The Sun. — London, England, 1859-03-09 00:00:00

f Naples in the case of the Cagliari, and just as we denied ' the competency of the Neapolitan tribunals to deal with Watt and Park, so the French Government would not recognise the right of the Portuguese tribunals to punigh Captain Rouxel. (Hear.) Did we in that case carry things with a rough hand? I know some persons were of opinion that we ought to have sent a fleet into the Bay of Naples ; but I do not think the noble earl opposite was one of those persons: We appealed to the protocols of Paris to settle that question, and 'we recommended that the same course should be pursued as between France and Portugal. Her Majesty's Government, then, were perfectly consistent n what they did in both those cases, and they could not, without the greatest inconsistency, to say nothing of the danger, have recommended Portugal to take violent measures. Another accusation might be made against us—that we had not fulfilled our treaties, but Portugal never in the most distant manner alluded to the treaties, and the Por tuguese Minister himself stated that nothing but the good offices of England were needed. The treaty of 1703 ran, that whenever the Kin&of Spain, or the Ki ng o f F rance, or both of them, shall slow any disposition to make war on Portugal, the British Government shall "use their friendly offices to persuade them to observe terms of peace towards Portugal, and not to make war." Lord WODEHOUSE—Read on. It goes on to say, if our "good offices" fail, that we should go to war on behalf of Portugal. The Earl of MALMESBURY—It says that if our good offices tail we are to send a force of 6,000 men for the de fence of Portugal. Is that what the noble earl recommends to the house ? (Hear, hear.) I have heard a great many sug"estions as to what we ought to have done in this mat ter, but that is a perfectly new one. (Hear, hear.) It is about as astonishing to me as the piece of poetry which the noble lord quoted just now—of which nobody could under stand the point, and which had no possible reference to the question. Does the noble lord mean that we were to send these 6,000 men over whether the Portuguese liked it or not ? and I can assure the noble lord that the Portuguese Government showed no disposition for a second Peninsular war. If your lordships wish to know what were the senti ments of the Portuguese Government on this point I can easily lay them before you. When the affair was all over, the Portuguese Opposition—no doubt conscientiously ful filling their duty, like her Majesty's Opposition/id home— (a laugh) —found fault with the Government for not having appealed to the treaty with England. In answer to this the Marquis de Louie said : " Some members of the Chamber are of opinion that the intervention of England should have been asked for, but it was not very clear that the cams fcederiB had arisen. (Hear, hear.) England is not bound to support us in every quarrel, and besides the circumstances were not of a nature to lead us to fear a war or to demand formally the assistance of England, for if she acceded to our request, a European war might be the result, which on our part, as one of the members of the European family, and interested in the continuance of peace, we ought to avoid, and not to bring upon ourselves an affront and a difficulty ; and it was re quisite to weigh all the circumstances, not to look at things th,rough the prism of our desires." Your lordships would not have had us more Portuguese than the Portuguese themselves. Ido not agree with the noble lord that the good offices of England failed. They obtained what they professed to o btain—mediation—which was cut in two by an accident which it was impossible for any man to foresee, the restriction of its limits, which M. de Lisle, the French Minister at Lisbon, placed upon it. I a m at a loss to know what more we could have done when, having asked our advice, the Portuguese Government re fused to follow it, and took an independent line of their own. I am obliged to the noble lord for having brought this matter. forward. Ido not regret having acted as I did, and I am perfectly certain that justice will be done to her Ma jesty's Government by the people when they calmly consi der the position in which we were placed. Any other line taken with France at that moment might have produced the most serious results. If we had gone beyond the line of good offices we should have entered on another chapter, and, bound as we were by treaty, it is impossible to say what consequences might have followed. If the Govern ment had called Parliament together in the autumn, and announced to them that, in consequence of some ob scure quarrel on the rights of which the Government could not clearly decide, the relations of Fiance and England were in a state of great tension, I should have been blamed for not having talked and written too little, but for having written too much. (Cheers.) • Earl GRANVILLE thought her Majesty's Government had not dealt fairly either with Portugal or France in this matter. He had no doubt that France was in the wrong, but considered She had been much irritated by the conduct of the Portuguese Government. The instructions sent to Lord Cowley were not sufficiently definitive ; they ought to have been more positive, The Portuguese Government had done, with one exception, what it was their duty to do, and had exhibited as strong a sense of honour as the greatest nation which exists. Having alluded jocularly to the con versation which had taken place between Lord Malmesbury and the French Ambassador, he asked in what part of these papers the French had laid down the principle that , the presence of a French delegate on board the ship gave an official character to the Charles et Georges. It was a principle with which he could not agree. He thought this transaction would leave a most unfavourable impression, not only in this country, but on the whole of Europe and the civilised world, and would prove that the Government had not shown either the requisite activity or judgment. Lord KINGSDOWN would confine himself to the law of the case, for it was by the rights that might or might not exist that her Majesty's Ministers must be judged. (Hear.) He considered whether the principle that a ship with an agent on board responsible to his Government was amen able or not to municipal law, and decided that by no means could she be brought under it. Now, Count Walewski had stated that the agent on board the Charles et Georges was a delegate appointed by the French Government, so the question immediately fell into the hands of diplomatists. He considered that the Portuguese Government had, by its own rashness, involved itself in great peril, from which they had been extricated by the prudence and forbearance of Lord Malmesbury. Lord GREY said the French Government knew well that it was contrary to Portuguese law to export negroes from the Portuguese African possessions, for much corres pondence had taken place between the French and Portu guese Gevernments on the subject. The Portuguese Go vernment was informed by France that the system of pro curing negroes from the Portuguese dominions should be abandoned. Subsequently to this French vessels were de tected carrying on the trade, and he thought that the Por tuguese Governor in lookins , to the correspondence which had taken place, was warranted insupposingthat difficulties might arise unless they acted with vigour. Under these circumstances the Charles et Georges was seized and con demned. He admitted the principle that a ship acting un der the authority of a State is not subject to the municipal law of a foreign country; but denied that there was a single despatch in which the French Government puts for ward that claim in the case of the Charles et Georges ? France only asserts that the presence of her agent ought to have exempted the vessel from the suspicion of being en gaged in the slave trade. Moreover, there was no evidence to show that the ship had any claim to a public character. There was every reason to believe the Portuguese claim was right, but supposing it doubtful there was a clear case for reference. Be thought the Government ought to have presented a formal note to the French Government, stating that there were serious grounds for thinking that France might not be entirely in the right. No man had a greater horror of war than himself, but he did not think that the best way of securing peace was to abandon an ally for too faithfully following the advice we gave her ; nor did. he think so ill of the Emperor of the French as to deem that a firm remonstrance from this country would have pro duced war. He felt convinced that if the facts of the case had been properly represented to the Emperor the difficulty would never have arisen. The conduct of the Government in this matter had sensibly lowered this coun try in the opinion of Europe. The Earl of DERBY said—l am also very much obliged to the noble lord who has brought this question forward, • and I concur in commending the judgment of the noble lord in framing the motion in such a manner as renders it impossible for the house to come to any conclusion on the merits of the question involved in it. I think the noble lord has shown excellent judgment - in so framing the mo tion ; but certainly if he had entertained the view which the noble earl seems to entertain, that the course which the British Government has pursued has reflected discredit on them, and lowered their character in Portugal and through out Europe, it would have been his duty not to have con tented himself with moving for a paper to which there is not the slightest objection, except what has been stated by my noble friend, and which, in point of fact, is absolutely immaterial, but to have called on Parliament to pronounce a verdict against a Government which had so grossly neglected its duty. (Hear.) I listened with attention and some interest to the speech of the noble lord (Wodehouse), although that interest was somewhat diminished by the fact that on Saturday last the greater portion of the noble lord's speech might be read in a publication of a laudatory cha racter with regard to everything and everybody, and sin gularly discriminating and candid in everything relating to m y noble friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. (A laugh.) After the speeches of my friend (Lord Mal mesbury) and my noble and learned friend (Lord Kings down), who has for the first time addressed your lordships, and who reminded me to-night of the triumphs which he achieved while he and I were members of the other hous e— (hear) —I should have left the question to those two speeches if it had not been for some remarks which have fallen from the noble earl (Grey). My lords, those w h o d e b ate this ques tion on the part of the Government labour under very con siderable difficultieS, because with the question of the con duct of the Government, which is alone properly un d er your lordships' consideration, various other questions are complicated in regard to the conduct of the French and Portuguese Governments to each other, and the merits of the transaction which gave rise to the dispute between them. All the sympathies of Parliament and of the country are in favour of what is supposed to be the case of Portugal. Here you have Portugal incited by England to take part in the suppression of the slave trade, exerting herselffor that suppression, incurring the hostility of a powerful neighbour, and then deserted by the friend and ally whose instigation had caused the active part she had taken, The tis a very plausible way of putting the question, and it enlists all the sympathies of Parliament and the country in favour of the State that so laudably exerts itself for the suppression of the slave trade. But, my