said: Seeing the noble Lord at the head of the Government in his place, I rise to put a question to him as to the course of business this evening. I thought I understood him on Friday, though I am not always quite happy in catching his intentions or meaning; but I thought he intimated that he proposed to fix the Committee on Supply for this evening instead of a later day, in order to afford an opportunity for explanation or discussion with respect to the state of our foreign relations. I wish now to know, did that arrangement refer to an explanation to be furnished by the Government, or was it with a view to giving hon. Gentlemen at this side of the House an opportunity of raising a discussion, if they should think proper—was it for the latter purpose, or with a view to a voluntary statement from the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, as to the extraordinary complications in which our foreign relations are placed?

It is my intention to make a statement this evening upon the subject to which the hon. Baronet has adverted, especially in reference to what passed upon a former occasion.

said: Sir. I feel from what passed on a former occasion in this House, more especially with reference to the answer which I then felt it my duty to give to my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, that it is due both to myself and to the House that some further explanation should be given. My right hon. Friend on Thursday last asked me, if I remember rightly, amongst others, one question, whether there existed a perfectly good understanding between the Government of France and the Government of England in regard to the affairs of Greece? I stated, as far as I remember, that the French Ambassador had left London the day before; that he had been charged by Her Majesty's Government with explanations to be given to the Government of France; that one of the objects of his return was to give explanations himself; and I stated also that I hoped nothing would arise out of those matters to disturb the friendly relations subsisting between this country and France. Now, Sir, about that time there was read in the French Assembly the letter of General Lahitte, recalling—no, that is not the word to use, because it admits of a double meaning, but ordering back the French Ambassador—requiring him to return to France. It was thought by many persons in this House and elsewhere, that there was an inconsistency on my part in the answer which I gave in this House with respect to the transaction itself—that I endeavoured to suppress something which I ought to have stated. What passed with regard to that circumstance is this—questions had arisen, and differences of opinion had occurred, between the Government of France and the Government of England in the course of the few days preceding, in consequence of the manner in which the affair had terminated between England and Greece at Athens. When first M. Drouyn de Lhuys communicated with me, I had not received the despatches from Athens. On Monday morning the French Ambassador came to me for the purpose of entering upon a discussion of those transactions. I told him that I was obliged to go down to a Committee of this House to which I had been summoned for the purpose of giving evidence, and I begged him to return to me the following morning. On Tuesday morning he came, when I went with him at great length into the despatches I had received from Athens, which I read to him; and I also read to him the reports made by Mr. Wyse of what passed in Greece, doing my best to explain to him, according to our view of the matter, how the course adopted was one which ought not to give, justly, any ground of offence to the Government of France. Our conversation was long; the French Ambassador left me at rather a late hour, saying that be should return the next day to continue the conversation. He came the next day (Wednesday) at 12 o'clock, and I forget whether it was at the outset, or in the course of that conversation, which also lasted to a late hour, as hon. Gentlemen will see by a reference to the account of it given by M. Drouyn de Lhuys, that he read to me the letter of General de Lahitte. Of course, I could not concur with the opinions expressed in that letter as to the grounds upon which the French Ambassador was ordered to return to Paris. When I spoke to M. Drouyn do Lhuys on the subject, he said, "I must go back. To-morrow the papers will be presented to the Assembly; tomorrow possibly questions will be put on the subject; to-morrow there may be a discussion. It is my duty to be at Paris before the Chamber meets, in order to afford to my Government any explanations they may wish to have from me." I said that I certainly concurred in the propriety of the course he meant to pursue, and that I would not press him to remain; but I begged M. Drouyn de Lhuys to communicate to his Government, early the next morning, the substance of the explanations I had given him. I furnished him, also, with copies of some of Mr. Wyse's despatches, having marked, especially, those passages to which I wished the attention of the French Government to be called, and to which I had drawn his attention, and I begged him not only to give his Government such explanations as, in the capacity of their representative, he might think fit to give; but that he would also lay before them the detailed explanations I had had the honour of giving him. Well, Sir, thus stood matters on the Thursday when I was questioned in this House. Now I must say, in the first place, that it could not in the ordinary course of things be expected by me that the letter of General Lahitte would have been read to the French Assembly, even before the Assembly was in possession of the documents connected with the transactions to which that letter related. It certainly never entered into my mind that such a course of proceeding Would in any case be adopted. But I was also justified in thinking that the explanations with which I had furnished M. Drouyn de Lhuys were of a nature calculated, if not to remove entirely the dissatisfaction the French Government felt, and in the spirit of which that letter was written, at all events greatly to modify that feeling, and to lead to further explanations. Now, entertaining that opinion, and believing it possible that at the very moment when I was giving my answer, the French Minister might have been assigning to the Assembly, as a reason for the return of M. Drouyn de Lhuys, simply that which was one object of his early return, namely, the giving of explanations, and the communication of those explanations to the Legislative Assembly, I would ask any man in this House who values the good understanding between this country and France, who has any just appreciation of the interests of this country, and of the duty of a Minister, whether I should not have been guilty of the greatest indiscretion, of the most mischievous act—I will say of a culpable proceeding—if I had proclaimed that feeling on the part of the French Government which had been expressed in their letter, but which, for all I knew, might at that moment have ceased to exist? Supposing the French Minister had given, as a reason for the return of M. Drouyn de Lhuys, the simple ground of explanations, what mischief should I not have done if I had proclaimed the other ground, and thus nailed and fastened the French Government to a dissatisfaction which might at that moment have been removed? I am confident that I need no further justification for the course I then pursued. It was indicative of an earnest desire to soften, if possible, anything like angry feeling on the part of the French Government. The letter of General Lahitte, however, requires that I should make some observations, because that letter charges Her Majesty's Government, and me especially as the organ of that Government in these transactions, with having broken faith—I may say—with the Government of France, inasmuch as it asserts that, contrary to engagements, the negotiation of Baron Gros was put an end to by an act of Mr. Wyse, and that it was by such de termination that the coercive measures were renewed; and it asserts, moreover, that the negotiation was put an end to by Mr. Wyse on a point upon which he ought to have referred for further instructions to the British Government. It is my opinion that the papers which are already in the hands, I believe, of many Members—for I did my best to have them delivered this morning—will show that the functions of Baron Gros were not suspended by any act of Mr. Wyse, but by the act of Baron Gros himself; that Mr. Wyse, so far from wishing Baron Gros' negotiation to be suspended, expressed a strong desire that it should be continued; and that Mr. Wyse did not admit the validity of the grounds upon which Baron Gros thought himself by his instructions compelled to suspend his functions. I think those papers will show that even after Baron Gros had communicated to Mr. Wyse that his mission was terminated, or his functions for the moment suspended, Mr. Wyse, so far from taking advantage of the earliest opportunity of having recourse to coercive measures, made, through Baron Gros, a communication to the Government at Athens which, if it had been accepted, would have satisfied those claims which Baron Gros did not in principle dispute, and would have left untouched, and subject to further discussion, the particular points upon which a difference of opinion had arisen. Baron Gros' request to Mr. Wyse was, "Refer to your Government for instructions as to the point of difference which has arisen between us, and in the meanwhile continue in statu quo;" that was to say, "Retain in your possession the vessels you have already detained, but abstain from seizing any more." After Mr. Wyse had received the communication from Baron Gros, intimating that his functions were suspended until further orders from France, which could not be received for an interval of at least three weeks, Mr. Wyse said—

"If the Greek Government will send the sums which I think are just amounts of compensation to the persons for whom particular fixed sums have been required, and for the losses of Mr. Finlay, and of Mr. Pacifico, so far as his furniture and household goods are concerned; if the Greek Government will send 180,000 drachmas, accompanied by a letter stating that amount to be in full satisfaction of all claims mentioned in my note of January 17, except the claims of Mr. Pacifico for losses resulting from the destruction of his documents, I will"—

Do what?—continue the statu quo?—no, but "I will immediately release all the Greek merchantmen now under detention, and by that means set the commerce of Greece entirely free." No doubt that would have been a very advantageous arrangement for the Greek Government, providing it was prepared to do that which from the commencement we had required—to admit the principle of our demands. But that arrangement, be it remembered, would have left for future discussion the terms of the letter of apology for the insult offered to the British Navy in the case of the boat of the Fantome; it would have left for future discussion the arrangements connected with the claims of Mr. Pacifico for the destruction of his Portuguese documents. Baron Gros replied—

"I have notified to the Greek Government that I am no longer in official communication with them, and therefore I cannot make this proposal officially."

But he intimated that unofficially it should be made. This was on the 24th, and Baron Gros informed Mr. Wyse, by a private letter, that he thought the next day, the 25th, by five o'clock in the afternoon, Mr. Wyse would receive the letter and the money from the Greek Government. Mr. Wyse suspended any resumption of coercive measures till after the time thus mentioned by Baron Gros as that at which he would probably receive a communication from the Greek Government; and it was not until after five o'clock on the evening of the 25th—the communication of Baron Gros that he had suspended his functions being dated the 23rd—that, not receiving the anticipated communication, Mr. Wyse made the announcement that on the next morning coercive measures would be resumed. I think, then, we are justified in saying that it was not Mr. Wyse who put an end to Baron Gros' negotiation, and that it was not Mr. Wyse who determined that coercive measures should be resumed; but that Mr. Wyse, whether rightly or wrongly, but rightly, as I think, considered that Baron Gros had officially withdrawn himself from the negotiation, and that consequently the ease had arisen in which coercive measures were necessarily and at once to be resumed. I think the French Government are entirely mistaken in supposing that there was, on the part of Mr. Wyse, any departure—at all events in intention—I do not think, in fact, from the clear understanding which had existed, I am bound to say, from the commencement, that it was to rest with Baron Gros, and not with Mr. Wyse, to determine when Baron Gros should cease to exercise his functions. Then the question arises, whether, giving Mr. Wyse full credit for being right in his opinion—and I think the papers will show he was so—that Baron Gros had himself withdrawn from the negotiation, the point upon which they differed was one on which it was incumbent upon Mr. Wyse to refer for further instructions to his Government, and, pending the receipt of those instructions, to maintain the status quo—the detention of the vessels which were already in our possession, without making any further seizures. It was understood, from the very beginning of the negotiations, that though we accepted the good offices of France, we accepted them for the purpose and in the hope of obtaining, by her friendly intervention, that satisfaction which we had begun to endeavour to obtain by the employment of our naval force; and we distinctly announced that we could not abandon any of our demands. That there was no misunderstanding on that subject, is plain from the despatches of M. Dronyn da Lhuys which have been published, I suppose, from authentic copies about to be presented to the French Assembly, in which he clearly lays down what in his understanding was the limit of the functions of Baron Gros. The functions of the French negotiations were not to interfere with the principle of the demands of this Government, or the sums which we had fixed in particular cases as the specific satisfaction to be obtained; but they were to he confined to a discussion as to the amount of those sums which were not fixed in our demands—the amount to be paid to Mr. Finlay for the land which had been taken from him, and the amount which might be due to Mr. Pacifico for the losses he had sustained by the sacking of his house, in furniture, goods, money, and other property. The principle of our demands was contained in the six articles we communicated to the French Government. We required an apology for the outrage committed upon some of the crew of the Fantome; compensation for the Ionians who had been tortured in one ease, and ill-treated in another; compensation to the Ionians who had been plundered in the custom-house at Salcina; compensation to be settled for Mr. Finlay's land; compensation to be settled for Mr. Pacifico's losses at Athens; and compensation to he ascertained for any loss he might have sustained by the destruction of documents. On the 16th of February M. Drouyn de Lhuys wrote to say—

"As to the questions that are to be examined in these conferences, they shall be those which shall not implicate in principle the denial of the English claims."

On the 22nd of February, again, he says, "As to the second point," upon which he had been ordered to interrogate me, "that Minister"—myself—

"Told me, as I have had the honour of informing you, that the mediation will comprise the questions which do not implicate in principle the negation of the demands of the Cabinet of London. Thus it is laid down in principle that an indemnity is due to Mr. Finlay and Mr. Pacifico. It remains to settle what shall be the amount of that indemnity."

There are other extracts I might read to the same effect. On the 22nd of March, M. Drouyn de Lhuys wrote—

"The following is an answer to these two questions:—Mr. Wyse is authorised at present to accept of an arrangement based on the following conditions:—1. Payment in cash of the indemnities claimed by the maltreated English and Ionian subjects; of the value of the land taken from Mr. Finlay, according to the estimate set upon it with the consent of M. Gros; and the damages demanded for the personal bad treatment to which Mr. Pacifico was subjected, as well as for the pillage of his house, with the exception of his Portuguese claims, which remain to be examined."

Showing that it was distinctly understood that this portion of Mr. Pacifico's claims was entirely separate from the other.

"2. The transmission of a letter to Mr. Wyse, expressing regret for the arrest of an officer of the Fantome. 3. A promise to make a loyal inquiry on the subject of the Portuguese documents which Mr. Pacifico alleges to have been carried away from him. This is the only arrangement which Mr. Wyse can find (can be instructed to find) satisfactory, and accept."

A misunderstanding, it seems, existed at Athens on this subject; and on the 8th of April M. Drouyn de Lhuys wrote to General Lahitte—

"According to a letter from Mr. Green (the Consul at Athens) dated March 19, it would appear that M. Gros, on the faith of his correspondence from Paris, is persuaded that in case he himself should declare that his good offices have failed, and that he expects no result from their continuance, Admiral Parker would not have recourse to coercive measures without new orders from his Government. That is completely erroneous, and it is of great importance to rectify, in that respect, the opinion of our negotiator. In such hypothesis the coercive measures would resume their course ipso facto, as I have had the honour of informing you on the 23rd of February and 20th of March. If any difference of opinion should arise between M. Gros and Mr. Wyse on the question of knowing if the compromise which the negotiator proposes, relative to the only points which he will have to examine, is or is not acceptable, it is only then that Mr. Wyse and Admiral Parker will have to refer the subject to their Government."

