inquired whether the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Home Department had received communications from Mr. Ernest Jones complaining of the visiting magistrates having prevented him from petitioning the House, and from asking the opinion of the Judges who tried him as to whether his sentence was fairly carried out? Also whether the right hon. Gentleman had received communications from Mr. Ernest Jones complaining that in consequence of his refusal to pick oakum he was confined for three days, when he was in a state of had health, in a cell six feet long by four broad, and fed during that time upon bread and water?

replied, that he had received several communications from Mr. Ernest Jones, but having had no notice of the hon. Gentleman's inquiry, he really could not remember the details of the letters in question. All the representations of Mr. Jones had been referred to the visiting magistrates.

gave notice that on Friday he would repeat his questions.

Subject at an end.

wished to put a question to the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary as to the occupation of the Roman States and of the Duchy of Tuscany by the Austrian forces. He wished to know whether the noble Lord could inform the House as to the terms of the occupation of Central Italy by the troops of Austria? Whether these acts were to be considered as those of an independent aggressing Power, or as those of the sovereigns of the States so occupied?

said, that he would first take the case of the Grand Duchy of Tuscany. The Austrian Government some time ago, through the Austrian Minister at this Court, submitted to Her Majesty's Government the opinion entertained by that of Austria, that in virtue of existing treaties the Government of Austria stood toward the Government of the Grand Duchy of Tuscany in a position giving the former a right to interfere in the affairs of the latter, which it did not hold as regarded the other nations of Europe. When the interference of Austria in Tuscany first took place, it was reported that the entrance of the Austrian troops into Tuscany was not only unsolicited by the Grand Duke, but that it had taken place against his wish. Subsequent information, however, had negatived that impression, and led to the conclusion that the entrance of the Austrian troops into Tuscany was in accordance with the views of the Grand Duke. As to the interference of Austria in the Papal States, he had only to repeat that the Papal Government had made application to four Catholic Powers for active military assistance, with a view to the re-establishment of the Pope at Rome. These Powers were Austria, France, Spain, and Naples. Therefore the entrance of the Austrian troops into the Roman territory was in compliance with the application made by the Pope to Austria.

Subject at an end.

begged to ask the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary—Whether any negotiations have taken place, or are now pending, relative to the claims of the Hudson's Bay Company to compensation arising out of any treaties between this country and the United States; the nature and amount of such claims; and whether any correspondence has passed either between Her Majesty's Government and the Hudson's Bay Company, or with the Government of the United States on this subject?

replied, that in the course of last year, the company had applied to Her Majesty's Government for countenance and assistance in certain negotiations which they wished to open with the United States for the cession of that portion of their property south of the new boundary line settled by the Ashburton Treaty. These negotiations were now proceeding, but as Her Majesty's Government did not carry them on, he was not aware of what their exact condition at present was.—Subject at an end.

presented certain papers relative to the American expedition despatched in search of Sir John Franklin.

wished to take the opportunity of saying a few words upon the conduct of the United States in sending out an expedition to search for that which sailed from the shores of England four years ago. He was sure that there was not one person in this House, or in this country, who did not entertain a deep sense of the noble conduct of the United States in reference to the matter in question. Four years ago, an expedition, manned by 138 as fine fellows as ever left Britain, had departed to explore the polar seas, and since that time no intelligence had been received of them. He would not be doing justice to the English Government, did he not state that in one year alone three expeditions were sent out in search of the missing vessels; and this year they had sent out another ship, the North Star , out upon the same quest. But this was not all. In one of the most eloquent letters which had ever been written by man or woman. Lady Franklin had entreated the President of the United States to send out an expedition in search of her husband and his crew. The reply of the President did equal honour to his head and heart, and, accordingly, the Government of which he was the organ had done that which no civilised government had ever done before—they had expended their own treasures, and risked the lives of their own people, in the attempt to rescue those hapless adventurers who had no national claims upon them. He might add that the Russian Government also had been pleased to direct two of their chiefs to proceed northwards along the eastern coast of Asia, to look after the missing vessels. Thus, three Powers, possessing the greatest extent of territory in the world, had been found willing to co-operate—not in schemes of conquest or aggrandisement, but in a philanthropic attempt to save the lives of gallant and devoted men—an effort, the existence of the spirit shown in which ought to go far to promote the cause which they were presently to hear advocated by the hon. Member for the West Riding.

said, that his hon. Friend had only expressed the feeling of the House, and not only of the House but of the country, in alluding, as he had done, to the generous conduct of the Governments of Russia and the United States, in sending forth vessels to search for those enterprising navigators, of whom no intelligence had now been received for so long a period. Such expeditions were amongst the most honourable which maritime countries could undertake, and brought upon their originators a degree of glory which could never be achieved by the mere triumph of conquest.

hoped that the expression of the acknowledgment of the House of Commons of the practical sympathy with our unfortunate countrymen shown by the United States, would go forth, and would prove that this country was fully alive to the generous conduct of the President of that great nation. His hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford had alluded, in just terms, to the letter of Lady Franklin—a letter every way worthy of a sacred cause, au heroic husband—and he might add, that the reply of the President was a composition truly worthy of a statesman. Such an incident as the one in question was, in his (Mr. Disraeli's) opinion, much more calculated to promote good feeling between nation and nation than the phantasies which were now in circulation, and the political and international crotchets which would soon occupy their attention.

Subject dropped.

after presenting several petitions, said: Sir, I do not remember rising to address the House on any occasion when I felt more desirous to be indulged with their attention; because, representing as I do a very numerous body out of this House, who take a deep interest in the question, I feel regret on their account, as well as for the cause I have in hand, that there should be so much misapprehension in the House in reference to the Motion I am about to make. What has just fallen from the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, is a proof of this misconception; for he would not have presumed to sneer at a Motion before it was made, unless he had conceived that there was something so unreasonable and preposterous about it that it ought to be condemned before it was heard. I have heard that hon. Gentleman indulge in a sneer before on many occasions; but they have been ex post facto sneers. I have never until now heard him sneer at a matter by anticipation. He has grounded that sneer on an observation drawn forth by a subject which was calculated above all others to move the milk of human kindness in our bosoms. How it was possible for an hon. Member, in reference to the answer returned by the American President to Lady Franklin's letter, to indulge in a sneer of that kind, I cannot understand; unless it be that the hon. Gentleman is incapable of anything but sneering. I accept those acts of the American and Russian Governments as proofs that we live in altered times. As the hon. Member for the University of Oxford has well observed, at no former period of the world's history has there been an instance of foreign Governments sending out, at a great expense, to seek for scientific adventurers unconnected with their own community. Accepting this as a proof that we live in different times from those that are past, I think there is nothing unreasonable in our seeking to take another step towards consolidating the peace of nations, and securing us against the recurrence of the greatest calamity that can afflict mankind. I stand here the humble representative of two distinct bodies, both of some importance in the community. In the first place, I represent on this occasion, and for this specific Motion alone, that influential body of Christians who repudiate war in any case, whether offensive or defensive. I also represent that numerous portion of the middle classes of this country, with the great bulk of the working classes, who have an abhorrence of war greater than at any former period of our history; and who desire that we should take some new precautions, and if possible, obtain some guarantees, against the recurrence of war in future. Those two classes have found in the Motion which I am about to submit a common ground—and I rejoice at it—on which they can unite without compromising their principles on one side or the other. It is not necessary that any one in this House or out of it who accedes to this Motion should be of opinion that we are not justified under any circumstances, in resorting to war, even in self-defence. It is only necessary that you should be agreed that war is a great calamity, which it is desirable we should avoid if possible. If you feel that the plan proposed is calculated to attain the object sought, you may vote for it without compromising yourselves on the extreme principle of defensive war. I assume that every one in this House would only sanction war, in case it was imperatively demanded on our part, in defence of our honour or our just interests. I take it that every one here would repudiate war, unless it were called for by such motives. I assume, moreover, that there is not a man in this House who would not repudiate war, if those objects—the just interests and honour of the country—could be preserved by any other means. My object is to see if we cannot devise some better method than war for attaining those ends; and my plan is simply and solely that we should resort to that mode of settling disputes in communities which individuals resort to in private life. I only want to carry out in another instance the principle which you recognise in other cases—that the intercourse between communities is nothing more than the intercourse of individuals in the aggregate. I want to know why there may not be an agreement between this country and France, or between this country and America, by which the nations should respectively bind themselves in case of any misunderstanding arising which could not be settled by mutual representation or diplomacy, to refer the dispute to the decision of arbitrators. By arbitrators I do not mean necessarily crowned heads or neutral States; though we have examples where disputes have been referred to crowned heads, and where their arbitrament has been eminently successful. There is a case where the United States and France referred a dispute to England—a case in which England and the United States referred a dispute to Russia—one in which the United States and Mexico referred a question to Prussia—and one in which the United States and England referred a case to the King of the Netherlands. These cases were all eminently successful. If one failed in its immediate object, there is no instance in which a war has followed from such a reference. But I do not confine myself to the plan of referring disputes to neutral Powers. I see the difficulty of two independent States like England and France doing so, as one might prefer a republic for the arbitrator, and the other a monarchy. I should prefer to see these disputes referred to individuals, whether designated commissioners or plenipotentiaries, or arbitrators, appointed from one country, to meet men appointed from another country—to inquire into the matter, and decide upon it; or, if they cannot do so, to have the power of calling in an umpire, as is done in all arbitrations. I propose that these individuals should have absolute power to dispose of the question submitted to them. I want to show that I am practical on this occasion; and therefore I will cite some cases in which this method of arranging difficulties has already been re- sorted to. In 1794 we had a treaty with America, for compensation for certain British claims on the American Government. Those claims were referred to four commissioners, two appointed on each side, with the proviso that they should elect unanimously an arbitrator: in case they could not agree in the choice of an arbitrator, it was provided that the representatives of each country should put the names of certain arbitrators into an urn, one to be drawn out by lot; and this arbitrator and the four commissioners decided by a majority all the cases brought before them. Again, in the treaty of 1814 with the United States, provision was made for settling most important matters precisely in the way I now propose. Provision was made for running the boundary between the United States and Canada, for some thousands of miles; also for defining the right to certain islands lying on the coast; and for running the boundary between Maine and New Brunswick. The plan was this: each country named a commissioner; the commissioners were to endeavour to agree on these disputed points; and the matters on which they could not agree were referred to some neutral State. All the matters referred to them—and most important they were—were arranged by mutual conference and mutual concessions, except the question of the Maine boundary, which was accordingly referred to the King of the Netherlands. Afterwards exception was taken to his decision by the United States; the matter remained open till the time of Lord Ashburton's mission; and it was finally settled by him. But in no case has any such reference ever been followed by war. In 1818 there was a convention with America, for settling the claims made by that country for captured negroes during the war. It was agreed to refer that matter to the Emperor of Russia; and he decided in favour of the principle of compensation. He was then appealed to by both the Governments to define a mode by which this compensation should be adjudged; and his plan was this. He said—

"Let each party name a commissioner and an arbitrator; let the commissioners meet, and if they can agree, well and good; if not, let the names of the arbitrators be put into an urn, and one drawn out by lot; and that arbitrator and the two commissioners shall decide the question by a majority."

This method was adopted, and compensation to the extent of 1,200,000 dollars was given, without any difficulty. Hence it ap- pears that what I propose is no novelty, no innovation; it has been practised, and practised with success; I only want you to carry the principle a little further, and resort to it in anticipation, as a mode of arranging all quarrels. For this reason, I propose an Address to the Crown, praying that Her Majesty will instruct her Foreign Secretary to propose to foreign Powers to enter into treaties, providing that, in case of any future misunderstanding, which cannot be settled by amicable negotiation, an arbitration such as I have described shall be resorted to. There is no difficulty in fixing the means of arbitration, and providing the details; for arbitration is so much used in private life, and is indeed made parts of many statutes and Acts of Parliament, that there is no difficulty whatever in carrying out the plan, provided you are agreed as to the policy of doing so. Now, I shall be met with this objection; I have heard it already; and I know there are Members of this House who propose to vote against the Motion on this ground. They say, "What is the use of a treaty of this sort between France and England, for instance; the parties would not observe the treaty; it would be a piece of waste paper; they would go to war as before, in spite of any treaty." It would be a sufficient answer to that objection to say, "What is the use of any treaty? What is the use of the Foreign Office? What is the use of your diplomacy?" You might shut up the one, and cashier the other. I maintain that a treaty binding two countries to refer their disputes to arbitration, is just as likely to be observed as any other treaty. Nay, I question very much whether it is not more likely to be observed; because I think there is no object which other countries will be less likely to seek than a war with a country so powerful as England. Therefore, if any provision were made by which you might honourably avoid a war, that provision would be as gladly sought by your opponents as by yourselves. But I deny that, as a rule, treaties are violated; as a rule they are fulfilled and observed. I do not find that wars generally arise out of the rupture of any specific treaty; they more commonly arise out of accidental collisions; and, as a rule, treaties are observed by powerful States against the weak, just as well as by weak States against the powerful. I, therefore, see no difficulty specially applying to a treaty of this kind, greater than exists with other treaties. There would be this advantage, at all events, in having a treaty binding another country to refer all disputes to arbitration. If that country did not fulfil its engagement, it would enter into war, with the brand of infamy stamped upon its banners. It could not proclaim to the world that it was engaged in a just and necessary war. On the contrary, all the world would point to that nation as violating a treaty, by going to war with a country with whom they had engaged to enter into arbitration. I anticipate another objection, which I have heard made. They say "you cannot entrust the great interests of England to individuals, or commissioners." That difficulty springs out of the assumption that the quarrels with foreign countries are about questions involving the whole existence of the empire. On the contrary, whenever these quarrels take place, it is generally upon the most minute and absurd pretexts—so absurd that it is almost impossible, on looking back for the last hundred years, to tell precisely what any war was about. I heard the other day of a boy going to see the model of the battle of Waterloo, and when he asked what the battle was about, neither the old soldier who had charge of the exhibition, nor any one in the room, could answer the question. I may quote the remark made the other night by the noble Lord at the head of the Government—that the last two wars were unnecessary—in which I quite agree with him. But, to return to the point whether or not commissioners might be entrusted with the grave matters which form the subjects of dispute between nations, I would draw the attention of the House to the fact that already you do virtually entrust these matters to individuals. Treaties of peace, made after war, are entrusted to individuals to negotiate and carry out. Take the case of Lord Castlereagh, representing the British Power at the Congress of Vienna. He had full power to bind this country to the Treaty of Vienna. When, on the 20th of March, 1815, Mr. Whit-bread brought on the subject of the treaty, with the view of censuring his conduct and that of the Government, Lord Castlereagh distinctly told the House—

"I did not wait for instructions at Vienna; I never allowed the machine of the Congress to stand still for want of my concurrence on important matters; I took upon myself the responsibility of acting; and if the interests and honour of England have been sacrificed, I stand here alone responsible."