lords, that is not the case we have to argue. The question on which the decision of Parliament is to be taken is not whether the proceedings of France in regard to Portugal are to be altogether defended or supported —not whether the system of French emigra tion from the coast of Africa is connected with the slave trade —but whether, under the circumstances in which the Government were placed, they did their duty between the two parties, and took the curse consistent with the honour and interests of this country. (Hear.) The difficulty of the position in which they were placed was increased by the fact that none had more vigorously contended thatthe system of, t ree emigrati on , as it was carried on with the best intentions y France, was inseparably, indissolubly connected with the revival of the slave trade. (Hear, hear.) Nevertheless, we were compelled to admit the perfect right of France to carry on that traffic if s h e th ought fit. We have no treaty with France against such a t ra ffi c ; it is not in itself contrary to international law or illegal ; annod ais al i though we never ceased to contend that there was free trade emigration and a bona fade ion between this distinction carriede ri t t rade that is the purchase of persons formerly slaves their will—yet we could not but confess that w e power or justification to interfere to prevent tt?at la trafi d lc o y F rance . We represented to the Government of the Emperor the cases that had arisen, and the consequences likely to follow from that traffic, and I rejoice to say, that partly owing to the prudent and conciliatory course taken by my noble friend—(eheers)--the Emperor of the French took a course which must be gratifying to this country and favourable to the interests of humanity. (Hear, hear.) And, my lords, it is my confident belief, that if we had taken a different course, we should have interposed the greatest difficulty in the way of the conclusion to which - the French Government came, and should have placed serious obstacles in the way of the abandonment of the traffic complained of. (Hear, hear.) The questicn is, has England faithfully' and duly performed her .o ty to her ally, Portugal ? I think that the noble lord who com menced the debate began by admitting that no violation of our treaties with Portugal had occurred. I Lord WonE- Housz—l admitted that a cases fcederis d not arisen.] That is to say that Portugal had not, ill 1 r her treaties with this country, the right to ask for the good offices of her Majesty's Government under the circumstances that had, arisen, much less to claim our arms. [Lord WODE HOUSE made a remark which did not reach the gallery.] It would be under the treaty that Portugal would have claimed our good offices if the necessity had arisen, and un der the same treaty that she would have claimed our arms. The authority of the Prime Minister of Portugal himself, had been quoted upon this point, and he distinctly stated when he was charged with not applying tg England, thathe had not done so because in his judgment the cases fcederis had not arisen. We may, then, set aside every question in regard to any treaty obligation existing between us and Portugal. The question was one between Portugal and. France, both of whom were on terms of amity and friend ship with this country, and to both of whom in any diffi culty that might arise her Majesty's Government would be willing and readyto tender their good offices. But Portu gal was not entitled to demand either our good offices or intervention. These transactions commenced in Dec., 1857, and from that time to the month of August, 1858, although much correspondence took place between Portugal and France, no single reference was made to this country by either Portugal or France with reference to any part of these transactions. (Hear, hear.) Some noble lords have asked why we did not take part in the negotiations at an earlier period ? In the first place, the matter in dispute did not touch this country, because it was a difference between two independent countries, and neither of them asked for our interference; and in the next place, because they had not furnished us with the information and evidence, with out which we could not form a judgment. Up to this me meat we have not the means of forming a judgment on the whole of this transaction. We have not the French state ment, or the results of the inquiry instituted by the Comite des Contentieux, to whom the case was referred, and which had pronounced an opinion seriatim on the points referred to it. If we had been called upon to act as arbitrators or mediators there would have been much conflicting evidence on points essential to a just decision in the case, for it was admitted that if the French vessel at the time of the seizure was beyond the Portuguese waters, credit qucestio, and the Portuguese Government were guilty of a wrong, there was much contradictory evidence on other points, and that point with regard to the position of the vessel was not brought forward until a late period. Up to September no communication was made to us. The noble earl says that this French vessel was not of a character to claim the pri vileges of a ship of war. But that is a doubtful question. The French Government assert that she was a French vessel—that she was, in fact, freighted by the French Go vernment—that sh e had a French a delegate on board, was responsible for the conduct of the persons who carried on the traffic. Those were the statements of the Freneh Government, and they were not denied. Even if the vessel were within the limits of Portuguese waters I would not go so far as to say that she was withdrawn from all interference of municipal law; but admitting that she was within the Portuguese waters, it was only the munici pal law she was violating and not any treaty between Por tugal and France. The comity of nations required not that she should be dealt with as a slaver, but that she should be given over to the French Government, and the matter made the subject of diplomatic negotiations. But supposing she had been carrying on this trade, not under the sanction of the French Government, and supposing she had been in Portuguese waters, the Portuguese tribunals, by their own confession, did not take the course which they were bound to take. If she was not a slaver they had no right to deal with her in the manner they did. If she was a slaver they were bound to adjudicate on the case, not at Mozambique, but in the Prize Court at Loando. The course taken was utterly irreconcileable under any circumstances with the comity of nations, and absolutely contrary to international law. This case having occurred, and a long correspondence having taken place upon it, towards the latter end of August the French Government were found to be taking a decisive and energetic part in it, and the matter began to be serious. On the 18th of September, I think, Mr. Howard writes to us from Lisbon :—" The Marquis de Loule begged me to point out more particularly to your lordship that this was shown to be a case not of the engagement of free la bourers, but of the actual purchase of slaves. His Excellency did not make any apphcation to me for your lordship's valuable assistance, but I feel persuaded that he would be very grateful should your lordship be able to afford the Portuguese Government any aid in the treatment of the question with the French Government." By return of post, on the 25th of the same month, my noble friend wrote back saying he should be happy, although not requested by the Portuguese Government, to offer the good offices of her Majesty's Government in the settlement of the matter in issue ; and it was not till three or four days after he had done so that an application was made by the Portuguese Government for the employment of those good offices which he had already tendered. (Hear, hear.) The noble earl who has spoken last says in dealing with the French Government we ought to have remonstrated with them, that we ought to have shown the French Govern. meat that they were entirely in the wrong, and that Por tugal was in the right. But, in order to show them that we ought to have been quite satisfied ourselves of it in the first instance. (Hear, hear, and a laugh.) If a course could have been devised so entirely calculated altogether to defeat the possibility of coming to a satisfactory conclusion, and to prevent the French Government listening to what we might have to say, it was that recommended by the wisdom and judgment of the noble lord who spoke last. (Hear, hear, and a laugh.) But what did we do ? We offered our good offices for the purpose of mediation. We have been told that a long despatch ought to have been addressed to Lord Cowley as to how he was to act. I think, knowing the character of Lord Cowley, my noble friend acted much more wisely by informing him that we had offered our good offices in the matter, and leaving it to him, with the influ ence which he deservedly possesses at the French Court, to do what appeared to him right under the circumstances. It is assumed Lord Cowley did nothing in the matter, ex cept make a representation to Count Walewski, the result of which was unsatisfactory. But during the whole time that Count Lavradio was in Paris he was engaged with Baron Paiva in negotiating with Count Walewski, and constantly in the presence and with the assistance of Lord Cowley, with the view to their arriving at a common un derstanding. And they undoubtedly came to a common understanding. They came to an agreement with regard to a mediation which, if it had been carried into effect, as has been admitted by the noble lord who has brought this question under your lordships' consideration, would have been a wise, honourable, and satisfactory solution of the question (Hear.) I thank him for that admission. But it is said the French Minister at Lisbon, either not having sufficient instructions or misconceiving his instructions, declared' he could only deal with the question as to the amount of the indemnity to be offered, and not to the lega lity of the seizure. All I can say is thot Count Walewski and Lord Cowley are at one on the Marqvis de Lisle hav ing mistaken his instructions. What did Mr. Howard do? When he was informed, on the part of the Portuguese Go vernment, that the Marquis de Loule had stated he could only deal with the question of the indemnity, and not with that of the legality of the seizure, Mr. Howard said, _very judiciously and wisely, that he had no instructions to enable him to meet that state of things, that that was not the way inwhich the case had been repre sented to him ; but that, as the question had been put in that way, he—speaking for himself alone, and not for the Government he represented—would recommend an endeavour to be made with the view to an arrangement of the dispute. I think that under that state of circum stances no charge can be made against my noble friend for not giving instructions in a case that could not be foreseen. I have always been of opinion that when one party places his honour in the hands of another he is bound to place himself in the hands of that other person unrestrictedly and unreservedly. (Hear, hear.) In the present case from ancient friendship Portugal asked us what was best to be done. We advised them to accept the mediation that was offered, because it involved all that it was desirable to obtain. The noble earl who spoke last said something about England having had to submit to aninsult. I know nothing of any insult to which England has been subjected in this matter. It was no question of hers—(hear, hear)—it was no question between her and France. What she did was to give this disinterested advice to an ally as to the mode of extricating that ally from a difficulty; and if Portugal had taken that advice the negotiation