The Sun. — London, England, 1865-03-24 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT HOUSE OF LORDS-LAST EVENING. The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the woolsack at the usual hour. PRIVATE BUSINESS. The Agra and Masterman's Bank Bill was read a second time. REMOVAL OP THE CARTOONS FROM THE HAMPTON COURT PALACE. Lord ST. LEONARDS asked for some information on this subject. Earl GRANVILLE said that he would be happy to afford information on the subject, but he thought a notice of the question should be laid on the table previous to its being asked. • THE RECIPROCITY TREATY WITH THE UNIT ED STATES. Earl RUSSELL, in laying on the table the despatches from the Minister of the United States, said—l wish to make a statement in regard to the relations between this country and the United States. My lords, one of these papers is a letter from Mr. Adams, in which he states that he is commanded by the President to deliver to the British Government a notice, dated March 13, in regard to the ter mination of the Reciprocity Treaty between this country and the United States, and stating that this treaty will terminate 12 months from the date of the acknowledgment of that notice. Mr. Adams also encloses the vote of the Congress, which has been approved by the President, declaring that it was no longer for the interest of the United States that that treaty should continue. Coupled with this notice is a notice given with respect to the arma ment of the lakes. I think it must be admitted that recent occurrences on the lakes, viz., the seizure of vessels by the agents of the Confederacy and other acts of hostility—com pletely justify the United States in giving notice of the termination of the convention. My lords, it is not to be ex pected that the United States should submit passively to such acts of violence without availing themselves of such means of repression within their power. With regard to the Reciprocity Treaty, although I will not say there are suf ficient grounds, yet tnere are grounds with respect to the ad mission of articles duty free into the United States which may induce the United States Government to wish for a re newal of the treaty with modifications that may be more advantageous, and which the United States Government may consider just to the United States. When Mr. Adams informed me of the result of the negotiations which had taken place between the President of the United States and the agents of the so-called Confederate States, I expressed to him a hope that when he should present to me the no tice of the termination of the Reciprocity Treaty I should find the Congress and Government of the United States would be ready to consider propositions by which a small and limited armament might be kept up on the lakes for the purpose of police, at both sides ; and also that a renewal of the Reciprocity Treaty, upon terms to be agreed upon by both parties, might be negotiated during the 12 months to elapse before the existing treaty ceased its operation. Of course Mr. Adams was not authorised to give me any as surance upon the subject, but the words used induced me to trust that such an assurance would be given. I am sure your lordships will be anxious that the relations between this country and the United States should continue as they are now, of a pacific and friendly character—(cheers) —and for my part I should be very sorry that anything should occur, or be done in this country, that would tend to prevent such a satisfactory result. But, my lords, I cannot but think that the expressions which have been used, and the speeches which have been made, may tend to excite in the United States a disposition unfavourable towards the end which we thus desire to see accomplished. I allude to speeches declaring that this country has behaved wrongfully to the United States, has given the United States just cause of complaint, and that an unfriendly spirit has been shown throughout these transactions. My lords, the obvious effect of speeches such as these must be that individuals in the United States who are in favour of hostilities with this coun try must know that there is in this country a party ready to take up the view that the United States are in the right, and, therefore, that they will be wanting in proper spirit and in proper regard for the national interests and the na tional honour if they do not complain loudly of the conduct of this country. I ask your lordships to attend for a short time to the statement which I have to make ; because I can not but think that the Government of this country and this country itself have been wrongfully accused upon these vari ous points. One of the chief complaints put forward is, that this country in a great hurry and without proper considera tion granted belligerent rights to what are called the Con federate States. Now, every one who knows anything of the law:of nations knows perfectly well that although a country may put down insurgents who rise against its authority, yet that a country has no right or power to interfere with neutral commerce unless it assumes the position of a belligerent. (Hear.) But that is what the United States did. The Presi dent of the United States by his proclamation declared that the coasts of particular States wero in a state of blockade, and that armed vessels belonging to those States were to be treated as pirates. There came representations on this sub ject from her Majesty's Minister in the United States, but in the first instance these merely covered despatches from Admiral Sir A. Milne, commanding her Majesty's squadron in those waters, asking how he was to treat the armed vessels of the two parties. At that time Lord Campbell held the high office of Lord Chancellor, and of course we consulted him and the law officers of the Crown as to what should be done. Lord Campbell declared, as we all supposed he would do, that there was no course but one to pursue— namely, to regard the blockade on the part of the United States as the exercise of a belligerent right. And as belli gerent rights cannot be confined to one party, but are usually exercised against somebody else, our advisers told us that we were entitled to recognise the existence of belligerent rights on the part; of both the combatants, and to declare Her Majesty's neutrality between the two parties. (Cheers.) And this, accordingly, was the course which we recom mended. The proclamation in that sense was approved, if not actually drawn up, I believe, by my learned friend the present Lord Chancellor—and the course of neutrality thus adopted was certainly received with favour, and, I believe, commended itself to the sentiments of the country as the right course for us to take. It is said now that we ought to have awaited the arrival of Mr. Adams. I know not what Mr. Adams could say on the subject. If I had told my col leagues that we must wait for him and consult him I be lieve it would only have caused embarrassment in the rela tions between the two countries. He could scarcely have approved anything which we did short of taking the part of the North against the South. But, then, it is said, if the proclamation of neutrality was not altogether wrong, at any rate it ought to have been delayed, and that unfrendliness was shown in the manner of its promulgation. I conceive that there was nothing unfriendly, nothing:uncourteous in the declaration ; but, on the contrary, that it was the proper course for this country to declare at the earliest moment that it meant to take part neither with the North nor with the South, but to remain entirely neutral in the contest. (Hear, hear.) But it observed also that from the issue of the proclamation, on the 13th of May, Her Majesty's sub jects were bound to take no part in the contest, and were warned that they would disobey her Majesty's injunctions if they give aid to one side or the other. Your lordships all remember the affair of the Trent. It is said with regard to that affair, as with regard to the proclamation of neutrality, that the proceedings of the Government were unfriendly and uncourteous, and I am accused—not for the first time certainly, nor probably for the tenth time, but with as little justice now as on any of the former occasions—of having had a despatch put into my hands which ought to have been published, because it contained an assurance on the part of the United States' Government that they did not i intend to resist the delivery