon. Colleague, why were not the reasons stated to that House? The right hon. Gentleman would not admit that the letters had been opened; and yet it was the general belief throughout England, not only that letters written to him, but letters written by him, had been opened; and the Government ought to state why this had been done. The right hon. Gentleman talked of "responsibility;" but what was the meaning of it, when they had not the means of knowing what had been done? If a prosecution were instituted against parties in the Post Office for opening letters, the warrant must be produced. There was no other defence for them, in law, but the production of the warrant. He must say that the Government appeared to him to be fencing on this subject in a manner that was not creditable to them. They were giving an example calculated to produce a bad effect upon the country; for they did not rely upon law; they did not rely upon justice; their sole reliance was upon force; they rested upon their majority, and, secure in that, they baffled inquiry. His hon. Colleague had asked in every form for justice, and it had been refused to him. To deny him was unfair—to refuse his demand was ungenerous. The conduct of Her Majesty's Government, he considered, as unfair; but the conduct of a majority of the House was infinitely worse. Her Majesty's Government appeared as obdurate now as it had been the very first moment the matter had been brought under their consideration. The time, he hoped, had come when the Government would relent, and adopt a course different from that which they had hitherto pursued. In the case of Mr. Mazzini a full explanation had been given. Why not also give a full explanation as to this? If his Motion were now opposed, there would, he knew, be a majority against him; but then that decision would produce no beneficial effect upon the public mind, and more especially in the borough of Finsbury. He thought his hon. Colleague had been treated most unfairly, and this, too, while he was endeavouring to discharge his duty to an individual who considered himself aggrieved. He was assuming that the letters of his hon. Colleague had been opened, because he had said he could prove at the Bar of the House that his letters had been opened. If, however, the Government said that his letters had not been opened—if such had not been the case, what would there be humiliating to them in making such an avowal? If, on the other hand, the Government admitted that the letters had been opened, why not let the House and the country know the reason why this had been done? He concluded by moving, in accordance with the terms of which he had given notice.

observed that it had been frankly admitted by the hon. Member that if he had consulted his own judgment or feelings this Motion would not have been brought forward on the present occasion. The present appearance of the House showed that it was weary of the subject. No one more readily admitted than he did the ingenuity of the hon. Member; but that ingenuity was so exhausted, that in the address he had just made to the House there was not to be found one new topic, nor one new argument. The hon. Member had, as on other occasions, asked what was Ministerial responsibility? Surely the hon. Gentleman and the Members he addressed could not believe his feelings to be so callous that these repeated discussions, that were forced upon him, did not constitute responsibility only, but a very painful responsibility. The hon. Gentleman had alluded to the majority, and complained of it. In every popular assembly it was the majority that must decide. When this matter was first brought forward he had pledged himself, as a Minister of the Crown, and as a gentleman, to state frankly to the tribunal appointed to investigate the subject the particular cases in which he had exercised this power. He had done so fully, and without reserve, and that too before a tribunal of which the majority consisted not of the friends, but the opponents of the Government. The Report of that Committee was before the House. Against its decision various appeals had been made, which had been negatived by the House. He thought that what he had stated on a former evening, when this question was under discussion, had satisfied not only the House generally, but the hon. Member himself who made this Motion; he hoped and believed also, that reparation was made by him (Sir James Graham) to the wounded feelings of the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. T. Duncombe). He said distinctly on that occasion that nothing had come to his knowledge in any way, or at any time, inconsistent with the hon. Member's character as a Member of Parliament, and as a loyal and faithful subject. This he had stated most distinctly and unequivocally in his place in Parliament. He had made that declaration then, and he repeated it now. He must say further, that he did not think it consistent with his duty to give a more explicit answer than he had already given. But what he had stated in regard to the character of the hon. Member for Finsbury he repeated, and was glad to have the op- portunity of doing so. Further he thought it was not necessary to pursue this question. The whole matter with regard to the opening of letters by the Government had been investigated by the tribunal chosen by the House for that purpose; and though that tribunal had not said that the power possessed by the Government had been in every case acted upon with discretion, still they had reported, that in no case and by no Minister had that power been exercised from the impulse of personal or vindictive feelings, or from any other motives (though in some cases they thought mistaken) than a due regard to the public peace, and the good of the country. That was the decision of a tribunal—he would not say an adverse tribunal—but certainly one that could not be supposed to have any prepossessions in favour of the Minister or of the Government. That decision had been satisfactory to the House; and he hoped, under the circumstances, the hon. Gentleman would not think it necessary to divide the House, but allow the Speaker to leave the chair.