The question then is, what was the point upon which—a difference having arisen between Baron Gros and Mr. Wyse—Baron Gros requested Mr. Wyse to refer for instructions to his Government; and on Mr. Wyse stating that he did not think himself bound or at liberty to do so, Baron Gros said, "I withdraw from the negotiation." Was it a point the negotiator was to determine or not? I think I have shown by the extracts from these despatches, that it was clearly understood between us that the only points which that negotiator would have to examine were with reference to the amounts to he given to Mr. Finlay and Mr. Pacifico as compensation for their losses. Now, it would seem from the papers upon the table that the negotiation broke off, not upon these points, but upon the question whether the Greek Government was or was not to make an engagement, that it would not only examine the question as to the losses of Mr. Pacifico by the destruction of his Portuguese documents, but would engage to pay to him the amount of any loss he might he proved to have sustained by the destruction of those documents. Baron Gros had agreed, on the 16th, to such an engagement, and had also agreed that a sum to the amount of 150,000 drachmas should be deposited as a pledge for the fulfilment of the engagement; and the only difference between Baron Gros and Mr. Wyse upon that arrangement was, that Baron Gros proposed that the deposit should be held conjointly by Greece and by England; while Mr. Wyse, for reasons which he explains, contended that the security should be deposited either in the Bank of England, or, if Baron Gros preferred it, in the Bank of France. Baron Gros, in the course of the discussion, said he would take that question into further consideration; but after Mr. Wyse had reason to think that Baron Gros had consented to submit to the Greek Government an arrangement containing those stipulations, Baron Gros, for reasons which he was fully entitled to express, altered his opinion, retracted his proposal, and said he was satisfied Mr. Pacifico's claims upon that head were not deserving of any serious consideration, and that all he would agree to would be that the English and Greek Governments should enter into an investigation, and apply to Portugal to ascertain whether Mr. Pacifico had any claim on this account. Mr. Wyse could not agree to a proposal which involved the negation of one of the principles of our demands. He could not do so according to his original instructions; still less could he do it in the face of instructions which I gent him on the 25th of March, entering somewhat into detail as to the particular question of Mr. Pacifico's claims, and which will be found in the printed papers. Mr. Wyse naturally said there was nothing to refer—that he could not refer for further instructions on a point which had been settled by the basis on which the good offices of France had been accepted, and also by instructions he had recently received, which he showed to Baron Gros, Mr. Wyse read those instructions to M. Gros, and he said, "I will read them again if you think fit; if there is anything you think doubtful I will explain it; but these are my in structions, and upon them I am bound to act." M. Gros, however, thought otherwise. Whether he was acting under the erroneous impression alluded to in the despatch of M. Drouyn de Lhuys to General Lahitte, I cannot say; but Baron Gros and Mr. Wyse differed in opinion, and upon that point mainly the negotiation broke off. There was another demand made by Mr. Wyse upon his own responsibility, and not arising from his instructions, which, for the reasons stated by him, Her Majesty's Government think he was right in urging. Baron Gros originally proposed that the Greek ships should be restored with their cargoes in the very same condition, or as nearly so as possible, as when they were captured. Mr. Wyse, as a counter-proposal, inserted a condition that the Greek Government should be answerable for all the damages arising from the coercive measures. Objections were made to that, and Baron Gros having withdrawn his proposal, Mr. Wyse also withdrew his. But Mr. Wyse having learned that the Greek Government was collecting statements of losses, with a view, as was reported to, him, of bringing forward at some future time those claims as a set-off against the claim of this country upon Greece for the amount which has been paid for interest and sinking fund upon the guaranteed loan, he thought it right to shut out any such demand, by an engagement not imposing upon the Greek Government any pecuniary liability, but simply debarring them from putting forward themselves, or supporting on the part of others, any claim of that character; and I must say that, considering the importance of establishing a good understanding with Greece, I think it was quite right to insist upon that clause, to prevent that which would have given occasion, naturally, to a recurrence of unfriendly relations with Greece. Her Majesty's Government would not—no British Government would—have admitted the claim; but the claim might have been pressed in a manner to disturb friendly relations with that country. But the main point upon which Baron Gros insisted, and upon which Mr. Wyse felt himself bound to resist, was whether the Greek Government should be liable to pay whatever might appear upon investigation to be duo to Mr. Pacifico for the loss sustained by the destruction of the Portuguese documents. We made no claim of the particular amount; we did not pretend to say it would be 1l., or 10l., or 100l.; but, be it ever so small or ever so great, we thought that upon principle it was a claim the Greek Government were justly liable to make good, and that was one of the principles of our original demand, from which we never contemplated the possibility of our receding. Well, then, I say I think General Lahitte was under a very erroneous impression when he asserted in that letter that the negotiations were broken off by the act of Mr. Wyse terminating the mission of Baron Gros, and broken off upon a point on which Mr. Wyse ought to have referred to his Government. I need not, I am sure, say that this circumstance, that any discussion—any difference of opinion of this kind, has arisen between the Government of France and the Government of England, must be a source of the most painful regret to Her Majesty's Government. I hope I have said nothing—I am sure it was not my intention to say anything, which could tend either to increase the misunderstanding, or to propose the slightest obstacle to its removal. I am not without hopes that upon a question of this sort, where clearly there could have been no intention on the part of the British Government in the slightest degree to offer an affront, or to be wanting in respect to the Government of a friendly Power—I cannot divest myself of the hope that the discussion going on between the two Governments may end in a manner that will be satisfactory and honourable to both. Sorry I am sure I should be, if anything I should say should throw any difficulty in the way of such an adjustment; and I should hope, if these things are made the subject of debate in this House before it is known how the discussion may terminate, that no hon. Member, whatever his opinions may be, would express them in a manner calculated to have a prejudicial effect upon the discussion. It is the anxious desire of Her Majesty's Government to cultivate the most friendly relations with France. It is immaterial to us who are the men of whom the Government of Franco is composed; we have no business to inquire into that, or to meddle with it; they are the Government that is, and it is with the Government that is that we are in communication and negotiation. And, as I have said, I cannot but believe that, whatever the opinion of the Government of France may be as to the matter at issue, at least they will do us the justice to think that, whatever ground of complaint they may fancy themselves to have, they have no ground of complaint against us for any want of good intentions towards them, or any deficiency in that friendly feeling which it would be the duty of Her Majesty's Government, or of any Government that may succeed it, to entertain towards the Government and nation of France.

Sir, as it was in consequence of a question which I addressed to the noble Lord opposite that some doubts were raised, I believe, respecting the tenor of the reply of the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs to the question of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Manchester, perhaps I may be allowed shortly to advert to the explanation the noble Lord has now given. I would premise that no one has a greater sense of the value of relations of amity between France and this country than I have, and that, therefore, no one can be more ready to make full and ample allowance for the motives to which the noble Lord has adverted—for his desire to put away anything that might have a tendency to disturb those friendly relations, and to leave it perfectly open to the French Government to adopt language on the other side of the water which may be most favourable to the maintenance of those relations. At the same time, giving full weight to those considerations, I may be permitted to observe, that it does appear to me, upon the facts the noble Lord has stated, that he strained very much the statement that he made upon that occasion. The noble Lord, in making that reply to the right hon. Member for Manchester, that he trusted nothing would occur to disturb the friendly relations between this country and France, was at that moment in possession of the despatch of General Lahitte to M. Drouyn de Lhuys; and that despatch, I think it is important for us to recollect, was communicated to the noble Lord, not, indeed, in writing—a copy of it was not given to him—but, if I am not mistaken, was communicated to the noble Lord formally and officially, as a direct communication from the French Government. It was not communicated to him privately and confidentially, in the course of conversation, among a variety of other matter, merely as intimating the opinion of M. Drouyn de Lhuys, and his wish to apprise the noble Lord of the feeling existing in Paris on the course the noble Lord had pursued. It was an official communication from the head of the French Government. It does appear to me that it was scarcely acting with ingenuousness towards the House for the noble Lord, in the face of that communication, to declare so broadly that he trusted there was nothing to disturb the friendly relations between the two countries. [Lord PALMERSTON: I did not say so; I said, "That I trusted nothing would arise out of the circumstances to disturb the friendly relations between the two countries."] It is not my intention to analyse the noble Lord's statement, able as everything must be which proceeds from him. It must be obvious that, as we have had no time at present to peruse the bulky volume just placed in our hands, it would be impossible, on the spur of the moment, to deal with a subject in which it is necessary to collate dates and compare details and statements one with another, when two or three negotiations have been going on simultaneously at Athens, and in London or Paris. I conceive that the great question between the noble Lord and the French Government with respect to the rupture of this negotiation is, whether Baron Gros was in such a situation that the negotiation actually and entirely terminated, or whether that case only had arisen in which a reference to London and to Paris was contemplated. It appears to me clear, from what we have already seen in the public papers, the translations from papers presented to the French Chamber, and which I suppose we may assume to be authentic, that Baron Gros himself did not consider the negotiation entirely terminated, but that the ease had arisen in which it was desirable that a reference should be had to the Government at home; and it is unfortunate, that on the spot Baron Gros himself, the negotiator engaged with this difficult and delicate task, does not concur in the view taken by Her Majesty's Government here, or by their representative at Athens, that they are at issue upon that first and cardinal point on which so large a portion of the merits of this question must necessarily hinge. The noble Lord seems to draw the line very strongly, that these claims were to be admitted, in all their integrity, by the French negotiator, and there was to be no question as to the principle of them, but only as to the amount to be awarded to Mr. Pacifico; but I do not think the French Government appear to concur with the noble Lord in that view either. It appears to me that they considered that to restrict their mediation within such narrow limits would place them in a somewhat degrading position, and that the claims of Mr. Pacifico upon the Portuguese Government of so very problematical a nature, and upon the face of them appearing so monstrous and extravagant, fell within the matters which the French negotiator would be justified in investigating. But, as I have said, not having had the opportunity of perusing the documents, I will not venture to go over the statements of the noble Lord. I concur with him that it would be most desirable that our relations of amity with the French Government, and with those other great States of Europe which are alienated from us at this moment, should, if possible, be renewed. Whatever may be the arguments with which the noble Lord is enabled to defend the line of negotiation he has adopted, there can be no doubt that the result has been to place England in a most unfortunate position; that the negotiations, in their issue, have been most unsuccessful. The noble Lord has dwelt upon the alliance with France; he has clung to that; it has been the keystone of the arch of his policy; and that keystone he has contrived, somehow or other, to pick out himself. The noble Lord had scarcely an ally left in Europe but France, and he has contrived to offend and to alienate that ally. I do not conceive, considering the gravity of the step the French Government has taken, and the publicity given to it, that it will be so easy as the sanguine hopes of the noble Lord appear to paint, to renew the amicable relations which have subsisted. I fear the noble Lord has contrived to place himself in a position of such antagonism with that Government, that he will be a great bar to the resumption of friendly relations between the two countries. This is a subject which, as it implicates the honour of this country, as it touches nearly its interests, and is big with evils and menaces great danger to the future, cannot be disposed of lightly or hastily; it must occupy the attention of this House. We should be neglecting our duty, indeed, if, with a charge thus publicly made before the whole of Europe, implicating the honour and good faith of England, and leading necessarily to an in terruption to all our friendly relations with the Continental Powers, it should not receive in this country and from this Legislature, the fullest and most deliberate investigation. I conceive that so far there is no hostility of feeling at present between the French and the English communities. I consider that the feelings of England towards France are friendly. I consider that there is no national irritation at this moment existing on the part of the French towards England. Let one or two steps he taken in this direction—let us proceed with anything like rashness or a desire from party motives to vindicate what we may find, upon examination, to be objectionable, and a rivalry must inevitably spring up, old feelings of irritation will be revived, and the peace of Europe itself will have but a short lease of duration. It is impossible—I say it advisedly—it is imposible for a state of things such as exists at this moment between England and almost all the other Powers of Europe, to subsist without the future of England being menaced with war. It is impossible for us to conceive that such a state of things can long go on, that there can be merely this kind of tacit hostility—this kind of neutral hostility—this hostility in heart and in spirit pervading so large a portion of the Continent, without its breaking out somewhere. Let us guard against it in time. Let us show, that we, the Legislature of this country, are prepared to bring to the consideration of this question no spirit of party, but to consider it with caution, with deliberation, and with impartiality; and that while we shall always be ready to maintain the real honour and interests of this country, we feel that we are strong enough to do justice even at the expense of ourselves.

had only one observation to offer at this stage of the discussion of these affairs. He simply rose to complain, or, more properly speaking, to lament the great delay which had taken place in the production of the documents necessary for the understanding of this case. This morning those papers were not delivered with the Parliamentary papers. In his own case they had not been delivered at half-past three, when he left home; but he had been told that at some time between that hour and the present moment, a certain number of copies had been sent to Members. He was willing to hope that the noble Lord at the head of Foreign Affairs had used all despatch and expedition in having the documents prepared; but, in the absence of those documents, he did not think this question could be discussed. He therefore entered his protest against being drawn into a discussion upon this question when the documents upon which his opinion must practically be founded were not yet fairly in the hands of Members.

Sir, I should not now trespass upon the attention of the House if it did not appear to me that there were statements in the explanation given tonight by the noble Lord at the head of Foreign Affairs not entirely countenanced by the statements in the papers laid upon the table of the National Assembly of France. For instance, I understood the noble Lord to say that Baron Gros had withdrawn from the negotiation. Now, there is a despatch laid before the National Assembly, in which Baron Gros, on the 24th of April, distinctly intimated to Mr. Wyse that he had not withdrawn from the mediation; his words were (alluding to the original stipulation that coercive measures should be resumed without further orders, "in case he should declare that he gave up the rôle of mediator"), "I have not given up the rôle of mediator; I presented to you a project which I think just and satisfactory. For God's sake submit it to Lord Palmerston." Can any thing be more distinct than that? Now, Sir, if the French people, or the European public, believe in those protestations of amity towards France in which the noble Lord has indulged, and with which he succeeded in evoking the sympathies of this House, and if the English public are parties to those sympathies, I think it would have been easy for Mr. Wyse, in pursuance of his conciliatory instructions, to have acceded to the request of Baron Gros. Sir, I agree with the noble Lord the Member for Hertford in thinking that the time has not yet arrived for the complete discussion of this question. But, Sir, what has arrived, what has happened, what may be regarded as an accomplished fact, and that upon which some discussion may well arise in this House, is the alarming exchange of intimate and confidential relations with the Government of France for those of alienation and estrangement. Sir, it is seldom that I venture to speak in Parliament. The last time I presumed to address a few words within these walls, in 1847, I remember that I ventured to implore the noble Lord not lightly to throw away that intimate and cordial understanding with France, which had been bequeathed to him by his predecessor the Earl of Aberdeen. What has become of that entente cordiale now? Why, Sir, the Minister of July, 1840, as it was foreseen by the most clearsighted of his colleagues, has taken every opportunity, under every Government of France, to break from that wise, that essential, that auspicious alliance. For the severance. Sir, is not of yesterday. It began when the House of Orleans Was on the throne of France. It began on the question of Switzerland; it exposed itself in an isolated protest on the question of Cracow; it was consummated in the policy which followed upon what was called the Spanish marriages. But did the severance stop there? Did it stop with the fall of Louis Philippe from the throne of France? Sir, that severance was again manifested after the accession of the Republic; it was exhibited in the Straits of Messina; it was again shown when France reverted to the policy of order in the Italian peninsula; once more the other day in the affairs of the Rio de la Plata; and it has lastly broken out in the lamentable and untoward occurrence now under discussion. Sir, in these observations I intend to confine myself simply to the question of our relations with France. I would say then, that I think when the noble Lord just now, in his able and masterly statement, proved his case, he did not prove a case which in any way impugned the opposite case of the French Government. The noble Lord took great pains to show that he had narrowed and contracted the original intervention of France, first of all from arbitration to mediation, and, secondly, from mediation to "good offices." Now, all this I think is of a pedantry unworthy of a great nation. Surely, in the matter of these miserable monies, we could well have afforded to submit to the arbitration of a powerful and therefore disinterested nation like France. But, unhappily, I think throughout his negotiations the noble Lord has marked his policy by jealousy and distrust, and insult towards that Government. Sir, I say the noble Lord showed jealousy to France, precisely because he offered first arbitration, then mediation, and then good offices. I say he showed distrust to France, as in the papers laid on the table of the National Assembly I find that he began by abuse of the resident Minister, M. Thouvenel, and wound up by abuse of the special envoy, Baron Gros. I assert, further, that the noble Lord has shown insult to France, as he entered into a convention on the 18th of April—and let it be remarked, that throughout the whole of his masterly statement not one word escaped the noble Lord with regard to that convention, and one might be led to suppose it had never been projected—which convention he was obliged to repudiate and reject on the 10th of May, and thus offer insult to the Government of France. And why was it repudiated and rejected? Because, on the 27th April, the noble Lord, by the aid of a leviathan fleet of Great Britain, had at last harpooned his miserable minnow, the infinitesimal monarchy of Greece. What wonder, then, that an ardent and susceptible people, igneœ indoles, should take notice of so long a series of evil offices from the Minister of July, 1840. What wonder is it that they should have risen as one man, represented by seven-eighths of a chamber elected by universal suffrage, to applaud the recall of their Ambassador. Sir, I have seen it somewhere stated that that recall was not sympathised in by the higher authorities in France. But this I will venture to say, that be the prince or governor what he might, who should be at the head of affairs in France, he would stand a very good chance of sleeping within the week at Vincennes on Mount Michel, if he had not exhibited that sympathy. It is also stated that one portion of the Assembly did not entertain the same feeling of indignation at the noble Lord's conduct as is entertained by the people of France. But it was only the other day that I read a work from the pen of M. Ledru-Rollin, certainly the ablest and most eloquent leader of the democracy of France. Speaking of the foreign policy of England, M. Ledru-Rollin alludes to it as a worn-out vulture in its isolated eyrie. He states that England enters into no treaties which it does not violate; and that the sea is not more full of ruin and of wrecks than the history of England of diplomatic crime. Therefore I think it unlikely that the party which M. Ledru-Rollin still guides from exile should sympathise in the foreign policy of the Minister of July 1840. Now, Sir, it appears to me there are only two solutions to this question which would be satisfactory to this House. One is almost too absurd to name—the retirement of the noble Lord at the head of Foreign Affairs; for he is a necessity to that Europe to which he is at the same time odious. I will logically prove it. No man will dispute that Great Britain is a necessity to the balance of power. In the present state of parties it is as undeniable a necessity that the Whigs should govern, and the noble Lord is unquestionably indispensable to the Whigs. It is, therefore, impossible to arrive at that solution. But there is another solution still. I would venture to ask the noble Lord to give effect to that stipulation of the 18th April, by which a benefit will be conferred on Greece, a courtesy shown to France, and justice will be done to England, whose honour in this matter is, I think, so solemnly engaged.