I want to know whether as good men as Lord Castlereagh could not be found to settle these matters before, as well as after, a twenty years' war? Why not depute to a plenipotentiary the same powers before a conflict as you give him after? For these matters can only be settled by empowering individuals to act for you; and let the Government instruct them as they will, a discretionary power, after all, must be left, when they are to bind the country in respect to the others. Take the case of Lord Ashburton settling the Maine boundary question in America. He had the power to bind this country to anything he set his hand to. No doubt he had his instructions from the Government, but he presents his credentials to the American Government, and is received by them as authorised to bind this country to any thing he agrees to do. All I want is, that this should be done before, and not after, engaging in a war—done to avert the war, rather than to mate up the difference after the parties are exhausted by the conflict. Probably I shall be told that there are signs of a pacific tendency on the part of the Government and the country; it will be said that we are carrying out a pacific policy, and that there is no necessity for passing any resolutions to impose on the Government the obligation of giving us this guarantee. But I do not sec that this is in process of being done. I do not see any proof, in the last five or six years, that the Government has been increasing in its confidence of peace being preserved, or gaining security for its preservation. In the last ten years we have increased our armed forces by 60,000; in the Army, Navy, and Ordnance, the expenditure has been augmented 60 to 70 per cent. From 1836, down to last year, there is no proof of the Government having any confidence in the duration of peace, or possessing increased security against war. I think the inference is quite the contrary. On the Committee on which I have been sitting, I have seen an amount of preparation for war which has astounded mo; and I dare say other hon. Gentlemen would share my alarm at the state of things. But I confess, when I have looked into what we were doing in the way of provision of warlike stores, means of aggression, and preparations for defence against some foreign enemy, I have been astonished at the wasteful expenditure that is going on. What will hon. Gentlemen think when they know that we have 170,000 barrels of gunpowder in store? Besides that we have 65,000,000 of ball cartridges made up ready for use. ["Hear, hear!"] and a laugh from the Protectionist benches .] The public will not laugh when they read what I say. They will not join the hon. Members for counties opposite in laughing at this statement. We have 50,000 pieces of cannon in store, besides those afloat, and in arsenals, and garrisons, and batteries. There are 5,000,000 of cannon balls and shells in the stores, and 1,200,000 sand bags, ready for use whenever they are needed. There is a provision equal to three or four years' consumption of these articles in the height of the French war. You have, in barrelled gunpowder alone, a supply equal to nearly three years' consumption of that article in the height of the French war, and equal to fifteen years' consumption at the present rate—to say nothing of the 65,000,000 of ball cartridges. Does this look as if the Government thought we had made any great way in the preservation of peace? Is it the part of a country assured of peace to make all this provision against war? You have spent, in the last five or six years, on an average, twice as much in fortifications, in steam basins, in docks, in barracks, in means of aggressive and defensive warfare, as at any period since the peace; and my hon. Friend the Member for Montrose, who has looked much longer and deeper into those subjects than I have, believes it is more than was spent in the same time for those objects during the war. Since 1836, you have doubled the expenditure of the Ordnance department. It is in that department that the great increase takes place; because, in the progress of mechanical invention and the improvements made in the science of projectiles, it is found that the artillery and engineer corps are the arms of the service on which the fate of battles mainly depends. So, again, in the case of steam basins. A great discovery came to the aid of civilisation—the discovery of Fulton—which he and others probably hoped would be made contributory to the unalloyed improvement and happiness of mankind. What has been the effect in our case? We commenced the construction of a steam navy. I do not say whether it was necessary or not; but I want you to try and make it in some degree unnecessary in future. The Government continued to increase the steam navy until we had as much money spent in steam vessels of war as we had invested in our merchant steamers. I made this statement last year: I repeat it advisedly, as capable of the strict- est proof. It was then received with incredulity and surprise by the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer: some facts which I showed him afterwards rather staggered him; and I am now prepared to prove that when I stated the fact last year, it was strictly true that we had invested in steam vessels of war a larger amount than the whole cost of our mercantile steam marine; and you had far more expended in steam basins and docks for repair of those vessels than was invested in the private docks and yards for building and repairing private steamers. What are we to deduce from these facts? That instead of making the progress of civilisation contribute to the welfare of mankind—instead of making the arts of civilisation available for increasing the enjoyments of peace—you are constantly bringing these improvements in science to bear upon the deadly contrivances of war, and thus making the arts of peace and science itself contributory to the barbarism of the age. But will anybody presume to answer me by the declaration that we want no further guarantee for the preservation of peace? Will any one tell me that I am not strictly justified and warranted in trying, at all events, to bring to bear the opinion of this House, of the country, and of the civilised world, upon some better mode of preserving peace than that which imposes upon us almost all the burdens which war formerly used to entail? We are now spending every year on our armaments more than we spent annually in the seven years' war in the middle of the last century. Therefore, far from being deterred by sneers, I join most heartily and contentedly with those worthy men out of the House, who are inspired by higher motives than I can hope to bring to bear on this occasion, and which I could not probably so rightly urge as I do those which come within your province; but I join most heartily in sharing the odium, the ridicule, the calumny, and the derision which some are attempting to cast upon those advocates of peace, and of reduced armaments. But I want to know where this system is to end. I have sat on the Army, Navy, and Ordnance Committees, and I see no limit to the increase of our armaments under the existing system. Unless you can adopt some such plan as I propose—unless you can approach foreign countries in a conciliatory spirit, and offer to them some kind of assurance that you do not wish to attack them, and receive the as- surance that you are not going to be assailed by them—I see no necessary or logical end to the increase of our establishments; for the progress of scientific knowledge will lead to a constant increase of expenditure. There is no limit but the limit of taxation; and that, I believe, you have nearly reached. I shall, probably, be told, that my plan would not suit all cases. I think it would suit all cases a great deal better than the plan which is now resorted to. At all events, arbitration is more rational, just, and humane, than the resort to the sword. In the one case you make men what they are never allowed to be in private life—the judge in their own case: you make them judge, jury, and executioner. In the other case, you refer the dispute to impartial individuals, selected for their intelligence and general capabilities. In any case, and under any circumstances, I do not see why my plan should not have the advantage over that now adopted. If I am opposed by supposititious cases, and told that my plan would not apply to such, I take my stand upon past experience, and will show you numerous instances where it would have applied. Nay, I am prepared to show that all the unavoidable quarrels we have had during the last twenty years—I mean those which could not have been avoided by any conduct on the part of our Government—all these might have been more fitly settled by arbitration than in any other way; and I will appeal to the right hon. Gentlemen on both sides of this House, who have filled the highest offices of Government, when such disputes have arisen, whether they would not have felt relieved from harassing responsibilities had they had this principle of arbitration to rely on in these cases? Take the case of 1837, when a dispute arose with Russia about the confiscation of a ship in the Black Sea called the Vixen . The noble Lord the Member for Tiverton was then Foreign Secretary. He knows very well that that vessel was sent to the Black Sea by a certain party, with a particular object; the affair was entirely got up. I was in Constantinople at the time, and knew the whole history of it. That vessel was freighted and sent to the coast of Circassia, for the very purpose of embroiling us with Russia; and immediately she was seized, there was a party in this country ready to raise an excitement against the noble Lord for submitting to the arrogant spoliation of the Russian Government. Had we then had an arbitration treaty with Russia, would not that have been the best possible resource for the noble Lord in that case, and have enabled him to escape the party attacks made upon him in this country? That question, which, after all, did not involve an amount of property exceeding 2,000 l . or 3,000 l ., might have been settled by a petty jury of twelve honest tradesmen quite as well as by the noble Lord in the Foreign Office. Will any one for a moment tell me that the disputes about the boundary between Maine and New Brunswick, and between our territory and that of Oregon, might not have been settled by arbitration? I prefer the appointment of commissioners to that of crowned heads; because I would have men who are most competent to judge of the subject in dispute. For instance, this was a geographical question: why should not the two ablest geographers of this country have met those of the United States, assuming them otherwise qualified by moral character and general attainments, and have been authorised to call in an umpire, if necessary? Supposing the case to have been left to the decision of such an umpire as Baron Humboldt, for example, would he not have decided far more correctly than any war would be likely to do? I know that the Oregon question caused the liveliest apprehensions to those negotiators who were engaged on both sides in this dispute in 1846. I am aware that Mr. M'Lane, the American Minister, felt the greatest solicitude, and manifested the deepest anxiety on the arrival of every packet; and I know how anxious he was that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Tarn-worth should remain in office till the question was settled. I know what he felt, and what every Minister in a similar position must feel on such occasions. The great difficulty was lest party spirit and popular excitement should arise on either side of the water to hinder and perplex the efforts of those who were interested in its settlement. It is to remove that difficulty in future—to prevent the interposition of bad passions and popular prejudices in these disputes—that I desire to have provision made beforehand for the settlement of any quarrel that may arise by arbitration. There was another case in 1841, the danger from which was, in my mind, the most imminent of all—I mean the case of Mr. M'Leod, who had been taken and imprisoned by the State of Now York, and tried for his life, for having, as he himself avowed, taken part in the burning of the Caroline , in which an American citizen lost his life. Our Government claimed to have this question decided between the general Government of the United States and themselves. But the Government of the United States said that they had not the power to remove the case out of the New York court, and that they could not prevent the State of New York proceeding in the matter. We all know the excitement which took place on that occasion. There was great irritation in America, and great excitement in this country. Now, if M'Leod had been executed, what would the consequence have been in this country? Why, the old cry of our honour being involved would have been raised. [An Hon. MEMBER: Certainly.] An hon. Gentleman says "certainly." But what means would you take to vindicate your honour? You would go to war, and for the one life that had been taken away, you would sacrifice the lives of thousands, nay, perhaps tens of thousands. But would all this sacrifice of human life restore the life of the man on whose account you were fighting? Would it not be much wiser, if, instead of resorting to war, which is nothing but wholesale murder, if war can be avoided—you had recourse to arbitration, by which, indeed, you could as little restore the individual to life as by the employment of all your military forces, but by which you might obtain a provision for his widow and family, and which, be it remarked, is no part of the object of those who engage in battle. Now there is another case upon which I call the right hon. Gentleman opposite the Member for Tamworth as a witness into court—the case of Mr. Pritchard, a missionary, and the consul of this country at Tahiti, who had been put under arrest by the French admiral. When this news first arrived in this country from a distance of 12,000 or 14,000 miles, the press both here and in France sounded the tocsin, and national prejudices and hatreds were invoked on both sides. The French Minister, M. Guizot, was told that he was going to succumb to the dictation of England; and in this country it was said that the honour of England was sacrificed to the insolence of France. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Tam-worth, then at the head of affairs, rose in his place in this House, and declared that the insult offered was one of the grossest outrages ever committed, and was inflicted in the grossest manner. That added to the difficulty of dealing with the question in the proper manner. M. Guizot and Lord Aberdeen both complained of the conduct of the press of both countries, which exasperated the national animosity on that occasion, and rendered it more difficult to settle the question amicably. I now ask the right hon. Gentleman, if he would not have felt consoled and happy in 1844, if a treaty of arbitration had existed between this country and Prance, by which this miserable and trumpery question might have been at once withdrawn from the arena of national controversy, and placed under the adjudication of a commission set apart for that purpose? I may be told that none of these instances had led to or terminated in war. That is true. But they led to an enormous amount of expenditure in preparation for war, and, what is still worse, to lasting hate between nations. I have no hesitation in saying that these disputes have cost this country 30,000,000 l . sterling. They not only led to expenditure in preparation for war at the time, but they occasioned a permanent increase in your establishments, as I have shown you on a former occasion, and you are now paying every year for the increase of establishments which was then made. Now, I would ask, in the face of this House, where is the argument you can use against the reasonable proposition which I now put forward? I may be told, that even if you make treaties of this kind, you cannot enforce the award. I admit it. I am no party to the plan which some advocate—no doubt with the best intentions—of having a congress of nations with a code of laws—a supreme court of appeal, with an army to support its decisions. I am no party to any such plan. I believe it might lead to more armed interference than takes place at present. The hon. Gentleman opposite, the Member for Stafford, who is to move an Amendment to my Motion, has evidently mistaken my object. The hon. Gentleman is exceedingly attentive in tacking on Amendments to other persons' Motions. My justification for alluding to him on the present occasion is, that he has founded his Amendment on a misapprehension of what my Motion is. He has evidently conceived the idea that I have a grand project for putting the whole world under some court of justice. I have no such plan in view at all; and, therefore, neither the hon. Gentleman nor any other person will answer my arguments, if he has prepared a speech assuming that I eon-template any thing of the kind. I have no plan for compelling the fulfilment of treaties of arbitration. I have no idea of enforcing treaties in any other way than that now resorted to. I do not myself advocate an appeal to arms. But that which follows the violation of a treaty under the present system, may follow the violation of a treaty of arbitration if adopted. What I say, however, is, if you make a treaty with another country, binding it to refer any dispute to arbitration, and if that country violates that treaty when the dispute arises, then you will place it in a worse position before the world—you will place it in so infamous a position that I doubt if any country would enter into war on such bad grounds as that country must occupy. I may be told that this is not the time to bring forward such a Motion. I never knew a good Motion brought forward in a bad season. But it may be said that the time is badly chosen because there are wars on the Continent now. I quite disagree in that. Is there anything in those wars so inviting that we should hesitate before we took precautions against their recurrence? I should have thought, on the contrary, that what is taking place on the Continent is the very reason why we should take every precaution now. There were none of these wars, with the exception of that between Schleswig and Denmark, to which international treaties would apply; because they are all either civil Wars or wars of insurrection and rebellion. This war between Schleswig and Denmark was an instance of the very insignificant means by which you could produce wide-spread mischief in this commercial age. Is there a case where the principle of arbitration in the persons of first-rate historians or jurists could be adopted with more advantage than in the case of Schleswig and Denmark? It is difficult to see how the dispute is ever to be settled by going to war, for one party being stronger by land, and the other by sea, there may be no end of the conflict. But see what mischief this dispute has occasioned to others. The blockade of the Elbe, the great artery of the north of Europe, has shut out their supplies, not from Schleswig, but from Germany. It has interrupted the commerce of not merely a small Danish province, but the whole world. The people of Schleswig, who have comparatively no manufactures, are not punished, but your fellow-citizens in Manches- ter, your miners in Northumberland, and the winegrowers of the Gironde, are punished. Mischief is done all over the world by this petty quarrel, which could he more properly settled by arbitration than by any other means. Let not people turn this matter into ridicule by saying that I want to make arbitration treaties with everybody—even Bornean pirates. Hon. Gentlemen may create a laugh by coupling together a Bornean pirate and a member of the Society of Friends. But I do not want to make treaties with Bornean pirates, or the inhabitants of Timbuctoo. I shall he quite satisfied as a beginning if I see the noble Lord, or any one filling his place, trying to negotiate an arbitration treaty with the United States or with France. But I confess I should like to bind ourselves to the same principle with the weakest and smallest States. I should be as willing to see it done with Tuscany, Belgium, or Holland, as with France or America, because I am anxious to prove to the world that we are prepared to submit our misunderstandings in all cases to a purer and more just arbitrament than that of brute force. Whilst I do not agree with those who are in favour of a congress of nations, I do think that if the larger and more civilised Powers were to enter into treaties of this kind, their decisions would become precedents, and you would in this way, in the course of time, establish a kind of common law amongst nations, which would save the time and trouble of arbitration in each individual case. I do not anticipate any sudden or great change in the character of mankind, nor do I expect a complete extinction of those passions which form part of our nature. But I do not think there is anything very irrational in expecting that nations may see that the present system of settling disputes is barbarous, demoralising, and unjust—that it is against the best interests of society—and that it ought to give place to a mode more consonant with the dictates of reason and humanity. I do not see anything in the present state of European society to prevent us from discussing this matter, and hoping that it may he brought to a satisfactory conclusion. I have abstained from dwelling on those topics which may excite the feelings of hon. Gentlemen opposite. I have not entered into the horrors of war, or the manifold evils to which it gives rise. I will on the present occasion content myself with the description of it by Jeremy Bentham, who calls it "mischief on the largest scale." I will leave these topics and that mode of handling the question to others who may discuss the matter, either here or elsewhere. I have stated clearly, explicitly, and in a matter-of-fact manner what my object is, in order that it may not be misunderstood. I have shown examples in which this plan has been adopted. All I want is that we should enter into mutual engagements with other countries, binding ourselves and them, in all future cases of dispute, which cannot be otherwise arranged, to refer the matter to arbitration. No possible harm can arise from the failure of my plan. The worst that can be said of it is, that it will not effect its object—that of averting war. We shall then remain in that unsatisfactory state in which we now find ourselves. I put it to any person having a desire to avert war, whether, when he sees that the adoption of this plan can do no harm, it is not just and wise to try whether it may not effect good? As it is likely to have that effect, in the opinion of nearly 200,000 petitioners to this House—as that is the opinion declared by 150 public meetings in this country—as it is the opinion expressed by members of several town-councils who calmly discussed this matter in their large boroughs—as it is the opinion of so many of your reflecting and intelligent fellow-citizens—will you refuse to them, under the circumstances I have stated, this the only mode that has been propounded of affording a guarantee against war, which we all equally deprecate?