of the vessel and the Commis sioners. My lords, that was very far from being the case ; and although Mr. Adams did bring me a despatch on that occasion, it was a despatch relating chiefly to other questions between the two countries, and merely ending w ith a decla ration that if any demand were made upon the subject o f the Trent that question would be fairly considered by th e United States' Government. The despatch was not put into my hands, and therefore I could not publish it. Even had it been left with me, and had I published it, it would have given no satisfaction, because I certainly believed, and my noble friend at the head of the Government also believed, up to the last moment, that it was entirely a matter of uncertainty whether the United States' Government would give up these Commissioners, or whether they would re fuse to do so, and withhold arbitration.:And now as to the manner in which these demands were made. In the first place, I wrote to Lord Lyons, and begged him not to make any demand in the first instance, but to acquaint the Minister with the nature of the despatches, and request that he would name a day when the despatches could be put into his hand, after consulting the President. That aPpeared to me the course which it was most courteous to take. And I am bound to say, in mentioning these facts, that there is one circumstance connected with them which does the highest credit to the memory, good taste, and d iscretion of the late Prince Consort. At the last moment, after her Majesty had approved the despatch, we received a letter from the Prince Consort, in which he said that some of the expressions used in the despatch might be consider e d too abrupt, and suggested other phrases, which he thought mig ht make it more easy for the Go vernment of the United States to accept the request which which it conveyed. These phrases were adopted by the Government and emb o di ed in the d espatch,doubtless, tended in some degree t o render thedocum and , en more ac ceptable to the United St ates ' Governm ent, who were called upon by its terms to perform a duty in conformity with the law of nations and regarded by the people of this country as an act of justice. (Cheers.) But it is said that, while we displayed great haste in acknowledging the South as belligerents, we were guilty of great supineness in the case of the Alabama, and upon this point I have only t o state that the evidence on this subject was furnished to us by Mr. Adams, and that the information which we received was immediately laid before the law officers of the Crown, and that on the very morning of the day on which they reported the Alabama left Birkenhead. On this question, however, I will say no more, because it may form a mat ter for discussion between the Government of the United States and our own. I do not wish in any way to fore stal that discussion, but I think I may say that we have done everything which either international law or the laws of this country demanded of us in order to prevent the attacks made on the trade of the United States by that vessel. There was, however, another case which was the subject of much discussion, and in respect to which con siderable irritation was created. After the Alabama had sailed from Birkenhead other vessels wera built, the con struction of which amounted in itself to r‘n armament, and furnished evidence of a hostile purp )se. The owners of those vessels were in correspondence wi ;h Capt. Bullock, the agent of the Confederate States, and we had every rea son to believe that those iron rams were intended to break the blockade of the Southern ports, which had been esta blished. Now, it seemed to me that if those vessels were allowed to proceed from the port of Liverpool, the utmost danger to the friendly relations existing between this coun try and the United States would have been the result. I could not conceive it possible that the 'United States would have allowed these armed vessels to break the blockade, which had been acknowledged by the authorities of this cou ntry, and not make demands with which we might not have found ourselves able to comply. Itherefore took what was a very strong measure on this subject. I ordered these rams to be detained, and afterwards directed they should be seized for the purpose of preventing them from committing acts of hostility. We subsequently had placed in our hands the contract by which the agents of the Confederate States had agreed to sell those rams to Mr. Bravay, who said they were not intended for purposes of hostility against the United States. The question, however, remained to be tried, and we came to the conclusion that, though the moral evidence was complete, and though we believed the legal evidence to be complete, that there might still be circum stances which would prevent a conviction from being ob tained. I am, however, convinced that it would not only have been unfortunate, but that it would have been an ignoble and ignominious thing if we hadheen obliged to go to war, not for the honour of England, because that was not engaged—notfor the interests of England, because they were not involved—but for the sake of private conside rations, where no injustice had been done. I therefore regret very much that the noble earl opposite took the course which he has taken, and that he should have done everything in his power to prevent our stopping those vessels, which might otherwise have gond and broken the blockade. I will now say that there is every reason to hope that, as the ports of the Southern States have been captured by the arms of the United States, many questions which have hitherto arisen as to the breaking of the blockade, the imprisonment of the crews of vessels, and several other questions touching the maritime rights of the two countries, will disappear, and that there will be less reason to ap prehend the occurrence of hostilities between us and the United States. I must at the same time observe that the impartial course which her Majesty's Government has pursued has from time to time been impeded and endan gered on the one side by those partisans of the North who were constantly stating that we were acting in a manner hostile to the North, and, on the other hand, by those who were as constantly violating the neutrality which her Ma jesty had proclaimed in the pursuit of their own private ends. But, be that as it may, lam satisfied that there is not the slightest pretence for saying that the course which the Government has pursued has not been strictly neutral. To-morrow a new Minister will set out from this country to represent her Majesty at Washington. We greatly lament that Lord Lyons is, owing to the state of his health, unable to return to his post. (Hear.) There is no person to whom the country is more indebted for the wise, calm, and con ciliatory line of conduct which he has pursued than that noble lord, who has never failed, at the same time, to main tain the dignity and honour of the country. Sir F. Bruce, who is about to take his place, has distinguished himself greatly by the firmness of his policy. He has acted in such a manner towards the Chinese Government as completely to win their confidence, while his conduct towards the re presentatives of the other European Powers has been such as to obtain their concurrence in every step which he has taken. Towards the British interest in China he has so acted that, while willing tolisten to their complaints and to obtain redress for their just grievances, he has never shown himself prepared to support their unreasonable de mands. That being so, he appears to me to be exactly the man whom it is desirable her Majesty should choose to re present her in the United States, and I hope that under his auspices the friendly relations between the two countries will be maintained. (Cheers.) PRIVATE BILL COSTS BILL. Lord HOUGHTON moved the second reading of this bill, which after some discussion was agreed to. The Felony and Misdemeanour Bill went through com mittee. The Consolidated Fund (£175,650) Bill was read a second time. The report of the amendments on the Election Petitions (1848) Amendment Bill was agreed to. The Dublin International Exhibition (1856) Bill was read a second time. The other orders of the day were disposed of, and the house adjourned. HOUSE OF COMMONS—LAST EVENING. The SPFAXVII took the chair at 4 o'clock. PRIVATE BUSINESS. The following bills were read a third time and passed:— Great Eastern Railway (Somersham to Ramsey), Ilfra combe Railway, London and South-Western Railway(New Lines in Surrey), and Merthyr Tydfil Local Board of Health. LIGHTHOUSES. Mr. J. EWART moved for a copy of all correspondence with memorials to the Board of Trade, the Corporation of the Trinity House, and the Commissioners of Northern Lighthouses, on the subect of placing a light at Langness, in the Isle of Mau.