Sir. I am of opinion that the statement made by the noble Secretary for Foreign Affairs on a former evening, which has not been interpreted by some persons as it ought to have been, has now been satisfactorily explained. It further appears to me that the noble Lord did nothing but his duty in making that statement in the terms which he used. There is, however, much truth in the old saying that when a man is determined either to marry or to fight, it is very difficult to prevent him. I wish I did not see such a pugnacious spirit—such a desperate desire to fight, on the part of Her Majesty's Ministers. It is true that many cases may arise in which it would be impossible to put up altogether with an insult from a weaker Power; but I remember perfectly well the great Mr. Grattan observing, upon some occasion—I think it was when Sir F. Burdett was committed to the Tower—

"Every one sides with the weaker party. You may sometimes sec a little deformed dwarf kicking the shins of a great giant of a fellow, and when the giant, very properly, boxes his ears, all the bystanders sympathise with the dwarf by calling out 'Well done, little one.'"

I am willing to admit, though only for the sake of argument, that it was necessary for the British Government to send a fleet to exact a sum of money from Greece; but the moment a great Power like France offered its mediation in the matter, Ministers would have best consulted true policy and real dignity by at once surrendering up the whole question, and putting it entirely out of their own hands. They ought to have given France a carle blanche to deal with the matter as she pleased. It unfortunately happens that the documents which have been placed upon the table of the House, contain evidence showing it to be the general opinion of foreign Powers that the English Government have instigated every rebellion that has occurred throughout Europe. It is also the opinion of the rebels themselves, who complain that England fomented their mischievous proceedings at first, and left them in the lurch at last. The result is, that now we have not a single friend in any part of Europe. It must be admitted that the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs is not particularly nice as to giving offence to foreign Governments. Only that morning, on reading some papers lately presented to the House, relative to the renewal of terms of amity between this country and Spain, I observed that the noble Lord had ingeniously contrived to rub the old sore. The noble Lord professed an anxiety to be upon terms of peace and amity with the Spanish Government, and yet he went out of his way to parade before that Government in the most offensive and insulting manner a name which he knew was odious to it. Now, suppose two private gentlemen had had a quarrel about one of their servants, and agreed to make peace with each other, would not every feeling of delicacy and honour prevent the name of the servant from being introduced into their conference? It is desirable the House should clearly understand that it is not upon Ministers they are called upon to pronounce judgment in these matters. It is the honour of the Crown which is at stake—it is a question of peace or war. If the House of Commons do not decidedly say by a large majority that they will have peace with France—cost what it may cost—[Cries of "Oh!" from the benches usually occupied by the "financial reformers" and "friends of peace."] Oh, I am not a member of the Peace Society. I am not one of those who say that there should be no war, but I have a great contempt for the pot valour which would rush into a war without counting the cost, and would then come back here whining and crying out for diminished armaments, to be followed again by complaints of crippled commerce and starved manufactures. Let us understand what we are about. We are going to war, not with France alone, but with Austria and Russia secretly backing her, and we must look very sharp if, after the despatches which have been received this day, America is not found behind them.

believed what had recently occurred would not have the effect of altering our relations with Greece, nor cause any misunderstanding with France. With respect to the possession of the islands of Cervi and Sapienza, he had been connected with the commission, appointed twelve years ago, in separating Greece from Turkey, and was well aware that those islands were considered part of the Ionian Islands, and that the Government of Greece had no claim whatever upon them.

Sir, I would recommend the House not to ratify, by too assenting a cheer, the suggestion of the noble Lord the Member for Hertford, that we should not presume to give any opinion upon foreign transactions in this House until the papers having relation to them have been laid upon the table. I remember some little time ago, when the affairs of Italy caused considerable excitement even in the House of Commons, a feeling of equal delicacy induced the House to postpone a discussion, and to withhold an opinion upon some of the most important transactions of modern history, until the papers on the subject were laid before them. At the end of the Session, or, I believe, after the prorogation of Parliament, these papers appeared in the shape of three folio volumes; and I venture to say, if hon. Gentlemen who read those three volumes, and digested and mastered their contents, walked into the lobby of this House, we should sec the smallest minority ever found in that chamber. Sir, I believe there is no popular assembly in Europe that less willingly obtrudes itself in discussions connected with our diplomatic relations than the House of Commons. I am sure that no Government, in England, has been more tenderly treated by the House of Commons in that respect than Her Majesty's present Government. But exactly in proportion as that wise reserve prevails among us, do I think we have a right to expect, on the part of the Government of the day, a becoming frankness. It is an understood condition of the compact between the Government and the Opposition on this subject, that if the latter does not provoke discussions which might injure important negotiations, the former shall evince when necessary a proportionate frankness. Sir, the speech of the noble Lord the Secretary of State, to-night, has been described as an able and masterly statement; but, for the life of me, I cannot understand why it should not have been made a week ago; for the noble Lord has said nothing which he might not have said the day before the adjournment. If the beneficial consequences the noble Lord contemplates are to flow, I think it matter of regret that even a week should have been lost in making a statement which might as well have been made then as now, and which, according to the silent expectations of hon. Gentlemen opposite, is calculated to remove all those inconveniences we have observed and lamented. Now, Sir, I do not desire or intend, on the present occasion—I see no necessity for so doing—to enter into any discussion upon the affairs of Greece. But I would observe that although the noble Lord has, we will admit, answered satisfactorily the question of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Manchester of last Thursday, I am not aware that the noble Lord at the head of the Government has yet satisfactorily explained that tone of reserve and tint of equivocal colouring which characterised his reply to other questions on that day. I apprehend that no sane man thinks the Greek claims are anything but a pretext—no one of sane mind can suppose that a powerful armament of Britain was suddenly brought into the waters of the Mediterranean to advocate the somewhat ludicrous and suspicious claims of Mr. Pacifico. Some cause, not stated, seems to have been at the bottom of this demonstration. In some of the diplomatic documents that have transpired in this country, it would appear that some intimation of this cause is given. It seems to have been necessary, in the opinion of the Government, that a great demonstration of the power of England last year should be made in the Mediterranean seas. There were disturbances in one of our dependencies—in a Greek State under our protection. And here I would remark that I observe one point of unanimity in the supporters of Her Majesty's Government. These supporters are unanimous as a whole, but as sections they are in opposition. One class of supporters regard the noble Lord the Secretary for the Colonies as an extremely incompetent and headstrong Minister. Another section of those Gentlemen, unanimous in their support of the Administration, take it in their head to denounce the other Secretary, the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. He is a harsh and arbitrary Minister, they say. But it happened last year, that these two Secretaries of State, who are supposed not to agree in sentiment upon any subject whatever, were obliged to interfere in the same quarter of the globe, and to cooperate together. The moment I heard the Colonial Secretary was meddling in Ionia, and afterwards, in co-operation with the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in Attica, I thought that something would happen. And when the expected discussion takes place, we may perhaps discover that these two stars crossing each other have produced those disasters which we now deplore. The noble Lord the Member for Hertford warned us not to give our opinions until the papers are before us. But the noble Lord might have remembered that the papers on this subject are now in the possession of the House. I cannot say—and I suppose I speak the feeling of the majority of the House—I cannot say they are in my possession, for I have not received them yet. They came too late: they came, like the noble Lord's despatches, too late for the post. If the noble Lord could only have contrived that we should have had our papers as soon as the French Assembly had their documents, I confess I should have listened with much more satisfaction to the "masterly statement" of the noble Lord, which we cannot answer, because the noble Lord at the time he speaks brings forward for the first time those voluminous papers, and lays them on the table. But, Sir, I observed very singular omissions in the "masterly statement" of which we have heard so much. We heard nothing, for instance, as the hon. Member for Canterbury very properly pointed out—we heard nothing throughout that singular exposition—not a single allusion to the convention of April agreed upon in London. Who could possibly have supposed—who really was in ignorance of these matters—that whilst the noble Lord was entering into all these interesting details about the doings of third-rate diplomatists in a fourth-rate State—that the Foreign Minister of England and the Ambassador of the Republic of France were negotiating together in the capital of Great Britain? Why, Sir, no doubt the grievance—the sore grievance of the French nation—is, that they should have permitted the Ambassador of their Republic to enter into a negotiation and draw up a convention with the Foreign Minister of England; and then find, instead of these great personages solving the knot—notwithstanding all that demonstration of good feeling on the part of France, and all that employment of powerful energies, that it all ends in a squabble in a remote corner of the world, carried on by obscure and subordinate individuals. But the "masterly statement" made other omissions on matters of the first importance; for I listened in vain for the slightest allusion to the position in which we are placed with respect to Russia in consequence of these transactions. I did not expect the noble Lord to enter into the details of his diplomatic dinner party—I did not wish him to give us reasons why the Minister Plenipotentiary of all the Russias was not his guest. But considering that even in this book, which we have not had an opportunity of reading, there are several despatches of the Russian Ambassador, and considering that in all the transactions connected with Greece, Russia is a party deeply interested, and one of the chief Powers of the world, it would have been extremely satisfactory if the noble Lord had not ignored the existence of Russia, and had informed the House that he not only had a prospect of reestablishing a cordial understanding with France, but that our cordial understanding with Russia was not in the least degree damaged or endangered. But neither of these great and salient points was even so much as incidentally alluded to throughout the "masterly statement." But there was another point—and I am speaking now without authentic documents, and following the noble Lord, who certainly with masterly tactics made his defence, because he kept from us the documents and authorities by which it only could be confronted—there is, I say, a third point on which I could have wished that we had had satisfactory information, and that is with respect to the islets that we have heard so much about. It would have afforded some satisfaction, I am sure, to the House, if the noble Lord had told us that these elements of future discord were dismissed from this question, and that hereafter, however anxious may be the position of Great Britain—however great the difficulties with which we may have to contend as regards France and the other Powers connected with the question—still that this long controverted subject had been finally settled by the diplomacy of the noble Lord. Yet to those throe great, and in my opinion principal, points connected with this question, not one allusion has fallen from Her Majesty's Ministers. I say Her Majesty's Ministers, because I reprobate the loose habit we got into in this House of attacking the chief of a particular department, instead of the Government. If any blunder is made, the chief criminal is the First Minister of the Crown—he it is who is the chief of the policy of the Government; and I mean to hold him responsible. The noble Lord the Secretary of State, although he presides over his own peculiar department, occupies in reality a subordinate position. Well, if no allusion is made to the principal points on which the attention of Europe is now fixed, and if after weeks of cramming, and preventing us from having the documents by which we might meet the Government, if the only case brought forward by the Government is a case which omits these important points, and one that is narrowed to the smallest issue—let us see how satisfactory is the "masterly statement" as respect" the very narrow issue on which the noble Lord has chosen to enlighten us—I mean the immediate causes of the misunderstanding with France, which has arisen out of the proceedings in Greece. Well, Sir, it appears that the French Republic, in consequence of the arrival of our fleet at Athens—remembering always, as the House should, that France by treaty is peculiarly interested in all the transactions of these countries—the French Republic was desirous to mediate in this affair. The noble Lord studiously avoided a mediation or an arbitration on the part of France. The noble Lord—the organ of the Government on this question—I do him the justice to admit that his expressions on this subject, as far as I can form an opinion from the documents laid before the French Assembly, never were equivocal or ambiguous. From the first moment when the French Republic offered her mediation, she might have distinctly collected, from the language, the manner, and demeanour of the noble Lord, his extreme unwillingness that she should interfere in the business. Now, Sir, what does the noble Lord do under these circumstances? He says, "I am for no arbitration or mediation, but I consent to the French Republic exercising what are called 'good offices.'" Now, Sir, if there is any process in diplomacy more dangerous than another, it is consenting that a third Power shall exercise good offices. That Power, remember, is invested with no authority under these circumstances, and therefore incurs no responsibility; and—except in the case in which both parties between whom the controversy lies, are anxious that a termination of the misunstanding should take place, and that a golden bridge should be conveniently and quickly formed, by which the one may retire with honour—it is a principle in the conduct of such affairs which ought never to be lost sight of, never to consent to investing a third Power with a fulfilment only of what are termed "good offices;" for under no circumstances, except those of mere form, can I recollect an occasion where such a delegation has not ended in disappointment, and often in disaster. Still, one thing is quite clear. However unwilling the Government was at the beginning to assent to the interference of France—however impolitic it was on the part of Her Majesty's Government to agree to this doubtful position being assumed by the Republic—having once taken that course, Her Majesty's Ministers should have acted cordially. They should have acted sincerely. However imperfect the machinery with which the Republic of France was invested for the fulfilment of the common object, it was not Her Majesty's Government who had refused arbitration or mediation that ought to have thrown difficulties in the way, or to have created impediments that might prevent a satisfactory termination of the difference. Now, did Her Majesty's Government act thus—did they act cordially, sincerely, and frankly towards the, French Republic? That is a question to be decided even by hon. Gentlemen who have received the "masterly statement" with such ready cheers, and who are averse to entering into the discussion to-night. And I say the evidence before us is complete on the subject, without analysing the book, which none of us have yet read. Here is a passage which my eye catches accidentally in turning over the blue book, and I will road it to the House, because, while very brief, it is yet pregnant with meaning. It is in the despatch of the Marquess of Normanby to Viscount Palmerston, written on the 9th, and received on the 10th instant, and it describes the effect produced in Paris when the news first arrived of the settlement of the Greek question. There is a conversation given between the Marquess of Normanby and General de la Hitte. What will the House think of this?—

"General do la Hitte read me a despatch which he had communicated when he had first received it from M. Drouyn de Lhuys, of the date of the 3rd of March, in which he states himself to have discussed the point with your Lordship, and to have obtained your complete assent to the condition there required by the French Government, that in case of any difference of opinion between Mr. Wyse and Baron Gros as to the terms to be proposed to the Greek Government, hostile proceedings should not be recommenced until a further reference had been made for instructions to London and Paris."