Motion made, and Question proposed—

"That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that She will be graciously pleased to direct Her principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to enter into communication with Foreign Powers, inviting them to concur in Treaties, binding the respective parties, in the event of any future misunderstanding, which cannot be arranged by amicable negotiation, to refer the matter in dispute to the decision of Arbitrators."

observed, that the American President, a military officer himself, had declared that he considered it perfectly consistent with the dignity and honour of nations, to have international disputes as far as possible settled by arbitration instead of war. This was a happy indication of the progress of the principles of the friends of peace in high quarters; and as the great mass of the religious feeling of the country was in favour of the Motion of his hon. Friend, he trusted the House would readily adopt it. He would not trouble the House further, but only say that he most cordially seconded the Motion.

said, that whatever might be the opinion of that House as to the merits of this proposal of the hon. Member for the West Riding, there could be but one opinion, he thought, as to the fact that he was most gloriously infelicitous in the moment he had selected for bringing this question forward. He remembered that on the 18th of February last year the hon. Member stated in that House that it was impossible that another French revolution could take place—and that he asked on the same occasion what possible motive France could have in another revolution such as that of 1793? But six days after the hon. Member made that remark in the House of Commons, the French revolution of 1848 broke out. And he would ask the House, therefore, whether the hon. Member could possibly have chosen a more inappropriate moment than he had done for introducing a proposition of this nature? In general, too, the hon. Member was himself the originator of those questions which he brought forward in Parliament; but in the present case he had been preceded by others. Those gentlemen who went the other day to Paris—Mr. Joseph Crisp and Mr. Lloyd and others—had stated to the President of the French Republic precisely the same arguments, from the Peace Society; and Mr. Lloyd on that occasion stated—to be sure, it was after he had been feasted at Boulogne—that there was so much good feeling manifested by the French party that he was almost persuaded that England and France were united by land. Now, the hon. Member disowned the Peace Society; but he (Mr. Cochrane) held in his hand the account of a meeting of that society—held, he believed, yesterday, in this metropolis, and at which the hon. Member for Manchester was present, and from that account it appeared that the Peace Society supported the views of the hon. Member who had brought forward this question, and that the hon. Member fully agreed in the principles of that society. They must, therefore, treat this question as that of the Peace Society, and they must, though the hon. Member would seem to disown his friends on that occasion, see what the objects of that society were. He found that the secretary of the Peace Society—who he was he did not know, though he was aware that its chairman was the hon. Member for Ashton, who had, as an emblem of the society to which he belonged, a little battery of guns before his house in the country—he found, however, that the secretary of the society said, at the meeting in question, that—

"Three weeks ago, Mr. Elihu Burritt and himself were in Paris, and had had a long interview with the illustrious poet-statesman, M. de Lamar-tine—that he gave his full and cordial adhesion to the movement, and promised his assistance, first, as a Member of the Committee, to make arrangements for the forthcoming Congress in Paris, in August, and, secondly, as a member of the Congress itself."

The secretary further remarked that the

"Peace Society would thus have an opportunity of compensating M. de Lamartine for the ingratitude of his fellow-countrymen, by making him the President of the World's Congress."

But this Peace Society had put forth many papers at various times, and it appeared from those papers that the system of arbitration had been long practised. Iceland and Norway had preserved peace for the last 600 years by means of arbitration. They alleged, too, that the Helvetic Union had preserved peace among its different members by the same means for many centuries past; but he (Mr. Cochrane) had always understood that the history of Switzerland from the formation of the Confederation had been the history of war. Who had not heard of the civil wars which arose between the different cantons in the 15th century, and of the wars at the period of the Reformation between the Protestant and Catholic cantons, when the inhabitants of seven cantons adopted the opinions of Calvin, and were opposed by the people of Soleure, Fribourg, and others? Nor would they forget the war of the peasantry which broke out in the 17th century, and, again, the renewal of the religious wars in the 18th. It was the internal discord prevailing in Switzerland which rendered that country so easy a prey to the Frence Republic; and no sooner was the treaty of Luneville signed, whereby the French troops evacuated Switzerland, than the old quarrels broke out again; the Pays de Vaud formed itself into a single republic, Zurich, Basle, and Schaffhausen renewed their allegiance, and Napoleon proposed himself as arbitrator; and if they turned to later times, had there not existed the same misunderstanding? What a moment, then, to bring forward a question of this nature. Why, they had a Foreign Secretary who was arbitrating everywhere. He was mediating in Denmark, in Sardinia, in Sicily, at Rome, and it seemed that he would accept almost anything for the sake of peace, for, for the sake of peace, the greatest principles had been sacrificed of late. He would say, uphold the policy of Mr. Pitt, who always laid down the principle that there were occasions, even where our interests were not at the moment directly involved, when it was necessary to assert certain rights, even though they led to war. The President of the French Republic said, the other day, in a most able public document—

"It is the destiny of France to shake the world whenever she moves, and to calm it when she becomes quiet. Europe lays its repose or its agitation at our door. This responsibility imposes important duties upon us; it dominates over our situation."

This, therefore, was a most inopportune moment to bring forward this question, because it might be necessary to make an assertion of principles opposed to that system that led to anarchy in Europe. There was only one party that really sympathised with the hon. Member who had brought forward this Motion, and that was the Montagne party in France, who said that they would put the great barrier of democracy between civilisation and barbarism, and professed themselves in all their maxims in favour of universal peace. Between the Montagne there and the Montagne here, there was, he thought, a great similitude, for, whatever they said about peace, they seemed to act on the same policy, for they brought anything forward for the sake of agitation. He considered the proposals of the hon. Member as ill-timed, objectionable and ridiculous.

did not think the last speaker had grappled with the able arguments of the hon. Mover of this Motion. He (Lord R. Grosvenor) certainly was not ambitious of martyrdom, but he was perfectly willing to take his share with the hon. Member for the West Riding in any ridicule that might attach to those who were in favour of this Motion. The only exception, perhaps, that he might take to the speech of the hon. Member was, that he had brought forward the question in too warlike a manner. In the greater part of what had fallen from him, he (Lord R. Grosvenor) concurred; but there was one part in which he did not do so. The hon. Member had stated his horror at the immense military preparations made by this country, and narrated with a great deal of unction the quantities of shells and cartridges that were manufactured. He did not consider that that preparation was more than was necessary. Going through Belgium not very long ago, he visited Tour-nay, and on the gates of that town he observed the inscription— Si pacem velis para bellum . With that he agreed. The best preservation for peace was to be prepared for war, and until the world changed, it was absolutely necessary for this country to make such preparations. He was a member of the society for discouraging duelling, and the question had been brought forward in that House. It was met in the first instance much like the way in which the Motion of the hon. Gentleman the Member for the West Riding was now met; there were a good many smiles and nods, but the result was that in the following year a great alteration took place. The question was brought forward by Lord Hardinge, and the consequence was, that a system of arbitration fixed upon by him for the officers of the Army and Navy had since been acted upon. When any person wished to reform the world and make it better, people said to him, "you are no better yourself." That was the difficulty which discouraged persons from advocating opinions of this nature. The more the subject was discussed in that assembly, the more likely they were to influence public opinion, both there and elsewhere, and to fix upon some measure by which this dreadful scourge might be avoided. He did not think that the hon. Gentleman the Member for the West Riding of Yorkshire had proposed anything that was at all impracticable. He had quoted various cases in which arbitration was successful, and he was quite right in saying that in no one case in which arbitration had been resorted to had war followed. The very fact of the British Government authorising its foreign Minister to negotiate on such questions, would turn the attention of foreign Governments to the subject. If Great Britain gave a general expression to its feeling, it would be said they were sincere. Let the representatives of the people of this country state their desire for peace, and he firmly believed that the sentiment once prevailing, they would be able to effect what they all desired, namely, very great retrenchment in their public expenditure.

said: Sir, I cannot but express my sentiments on this Motion, in which, in my opinion, the hon. Gentleman who made it, has acted in a manner to deserve the thanks of this House, of the country, and of Europe. The last speaker, the hon. Member for Middlesex, has alluded to the practice of duelling, and said truly, that in consequence of the disapprobation expressed by public opinion of the practice of duelling, a system of arbitration had been suggested some years ago, which although, of course, it ended in nothing, yet duelling was thereby discountenanced and thereby lessened; and I do not see why the hon. Mover's Motion should not have a similar effect. Although neither wars nor duelling can be entirely suppressed, yet, they may, by being discountenanced, be much lessened. It is a singular fact, that from the creation of the world wars have been prevalent among mankind. In the early ages these wars appear to have arisen from want of subsistence. One savage tribe occupying, say, 100 square miles, could barely (in a savage state without cultivation of the soil, existing merely on the scanty produce of the chace, or by fishing) find subsistence for themselves, much less for another tribe; hence arose a war of extermination between them: both could not exist, and, like two men on a plank in the ocean, which could only bear the weight of one, a contest would arise. The same remark holds as to the pastoral tribes and wandering hordes who migrated from place to place for fresh pasture ground: if two starving tribes met, both could not exist, and thence arose a war; not certainly justifiable, but excusable in some measure from their peculiar situation. In the middle ages we find wars mainly carried on by the ambition of the rulers, who, desirous to overrun other countries, were unmindful of the miseries they caused, both on their own subjects and on those they attempted to conquer. I will not refer to the early wars of bigotry, or superstition, by which so many human beings have been sacrificed. After the best consideration I can give the subject, I cannot but think, that in future, wars will not be so prevalent as they have hitherto been, for the following reasons, which I will state as briefly as possible to the House. The use of fire arms arising from the invention of gunpowder, has caused a complete change in the system of warfare. In days before the use of fire arms, the more numerous, hardy, and ferocious, a nation was, the greater was its chance of conquest: since the use of fire arms, the nation that has most wealth, and consequently, that is most civilised, has, ceteris paribus , greatly the advantage; for wealth procures those artificial means by which wars can be carried on with the best chance of success. Now, these nations— I mean civilised and wealthy nations—are at present in most cases ruled by a representative assembly, who have the influence over the finances of the State; and representative assemblies will not usually engage in a war, unless for the security of the nation, or for some great political advantage, because, in the present day, the system of warfare is so expensive, that most nations who go to war expend considerably more, and incur more expense, than the benefit they can obtain. It is a curious fact, that for the last three hundred years, France has been almost constantly engaged in hostilities: the mass of human life sacrificed, and of treasure thrown away, or uselessly expended in these continued hostilities, surpasses what can be imagined; and yet what has been gained by France for all this immense sacrifice of blood and treasure? The limits of her territory remain nearly the same, and no benefit whatever has been the result. The same observation, with little variation, may be made in reference to the contests in which England has been engaged in Europe: no territorial possessions on the continent of Europe have been gained. One cannot contemplate without regret the absurd expedition of Henry VIII. against Boulogne, or the various predatory excursions of former days, made by the English on the European Continent, which without any beneficial result whatever caused an immense loss of human life and of treasure. Let us hope such expeditions are at rest for ever. Now, in reference to the hon. Mover's Motion, I really cannot see that there is any objection to its adoption: it may do some good, and cannot, in my opinion, do much harm. One point in the Motion, or rather one difficulty, that suggests itself to me, is as follows. The hon. Gentleman, in his Motion, assimilates the arbitration between nations, to the arbitration between individuals who may have some cause of complaint against each other; but there appears to me a remarkable difference between the two cases. If A. and B., two individuals, have cause of complaint, arbitrators as an umpire are named, a rule of court is obtained, and the law will compel both A. and B. to obey the result or the award; but if an arbitration were given between two nations in Europe, and either refused to obey the award of the umpire, there would be no alternative but to go to war to compel such nation to pay obedience to the authority of the party named as umpire. I cannot, I confess, see how this difficulty can be obviated. I think, however, the hon. Gentleman's Motion will do good: it will show by its being mooted in this assembly—one that has probably more influence over public opinion in Europe and the world than any other assembly whatever—that a strong party exists in this country to promote peace and good will amongst the great family of mankind. For these reasons, I will cordially support the hon. Gentleman's Motion.

said, he had instructions which he could not disobey, to endeavour to support the Motion of the hon. Member for the West Riding; and he should do little more than state the willingness with which he obeyed. He felt assured that nations, like individuals, would make improvements with respect to the application of rude force. An admirable parallel had been brought forward by the noble Lord who had lately spoken. Everybody knew, that in the present day, "gentlemen didn't fight," or if they did, it was only in accordance with the articles of the Church of England, at the commandment of the Magistrate. The argument on the inopportuneness of the time, might have some weight, if it was expected to produce the result this week or next. But the great thing everywhere was to begin; and he felt the confidence, that here was the beginning, and here was the beginner, of a great European and world-wide reformation.

who had given notice of the following Amendment—

"That to settle differences by any extra-national judicatory, would, if practicable, be the subversion of the independence of each State, and the extinction of the law of nations"—

said, that although the speech of the hon. Member for the West Riding had somewhat pared down the breadth of the original proposal, the present Motion would have his most determined opposition. The greatest argument of the supporters of the Motion seemed to be, that if it would do no good, it could do no harm. He (Mr. Urquhart) believed, however, that it would do great harm, because the establishment of such an extra-national judicatory would destroy the value of arbitration as it at present was practised, and establish nothing tangible and real in its place. But, if this tribunal were established, whether it was composed of crowned heads or of national assemblies, each must individually abdicate the right of judging what was best for each country. Such a power would extinguish in every nation its nationality; and how could a Minister be brought to account for any act when he could refer always to the decrees of a tribunal above those established by the constitution of his country? The hon. Member had reduced to an absurdity his own proposal, because he admitted that engagements under his arbitration would be as much likely to be broken as any treaty. Thus he proposed to place a nation which broke two treaties in a better position in the estimation of the world, than a nation that only broke one. The hon. Member for the West Riding was completely in the dark as to all that constituted the greatness and power of a nation. The conduct of the hon. Member offered a marked contrast to his present peaceful professions; he had never heard the hon. Gentleman's voice once raised, or his vote once recorded, against any of the acts of oppression of this and other Governments which he (Mr. Urquhart) and other Gentlemen had brought forward. The same reproach attached to every one of his supporters except the hon. Member for Montrose. Seeing that the hon. Member had disclaimed all intention of establishing an alliance to put down war by force—seeing that he had answered his own arguments, and exposed his own absurdities—seeing that he confessed his inability to propound a method of making treaties which should not be liable to be broken, and that his treaties were not likely to be more binding than other treaties—he (Mr. Urquhart) considered the proposition had become so utterly futile that he should not give the House the trouble of dividing on the Amendment of which he had given notice, and should therefore sit down without moving it.