—Ordered. POOR RATES. Mr. HENLEY moved for a return as respects the year ended at Lady-day, 1864, of the following particulars, namely, the gross estimated rental of property rated to the poor rate in each parish in England and Wales; the rateable value of the same property ; the amount expended during the year for the relief of the poor; and the rate in the pound of such expenditure on the gross estimated rental and the rateable value respectively, with the averages of each union (in continuation of Parliamentary paper, No. 491, of session 1861.)—Ordered. BATHS AND WASHHOUSES. Mr. TAYLOR moved for an address for return of all places wherein the Baths and Washouses Acts have been adopted, with the date of such adoption, and the expense incurred in the execution thereof, and the total amount raised from or on security of rates on account thereof.— Ordered. TESTS AT OXFORD. Lord R. CECIL said when the motion for the second reading of the bill for the abolition of tests at Oxford was before the house he should move that it be read a second time that day six months. FLOGGING IN WORKHOI7SES. Mr. SCULLY asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention had been called to certain returns lately presented to this house, showing that 1,138 persons (not being soldiers or sailors) of vari ous ages, from six to sixty-three, have been recently flogged in England and Wales, receiving from 50 to 60 lashes, in many instances, by the order of only one magis trate, and frequently for very petty offences or acts of mis conduct. Sir G. GREY said he had seen the return, but it ex tended over a series of years. The punishment was in flicted under the Juvenile Offenders Act, 11th Vic., chap. 82. There had been punishment inflicted by one magis trate, but then he was a stipendiary. He believed it was usual for two magistrates to sign the order. MISCONDUCT IN PRISONS. Mr. HADFIELD asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether any report was made to Go-. vernment of all the cases of flogging in prisons, by order of magistrates, for offences committed out of prison, and alsofor misconduct in prison, without publicity beinggiven of the offences charged, the evidence in support of the charges, the punishment ordered, the ages of the offenders, the number of lashes inflicted in each case, and other par-. ticulars ; and, if no such report was made, whether it was hill intention to adopt measures to put an end to secret flogging in prisons without a public trial. Sir G. GREY said no record of punishment inflicted on females was kept, but With regard to males a very exact one was kept. It was open to the prison inspectors, and in the event of any irregularity it was his duty to make a report to the proper quarter. Mr. FOSTER asked particularly with respect to the case of punishment inflicted on a child six years old. It had only, he believed, been inflicted as late as June last. Sir G. GREY said he would make inquiries, and lay the whole of the particulars on the table of the house. CHURCH AT NAZARETH. Mr. BANBURY asked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether instructions had been given to her Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires at Constantinople to apply for a firman, without which the Rev. Mr. Zeller is unable to build a church at Nazareth. Mr. LAYARD said instructions had been sent out, and a firman, he believed, had been applied for, but no answer to the application had yet been received. RIVER THAMES. Mr. D. DAMER asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he was aware that at a shot distance be low Hampton Court Palace there was last summer hardly four feet of water in the River Thames at the deepest part, and that when the waterworks near Kingston were pump ing the river ceased to flow over the weir at Teddington during the period of such pumping ; whether any of the sewage of Kingston flows ultimately into the Thames above Teddington weir; and whether he was aware that there were three water companies alone at Hampton, each of which draw off 12 millions of gallons daily, and have power to increase the amount to 60 millions, when the in creased population shall require it. Mr. W. COWPER said it was true that on a particular day there was not more than four feet of water at the part aant dthe mentioned,river, and but it was a very shallow part of the river had never ceased t o fl ow over the weirs Teddington. With respect to the sewage at Kingston, falling into the Thames, steps had been taken in the Court of w d water enhroanot companies,ctaee more to p r revent a continuation of it; and as to the persons were appointed to see that they 0 water than they were empowered to do by Act of Parliament. THE WELLINGTON MEMORIAL. Sir M. FARQUHAR asked the Chief Commissioner of r ;4 Works what progress, if any, had been made towards the. completion of the memorial to the late Duke of Wellington in St. Paul's Cathedral ? Mr. W. COWPER said Mr. Stevens had not yet com pleted his model, and he had frequently remonstratedwith him at the delay. He could not state when the model would be ready. _ THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, MARCH 24, 1865. NEW ZE A T4AND. In reply to Mr. KEKEWICH, The Marquis of HARTINGTON said it was quite true the commanding officers of the various corps in New Zea land had preferred claims to the proceeds arising from the sale of lands captured from the enemy ; but it was not thought expedient to comply with their demands. Land taken possession of by troops could not be looked upon as so much prize money. POOR LAWS. In reply to Mr. FERRAND, Mr. VILLIERS said it was quite true that serious charges had been made against the master of the work house of the Wycombe Union, of undue severity towards the boys, and still worse conduct towards the girls. An in quiry had been made into the matter, and the master had been called on to resign his appointment, which had been done. With respect to the prosecution of the master, that rested with the guardians and not the Poor-law Board. If it was decided to prosecute the man nothing had been done that would prejudice such a proceeding. The Poor-law Board had nothing to do with prosecutions, and they did not propose to institute such a proceeding. NEW ZEALAND. In reply to General PEEL, The Marquis of HARTINGTON said the despatch of General Cameron, with respect to the propriety of remov ing from New Zealand any portion of the troop; would be laid on the table with the other papers. NORTH AMERICAN COLONIES. Lord R. CECIL asked the Secretary of State for the Co lonies whether it was the intention of her Majesty's Go vernment to leave to the several North American colonies full discretion whether they would or would not join in the new scheme for a confederation ; or whether they in tended to ask Parliament to adopt any compulsory mea sure for enforcing it upon those who may be adverse to it. Mr. CARD WELL said they had no other information than that which had already been communicated to the house. THE SAFFRON-HILL MURDER. In reply to Mr. ROEBUCK, Sir G. GREY said.. it had been decided to try Pelizzoni for the minor offence of stabbing. He would then have the opportunity of having Mogni examined, and he hoped such a course would lead to a satisfactory result. THE LOCK-OUT. Mr. HENNESSY calledattention to the dispute between the ironmasters and their workmen in North and South Staffordshire, which he said had originated with the mas ters, the men having combined in self-defence. He trusted the Government were able to give the house an assurance that the men maintained the same moderate tone that had hitherto marked their conduct, and that there was some chance of the matters in difference being referred to arbi tration. Sir G. GREY deprecated discussion on this most deli cate subject, and in answer to the inquiries addressed to him, observed that the high constable of the county had informed him that the conduct of the men was perfectly orderly and peaceable. The Government viewed the dis pute with feelings of the