Let the House mark the words—

"in case of any differences of opinion between Mr. Wyse and Baron Gros as to the terms to be proposed to the Greek Government, hostile proceedings should not be recommenced until a reference has been made for further instructions from London and Paris."

These are very wide words; and what General de la Hitte thought he had a good right to complain of was, that Mr. Wyse had stated that he never received instructions of that character, and certainly had acted in the last instance in defiance of their purport. The Marquess of Normanby goes on to say—

"I was unable either to admit or deny that M. Drouyn de Lhuys had rightly understood your Lordship to assent to this condition on the part of the French Government, having had no direct communication with you since that date, on this particular point; but I am hound to state that snch has been the impression here; and from General do la Hitte's constant language, I do not believe that he would have continued the good offices of France had he believed that they could have had the termination they have now received."

That despatch, to my mind, is pretty well conclusive as to the merits of the question. You may split hairs—you may explain away phrases, but I ask the House this simple question, "Do you think that when the French Republic sent an Ambassador here to draw up a convention with the English Minister which would settle the affairs of Greece, that they could have imagined that, by any possible combination of circumstances, the affairs of Greece could be settled at Athens instead of at London?" No man will deny that diplomatic correspondence may be susceptible of many explanations—it is possible many misconceptions may occur—great errors may be committed in one quarter and another—I do not say that the House is called upon to give an opinion on these points, but I am satisfied the House cannot for a moment conceive that the French Government would have consented to send an Ambassador to London, if they had believed it possible that the dispute would be settled at Athens. That, Sir, is the cream of the case. Then I ask why, after Her Majesty's Government had received the first overtures of the French Government with coldness and a repulse, why did they, after finally declining their suggestion, assent to a most imperfect and unsatisfactory machinery for the settlement of the business? Was the conduct of Her Majesty's Ministry straightforward to France, even if it was not cordial? First, it was not cordial; and then it was not frank. The catastrophe never could have occurred if there had been cordiality. I don't know what the First Minister thinks of this affair. Every night he is reminded by Members on both sides of the House that he is a Minister free from ressponsibility to Parliament, and that makes a man bold. But the noble Lord, I believe, has not yet been in power for four years, and I think he must have sometimes reflected on the remarkable diplomatic occurrences that have taken place within that short period. One day we are told that a Plenipotentiary of our Government is rudely expelled from Madrid. Next we learn with anxiety that the Austrian Ambassador has disappeared from London; and then we suddenly learn that the French Ambassador is recalled. And only a little time ago we heard that the waters of the Hellespont were in commotion. Even the Turkish Ambassador was nervous; and nobody knows what has become of the Russian Ambassador. It is not known whether he, too, has gone off, or whether he still remains to adorn that society of which he is justly considered an ornament. But I think the noble Lord, remembering these circumstances—that his Government has been in a series of diplomatic scrapes from the first moment of his taking office—that the country has been reconciled to these unfortunate contingencies by the recollection that at least our powerful neighbours were still upon the best terms with us—and that whatever might be our differences with the other Powers of Europe, the French people yet remained, under every form of government the cordial ally of England—I think the noble Lord, when he finds that his Administration may have succeeded in depriving us even of that sole compensation for all the other mischances of our diplomacy, that even the noble Lord, although it is seven o'clock, and though there seems to be a kind of agreement that there shall be silence on the other side, will feel it only duo to the country that he should get up, and, if possible, give the House the assurance that we have still one ally left.

Sir, the speech we have just heard is one of the greatest proofs that could have been given of the wisdom of the advice of the noble Lord the Member for Hertford, that it would be well not to debate this question until hon. Members had had time to peruse the contents of the papers on this subject; for, certainly, if the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken had had a glimpse of the contents of those papers, he could not have fallen into the series of errors which have characterised his speech. The hon. Gentleman expresses his wonder that my noble Friend made no reference to the convention of the 18th of April. Why, the object of my noble Friend's explanation was to show that the charge and statement that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in France appeared to have made, that my noble Friend had made a promise which he had not kept, was not a well-founded statement. But the convention to which he alludes was made on April 18, and on the 23rd of April Baron Gros made that announcement to the Greek Government and to Mr. Wyse, which, in the opinion of Mr. Wyse, suspended and put an end to the powers of Baron Gros as a negotiator. Mr. Wyse might be right, or he might he wrong, in that interpretation; and my noble Friend's arguments were intended to show that Mr. Wyse was justified in that interpretation, and in the consequent recourse to coercive measures. But if he was right in that course, and justified in that interpretation, it is obvious that the convention of the 18th of April must arrive too late to influence the French negotiator on the 23rd of that month. The intervening four days were not sufficient to allow it to go out, so as to exercise any influence in Greece over the conduct of the English and French negotiators. And yet this seems to have been such a puzzle to the hon. Gentleman, that he cannot understand why my noble Friend did not explain why the convention of the 18th of April did not conclude the business in this country. If it should appear that Mr. Wyse has mistaken his instructions, and the purport of Baron Gros' announcement to the Greek Government, then it might be said that my noble Friend had not laid due emphasis on the convention of the 18th of April. But the statement which my noble Friend made, precluded his having any necessity to lay any stress upon that convention. Whether the hon. Gentleman was right, or Mr. Wyse was right, might be a matter for argument when hon. Members have read the papers. The hon. Gentleman also complained that this negotiation had been concluded at Athens and not in London. Why, from the first it was intended that this question should be settled in Athens, and not by England only. France sent a negotiator there for the express purpose of settling the question there; and the first thing the French Ambassador did was to agree that the negotiation should be conducted at Athens. The convention was proposed on the 15th of April, and carried out on the 18th. It was an afterthought of the French Ambassador, and it would have boon highly useful if Baron Gros had not thought it right to take the step he did. The convention would then have concluded the whole negotiation upon terms perfectly satisfactory to England and France; and we certainly lament that it did not do so. Allusion has been made to the explanation I made a few days ago; and, without entering upon the general discussion, I am anxious to state a few words with respect to the explanation I then made. Having been engaged in public business on Friday, and having attended a Select Committee of the House until three o'clock, I had not road the despatch which was read by General Lahitte to the French Assembly. I had seen a general statement in the newspapers that the Minister of Foreign Affairs had read a despatch for the withdrawal of M. Drouyn do Lhuys, but I had not read the despatch. But what I had read was a despatch of the Marquess of Normanby, giving an account of his communication with General Lahitte; and when the hon. Gentleman asked me the question which he put, I stated the purport of that despatch—that, in consequence of the displeasure felt by the French Government with respect to the affairs of Greece, they had thought it right to recall their Ambassador. That was my statement, made in perfect conformity with the representations which had been made to us. But I went on to say that the French Minister of Foreign Affairs had stated to the Marquess of Normanby that the return of M. Drouyn de Lhuys should be considered as natural, since, having been sent here specially to settle the affairs of Greece, and the negotiations having failed, his mission had reached its termination. Now, it is right I should state that, by a despatch received to-day from the Marquess of Normanby, it appears that while the Marquess says he has a recollection that these were the terms used by General Lahitte, the French Minister of Foreign Affairs, yet that, in consequence of the Marquess of Normanby having stated that these events might affect his position in Paris, the words may have been used out of civility and kindness to him. General Lahitte does not, it appears, recollect having used these terms; and the Marquess of Normanby says, that being the case, he certainly cannot hold the French Minister of Foreign Affairs to words which he does not recollect having employed. Now, not being aware that the statement I made was one which General Lahitte would not bear out, and having given it as the Marquess of Normanby stated it—whether it was a statement that went in anyway to explain the termination of M. Drouyn de Lhuys' mission or not—it was a matter for which I was not responsible. I wish to state that the French Government had, from displeasure with the conduct of England, recalled their Ambassador from this country, yet that there had been words used by the French Minister of Foreign Affairs from the nature of which we did not think the matter so serious as that circumstance might have led us to suppose. With respect to any other statement of mine, I can only say that I answered the questions asked of me to the best of my judgment. When the hon. Member for Radnorshire asked whether we had a copy of the despatch recalling the French Ambassador, that being the actual purport of his question, I answered that we had not a copy of that despatch; but, in answer to a question put by another hon. Gentleman, I stated that the despatch had been read. Therefore I say. Sir, that the statement I made the other evening to the House was a statement of the whole truth, so far as I was then aware of it. With respect to the general question, though the House does not think it proper to enter into a formal discussion on these matters, yet I am truly sorry that there should have been any observations made; and I think there were observations made by the hon. Member for Canterbury that may tend rather to increase than to diminish the difficulties of this question. In any discussion that may hereafter take place in this House, I shall be happy to take my full share of responsibility along with my noble Friend who has conducted these negotiations, because, though he was the organ of the Government, and in full possession of the sentiments of the Government on the matters in question, yet I, as the head of that Government, avow and consider myself to be mainly responsible for the course which has been pursued. Sir, I must further add, in answer to the observations of the hon. Gentleman, that there have been occasions—for there have been more than one occasion—when mediation and good offices—[Mr. DISRAELI: I spoke of "good offices"]—there have been occasions, then, I say, when the exercise of "good offices" have been essential in maintaining the peace of two countries. I need only state the case of Naples, in which a demand by ourselves was enforced by coercive measures. These coercive measures were suspended at the request of the French Government, who offered their good offices on the occasion. Those good offices were accepted and were successful, no further coercive measures being rendered necessary. Another case took place with regard to Mexico, and in that instance our position was reversed. France and Mexico were on the eve of hostilities; but the good offices of England were successful in preventing those hostilities, and restoring peace. Therefore it is not at all true, as a general maxim, that good offices may not be of great service with respect to such matters. I need not enter into other questions on which hon. Gentlemen have touched; but I will say that I agree so far with what has been stated, that if there is any explanation we can make to the French Government, consistent with the honour and the interests of England, that may remove the unhappy misunderstanding that exists, and restore to a state of harmony the relations between the two countries, there is no effort that Her Majesty's Government will not make to accomplish that desirable object. I trust, notwithstanding the taunts of the hon. Member for Buckinghamshire, that we shall have credit for cordiality and sincerity in that wish. I do not think any circumstance, since I have filled the situation which I now hold in public affairs, has given me so much pain as this unhappy difference with the Government of France. There has been more than one occasion on which—I do not wish to enter into details—we have shown a wish to consult the interests of the Government of France, when, I will not say the interests of England, but the popular feeling of England, was a good deal against the proceedings of the French Government, because it was our wish to show forbearance to a Government which we desired to see strong and powerful, and whose existence and strength we conceived to be necessary to the permanent peace and prosperity of Europe.

said, that on bringing forward the subject which he had now again the honour to move, he last year had pointed out that there were three courses open to the Chancellor of the Exchequer: to repeal the customs duty on colonial coffee altogether—to enforce the existing law—or to impose an excise duty on vegetable substitutes for coffee. The right hon. Baronet had stated that he did not think it expedient to propose any change of the existing law; the inference, therefore, was, that he would not longer interpose between the laws and their enforcement. The public health was affected by these adulterations of coffee, perpetrated by fraudulent dealers, under the direct sanction of the Treasury minute, to an extent which the witnesses described as perfectly awful. It was a singular fact, that whilst the consumption of all other articles had increased since the reduction of the customs duties in 1846, that of coffee alone had decreased. The reason of this was that coffee was adulterated to an enormous extent, and because the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government stood in the way of the operation of the law which would prevent that adulteration from taking place. The Act of the 43rd Geo. III. prohibited the adulteration of coffee and cocoa under a penalty of 100l. and a forfeiture of the article. But the Act was to be put into operation by means of the Commissioners of Excise. Now, it was singular that whilst the Commissioners prosecuted for adulterations of tea and pepper, they had not prosecuted for adulteration of coffee. On the 4th of August, 1840, on complaints being made to the excise by coffee dealers in Liverpool that that article was adulterated to a great extent by mixing chicory with it, the Lords of the Treasury issued a minute prohibiting any prosecution, and stating that no fraud had been committed as long as the duty on the chicory had been paid. This was the minute the rescinding of which he wished to obtain, through the instrumentality of that House. It was not unfair or uncharitable to suppose that some secret reasons, some powerful influence, must have operated on the mind of the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the Lords of the Treasury, which induced them thus to interfere with the execution of the law of the land, and to give an advantage to the fraudulent dealer over the fair dealer. But let the House observe how it affected the revenue. In 1830 the revenue derived from the duty on coffee amounted to 579,363l. In 1847, after the duty had been reduced, there were 37,472,153 lbs. of coffee delivered for consumption in this country; in 1848 it was reduced to 37,107,279 lbs.; in 1849 it was still further reduced to 34,431,074 lbs.; and in the three first months of the present year there were introduced into five principal ports of the kingdom, 5,888,761 lbs. against 7,623,464 lbs. for the corresponding period of last year; so that in throe mouths the revenue had decreased to the amount of about 36,000l., and it was calculated, at a moderate estimate, that the falling-off for the present year, as compared with the last, would be 162,000l., or, if compared with 1847, 250,000l. The merchants at home, the colonists, and the retail traders, all, with one exception, had presented memorials to the Government complaining of the system of adulteration, and alleging that as long as it was suffered to continue, the revenue would decrease. The one exception to the general voice was Mr. Younger, who avowed himself to be the fortunate individual who discovered the art of adulterating coffee with chicory, and who asked the Government to give him an opportunity of trying another method of adulteration by the use of another vegetable. That gentleman complained that other persons were in the practice of adulterating chicory itself, and he alleged that 10,000 tons of chicory and 10,000 tons of another vegetable, which was used as a substitute for chicory, were annually sold in this country for coffee. Assuming the half of these figures to be the truth, it would show that 22,400,000 lbs. of stuff was sold in our markets under the name and at the price of coffee, while, according to the returns, the amount of coffee entered for consumption during last year was 34,431,074 lb. How great must be the loss of revenue under a system which permitted a spurious article to be substituted for coffee to an amount almost equal to the quantity of coffee itself that was imported into this country? How could the right hon. Gentleman ask for new taxes, when he thus voluntarily abandoned a revenue of 250,000l. sterling per annum? The memorialists, among whom were the members of the Chamber of Commerce at Ceylon, and no less than 91 respectable houses in London, at the head of which was Baring Brothers, asked no protection; all they required was that the operation of the law might not be impeded. He knew many persons supposed that the mixture was more wholesome than the genuine coffee. Whether that were so or not, it was a fraud to sell chicory for coffee. But the vegetable used in the adulteration of coffee was not the genuine vegetable, because persons now undertook to adulterate the substitute itself, with essence of acorns, peas, and beans, and other substances. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had exhibited some of the essence of acorns, and if he had tasted it he was sure the illness which had kept the right hon. Gentleman from his place in Parliament, and which the House had so much regretted, must be attributed to that fact. Mr. Younger said that the farmers adulterated the chicory root to an extent of from 25 to 50 per cent, by mixing up with it parsnips, beetroot, &c. This forced what Mr. Younger calls the respectable houses to do the same, and they adulterated again to the extent of from 25 to 50, and sometimes 75 per cent. When it got to the grocer it was again adulterated, so that its identity was completely lost. He would read for the House a list of articles with which it was adulterated. First, there was common ruddle; then there was a kind of earth called Spanish brown, inferior to Venetian red. A very common mode of adulteration was by mouldy ship biscuits. These were obtained at Liverpool, Bristol, and Hull in large quantities. His informant stated that on a complaint being made to a Quaker gentleman, that the stuff which he sold for coffee to the grocers was not of the proper colour, he made this answer, "We can put a little more soot in it to work up the colour." Burnt sugar and a modicum of isinglass, and even Russian glue, were used in adulteration. Another gentleman complained that rope yarn and even vegetable offal from the dunghill were used, and all under the direct sanction of the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer. Yes, for those who looked to him for instructions were the persons whose duty it was to enforce the law and suppress the abominations, but they were not allowed to prosecute. The right hon. Gentleman showed as little regard for the public health as he did for the public revenue: and the result of the system was discouragement to the fair trader, and encouragement to the unfair one. Several traders were obliged to adopt the system of adulteration in self-defence; but he had letters in his possession to show that they were ready to avow submission to the law if the law were applied to all fairly, which would not be permitted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. By the trade and navigation reports, it appeared that the total quantity of coffee imported in the months of March and April, 1849, was 1,615,615 lbs., whilst in the corresponding months of the present year the importation reached 2,170,493 lbs., thus showing a great increase. The quantity entered for consumption in the months of March and April, 1849, was 2,823,920 lbs., whilst in the corresponding month of the present year it was only 2,454,540 lbs., thus showing a considerable decrease. In the quarter ending 5th April of the present year, the increase of importation as compared with the corresponding quarter of the previous year, was 4,236,999 lbs., whilst the decrease in consumption was 3,650,526 lbs. He might go on and show that the case was similar throughout, always an increase in the importation, and a decrease in the consumption; and the petition to the Treasury asserted that whilst the consumption of the genuine coffee was falling off, that of the adulterated article was increasing. The only article which exhibited similar anomalies was that of cocoa, which was allowed to be adulterated in the same way as coffee. The papers he held in his hand showed that the revenue on tobacco, which had been increasing for years back, still continued to increase; and he wished to state that what the Chancellor of the Exchequer refused to do in the case of coffee, he did in the case of tobacco; because he found in the return moved for by the hon. Member for Newcastle that in 1844 several prosecutions had been successfully carried out against parties for adulterating tobacco by means of chicory, sugar, and other articles. In 1847 he found that the present Chancellor of the Exchequer instituted two prosecutions for the adulteration of tobacco by means of chicory, in one case to the extent of 5 per cent, and in the other 3 per cent; and that on conviction the latter was lot off, and the former fined 50l. In 1844 he found that the prosecutions for the adulteration of tobacco by means of chicory, saccharine, and other matters, amounted to 78; in 1845 to 102; in 1846, to 15; in 1847, to 9; in 1848, to 15; and in 1849, to 12; thus showing that the prosecutions had done their work, and since then the revenue was on the increase. The previous Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Member for the University of Cambridge, in taking office in 1841, found the revenue on tobacco declining, as was the case at present with the revenue in coffee; and, on inquiry, he found it was owing to the system of adulteration that prevailed. He accordingly prepared a Bill regulating the sale of tobacco, and defining the substances that might he used in its adulteration; and he had the authority of that right hon. Gentleman for saying that not only did the revenue increase, but it continued steadily to increase. Now, he did not ask the present Chancellor of the Exchequer to bring in a Bill, he only asked him not to stand in the way of the execution of the law by revoking the Treasury order, and to listen to the representations made by the merchants and those interested in the growth of coffee. He did not want to see any heavy duty imposed upon the growth of chicory, as had been desired by some of the memorialists of the Treasury, but was anxious that the Government should permit the Commissioners of Excise to give effect to the 43rd Geo. III. and 3rd George IV., prohibiting the adulteration of coffee with chicory, or other deleterious articles.