would support the Motion, although he had not heard the speech of any hon. Member on the subject, except that of the hon. Member for Stafford, which had not the effect of disturbing, in the slightest manner, the opinion he (Mr. Hobhouse) had previously formed. He wished shortly to state the reasons why he should support the resolution of the hon. Member for the West Riding. It was said the hon. Member, and those whose sentiments he spoke, aspired after an Utopia; but there was something worse than aspiring after an Utopia, and that was to wish to maintain all the abuses and crying grievances of the times in which we lived. He firmly believed that the greater portion of wars and conflicts had arisen from the want of such an arbitration as the hon. Member proposed. It was clear from the notes and protocols which were exchanged by diplomatists before an appeal to arms that each nation wished to place its cause in the right, in order to draw a veil over the horrors of war, and to save the national honour. If the dispute were referred to arbitration, the nation would be saved the pretext of declaring that the national honour required a resort to war. A nation might, it was true, resort to the sword after this arbitration had been agreed upon; but was that a reason why that House should decline to attempt to guard against these ill consequences and against the evil dispositions of our nature? He conceived that such a system, by which nations would have an opportunity of withdrawing gracefully from an impending contest, must be beneficial to the world generally. He considered such a principle would be highly useful to the noble Lord at the head of Foreign Affairs, in his management of our foreign relations, and that it would nerve his arm and embolden his heart in the cause of peace, not only on the Continent, but over the whole globe. He would ask the noble Lord at the head of the Foreign Department, whether he did not think that he would have found his power increased and his means of doing good augmented, and whether he would not have found it easier to recommend arbitration to the nations of Europe, if England had already bound herself to some such course as that suggested by the hon. Member for the West Riding? Example was better than precept, and it would be better for the House of Commons to lead the way in the practical manner suggested by the hon. Member, than to be talking for ever in favour of peace, without doing anything to promote it. No nation had attained greater lustre and more wide-spread glory in war, than the nation to which they had the honour and happiness to belong; and they were, therefore, peculiarly well qualified to lead the way in a course which would eventuate in the happy result of restoring to the other kingdoms of the earth that tranquillity and repose of which they had, by recent events, been deprived. It was worthy of their high reputation amongst the nations—it was worthy of the age in which they lived, of the civilisation and Christianity in which they had been brought up, and of their national greatness, that they should do everything in their power to return the sword to its scabbard, and to restore the world to harmony. He could wish to see the wise and pacific scheme of Henry the Great of France reduced to practice by the institution of a Congress of Nations, in which right and justice might be done to all countries—in which each nation should resign something of its individual independence for the common good of all—in which each State should stand in the position of a province with respect to the whole of Europe, and which should be in possession of sufficient strength not only to advise, but also to enforce, peace. He was well aware, however, that, in the present state of the world, such a project was visionary and impracticable, but that was no reason why he should hesitate to give his support to the next best measure that had been submitted to their consideration—the plan of the hon. Member for the West Riding—a plan which had been resorted to in the cases of Sicily and the United States, with the happiest results, and which, as the noble Lord at the head of the Foreign Department could attest, had never been had recourse to without working advantageously not only for England but for Europe. He did not fear to be called a visionary and an enthusiast, for he knew that that was a reproach to which the best and greatest men that had ever adorned humanity had been subjected. He felt obliged to the hon. Member for the West Riding for having submitted this proposition; and he exhorted him not to abate one jot of heart or hope, no matter what might be the result of the division, but to pursue his honourable course nothing daunted. Let the House of Commons take this step in the right direction, and they might rest assured that the enlarged enlightenment of the times would induce other nations to follow their example. It was true that arbitration had often been resorted to, and always with happy results; but it was highly desirable that the stamp of Parliamentary authority should be affixed to the system, and that it should not be left to the erratic discretion of the Executive. It was right that the House of Commons should, on this great question, make a profession of faith in the face of mankind, and that all nations should have a positive assurance that England, in recommending a pacific course to others, was determined to pursue it herself.

Sir, I beg to assure my hon. Friend the Member for the West Riding, that in rising to state my in- tention of opposing his Motion, I am far from wishing to speak either of the sentiments he has himself expressed, or of the opinions of those whose organ he is, with anything but the greatest possible respect. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, and with those of whose opinion he has been on this occasion the organ, in attributing the utmost possible value to this Motion, and in feeling the greatest dislike, and I may say horror, of war in any shape. I will not go into those commonplace remarks which must be familiar to the mind of every man who has contrasted the calamities of war with the various blessings and advantages which attend upon peace. I cannot conceive that there exists in this country the man who does not attach the utmost value to the blessings of peace, and who would not make the greatest sacrifices to save his country from the calamities attendant upon war. And although I differ from my hon. Friend, and although I am not ready to accede to his Motion, yet I cannot say but that I am glad he has made that proposition, because it will be useful for this country and for Europe at large that every man should know that in this assembly, and among the vast masses of men of whom we are the representatives, there is a sincere and honest disposition to maintain peace. But that which I wish to guard against—the impression that I wish should not be entertained anywhere, either in this country or out of it—is, that while there is in England a fervent love of peace, an anxious and steady desire to maintain it, there should not exist the impression that the manly spirit of Englishmen is dead—that England is not ready, as she is ever, to repel aggression and resent injury, and that she is ready to defend her rights, although she never will be found acting aggressively against any other Power. Sir, it would be most dangerous indeed to the interests of peace, that a contrary opinion should prevail. I can conceive nothing that would bring more into jeopardy the peaceful relations of this country, than that an idea should prevail among foreign nations that we are so attached to peace that we dare not make war, and that, therefore, any aggression or any injury may be safely ventured against English subjects, because England has such a rooted aversion to war that she will not repel it. That is the principle on which I differ from the observations made by my hon. Friend, when he condemned those provident supplies—so I may call them—for military defence, which, he said, he had found by his examination in a Committee above stairs had been laid up in store by this and the last Government. I quite agree with those who think that it is a useless expenditure of the public money to keep in pay an excessive number of men, either by sea or by land, beyond what the existing service of the country may demand, on an imaginary expectation of future and contingent hostilities. I think that is a wasteful application of the public money; but I cannot go along with the hon. Member in condemning that provident provision of things which cannot be created at a moment's notice—which would be necessary if we were called on to defend ourselves from foreign aggression—and the absence of which, if known to foreign countries, would form an incitement and temptation to commit wrong against this country. Therefore I think that a Government acts wisely and prudently when they gradually, and without overstraining the burden on the country, lay up a store of those things which may be wanted on the first outbreak of war, if it should unfortunately occur, and which must be provided beforehand, while they abstain from useless augmentations of men, which can be raised when the emergency arises, and in a short period would be just as effective as if they had been longer in military training. Sir, I cannot agree with the proposal of my hon. Friend, because I think it is founded on an erroneous principle, and that it would be impracticable if attempted to be carried out. My hon. Friend comes to his conclusion by an analogy which he draws between private life and the intercourse of nations. He says, in the ordinary transactions between man and man, what is so common as an agreement between individuals, that in the event of disputes occurring they shall be referred to arbitration? It is very true that is a common and very advantageous practice; but how stand these individuals? Why, if the sentence of arbitration is not conformable to the opinion of both parties, there is a higher and superior authority—the authority of some legal tribunal, which enforces concurrence; to that tribunal the parties previously agree to submit, and it is this superior force that gives value and efficacy to the agreement for arbitration. But my hon. Friend at once perceives, and fairly acknowledges, that that element is wanting in the machine by which he proposes to settle international differences; and, unless we have recourse to the plan of my hon. Friend who spoke last for a general tribunal of nations, with a military force to compel compliance with its decrees, it is plain that the arbitration of my hon. Friend the Member for the West Biding would, in truth, simply, and in most cases, resolve itself into mediation, that is, the proposal by a third party of an arrangement of differences between two other parties. Hon. Members ought not to lose sight of the distinction, which is frequently forgotten, between arbitration and mediation—arbitration consisting in the pronouncing of a final decision by a third party, which is to be binding on the other two; mediation consisting in the good offices of a third party to bring about, by the consent and acquiescence of the other two, an amicable termination of differences that may have arisen between them. Now, Sir, my hon. Friend is so internally aware of the difficulty attending the practical execution of his own idea, that he has been obliged to abandon that which most persons imagined to be his plan.

I beg pardon. I never altered or abandoned my Motion in the slightest degree.

I will not say my hon. Friend has abandoned, but he has been obliged not to propose, what many persons, myself included, imagined to be his plan—namely, that the court of arbitration should consist of some foreign Government or Governments: in turning over the matter, and bringing it to a practical bearing, he has found it necessary to substitute commissioners taken from private life. Now, Sir, it is obvious that that which would be to any person thinking of this matter for the first time the natural arrangement—and whenever the principle of my hon. Friend has been acted upon the plan that has been fully practised—is that of making the arbitrator the Government of some foreign State, The plan of my hon. Friend, so far as I am aware, has never been attempted. It is perfectly true that there are cases in which arbitration has been resorted to, but in those cases the arbitrator chosen has been a Sovereign or a Government; in no case has final arbitration been consented to resting on private individuals. What are the reasons why my hon. Friend abstained from that proposal which was generally expected to come from him on the present occasion? My hon. Friend who has just sat down said, that it would be a very desirable thing if a European tribunal could be composed that would act invariably on the principles of justice and of right, which would always give equitable decisions, and which, of course, should have force to compel acquiescence in its judgments; but unfortunately the world is not yet come to that happy state of things. If you could find the Governments of Europe all perfectly just, perfectly impartial, perfectly disinterested, and, by the possession of these qualities, competent to form the tribunal my hon. Friend imagines, why, such a tribunal would supersede itself; because, if all Governments were perfectly just, impartial, and disinterested, they would settle any little disputes that might arise between their respective subjects without having recourse to the extreme of war, which this tribunal was intended to prevent. But, unfortunately, it so happens that in the present imperfect condition of human nature, Governments, like individuals, are actuated by unfounded and suspicious jealousies of each other—by that which, in men, is called covetousness, which in nations is called ambition—by interested motives of various kinds, interests conflicting with each other; and it is a matter so difficult that it may almost be deemed impossible to find, in a quarrel between two nations, a third party whose judgment each of the two contending parties would place confidence in. If you were to propose to the Governments of Europe to enter now, to-day or to-morrow, into a prospective agreement that in cases of difference they would submit their disputes to any third party to be named now or to be named afterwards—if the engagement were that the third party should be named now, you never would get them to consent; and if the engagement were to name the third party when the dispute arose, you would have made very little progress towards the establishment of your arbitration. There is one case where a dispute arose between this country and the Government of the United States, with respect to the Maine boundary, which was by the Treaty of Ghent submitted to arbitration. My hon. Friend would have said, "You only want geographers for such a purpose; two members of the Geographical Society have only to draw the line, and there it is." But my hon. Friend can hardly imagine how much time elapsed before we could come to any agreement as to the choice of the Sovereign who was to be the arbitrator in that case, which certainly is not a happy illustration of the results of arbitration; because the King of the Netherlands, having been chosen by the two Powers as arbitrator in that difference, did, after a very long period of time, pronounce an award, which the United States, not finding suitable to their notions of the terms of reference, refused to submit to; the matter was left in a worse condition than before the arbitration began; and if that arbitration did not lead to war, I can assure my hon. Friend it was no merit of the principle of arbitration, but only because the two Governments were mutually inspired by a most intense desire to settle the question without having recourse to arms. Well, then, I say, if my hon. Friend had proposed, as men generally thought he intended to propose, a court of arbitration, to consist of some third or foreign Governments, the answer would have been that the mutual jealousies of Governments, the rivalry of conflicting interests, the—I was going to say—intrigues, but the hostile policy of nations towards each other, would make it, I am satisfied, perfectly impossible to bring countries to acquiesce in the prospective arrangement; and I, for one, must say, it would be dangerous to the interests of this country to submit the vital rights and interests of England to the chances of a decision by the judgment of any foreign Power. Well, but my hon. Friend very wisely steers clear of that difficulty, and proposes the appointment of commissioners. I am not sure that I quite comprehend the proposal of my hon. Friend, but he will correct me if I am wrong. I understand him to propose that a treaty should be made containing a stipulation that, in the event of differences, each Government should name commissioners of its own to discuss the point at issue, and that they, either before they met, or after they met, should name some third person not in the employment of either Government; but a man of science, or a man in private life, to be the arbitrator between the commissioners in case they should not be able to agree. That, so far as I understood, was the manner in which the proposal of my hon. Friend was to be carried out. Now, Sir, if it is objectionable, as I think it is, to commit the interests of a great country to the decision of what may be a rival Power, upon matters of vital interest, or upon matters concerning most important and essential rights, I must say my objection to submit such matters to the arbitration and final decision of a third party would not be removed by substituting for a Government, which at least is a public and responsible body, persons irresponsible, and taken from private life. At all events, a Government acts in the face of the world; it is accustomed to deal with matters of the kind submitted to it for decision; but if you take a man from private life he is perfectly irresponsible in any public way; his habits and pursuits may have been very different from those that would qualify for the decision of questions submitted to him; in my humble opinion almost all the same objections would apply, and other objections apply, which would not apply to a Government. There was one instance, to be sure, to show that these learned men are not always persons who are the readiest to come to a decision on a simple matter. There is one well-known problem the difficulty of solving which is universally acknowledged. No one denies the difficulty of finding the longitude. But if a man be required to ascertain the latitude of any given place, or the position of any parallel of latitude, it is deemed to be a very simple process. Now, by the Treaty of Ghent, the commissioners appointed to settle the boundary dispute, were to trace a line which should coincide with or come within a specified distance of a certain given parallel of latitude. Of course it will be said that nothing could be more easy than that; nothing was easier, it might be said, than to appoint two geographers as two commissioners, who would at once determine the matter, it being the simplest thing possible; they had only their boundary to mark along the line indicated by the treaty: that was precisely the sort of thing that suited the views of my hon. Friend the Member for the West Riding—nothing seemed easier than to find two learned men such as he would elect, and put them at once to find the parallel of latitude. But it so happened that there was not a chance of agreeing upon any such point, for one maintained that the parallel was to depend upon calculations commencing at the centre of the earth, and the other that the computations were to he made from the centre of the sun; they were, therefore, as far apart as the earth from the sun—they were further than the poles asunder—they were unable to agree about that which might be settled at once by any one who was able to set a village sundial. Neither Baron von Hum- boldt nor Professor Tiarcks, who was associated with him in the undertaking, could arrive at any satisfactory result. [Mr. COBDEN: The question is settled.] True, but not by geographers. However, I feel assured the House will agree with me when I say that it would not be safe to trust such interests as those, or at all events such interests as usually give rise to differences between nations—it would not be safe to leave them to arbitration; and, though the matter was eventually settled in the usual way, I do think that the case is less of an example to be followed, than of a beacon to be avoided. Then my hon. Friend says there is nothing new at bottom in the proposition which he has made to the House, for he says that the powers which we were accustomed to give to negotiators we might in future give to two commissioners, one to be appointed by either nation concerned, giving them power to call in a third as final arbitrator; and my hon. Friend instanced the case of Lord Castlereagh, who, on behalf of this country, attended the Congress of Vienna, and took a part in the transactions which occurred on that memorable occasion. Lord Castlereagh was there enabled to say adsum qui feci; he might say he had done it; he was there upon his own responsibility, at least to a considerable extent upon his own responsibility, for Lord Castlereagh at that time held the office of Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. But here it may be necessary for me to mention a matter well deserving to be borne in mind during the discussion which now occupies the attention of the House. It is this—that no person goes out from this country, or usually from any other, with full powers in the strict sense of those words. Some discretion may be left to him, but he does not go out with full and entire discretion—quite the contrary. Every Minister Plenipotentiary receives instructions. He is always told what he may agree to and what he may not, and he has opportunities, of which Ministers often avail themselves, to send home for further instructions. As long as he confines himself to his instructions he may proceed with some degree of confidence; but the Government by which he is accredited are still not finally bound by his acts, and everything that an Ambassador does he does subject to the approbation of the Government which he represents. It is perfectly competent to that Government to disavow the acts of the Minister whom they have sent out as an Ambassador, and to disavow and reject all that he has done, if they think it expedient so to do; and a striking example has been furnished in the occurrences of the past week of the exercise of this power. It is, therefore, quite a mistake to suppose that, according to the present and prevailing practice. Governments are at the mercy of their envoys; nothing is binding upon a Government unless it be in strict accordance with communications made to other Governments in the precise words of the instructions. A treaty may be signed and concluded, but it is of no value without ratification, and this sort of provision is necessary in order that no Government may be bound by the indiscreet or unauthorised act of any of its agents; and therefore if an envoy should go against his instructions, the arrangements he may make are of no value beyond the paper on which they are written. Therefore do I state that my hen. Friend the Member for the West Riding makes an admission that his plan is new in principle. The House will not have forgotten that my hon. Friend quoted several cases of international transactions; but he did not succeed in making out the case which he appeared to think was necessary for his purpose. The cases which he mentioned were not cases of arbitration but of mediation, or else they were cases of no mediation at all, settled neither by arbitration nor by intervention—such as those which he mentioned between Russia and England, and the case also of the Vixen . In the boundary case it seemed as if there had been some show of arbitration; but it was notorious that in that case arbitration failed; and when arbitration had totally failed, the parties concerned settled the matter for themselves in the usual manner: and let the fact not be overlooked, that the Oregon question was settled in pretty-nearly the same way; at all events it was not settled by geographers, in the manner that my hon. Friend would propose. If it were to have been so settled by geographers, I confess I should not very much envy the gentlemen who might be employed upon such an undertaking; for I believe there can be no doubt that the district through which they would have had to penetrate is one of extraordinary wildness and difficulty where the means of subsistence are hardly to be obtained. Now, the case of the Caroline was a remarkable one in reference to the question of arbitration, and it was one of those few cases in which it was manifest that it would he unavailing to arbitrate. It was not a case of dispute between this country and the United States, for the federal authority of that Government was not sufficient to meet the exigency of the case. The Government of the United States said they were sorry for what occurred, but they had no power to interfere—the supreme Government of the United States possessed no power over the local authority or government with which the dispute arose. Now, if we in that case possessed a treaty of arbitration, of what use would it be to us? For the Government of the United States would repeat its declaration that it could not interfere with the local government. They would say, "We are very sorry, but we can obtain you no redress from the State of New York." Your principle then of arbitration would be of not the least avail in such a case; it leaves you precisely where you were before the introduction of such a plan. The eases then which my hon. Friend has quoted, are cases in which the principle of arbitration proved useless, or they are cases which have been settled by the ordinary authorities, or they are cases of mediation in which a friendly Power has exercised its good offices, as in the sulphur question with France, or they are cases settled in the usual way after arbitration has wholly failed. I do think, however, and I have always thought, that when two nations have had any difference capable of being settled by arbitration, it is most desirable that they should allow a third party to come in to assist them in the good work of making a satisfactory arrangement—it is at all times most desirable that a third party not actuated by the same passions which heat those immediately concerned, should step in, and bring the disputants to something like a compromise; for in all such cases there must be an arrangement in the nature of a compromise—there must be a giving and taking on both sides, for neither party in such cases can expect to get all that he may reasonably or fairly demand, and all such negotiations should therefore be entered upon in a spirit of accommodation and mutual concession, with a view to prevent an appeal to arms, and with a view to open the door to that kind of negotiation which may lead to peace, in the course of which the Ministers engaged on both sides may receive from their respective Governments fresh instructions, in which answers may be received, in which remonstrances may be made, further replies given, and thus a long time elapses before any actual rupture occurs, and before recourse is had to that appeal which arms alone afford. In the course of those proceedings opportunities occur for one or other of the parties to obtain the opinion of a third nation friendly to both, and having no private or separate interest to promote. A nation so circumstanced may, I think, well offer its mediation, and I have incurred no small amount of obloquy, and perhaps ridicule also, on the ground that I have been too forward to offer mediation in such cases as those which I have just been describing. But I con-fess that I feel perfectly easy under the influence of such attacks, for I feel quite persuaded that the goodwill, at least, manifested in such attempts cannot fail eventually to be appreciated, and that in cases where England has nothing either to gain or to lose, a sincere desire to prevent war must, sooner or later, be attended with beneficial results; and I cannot help thinking that it must be most satisfactory to my hon. Friend the Member for the West Riding, and to those who support his Motion, to know that mediation has been of much more frequent occurrence of late years than in times past; but those hon. Gentlemen must, at the same time, bear in mind that the principle of arbitration is not applicable to the present state of Europe. Wars are now proceeding in various parts of the Continent, blood is being shed, lives being sacrificed; but these occurrences do not arise from international wars. It is to civil wars that they must be imputed, and, except in very rare instances indeed, the intervention of foreigners, or third parties, or arbitrators, would be either impracticable, or, if possible, might be mischievous; and it must be obvious to every one that the kind of war now prevailing on the continent of Europe is not the species of hostility to which the principle of arbitration can be applied. In those wars, however, I am happy to be able to perceive striking evidence of the improved civilisation of the people of Europe—evidence not only of improvement in the Governments of Europe, but of advancing civilisation amongst the masses of the people. If such events as have recently taken place in Europe, had occurred half a century ago, we should have had not only civil wars, but conflicts between nations of the most fatal character—fatal alike to prosperity and civilisation. It is consoling, then, to see that great masses of men, instead of standing forth as the aggressors of their neighbours, confine their disputes to their own territories, to the communities to which they properly belong, and to their own internal affairs. It is gratifying to think that they have not been led into warfare with other nations, either by feelings of ambition or by any different description of impulse. I hope, then, that now sufficient proof has been given that we should not advance the interest of nations by recognising the principle for which my hon. Friend contends, at the same time that I cannot find fault with him for introducing this question, or for affording an opportunity for the expression of that general feeling which animates Members of this House upon the present occasion. The cultivation of that feeling forms a great example to the rest of Europe—it tends to inspire not only Governments but nations with the sentiments which my hon. Friend feels and has made known to the House this evening; and I conceive that it will take away nothing from the force of those sentiments, but rather add to their influence, when I say that ever since the year 1825 down to the present period, the practice of mediation has been preferred by many Governments, and several cases have arisen in which it has been advantageously adopted. I believe that the present Government, and any other which may succeed to the task of conducting the affairs of this country, would feel it not only their duty, but their pride, to avail themselves of every occasion when they think they can do good by softening the asperities between conflicting Powers, and by effecting between Governments and countries that may differ, an amicable settlement of their disputes, either without war, or by shortening war if war should unfortunately arise. The proposition of my hon. Friend, however, is not one to which I can advise the House to accede. I do not quarrel with the principle upon which it is founded; but I think its practical effect would be dangerous to this country, and that its practical adoption by other countries would be impossible. Indeed, I believe that no country would agree to such a proposal. No country would consent blindfold to submit its interests and its rights on all future occasions to the decision of any third party, whether public or private, whether Governments or men of science; and I think, therefore, the proposition is one which would be attended with no possible result as regards foreign countries. I confess also that I consider it would be a very dangerous course for this country itself to take, because there is no country which, from its political and commercial circumstances, from its maritime interests, and from its colonial possessions, excites more envious and jealous feelings in different quarters than England does; and there is no country that would find it more difficult to discover really disinterested and impartial arbiters. There is also no country that would he more likely than England to suffer in its important commercial interests from submitting its case to arbiters not disinterested, not impartial, and not acting with a due sense of their responsibility. For these reasons it is not in my power to assent to the Motion. I should, however, be sorry to meet it in a way that might, even by misconstruction, be considered as negativing the principle upon which it is founded. I shall not, therefore, propose a direct negative, although that is the mode which, according to the usual practice of the House, ought to be adopted by those who differ from my hon. Friend. The "previous question" is not technically applicable to this case; but the previous question being the most courteous mode of disposing of such a Motion as that before the House, and one less liable than any other to the imputation—however unfounded it may be—of negativing the principle of peace, which is the foundation of my hon. Friend's proposal, I beg leave to move the previous question.