would have been conducted in a manner which would have been satisfactory to all parties. Here is a case presented of a vote of censure against the Government, though it has wisely not been put forward exactly in that form. The ob jection is that we have lowered ourselves in the estimation of the world. I say we had arrived at a point, late as it was before our intervention was sought, at which the matter was likely to have been brought to an honourable solution. It was only by an incomprehensible accident that that solution was interfered with, and that solution would still have been arrived at if Portugal had not repudiated our advice. (Hear.) I say more. I say, considering the difficult course which her Majesty's Government had to pursue, I believe we adopted the course most consistent with prudence and with honour; we avoided entangling ourselves in a hostile con troversy between Portugal and France, by which we were enabled to hold the position we were bound to hold as the friend of both parties, and our moderation has had the effect not only of convincing France of the unsoundness of her system of so-called free immigration, but has disposed her to allow fair play to her own reason, and to have yielded by the force of her own reason that which she would never have yieided to unfriendly remonstrances pressed on her in a hostile spirit. (Cheers.) Out of that difficulty, serious as it was, we have come with honour to ourselves and ad vantage to the general peace of Europe, and until our con duct has been condemned by a vote of Parliament, which the noble lord does not think it desirable to ask at present, I shall be satisfied with the course we have pursued, and, if again placed in the same circumstances, I could rejoice to follow the same course, and to have it attended by the same results. (Hear, hear.) Lord CRAM WORTH said—At that late hour of the night he would not detain their lordships ; but he Foreignthought it was a legitimate complaint to urge that the noble lord the Secretary for Fore • Affairs, immediately on receiving this claim, did not consult his noble and learned (the L or d Chancellor) to see whether the view of the Portuguese Go vernment was consistent with the views of that house, or, rather, that they or say to them, 'night either enter their protest agai ns t it "Ye find u ndn must not take us as advocating doc trines for which w Lord WENSLEYDALE osanetion in international law." said he had looked over the and he could not see that the documents in this ca se , \ case against the French Por tuguese Government had a Government. He thought ther a p e r er v t a e s f no such clear viola tionth FrenchGovern mentasitinweleinueldd t h o, agree with Government of t t hi h s th c e oun rei of international law on the as would have justified the sage had the Charles et een try proceeding to extremities in the matter. as to whether 1 k ry l A O ; t Sh thativ ave, perhaps, been more more in com Georges she had been captured in Portuguese ue waters had b e „ been allowed to go free, and if the question treated diplomatically. Whens h doubts hriBted as to the legality of the capture, Government Oil not have been strong language to France in support f justified in holding of congratulation• °` in con their views. (Hear.) One subject spontaneous act of nection with the question was the had the abolishing the traffic in whatbeen Emperor of France called free immigrants. Lord WODEHOUSE replied, and the motion was with drawn. The Ecton and Welton Exchange Bill was read a third time and passed. The Burial Places Bill was read a third time and p assed Their lordships adjourned at a quarter past ten. HOUSE OF COMMONS—(YESTERDAY. The SPEAKER took the chair at four o'clock. NEW MEMBER. Mr. GLADSTONE, who was received with cheers, took the oaths and his seat for the University of Cambridge. PRIVATE BUSINESS. The following bills were considered and ordered for third reading :—Banff, Macduff, and Tariff Junction Rail 'way: Forraartine and Buchan Railway, licominfiter and THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, MARCH 9, 1859. Kington Railway, Shepton Mallet Water, and Swansea Vale Railway. ANCHORS. Mr. BENTINCK moved for a copy of the report of the anchor committee, nominated by the Admiralty, "to deter mine the relative merits of different descriptions of anchors," dated the Ist of February, 1853 ; of contracts for anchors and chain cables, specifying whether the result of public competition or otherwise ; of particulars of an chors broken, and ' otherwise disabled in use, on board various of her Majesty's ships employed in the Baltic in 1854, 1855, and 1856; of Capt. Vim. Peel's application for Trotman's anchor to be supplied to her Majesty's frigate Diamond, when fitting out at Sheerness in 1853, and offi cial answer thereto ; of any correspondence between the Admiralty and Mr. Trotman, commencing the 27th day of January, 1859.—Agreed to. STEAM. VESSELS. Mr. T. BARING moved for a return, in a tabular form, with consecutive numbers of the whole of the steam ves sels registered in the United Kingdom on or before the Ist day of January, 1858, stating, in separate columns, the following particulars :—Oacial number of vessel; vessel's name, port of registry; date of registry; date of build ,• reg istered owners; dimensions o f vesse l s i n l eng th an d breadth, and depth of hold; tonnage (exclusive of engine room), an gross tonnage, distinguishing vessels built of iron and vessels having screw propeller's ; also distinguish ing vessels measured under the Merchant Shipping Act of 1854 from those measured under previous acts; and esti mated horse power of their engines, and giving the aggre gate number of vessels and amount of tonnage, with an index for easy reference attached to it, giving the names of the vessels in alphabetical order, with numbers to each, corresponding with the consecutive numbers in the return (in continuation of Parliamentary paper, No. 488, of ses sion 1858).--Agreed to. MILITARY FORCES IN INDIA. On the motion of Sir DE LACY ETANB, copies of a cor respondence between the late Court of Directors, the Presi dent of the Board of Control, and the present Secretary of State for India, respecting the artillery force employed in India since the outbreak of the mutiny to the present time, were ordered. DIVINE SERVICE IN THE ARMY. Mr. GREER moved an address for return showing the distribution of the sums voted in the army estimates for the year IBSS, for allowances to officiating clergymen for per forming Divine service to the military at home and abroad (in contivation of parliamentary paper, No. 36, of the pre sent session), stating the names of the commissioned or permanent chaplains and assistant chaplains to the forces, with the amount of their respective salaries and allowances, and the religions denominations to which they respectively belong, distinguishing . those who were appointed during the said year, and specifying the churches with which they had been previously connected, and showing also the names and cost of the religious books paid for out of the sum so voted, and in what proportion they were distri buted among the soldiers of each religions denomination. And similar return of the religious instruction provided for her Majesty's forces in India, at the various military sta tions in that country, or in the field, during the past year, specifying the name and religious denomination of each chaplain or assistant chaplain appointed during the year, and the amount of outfit, if any, allowed.—Agreed to. for the observations of the hon. gentlenan who had just spoken were to a great extent an answer aa the hon. gentle man who brought forward the motion. (1-Tear, hear.) The position of the hon. .gentleman was thrt the action of the Government was not spirited enough and had not asserted sufficiently the position which this country was bound to adopt as a guaranteeing power towards Tortuga', and which required them under any circumstances to draw the sword if necessary in her defence. (No, no.) But the hon. gentle man who had just spoken said that they would deserve grievous blame if they had at any time put forward such a provision, or taken any course that should peril the peace of Europe. He agreed with the hon. gentleman that nothing was so incumbent on the Government as to take care that not only the letter but the spirit of treaties was fulfilled. And if this was true in ordinary circumstances, it was doubly true when it applied to their conduct towards one of the smaller powers of Europe, whose course of action might be influenced or modified by the counsel or assistance of England. He did not, therefore, complain of the motbn, for it was not only the right but the duty of Parliament to watch with jealousy the conduct of those who were entrusted with the adminis tration of affairs, and to see that the honour of the country and the fulfilment of its engagements had not suffered in their hands. He thought that they should look not merely to the dry facts of the case as they appeared in the blue books, but to realise as far as possible all the surrounding circumstances which could not but influence the conduct and decision of the Government. The question before the house was simply whether her Majesty's Government were right. (Hear.) It was not a question of the free emigra tion scheme which had been patronised by the French Go vernment, because her Majesty's Government uniformly and uncompromisingly spoke of that scheme in language of condemnation and remonstrance. (Hear.) The question was, had the Government acted in the best manner for the interests they were bound to consider ? (Hear.) What was the accusation brought against the Government ? It was twofold; first, that they had not acted with proper fidelity to the letter and spirit of the treaty with Portugal ; and secondly, that they did not show sufficient energy and promptitude on the occasion, or exhibit that sympathy which was due to Portugal, our ancient ally, and which was more especially due to her on this occasion, because the collision had to a certain extent been caused in consequence of the urgent solicitations of England with regard to the slave trade. He would take the issue on both points. With regard to the treaty of 1661, which was conceived in very large terms, the King of England by th a t t rea ty engage d to take the interest of Portugal and all her dominions to heart, to defend them to the utmost of his power by sea and land, even as England itself: The treaty of 1703 was in very different language. It said that if ever the Kings of Spain and France together or separately should make war upon, or give occasion to suspect that they intended to make war on Portugal, or on her dominions beyond sea, her Majesty the Queen of Great Britain should use her friendly offices with the said kings to persuade them to terms of peace. The first treaty bound this country to defend Por tugal in case of a direct invasion of Portugal, and the second did not extend beyond the employment of friendly offices. (Hear.) He apprehended that no one in that house would contend that that they were bound to support Portugal, whether she was right or wrong, and if the treaties bore any such interpretation the sooner they got rid of such a perilous and indefinite liability the better. (Hear.) The Minister of Portugal himself put that point very promi nently, and he remarked that the hon. gentleman never once ventured to say that Portugal was in a position to have called on this country to act on the treaties he referred to if Portugal was not ill the right. Now, he was not going to argue whether Portugal was in the right or not. The case of the Portuguese was this, that a French ship had been captured in Portuguese waters, and condemned for slave trading. How far were we in a position to say