did not propose to deny the facts stated by the hon. and learned Gentleman. There was no doubt about the fact that the consumption of coffee had fallen off, as well as the revenue derived from it, and that chicory, and perhaps other articles, were mixed with coffee. But there was still a further question—whether the falling-off in the consumption of coffee was owing to its mixture with chicory. Of that he had very great doubts. Several other articles had fallen off in consumption as well as coffee. There was another remarkable circumstance. The price of ordinary tea consumed by the great body of the population had been reduced in price to the amount of 1s. a pound. A preference was given to tea over coffee; for a much larger quantity of tea was imported last year than during the preceding year, and there was, of course, an increased revenue from that source. The hon. and learned Gentleman proposed that the Act 3rd George IV. should be enforced against those who adulterated coffee. His first reason for that proposal was founded on the ground of the public health. He could only now repeat what he had said on a former occasion, that he did not believe the use of chicory by itself with coffee was in the slightest degree prejudicial to the health of the people. The hon. and learned Gentleman might not like chicory: he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) did not like it; but that was not the question. Though there had been many memorials from dealers in coffee against the use of chicory, it was worthy of remark that not one had emanated from the consumers. It was notorious that chicory was mixed with coffee—he had never heard any one deny it, nor that such mixture was injurious to the health of the party who used it. Nor was there anything unwholesome in the greater part of the other vegetable mixtures. He was surprised to hear the hon. and learned Gentleman say that peas and beans and carrots were deleterious, and had never heard any one else say so. The second ground which would justify the Government in interfering, was the loss of revenue; that ground occasioned their interference in the case of tobacco. It was not for the sake of the health of the parties smoking tobacco that the Government interfered to prevent adulteration, or whether tobacco was made more or less healthy by the addition of water or other ingredients, for he disclaimed the idea of taking the slightest care of the health of the tobacco smoker—but purely upon the consideration of revenue. Then, as regarded tea, the Government interfered upon another ground. It was notorious that sloe leaves, dried upon copper, were mixed with tea—that was a most deleterious mixture, and the Government interfered in the case of teas on grounds of public health; in that of tobacco on considerations of revenue. If the hon. and learned Gentleman made inquiries, he would find that all the milk he drank did not come from the cow, nor was all the bread he ate composed of wheat flour; but he would hardly ask the Government to watch the doings of the bakers and dairymen. Regard must be had to the old maxim, Caveat emptor. If the mixed coffee was unpleasant to the taste or injurious in its effects, why, the public would teach the seller not to continue its sale by keeping away from his shop; and the vendor of the genuine articles would have the more custom. The original sanction for the use of chicory was issued when Lord Althorp was Chancellor of the Exchequer; that sanction was confirmed by his right hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, and by his immediate predecessor. He only followed in the same course as the four or five Chancellors who had preceded him. Now, as to the effect upon the revenue, he had not the slightest doubt but that the sale of chicory promoted, rather than injured, the sale of coffee. A deputation from Manchester had waited upon him, having the same object as the hon. and learned Gentleman; but the facts stated by them proved that the use of chicory increased the sale of coffee. The cheapest ground coffee was 1s, a pound, whilst the whole coffee cost at the lowest price 1s. 4d. Thus, by the mixture of chicory, parties were able to sell the mixture at less than the price of coffee unground. The mass of the people consumed the cheaper article, and by consuming the mixture in much larger quantities (in consequence of its cheapness) than they otherwise would, the actual consumption of coffee was in the game proportion increased. Therefore he thought it extremely probable that the consumption of coffee was increased, and not diminished, by admixture with chicory. He would again assert that, as far as he could learn, the use of chicory was anything but injurious. The hon. and learned Gentleman had referred to a memorial from the planters of Ceylon, who complained of the use of chicory; but the hon. and learned Gentleman would see by reference to the papers on the table of the House that the decrease in the importation of coffee was not in colonial but in foreign coffee, for whilst there was a falling off in the imports of the former to the extent of 6,000l. sterling in the foreign article, the decrease of revenue amounted to 60,000l., or sixfold. But the material question, after all, was, what was the remedy which could be proposed, admitting that the evil existed? There were three courses: that of reducing the duty upon foreign and colonial coffee, so as to render the adulteration less profitable; or imposing an excise unpon chicory; or prosecuting those who mixed chicory, or any other substitute, with coffee. The first was the most reasonable. It could not now be adopted; but he would reserve to himself full liberty to consider the question at some future period. The second, whether an excise duty should be put upon chicory, would be objected to most strenuously by the growers of chicory in this country. The subject had been most carefully considered, and, looking at the great opposition that would be raised against such a measure, and the dislike of the nation to the imposition of any new tax, he did not think it would be expedient to propose it. Lastly came the question whether they would put in force the 43rd Geo. III. against those who mixed chicory with coffee. Now, the intention of the enactment was to prevent adulteration only in certain cases, where the adulteration was clearly deleterious to health, or where it affected the revenue. It had always been so construed as not to admit of the interference of informers; the Legislature shrank from allowing them to interfere. The only parties then who could interfere were the officers of excise, and they could not do so without the authority of their superiors. The question was not merely whether he was to revoke a Treasury minute, but whether he was to undertake a crusade against all the coffee dealers in the kingdom, send the excise officers into the house of every seller of coffee to endeavour to ascertain whether the coffee was adulterated; and, if so, to institute a prosecution. Now, that was rather a serious step. He had a strong suspicion that, if he were to take such a course, and oblige the excise officers to make domiciliary visits, petitions would pour into that House from every part of the country, and raise such a flame as the hon. and learned Gentleman would be very unwilling to enkindle. There was another consideration. It would be exceedingly difficult to prove the adulteration, and it was exceedingly desirable that no prosecution should be instituted upon insufficient evidence. Sufficient evidence could only be obtained by suborning shopmen and other persons in the coffee dealer's employ; they alone could satisfactorily prove the admixture. [Mr. ANSTEY: Chicory could be easily distinguished from the whole coffee.] Yes; but the excise officers would be obliged to look at what was ground as well as what was whole. He had desired the Commissioners of Inland Revenue to learn if there were any ready, certain, and available test of the adulteration; and the answer he received was, that neither by chemical nor by any other mode could it be ascertained with any degree of certainty whether a mixture contained chicory or not. The efforts of excise officers, if this course were adopted, would probably prove vexatious in the first instance, and ineffectual in the second. He must again say that he was not prepared to enter upon a crusade against coffee dealers, for he was perfectly convinced that such a proceeding would be harassing and futile.

said, without asking the Government to adopt the course proposed by the hon. and learned Member for Youghal, there could be no doubt that the present state of the coffee trade might very properly form the subject of discussion in that House. Seeing that the consumption had decreased since 1848 from nearly 10,000,000 lbs. to 7,5000,000 lbs., it was not surprising that the coffee trade should feel anxious to represent their case to the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer. The right hon. Gentleman had observed that no memorials had been presented from the consumers, and that caveat emptor was the principle to be applied to this case. That implied, that if purchasers were on the alert the evil would not exist. If therefore the evil did exist, it was clear that the purchasers were not alive to it, or they would either have purchased their coffee in the bean, or applied to the right hon. Gentleman. What they complained of was, that chicory and other substances should be consumed as coffee—that the dealers traded upon the ignorance of the poor, and sold them another article instead of the one they asked for. He had been informed by a gentleman who was well acquainted with the subject, that the scale of adulteration usually adopted was, that coffee sold at 1s. per lb. contained three parts chicory and one part coffee; that sold at 1s. 4d. contained five parts chicory and three parts coffee in eight parts; and coffee at 1s. 8d. per lb. contained equal parts of each. He thought that was a very undesirable state of things, and three remedies were suggested. One was the placing an excise duty upon chicory; that was considered objectionable. The next was one that the right hon. Gentleman had very properly alluded to with caution, the giving a stimulus to the consumption of coffee by reducing the duty. That he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would shortly have it in his power to adopt, although he would not give any pledge on the subject. The course suggested by the debate was, whether the right hon. Gentleman was disposed to give to the Act of Parliament an interpretation which he was right in saying it did not originally bear; these powers were, he believed, given not to protect the public, but the revenue; but the fair trader said, "I am in the same interest as the revenue, and I call upon you to exercise its powers in my behalf." The right hon. Gentleman had very properly said that the sending an excise officer into every coffee dealer's establishment would be attended with very great difficulty and objection. Favouritism would come into play, and it would be found that one fraudulent trader was overlooked, while another was prosecuted. The views he took of the question were entertained by the Chamber of Commerce, Liverpool, whose sympathies were altogether with the coffee dealers; but they did not think it expedient to petition Parliament for the adoption of the remedy now under consideration—they thought, with the right hon. Gentleman, that it would be exceedingly difficult to give the proposition practical effect, and that its result would ultimately be to drive the trade into the hands of the systematically-fraudulent traders. In the justice of these opinions he was entirely disposed to concur, and he was not surprised that the right hon. Gentleman should withhold his concurrence from the proposition. He hoped, however, the subject would receive the consideration of the right hon. Gentleman, and that he would be able to devise some means of redressing a grievance which was now very generally complained of.

said, there was one class of persons interested whose present position had not been taken into account, namely, the colonial producers. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, the colonial producer was protected as against the foreign producer by a differential duty of 2½d. per lb. That statement would have been true five years ago; but now that a large quantity of coffee was exported year by year to the Continent, there was practically no protection against the new rival in the competition. The hon. Gentleman had appeared to think that the consumption of coffee was not much diminished by the introduction of chicory. But on that point he must have been undeceived by the statements put forward by the hon. Member for Liverpool, showing that there had been a falling-off of 25 per cent. The course proposed by the hon. and learned Member for Youghal was open to great objection. There were about 100,000 vendors of coffee in the united kingdom; and of these he believed 95,000 coffee dealers sold their coffee mixed with chicory. He quite agreed with the right hon. Gentleman that it was not desirable that he should enter upon a crusade against all these dealers in the article of coffee.

said: The town I represent, grinds coffee for half the West Riding of Yorkshire. I have no doubt we put chicory into it; I hope we do not put brickdust. But there was always one resource. Any man who had an idiosyncrasy for unmixed coffee, might buy it in the berry. On another point too, he should be happy to abate the anxiety of the hon. and learned Mover. He might depend on it, that if coffee at 6d. per lb. was mixed with equal quantities of chicory at 2d. per lb., the schoolboy's answer, founded on the rules of Alligation, medial and partial, would be right in saying coffee so mixed would in the long run be sold at 4d. per lb.

would not press his Motion to a division, being satisfied with the discussion which had taken place.