said, that the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in his closing remarks, had shown much less hostility to the Motion, than in the earlier parts of his speech he had manifested. He confessed to having felt a little alarm when he heard the noble Lord declare the proposal to be erroneous in principle and impracticable; but he was relieved when the Foreign Secretary had so qualified his opening remarks as to remove the fears that he was hostile to the principle of his hon. Friend's Motion. The noble Lord first created giants, and then slew them when he referred to a congress of nations—for that plan was not proposed by his hon. Friend—and when he talked of the securities which were daily being given for the maintenance of peace, how was that declaration to be reconciled with the fact that such enormous and costly precautions against war were taken, and defended by the noble Lord upon principle? The House had been told that lengthy and prolonged correspondence and negotiations always ensued between two foreign Powers in case of a misunderstanding previous to their having recourse to hostilities. If the case were so, his hon. Friend the Member for the West Riding might rest satisfied that there could be plenty of time found for warlike preparations, and, consequently, that there was no necessity to keep up such an enormous stock of ball cartridges ready made. The noble Lord had not met the question. He had laboured like a waterlogged vessel. To what did his arguments amount? Merely to the assertion of what nobody denied, namely, that arbitration had its defects. True. But would fighting do better? Vattel was of opinion that arbitration was conformable to reason and nature; and though arbitrators might err, it was better to risk these errors than trust to the chances of war. Fighting settled nothing. Look at the last war with America. That arose out of the claim of England to take British sailors out of American ships; and after fighting, it was agreed to settle the dispute by the Treaty of Ghent, wherein not one word was mentioned of the original subject of dispute which occasioned the war. So that if the question as to the right of taking British sailors out of American ships again arose, it might, for ought that the Treaty of Ghent said, have to be fought over again. It had been said that the awards of arbitrators could not be enforced when given, because there was no binding power existing by which it could be made compulsory. The same might be said of all international law and all international treaties; and yet both were held good and observed. So entirely was the law of nations held to be good and binding amongst the different States of Europe, that when a new maxim of international law, established by usage, became incorporated into the text-book of the law of nations, all eagerly adopted it and followed it out. There were many instances, namely, freedom to merchants, security to persons of ambassadors, and the abolition of the practice of making one alien responsible for the debts of another alien entirely unconnected with him. The noble Lord had said that it had become more and more the practice of nations to settle questions which might arise between them by arbitration. If this were the case, why not embody the principle, as in other instances, in treaties, and thus get an additional security for peace? His noble Friend objected to the proposition as involving a prospective engagement, and declined to pledge himself to submit all great questions of difference between nations to the opinions of arbitrators. He thought if there was one merit more than another in the proposition of his hon. Friend, it was that arbitration should take place before an angry correspondence took place, and the passions of contending parties were aroused on a particular case—when they could view the subject with a calm and dispassionate consideration, and were not embarrassed by any previous angry diplomatic negotiations. He confessed it appeared to him that his hon. Friend's proposal was anything but impracticable, for it was simply asking the House to promulgate that general question, which he certainly was not afraid to promulgate, that the relations between nations ought to be based upon maxims of justice. Then if that were so, and if nations could afford to regulate their conduct to each other upon those maxims, he saw no objection that could be entertained for one moment against the system of arbitration; but if, on the other hand, it were the object of nations to undertake wars of aggrandisement and conquest, which had nothing to do with right, reason, or justice, then, indeed, he should doubt whether it would be possible to guide such relations by the arbitration suggested by his hon. Friend. Prepared, however, as he was to maintain that a proper national policy was totally apart from such views, and that the happiness and strength of the nation was not increased by mere schemes of conquest, he was not afraid, as an Englishman, that any national question in which this country might be interested, should be submitted to arbitrators, who, he had no doubt, would settle the question at issue on principles of international law, founded on maxims of universal justice. But this was the difficulty; for his noble Friend seemed to think that there might be questions which were not to be settled by an appeal to justice; and, if we looked back to the wars which this country had undertaken, we might perhaps see some reason for such an apprehension. Nothing, indeed, could be more humiliating to us than to think how utterly vain was all that long war, entirely of our own seeking, with France. Opinion remained still the same, and all the efforts we had made to coerce opinion proved wholly futile. In a certain public journal of great weight, this Motion of his hon. Friend's had been attacked as Utopian and ridiculous. He was not in the habit of quoting from newspapers, but, in this instance, he wished to answer the Times by itself; for it was too bad to be made a convert of one day, and then have your principles denounced as Utopian the next. In the year 1846 the Times said:—

"Above all, there is one achievement before us, without which every other must be insecure and of questionable value. It remains for the most powerful, the bravest, and the freest people of the globe to proclaim and establish the virtue and beauty, the holiness and necessity, of universal peace; and that they will proclaim it in due time, we entertain no doubt. It has already occurred to the thinking masses of this great country, notwithstanding the humanising creed which we profess, the civilisation that we boast, and the increased intelligence of all classes of the population, that the ferocity of warfare is as brutal to-day as in the remotest times of savage ignorance; that the Christian and the heathen are, to all intents and purposes, one and the same when they meet as destroyers on the battle field; and that what we call the glorious victories of British arms, are scarcely to be distinguished from the butcheries of barbarous ages that we pity, and of more barbarous fighting men whom we think proper to condemn. And it must be so. You cannot redeem under any circumstances the naked and horrid aspect of war, the offspring of brutality, and civilisation's adopted child. War in itself is a mighty evil—an incongruity in a scheme of social harmony—a canker at the heart of improvement—a living lie in a Christian land—a curse at all times. We confess that we regard with infinite satisfaction every endeavour, come whence it may, to destroy the supremacy of a cruel deity acknowledged on every ground. Kings who preach to their subjects the advantages and sacred character of peace, are more than kings. Men who unite to promulgate the same doctrine, feeble instruments though they be, and liable to ridicule, claim respect for their mission."

In that beautifully-written article, the editor quietly said that his hon. friends of the Peace Society, feeble though their efforts might be, and though men might attempt to cast ridicule upon them, were nevertheless entitled to respect for their exertions; and was it to be credited that in a country which had entered into a crusade against the slave trade, and against other abominations, the furtherance of peace was not to be included amongst their philanthropic designs, since he hesitated not to say that the horrors of war exceeded even the horrors of the slave trade. The right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Board of Control had entertained the House not long since with a recital of the heroic deeds of our generals and soldiers in India. Let the House hear a letter on the other side of the question, written by an officer, dated February, 1849, from General Gilbert's camp:—

"Up to this time not a single shot had been fired from the village, although the troop had been up to within musket range of it. It seemed to all appearance empty. Suddenly, just as the two guns had got to the left of it, it seemed to spring into life. From every wall and but, from thousands of loopholes, from the tops of the houses and trees in its centre, volleys of musketry were poured at the line; it is a wonder the two companies were not annihilated, which they would have been had not the whole line advanced to their support. Fordyce's four remaining guns went past our right at a gallop and unlimbered, and had scarcely time to pour in one round of grape, when we were past him again. I looked at the village; it seemed alive, and our men, catching sight of the heads above the walls, poured in a volley, and rushed on. The left wing of our regiment came on the village, but found there was a deep ditch in front, full of water. Before you could say Jack Robinson, Rifles, Light, and No. 7 came round to our side, and were over the walls in a second. There were upwards of 3,000 men in this village; and as soon as they saw our men on the walls, they turned to run, but their numbers stopped them, for the streets were very narrow, and there were horse and foot mixed up together; so our men had nothing to do but got upon the walls and shoot them like dogs. Just then, Boyd was struck by a round shot in the inside of his leg, which made him sick for a moment. He, however, was assisted on to the top of a house by Sergeant Long; and he tells me he never could have imagined such a sight as he then saw. The enemy were in thousands trying to escape, and our men knocking them over like dogs. Their own guns, as soon as they saw our men in the village, opened upon it, not seeming to care much about their own troops. Boyd tells me there was one yard which was full of men, horse and foot, and there was only a small door for them to get out of, which was blocked up by one of their men falling down in it. Our men got round the walls, and killed almost every soul in it. ^{* * *} The most heartrending sight of the day was one I witnessed in a tent I entered. There, on the ground, bleeding to death, lay a young mother. Her leg had been carried off by a round shot, and the jagged stump protruded in a ghastly manner through the mangled flesh. She held a baby to her breast, and as she bent over it with maternal anxiety, all her thoughts seemed to be of her child. She appeared totally regardless of the agony she must have been suffering, and to think of nothing but the poor infant which was drawing its nourishment from her failing breast."