agreed with the right hon. Baronet that the subject was exhausted; but was glad that an opportunity had been given for the explanation of the right hon. Baronet as to what he understood by Ministerial responsibility. For his part, he was sorry the question had been mooted at all; for he believed it had damaged the character of our Government functionaries all over the world. The only point now was, whether under the provisions of any Act of Parliament the Minister had the power of issuing general warrants for the opening of letters; and his hon. Friend wanted to have a copy of any warrant that had been issued in regard to his letters, in order that that question might be tried in a court of law and decided. He really thought that was a most reasonable request, and one that the right hon. Baronet might fairly have conceded. He could assure the right hon. Baronet that the question would not be settled in the public mind, until an opportunity should have been afforded of trying that point. As his object was to see the document, he must, if his hon. Friend should go to a division, divide with him. He admitted that the right hon. Baronet had made every explanation and given every satisfaction to his hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury, so far as his personal character was involved.

was also desirous that no division should take place; but adhering, as he did, to the constitutional view of the question, he must, if the hon. Member divided, vote with him. He had never yet heard any answer to the question, why a warrant was not to be considered as a public document, to be produced when required for public purposes.

could not allow this discussion to close without bearing his testimony to the character of Mr. Mazzini, which had been so unjustly attacked on a former evening by the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir James Graham). He had known Mr. Mazzini for many a long year; he knew his position, and he knew, too, the feelings of affection and confidence felt towards him by all who knew him. Mr. Mazzini had never approached any person in this country without leaving the most favourable impression as to his high intellect, and pure and unspotted morality. He had struggled much, he had suffered much, and had devoted the whole energies of his mind to one great object—the redemption of his country. He might be a dreamer—he might be (though he hoped he was not) a mistaken enthusiast—but he was one of those who believed that the country that gave him birth was destined to something better and happier than her present position; and having come to this country, having heard of and witnessed the advantages and the blessings of its free institutions, his mind became filled with hopeful aspirations for the time when his own country should enjoy such institutions as ours. Who could blame him, or impute it to him as a crime, if he did believe that his own Italy must ere long also be free? It was impossible that Mr. Mazzini could have contemplated crime — the idea of assassination never could have entered into a mind so elevated and so pure. Was it charitable—was it just—of the right hon. Baronet to traduce the character of an absent man? He (Dr. Bowring) recollected well the excitement occasioned in the House when the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government attacked the hon. Member for Shrewsbury in reference to the imputations he had thrown out against an absent and an innocent man; and yet the right hon. Baronet's Colleague—the Home Secretary—knowing nothing of Mr. Mazzini (for if he had known him, he would never have accused him), did not hesitate, in a place where Mr. Mazzini could not be present to defend himself, to level accusations against him the most terrible and the most criminal. All he asked was, that the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham) would inquire into and inform himself of the real character of Mr. Mazzini; and if he found, as he would find, that he had been misinformed, or, improperly and erroneously informed, done an injury to such a man, then he would appeal to his own sense of justice, whether he would leave him in the position he now occupied, sunk in that abyss of degradation which the aspersions publicly cast upon his character in that House had thrown him? He had felt it due to Mr. Mazzini—whom he had known for a long time, and whose conduct he had watched closely, and whose character was distinguished by the highest principles and practices of morality and justice, in whose mind undoubtedly the love of liberty was strong, but the moral principle still stronger—he had felt bound in justice to that gentleman to make these observations in his defence.

had no doubt the hon. Member for Bolton had a high opinion of Mr. Mazzini; but he (Colonel Wyndham) should be sorry to be in Mr. Mazzini's position. He had read the correspondence and statements that had appeared on the subject, and he thought Mr. Mazzini, with his talents, should be occupying a proper position in his own country, instead of coming here to do mischief. He had not that high opinion of him that the hon. Member for Bolton entertained, and if the Amendment was pressed to a division, he should vote against it.

After the speech of the hon. Member for Bolton—which, as a Member of that House, and a friend of Mr. Mazzini's, did him honour, in contradistinction to the speech of the hon. and gallant Member who last spoke, and who knew nothing about that Gentleman—he would put it to the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, whether, after coming down the other night with those trumped-up charges from certain newspapers which he brought down with him, and which he read—though he ought to have known that the statements contained in them were not true, and though he stated that Mr. Mazzini had never endeavoured to clear his character from the accusations made against him, he ought to have known that he had brought one or two actions against those papers by whom his character had been aspersed—he would put it to the right hon. Baronet whether, after all this, he could be content to allow the matter to rest as it now was? He remembered that the right hon. Baronet at the head of the Government once made a similar charge against the hon. Member for Stockport, which, by the way, had never yet been apologized for, and which he thought his hon. Friend (Mr. Cobden) did wrong to submit to. He thought it most improper that Cabinet Ministers should be allowed, having made such charges, to shelter themselves behind their official responsibility. He wished to know whether, after the speech of the hon. Member for Bolton in defence of the character of Mr. Mazzini, the right hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham) intended to remain altogether silent?