I rise. Sir, for the purpose of calling the attention of the Government to the importance of making provision, by legal enactment, for speedily and effectually manning her Majesty's fleet in the event of a war. Nothing, Sir, but a very strong sense of duty would induce me to bring this subject before the House—a firm conviction, arrived at after mature deliberation, that whatever inconvenience may arise from its being debated, is more than counterbalanced by the manifest peril to which the country would be exposed on a war breaking out, with the exsiting traditions and enactments, which are not only inefficient, but prejudicial to the objects which they profess to attain. I need not dwell on the paramount importance of securing resources to send a powerful fleet to sea on a declaration of war. Upon the rapidity with which that fleet could be equipped, upon the efficiency of its organisation, might depend the issue of the struggle; nay, not only a triumph on foreign shores, but the safety of our own from insult and invasion. What would be the exigencies of the Navy in the event of a war? Mr. Ward, in his evidence before the Committee on the Navy Estimates, states, that to man our Navy in 1848, including ships in commission, in ordinary, and those progressing on the stocks, 112,000 officers, men, marines, and boys, would be required; of these, 70,000 petty officers and seamen. We have now 26,000 of the latter. Therefore, to maintain the whole power of our Navy afloat, we should require in addition 44,000 petty officers and seamen. Let us examine what facilities the existing law affords for obtaining these men. The Act 5 & 6 Will. IV., c. 24, recognising the undoubted right of the Crown to the service of all seafaring men for the defence of the country in the event of a war (they being exempt from the militia ballot), contemplates a proclamation of a compulsory term of service for five years. It promises a double bounty (understood to be 10l.) to every man volunteering for the Navy within six days of the proclamation, on his arrival in port. It also gives the bounty to those serving in the fleet, or engaging for a fresh term of service. These are the inducements to volunteers to enter the Navy. That they would be insufficient to compete with the high wages that would be offered by the mercantile marine in that emergency, is so well understood by those conversant with the subject, that a further compulsory power is acknowledged to be indispensable. What is that power, our only resource at present? Impressment. Now, Sir, after maturely considering the subject—after testing the most valuable opinions, both in and out of the service, for several years, I have arrived at the conclusion that the boldest and most frank way of dealing with the question is also the wisest, and that impressment by armed gangs should be abolished, as contrary to the spirit of the constitution, derogatory to the honour of the country, and injurious to the efficiency of the Navy. That, fully recognising the right of the Crown to the services of its subjects for the defence of the country, that prerogative should be exercised in a constitutional manner, by legal enactment, to obtain the successive service, for a limited period, of seafaring men on board Her Majesty's ships in time of war, without distressing the mercantile marine; but, on the contrary, a fair and legal machinery being established, that service would cheerfully contribute to a force, on the efficiency of which its own existence must depend. Now, what would take place on war being declared under the existing law? The dread of the pressgang would drive thousands of our best seamen to foreign service—not the dislike to the Navy so much, as disgust and apprehension at the method of compulsion. Well, you would have the bounty—a most vicious and expensive method, which would lead to an outlay of a million in the first year of the war. The merchant service would outbid you, and you would fall back on the pressgang. I have great doubts whether you could impress men as you did last war. The opinion of the country would rise against you as one man, and compel you to a more constitutional course; but in the interim your fleet would be lying idle, and the demagogue and political agitator would be sowing the seeds of discontent, and paralysing your energies. Seize time, then, by the forelock, and now, in profound peace, enact a wise and practicable law, which would enable you to meet war without doubt or apprehension. I will now explain the system which I would substitute for impressment; but I must premise that I think the Board of Admiralty are those whose duty it is to take the initiative, and who, from their experience and the means of information they possess, are better qualified than myself to originate a plan. Upon the declaration of war, the Crown would, according to the emergency of the case, issue a proclamation specifying the term of years for which all seafaring men should be called on to serve. Every seaman should be liable to be balloted four times in each year; and after serving the time specified in the proclamation, he should be entitled to a protection, unless the continuance of a war should necessitate the proclamation of a further term. The register ticket, which would also exhibit his claim on the Merchant Seamen's Fund, should bear a stamp of ballot or protection, as the case might be. Ballot on shore would take place at the shipping offices, and afloat on board merchant ships, both at home and abroad, conducted by a commissioned officer from the man-of-war requiring men, under stringent regulations, not to distress short-handed ships. In this manner I assume that 25,000 petty officers and seamen would be obtained from the merchant service. I would make the Navy so justly popular, that the remaining 20,000 would be furnished by volunteers. Not much remains to be done to effect this, so greatly has the condition of the seaman been improved during late years. For instance, the increase and better quality of his provisions, by the abolition of banyan or meatless days; regular supplies in harbour of fresh beef and vegetables; salt meat and bread of very superior quality; preserved meats for the sick, with the best medical attendance and stores; cheapness and better quality of slop clothing; more accommodation between decks, from the increased size of ships in each class, and height of lower deck; more frequent leave on shore; increase of wages 4s. 6d. per month since 1797; allowance abroad of one-third of pay; good service badges and reward money now extended to able seamen. Add to this, diminution of corporal punishment, and their morals, health, and comfort more cared for. I believe that the present as well as the late Board of Admiralty have been most anxious for the welfare of the seamen; but still it is a fact that there have been occasions on which it has been most difficult to man ships when put into commission, and it is also notorious that a large proportion of our sailors have shipped ii foreign services, more especially in that of the United States. There is a strongly prevalent but not well-founded opinion, that the men are better off in that service. I have taken some pains to ascertain the comparative scales of wages, pensions, and provisions, in the two services. They are from official sources, and, I believe, correct:—

cheerfully admitted that his hon. and gallant Friend had brought forward the subject in a fair and candid spirit; but he could, at the same time, assure him that not only the present but preceding Boards of Admiralty had taken it up in the same spirit as he had introduced it. He was further proud to say, that owing to the improved arrangements in the naval service, the number of desertions were daily decreasing, and were now so few that the smallness of the number was really wonderful, compared with the desertions of a former period. With respect to the mode of manning the Navy, he assured his hon. Friend that the present Board of Admiralty, as well as preceding boards, had taken the greatest pains to have a reserve in hand, and that that reserve could be made use of whenever the Government thought proper. With respect to impressment, he had endeavoured to trace the objections of the men to it, and he had been able to find only one petition from them against it. That petition was presented in 1760, and he had no doubt that the same spirit animated them now which animated them then. That petition wound up by stating that if it could be shown that impressment was the only mode of manning the Navy, so anxious were they for the honour of the country, they would submit to it without a murmur. He himself neither desired impressment, nor thought it necessary; but, should the necessity ever arise, he was satisfied that British seamen, sharing the sentiments he had just cited, would willingly bow to it.

said, that he had given a notice to call the attention of the House to the return (No. 669), of 1848, of the number of Commissions of Inquiry appointed since 1830, and the expense of each. No doubt the hon. and gallant Member who moved for the return, intended that it should afford authentic information, not only of the commissions, but of the expenses of those commissions. The order of the House required, not only that the expenses generally should be stated, but all incidental matters, such as the members, the officers, and clerks. It appeared by this return that no fewer than ninety-one Commissions of Inquiry had been issued by the successive Governments of this country between 1830 and 1848. It appeared, moreover, that, according to this return, the expense to the country of these Commissions of Inquiry had been above 638,000l. That would appear to be an enormous sum; but he was sorry to say that by reference to documents more authentic, from their nature, than this return, contemporaneous with this return, containing information extracted by examination from individuals before Committees of the House, the statement of 638,000l. as the expense of these commissions, was not one-fourth of the expense to which the country had been put. He was anxious to call the attention of the Government to this subject, because when the hon. and gallant Member, who moved for the return, had obtained an order for the continuation of the return, there should be some greater degree of care and attention bestowed upon the returns. In 1838 a commission was issued on tidal harbours. That commission might have been of great utility, and he found it stated that the expense of the commission was 1,779l.; but when he turned to the report of the Committee on Miscellaneous Expenses, he found that for this commission alone the printing was for the three years 5,117l. He attributed no ill faith to this return; he attributed to it carelessness and gross inaccuracy. In 1845 a commission was issued with a very peculiar object in its inquiry; it was called, "The Metropolitan Railway Termini Commission." The modest sum of 502l. was stated as its expenses in this return. 502l. seemed not to be much; but he had looked at the report of the Committee on the Miscellaneous Expenditure, and he found that instead of 502l., for the two years' printing of this commission, 2,857l. was paid. So gross a degree of carelessness, such extraordinary inaccuracy, ought not to be passed over without the notice of the House. It would be found in the report of the Committee of Miscellaneous Expenses as to the various expenses attending these Commissions of Inquiry, that the result was that, instead of 638,000l., the country had been put to an expense of 2,000,000l. by these Commissions of Inquiry. One of the witnesses who had been examined stated that these Commissions of Inquiry were one great cause of the expense of printing for which the House voted from year to year, without attending to the way in which the large sum was applied. The witness stated that the great expenses of printing were wholly occasioned by new Commissions of Inquiry, and he added that he should not he surprised if the sanitary printing was to come to 60,000l. He called the attention of the Government to these matters, presuming that that was all that was necessary to remedy these enormities.

was very glad his hon. and learned Friend had drawn the attention of the House to the subject. He (Colonel Sibthorp) had moved for the production of the return referred to; but he confessed that, now it was on the table, it was very difficult to know what really was the expense of these commissions. He did not suppose that this and other returns were made out wilfully incorrect, but it was evident that there was great carelessness in not showing the House and the public what expenses really were incurred. He bad no doubt as to other commissions being asked for, which would cause a great public expenditure, if his hon. Friends and himself did not persist in exposing the system, and insist upon having a full explanation of the expenses.

said, he ought perhaps to apologise for the absence of his right hon. Friends and Colleagues on that occasion, but they were certainly not aware that this question would have been brought forward. With reference to this return itself, he apprehended that the gravamen of the complaint made by the hon. and learned Member for Newark was, that the expense of the printing was not included in it. [Mr. STUART: And the stationery.] The printing and stationery. [Mr. STUART: And the clerks.] Well, if the expense of the clerks was omitted, it certainly would imply some incorrectness in the return. With respect to the stationery, there was not a separate account kept of it as regarded each department of the public service, but an estimate was made every year of the probable quantity that would be required by each. With reference to the printing, he could not but admit that it was a heavy expense; but he was informed that regulations had been issued by the Treasury, in conjunction with the Home Office, for putting these matters, as regarded the printing at all events, on a better and more economical footing. Perhaps, when the miscellaneous estimates should be brought forward, the hon. and learned Member would introduce this subject again, and then those of his Colleagues to whom the subject more particularly related would be there to give such explanations as might be required.

said, that the Votes that would be proposed would include, in the total amount of each, the original as well as the supplemental estimates. He should now propose that there be granted to Her Majesty the sum of 883,999l., to defray the charge of naval stores, building and repairs, outfits of fleet, &c.

said, that his hon. Friend the Member for Montrose (who was absent) had given notice of an Amendment on this vote, which he presumed he would move on some future stage of the estimates. He (Mr. Cobden) thought that the practice of appointing the first day after an adjournment of the House for going into these Votes was not only on inconvenient system, but ought to be put an end to. He belonged to two important Committees upstairs; and it was there agreed, that as all the Members were not likely to be in town immediately after the Whitsuntide holidays, the Committee would not resume their sittings till Monday next. He had observed that the Government systematically named the day on which Parliament assembled for voting large sums in the estimates; and if such a course were persisted in, the House ought to resist it by a vote. At the present it was not the intention of his hon. Friend to divide the Committee.

thought that at least this vote ought, under the circumstances, to be postponed; and fully agreed in the remarks of the hon. Member for the West Riding. With respect to the vote itself, various ways had been pointed out for the reduction of our expenditure, whether in the Naval or any other department. The hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side would not admit that the Army and Navy should be exposed to a reduction such as was comprised in the financial plans of the hon. Member for the West Riding; but if not, let them, then, see whether the efficiency of the Navy could not be kept up consistently with the reduction of votes like this. There was a large class of vessels now kept in ordinary at considerable expense; he meant the class of vessels from 28 to 44 guns, which would be of no use in any future war, and ought to be put up to auction, and got rid of. But if they still preferred to keep these ships in ordinary, at so great an expense, at all events they might reduce the expense and cheapen the system of caulking them. As to the cost of building ships, too, there was no comparison between the cost of building in our dockyards and in private yards. For example, the Waterwitch brig, built by Messrs. White of Cowes, after several years' cruising, was sold, a most efficient vessel, to the Government for 12l. a ton; while the cost of vessels built in the dockyards reached 20l. a ton. The next point was the consumption of coals. They never saw a steamer using her sails; but, in cases where there was not the least necessity for haste, up went their steam, though wind and tide might be favourable. A saving of 20l. a day might be effected in some of the dockyard ports by a little attention in this matter; and if the port admiral were to make a weekly return of the consumption of coals, there would be much less smoke raised in future. He trusted his right hon. Friend at the head of the Admiralty, who, he sincerely believed, had the interest of the service as well as its economical management at heart, would take his remarks in good part, and give his attention to the points to which he had ventured to refer.

regretted that the hon. Member for Montrose had not been aware of the firm intention of Government to bring on the Navy Estimates that night, and consequently was not present; but, at the same time, the hon. Member must have been quite aware of the course Government intended to pursue respecting them. He could assure the House he did not find it very agreeable to bring on the estimates the first day after the holidays; but any one present at five o'clock could not say there was not an ample attendance of hon. Members. It was scarcely fair, in talking of a large expenditure, to omit to state that a reduction of 390,000l. had taken place in the vote as compared with former years. He was happy to state that a reduction had taken place in the sum for coals, as compared with the cost last year, of not less than 54,000l.; and very stringent regulations had been issued by the Admiralty respecting the issue and use of fuel. He believed the hon. Member for Brighton was not an advocate for building men-of-war in private yards. [Sir G. PECHELL: Not altogether.] The case of the Waterwitch did not offer a fair comparison; because she was purchased secondhand, and never was built at the cost stated, and there was, of course, considerable difference in the price of a new vessel and of one some time in service.

asked on what ground so large a reduction was estimated in the cost of coal. He also wished to know whether any steps had been taken for the speedy coaling of our steamers. The subject was one of great importance, and had been under the consideration of the former board, and he hoped to hear some method was in view for obviating the difficulties of providing steamers with fuel in cases of pressing urgency.

explained that the reduction was caused by the decreased consumption at the different yards, and by the coal being contracted for at lower prices. The mode of fuelling had also caused a reduction, and it was hoped some further improvement might be made on the present method.

was anxious to express his concurrence in the objections taken by the right hon. Baronet to the course proposed by the hon. Member for the West Riding. He did not agree with that hon. Member that it was inexpedient to proceed with important business on the first day Parliament met after a recess. His opinion was that, if it were understood that important business would be brought on, the attendance of Members would be more numerous, and it was no greater hardship upon one more than upon another. He regretted the absence of the hon. Member for Montrose, which was the more remarkable, perhaps, because it was so rare an occurrence. In the absence of that hon. Member, his supporters ought not to post-pose the Motion of which he had given notice, because there was now a possibility of its being carried, which there would not be if the financial reformers were all present.

said, that as it had been announced that the hen. Member for Montrose would divide, on some future occasion, upon the Motion to which they were just about to assent, it would perhaps be better not to oppose the vote now.

said, that as a Member of the Committee on the Naval Estimates, he felt it his duty to object to the part of the vote which referred to Keyham docks. The expense of those works had been going on increasing year after year, and the Committee had agreed they ought not to have been undertaken. There was now a proposal to give 120,000l. for the docks at Keyham, and a further sum of 20,000l. was set down for works at Bull-point, which had been rendered necessary to protect the docks. He thought those works ought to be stopped at once, and therefore proposed a reduction in the vote to the amount of 140,000l. Afterwards Motion made, and Question proposed—

"That a sum, not exceeding 199, 839l., he granted to Her Majesty, to defray the charge of New Works, Improvements, and Repairs in the Naval Establishments, and for a new Dock and Engine House at Devonport Dock Yard, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1851."

said, that the utility of the docks at Keyham had been so fully discussed it was hardly necessary for him to enter upon the question again. Though the Committee had expressed a doubt as to the propriety of commencing the works at all, they thought it would be inexpedient and unwise, having already expended such large sums, not to complete them; and, as far as his recollection served him, they recommended that the works should go forward gradually; and, with reference to the engagements of Government, that recommendation had been strictly followed, and it would be very unwise to stop works which would be useful in case of war, and to throw away upwards of 500,000l. already expended on them.

agreed that the works ought not to be stopped altogether, and he recommended that the vote now proposed should be granted, which would effect the most useful part of the plan, and then the works might be stopped. But in respect to the factories for building and repairing steam machinery, he really thought the Government ought to pause before proceeding with that portion of the design, for they could be at once better and more cheaply supplied by the great engine manufacturers on the Clyde and the Thames.