deepest concern, but they had no power to interfere, except by friendly advice and counsel, unless there was a breach of the law. He should rejoice to hear that the matter had been referred to the abitration of some impartial persons having the confidence of both parties. H 11 FORTIFICATIONS OF CANADA. The Marquis of HARTINGTON, in proposing a vote of £811,424, for works and buildings, including £50,000 for the defence of Quebec, part of a sum of £200,000 for the defences of Canada, observed that these works were ren dered necessary in consequence of the United States having within the last four years become a great military power. There was not the slightest expectation entertained by her Majesty's Government that the United States were contem plating an immediate attack; but in the changed circum stances of the two countries, there was every reason why we should do what all continental nations had done, and put our frontier in a position of security. He explained that the number of men required to garrison Quebec and Montreal was 12,000; but that in case of attack it would be desirable to have at least 35,000, and a further moveable force of 25,000 to act upon the enemy. Thus the total force for Montreal and Quebec would amount to 60,000 men ; in addition to which the colony had 20,000 enrolled volun teers. Of course, he did not deem it possible to defend the whole frontier, but only the more vital points. Mr. G. P. BENTINCK objected to the proposed vote so far as the defences of Quebec were concerned. Admitting that it was the duty of the Imperial Government to defend Canada against invasion, he thought that in the event of war with the United States this was not the right mode of protecting the frontier ; that Canada could only be de fended by sea ; and that any attempt to defend her by land was nothing more than a wasteful expenditure. Moreover, he regarded the construction of fortifications as more likely to create irritation and precipitate rather than prevent hos tilities. Ironclad gunboats were, no doubt, an essential part of the scheme of defence, and he called upon the Go vernment to give an assurance that those were in prepara tion, so that when the fortifications were completed we should have at least a sufficient force in the lakes to play their part in the defence of the colony. The hon. member concluded by moving the omission of the item of £50,000 for commencing the works at Quebec. General PEEL was utterly opposed to the policy, advo cated by some persons, of abandoning the Canadians to their fate, and seeking some other battle field on which to avenge their cause. So long as the colonists continued faithful subjects of the Queen, and were prepared. to de fend themselves against aggression, we were bound by every consideration that could actuate a great nation to assist them. The value he attached to the vote was that it was a declaration on the part of the House of Commons, and therefore of the country, that if Canada were attacked she would not be left to bear the brunt of the conflict alone. Mr. B. JOHNSTONE said that if there were to be a war with America, we ought to be prepared to attack her on the Pacific coast, where she was most vulnerable, and to adopt effective measures for the protection of all our colonies. Major ANSON was of opinion that for the purpose of keeping open communications between the several forts instead of a force of 60,000 men, we must have 100,000 between Quebec and Montreal, and another 100,000 for the Upper Canadian line of frontier. As to the ability of this country to protect Canada, the United States would have hundreds of thousands of veteran troops ready to pour over the frontier at any moment, and a force of artillery that we could never think of competing with. If the Canadians wanted a standing army, let them provide it for themselves and be content with the maritime and other aid with which we could furnish them : but we were not called upon by our honour or any other considerations to fight with our soldiers in Canada. Mr. ADDERLEY cordially assented to the vote, and dis cussing the probability of a war with the United States argued that, if any lesson were to be drawn from the un doubted sagacity of the Americans themselves in fortifying their seaboard and frontier, it was to take similar steps in contemplation of the possibility of a rupture. His only regret was that the vote was not proposed a year ago ; but in saying this, he attributed no blame to the Secretary for the Colonies. It was rather the result of the indifference or apathy of the Canadians themselves. With, regard to gunboats on the lakes, it was for Canadians to construct dockyards, and with such assistance as we could furnish them, in the shape of artificers and other means, to make the gunboats that were required. Lord BURY supported the vote. Mr. WATKIN did not agree with the policy of the vote or the vote itself, for it went too far, and yet did not go far enough. It did not go sufficiently far to inspire confi dence in the strength of the British empire, but it went far enough to excite a feeling of irritation against us. Re ferring to the reciprocity treaty and the convention limit ing the force on the lakes, he suggested that before asking for a vote of public money the Government ought to have entered upon negotiations with the authorities at Washing ton for the purpose of effecting a renewal of these arrange ments in a modified form. Mr. HALIBURTON observed that the American people were too sagacious to wish for or intend war with this country ; and the Canadians, who had become wiser as they had become older, had resources for self-defence in a rigorous climate and a determined population of 3,000,000. A small body of disciplined British troops would be a use ful auxiliary force. Mr. S. LEFEVRE objected to the vote, because it in augurated a new and vicious policy. Canada should be placed, he thought, in a position to pursue a neutral course towards the United States and this country. Lord R. MONTAGU, after discussing the alternative suggested by Mr. Bentinck, of defending Canada by mari time operations, supported the Government plan. - Mr. C. FORTESCUE said the real question was, whether or no, after the Canadians had awakened to the duty of preparing for their own defence, we should refuse to con tribute to it, or should aid them in putting the colony in an attitude to resist an invader. Sir F. SMITH approved the plan of fortifications pro posed 3 rr. b L y o C w a t ta o i n n e J e emrvoorie called s a sound at e t wise. e:n n u t t i l e o n n d t o g h t e hat, possibility a‘the of our defending Canada, and Americans had the power by several lines of railway to fling any number of men they pleased upon the southern bank of the St. Lawrence, and thus to carry on a winter campaign, our troops would have no chance of long holding out in those fortifications against such means of aggression as the Americans possessed. He considered, then, that it was not the duty of this country to expose its soldiers to certain destruction. We ought to tell Canada that we saw no chance of efficiently defending her on her own ground, and that if she chose to maintain British connection it would be at the risk of having to protect herself against American invasion, but that if success crowned our arms she should be our first object in making a treaty of peace ; that it was open to her, if she pleased, to establish herself as an independent republic; or if she thought it more for her interest and safety to join the American republic itself, and that whichever of these courses she adopted she should have in England a friend, protector, and ally to the utmost of our power. The right hon. gentleman, nevertheless, intimated his determination to support the vote. Mr. DISRAELI—Sir, I cannot say that I entirely and heartily approve of the form in which this vote is presented to us. I myself disapprove of the manner in which it was introduced to us by placing a despatch of a confidential character on the table of the house from an individual employed by the Government, the general result of which has created much alarm, perplexity, and confusion, not only in England, and has attracted a degree of attention to what is after all merely a common duty of the Govern ment. I know there have been cases in which reports of a confidential character from officers of a Government have been placed on the table to prepare the public mind to