was really at a loss how to answer the question of the hon. Member. In the early part of the present evening, another hon. Gentleman, without notice, had put a question to him on the subject; and being without notice, and having had no opportunity for consideration or inquiry, he had felt bound, by a regard for truth, to state explicitly at the moment what he did. If more time had been given him to reflect, he might not have had so unequivocal an impression resting on his mind; but the impression he had was, that doubts still hung over the transactions referred to, so far as Mr. Mazzini was said to be implicated in them. He had presented to the House no trumped-up stories; but had stated fairly and truly transactions that had come to the notice of the Government. [Mr. Bernal Osborne: From the Moniteur?] No; from the despatches of the British Minister, which the Government had been receiving for some time past; and he said that, looking at those despatches, some doubts still hung over the transactions, as would be apparent to the House from those despatches, which would be in their hands in a few days. If on further inquiry, and further consideration, he could be satisfied that he had done an injustice to Mr. Mazzini, he need scarcely say that no man would be more ready to make ample and full reparation to him, as to every one else whom he might from misinformation have in like manner injured; and most especially should he be anxious to make reparation to an unprotected foreigner like Mr. Mazzini. He would infinitely rather make that reparation to Mr. Mazzini himself than to any Member of that House; but at the same time he must say, that his regard for truth, while he was not satisfied that he had done an injury, compelled him, as a man of honour, not to admit it.

said, he had certainly intended to move the Amendment he had given notice of for the reduction of the Household Troops; but he was bound to confess, that what had taken place in the House that evening had entirely altered his intention. He should not now move any reduction in the Army Estimates; for though he was as anxious that as much economy as possible should be exercised in regard to our standing army, yet if we were threatened with danger from any quarter, or if an attempt was apprehended in the remotest degree, on the part of any Foreign country, to do us an injustice or to invade our rights, he would be the last man to stand in the way of the Government in making efficient preparations for the maintenance of the honour and character of England. He had intended to show that the Army Estimates now proposed so greatly exceeded the same Estimates ten years ago, as to require some explanation, and he should have moved a reduction, but for the circumstances that had that evening transpired. There was, however, one point to which he would call attention—viz., the great cost of the regiments of Life Guards and Foot Guards as compared with the regiments of the line. The total charge for the three regiments of Life Guards and the three regiments of Foot Guards could not be taken at less than 355,069l. Four regiments of the line, numbering 4,515 men, cost 132,553l. Another item of expense, including six regiments of the line, composed of 8,028 men, cost 232,986l.; making, altogether, a force of 12,543 men, supported at an expense of 355,848l. Now, the number of the Guards, 6,561, cost as much as did 12,543 men of the line. He believed that one regiment of Life Guards, of the strength of 400, would suffice for any State occasion. Now, taking the expenses of such a regiment, costing 44,000l., from the sum of 355,000l., which the Guards cost the country, a saving of 311,000l. would be the result—the amount left after the subtraction of the 44,000l. By reducing the Guards as he proposed, 5,000 more men might, in case of necessity, be added to the line, or they might in a proportionate degree reduce the cost of the whole military establishment. The distinction between the regiments of the line and the household troops produced, he believed, much heart-burning and invidious feeling in the Army. He thought that regiments who had served gallantly abroad should have in their turn, while stationed in London, the opportunity of escorting and guarding their Sovereign. The difference too in the pay of the two classes of regiments, he contended, was quite indefensible. If they were to have differences in pay at all, the higher rate should be bestowed upon regiments of the line, and not upon the household troops. What was the use of the Guards? They afforded no relief to the troops stationed in the Colonies. They took no turn of duty abroad, while it was well known that one of the principal reasons for our keeping up the immense standing army we did was in order to provide regular relief to the troops stationed in our Colonies; and what was still more objectionable than the inequality in pay, was the inequality of rank established betwixt officers of the Guards and officers of the line. Yet, although the former were nominally intended to supply military attendance to the Sovereign, Her Majesty, in her journeys, hardly ever had her escort formed of Horse Guards, some body of light cavalry being generally selected for the service, the heavy household cavalry only attending upon State occasions. When the Emperor of Russia was here, at the review in Windsor-park, when the household troops were pointed out to him, he observed that it was not them he cared so much for seeing as the troops of the line, who had served in every part of the world, and triumphed over every difficulty. He would only call the attention of the House to one other point, namely, the large amount expended in half-pay, and pensions. In the Army Estimates there was a vote for upwards of 5,000 officers receiving half-pay; upwards of 3,000 widows of officers were upon the pension list, and 2,410 other persons. He believed officers' children were similarly provided for. In all, 2,148,300l. was expended in pensions and half-pay for the Army, while the whole amount of half- pay proposed to be voted in connexion with the three services—the Army, the Navy, and the Ordnance—was 3,689,000l. This, he contended, was an amount which called for revision and reduction. The rules for permitting retirement upon half-pay should also, he thought, be made more stringent. In offering these observations to the House, he did not mean to press his proposition to a vote. He had already stated the reasons which actuated him in taking that course, and he would content himself with having drawn the attention of the House to the subject.