objected to the proposal to lay out 150,000l. to complete the basin. It should be recollected that the basin would never have been made at all had it not been intended for the use of the factory. It appeared that the Government could not make their steam machinery without these enormous basins, but the manufacturers could; they had only a sea wall, from which they put the boilers on board the vessels. But the Government must do everything in such a magnificent way that they must have basins. In voting the 150,000l., they would be voting for one step only in the whole process. He was not aware that the Government had submitted any new plan since the last report. But the sum of 150,000l. was not all. The Committee had reported that when the factories were completed, 80,000l. would be required for the wages of the workmen to be employed in them, and for their tools and instruments 20,000l. more. Then would come the outlay for keeping the machinery in repair. And all this was for an establishment which the Committee had pronounced useless, and would not have recommended at all had it not been begun; and the question practically was, whether they would incur an annual expenditure of 100,000l. for wages and tools. The right hon. Baronet the First Lord of the Admiralty said these works would be useful in time of war; but he contended that if that time should come, there were factories and basins in existence adequate to answer any call. He should support the Motion for stopping the works.

said, that all he was anxious about was, that the Government would promise not to begin the factories for steam machinery until circumstances had proved them to be actually necessary.

said, that not one farthing was taken on this vote for factories or machinery, or for anything beyond the basins; and that nothing would be done in respect to factories or machinery without the subject again coming before the House.

defended not only the basins but the factories; as, without them, the Government would have no place to repair and refit its steam navy. It was of vital importance to England, as a maritime power, that there should be a steam basin at Plymouth.

was disposed to take the same view of the subject as the Government. He was of opinion that the docks at Deptford, Sheerness, and New-porthaven might be dispensed with, and that the requirements of the country might be satisfactorily met by there being four docks only, one at Woolwich, another at Chatham, a third at Portsmouth, and a fourth at Devonport. He would support the present vote, inasmuch as it was in-intended to defray the expense of works which were in progress of completion.

wished to call the attention of his hon. Friend the Member for Southwark to the circumstance that 120,000l. was the sum which Government required for the present year; that the other expenses referred to were not now to be incurred; and he hoped, therefore, that the hon. Baronet would not think it necessary to divide the Committee. He agreed with his hon. Friend the Member for the West Riding as to the Government factories; for England was not in that respect like France, or any of the continental countries, as the French Government, if they wished to build steam ships, must do so for themselves, inasmuch as they could not have recourse to such private establishments as England possessed on the banks of the Thames, the Clyde, and the Mersey, where fleets could be produced and fitted out in much less time than any Government could build them.

stated, that Government were not now about to make any demand for factory building. It was not his practice to state in one year what he intended to do in the next. The factories which the Government at present possessed were capable of meeting the demands upon them; therefore nothing would be done with the factories this year, and nothing whatever done until after the matter came regularly under the notice of Parlirment.

reminded the Committee that the factories existed not for the construction but the repair of steam vessels. It was essential for the safety of the country that the steam navy should have facilities of repair at certain intervals along the coast, when they could not enter either the Thames or the Mersey without inconvenience and loss.

said, that the Government ought to confine themselves to the repair, and not engage in the construction of boilers. He thought, that as they had now steam basins, docks, and factories, which would enable them to repair between 100,000 and 200,000 horse power, and the total horse power of the steam navy did not reach anything like that extent, they had made pretty good provision already for a time of war. The Select Committee had been told by persons connected with the public dockyards that boilers could be made in those establishments at less cost than by private persons. The mode of taking stock pursued by these public servants, however, differed widely from that adopted by private individuals, for the former made no account of the interest of money, wear and tear of machinery, or the cost of the plant and establishment. He considered that the boilers required for the public service could be obtained from private individuals at less expense than they could be manufactured in the public establishments, and he therefore thought the Government ought not to continue the manufacture.

said, if the hon. Member for the West Riding looked at the expense to which the country was subjected during the last war by contracts for building ships, he might perhaps come to the conclusion that the soundest policy and the best economy was to maintain public establishments of this kind.

said, that, as he understood the First Lord of the Admiralty to say that nothing would be done with regard to the factory buildings till the subject was brought under the consideration of Parliament next year, he would not press the Amendment.

said, the estimate contained an item of 100,000l. for bounty allowed for the capture or destruction of enemies' ships of war and of piratical vessels. He thought the Committee ought to have some explanation on this subject.

observed that the vote had increased enormously, for last year it was only 20,000l.

said, the money was required for paying the bounty or head money given for the capture of pirates. He could give the House details of all the particular transactions relating to the capture of pirates, but as the accounts had appeared fully in the newspapers, he thought it was scarcely necessary now to go into them.

expressed his desire to have some information with respect to the pirates, in order to ascertain whether they were really pirates. He doubted very much whether this demand for head money was legal, because he believed the Act for the supression of piracy did not apply to the present description of cases. The best proof of this was to be found in the circumstance that the first Act of the Government in the present Session was to repeal the existing law which authorised the payment of head-money. He would like the Committee to consider for a moment the circumstances under which this money was demanded. A gentleman named Brooke, who was sometimes styled Rajah Brooke, became possessed, by means which he would not now stop to describe, of a district of country north-west of the coast of Borneo. He had certain disputes with his next neighbours, whom he was pleased to call "pirates." Now, these people were just as much pirates when Sir J. Brooke knew them as they had ever been before. They were tribes who had been in a state of predatory warfare with each other for many years, but they had never attacked us or any of our vessels. This was the real point at issue. No English vessel had ever been molested or assailed by those pirates. He denied altogether that acts of piracy had been committed against our vessels in the India Archipelago, and he appealed to Lloyd's to show that there was no increased charge for assuring vessels trading in the Indian seas. The history of this massacre of "pirates," for he could call it nothing else, was simply this:—The hostile tribes against whom Sir J. Brooke made war were engaged upon business of their own, and had no intention whatever of attacking us. Sir J. Brooke, however, engaged the services of a ship-of-war and two smaller vessels, and lay in wait at the mouth of a river for the prahus of the natives, which were merely open row-boats, and were not vessels of war. When the fleet of boats appeared in sight, Sir J. Brooke, without calling upon them to surrender, or in any way communicating with them, with the view of ascertaining what they wanted, fired a broadside into them of shot, balls, and rockets, and the unfortunate wretches were unable to make the slightest attempt at resistance or defence. The English steam-vessels of war were then driven among the boats, and the miserable creatures were crushed under the paddle-wheels, and annihilated by hundreds in the most inhuman manner. Some idea might be formed of the nature of the attack when not even one of our sailors was injured in the affray. Indeed, the attack reminded him more of a battue of sheep or rabbits than of honourable warfare. After this mighty feat of valour had been performed, they came to a Christian assembly, and demanded 20l. a head for slaughtering the unhappy wretches. There was no proof whatever that the men were pirates, and Sir J. Brooke himself admitted that the prisoners whom he had captured (and who, if they were pirates, ought to have been hanged), were treated by him with the greatest kindness and then sent home. He (Mr. Cobden) declared the men had been murdered, without one tittle of evidence that they had ever molested us, and that the evidence against them would not have been sufficient to convict for petty larceny. With regard to the charge which was made for destroying pirates in the Chinese seas, he behoved the demand was an illegal one, because we had never been molested or interfered with by the so-called pirates. He, therefore, objected, on principle, to paying 20l. a head for killing people who had never done anything to us. He thought that the least the Committee might do was to delay voting this money until further information was before them.

was not able to say why the Government repealed the statute; but when the hon. Member for the West Riding asked for proof of these Bornean pirates being really such, it was enough to say, let him look for any record of voyages or travels, printed or in manuscript, that called them anything else. Yet now we were to be told they were only innocent free-traders. They dealt in men and women to be sure; and their last act of trade, before they were attacked by Sir J. Brooke, was, that they seized upon a body of persons who were really trading, and put them all to death. It was true they carried on war among themselves; the tribes upon the coast were of different nation and religion from those in the interior, who were able to trade, but these pirates would not let them. What was the proof of their being pirates? The judgment of every competent court; and the House of Commons was not fitted to set aside the judgment of the courts in Singapore and elsewhere. Because Sir J. Brooke was carrying on most successfully and meritoriously a most thriving colony, which a certain person wanted to turn into a matter for his own aggrandisement, taking shares and making Sir J. Brooke a joint jobber with him, that man had been an anonymous slanderer of Sir J. Brooke for the last three years, and that was the truth of the matter. As to our having no right to attack persons unless they were pirates against our commerce, why then did we send Lord Exmouth out some years ago against pirates who never touched any person sailing under an English flag? He (Mr. Drummond) hoped there would be an opportunity hereafter, as was promised, of going into the matter fully, when Sir J. Brooke's salary should be before the House.

said, the hon. Member for West Surrey was speaking of a different set of tribes from those he had alluded to. He spoke of Labuan, but Sir J. Brooke did not live within 300 miles of that place; he was living on his own property in the equivocal character of a rajah, and receiving 2,000l. a year from the Government as Governor of Labuan, and 500l. as consul to his own court. They had besides appointed a deputy governor at 1,200l. a year, and the whole island was in confusion because the Lieutenant Governor had misconducted himself in the absence of the Governor. The hon. Gentleman would not tolerate jobs in England, and he hoped he was not going to tolerate them in Borneo. He had no personal hostility to Sir J. Brooke; he never saw him in his life; he had never come into contact with him; but he had a right to speak of him on public grounds when he was called on to vote away the money of his constituents. He had a right to speak of him when he was called on to vote 100,000l. where no grounds had been shown for the claim, and where these pirates, if pirates they were, were only disputing amongst themselves.

said, that it was very probable that the depredations of those pirates extended over 300 miles, because they had large deep rivers, along which they sailed.

said, that Labuan was at the extremity of the island, and Sarawak was at the north-west coast, and a person must go by sea to get there. He was not going to let the hon. Gentleman off that way.

said, that having been for sometime in China, and having some acquaintance with the subject under discussion, he hoped the House would allow him to make a few remarks. He had been in the China sea in the year 1809 or 1810, and at that time a piratical fleet infested the whole southern coast, and spread dismay in every quarter. They did not confine their atrocities to the Chinese, for they attacked English and American vessels. One of the most trifling punishments which they inflicted was to tie the hands of their victims together, and pass a rope through them, and haul them up the mast. He went on board Her Majesty's frigate the Dædalus, commanded by Capt. Bell, which was then in these seas, as an amateur, in order to assist in destroying those pirates. They were requested to escort some vessels up the Canton river, and they disguised the frigate as a merchant vessel, in order to induce the pirate boats to come out. They did come out, and attacked them, and, of course, a very formidable fire was opened upon them. He was sorry to say, however, that it was ineffectual, because the boats soon got into shallow water, where the frigate was not able to follow them. They enabled the vessels, however, to get up the river. On another occasion a sloop of war, commanded by Capt. Wells, son of Admiral Wells, having lost her foremast, hoisted the usual signal for a pilot, the union-jack, whereupon one of the hon. Member for the West Riding's honest traders decoyed Capt. Wells into a fleet of about 40 piratical junks. The sloop, however, was furnished with very heavy metal, and gave the pirates a tremendous thrashing. The punishment inflicted on them had a good effect, for their leader afterwards declared that he would never again attack the British. Such was a brief outline of what they were in the China Sea. Now, with regard to the Malay pirates, the House would remember that the Malay pirates infested the whole of the Archipelago, and were of a most atrocious character. The House must recollect their conduct on the occasion of Lord Amherst's embassy, when the Alceste was wrecked. Nothing but the most determined valour on the part of British seamen could have protected them on that occasion from falling into the hands of these merciful people. The hon. Member for the West Biding said, that these boats were plied by oars, but he bogged to tell the hon. Gentleman that they had large decks, and that they carried cannon also. When Captain Bell commanded the Samarang in these seas, he was attacked while he was at dinner by some of these tribes, of whom it was very likely the Dyaks formed a portion. No less than 19 of his men were killed, and Captain Bell and his first lieutenant were wounded. He, however, put down the pirates, and of those whom he had taken he tied the hands together; he put shot into their stomachs and threw them into the sea.

said, that it must be matter of regret to observe that every particular case of suffering, cruelty, and atrocity mentioned by the hon. Gentleman had been received with great cheering and laughter by hon. Gentlemen opposite. Now the statements of the hon. Gentleman appeared to have no hearing whatever on the question before the House, or if they had anything, told in favour of the view which he and his hon. Friend near him took. Hon. Gentlemen opposite accepted the speech of the hon. Gentleman in favour of the vote; but he had not communicated a single fact which came nearer to their own times than 1810. [Mr. PLOWDEN: 1816.] He would give the hon. Gentleman all the advantage of the additional six years, but it could be no satisfaction to them to vote 100,000l. for 5,000 lives taken away at the rate of 20l. per head, that the hon. Gentleman was able to give them some anecdotes of what took place so far back as 1810. Was the fact of certain matters having taken place some forty or fifty years ago to be taken as a proof of circumstances now supposed to be passed or passing on the coasts of Borneo and China? The House would do well to look into this matter. This vote of 100,000l. represented 5,000 persons or pirates slain and estimated at 20l. a head. Now he wanted to know from the First Lord of the Admiralty whether any information whatever of an accurate character, or even approaching accuracy, had reached the Government so as to justify them in submitting this vote to the House. Neither in the estimates, nor in the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, was the least ground alleged so as to justify the House in agreeing to the vote. He was afraid the right hon. Gentleman knew nothing about the matter; for never in his recollection had a vote of such an amount been accompanied with so bold and unmeaning a statement as that which the right hon. Gentleman alluded to this vote. Was this 100,000l. decided upon in the courts of Singapore, Hong Kong, or elsewhere? If a trial had taken place in distant parts, was the evidence of such a nature as would satisfy the courts in this country? Had any evidence been laid before the Government hero? If so, why did not the right hon. Gentleman lay that evidence before Parliament, when he came to ask them for so large a sum for so grave a matter as the slaughter of 5,000 assumed pirates? He hoped his hon. Friend would move that this vote be postponed until the Government consented to lay before the House the facts, data, and evidence on which they had the conscience to ask Parliament to vote this enormous sum. Whatever the Goverment might think of this subject, the public were horrified at the narratives of the atrocities which had been committed, although the accounts came from persons who were interested in making the case wear the best aspect. His hon. Friend did not say that all these persons were innocent traders. What he said was that there were probably innocent traders amongst them. He said that many of them were smugglers, but that there was no proof whatever which would satisfy any court in this country, on the most flimsy charge, that these persons were pirates. Now when he recollected that that House had prayers read every day at that table—when they recollected that they were a Christian Parliament, and that they professed day after day, as he heard hon. Gentlemen opposite profess, great respect for religion in connexion with the State—and when, notwithstanding this, he found them voting rewards for the slaughter of 5,000 human beings, without one particle of evidence that the men they slaughtered were guilty of any crime—he declared that he could not conceive how any Parliament, much less a Christian Parliament, could do this without—he would not use the words that suggested themselves to him—but without bringing everlasting disgrace upon them.