consent to some large measure ; but, generally speaking, I think it is a course which the house ought not to sanction, for all legal questions and all questions in which principles of international law are concerned the Govern ment very wisely and properly, when asked the opinion of the law advisers of the Crown, always urge the prerogative they justly possess of refusing to place on the table the rea sons which the professional advisers have arrived at, and the conclusions which have regulated the conduct of the Government. Now that rule is highly salutary, though it is sometimes disappointing and annoying to the House of Commons. But certainly I think that rule ought peculiarly to be followed in the case of our advisers of the Crown, when their reports refer to important questions of the de fence of the empire, and which naturally lead to the dis cussion of questions with reference to other powers and governments, and which are necessarily of a very delicate character. Yet on the present occasion that document of Colonel Jervois's had been thrown on the table, and if it had not, in my opinion none of these discussions need have taken place, but we should have voted the money, if neces sary, on the responsibility of her Majesty's Government— (hear, hear)—and it is the duty of her Majesty's Ministers, when they are supplied with information of an important character, to amply investigate the question, and ascertain the course that ought to be adopted, and expound their po licy, and not make an official paper of a confidential cha racter indicate their policy and explain their conduct. But whatever objection I might have to that particular propo sition of her Majesty's Government as to the form in which it is brought forward, or to the amount proposed, or what ever objection I may have to the manner in which it has been introduced to the house, I have no hesitation as to the course I ought to follow, which is to support her Ma jesty's Government in this instance—(hear)—because Ifeel persuaded that if there be any hesitation in the house now, it will discourage the conduct of the Canadians at a most critical moment of their history. (Hear, hear.) I am per fectly willing to admit that no sentimental feeling of any kind—if the motive partake of mere sentiment—ought to justify us in entering into a policy of which we disapprove, and which may be ultimately disastrous to that country. In that I entirely agree with the right honourable gen tleman who has just addressed us, but I cannot agree with the rest of his arguments. He says that no one has proved that Canada can be invaded. These are opinions which we must form as best we can from powers of thought and the series of facts before us, and I am bound to say that though I have listened to the right hon. gentleman twice with considerable attention, I am not inclined at all to admit that the balance of argument is on his side—that Canada cannot be defended. (Hear, hear.) It is matter of opinion. But this I observe throughout his argument— and there are some few who may sympathise with him— that it is pervaded by 'one great fallacy, because they always argue this case as if there were no other alterna tive, as if we were unhappily at war with America, which I think most improbable, but which the right hon. gentle man assumes is immediate, which is the whole basis of his argument, as I will show hereafter. His whole speech in volves this fallacy, founded on this alternative, that if un fortunately we have war with America it must be carried on either in Canada or in some other particular place. But I maintain that if we have war with America, it will be carried on everywhere—in every place where we can carry it on, not only in one ocean, but in both oceans—wherever we can annoy and weaken our enemy. (Cheers.) Well, tj ten, are we to admit as a sort of strategical corollary the proposi tion of the right hon. gentleman that we are to permit America to invade our provinces with the utmost facility and therefore with the least cost of money, men, and material. (Hear, hear.) I should have thought that the common experience of men would teach us that the more difficult we make the invasion of Canada by the Americans the greater the demand is upon their resources, upon their soldiers, upon their military materials, so proportion ately we diminish the amount of their military material in every point at which they could contend with us. It seems to be most preposterous that the right hon. gentleman should lay down this principle, that if we go to war with America we shall permit the Americans, without any re striction, to attain a considerable end, when if resistance were offered, although it was not completely or ultimately successful, that resistance you know must diminish the power of the enemy in those quarters in which they are assailable. (Hear, hear.) Sir, the right hon. gentleman has argued this case in the same spirit in which the case of the Peninsular war was argued by the Whig party some 50 years ago. (Cheers and laughter.) " It is useless to resist the power of Napoleon, because no one can stand against it." (Rear, hear.) This great assumption entirely pervaded the whole of the argument of the right hon. gen tleman. "The military power of America is the power of a great nation—you cannot resist it." The right hon. gentleman counts the immense legions, with whose exploits we are familiar. He tells us that America has hundreds and hundreds of thousands of men in arms who are veteran troops ; that they are commanded—which no one denies— by some generals of signal ability and success : and how, he asks, aro we to resist such a power in Canada ? Well, if war were to take place with America to-morrow, there might be some foundation for the views taken by tho right hon. gentleman, but they are utterly inconsistent with his repeated declaration that he believes the war will not take place to-morrow—that he does not think it imminent— that he does not think it even probable. Are we to under stand from the right hon. gentleman, who is a man of great acuteness, great historical knowledge, and considerable public experience--that he thinks that it will be the nor mal state of the United States to maintain these armies like the hosts of Xerxes ; are we to suppose that if peace is to be maintained for four or five years America will still have at its command an army of 600,000 or 700,000 men ? If that is his opinion it is one I cannot share, and it appears to me to be utterly impossible for him to maintain it. I need only refer for a moment to the financial condition of America as it has been put very tersely by one hon. mem ber. No doubt America has incurred an immense debt by the present struggle. I do not want to investigate its real amount. I take it even according to the financial acknow ledgment of the American Government, and according to that I should suppose that the debt, which is not to be cal culated by the mere amount of money, but by the rate Of interest which it pays, is probably not less weighty than our own ; well, then, as has been said, is it the intention of America, to keep faith with her public creditor ? I believe it is the intention of America to pay her public creditor. I imagine that that sagacious people will feel that if she does not keep faith with the public creditor her future will be ruinous. Well, if she does keep faith with the public cre ditor she will not keep up an army of 700,000 men, which she only maintains this year by a loan of £120,000,000 ster ling, and therefore unless we go to war with America to morrow, I am not aware that this innumerable host, which is always at the command of the right hon. gentleman in his speeches on the part of the United States, could be forthcoming. (Hear, hear.) Let us look a little at the position of Canada as to its means of defence. I speak with diffidence on this subject. An hon. member said the other night that England had not a general, a statement which I own alarmed me immensely. (Laughter.) But the result of the debate on military affairs, showed a considerable knowledge of military matters, and I trust that if anything happens a general will not be wanting to this country. (Hear, hear.) I think it is pretty well admitted that the population of Canada could, under ordinary circumstances, bring, when necessary, 100,000 fighting men into the field. Well, the population of Canada is a very high-spirited population, and under