thought that his hon. Friend had acted quite rightly in abstaining from pressing on the proposition of which he had given notice. The military force of the country was now on a war establishment, and he trusted the Army was large enough to prevent the need for increase, in case of actual war. He objected to the system of favouritism, kept up by the footing upon which the Guards were placed. The expense, per man, of the Guards, was still, within a few pounds, what it was in 1821. More regiments were given to officers of the Guards, than to all the officers of the line. There ought to be no pet corps, no favourite men; every regiment of the line ought to take its tour of duty at the Palace, as was done in the military monarchy of Prussia. The conduct of Lord Ellenborough in India, in his mode of forming his body-guard of the most meritorious officers and men, had been highly creditable, and had given great satisfaction. The time was coming when the people of this country would call for a reduction in the expense of our military establishments, now between 7,000,000l. and 8,000,000l., including barracks; and, fortunately, the disposition manifested by the present Government to maintain peace, so highly to their credit, would (it might be hoped) soon enable them to reduce this heavy charge, which the country could not bear. After the battle of Waterloo, having a Prince Royal to the head of the army, there was a military mania, and we became a military people at the expense of our Navy. At the same time considering the circumstances in which they now stood, and after what had that night transpired, he would not be a party to any proposition for an immediate reduction of the Army. He was a man of peace; he had always advocated peace; but it was possible to carry love for peace to such an extent as to encourage other nations to trample upon us. He hoped most sincerely that no necessity for keeping up the Army might arise from events now pending; but come what might, our rights and interests must not be allowed to be disregarded, and to be trampled down. While they expressed themselves strongly against war—while they were fully conscious of all the injuries and evils which it must inevitably give rise to—while they expressed decidedly in favour of peace, they must remember that they had rights and interests which they could not and must not allow to be set at nought.

rose to move the Army Estimates. He could not commence the statement which it was his duty to make, without expressing the satisfaction with which he had witnessed the course adopted by the hon. Member for Coventry, and by the hon. Member who had succeeded him. However extreme on some occasions their views on economy might be, they had on this occasion shown, that those ideas did not interfere with those larger views and better feelings which it became hon. Members to adopt in such circumstances as the present. He should say a few words as to the particular subject adverted to by the hon. Member for Coventry, and then state, as shortly as he could, the changes of detail which would be found in the present, as compared with the last year's Estimates. He believed that the hon. Member, in the calculation which he had made as to the cost of the household troops compared with that of the troops of the line, had been misled by the great mass of detail which would be found in the Army Estimates. Because he found that if they compared the expenses of infantry of the line with these of the soldiers of the Guards—adding to the pay of the officers and men of the former the different allowances to which they were entitled—the contingent allowance, lodging money, &c.—if they were to take the household troops and adopt, with respect to them, the proposition which had been made by the hon. Gentleman the other night, and suppress two regiments of household cavalry, converting them into infantry of the line, the saving effected would only amount to about 62,000l. The reason was this, the pay of the officers of the Guards, though at first sight higher than that of those of the line, had not added to it the allowances made to officers of other regiments, although they were put into situations which exposed them to increased expense. He had a calculation upon the subject, made by a great authority, no other than the Duke of Wellington, which shewed clearly that in some of the higher grades of rank among the officers of the Guards, when all these circumstances were taken into consideration, the pecuniary advantage of—take the rank of a captain in the Guards for instance—was very little greater than it was in the case of a captain in the line. It should not be forgotten, too, that officers in the Guards were put to a greater expense than officers in the line, from the circumstance that the former had not the advantage of a mess. Troops of the line, too, when in London, used to receive the additional penny a day, which made the difference between their pay and that of privates in the household troops. Upon the whole then, taking into consideration these allowances, and the various circumstances to which he had adverted, he thought that the hon. Gentleman would see how trifling would be the saving which would be effected by means of his proposition, were it to be carried into effect. There were also other reductions, which, however, were of too minute a character for him to trouble the House by entering into them in detail. They arose from the transfer of the clothing department of the Army to the Ordnance, and the alterations with respect to the military prisons, made pursuant to the recommendation of a Committee. There was a trifling increase in the Estimate for good conduct money, the total number of men now in receipt of good conduct pay being between 7,000l. and 8,000l.; but that was an increase that no man can regret. The item for military prisons was 4,408l.; but as a portion of this sum was derived from other sources, there would on the whole be a saving in the item to the public. In the item for the staff there was a small increase, and in the unprovided service an additional sum was required of 55,000l. in order to equalise the allowance of troops serving in Hong-Kong and China with that of the troops in India. When the hon. Gentleman spoke of the increase which had been made to the staff, he should have borne in mind the various reductions that had also taken place in that department. A force of 7,000 pensioners had been lately enrolled, but independently of that there was a real annual decrease of from 30,000l. to 40,000l. in the dead weight alone. The number of officers in 1821 was 17,426; and in 1845 the total number of officers in the Army was but 1,101. In 1814, there were 591 general officers in the Army, and at present there were less than 300 general officers, showing a reduction of considerably more than one half. The saving on the dead weight since 1821 amounted from these causes to no less than 685,000l. He hoped these details were satisfactory to the House. If the hon. Gentleman would refer back to the years mentioned by the hon. Member for Montrose, he would find that they were now enabled to maintain, for the purposes of their Colonial empire, a much larger force with the same amount of means than the country supported in those years. With these remarks, he would beg leave to move—