that that position had been established or not ? The first question which presented itself was whether the vessel had been ca i p tured n Portuguese waters at all. It might be all very well for those who took the Portuguese view of the case to say that she was. But that was denied by the French Govern ment. Was it a matter of small importance to know if the vessel had been captured in Portuguese waters or not ? In the case of the Cagliari, the whole point turned on the ques tion whether she was captured in the Neapolitan waters or not. (Hear, hear.) How were they to decide that question, which lay at the basis of the whole matter ? In the next place there was a doubt whether the vessel had been en gaged in the slave trade. In the despatch of Mr. Howard of the 6th Sept. he stated that he doubted whether the papers of the captain of the Charles et Georges were not forgeries, showing the legality of the transaction. But could the British Government act on the mere suspicion of the Portuguese Minister that these papers were forgeries ? What we said was, here are points of difference on the merits of which we cannot decide, but we think the whole queition ought to be referred to some third party. That was the course taken by her Majesty's Government. (Mr. Kinglake—When ?) Ho should come to that part of the case presently, and did not intend to flinch from or blink any part of it. (Cheers.) He was ready to meet the hon. gentleman on all points. (Cheers.) The hon. gen tleman began by a reference to the 6th March. It was true that we knew there was a cause of misunderstanding at that time, but our knowledge at that time was such as by no means called for, or, indeed, would have justified a demand for arbitration. It was not till the 28th August they re ceived any information that the case was one which called for any particular attention. But in that despatch Mr. Howard stated that it was one which was treated both by the Portuguese Government and M. de Lisle as being ca pable of settlement between themselves. There was no ma• nifestation of that irritation and anger that would lead them to believe that any dangerous consequences would ensue. The despatch of the 18th Sept. first disclosed to them the serious aspect which the case was assuming. That de spatch was received on the 24th; and on the 25th, the day after—before any demand or request whatever had been made by the Portuguese Government, before any suggestion had been made by Portugal that our good offices were de sired—her Majesty's Government stepped forward, and in a despatch to Mr. Howard declared that the friendly offices of England would not be wanting to the Portuguese Govern ment for the purpose of bringing the matter to an amicable settlement. Lord Cowley had received information of the fact that such a communication had been sent; and that the letter to Lord Cowley was not in the blue-book was owing to a mere printer's mistake. That letter was forthcoming. But evetty despatch from Lord Cowley which succeeded showed that he had received the information, and that he acted on it. (Hear.) The hon. gentleman said there was nothing in the papers to show that Lord Cowley had exerted himself to use his friendly offices to obtain a settlement. The hon. gentleman when he stated that must have omitted to read the observations of the Marquis de Loule, himself (p. 75) in which he conveyed the thanks of the Portuguese Government to Lord Malmesbury for the tender and em ployment of the good offices of her Majesty's Government; and also to Lord Cowley for his exertions to induce the French Government to consent to mediation ; yet, with that paper in his hand at the time, the hon gentleman stated that there was nothing to show that Lord Cowley had exerted himself to use his good offices. The despatch was acted en by Lord Cowley, but they had no reason to sup pose the case would have assumed that angry complexion which it afterwards assumed, because Lord Cowley, in page 16, says that the Count Walewski's language was concilia tory, that he felt certain he regretted that the case had arisen, and that he cordially wished to see it settled. He would now proceed to show how they had been frustrated in their intentions. On the 2d of October, they had reason to see that the French Government had changed their view of the case, and that it had become a very serious question, im mediately upon which they desired Lord Cowley to urge in the strongest way the adoption of the Paris protocol. The hon. gentleman asked why they had not advised its adoption before. The reason was that the Paris protocol would have been inapplicable at any previous time, for it was not to be applied except in the last resort, and when all other means of settlement had failed. (Hear.) If the hon. gentleman would refer to the terms of the protocol he would find the plenipotentiaries did not hesitate to express, in the name of their governments, the wish that states between which any serious misunderstanding might arise, should, before appealing to arms, have recourse, as far as circum stances might allow, to the good offices of a friendly power. So that the case provided for by it had not arrived. It was on the 6th that her Majesty's Government received the in• formation, and on the 7th the orders were given on the part of the British Government to send the ships to Lisbon. He must say he did not know where the hon. gentleman re ceived his information, but he said he was led to believe that the vessels ordered to Lisbon to watch the proceedings of the French and to protect British interests did not sail from the English coast until the middle of November. He did not know how the hon. gentleman got his information, , but it was different from that possessed by every member of the government. If the hon. gentleman would refer to the letter addressed to him (Mr. Fitzgerald), on the Bth Octo ber, by the Secretary of the Admiralty, he would find that the Victor Emmanuel and the Racoon were ordered the day before to be in readiness to proceed to sea that day in execu tion of the service, and their departure was inserted in the public journals of the next day. (Hear.) [Mr. Sergeant KINGLAKE—" When did they arrive ?"] He was unable to say. The hon. gentleman, at least, was now changing his ground. In his stated that, he did not refer to the time o f th e i r arrival, but that, owing to some fault of the Foreign office, the vessels did not leave the English coast until the middle of November. The hon. gentleman complained that there had been no communication between Lord Cowleyand Count Walewski. If he looked to the papers he would find that Lord Cowley had seen the count on the subject three times in one week, and was in constant communication with him. He had received the thanks of the Portuguese Govern ment for his exertions. He received the first intimation on the 6th Oct. From that time, day by day, nay, by hour by hour, he was sedulously attending to the matter; and it was mainly by his exertions that the agreement was come to by Count Walewski to refer the matter to the arbitration of a third. party. On the 13th of October, he wrote. (The hon. gen tleman then read the despatch of October 15.) On this the hon, gentleman makes rather a curious observation; he re- marks that the proposal for a settlement came not from Lord Cowley, but from the Portuguese Government. He (Mr., Fitzgerald) would appeal to any gentleman acquainted with the mode in which affairs were transacted, whether it would have been possible for an English Minister to make such a proposition when there was a Portuguese ambassador on the spot assisted by a most able and accomplished diploma.. tist? If the hon gentleman looked to the despatch he would see when Count Walewski saw Lord Cowley ho told him there was no desire to impose terms on Portugal, that the honour of France would be satisfied by the release of the ship and her captain, and that instructions would be sent that "evening to M. de Li s le, at Lisbon, to en t er i n t o an arrangement for the settlement of the affair. It was not until a despatch of the 3d of October, which reached them on the 4th, that her Majesty's Government became aware that the affair was likely to assume a serious, or rather a dangerous character; and yet on the 13th, only nine days after, the Marquis de Paiva and M. de Lavradio had agreed on terms, and full instructions were sent to M. de Lisle to make arrangements for the settlement of the details by re ference to a third party. (Hear.) That was the case which , the hon. gentleman had venturod to represent to the house as one in which the Government had been guilty of negli gence, incompetency, and delay. He thought he had gone over the whole case as it appeared in the indictment pre ferred against the. Government. He had shown that in a moment of doubt, embarrassment, and difficulty, they had taken that course which could best secure a pro per solution of the difficulties between the Go vernments of France and Portugal. They had taken a course which consulted the honour of France and of England, and which would best secure the peace of Europe and the world. • He would once more refer the house to the speech of the Marquis de Louhl in the Portuguese chamber. He said, "England is not bound to support us in every circumstance. We did not formally demand the as sistance of England ; if it had been granted the result might have been a European war—that was a result which we, as a member of the European family, were bound to prevent." The hon. gentleman is more Portuguese than the Portuguese themselves. Her Majesty's Government have received the thanks of that court for the tender and employment of their good offices. (Hear, hear.) They had the assurance of the Portuguese Minister that he had not formally demanded their assistance in the first place, because ho was not sure case had arisen izz which he had a right to dolga it; and, in the gedeiid place, if it was given, it might be at the cost of a European war; that ices a consideration for the Portuguese Ministry, and would haVe been for her Majesty's Government if the demand had been made. He believed her Majesty's Government had performed their duty to their allies, that they had maintained unimpaired the honour and dignity of their own country, and preserved the peace of Europe. (Cheers,) Mr. LONVA disputed many of the positions of Mr. Fitz gerald, contending that the ground had totally failed him. In replying to Mr. Kinglakehe had left out all the essential points. The real issue before the house was *hat Lord Malmesbury did. The Charles et Georges was tonticted, he observed, as a slaver, and he cited facts to shove that she was justly convicted. He contended that the British Government were bound, Without loss of time, to have made up their minds whether this Was a case of slave trading or not, and, if Portugal was In the right, to have advised her as to the eottse she otight to pursue, :No defi nite course was recommended to her, however, but one of dishonour. Referring to what had been done by Lord Malmesbury, the question, he said, wasithethr he had done what he ought to have done, and whether he otizht not to have done more. He maintained' that he ought It/ have done more, and he asked on what principle a Got exit= ment could be justified in a case like this in stand ing aside without the courage to give an opinion of its own. Mr. BOVILL complained of the terms in which Mr. Lowe had spoken of Lord Malmesbury, whom he defended against the charge that he had shrunk from the performanca of his duty. He insisted that the Charles et Georges had not been condemned simply for slave trading, but for in fringing fiscal regulations, and he questioned whether the vessel was ever within the jurisdiction of Portugal, If so, the French Government was entitled to demand her resti , tution. He contended that there was no clear and distinct statement or admission in the papers from which our Go vernment were bound to conclude that the vessel was within the Portuguese jurisdiction. Then the presence of a French delegate on board placed the vessel, by the comity of nations, within the scope of diplomacy. The proceedings at Mozambique were not such as, by the law of nations, the French Government were bound to respect, and there were other irregularities in the case which he pointed out from the papers, and which, he .said, cast a doubt on the legality of the seizure. Such a state of circumstances disabled the British Government from acting upon the treaty in the material support of Portugal. He did not approve the conduct of France in this matter; he. discussed the question on the principles of international law. If a breach of treaty was charged, he asserted that Portugal had never complained, and our good offices, required by the treaty, were not only not withheld from Portugal, but were volunteered. The result of the policy recommended by Mr. Lowe would have been a cases bells with France, and the plunging of the whole of Europe in war. Lord J. RUSSELL said that he did not wish to take any exaggerated view of this case, but he did not think the hon. member for Bridgwater need fear the censures of the hon. and learned member who had just sat down. That hon. gentleman seemed to say that in any case, for a member of this house to find fault with the conduct of a Minister in the high position of Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, was to sacrifice the honour of England, and to expose this country to be blamed by other nations as a country which had lost its honour. • (Laughter and ap plause.) He (Lord John Russell) had always understood that the way to preserve the honour of the country was, that if at any time it was a question whether that honour and dignity had been duly maintained and defended, the house should be at liberty to inquire, to criticise, and, if need be, to censure the Minister (Hear, hear.) But the hon. and learned gentleman thought that henceforth, de parting from the custom of our ancestors and from what had hitherto been our own custom, whenever a Minister said that a certain thing was right, we should say, " To be sure it is right, for the Minister has said it." (Laughter, and hear, hear.) With regard t o thi s ques ti on h e (L or d J. Russell) thought there was a great deal to be said on be half of the Government on many points. He thought that the Minister would be quite wrong if he advised Portugal to resist by force of arms the demand of France. He con , sidered that demand to be a very violent one, and one that ought not to have been made, but when France had made that demand, and had said that compliance was necessary for her honour, he thought it would create a risk to which we ought not to expose,Portugal, to which we ought not to expose ourselves, and to which we ought not to expose Europe, if we had advised Portugal to take u p arms upon this matter. It was not a question for censure, and , the hon. gentleman had not made a motion for censure , 1 , but it was a fair matter for comment and of inquiry as to the manner in which the negotiations had been conducted. , Passing' over all that occurred in March or May, or up to September, he would take the despatch of Mr. Howard of the 18th September, in which he said that the case of the Charles et Georges was assuming a serious aspect. Lord , Malmesbury then desired Mr. Howard to tell the Portuguese Government that we would use our good offices. But what , was the despatch which he wrote the same day to Lord Cowley ? Did he tell him that the case was becoming a very serious one, that we were bound by treaty to offer our good offices to Portugal, that he desired Lord Cowley to ten , der our good offices, to know what was the complaint of the French Government, and to state that he was ready to offer any explanations, if explanations were needed, to prevent a rupture or serious difference between France and Portugal? On the contrary, he merely transmitted to him, without any instructions whatever, copies of Mr. Howard's despatches. He (Lord John Russell) thought that Lord Cowley should have been directed to call Count Walewski's attention to the treaties between England and Portugal, and to the obligations which were imposed upon England, and to have seriously impressed upon him the anxiety we felt that Por tugal should not be wronged or injured in any manner. In stead of this, he merely sent Mr. Howard's despatches. Nothing could be colder or more neglectful. With regard to the question itself, he by no means asserted that it was a simple one, or one in which great difficulty did not exist. He could not, indeed, admit the first allegation of the French Government that the Charles et Georges was four miles from the shore when she was captured; because it was evident from the statement of the commander of the ship, Capt. Broussel, that at that time she was anchored in the Conducia, and evi dently near the shore. That statement supported the asser tion of the Portuguese commander, that she was, in fact, within cannon shot of the shore. But, besides that, although the French Government had at first relied on this ground, they had afterwards abandoned it, and had ceased to pretend that the vessel, at the time of her capture, was out of the Portuguese jurisdiction. On the 2d October the French Government came to a decision to ask for the sur render on the ground that there was a delegate of France on board, and Count Walewski stated that the Con - lite des Contenieux had considered the question for three weeks, and had decided that France was right. Well, it might be that that was a ground for treating the matter diplomati cally. He owned that it appeared to him (Lord J. Russell) to be a matter of great doubt. If a French man-of-war had gone to Mozambique, and taken slaves on board, no doubt the Government of Mozambique would not have in terfered with him. He would have sent home a despatch complaining that French men-of-war were carrying on the slay (l) trade in Portuguese ports. If, on the other hand, a merchant ship had been slave-trading in the ports of Por tugal contrary to the laws of Portugal, no doubt the go vernor would have been justified in seizing a merchant vessel so laden with slaves. This was a case of a mixed character. The ship was a merchant ship, but there was on board an officer of the French Government. The reason why a man-of war would not be interfered with was that the commander is responsible to his Government, and had complete command over his ship, officers, and crew; and for that reason he could not be brought before the court of a foreign nation on such a charge. But in this case the delegate of the French nation seemed to have had no such power as the captain of a man-of-war. On the contrary, he stated that he disapproved of the conduct of the captain, and that the captain had bought slaves from a shiek de pendent on the Government of Mozainbique. Was that a reason why the French Government should use violent means to obtain the surrender of the ship ? On the oontrary, it seemed to him that it was one of those doubtful cases re ferred to in the protocols of Paris in which the honour of both parties was concerned, and which was the very kind of case in which there should be arbitration. It was also a case, he thought, in which, if the English Government had had the proper influence with her ally, if Lord Malmesbury had spoken fairly and firmly, and in conciliatory language, instead of that extremely bombastic style about immortal truths, he would have readily been listened to by our ally. Let it be remembered that the mode in which the Portuguese Minister proposed that the affair should be settled was that the vessel should be given up, but that the whole case, in cluding the question of the legality or illegality of the cap ture, should be referred to the arbitration of a friendly Power. No proposition made by Count Lavradio was likely to be wanting in good sense or good temper, or in regard to the dignity of either nation. And that was the proposition which Lord Malmesbury should have supported with all the interest and influence of this country. But instead of this, the noble lord, from the time of his first despatch of Sept. 25, down to the close of the correspondence was, at one time apparently indiff eren t, a t ano the r neglectful. He was, above all, found constantly suggesting, both at Paris and Lisbon, that the Portuguese Government must be in the wrong, and that there must be, somewhere or other ' an in formality, which he took f or gran t e d. Th a t showed an evi dent wish on the part of Lord Malmesbury to make out 'a casein favour of the strong Power and against the weak one. He was constantly suggesting, " Why, you are a weak Power ; yield at once ; pretend anything, true or false; only give up your case, and yield to the demands of France." He must say that it appeared to him (Lord J. Russell) that the Portuguese Government had a much better sense of their own honour and dignity. The proposition laid before them by the French Minister at Lisbon was this—.." Let the Charles et Georges be surrendered, and let the question of indemnity be afterwards referred to the King of the Nether lands." But what was this but giving up the whole ques tion of right with their own acquiescence and by their own good will ? It was saying, "We give up the question o right, but as to the question of whether there is to be an in. deinnity of £2,000, £3,000, or £4,000, we refer that to the King of the Netherlands." It was below the dignity of Por tugal to make such a reference. What was serious to Portu- gal was the question of honour; whether they had been right or wrong; and upon that the French Government in- sfsted upon a total surrender, and the English Govern ment advised them to make that surrender. The Portuguese Government said, "We cannot admit ourselves to be in the wrong, we cannot make any surrender of what we believe to be our honour, but we will yield openly and avowedly to force." That was the conduct of Portugal . He wished ho could say that the conduct of England had been at all commensurate in dignity and character with that which this weak State had pursued, and he was, he confessed, some what shocked at the argument which Mr. Howard used at Lisbon. After quoting Mr. Howard's despatch of Oct. 21, giving an account of the advice which he had tendered to the Portuguese Government, the noble lord said he never heard such degrading advice given to any foreign country. England might well advise that the ship should be given up, but to do this upon the ground that more serious de mands might otherwise be put forth! Why, even supposing the French Government were quite right in this case, those more serious demands would have been a gross abuse of power, against which we should have been clalgcd to inter fere by our treaties with Portugal. Suppose that they had demanded that the forts of Lisbon should be put into the possession of the French troops, was the British Minister to tell the Portuguese to comply ? Was he to say, " If you do not yield to this you will have to yield to further de mands, and there is no demand in which England will as sist you, and to which you must not yield ?" Would that have been proper language ? He expected that the lan guage used by Mr. Howard would have called forth the cen sure of Lord Malmesbury, but when he turned to the de spatch he found that "Her Majesty's Government entirely approve of the judicious course you have pursued." (A laugh.) The use of such a discussion as that was to pre vent a British Minister using such language, and he trusted that in future more dignified language would be used. Per haps