extraordinary circumstances it would do something, more than bring 100,000 men into the field. Some of the hon. gentleman who have spoken on this subject seem to have no idea of the inspiration and excitement of patriotism. If their blood was up it would be more likely that they would bring 200,000 men into the field. Now, suppose that you had 200,000 fighting men, qualified by their habits and constitution to attain a military excellence. If you have 200,000 fighting men, supported by a series of strong places, I do not give it as my opinion—that would be absurd—but I have it on the highest authority in these matters, that a series of strong places supporting an army is equal to one-third of the whole force, so that you will have in effect 300,000 fight ing men. (Cheers, and a laugh.) I say that 300,000 fight ing men, or a force equivalent to that, acting purely de fensively, is equal to those hosts which the right hon. gen tleman has brought into the field. The right hon. gentle man has settled the campaign, I confess, with the utmost facility. If campaigns could be settlev by chopping logic the right hon. gentleman would be the greatest ge neral that ever existed. (Cheers and laughter.) I remember hear ing the Duke of Wellington say that there were very few men who could see the end of a campaign ; and we know from our own knowledge of what has happ ened in the world how doubtful have been the issue of campaigns. What has made them so ? The resistance of fortresses, the extraordinary character and conduct of individuals, as we saw in the case of Sebastopol, who have suddenly risen up and battled the advance of conquering armies, and thrown back the fate of war for a year or two. These are the circumstances which occur in a state of war, which has always been admitted to be proverbially doubtful, and I cannot but believe that from the num ber of the population and their spirit what we know they scan do what I think under circumstances of excitement they would—l cannot but believe that so long as their connection with England is maintained, and that they are encouraged by the presence of the trained warriors of our country, the resistance of the Cana dians would be very considerable, and that the result would not be that which is foreseen by the right hon. gentleman. (Cheers.) The right hon. gentleman has also held out to us the prospect that maintaining the connexion with Canada must be according to his views, disgraceful in its results, and calamitous to England. He has treated the views we have of maintaining the connection with this country as merely sentimental. I think I have shown to the committee that there are considerations which may induce us to believe that he has been too precipitate in that conclusion. The right. hon. gentleman maintains that it is impossible to defend the frontier of Canada. Does he mean to say that for the future it is to be laid down as a principle to be acted upon that that extensive frontier is not to be de fended ? If he does, it contradicts all the principles of modern military affairs, and.confounds all those principles of policy which have ever regulated the conduct of nations. lam sure he does not mean that. But why should he, as a matter of course, conclude that disgrace must fall upon the English arms in Canada, and oppose the present reso lution because that is the inevitable consequence of our interference in. Canadian affairs ? Why, after all, what is the present proposition of the Government ? We may find fault with the amount, with the manner in which it is in troduced, with the mode in which it is proposed to dispose of it ; and after all the proposition is to take the precautions that our troops should be placed in i position from which they must retire with precipitation. It is to secure them from that that the present proposition is made, and there fore if there be any serious conclusions to be drawn from the general views of the right hon. gentleman it is this, that we ought to refrain altogether from attempting to maintain the public duties which devolve upon us. Now, I cannot agree with him that the assertion that England has a duty to fulfil in maintaining the independence of Canada ought to be treated as an idle or sentimental boast. (Cheers.) The right hon. gentleman regards Canada as already a re public. Sir, Ido not grudge Canada her independence. I can anticipate that those who follow us may view that country as independent and powerful, but I do not neces sarily see that the form of government should be that of a republic. (Hear.) The traditions of Canada are verymuch opposed to such a form of government, and the recent experience of Canada would not, I think, make it particu larly enamoured of it. (Hear, hear.) What is the moment at which the right hon.gentleman calls upon us practically to desert Canada ? It is at a moment when North America is in a state of revolution, when no one can foresee what may be the result of the vast changes and the mighty vicis situdes which have occurred during the last four years, and are still rapidly occurring, not confined to the United States, not confined to the Confederate States, but in Eng lish America itself, and, most remarkably also, in Mexico. We know that the British American provinces contain the elements of a great nation. They have now no inconsider able population; they have immense resources. The right hon. gentleman has described in his happy language, pic turesque and true, the condition of the upper provinces of Canada. Those provinces, and the lands contiguous to them contain the means of sustaining not only millions, but tens of millions of population ; and why are we to doom Canada to the fate of being absorbed into the United States or of becoming a mere dependency of some American republic. (Hear, hear.) Canada has, I believe, its future. We have a rignt to assume this, for it has all the elements which make a nation. It has at this moment a strong development of nationality. It is influenced by those feelings which we ought to recognise, and of which we ought to be proud. And it is not for us now critically to consider the mere pro position of the Government. We are not to consider now whether it is ample enough, or whether it has been intro duced to us in the happiest manner. (Hear, hear.) We are to consider whether practically it is not on the part of the Government an appeal to the Parliament of England, whe ther they will cherish the connection with Canada, with the North American provinces, which at present exists— (hear, hear)—whether they do not believe it a point of ho nour, and that in our interest we are bound to do that— whether they do not believe that unaided by us those pro vinces have not the means of establishing their indepen dence of any foreign foe; with the full conviction on our part that if ultimately those provinces can become an inde pendent country we shall not find in such a' circumstance a source of mortification, but rather a source of pride. (Loud cheers.) Mr. CARDWELL said that since he had come into the house he had received a despatch from the Governor- General of Canada, confirming the agreeable reports con tained in the morning papers to the effect that a telegraphic message had reached him from Mr. Burnley, our charge d'affaires at Washington, stating that " that the Secretary of State (Mr. Seward) had informed him that his Govern ment intended to withdraw its notice for the abrogation of tha treaty of 1817, and that the passport system would cease immediately." This announcement was hailed with a general burst of cheering. Mr. BRIGHT asked the attention of the house but for a very few minutes. If the hon. member for Norfolk divided the house, he should go into the lobby with him. (Laughter and cheers.) He was aware that in making that statement he might alarm the mind of thit hon. gentleman, but he should not go into the lobby with him agreeing with him in many of the statements which he made upon the question a few nights ago. The right hon. gentleman the member for Buckinghamshire approached the military part of the question as a subject of the greatest difficulty. He (Mr. Bright) was very glad to see any sense of diffi dence from that quarter. (Laughter.) But with that ex pression he asked the house with a triumphant air—as if he felt certain no ono there could contradict him—whether there could be any difficulty in defending a frontier of 1,000 or 1,500 miles, as if it were a new doctrine