"That a sum not exceeding 2,630,499l. (being part of a sum of 3,430,499l., of which 800,000l. has been granted on account), be granted to Her Majesty for defraying the charge of Her Majesty's Land Forces, for Service in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and on stations abroad, (excepting the regiments employed in the Territorial Possessions of the East India Company,) from the 1st day of April, 1845, to the 31st day of March, 1846, both days inclusive."

strongly hoped the Government would be very cautious in any reductions which they might attempt to make in the expenses of troops serving in China and Hong-Kong. They had already had instances of insubordination created by such attempts. In those stations the expenses were very considerable; and it could not be expected that one corps could serve with another, while that second corps received a double allowance of payment. Where there was an equality of danger, there ought to be an equality of remuneration. He hoped, therefore, that the Government would not listen for one moment to any proposition for reducing the allowances to which the troops serving in China were entitled, in a station where they were exposed to so much of expense, of danger, and of disease. He might also take that opportunity of observing that he objected to the number of troops serving in Ireland. He was glad to find that the Government were taking steps to do justice to that country, and he hoped, therefore, that the present military force maintained there would not be much longer required.

thought, as the hon. Member for Coventry had not pressed his Motion, the House had a right to complain of the address which they had heard from him. He could only have characterized that Motion, if it had been persevered in, as one of a revolutionary character; for, as the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary at War had well observed, it would, if adopted, be in effect a total disbanding and dissolution of the household troops. He would repeat, that the Motion was of a revolutionary tendency; but as it did not appear to have been brought forward seriously, he considered it was most unjust towards the household troops, and the corps to which he had the honour to belong, that the hon. Gentleman should have taken the opportunity of making a speech reflecting on the character of military men, and tending to destroy the self-esteem of these particular troops, by holding them up as useless. Whenever the hon. Gentleman brought forward a distinct Motion on the subject, he should be prepared with good grounds to show that the proposal to disband the household troops would have a revolutionary tendency.

believed the Motion of which he had given notice ought to take precedence of the Vote then before the House. The Motion was, "That he would, on Vote 2, in Committee on the Army Estimates, make inquiry as to the health of the troops in Hong-Kong and the West Indies; and as to the success of the encampment system." He should not have called the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to these subjects, were it not that he had seen a letter from Canton, dated in September last, in which it was stated that Hong-Kong was then in its worst state, and that the dead were buried in the most unceremonious manner. In some instances the troops were stationed in paddy ground, and he believed they were also harassed by unnecessary guards on parade. He had also to allude to Demerara, where out of two companies of soldiers no less than twenty men, including three sergeants, died in a few months. He would also wish to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the condition of the troops in the other West India Islands, and likewise to the system of encampment, which, he believed, required improvement. He would wish to ask whether the black regiments might not be increased, and the white soldiers in the West Indies be used only as a reserve force? Also, whether it might not be possible to organize a militia in those Colonies, and to improve the encampment system. The hon. and gallant Member concluded by observing that the Army deeply regretted having lost the aid of the late gallant Secretary at War, who had been called to a wider field of exertion; but from the specimen which they had had that evening of the ability of his successor, there could be no doubt but that the right hon. Gentleman would do his utmost to promote their interests.