Those were some of the scenes which were witnessed on those fields of glory, but which were never mentioned when they were called upon to vote thanks to the distinguished generals and officers engaged—against whom he brought no charge, because they only performed their duty, though he arraigned the system which made it necessary to engage in those terrible transactions. He would recommend two things to he done with the view of lessening the inducements to war. In the first place, he would abolish the system of privateering—a system which, whilst it had tended to make war popular amongst many parties in this country, was nothing less than piracy of the very worst description. It was a system of the grossest robbery in gangs; and he declared his conscientious belief that no description of robbery for which we executed a man upon the public gallows, exceeded in atrocity that system of privateering. Again, he would abolish the system of prize-money; for he believed that that also was a great inducement to war. With regard to privateering, we had a direct precedent for the abolition of that system. There was a treaty proposed to foreign countries by the United States, signed by three of the most eminent men the United States ever saw, Adams, Jefferson, and Franklin, by which, in any future wars between the two countries, the cultivators of the land, fishermen, merchants, and merchantmen upon the high seas, should be protected from the attacks of privateers. That proposal was accepted by Prussia, and was inserted in the Prussian treaty of amity and commerce with the United States. He did not know whether this country had refused so reasonable an offer; but he believed that it had been made to us, and that we had rejected it. It was remarkable that the President who had proposed that treaty was himself a soldier eminent in arms; and that America, of all countries, was said to have the greatest interest in privateering, on account of the close contiguity of foreign colonies to her shores. Yet America was the country to propose to this and to other foreign Powers a treaty for the abolition for ever of that horrible system of privateering. He must just add a few words with regard to the case which had been cited. In the Maine case, he believed that it was proposed by the United States to submit the question to certain learned men; but that proposition was entirely objected to. Then the cases of the Vixen , the Caroline , Oregon, and Tahiti, were settled in the ordinary way. But let him refer to the Oregon for a moment. Directly that dispute arose, we increased our armaments; but the United States did nothing of the kind, for they had full confidence in being able to settle the question by arbitration and reason. We went to settle the matter with an armed force at our back, and that demonstration, he had no doubt, had increased the difficulty of such a settlement being speedily arrived at. Those were cases which the noble Lord said were susceptible of being settled by arbitration. They had been arranged in the ordinary way; but if his hon. Friend's proposition had been in force, there would have been no apprehension of war, and no necessity to have applied to that House for increased armaments. He did not see the hon. Gentleman the Member for Essex in his place; but let him say one word as to the sort of tradition supposed to exist amongst country gentlemen with regard to the effect of war upon prices. That was a point on which he believed the country gentlemen were a little maligned. There might be, perhaps, a hot-headed man here and there, who would say at a market ordinary that he wished we had a good war so as to raise prices; but he did not think that that was a fair representation of the landed gentry of this country. He cautioned the landed gentry not to be misled upon this point, for war could never have the same effect upon prices in future that it had had hitherto. The navigation laws were now repealed, and, in case of war being declared, neutral ships could freely bring corn to the united kingdom. Suppose war were to arise between England and Spain, or England and Russia, or England and the United States, there would now be no barrier to the free importation of corn. And, in the second place, it had been laid down distinctly, and would not be denied, that free ships made free cargoes, and that a neutral ship would have a full right to carry produce, except to a blockaded port, into any of the contending countries. If that were so, they might depend upon it that any future war would not have that effect upon prices which past wars had had. He must remind the House also, that it would be impossible in future to increase our indirect taxation, as had been done hitherto. If England were to fight, the property of England would have to pay exclusively for the fighting; and they might rely upon it that the property of England, being unable to shift the burden upon other shoulders, would be slow to embark in future wars. That circumstance afforded another great security for peace, and was an additional reason why many would not be backward in supporting the Motion of his hon. Friend for inserting into every treaty a clause providing for the settlement of national disputes without reference to the sword. He wished that his noble Friend had assented to this Mo- tion, and had not moved the previous question; for, had he taken such a course, it would have been a great satisfaction, and a great example to the world at a time when there existed so much want of knowledge, and so small a recognition of the principle that international disputes ought to be decided by justice and not might. If there had existed a better understanding in the world of the true principles which ought to regulate the conduct of nations to each other, we should not have witnessed the recent expedition of France to Rome—an expedition with which he was glad to hear from his noble Friend the Government of this country had no sympathy. We had been suspected of having given some sanction, direct or indirect, through our Government to that expedition—naturally so, from the persevering calumnies which have been cast upon M. Mazzini and the Roman triumvirate by some portion of the public press. He had the pleasure of knowing one of these gentlemen, M. Mazzini, and he had read with scorn and indignation the attacks made on him. It no doubt had thrown some suspicion on the conduct of the Government, when the public saw such attacks, and there had been no contradiction. The Government had taken no step to disavow any share in the intervention.

observed, that he had not, previously been asked for any explanation.

had not stated that his noble Friend had been questioned. From the time when the letters of Mazzini were opened, the conduct of England had been regarded with suspicion, and she had been accused of lending herself to the attacks on that gentleman and other parties. In conclusion, he thanked the House for the patience with which it had listened to his rather discursive speech.

said, the right hon. Member for Manchester commenced his speech by saying that he was exceedingly sorry the noble Lord opposite had moved the previous question on the proposition of the hon. Member opposite; I am sorry also that the noble Lord had so concluded his speech, but the right hon. Member for Manchester must permit me to say, that if he was sorry at the conclusion of the noble Lord's speech, I was exceedingly grieved to hear the speech of the right hon. Gentleman from the beginning. There was nothing in that speech that in any way whatever assisted the great principle of my hon. Friend the Member for the West Riding; there was a smallness, a littleness, in the whole view which the right hon. Member for Manchester took, which was not in accordance with the large and general philanthropy which has given rise to the proposition of the hon. Member for the West Riding. Amongst the many speeches to which I have listened in Parliament—I say it without the least desire to flatter the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary—to none have I listened with such unmixed pleasure as to the speech of the noble Lord himself. The conclusion, however, to which he came was, I think, not justified by the premises; but there was throughout the speech itself an enlarged, general, and statesmanlike view of the whole relations of this country with foreign nations. There was also in the words of the noble Lord—I am not going to say that all the acts of the noble Lord were in accordance with his speech—there was in the declaration of the noble Lord a large spirit of benevolence and peace; he placed it in the vanguard of all he said; he declared himself to be the advocate of peace, and, as far as I could understand the reasoning of the noble Lord, he in every way justified the statement in relation to his own policy. I am not about to enter into a discussion of the noble Lord's policy in the various particular cases; all I have got to do is to enter into a consideration of his argument with respect to the proposition of the hon. Member for the West Riding, and to ask the noble Lord if the decision to which he has come—which, he will forgive me for saying, was an evasion of the question—was worthy the noble commencement of his speech. What was it? I should have supposed it to be a most admirable defence of the proposition of the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Member for the West Riding must have felt that his proposition was going, by the feelings of mankind, in the right direction; that he had no anticipation that the proposal he was making would avoid every possible evil, but that he was about to give the sanction of this House and of this country to a great principle of international law. I take that to have been the sole object of my hon. Friend in his proposition. I do not approve of the right hon. Member for Manchester giving us an exhibition, as he would have done in Exeter-hall of the dangers and horrors of war,—pointing out how a woman suffered, and how a child at her breast suffered misery. Why, Sir, we all acknowledge the misery of war. There is not one of us that is not just as much alive as the right hon. Gentleman to all the atrocities to which war of necessity leads mankind. We only ask ourselves if there be any mode which rational civilised man can adopt which shall avoid the horrors which we all of us acknowledge. You do not aid our deliberations by confusing us, by applying to our sentiments of compassion. My compassion is just as alive as that of the right hon. Member, but I wish to put that entirely out of view on the present occasion, and keep my mind clear on the consideration of this question, not heated on the one hand by individual misery, nor excited on the other by national antipathies. I have to deal with a question of great difficulty submitted to us all, and I ask the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary if he would not have read a more solemn lesson to nations at large if he had affirmed the proposition of my hon. Friend than by endeavouring to evade it as he has done? I appeal to the noble Lord, and ask him whether it would not be much wiser, more beneficent, much bolder, and therefore the much easier course, to affirm the resolution? That is my belief. I believe he would have given to mankind a good lesson, and it is on that ground that I support the Motion of my hon. Friend the Member for the West Riding. I have no belief that war is immediately to cease. I have no Utopian notions that mankind is immediately to assemble together, and all be rational beings. Why, Sir, my dealings with this House cannot lead me to that conclusion. I do not expect that mankind are about to cease from war. I do not expect that the passions of uneducated men will at once be submitted to reason, but I do say that most educated classes in the country have laid down a rule for themselves, and have asked others, the most educated of other nations, to adopt that rule. We take the best means which our imperfect nature permits us to adopt to prevent the recurrence of those dire evils to which our imperfect nature subjects us. What is the proposition? The hon. Member for the West Riding-says there are many difficulties, many disputes that arise between nations. Now let us, standing on the very vanguard of civilised nations, say to the rest of mankind, we are willing to forego all the advantages which our great strength gives us; we are willing to forego all the great and necessary superiority which our power and skill confer upon us; we, who of all the nations on the earth, in the present state of the knowledge of mankind, may be considered to be most free from assault, with all our strength and power, are the first to forego all these advantages, and to ask mankind to settle by an appeal to reason, and to entirely disinterested parties, any question that may arise between us and other nations. That is the sole proposition of my hon. Friend. And just see how that is met by the noble Lord. He says, "I feel the strength of your proposition. I acknowledge the value of the principle which you support, but I think there is danger with respect to our interests, and therefore I do not negative your proposition;" and then the noble Lord proceeded to do that which he will permit me to say I have never seen done in this House, and never known done in the history of this House, but under circumstances in which persons who have moved the previous question have been ashamed of putting the question. [Lord PALMERSTON: "No!"] What is the meaning of the previous question? It says to the House, this question in reality is true, the principle which you affirm is true, (and the noble Lord felt this difficulty when he made the explanation,) but this is hardly applicable, and I am going to move the previous question. The previous question admits the principle, but says this is not the proper time to affirm it; and that is the meaning of the previous question. Now, I ask the noble Lord if this is not just the time to affirm the proposition of my hon. Friend? Let us look at the state of the world, and see if this is not just the time to affirm the proposition. Recollect that the noble Lord admits the principle, and all that he asks the House to determine is that this is not the time to affirm this true principle; but he never states why it is not the time. I am about to discuss the proposition of the noble Lord himself. I am not about to discuss the proposition of my hon. Friend. I accept the truth of the principle, as he has done, and I am about to fix the noble Lord to the point he has raised, by moving the previous question, whether or not this is a good time to admit a principle which he has acknowledged to be true. Recollect, I am not to be driven from the proposition, and I fix the noble Lord to that. I see that the noble Lord, the Member for the city of London, feels the force of what I am saying; he shakes his head; he objects to placing it on that ground, but I want to know how the noble Lord will get out of the difficulty? He feels it as well as I do at this moment. I can see the side play as well as the open play, and I know that the noble Lord, from his knowledge of Parliamentary tactics, is the first clearly to understand the position in which he is placed. I want to know if this he not the time to affirm the general proposition? What is the proposition? We acknowledge, as I have already said, the evils of war; we acknowledge the tendencies of mankind, their ignorance, their prejudices, their passions, their desire to go to violence and force rather than to arbitration. We know that every now and then nations and individuals lose their temper and appeal to arms, instead of common sense, to decide their diferences. I will take a case which the noble Lord is familiar with; he has mentioned it particularly to-day; let us take for example the instance of the Caroline , which I think the noble Lord wisely took, in support of the proposition. The case of the Caroline was peculiarly the case of a nation, or part of a nation, losing its temper. The Government of the United States never lost its temper. The Government was in unison with our country, and both Governments knew completely that this was just one of those difficulties arising between two sections of their own nations; but the two Governments, if left to themselves, would have no difficulty in arranging the matter. Then, says the noble Lord, that is peculiarly the case which shows that the arbitration of appeal to a third party would have been exceedingly unwise. I do not say that you did not arrive at the proper conclusion by diplomacy, but I do say this, that that is not a case to be brought against my hon. Friend as a proof that diplomacy was right and that arbitration was wrong. That was peculiarly a case in which you would have had no difficulty if you could have submitted it to a third party. But then, says the noble Lord, arbitration has been employed between England and that nation which is at this moment exhibiting to the world the wonderful phenomenon of a self-governed people. Now, as that country had a dispute with us, it was referred to the King of the Netherlands, who gave his decision in our favour. I am delighted to see the movements of the noble Lord—the Motion of the noble Lord's hat, like Lord Burleigh's nod, expresses a great deal. What was the result of the decision of the King of the Netherlands? America objected to it, and so did we. They neither of them liked the decision; but the Ame- ricans took the initiative in the objection, and now the noble Lord threw out as an objection to them, that they rendered the arbitration null. We both of us were ready to repudiate it.

No, we accepted the decision.

Yes, but I do not say why we accepted it; I rather suspect we did it because the United States said they would not. Is that any objection to arbitration? Not at all. It is an objection to the conduct of nations that will not submit themselves to arbitration. I know that the sword is the last resort of all nations, and there is no possibility to avoid the necessity, if the necessity comes; but what I want is to set the example of the proposition to all nations, that we shall as much as possible avoid the necessity of war. It is nonsense to tell us this is foolish Utopian expectation. I do not believe wars are to cease at all, and if the noble Lord were to admit the proposition of the hon. Member, I do not believe we should have any less chance of war amongst loss instructed people; but I do believe that by the gradual influence of the instructed and more civilised mode of settling disputes, we should induce other nations to come into our views of the policy of mankind. But let us appeal to what mankind have done among the nations of old. In Greece it was the practice to kill their prisoners of war. If any one went in those days to an Archen of Athens, or an Ephor of Sparta, and have asked him to spare his prisoner's life, he would have been met by the clamour of the whole Athenian Demos, or the indignation of the Laconian people. But there was an improvement in that respect. The nations had arrived at a further stage of civilisation—without arbitration, as an hon. Member observed, certainly,—but was that any reason why they should not take the next step? When the right hon. Member for Manchester adduced the horrors of the Indian war as proof or authority on this question, he (Mr. Roebuck) laughed at the right hen. Gentleman's argument. It could not produce any effect on the mind of any one in the House, and it ought not to produce any effect on the mind of the noble Lord. Would it not be well, instead of dwelling on such topics as these, to see whether they could not make the reason of mankind its arbiter instead of its force? Why, did we laugh or lament that Vattell and Puffendorf and Grotius had no influ- ence over the councils of nations? Do we mean to say that in the courts of justice, and in this House, these great expositors of the common sense of civilised Europe have no influence upon our councils? [An hon. MEMBER: "Very little."] Very little, says the hon. Gentleman, and what is the proposition of my hon. Friend, but to make his sort of lamentation hereafter unnecessary, by giving them the force which he laments they have not? What is the proposition of the hon. Member but to give their principles a force which it was admitted they ought to have? Living at a much later period, they ought to follow the path those authorities had pointed out, and adopt and adhere to rules which for the interests of mankind could not be too soon adopted, or too faithfully adhered to. I will ask the hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury bench, and more especially the noble Lord, to consider what influence this night's debate may have upon Europe. Europe is not accustomed very nicely to estimate the different views of the different Members of this House. But the speeches which are here delivered go forth as speeches delivered in the greatest assembly of Europe in the present time; and I speak it with great national pride, when I say that the House of Commons occupies that place. We are at the head of a powerful and peaceful people; we have not amongst us any divisions that lead in the slightest degree to any anticipation of disturbance or weakening the force of this nation by any differences among ourselves. We represent—I say it in the face of certain Gentlemen here—a united people; and the force of their expressions of popular opinion is to be estimated not by the worth of the individual who gave them breath, but by the greatness and power of the community. It is not one man who speaks, but the House of Commons which speaks through him—such must be the feeling when Europe reads that which has been discussed. If it has gone forth that there is a Member of this House who proposes that the nations of mankind should adopt a civilised and rational mode of arranging national disputes, and that the proposition is sanctioned by the chief men of the nation, selected to be at the head of the councils of the people, can you hide from yourselves that such a proposition, so supported, will read a moral lesson to the now combative, confused, and miserable people of Europe, such as by no other means the House of Commons could by possibility have adopted to affect the general mind? But the noble Lord has lost the glorious opportunity; and it cannot be said of him, as it had been of another statesman, that all his efforts and counsels were directed to advancing not only the liberties of mankind, but their rational civilisation. I regret that the noble Lord has not taken the opportunity which the proposition affords to read a lesson to nations which in their present condition they most seriously needed. I could not but think that at the present moment the name of this country has been employed, and has only been partially withdrawn from such a use, but has been employed as a means of sanctioning such proceedings in Europe as are a disgrace to humanity—proceedings with which the name of a Napoleon has been associated. I should have been glad if the noble Lord had taken an opportunity of marking his dissent from so base an attack on a people struggling for their liberties, and saying that he separated the name of this country from such associations, and contended under the banner of civilisation and peace; asking Europe to contemplate how nations the most powerful were willing now to appeal to reason and be guided by the precepts of justice.