in warfare. Now, 1,000 or 1,500 miles from the centre of your power was one thing, but 1,000 or 1,500 miles at a considerable distance from that centre was a very different, thing—(hear, hear) — and he ventured to think that no Man i in `that house, nor any sensible man out of it, believed that the people of this coun try could undertake a successful defence of Canada against the whole power of the United States if they were at war with this country. (Hear.) He said the other night that he hopedthey would not talk folly, nor that they would there after, with an endeavour to be consistent, act folly. They knew that it would be folly on the part Of the Government to send out men and ships to defend Canada against the United States. He was not a believer in a war, but he would discuss the question at that moment as if he thought war was possible. He supposed that there were some men in that house who thought it probable, but whether it was possible or probable they ought to look this difficulty in the face, and as if there were any extrication from it other wise than in the neutrality or independence of Canada. He agreed with those in that house who said that it was the duty of a Government of a great empire to defend every portion of the empire. That was a general proposi tion. But hon. gentlemen opposite, and upon his own side of the house did not believe that that rule applied to the United States. (Hear, hear.) But he admitted the rule. Now, suppose the catastrophe of war should happen, and that this country should be unprepared for it. That wasa reason, then, why they should look ahead and endeavour to escape from it. (A VOICE—" Run away ?") No ; he would not ran away, though he had heard of brave men endeavouring to escape from difficulties without running away from them, and they might wish to run away from these difficulties about Canada. Now, he would not assert that this expenditure of £50,000 was to be taken as a menace by the United States. He did not think that the construction of fortifications at Quebec would enable this country to overrun Neir York. (Laughter.) He did not think that the Government of the United States would complain of this expenditure, and the most they would say was that perhaps the Government and some persons in this country showed a distrust of them, and so far some injury might be caused. But he (Mr. Bright) com plained of this expenditure, and of the policy announced by the right hon. gentleman the Secretary for the Colonies, and by the noble lord the member for Wick (Lord Bury), who was a sort of half Canadian, and who had told the house some things which perhaps they did not know before. But if he (Mr. Bright) had been connected with Canada as the noble lord was he would have addressed the house from the Canadian point of view. The right hon. gentleman (Mr. Cardwell) said that the defences of Canada were to be borne by this country and a portion by Canada. He quoted him, he thought, exactly and correctly. But he ventured to tell the right hon. gentleman that if there should be any occasion to defend Canada at all it would not be for what the Canadians had done, but for what England did; and he therefore protested against the doctrine that the cabinet in London might get into a war without the cabinet in Canada knowing of it, and that she should be called upon to expend money. It would be a war which might affect Canada alone, because she would be the battle-field of the war between the United States and the United Kingdom. Now they were asked to expend this money; and a much larger sum would be expected to follow, though a future Parliament might be indisposed to grant it. But what was the proportion which Canada would have to bear ? It was said that for this £50,000 to be expended at Quebec, Canada would have to expend £lOO,OOO at Montreal. Now if Canada was to be called upon to expend double what this country agreed to expend on her defences, would not every Cana dian ask what was the use of their connection with this country ? (Hear•) In this country everybody knew that there was no more probability of a war between Canada and the United States than there was between France and the Isle of Man. (Hear, and laughter.) If there should be cause for war it would arise between England and the United States. Now there were gentleman in that house who well knew the position of the Canadian finances, and they all knew that Canada at present levied higher duties upon some articles of the manufactures of this country than France and other countries did. When a complaint was made to Canada of that which was thought to be improper conduct towards this country, the answer was—" Our debt is so large and our expenditure so great that we are obliged to levy higher duties." But if the finances of Canada were in that state, and her credit not first-rate in this country—if those were her difficulties in a time of perfect peace, what would be the course of her finances in time of war, and carried on in a way in which she would have to bear her part of the expendi , true ? It must strike every man at once. And the Govern ment of Canada might say : there is a great nation 3,000 miles away; there are litigious people there and in the United States ; they may get up a war : we are a peaceful people; we have no foreign policies; we may be involved, and while the cit es of Great Britain will not be touched by a single shell our fields may be ravaged, and there is not a town which may not be ravaged by our powerful neigh bours." And the Canadians may go on to say that the doc trines of the right hon. gentleman the Secretary for the Colonies were not very sound, and they might wish to be come the citizens of an independent state. (Hear, hear.) He had heard it stated by a member of the present Govern ment, that the Government would have no objection to the , independence of Canada if she wished it. He (Mr. Bright) was glad to hear that statement, because he thought it , showed an extraordinary progress in sound opinions in this country.. He recollected the noble lord the Foreign Secre tary being very angry, and saying that he would not like to see a great empire become less. But the territory of a nation might become less without its authority or power being at all lessened in the world, and he believed that if the Canadas became an independent state—whether they adopted the government of a monarchy or of a republic— that they would be as friendly towards this country as they were now, and there would be no cause of war between them. He thought, however, that the Government of this country would be more likely to secure that friendship if they did not commence a system of fortifications of which the Canadians would have to pay so large a proportion of the cost. Now he (Mr. Bright) did not object to their throwing away this £so,ooo—though that would be a sufficient reason ; he would not object to the vote on the ground that it would create distrust in America, though that would be a sufficient reason ; but he did object to the vote because it was the commencement of a ' policy to which Canada would not submit, for it would bring upon Canada a heavy burden in regard to this ex penditure, which would make the Canadians very dissatis fied, and perhaps anxious to separate from this country. (Hear, hear.) He did not object to a separation in the least, but he believed it would be better to separate while on friendly terms than after the colony was deeply involved in debt—(hear, hear)—for of all their misfortunes that would be the greatest, if they separated at a period of irritation and estrangement. (Hear, hear.) He was sorry that the noble lord and his Cabinet had taken this course. It appeared to him that the Government was one of two parts, one pull ing one way and the other another way, and they were al ways duing something which did not please anybody— (hear)—and which did not produce a good effect in any direction. They now produce a scheme which will in some degree be an injustice, and the Government did not propose enough to enable them to accomplish all the objects which they had in view. (Hear.) Somebody the other night asked whether the Administration or the House of Commons was to rule. He (Mr. Bright) expected that the Administration I would be allowed to rule in regard to this vote. They were accustomed to hear that the Government did this and that upon their responsibility, and therefore they were allowed to do it; but