said, there was no reason why they should have originally suspected that Hong Kong would prove as dangerous to the health of their troops as some parts of the island had proved to be. The mortality formerly averaged as much as 32 per cent.; but by the latest accounts it had materially decreased, and during the last three years it had been less than previously. The letters which had arrived by the last mail expressed the most confident hopes that the sickness had decreased there permanently. With respect to the West India Islands, he might observe that in Jamaica the precaution had been taken of placing the black troops, who were not affected by the climate, in the lower quarters, and removing the white troops to higher positions. In the other West India Islands the mortality had decreased between 1842 and 1844 to one half what it had been before 1838.

rose merely for the purpose of protesting against the allegation of the hon. and gallant Member opposite, that a Motion for the abolition of the household brigade was revolutionary. He should also beg to state that he totally dissented from the observations which had fallen from the hon. Member (Mr. Williams), to the effect that the troops of the line viewed the household regiments with any invidious feelings. He was confident that no such invidious feeling existed either among the officers or men. He did not consider that the household troops were maintained in order to keep down revolution; but it was of the highest importance to have so fine a body of men as the Guards always ready to be sent to any of their Colonies in which disturbances should take place. It appeared that this gallant fine corps had been reported to be in a state of bankruptcy. He wished the right hon. Gentleman would turn his attention to the fact of the Blues not being allowed to exchange.

said, that the hon. Gentleman having stated that the Guards had never been on Foreign Service, he begged leave to inform him that such was not the fact, for he had the honour of serving in Portugal with them during the Canning Administration. The hon. Member for Montrose had mis-stated the number of the men belonging to the Guards at 14,000 instead of 5,500. Thus, instead of diminishing the Army, his calculation had added upwards of 8,000 to the number. If, unfortunately, any contest should arise between the United States and this country, the Guards would be the first men sent out to occupy Oregon; and most probably the hon. and gallant Member for Middlesex would go with them, when the hon. Member for Montrose would have another opportunity of being defeated in that county.

said, that the hon. Member for Wycombe had alluded to a subject of considerable delicacy; and from almost an hereditary feeling for the regiment of Royal Horse Guards, he must express a strong and earnest hope that no miserable feeling of economy would induce Her Majesty's Government to take any steps tending to the degradation of that regiment in the eyes of the country.

said that, with regard to the finances of the Blues, it was true that, owing to the arrangement in 1832 and to other circumstances, the present clothing allowance was found to be quite insufficient. He believed that the clothing allowances of the two regiments of Life Guards was larger than was necessary, and the Blues was less than was required. He hoped that some arrangements might be made as to the clothing allowances of the three regiments of household cavalry, so as to get rid of the inconvenience alluded to.