Whatever might be the fate of the proposition of the hon. Member for the West Riding, or of the Motion of the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary, the most remarkable phenomenon of that evening would be the debate itself. It would go forth to Europe that that night had been spent in what he believed to he the very first attempt to submit such a proposition as that of the hon. Member for the West Riding to such an assembly, and that it had been most seriously and ably debated, whether it was possible in future to dispense with the necessity of war amongst the civilised nations of Europe by a system of arbitration. He believed that the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield had put an unjust interpretation upon the proposition of his noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, that this question of the hon. Member for the West Riding should not be decided in the negative, but by the previous question. The hon. and learned Member for Sheffield had stated that the moving of the previous question was always a proof of cowardice. Was it cowardice to say, "I admit your prin- ciple, but I do not admit your application of it; I admit that, in what you have said generally and theoretically, there is much in which I must agree; but, if you put it in your present shape, there are circumstances and details which prevent me from consenting to it"? He (Mr. M. Milnes) conceived that that was the meaning of the previous question, and that that was the meaning of his noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. His noble Friend had admitted that he agreed in almost all the fundamental principles laid down by the hon. Member for the West Riding. Hon. Gentlemen had talked of the horrors of war, but there were things worse than war. It was worse than war for a country to be deprived of its independence, and to sleep for centuries in degradation and slavery. It was worse than war for Italy to be what she now was; it was only through war that she could become what he hoped she would yet be; and he did not believe that there was one hon. Gentleman in that House who did not join in his hopes for Italy. He conceived that there could be no doubt of the desirableness of establishing the principle contended for by the hon. Member for the West Riding of Yorkshire; but he agreed with the noble Lord that that was not the moment when arbitration could be practically carried into effect. This was a proposition which they could not carry out separately, but must be carried out in accordance with another; and he would ask the hon. Member for the West Riding what country there was at the present moment in Europe with which it could be practically carried out? No doubt, if the noble Lord wrote on the subject to the French Government, he would receive a very civil answer; but could they believe that, under present circumstances, they could do anything more than receive that answer. Then, again, if they turned to Russia, they would find that country sending a large force into Hungary; and could they hope to assist the latter Power by arbitration in their noble and sacred struggle for liberty? He would not ask his noble Friend the Secretary of State for the Foreign Department how the proposition would be likely to be received by the Government of Spain, though he hoped the time was not far distant when they would be in a position to introduce the question to that Power. The most ardent sympathies are with the cause, and he thanked the parties who had originated the agitation—if it could be called agi- tation—for so sacred a cause; but he could not vote for the Motion, as he could not see that it could be practically followed out, though he believed that the debate would do good, by showing to the world that the people of England were alive to the advantages of peace, and the futility of war.

thought that the course taken by the hon. Gentleman who had last spoken, of approving of the Motion, and yet expressing his intention of voting against it, a singular one. [Mr. M. MILNES: "I shall vote for the previous question."] Voting for the previous question involved an admission of the principle of the Motion. He was glad to find his noble Friend the Foreign Secretary admitted his entire concurrence in the principle of the resolution, and believed that benefit would arise from the expression of individual opinion in that House in favour of that principle. But, if that were so, how much more important would it be to the world generally, if they had the sanction of Her Majesty's Ministers and the House of Commons unanimously expressed in favour of his hon. Friend's resolution, and which, after the speech of the noble Lord in favour of the principle, they ought to have. He (Mr. Hume) was greatly pleased that this debate had taken place, because of the declaration made by the noble Lord, and which he hoped would be conveyed to every part of the habitable globe, as calculated at once to remove the impression that very generally prevailed that the noble Lord was more disposed to breed discord and excite enmity than to promote peace. They had now the avowal of the noble Lord himself that he had employed the power of his office to promote friendships, to settle disputes, and to prevent war; and he (Mr. Hume) was, therefore, surprised that the noble Lord, in the example he could give to other powers, could for a moment hesitate to give force to the principle he took pride to himself for promoting. Looking to the extent of the commercial relations of this country, it was most important that it should maintain its friendly intercourse in all parts of the globe; for, however trifling or small the State, a quarrel with it, or between it and another State, might be attended with great disadvantage to this country. The present unfortunate dispute in Denmark was an example of that. But he considered the question conceded by the noble Lord. He only complained that, contrary to his admission, he was throwing difficulties in the way, and checking the means of doing that good which he himself had taken pride in having done. Whether it was to he effected by mediation or arbitration, all his hon. Friend wanted was to prevent war, and which, seeing the influence we possessed amongst nations, he thought we might occasionally do. His noble Friend, in reply to his hon. Friend the Member for the West Riding, said, that of late years great progress had been made in the art of settling quarrels without war; that during the last twenty years many quarrels had been settled by mediation, which would formerly have had to be settled by force of arms. If his noble Friend was correct in that, as he (Mr. Hume) believed him to be, how did he and his Colleagues reconcile with it the keeping up now of a larger military establishment than when nothing short of war would have settled the disputes to which he referred? Either they did not speak honestly what they thought, or they were acting inconsistently with their opinions and declarations. He was very glad to hear that Europe and the rulers of Europe were now more disposed to listen to reason and the principles of justice than in former days. The inference he drew from that was, that, standing as we did in the enviable position of being in no danger from invasion, we were the very country that ought to set the example of lessening the incentives to war, by lessening our war establishment. He would exemplify his idea upon that point. In 1844, when a trifling dispute arose between an Englishman holding the joint situation of missionary and consul, and a French naval officer, instead of settling it by a commission of arbitration, or by mediation as proposed by his hon. Friend's resolution—instead of English and French meeting cordially and quietly settling the dispute, the First Lord of the Treasury came down to that House, and declared that it was necessary to increase our naval force because the French had increased theirs; and accordingly an expense of nearly l,000,000 l . was incurred in order to fortify the whole south-eastern coast of England through fear of that dispute not being amicably settled. If his hon. Friend's resolution had been passed before that time, they might have avoided all that expense. The Secretary of the Admiralty, too, upon that occasion, defended the amount of the estimates, upon the erroneous ground of being prepared for war. We had actually prepared for war, and by that preparation risked a war; which risk, and the expense it incurred, might have been avoided if the system proposed by his hon. Friend had then been in operation. Take the case of the United States. About 1,000,000 l . was added to the naval expense in consequence of the threats held out on the subject of the disputed boundary. During a long Parliamentary life that was the only oecasion upon which he ever approved of the preposterous armament required by the Government of this country, and then recommended by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth. He did so, because he conceived there was a disposition on the part of America to bully and trample on us; and that the only way to meet that disposition was by the measure of the right hon. Baronet. But when Lord Ashburton was sent out as a commissioner, he, with Mr. Webster, settled the dispute; and so praiseworthy did he think his conduct, that, in opposition to the opinion of the Minister of the day, he moved that the thanks of the House be given to him, because he thought they should honour those who promoted peace as well as those who successfully conducted a war. Lord Ashburton told him that he had exercised his own discretion upon some points where he thought the interests of the country required it; and he believed that no man in the country could have effected a settlement of that dispute, unless he had exercised a discretion. Just see what were the consequences of war. Whenever reference was made in the House to the enormous load of taxation, the noble Lord asked, would they meddle with the national debt?—would they, by reducing taxation, risk the public credit? He (Mr. Hume) had never let fall a phrase that was not in favour of the national honour and the national faith. He believed that a breach of the national faith would be attended with the most disastrous consequences. He looked to other modes of relieving the taxation of the country. He believed that timely concession on the principle of common justice to our fellow-countrymen in our American colonies might have prevented the whole of the differences which took place between those colonies and the mother country. There was an addition of 120,000,000 l . to the national debt on account of the American war, which would be a millstone about our neck as long as we retained our national honour. 20,000,000 l . were added on account of the French war. At this moment we were paying between 28,000,000 l . and 29,000,000 l . of interest on a debt contracted solely for the support of unnecessary wars. This was a source of suffering to every individual in the community. Hence every step that could he taken to diminish the possibility of war ought to be readily taken by the Government of this country. In the course of this debate there had been no argument whatever against the Motion; and he conceived the argument in its favour would convince the public at large of the immense evil inflicted on the country by war.