the worst feature in this correspondence was the indis position which the French Government showed to adopt the spirit of that protocol of Paris. It was, as the Minister of France said, a matter of goodwill whether that protocol should be followed. But if in such a case as this, where the question itself was not of great importance, where it was really more a matter of punctilio on both sides than any thing else, if a powerful Government like that of WralNe refused to submit to arbitration a case like this, there was little ground for hope that this protocol could be of much use. He had considered that that protocol was a probable means of bringing to arbitration those questions, often trifling in themselves,but in which the feelings and opinions of Governments got engaged , and often from 'apparently trivial hegirmings led to most bloody controversies. One could not hope that in more serious cases ouch a protocol would be of any use whatever. If one nation attacked the independence of another—if it was a matter of oonquest on the one side, afid of independence on the other—no one could suppose that such a question could be referred to arbitra tion; and he could not but be convinced from a porusal of these papers, that if Lord Malmesbnry, instead of taking the question in the way he did, instead of always advising Portugal to yield on some futile and false pretence, had seriously undertake/4 the cause of the Portug-nese Gover.:l - at Paris, and pointed out to the French Governmen.t bow much their reputation in Europe must suffer from the use of violence against a small State unable to cope with France, in that case he (Lord John Russell) could not but think the French Government would have yielded to his remonstrances. He did not gather from this corre • spondence—not that the Government were wrong or not in making the question one of peace or war—in that he thought they were quite right—but he thought that the Govern ment of OA, countryhad not at Paris that influence which as faithful allies they ought to have, which a Government so powerful as Great Britain should have with one who professed such a wish for our friendship, and such a r e g ard for' ottr 'welfare. (Hear, hear.) _ . itltd gOLICITOR-GENERAL said that one advantage ringing forward a question in the form adopted by the hon. member for Bridgwater was, that each hon. member Could deal with it from his own point of view. The hon, gentleman himself, who represented the warlike view of the case, said that et only one step which the Governinent took throughout these negotiations did he approve, and that, he remarked, the Government rendered useless, because, al though they directed the Admiralty to send a fleet to the Tagus, they took care that it she'll!' be a small one. And the hon. gentleman said that the Government sho . uld have taken care to send vesseia that would have answered the purpose. But what purpose ? (Cheers.) It was evidently unnecessary that he should answer the question. The hon. member for Newport regarded this motion as an opportu nity for expressing regret that the mediation offered under the treaty of Paris was not attended to: But he forgot that the most serious ob i jections to mediation came from Portu gal herself, who said that the question was pending before the court of appeal, and that the Government had no power under the constitution to withilyaw it from the jurisdiction of that court. Then the right hon. member for Kidder minster (Mr. Lowe) supported the reaolution as a personal matter between himself and Lord Malmesbury. He con tended that everything that had been done had been done by Lord Cowley, and nothing by Lord Malmesbury ; and finally adverting to a quotation made by the Under Secre tary of State, from the statements of Mr. M'Leed, our con sul at Mozambique to the effect that had he known the Charles et Georges to be a French vesael, he should not have advised her seizure, the right hon. gentleman said that Mr. M'Leod rightly interpreted the spirit of the Government that employed him. But this occurred in November, 1867, (Hear, and a laugh.) He had heard remarks made with respect to the spirit of the Government of that day in regard to our foreign relations with some States of Europe, but he was surprised to hear those remarks endorsed by the right hon. gentleman, who was a member of that Government. The noble lord the member for the city of London said that the question was not one for censure, but for criticism. He (the Solicitor-General) trusted that he should be able to show that some, at any rate s of the noble lord's criticisms, were founded on an erroneous apprehension of the facts. Let him first call the attention of the house to the treaties be tween England and Portugal, and especially to that of 1703, upon which the right of Portugal to demand the assistance of England must ultimately depend. That was a tripartite treaty between England, Holland, and Portugal. It was to the effect that if the Kings of France and Spain threatened war, or gave cause to suspect that they intended to make war on Portugal, England and Holland should use their good offices with the said Kings to prevent war, and that if war was made, England and Holland would assist Portugal to defend itself. Now there had been no appeal to us for the aid stipulated to be given by this treaty. What was done in 1826, when it was wanted ? The Princess Regent of Por tugal sent a message to our Government stating that she had reason to apprehend invasion from Spain, and that, indeed, armed bands had entered the country, and that she, therefore, required our assistance. Upon that Mr. Canning came down to that house and made a speechwhich many members had no doubt read. He stated certain facts, whichVae said made out that a eases fcederis had arisen, and he asked that house to enable the Government to assist Portugal. But on this oceasion.the Government of Portugal had never appealed to our Government for assistance, and therefore there was an end to the complaint that the letter of the treaty had been violated. But even supposing that a cams feederis had arisen, there still remained the ques tion whether our ally was right or wrong in the matters in dispute. Now, thpre werg many points involved in the case, which surrounded it with difficulty. There was the proclamation of the governor of Mozambique, drawing a clear distinction between slavers and ships like the Charles et Georges engaged in the conveyance of emigrants, and having a French delegate on board ; and there was originally the doubt whether the ship was captured in the Portuguese waters. But the only ground on which the French Govern ment ultimately relied was the presence on board of a French delegate. Now, he would not decide upon this point one way or the other; but it evidently could not be ruled against France as one on which there was no doubt The French delegate was on board as a Government officer to " guarantee that she should not be engaged in the slave trade. ' He was an officer of the French Government ; and nothing could be clearer than that immediately the French Government adopted his acts the matter was withdrawn from the juris diction of a municipal court, and became one for negotiation. Having quoted the opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of the Invincible, and of Mr. Jus tice Story in favour of this position, the hon. and learned gentleman asked what did Lord Cowley say ? Again and again he said, " I do not absolve the Portuguese from blame. I think that having had a delegate on board, and the French Government having recognised that delegate, the matter is one which should not have been made matter of investigation before the Portuguese courts. In the case of the Caroline, in 1841, the noble lord the member for Tiverton (Lord Palmerston), who was the Foreign Secre tary, Mr. M'Leod was arrested in the United States, and the noble lord contended that the arrest was illegal; that the British Government entirely approved of the course taken by Mr. M'Leod in the detention of the Caroline, and the British Minister was instructed to apply imme diately for the release of Mr. M'Leod. That was a most spirited and proper remonstrance, and Mr. Webster ad mitted that, after this public avowal of the act of Mr. M'Leod by the British Government, the Government of the United States could not hold any private individual acting under orders of the Government responsible for acts so committed. He would also remind the hon. member for Bridgwater of the case of the Cagliari. He remembered what were the arguments on that occasion of the King of Naples ; they were exactly similar to that of the honourable member for Bridgwater on this occasion. The King of Naples said that the Government had the Cagliari and that the court of law had jurisdiction; but the British Govern ment demurred to that jurisdiction, and the Government of Naples was 'compelled to give way. The main point of the case was this—did the Government of this country and Lord Malmesbury use fair, and proper, and reasonable exertions to accommodate the matter in dispute between France and Portugal ? The noble lord the member for the city of London had said that if Lord Mahnesbury had adopted a firm and conciliatory course, the French Govern ment would have consented to have adopted the provisions of the protocol of the Paris Congress. Now, it would be found that up to the 254th of August not a word had been said either of the demand of Portugal for assistance or of France declining our good offices. Immediately on the re ceipt of the letter from Mr. Howard, hinting that probably the Portuguese Government would be glad of the good offices of England, an offer was made of those good offices to Portugal. At this time Portu g al had not asked our good offices, and the only course open to the Government was to write to say that they should have their good offices if they were desired, and at the same time Lord Malmesbury sent to Lord Cowley the documents which had been received at the Foreign-office. , Lord Cowley was not a child to be told what was the exact corn se he was to adopt, but having this correspondence he would take the first opportunity of offering the good offices of England to France. Shortly after Lord Cowley saw Count Walewski, and ho stated, on the 30th of September, that, as the result of his interview, Count Walewski's language was satisfactory, and that he regretted that the difficulty had arisen. With respect to the protocol to which reference had been made, the noble lord the member for the city of London had con founded arbitration and mediation; for it was the latter only that was provided for by that protocol, and no parties were necessarily bound by the conclusion. The arbitration having been refused by the French Government, and when the refusal was telegraphed Lord Malmesbury proposed that they should recommend the milder course of mediation ac cording to the protocol of Paris. That was on the 6th of October, and on the same day a telegraph was received from Portugal stating that the Government of that country was ready to adopt the proposal of the mediation under the pro tocol. On the Bth of October, England and Portugal were urging the mediation on Count Walewski. On the 9th the letter from the Portuguese Government was received, ask ing our good offices, and the reply was sent that this Go vernment was not in possession of the facts of the case con nected with the ship. A new negotiation was commenced on the 10th by Lord Cowley and Count Lavradio with Count Walewski, and on the 13th Lord Cowley wrote that there was every prospect of an amicable settlement. Finally, on the 16th Lord Malmesbury wrote the despatch to which exception had been taken by the right bon. member for Kidderminster, as being inconsistent with the alleged state of the