rose to call the attention of the Committee to the subject of which he had given notice. He said, if this were a case of complexity or difficulty, he should certainly abstain from calling the attention of his right hon. Friend the Secretary at War to it at so early a period after his accession to the duties of an important office, which he (Sir Howard Douglas) was sure that right hon. Gentleman would discharge with the ability and efficiency of which he had given so much promise; nor did he bring this case forward without the knowledge and consent of his right hon. Friend; and when he (Sir Howard Douglas) said consent, he did not mean that thereby his right hon. Friend had pledged his adoption of these suggestions. He would now state briefly the case he had to submit to the consideration of the Committee. By Warrant of December, 1840, a limited establishment of retired full pay was created, to consist of 20 lieutenant-colonels on 17s. a day; 20 majors on 16s.; and 115 captains—of whom not more than 45 may be brevetmajors—on 11s. 7d. and 13s. 7d. respectively; these to be selected by the Commander in Chief, and the promotion of officers so placed on retired full pay not to proceed. This measure was extended to the artillery and engineers by Warrant dated April, 1841, in the following numbers. Lieutenant-colonels — Artillery 8, Engineers 2: Captains—Artillery 12, Engineers 10; First and Second Lieutenants—Artillery 8, Engineers 4. The only difference between the provisions of those measures is—and he begged his right hon. Friend and the Committee to note it—that whilst no further promotion is accorded to officers of the line so retiring, the promotion of the retired field officers of the artillery and engineers is permitted to proceed. This boon was stated by the Naval and Military Commission to have been granted to what is called the seniority corps—viz., the artillery, engineers, and marines, on account of the slowness of promotion. But he might observe, in passing to the main subject, that he did not see why the like boon should not be extended to field officers of the line retiring upon full pay, according to the provisions of this Warrant. The expense would be trifling, and the honorary boon gratifying. As stated in the Notice he had given, his object was to extend the advantages of a full pay retired establishment to a limited number of medical and regimental staff officers,—viz., surgeons, paymasters, and quartermasters. The serving pay of these officers is most liberal; a surgeon commences with 13s., which rises after 10 years' service to 15s.; after 20 to 19s.; after 25 to 1l. 2s. a day. The paymaster commences with. 12s. 6d., which after 5 years' service, increases to 15s.; after 15 years to 17s.; after 20 years to 1l.; and after 25 years to 1l. 2s. 6d. The quartermaster commences with 6s. 6d., which rises after 10 years to 8s. 6d.; and after 15 years' service to 10s. The differences of serving pay and half pay are such, that officers necessarily and naturally cling to their full pay situations as long as they possibly can, and frequently longer than is consistent with their health, comfort, and efficiency to discharge actively their several duties. He should first take up the case of medical officers. The average age at which these enter the service is 24½ years. The statement he held in his hand, of the services and age of medical officers fully corroborated what he had to advance—viz., that many medical officers were in a manner constrained to serve, who would, perhaps, have availed themselves of retiring on their full pay, to their own ease and comfort, and opening, to a certain extent, the current of promotion to others, had an establishment of retired full pay, such as he recommended, been created. Dr. Bone, Deputy Inspector, now serving at the head of the medical staff in the West Indies, has served very nearly fifty years. That excellent officer served for some years on a foreign station of which he (Sir Howard Douglas) recently had the command, and discharged his duties most efficiently, and is still an efficient officer; but perhaps he might have chosen to retire — at least, it is just to give to officers, after such services, the option of retiring upon full pay, instead of being constrained to encounter afresh the arduous difficulties, and the dangers of protracted service in unhealthy climates. Dr. Kidd, Deputy Inspector, who is still serving in the Ionian Islands, has been between forty-nine and fifty years in the service. He served under his (Sir H. Douglas's) command on a foreign station, and is an excellent medical officer, to whom, perhaps, at his age, retirement on full pay might be a great boon. Dr. Grant, Staff Surgeon, still in the Ionian Islands, has served forty years. That excellent officer was likewise in that command when he (Sir H. Douglas) held it, and discharged zealously and efficiently his duties. He mentioned this case to show the slowness of promotion in the medical department, but which would be advantageously accelerated by the establishment of a retired full-pay list. In proof of this, he would advert particularly to the case of Dr. French. That officer entered the service in 1810, and after having served upwards of thirty years, proceeded with his regiment—the 49th—to China, and was placed at the head of the medical department in that important war. His services were so distinguished, that he was specially and strongly recommended by Sir Hugh Gough for promotion. The recommendation was, he (Sir H. Douglas) believed, supported by the Inspector General, and the Commander in Chief; and Dr. French's merits and claims admitted by the late, as well as the present, right hon. Secretary at War; but still, for want of opportunity such as the establishment which he (Sir H. Douglas) urged, Dr. French remained unpromoted, and he feared disappointed and mortified, and is now a retired Staff Surgeon. In the naval service in China, several promotions of medical officers took place, as he (Sir H. Douglas) might appeal to his right hon. Friend the Principal Naval Lord of the Admiralty. He (Sir H. Douglas) had said that the serving pay is most liberal. This, in fact, would contribute pecuniary means towards the expense which the establishment of a retired full pay would cause. The officers retiring from the highest rate of pay to which they are entitled by length of service, would be succeeded by officers who commence their service at the minimum rate; the difference becoming available towards the retirement. Thus a paymaster, who retires on 1l. 2s. 6d. a day, is succeeded by an officer on 12s. 6d a day. If a half-pay captain be appointed to such a situation,—which often happens—he loses his half pay of 7s., so that the only extra expense would be 5s. 6d. He (Sir H. Douglas) would recommend that a retired full pay establishment be created for medical and regimental staff officers. He would not specify the number; but leave that to the consideration of his right hon. Friend and Her Majesty's Government; but would suggest that it should be enjoyed, subject to those limitations, by medical officers after thirty-five years' service, of which twenty years as surgeon; by paymasters after thirty-five years' service, of which twenty-five years as paymaster; by quartermasters after thirty-five years' service, of which twenty years as quartermaster. He (Sir H. Douglas) was happy to hear from what had been said by the hon. Member for Coventry, upon the Vote for half pay, that he never would object to any provision of this kind for officers who had really been worn out in the service, or who had, after long periods of service, occasion, and just claims, to be liberally provided for; and he was assured, too, that he should have the support of the hon. Member for Montrose in the recommendation which he (Sir H. Douglas) ventured to make of this class of officers. He would now leave the case in the hands of his right hon. Friend the Secretary at War and Her Majesty's Government. He hoped he had made a plain statement; and trusted the Committee would deem it a strong one. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would deal with it as liberally and speedily as may be consistent with other circumstances; and propitiate, as far as he could, his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, to the accomplishment of what he thought a fair and strong claim on the consideration of Government, and the liberality of Parliament.