said, that the speeches of the hon. Members for Manchester and the West Riding conveyed a certain amount of censure on the gallant officers engaged in the expedition; and he should be glad to know whether these gallant officers, who had been executing a disagreeable and painful duty, deserved to be stigmatised? He thought there existed considerable misunderstanding in the minds of hon. Gentlemen as to how the reward was estimated. By the operation of a certain Act of Parliament a certain sum of money was allowed as head money. That Act rendered it necessary that the applicants should go before a court of justice and prove that the parties with whom they had been engaged were pirates, and therefore in every case before money was paid, the parties were bound and required to have a decision of a court of justice that those against whom they acted were pirates. He thought the House could not have better security than that; and, in his opinion, a court of justice, after hearing evidence in a case, was much more likely to be a sufficient tribunal than that House. Now, it so happened that in the first application which occurred, they had a report of what took place on the occasion. Sir C. Rawlinson, who tried the case, said he must be satisfied that the parties had been pirates, and he decided on having further evidence of that fact before issuing an order. Inquiry accordingly took place; he heard the evidence, and then decided that the proof was sufficient as to the nature of the parties for whose destruction remuneration was claimed. The evidence I taken on that occasion had been forwarded to Government, and he had then extracts from the confession of a Bornean pirate before him, who declared in evidence, on the occasion in question, that rapine and plunder had been the object of his associates. He (Sir F. Baring) therefore thought that the decision of an English lawyer should carry more weight in that House than the slanders circulated against the officers. Then there was also an opinion that should not be overlooked in the matter, namely, that of the commercial body in the neighbouring countries, in support of which he would quote the address of the merchants and traders of Singapore to Sir J. Brooke. But, independent of all these things, there should be some allowance made for the characters of members of an hon. and gallant profession, who had onerous duties to perform, and who, whatever other slanders might be urged against them, were never open to the imputation of inhumanity. He trusted that the House, if pressed to a division, would exhibit the sense in which they entertained the question.

said, that it was seldom he agreed with or supported Her Majesty's Ministers; but upon the present occasion he could not but do so. However, after what had fallen from the hon. Member for the West Riding, he did not expect that either the case made out by the First Lord of the Admiralty, or that by the hon. Member for Newport, would satisfy either the hon. Member for the West Riding, or his man Friday, the hon. Member for Manchester. He did not know how many innocent free-traders might have been amongst those pirates. There might have been a great number. But it was high time that that mistaken out-of-doors feeling of humanity for pirates should be put a stop to. There was cruelty enough practised by the free-traders at home to those unfortunate persons who were in their employ, and they should begin by putting a stop to that.

said, he blamed the service, not that they had done these deeds, but for having done them without order. He wished to ask if he were correct in saying that the Admiral on the station issued the orders of which he (Mr. Cobden) had spoken, and which had been confirmed at home, to the effect that British ships-of-war should not kill natives under the plea of piracy unless they had attacked English vessels. He wished to know if that were correct?

said, that the ships engaged were sent specifically for that purpose. As to the parties attacked, he should say he did not exactly remember the words of the order; but his impression was, that the hon. Member for the West Riding had mistaken it.

said, there was another reason why they should defer the question. It was a question that referred to the destruction of 5,000 human beings, and for which they were called upon to pay 100,000l. Now, was it not right that they should inquire if these 5,000 individuals were rightfully destroyed, and whether they were bound to pay the 100,000l.? They had not a single proof before them that the parties had ever attacked an English vessel. He did not mean to say that the men destroyed were all innocent traders; he admitted, on the contrary, that they were barbarians, savages, engaged in intertribal warfare; and if such were the case, he did not think they were bound to pay for the destruction of such savages, unless it could be shown that they had attacked English vessels.

wished to bring the Committee to the point before them. They had really no discretion in the case, because there was a positive and imperative Act of Parliament, which said that after it had been adjudged that pirates had been destroyed, a certain payment was to be made. Sir C. Rawlinson had decided that these pirates were pirates. There was thus a judgment in rem—[Mr. COBDEN: Where is it?]—which was final and binding to all intents and purposes. It was therefore a waste of time to pursue this discussion.

concluded that the hon. Member for the West Riding must be ignorant that any judgment had been given in this case; for when the Attorney General pointed out that such was the case, the hon. Member asked in an audible voice, "Where is that judgment?" The hon. Member for Manchester had ventured, because those on his side of the House had cheered the interesting statement of the hon. Member for Newport, to accuse them of being disposed to cheer every bloody sentiment. So unjust and absurd an averment only deserved to be treated with contempt.

said, his statement was impugned because it referred to days gone by; but the very same kind of transactions were occurring at the present day. Gentlemen opposite had a meeting some six or eight weeks ago to discuss these questions; but he thought they would always on these occasions be the better by having Captain Aaron Smith among them.

knew something of Captain Aaron Smith, who had himself been a most atrocious pirate. If a Committee were appointed to inquire, evidence could easily be brought forward to prove what the conduct of that man had been in the case of the Cambria, Captain Cook. It could be shown that Captain Aaron Smith, who was with a piratical ship in the Gulf of Mexico, took Captain Cook from his vessel, and carried him on board the pirate ship, where he was tied to the mast and wounded in such a manner by the crew that he still bore the marks upon his body. Captain Aaron Smith was tried for piracy. [An Hon. MEMBER: And acquitted.] He was tried and acquitted; but he was not tried on Captain Cook's charge; and he (Mr. Cobden) would certainly believe Captain Cook before Captain Aaron Smith. His firm belief was, that this Captain Aaron Smith was all that Captain Cook had charged him with.

wished the Committee to observe, that the hon. Member for the West Riding asserted in the first place that those people had been unjustly put to death against whom Sir C. Rawlinson had pronounced judgment, and then he asked them to look upon Captain Aaron Smith as a pirate because he was tried and acquitted.

stated the case of a relative of his own, who served on the coast of Borneo, and who was attacked by those very people who were described by the hon. Member for the West Riding as innocent of piracy.

said, that if he had sufficient confidence in the judgment of the Court of Singapore, he should support the vote, but because he had not, he should oppose it. The ships belonging to his own constituents were as much exposed to piracy in the East as those of any other port; yet he would defy any one to bring forward a case in which one of them had been attacked; and he would even extend the remark to ships trading from the Mersey and the Thames. By passing that vote, they would sanction a crime. It was with great reluctance that he opposed any vote brought forward by the Government; but he could not support the vote now under consideration. He believed the time would come when Sir J. Brooke would be tried in this country for the massacre, and that Gentlemen, at the next election, would hear more on this subject than they would desire

scarcely expected, after such statements as those made by the hon. Member for Newport, that the vote would have been opposed; least of all did he expect that the friends of peace would charge any person in that House with having received with acclamation those statements, as wanting Christian feeling, and as the rewarders of murder. He deprecated such attacks as unworthy of the character which that House ought to maintain. Gentlemen might dispute the fact of pirates existing in those seas; but he believed the brother of a Member of that House—the brother of the hon. Member for Crickdale—had lost his life during the last eight months by an attack of these pirates. The rewards they proposed to give were not for the murder of 5,000 pirates, but for the protection of millions of the human race.

still remained unconvinced that any English vessel or subject had been molested by these so-called pirates. He would go further and say, he believed there was not a jury in the land that would not return upon their oaths that there had been no such thing. They were manifestly petty tribes warring upon one another after their own way. He did not find any tangible attempt to state the name of any vessel or individual that had been attacked, and therefore he did not believe that any such thing had taken place. He did not think the hon. Member for Newport saw all the inferences that would be drawn from his own statement. He wished the hon. Member would repeat his statement, as it had been imperfectly heard. Since he declined, he (Colonel Thompson) would only request that he would stop him the moment he stated anything incorrectly. He believed he heard the hon. Member say, he knew an instance where a British frigate, in 1816, captured two vessel swhich were considered of the class of those now in question. The crews rose upon the frigate, and attempted to recover their vessels—no unusual event among any belligerents. A number of the frigate's people were killed in the contest which ensued; and when the struggle was over, the captain of the frigate—such had been the hon. Member's affirmation—ordered the survivors of the captives to be run up to the yard arms, and the wounded to have shot put into their stomachs and be thrown overboard. It was clear enough, after this, who were the pirates. He would merely ask, what would have been the comments if the case had been reversed. It was enough to make a man tear off the uniform he had ever worn in a service where such things were done. And those who did them were christened men, and would probably have been offended if any had called them infidels. But the public would judge between them, and it would be seen whether the opinion of the House or of the public would carry the day. He should particularly like to ascertain whether the transactions in China were in accordance with the orders on that station or not; and it behoved the House to know by whom those orders were contravened.

had always imagined that piracy was a crime against the law of nations; and he did not know that it was necessary, in order to justify any nation in repressing piracy, that the persons who had been the victims of that crime should belong to that nation. But the hon. Member for the West Riding was so horrified at the crime which had been committed by a British officer when in pursuit of pirates, that he was not content that the victims of these pirates should have been perhaps some Portuguese crew; his humanity would not be satisfied unless the crew of an English ship had fallen victims to the atrocities of those piratical tribes. The whole opposition to the vote was founded upon misapprehension. If they thought the whole of these proceedings to have been unjust, they should either appeal (if it were possible) from the decision of the Court of Admiralty at Singapore, or move an Address to the Crown for the removal of Sir C. Rawlinson, for having made an unjust decision. But if neither of these steps were taken, then, in common justice, they could not refuse to allot to the officers the amount of the prize money which the Act of Parliament awarded him. But, dismissing that part of the case, he wished to ask a question of the Government, which he had no doubt they would be able to answer in a way perfectly satisfactory for the reputation of Sir J. Brooke. It was alleged that Sir J. Brooke was engaged in extensive mercantile speculations in Sarawak, while the piratical tribes which he had been repressing were principally in the neighbourhood of that locality. Now, oven a clerk of 100l. a year in Ceylon was not permitted to have a coffee garden, because he should not be tempted to engage in mercantile speculations. This was a just regulation. It was, therefore, of importance that some Member of the Government should be able to state to the House, that the assertion which had been widely spread by the public press respecting Sir J. Brooke was entirely unfounded.

said, that from all the information he possessed, his belief was directly opposed to the report that Sir J. Brooke was engaged in any mercantile undertaking whatever. Indeed, he believed, on the contrary, that it was because Sir J. Brooke had abstained from entering into mercantile speculations, that he obtained the enmity of those by whom he was once admired.

said, that in reference to the question put by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Wiltshire, he was hound to state, in justice to Sir J. Brooke, that the imputation cast upon him as to trading, was one to which his friends were in a position to give the most positive contradiction. Sir J. Brooke applied to him (the Attorney General), not professionally, but as a private friend, to advise him as to his moving for a criminal information against the parties who had published the report, in order that he might have an opportunity of explaining the whole of his conduct; and Sir J. Brooke refrained from taking that step entirely upon his (the Attorney General's) advice. He (the Attorney General) there fore took upon himself the whole responsility of Sir J. Brooke having so acted. He (the Attorney General) thought that as Sir J. Brooke was a public man, whilst there was a possibility of such a charge being made against him in the House of Commons, it was his duty to wait till that opportunity was afforded for giving a contradiction to it.

read a return, moved for by the hon. Member for Montrose, in which it was stated that eight and twenty piracies on British vessels had been committed since the year 1839 in the neighbourhood of these islands, in most of which instances the crews had been murdered.

said, it was desirable that he should put an end to this measure at once, and perhaps the best course to adopt was, to move that the Chairman should leave the chair. Nothing could be so objectionable as a system of drawbacks; the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth had availed himself of every opportunity to do away with them, and though a few still remained they should not reintroduce a system that had led to great inconvenience. The total number of registered vessels was 30,000, the number registered at Lloyd's 10,000, and therefore the number to which the measure could possibly apply was one-third only of the vessels existing in this kingdom; and by far the greater proportion of the vessels surveyed and registered at Lloyd's, were vessels to which this measure would be no boon at all. It could not be extended to the smaller vessels engaged in the coasting trade and in fishing, without opening the door to fraud. He objected to the measure, because it must, therefore, necessarily be a partial, and not a general measure. If they allowed a drawback in the cases proposed, where were they to stop? They would be asked to allow it on timber used on railroads and in manufactories. He did not mean to say, if a drawback were allowed in the way proposed, that a very large amount would be lost to the revenue; but it was against the fraud that would be practised that he wished to guard. He believed it impossible to distinguish with perfect accuracy the different kinds of fir or oak timber, and the corresponding duties which would be levied upon it, and frauds to a great extent would be certain to exist in the carrying out of any plan of drawbacks upon timber employed in shipbuilding. He was, however, bound to say, that the state of the timber duties was at present most unsatisfactory; as many of the less valuable kinds of timber paid a very heavy duty, while some of the higher classes paid but a small amount of duty. He was anxious that in anything he might say, he should not be understood to say anything against a revision of the timber duties upon some future occasion. He begged therefore to move, that Mr. Bernal do leave the chair.

said, that the arguments used by the right hon. Gentleman now were as different as could possibly be from those resorted to when the subject was first introduced. What were his arguments to-night? They rested on a series of false analogies. He had referred to the timber used in mines and railways, as though they stood on the same footing as shipbuilding; whereas nothing could be more dissimilar. The sole ground on which the hon. Member for Bridport rested his Motion was, that having subjected the British shipowner to competition with foreign shipping, you ought to remove all impediments which prevented him from entering fairly into the contest. Now, vessels employed in the coasting trade were not exposed to this competition, and therefore did not come within the principle. The ground on which the Motion rested was, that, contrary to the policy pursued in other matters, they were maintaining a duty on the raw material used in a manufacture which employed more adult labour, perhaps, than any other branch of industry. Another objection was the difficulty of making distinctions between the different classes of timber. Surely this was no ground for refusing the hon. Member leave to bring in his Bill. Let it be brought in, and then it would be time enough to see how far its machinery was effectual for its professed objects.

reminded the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer, that in his speech on the budget he distinctly pledged himself to agree to this drawback if it could be done without loss to the revenue, as a majority of the House had voted for the principle. With respect to the objection urged against the measure, that it would necessarily be a partial one, he did not think such would be the case, as every one of the owners of the 30,000 ships might, according to his plan, upon payment of a fee to the surveyor of one pound, send in his claim for the allowance of the drawback. It was quite true that there were only eleven ports where surveyors were appointed by Lloyd's solely; but he had yet to learn that the other surveyors were not trustworthy. Again, the right hon. Gentleman said, that it would be impossible to distinguish the class of timber of which a vessel was built; but in opposition to this, he had letters in his hand from some of the most eminent wood-brokers in London, assuring him that no man conversant with the trade would find the least difficulty in the matter. He had also a letter to the same effect from Mr. W. Smith, of Newcastle, whom he bad no hesitation in calling one of the first shipbuilders in the world. It was all very well to hint at a revision of the timber duties; but knowing the numerous claimants by whom a Chancellor of the Exchequer was always beset, he was not disposed to trust the claims of the unfortunate shipbuilders to the chance of a remission next year.

explained, that what he had stated in his speech, to which reference had been made, was, that as there appeared to be a very strong feeling in the House in favour of allowing the drawback, the question should certainly receive his consideration, although he was decidedly opposed to resorting back to the old system of drawbacks.

contended that the claims of the mining interest had equal weight with those of the shipbuilding interest, inasmuch as the drawback which they formerly possessed on timber used in mining had been removed on the faith of a protecting duty being maintained on foreign ores. In 1847 this protection had been removed, and they were entitled to have the drawback restored. He defied any one to show that it had ever been made an engine of fraud during its maintenance in former years.

supported the Motion of the hon. Member for Bridport on the ground that under the new navigation laws any amount of foreign timber knocked together in the shape of a ship escaped the duty, while the raw article, which would give employment to our artisans, was subject to a heavy duty. There could be no difficulty in ascertaining the quantity and quality of the timber used in vessels, for their classification at Lloyd's depended upon this circumstance.