Sir, I had hoped that the speech of my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs had been so clear and explicit on this subject that he would not have been liable to misconstruction as to the sentiments which he expressed to the House. But I find. Sir, that those who have followed him, instead of answering his arguments, instead of addressing themselves to his objections, have totally misconceived the nature of those objections, and, as I think, also the purpose of the Motion before the House. My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester has thought it necessary to state his opinions at large with respect to the evils of war. With respect to these evils there is no question whatever in this House. No party in this House will stand up and say that war is a good in itself—that the bloodshed which it causes is a blessing to the country, or that the taxes which it imposes produce wealth or content. No party maintains any such paradoxes; and, therefore, the greater part of the speech of my right hon. Friend was inapplicable to the present debate. But my hon. Friend who spoke last, misconceiving likewise, as I imagine, the question before us, says that the question before us is, whether by arbitration or by negotiation we ought not to prevent war? Now, Sir, that is not the question before the House, because on that point likewise we are all agreed. Whether by negotiation, or whether in certain cases, if arbitration be advisable, that means should be taken to prevent war—on that point we are all entirely as one. And I think we may point to the history of the present generation in proof of the assertion that we have assiduously endeavoured to prevent war, and that chiefly by negotiation; which, however, is not the Motion of the hon. Gentleman the Member for the West Riding, or the question before us. My hon. Friend the Member for Middlesex, indeed, charges certain Members of this House with instigating the war of 1793; and I am not quite sure if he would not accuse some part of us with fomenting the American war. But the real fact is with regard to the present generation. I think, taking the different Governments that have succeeded each other, that we have been remarkably free from blame on the ground of forwardness in promoting the evils of war. Consider the various questions that we have had pending with great and powerful nations of the world—questions that have been alluded to in the course of this night—the question of the Vixen , with respect to Russia—the questions of the Maine boundary, of Oregon, of the Caroline , and Mr. M'Leod, with respect to the United States of America—the question with respect to Syria, and the Pritchard indemnity, with respect to Franco. All these were questions exciting in themselves, and provoked at the time great popular feeling both in this country and in the nations that had to settle and arrange these questions conjointly with us. And yet, under the different Governments that had succeeded each other—without saying that the one was more pacific or more inclined for war than the other—all these separate questions have been met and discussed, and decided; the danger of war has passed over, and with the nations then in contest with us amity was restored. That is a proof, then, that we do not require any lesson from this House with regard to the necessity, the humanity, and the policy of preserving peace. But, in the next place, I say that it so happens that in almost every case, if not, indeed, in every one of these cases, peace has been preserved, not by the method of arbitration, but by the old method of negotiation directly between the Powers concerned. My hon. Friend who spoke last adverts to the case of Lord Ashburton and Mr. Webster. Lord Ashburton was not a commissioner according to the mode of arbitration, but a negotiator sent with powers from this country, in the ordinary way, to treat with Mr. Webster; and by regular treaty, signed by them, with full powers, without the appointment of an umpire or arbitrator, the matter in dispute was settled amicably. It is not necessary, therefore, to come to any decision with respect to a new mode of settling quarrels between this and other nations, because by the methods already in force we have been successfully arranging many disputes which in themselves appeared to bear the seeds of war. My hon. Friend who spoke last, assumed that we were only called on to give a general opinion, according to this Motion, on the desirableness of maintaining peace by some method or other. But that is not the Motion—the Motion is to ask the Queen to direct the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to enter into communication with foreign Powers for the purpose of concluding treaties of arbitration, by which the respective parties were to bind themselves to refer all future disputes to be decided by arbitrators. Therefore the question is not a general resolution, expressive of pacific desires, but a practical question—not visionary or Utopian, I admit, in the least degree—whether it is desirable that the Queen should immediately direct that such treaties should be proposed to other nations. And if the Government had been assenting parties, and my noble Friend had agreed to the proposition, his course the very next day after agreeing to the address must have been to send to foreign Powers the proposals specified in the Motion. That being the question, it was impossible for the Government to agree to the Motion, unless they were prepared to act upon it immediately. Now, Sir, we could not act upon it, and my noble Friend, to prevent misconstruction of his motives, stated that, although we were fully prepared to negative the Motion, his advice to the House would be, not to come to any decision on the subject. That was the meaning of moving "the previous question;" and if the House decided that the question should not be put, it would decide nothing upon the merits of the question. Now, is it right that an address should be presented recommending that treaties of arbitration should be negotiated? For my part, I do not believe that they would be a better means of securing peace than already exist. Let it be observed, with regard to any particular question arising between this country and other countries, that supposing the matter in dispute cannot be arranged by direct negotiation, foreign nations have it always in their power to say, "this is a fit question to be decided by arbitration, let us appoint two arbitrators or commissioners, who may choose an umpire to decide this question." And I think there may be some questions, intricate and difficult in themselves, in which neither party may be willing to give way, but in which either party may give way without any sacrifice of national honour, or of the vital interests of the country. On such a question, it may be very fit that two Powers should agree that arbitration should be resorted to. But, on the other hand, there are other questions that occur between nations that cannot well or fitly be submitted to arbitrators—questions involving the dearest interests, the honour, or safety of a country, which, if a government proposed to submit to an arbitrator, the force of public opinion and popular feeling would be such as would render it impossible for the Government to carry out such a purpose. Now, Sir, I must refer, and that briefly, in illustration, to events of late dates; but, with regard to events of older occurrence, I will take, first, the invasion of Holland by Louis XIV. That was a question—involving, as it did, the very existence of Holland—of ambition and oppression on the one side, and of a determined spirit of resistance in behalf of national independence on the other. What if there had been a treaty of arbitration between the two parties? If the Dutch had resorted to such a course, the arbitrator, in the spirit that actuated arbitrators generally in proposing a compromise, might have proposed terms by which the Dutch, without entirely sacrificing their independence, would yet have given up portions of their territory by which their national security would have been totally undermined. Could the Dutch have submitted to these terms? And is it to be for any foreign person, however learned or wise, to decide whether a nation shall sacrifice its safety and independence or not? There is a case with regard to which a country might refuse to submit to arbitration, because it would be very dangerous for it to do so. With respect to the very question of the relations between this country and the United States of America, there was a question raised at the end of the correspondence between Mr. Webster and Lord Ashburton, which had certainly been a case of war. It was a most difficult question, and it appears to me it would be very dangerous to refer it to any arbitrator. Mr. Webster alleges that the right we assume of impressing British subjects out of American ships is a most oppressive claim, exposing young Americans to be seized and impressed on board of British ships, and states that such a proceeding should no longer be permitted. Lord Ashburton very properly entered into the discussion, seeing that the question involved, in the first place, the right of impressing on board of American ships, and then came the question whether we could exercise the right on board of English ships, because British subjects would go on board of American ships to escape impressment, supposing America to be a neutral country. The next point involved in the same question was, whether this country would abandon her claim to call on all her subjects in time of war to defend her coasts, and guard her safety in the hour of danger. These were grave and serious questions, which, if they ever were to be brought into a dispute again, might be arranged by arbitration. I believe there would be that temper, both on our part and on the part of any person deputed by the United States, which would effect a satisfactory adjustment of such an important matter; but I think that any person, furnished with full powers on our part, should have his instructions so drawn up as carefully to guard against anything necessary for the safety of the country being abandoned by any negotiator whom we might appoint. But could we allow a person presumed to be indifferent to the safety and independence of this country, and equally indifferent to the welfare of America—could we suffer such an indifferent and impartial person to decide questions vitally affecting our safety and position as a nation? Why, then, if that be so, it would be dangerous to have a general treaty requiring all disputes with America to be settled by arbitration. Take another case. A few years ago Charles X. of France sent an expedition to Algiers. The French Crovernment was asked whether it had any intention of making conquests there, and the Ambassador answered that certainly it had not; that after they had procured redress for their injuries, the French, if they acquired any territory, meant to have the possession of it decided by a Congress of Powers, and not by France alone. Why, suppose we had disputed the French possession of Algiers, and had had a treaty of arbitration with France at the time; the arbitrator, seeing what had been the professions of France, might have decided that the territory ought to he given up, and the French army to be withdrawn from Algiers. But does any one believe that the French Government, immediately on the decision of the arbitrator, would have abandoned Algiers, and withdrawn her armies? For my part, I believe she would have done no such thing; and I believe their Grovernment would not have been able, on account of the strong popular feeling the step would have excited, to adopt any such course. And if this country had had that question referred to an arbitration, and had got a decision in her favour, that Algiers should be abandoned by the French, would peace have been thereby facilitated? Would we not rather have been bound to see respect paid to the decision of the arbitrators, and would we have been content, as we have been, silently to acquiesce in the establishment of the French in that position? So that it appears to me far from clear that the method of arbitration would be as efficacious in securing peace as the system already in practice. I must also say that, connected as the nations of Europe are, I cannot believe that we are destined to see a continuance, a revival of those wars which I think have been a disgrace to civilisation, to humanity, and to that Christianity which the nations of Europe profess. In looking back at the history of past times in Europe, I perceive that there was a time when individuals sallied forth from their castles and made war on some other chief living some ten or more miles distant from the residence of the assailant himself. I perceive that in somewhat later times the plains of Flanders were devastated by rapine and bloodshed by the frequent quarrels between different small towns, and that many villages, and many cities even, were destroyed by fire as the result of these contests. Such was the ancient condition of Europe; but these hostilities have entirely ceased long ago. And if we look now to the peace that has prevailed from 1815 to 1848, we shall find with regard to those wars of the middle ages—of the barons amongst themselves—of chiefs and sovereigns against peaceful cities—that all these broils and barbarities have disappeared, and the artisan and husbandman pursue their peculiar trades and industry in happy progress and peace. Sir, if that change has taken place, I cannot see for myself why other changes of a kindred character should not occur, or that, in consequence of similar progress in civilisation—in consequence of the growth of the feeling that men are bound to make almost every sacrifice for the sake of peace—and with a temper and desire to arrange disputes by one mode or another, without having recourse to the force of arms—I cannot see why in future times, if Prussia and Denmark, for instance, have a dispute between them, that they will yet come to think that it is as unnatural and as barbarous to resort to arms, as it was for the town of Brussels to attack Liege, or for the barons of old to wage their deadly feuds against each other. I believe, Sir, that such results may be achieved in the gradual progress of civilisation; and I believe that the influence of Governments may have much to do in bringing about such changes. I do not expect that that will be rapid or immediate. What we have seen last year tends to make us less sanguine as to its coming soon. But I do not see why these changes should not be in progress. I do not see why the influence of the more powerful Governments should not be used to discourage war and to mediate between Powers in the case of disputes, which, though they may have some foundation as constituting a fair difference of opinion, are really no sufficient cause to induce these Powers to make war. I am the more confirmed in that view, because, looking back not only upon the two wars which had been alluded to—the American and the French wars—but looking back to all the wars that took place during the last century, and examining into the causes of disputes, I do not see any one war which, if there had been enough of temper between the different parties—if there had been time for consideration of the question in dispute—might not have been settled without recourse to arms, and to those wars from the effects of which we are still suffering. These being my opinions, I do not differ from the general objects of the hon. Member for the West Riding, nor do I regret that he has thought proper to bring this question under the consideration of the House. I certainly differ from him, however practically he may have put the question, when he allowed that, with regard to pirates and barbarous nations, it could not be adopted. I differ from him as to the policy of placing in every treaty with foreign powers an arbitration clause, because I believe that such a clause would not tend to promote the object which the House has in view. But with regard to the general object—the maintenance of peace—the propriety of not even defending our rights where it is not absolutely necessary to defend them, and where a regard to our honour is concerned, to seek for reparation in an amicable spirit, so that other nations, as proud and as haughty as ourselves, may find it their interest to grant it—so far I agree with the spirit of the Motion which the hon. Gentleman has made. I shall only further refer to an allegation made by the hon. Member who spoke last with respect to the part which he supposed me to have taken with regard to the differences with the United States in 1844. So far from wishing to promote differences on that occasion—so far from wishing to carry these differences to the arbitrament of war, I then informed the noble Earl who was at that time Secretary for Foreign Aflairs—a noble Friend of mine—that I was ready either to attend in the House, or to abstain from attending the House—that I was ready to take any part which he might point out to me which was likely to prevent the then existing dispute from ending in hostilities between the two nations. I do not agree with my hon. Friend when he says that the more security we have for peace the more we increase our forces. I say that is totally different from the fact, because in the last twelve or eighteen months we have reduced 16,000 men in the Navy, and 10,000 in the United Kingdom and the colonies in the Army; so that, instead of increasing, we have been diminishing our forces. But still I agree with my noble Friend the Member for Middlesex, who said, early in the debate, that he was of opinion, si pacem velis para bellum . I fully agree with that old maxim. I think we should not lower our power so as to offer temptations to foreign Powers to attack us, but I believe that, in keeping up such a force as is absolutely necessary, and not beyond, for the purpose of our own defence, we shall best preserve peace between this country and other nations.

at that late hour, would only observe, that he did not think the House had done justice to the practical good sense of the country by the manner in which they entertained this Motion. The whole drift of the hon. Member for the West Riding and his friends, was to reduce the national defences to a scale inconsistent with security for the country. With this object in view, they had, for the time, adopted the impracticable theories of a few well-meaning and sincere men, and commenced an agitation which found no sympathy in the country. By whom was it conducted? Mr. Elihu Burritt, the apostle of the peace movement, came down to Christchurch, the place which he (Captain Harris) represented—and by whom attended? By Vincent, the Chartist, whose name appeared in the hills advertising the meeting. The feeling and sound sense of the people of this country were in favour of peace, and public opinion would exercise its just influence to maintain it; but it despised an agitation carried on under false colours and entailing most mischievous results.

rose to reply. He supposed that no one would be in favour of keeping up their present establishments for their own sake in time of peace. He could assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman who spoke last, that the country generally would not keep a ship afloat more than was absolutely necessary. What he sought by his present Motion was to render ships of war, to a great extent, altogether unnecessary. He did not mean to render the country defenceless, but he proposed to take other means for her defence. He could assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that any one who looked at the question otherwise than through a strictly professional medium—that was to say, keeping up their present establishments by land and sea for themselves alone—["Oh, oh!"] Yes, any one who looked at this question otherwise than through the medium he had described, would see that the description given by the French President of the embarassed and almost bankrupt state of the finances, far more than compensated for the large force which was there kept up; and no man of sense would consider that the French Republic was at all the stronger for keeping up an army which was ruinous to their finances. He must say he thought that those persons, whether Chartists or Quakers, or hon. Gentlemen sitting near him, took a rational course to reduce the Army, by finding other means to defend the country; they took the wisest and the best course not to establish a republic, but to maintain the institutions of the country, which were never in danger, till they reached that stage—the last stage in every Government in Europe—of financial difficulty and embarrassment. He thought the noble Lord had scarcely dealt with the question as a statesman should do. He told them that the disputes during the last fifteen years had been settled by negotiation under the present system. He admitted that; but look at what had been going on. While the disputes were settling, the es- tablishments had been increased, and when they were settled, those establishments were not reduced. The noble Lord, also, the Member for Tiverton, said there was one danger in adopting this resolution, that the people of this country would be thought to have lost their ancient spirit, and that they would be ready to submit to unjust encroachments for the sake of preserving peace if the noble Lord had any apprehensions of this nature, he would advise him to take the present moment to hold out to other countries an arrangement for preserving peace; for there never was a period when this country, so far as the materiel of war was concerned, was more prepared than at present for hostilities with any existing country; and he might almost say with the whole world. If he did not do this, he was not sure that the noble Lord's apprehensions might not be realised. There were at present two movements going on in this country. The one was a movement in favour of peace, carried on by a religious body who had pursued their object as a matter of abstract principle for the last twenty years. There was another party in the country which was anxious, pressing, and importunate for the reduction of expenditure. These parties were now in alliance, because the financial reformers knew that seven-eighths of the expenditure of the country was either for past wars or for the present warlike establishments. They could not touch the interest of the debt, and it would give no relief to the country if the whole of it was sponged out to-morrow, for the money had already been spent and gone; but if they struck at the five or six millions of current expenditure on our existing establishments, that would be a real relief to all the interests of the country. He would take an opportunity next Session of coupling with this Motion an Address "to the Crown "—for after the result of the Motion for the ballot, it would be useless to do so this year—that a communication be entered into with foreign Powers proposing to them to cease this increased waste of building line-of-battle ships, and multiplying steamers, and increasing the number of their armed men—he would move an Address to the Crown to ask those foreign Powers to join with this country in stopping that waste, and in effecting a gradual diminution of their force. He would propose also, that as a proof of their sincerity they should diminish this barbarous waste that is going on in their establishments. The noble Lord at the head of the Government spoke of the preservation of peace; but the present state of things is not a peace; but an armed truce. He (Mr. Cobden) did not call it a peace at all; and when the noble Lord spoke of the progress of civilisation, he looked around him and saw great States manifesting a display of force that in his mind was far more wasteful than anything that existed in the feudal ages. Before the revolutions broke out, there were 2,000,000 of armed men living on the productive industry of Europe, and he believed 200,000,000 l . annually was not too high a calculation of the waste that took place for the support of this unproductive class; to say, therefore, while this is going on, that England is in a state of peace, is a misnomer; it is, he repeated, an armed truce. The noble Lord the Member for Tiverton had led him to suppose that there was much not difference in their views, yet he had proposed an Amendment for the purpose of preventing him from taking the sense of the House on his proposition; but he (Mr. Cobden) wanted the House to express its opinion on the question; he wanted the noble Lord to let them have a division on the merits, and he would like to see if the noble Lord would go out against him after his speech. The noble Lord the Member for the city of London was opposed to his Motion; he had found fault with it, and yet at the same time he said that he thought that he (Mr. Cobden) had done good by bringing it forward. He did not understand such compliments when they carried such comments with them. He was resolved to take the sense of the House on the question. He was quite sure of this, that the question would be kept alive in the country, and to the country he would commit it.

Previous Question put, "That that Question be now put."

The House divided:—Ayes 79; Noes 176: Majority 97.

moved—

"That the following Members be nominated the Select Committee on Receivers, Courts of Chancery and Exchequer (Ireland):—Mr. Osborne, Sir Robert Peel, Sir J. Graham, Sir William Somerville, Mr. Solicitor General, Mr. Napier, Mr. Monsell, Mr. Bright, Mr. Henley, Mr. O'Flaherty, Mr. George Alexander Hamilton, and Mr. Tennent."

hoped that the hon. and gallant Member would not proceed with his Motion to-night. There were only two Members on the Committee who were largely connected with landed property in Ireland.

wished to know if the hon. and gallant Member wanted to appoint Members on the Committee whose estates were in Chancery. There were seven gentlemen connected with Ireland of the highest respectability on the list, and he would take the sense of the House with regard to every one of the names he had selected.

said, his hon. and gallant Friend did not object to the respectability of the names selected, but he merely thought that Gentlemen would be most useful on the Committee who had a knowledge of the management of property in Ireland.

thought that Members conversant with the practice of equity courts in Ireland should be appointed on the Committee. He should suggest that the name of the hon. and learned Member for Athlone be added to the Committee.

thought it would be better to have the Committee appointed at once, if it were intended to have a proper inquiry this Session. He would recommend his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Portarlington to object to particular names, if be thought proper.

said, he had often objected to the mode of appointing Select Committees in that House, but he supposed that it was now too late in the Session to effect an alteration. He hoped the Government would take the matter into their consideration, and try whether some such mode as that adopted in the case of Committees on Private Bills might not be substituted for the present most unsatisfactory system.

Mr. B. Osborne to be a Member of the Committee.

Motion made and Question proposed, "That Sir Robert Peel be one other Member of the Committee."

Debate arising; Motion made, and Question put, "That the Debate be now adjourned."

The House divided:—Ayes 13; Noes 58: Majority 45.

On the Question that Mr. Bright be one other Member of the Committee,

moved, "That the name of Mr. Keogh be substituted."

informed the hon. Member that notice should have been given of the Amendment.

said, that the names had only been published that morning, and no opportunity had, therefore, been afforded of giving notice of Amendment. He thought this an additional reason why the appointment of the Committee should be postponed.

said, there were two, if not three, Members of the Committee who would be unable to serve, and hon. Members could substitute any names they liked for them hereafter.

said, he was most anxious that a proper inquiry should take place; and he wished, on that account, that the best names should be selected. He did not see why Mr. Bright should be appointed on such a Committee, as he knew nothing about Ireland.

expressed a hope that the appointment of the other Members of the Committee might be postponed.

said, the appointment of the Committee was of vital importance. He believed that a more useful Member than Mr. Bright was not in the House. There were men upon this Committee who, for practice at the bar and in- dependence in politics, stood as high as any person in that House. He had no wish to serve upon the Committee himself; and if the hon. Member wished to serve, he should be heartily welcome to take his place. There were three Gentlemen whom he had proposed—Mr. Page Wood, Mr. Turner, and Mr. Torrens M'Cullagh—who had informed him that they would not be able to serve on the Committee, and the hon. Member might nominate any three others in their place; but he would certainly insist upon retaining the name of Mr. Bright on the Committee.

suggested, that the names of the Committee should be agreed to as they at present stood; and if it were found that any of the Members could not serve, an opportunity would be afforded for moving the addition of any other names that hon. Members might think proper.

withdrew his Motion.

The name of Mr. Bright and of the other Members of the Committee were then agreed to.

House adjourned at half-after Twelve o'clock.