said, that he highly approved of the gallant Officer's suggestion. The grant proposed was too small to be refused. He would recommend that veterinary surgeons should be included in the observations of the hon. and gallant Gentleman.

said, that he entirely concurred with the hon. and gallant Member; and that, in fact, he (Sir H. Douglas) had embraced that class of officers in his minute of this case; he had, however, he feared, omitted to state it, and thanked the hon. and gallant Member for what he had said.

rose to put a question to the right hon. the Secretary at War upon the subject of the Military Savings Banks—an institution which he was instrumental in introducing into the service, by what he said in the House on a former occasion, in Committee on Army Estimates, in 1842; and which soon after were established by his right hon. Friend, now Governor General of India, to whom the service and the country were so deeply indebted. He rejoiced to learn from the Parliamentary Papers lately circulated, the progress making by these institutions: there were now about two thousand soldiers contributors in Regimental Savings Banks. His right hon. Friend was aware that these institutions were not yet established in the Queen's Regiments serving in India; where, perhaps, the objects contemplated would be most successfully and largely promoted. For this, it required the authority of the Government of India and the Commander in Chief to carry out to that country the provisions of the Savings Banks Act and Warrant. This, he hoped, would be done, not only to the Queen's, but to the Company's troops. He felt convinced that these institutions would co-operate most powerfully with other measures which happily were taken to improve the moral character, and temperate and provident habits of the soldier.

replied that a Committee had been appointed for the purpose of procuring the necessary authority for carrying out the provisions of the Savings Bank Act and the Warrant directed to Her Majesty's troops in India. He begged also to inform the gallant Officer that he had a Bill in preparation authorizing the Commissioners of the National Debt to receive the deposits of Military Savings Banks (which already amounted to 15,000l.) in like manner as the deposits made by the other Savings Banks.

drew the attention of the House to the fact that Mr. Francis Moore, brother of the late Sir John Moore, had for many years voluntarily relinquished a pension of 800l. to the service of the public.

moved that a sum of 1,289,543l. be granted for the wages of Seamen and Marines.

wished to call the attention of the Committee to the situation of captains' clerks in the Navy. They were called upon to perform eminent and important services, and they received for those the most paltry pay. They had scarcely any hope of advancement, and having no rank in the Navy were subordinate to the smallest midshipmen or the lowest officer, although they messed with mates and midshipmen. The pay was now but 56l. per annum for the highest, and 52l. for the lowest; and he thought their situation deserved the attention of the Admiralty.

admitted that many of these clerks were in a hard position; but it was very difficult to apply a remedy. In the first place, as the gallant Officer was aware, it was a principle of the Naval Service to allow the captain of a ship to choose his own clerk. He was the captain's instrument, who was answerable for his conduct. The captain's clerk, in short, was not the servant of the Admiralty at all: he followed the fortunes of the captain, if he changed his ship; therefore the Admiralty had no direct control over those clerks. Clerks that had passed, the Admiralty had some hold upon: they were now borne on the list of the Navy; and there were several points on which he hoped that the Admiralty would be able to ameliorate their condition. If they were to say that none should enter the Navy as clerks but through the Admiralty, as the hon. and gallant Officer wished, he was not so sure that the result would be satisfactory in all respects. He believed no class was so much sought after in the Navy as this. Such extensive alterations as were suggested, could not be made on account of the number of applications.

admitted that it was extremely difficult to make any material arrangement on this subject; but he did not see any difficulty in the Admiralty appointing clerks after they had passed their examination, and then holding them responsible. He did not think the captain would have any objection to the Admiralty appointing clerks in this way, provided the clerk was held responsible.

thought that persons who were employed for a short time as clerks by captains, and then dismissed, had no claim to support afterwards at the expense of the public; but if they were placed upon the establishment, they then acquired a right to a provison for their subsistence.

said, what he wished was, that this class of persons should be made respectable, taken from the list, and rewarded with a modicum of 2s. 6d. a-day when the Admiralty could not give them ships.