negotiations. The explanation was that the letter was written while Lord Malmesbury was in Scotland, and before he had received Lord Cowley's letter, stating the basis of the negotiations. The right hon. gentleman the member for Kidderminster said that the course taken by Lord Malmesbury was unstatesmanlike ; but it ought to be remembered that the Portuguese Government could have taken advantage of an informality in the proceedings, and that the Portuguese Government desired so to take advan tage of such informality. On the 18th of October, Mr. Howard, expressing the views of the Portuguese Govern ment, thanked Lord Malmesbury for his offer of mediation. That was all the information which the Government at the time possessed. From that date to the 25th there had been no further information ; but on the 25th a telegram came to say that the ship had been given up, and the con struction of that announcement was that the surrender had been effected in accordance with the arrangements suggested at Paris. He did not think the house hail sufficiently considered what subsequently took place at Lisbon. It appeared that the Marquis De Lisle had re ceived a letter from Count Walewski, stating that although he was ready to acquiesce in the withdrawal of the ship, he would not give up the question of principle as to indemnity. The Portuguese Government declined to accept mediation, if the question of indemnity assumed the shape which Count Walewski desired. The subsequent proposition for mediation, which emanated from the Marquis de Lisle, was quite different from the first one, as it extended the ground far beyond the question of indemnity. The alteration was a substantial alteration. The course thereupon taken by the Portuguese Government he thought injudicious, as the Portuguese Minister declined to accept the new proposal for mediation. He had heard no reason why Portugal had declined to open new ground, or why she had said that she had taken up her position on the question and would not depart from it. It was unfair to keep the public of Por tugal in the dark as ,to the second proposal for mediation, and that such reticence had been practised was clear from the incorrect version of the state of things following the modified proposal which appeared in the Lisbon official organ. The hon. member for Kidderminster had dwelt upon a pas sage of Mr. Howard's, in which that gentlemen said he was then without instructions from the English Government. This was not a correct representation, as the right honour able gentleman might ascertain if he referred to the whole of the letter. Mr. Howard was in possession of instruc tions upon which to act. In conclusion, he (the Solicitor- G ml ieral) concurred as to tte objectionable nature of the traffic which had I riven rise to the dispute. (Hear, hear.) But the complaint , Name with a bad grace from Portugal, as she was not free fro m blame with respect to that very traffic. The English Government might regret the hasty mode in which the French ( 4overnmet •.t had addressed that of Por tugal, but he maint 9,ined that by the law of nations the pre sence of the delega to took the ship out of the category of piratical ships. Poi-tagal could not claim our interposition under the treaty of 1 703. We had paved the way for a satisfactory settlemern.; in the treaty of Paris. The reason ing he believed must ultimately be the reasoning of the hon. member for Bn dgwater. He was justified in this opinion by the circumktance that the hon. gentleman's im putation against the Government had resolved itself into a mere motion for papers. • (Cheers.) Sir R. BETHE LL moved the r.djournment of the debate. (Cries of " No, no.") Lord PALMEI LST ON—As it is not likely that attention will be paid to hen. gentlemen who may wish to speak, I think the proposal of adjournment reasonable. :[he house having expressed its feeling against adjourn ing "C 'life CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said—l thii, ik we ought to understand what the question is before the i tiouse. (Hear, hear.) I believe that my hon. friend the Linder-Secretary has not refused the motion. Of course, if then' is any desire to continue this conversation—(loud mi n i s t e , ia 1 cheering)—it is not for us to throw any impedi ment i n t, l l e way. (Cheers) The hon. member probably w ill find so. ;le day. (Laughter.) Mr. KING 'LAKE said that the Under-Secretary had re fused to produce the correspondence. The debate % 'as then adjourned. PG OR RELIEF (IRELAND). The house wen t into committee to consider the Poor Re lief (Ireland) . Act, 1 and 2 Vict., c. 56, s. 49. in relation to the religion in which deserted children should be registered. ,and educated. Leave was given to introduce a bill. COMBINATION OF WORKMEN. . 11r. DRUMMOYD obtained leave t abring in a bill to amend and explain a n act of the sixth year of the reign of King George the Fourth, to repeal the laws relating to the CombithAtion of Worlmen, and to make other provisions in lieu then oof. Lord N. A-AS obtained leave to bring in a bill for the Regis- tration of .Births, Deaths and Marriages in Ireland. LAW ASCERTAINMENT. Mr. DUN LOP obtained leave to introd ace a bill to afford facilities for the more certain ascertainment of the law ad ministered in Dne part of her Majesty's dominions when pleaded in the. courts of another part thereof. PARLIAMENTARY REFORM. Mr. COX gave notice that, on the motion for the second reading of the Government Parliamentary Reform Bill, he would move the insertion of a clause for the repeal of the Septennial Act, and the shortening of the duration of Parliament. CAPITATION GRANT. Sir A. AGNEW asked the Vice-President of the Com mittee of Council whether it was his intention to propose the extension of the Capitation Grant to Schools in Scot land? Mr. ADDERLEY said that the subject was under con. sideration, and it was proposed to extend the grant in ques. tion to Scotland. ATLANTIC TELEGRAPH COMPANY. Mr. BERKELEY asked the Chancellor of the Ex chequer whether, in the event of certain conditions being accepted by the Atlantic Telegraph Company, it was in tended to confer upon them exclusively a guarantee or sub vention, or whether the same privilege would not be extended to any other company that might be the first to establish an efficient line of communication across the Atlantic ? The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said it was not the intention of the Government to grant exclusive privileges to any particular company. AUSTRIAN MILITARY DESERTERS. Mr. BOWYBR asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether it was true that military deserters and other subjects of the Emperor of Austria were being or had been lately received and enrolled as soldiers by the Sardinian Government; also whether her Majesty's Go vernment had received any information regarding the ob ject of that enrolment, and had offered any and what ad vice to the Sardinian Government on the subject with re ference to the preservation of the peace of Europe ? Mr. SEYMOUR FITZGERALD said it was much to be regretted that the Sardinian Government had adopted the course alluded to, and her Majesty's Government had given that Government advi ce no t t o ve recourse to any act that would lead to an interruption of the pacific arrangements that were being made by the European powers. LANDED ESTATES COURT (IRELAND). Mr. J. FITZGERALD asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether it was the intention of Government to re commend the appointment of a third judge of the Landed Estates Court (Ireland), in the room of Judge Martley, lately deceased, having regard to the return contained in Parliamentary paper, 83, of the present session. Lord NAAS said that no judge had been appointed, but the matter was under consideration. PREPAYMENT OF LETTERS. Mr. RICH moved that while this house would support measures for the correction of any abuses of the privilege of transmitting letters through the post without previous payment, and for the gradual restraint of the practice itself, yet it considered that the order by the Postmaster- General of the 27th day of January last, under the autho rity of a Treasury warrant of the 29th day of January last, which absolutely deprives the public of this privilege, by directing that all home letters posted after the 10th day of February last, and not prepaid should be opened at the Post-office and returned to the writers, would expose individuals to serious inconvenience and injury : and further, that the compulsory prepayment of foreign and colonial letters, under like penalties, required revision. The hon. gentleman, after a few observations, withdrew his motion. JOINT STOCK COMPANIES. Mr. COX moved for leave to bring in a bill to empower Joint Stock Companies who were unable to register with limited liability, under the provisions of the Act 19 and 20 Vie. c. 47, to do so on or before the 31st day of December, 1859. The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said the hon. member had fallen into an error with reference to this subject, be- cause there was really no practical impediment to public companies registering. A bill would come from the Upper House with reference to the consolidation of the laws relat ing to the winding-up and registration of all public com panies ; and he trusted, under the circumstances, the hon. member would not press his motion. Mr. COX said he would accede to the suggestion of the right hon. member. The motion was then withdrawn. THE CHARLES ET GEORGES. Mr. KINGLAKE called the attention of the house to the correspondence respecting the Charles et Georges ; and moved for an address for further papers relating thereto ; viz.—Copies of despatches and documents sent by or communicated to her Majesty's Government respecting the deportation of negroes from the Mozambique Coast, including the de spatches from the British Minister at Lisbon to the Por tuguese Government, dated respectively the 22d day of July and the 17th day of Nov. 18.57. Of all the corre spondence which has taken place up to the present time respecting the Charles et Georges between her Majesty's Government and Mr. M'Leod, now or late her Majesty's consul at Mozambique : Of the message of the 16th day of October, which is described in Mr. Howard's Despatch of the 21st day of October, 1858, in the following words : —" A further message, of the 16th instant, from the Earl of Malmesbury respecting his former advice to drop the prosecution ;" of any instructions respecting the Charles et Georges which may have been addressed by the Earl of Malmesbury to Lord Cowley in the interval between the 18th day of March, 18.58, and the 3d day of October. He considered that, notwithstanding anything that had been said to the contrary, it was highly important that this subject should be taken into consideration, and from such consideration it was not their duty to shrink at the present time. In the reign of Queen Anne the port of Bombay was ceded to this country, and in that session the Govern ment entered into a treaty by which they bound this coun try to defend the Portuguese against foreign hostilities. That treaty was found to be too vague, and another of a more definite character was entered into. Subsequently, in 1810 and 1815, when the country was flushed with its success in arms, to which the Portuguese soldiers had con tributed, an engagement was entered into, by which the antecedent treaties were confirmed, and this country bound itself to carry them out in their integrity. Of course it was understood that these treaties were to be binding only when the Portuguese were threa tened with danger, or engaged in hostilities which had not been provoked by any improper acts on their part. In 1810 the Portuguese prohibited the slave trade being carried on north of the line, but in 1836 they deemed it expedient to ex tend that prohibition totheir territories south of the line as far as Mozambique. The hon. member here entered into a nar rative of the circumstances connected with the capture of the Charles et Georges. Before that seizure the proceedings adopted by the crew of the vessel in approaching so near, or within the prohibited limits, was denounced by the British consul, and at his instigation a cruiser was sent out by the Portuguese Go vernment. The Charles et Georges wa3 captured, and the y captain being convicted according to the laws of Portugal, was sentenced to two years' imprisonment. On the 6th of May, 1858, the Foreign Secretary was informed that the claims of France, in reference to the matter against Portugal, was assuming a very serious form; and what he complained of was, that notwithstanding that informa -1 tion, Lord Malmesbury took no notice of the matter until October The hon. member then entered in detail into the subsequent proceedings that had taken place in refer ence to the capture of the vessel, and repeated his condemnation of the conduct pursued by the Government, which he considered as most unjust towards Portugal, considering the treaties that were existing with that coun try. The hon. member also read extracts from the diplo matic correspondence which took place on the subject. The inaction which continued during seven months was one of the causes assigned by France hefself for the serious com plications which the affair assumed. He blamed the subse quent conduct of Lord Malmesbury in ordering a small force to the Tagus. He should have sent a sufficient force or none at all. Such as it was the force did not leave England till the middle of November. Further efforts were now made by our Government to submit the matter to arbitration, which would he believed have been successful at any previous period, but the Imperial decision was taken, and it was now too late. Lord Malmesbuoy throughout acted neither with Prance nor Portugal, but took a course of his own, which it Was for the house to say whether it approved or not. Referring to the despatches of the Foreign-office, he blamed Lord Alairnesbury for sacrificing the honour of England by suggesting subterfuges under which Portugal might deliver the vessel. This, he contended, was a grievous sacrifice _ f honou r on the part of England. Portugal, on the other hazards, but in not urging nu a oior to te Nr i s‘bu. oarbfsoin o.otettdmo. inagut _ hand, had acted throughout with great deference to this country, and dignity on her own part. ha been c hse settled e s gd u e d e ensued i N t N a - tt o r. BUXTON seconded the motion. The Government was vvrong, t not in refusing to stand by Portugal at all the proper r ha have been ssible French Emperor could not have refusedethne moment. If our Governmmenedtiahtadiondatntheietsearduliteydstetdhpoe The into lively complaint against the French for b the platter to arbitration. the matter com plications ff it hawwd _ 'I : were it now fito9d ) point of vi ew , be D uii in gh S t . bFelconntGenEtßtoAiLeaDyesaitud:dheabtM OATHS. Mr. E. P. B.OUVERIE got leave to bring in a bill to amend the Oaths Act 21 and 22 Vic.,. .c. 48, as regarded the Society of Friends. MANSLAUGHTER 13L1L. _ _ _ The bill passed: through committee. EVIDENCE BY COMMISSION. The Evidence by Commission Bill pas sed through com mittee. _ _ The Report of the. Committee of MUTINY BILL. Supply was brought up. This bill was then read a second time, and ordered to be committed for Mond.v next. The Marine Mutiny Bill was read a Becloud time. The house then adjourned at ten minui es to one o'clock. SPORTING INTELLIG=ENCE. NOTTINGHAM SPRING MEETING. TUESDAY. The Trial Stakes of 5 sous each, with 30 added, for three yr-olds and upwards ; winners extra. One mile. 14 subs. Mx. Shelley's Lifeboat, 4 yrs, Bst 61b (Withington) 1 Mr. York's The Speaker, 3 yrs, Est 71b. (Johnson) 2 Sri g. Des V O3UX ' S a by Stockwell—Muffatee, 3 yrs, 6st 41b ~ ..... (W. Bottom) 3 Lady' Peel and Tiara also ran. Betting'—Ewen agst The Speaker, 9 to 4 agst Lifeboat, 3 to 1 agst Viara. Lifeboat took the lead soon after starting, made the re 4 st of the running, and won by two lengths ; a neck between second and third; bad fourth. The Little ;fol'in Stakes of 5 soya each, with 30 added, for . two-yr-old s. Colts, Bst 71b ; fillies, Bst 41b. Winner of any two-yr..olds race 51b extra. Half-a-mile. 29 subs. Mr. Saxon's I , l 7 hite Rose, Bst 41b ... (L. Snowden) 1 Mr. Devereux's Earl of Essex, Bst 71b .. (Pritchard) 2 Mr. Locke's fik'y by The Cossack—Testatrix, Bst 41b (Custanee) 3 The following also ran :—Chance Shot, Spicebox, Rosa lind, Parmesan, iForetop, Macbeth, The Don, Balloon, Starbeck, Ben Webster, Amy Sedgwick, Argyll, and f by Neweourt--C ountes s. Betting-4 to 1 ag:;t White Rose, 6to 1 each agst Rosa lind and Chance Shot, 8 to 1 each agst Don and Spicebox, ,10 to 1 each agst Teshatrix filly and Starbeck. Won by half a length ; a neck between the second and third ; half a length between the third and fourth; Macbeth was fifth; about two lengths from i Chance Shot ; Starbeck was sixth. The start was delayer just one hour and a quarter incon sequence of the refractory and disgraceful conduct of some of the jockeys at the post.. After the race Clement, Keeler, and Pritchard were suspended from riding again during the meeting, - and Clement wat , fined £lO besides. The Nottingham Spring handicap of 5 soya each, with 60 added ; the second to savit his stake. Winners extra. One mile and a quarter. 44 subs. Colonel Townley's Gladiolus, 3 yrs, sst 91b (A. Edwards) 1 Mr. Angell's The Greek, 3 yrs, 6st 31b......(Grimshaw) 2 Mr. Binnie's Meadowdale, 4 yrs, 6stl4lb (Page) 3 The following also ran :—Daniel O'Rourke colt, Apollo, King William, Gargrave, Artevelde, etueen. Charlotte, Ladywell, Hop Merchant, and Flitch. Betting-6 to 4 agst Gladiolus, 4to 1 agst The Greek 7 to 1 agst Queen Charlotte, 10 to 1 each agst Flitch, King William, Meadowdale, and Daniel O'Rourke colt. Won by half a length; a length between the second and third; bad fourth ; Apollo was fifth, Hop Merchant sixth, Gargrave seventh, and King William eighth; Ladywell and Queen Charlotte were next; Flitch was last past the post, Arte velde being pulled up at the half distance. The Park Stakes of 6 sovs each, for three-yr-olds 'and up- wards. Optional Selling Weights, &c. T.Y.C. 4 su&s. Mr. Blanton's Rhisus, 5 yrs (X2O), Bst (French) 1 Mr. Whittaker's Skipjack, 3 yrs (X2O), 6st 21b (Challoner) 2 Betting-2 to lon Rhisus, who won easily by three quarters of a length. The Stand Plate Handicap of 60 sovs. Winners extra. Five furlough'. Mr. Barber's Sheffield, 3 yrs, 6st 41b......... (Verraby) 1 Mr. Angell's Ochiltree, 3 yrs, sst 121 b. (Challoner) 2 Mr. Copperthwaite's Madame Moet, 3 yrs, sst_l2lb (Johnston) 3 Little Girl, Contract, Crocus, and Miss Deans also ran. Won easily. BETTING ON THE COURSE. NORTHAMPTON STAKES. 10 to 1 agst Gladiolus (taken) 100 to 7 agst Mutineer (taken) DERBY. 2000 to 60 agst Ticket-of-Leave (taken) COUNTRY MABKBTB. LIVERPOOL-MA RCH 8. At our corn exchange this morning there was only a small attendance of town and country dealers, and the de mand for all articles was on the most reotricted scale, wheat and flour each giving way about ld per cental ; quotations, however, remain in a great measure nominal. In Indian csrn little business passing, and no further quotable altera tion occurred in the value. Oats and oatmeal in limited request. Egyptian beans held very firm. Barley had a fair inquiry, and previous currencies are maintained. The advices from New York, just to hand per America steamer, report the supplies of both wheat and flour as on quite a small scale, and good qualities of both were exceedingly scarce. With a fair home demand wheat had again ad vanced about sc. per bushel, and flour 10c. per barrel. NORWICH CATTLE-MAiwit 5. There was a small show of store cattle to-clay, consisting of Scots and shorthorns. With a fair attendance sales were good, and at the close of the market very few remained un sold. The selling price for Scots was 4s to 4s 6d ; short horns, 4s Od to 4s M ; Irish, 3s to 3s 6d per stone of 141bs. estimated weight when fat. Fat beasts firm at 7s 6d to 8s —very prime, 8s 6d per stone. Sheep—Fat sheep, 8s Od to 8s 6d, prime lots 9s per stone. Well sold. Pigs—Good store' pigs, 20s to 24s per head. Fat pork, 5s Od to 5s 6d, prime 6s per stone. The supply was large, and a fair demand. -lADVERTISEMENT.]-11olloway'S Ointment.—Accidents. n such injuries much evil often results from ignorance, and accidents of little moment become serious and difficult of management. This incomparable ointment places the attentive nurse on a par with the most skilful surgeon; in its application she can never do amiss ; it will always soothe, cool, and heal. In burns and scalds, sprains, bruises, cuts or wounds, swellings of the glands of the neck, warts, corns, and humours, every nurse using Holloway's Ointment cures with rapidity and ease. Freed from re sponsibility she joyfully watches the recovery, and great is her delight to see her little charge rescued from torture, fever, and danger by her affectionate zeal in applying this certain remedy immediately after the accident occurred. BIRTHS. BARKWORTH.—On the 2d inst., at Tranby House, near Hull, the wife of Henry Barkworth, Esq., of a son. DICKSON. — On tho 6th inst., the wife of Rear-Admiral Sir William Dickson, Bart., of Sydenham, Roxburghshire o of a son, stillborn. GOSLING.—On the Bth inst., at Blackheath-park, the wife of Richard Gosling, jun., Esq., of a son. PIESSE.—On the Bth inst., at Bond-street, W., the wife of Septimus Piesse, Esq., of a son. MARRIAGES BnEDELD—Fox.—On the 26th Feb., at Rome, Frederick Lee Bredoll, Esq., to Eliza Florence Fox, only daughter of W. J. Fox; Esq., M.P. DE SALLIS—MAINE.—On the 7th inst., at the parish church of Teffont, Wilts, William Fane Do Sails, Esq., of Dawley Court, Middlesex, to Emily Harriet Mayne, of Teffont Manor. DEATHS. BRADLEY.—On the 24th ult.,atCalais, Stephen Bradley, Esq., Commander R.N., aged 44. CATES.-0A the 3d inst., at Torquay, Mr. Robert Cates, of Parson's-mead, Croydon. CURTIS.—On the 29th Jan., in the burning of the steamer North Carolina, in Chesapeake Bay, U.S., Dr. Thomas Curtis, of Limestone Springs, South Carolina, aged 72. lie was the original projector and editor of the Encyclo paedia Metropolitana, and sole editor of Mr. Tegg's Lon don Cyclopmdia. DnEwE.—On the 4th inst., Fred. William Drewe, Esq., of Wotten House, Dorsetshiro. GREGORY.—On the sth inst., at 17, Upper Fitzwilliam street, the Very Rev. James Gregory, Dean of Kildare, and incumbent of St. Bride's, Dublin. KAYE.—On the 6th inst., at Stoke Newington- green, Haven Kaye, Esq., aged 67. LONDON : Printed and Published t MURDO YOUNG, of No. 112, Strand, Printer, at 2 ;Sun Office, No. 112, Strand, in the Precinct of the Savoy, in the county of Middlesex, Wednesday, March 9, 1859, or befi ' , Paull service Britail month Alli Printei cation The 48 join market Candle TEND trilv Instant TWEI under 1 One 1 lanndre Allt sized a that of sample at this Each The Each sure 67 Each Theasur Furth guperin The t tiers wt Inlan iN D Th tublishi oan N _of Indi A OTIF traordh Fort 1 Bills receivat the Tree and the The I General The I Govern] from wl tion of of such three m such no from th !tent. The I Rs. 10,0 Publi able the With Secretai botice, sory Nc to the hereby all pap( this cot April n Ons A Su( L E' Chops, ties, ar enable; The best sa Sold street, Messrs other ( princil N.B. "LEA the bot T°l forme( Rouen low at Institi don, c &MD _ " Dr. W health media "Ti cure." " TI the al plaint and of sentec For Medic speet I'l3li the ( Marc expri Ma B' • Prii t be 1 1 N.13 shall I the sa beque estate of sett been E CONT I\T c TI PE' COP.) agree Copai same torn post