the Government did not know any more than any half a dozen other gentlemen in that house, and the Go vernment were not more competent to discuss these propo sitions than the house was. The Government asked the house to discuss this vote, and he should be glad if the house would reject it. (Hear, hear.) He did not place much reliance on the speech of the right hon. gentleman the member for Bucks—not because he could not judge of this question as well as any other hon. member, but because he had noticed that the hon. gentlemen sitting on the leading Opposition bench and on the Ministerial bench shook hands on those questions. Hon. gentlemen opposite tellthe house that they have no connection with the house over the way, but the connection is most intimate—(laughter)—and if the right hon. gentleman the member for Bucks were sitting on this side of the house and the noble lord on the leading Op position bench, he would give the right hon. gentleman the same support which he is receiving to-night. (Hear, hear.) That was a question so plain in itself, so based on common sense, and so full of great issues for the future, that he was persuaded it was the duty of the House of Commons to take the matter out of the hands of the Executive Government, and to determine that they would not spend the money of the English taxpayers, nor force upon the Canadians bur thous which they would not long consent to bear. Lord PALMERSTON—I am sorry that we are not go ing to have the vote of the hon. member for Birmingham, but I thank him very sincerely for the compliment he has paid to us. The hon. gentleman said that the present pro posal was a specimen of the usual conduct of the Govern ment, that is to say, we have made a proposal which I think will be accepted by the great majority of the house. I ac cept the compliment, which infers that we have so shaped our course on this occasion as to receive the general con • currence and cordial support of the house. (Loud cheers.) T should hope that the hon. member who has proposed this amendment will think, from the course which this debate has take; that it would not be well to ask the house to go to a division on it. (Hear, hear.) If I did not misunderstand him, he thought that we ought to defend Canada, and that all he sought to do was to postpone the vote for further information. But I think he will see that, with only two exceptions, the vote has met the approval of every member who has taken part in the debate. My right hon. friend the member for Calne, has indeed taken that which, if I were not afraid of being accused of playing upon words, I should say was a very "Lowe" ground of opposition. (Loud laughter.) But he and an hon. and gallant friend be hind him, and the hon. member for Birmingham were alone those who seemed to entertain the same objections. Even here, however, I must correct myself, for, although my right hon. friend objected to vote for the motion, the gene ral tone of his argument was so much in favour of it that I think it both undesirable and unnecessary that there should be any difference of opinion. Remember this is not a Canadian question, it is not a local queston, it is an Imperial question. (Loud cheers.) It is one that afiects the character and position, the honour and interests of this great country, and I think it is of the utmost importance that on an occasion of this sort, an occasion upon which the great majority of the house seems to be of the same opinion, it should not go forth to the world that there had been a difference of opinion, but the vote should go forth as the unanimous decision of the house. (Hear, hoar.) There are one or two points upon which I must express my dissent from the doctrines which have been laid down on this subject. Many gentlemen seem to argue as if the general impression and belief were that war with the United States was imminent, and that this vote was proposed as a means of averting the danger now hanging over us. Now, I hope that there is no danger of a war with the United States ; nothing that has passed recently between the two Governments indicates warlike feelings on the part of the United States, and therefore we do not propose this motion on the grounds of expected war. But it is necessary when you propose to place your oolony in a state of defence, that war with some powerful neighbour is about to take place ? Why, the whole practice of mankind is founded on diffe rent assumptions. Every country fortifies its frontier in the presence of a powerful neighbour, even although the slightest violation of peaceable relations be not apprehended. But it is said also that you cannot defend Canada. Now, I utterly deny that position. (Hear, hear.) I think it is as suming a conclusion which no man is entitled to assume. Does the war which is now going on in that country justify that conclusion? The territory of the Confederates is vast and extensive—have they attempted to defend the whole of that territory? No; they have fortified certain impor tant points, and those have resisted all attacks, some of them continue to do so up to the present day, and others have done so for three or four years. Take Richmond, for example; has Richmond been taken ? (Loud cheers.) Has not Richmond been frequently attacked and successfully defended with the earthworks, having a force behind them, and although that force was inferior to the attacking army, the defence has up to the present moment been successful. (Hear.) The occupation of mere territory by an army which tra verses an undefended country is no conquest. The conquest is merely of the ground which the army occupies, and when it passes away the same ground may be occupied by the op posing army. But all countries fortify particular points, and when these are secured they trust the general territory is protected from permanent occupation. Again, it is said that Canada has so extended a frontier. Is there no other country which has an extended frontier ? Is not our own frontier the whole sea coast of the United Kingdom ? And it might be said that we should line our whole coast with defensive works in order to defend our insular position. We do not dream of doing so, nor is it necessary. I main tain that nothing that has passed, nothing that is passing between the United States Government and our own would. justify any man in saying that the relations between the two countries have any asperity which might lead to war. The hon. member for Birmingham says that any danger that might threaten Canada and our other American colo nies must arise from the political situation between England and the United States, and that, therefore, the Canadians will 'find their best security not in fortifications or British support, but in separation and independence. Now, in the first place that happens not to be the wish of the Canadians. (Hear.) The Canadians are most anxious to maintain their connection with this country ; they are proud of that con nection. They think it is for their interest and they will make every exertion to preserve that connection, and to prevent their country being absorbed by a neighbouring power. And is it not the duty as well as the interest of this country, for the sake of that reputation which is the power and strength of a nation, that we should do that which we have the power and the means of doing for the purpose of maintaining that connexion and keeping our colony allied to Great Britain. But is it true that the only danger a small state can run from a large neighbour arises from quarrels with the parent state. I say it is a fallacy to suppose that these provinces would be safer if separated from this coun try. Suppose them separated, are there not motives which might lead a stronger neighbour to pick a quarrel with the small state ? Is there nothing like territorial ambition pervading great military states? (Hear, hear.) 1 think the example of the world might teach the hon. member that there are such things as invasion and annexation, and that the danger for Canada would be much inereased by her being separated from Great Britain, and being thus deprived of our assistance. If these American provinces desired to separate, we should not adopt the maxim which teaches that the North is right in suppressing the rebellion of the South. We should not suppress the rebellion of our North American colonies ; we should take a different line, and if those provinces thought they could stand on their own ground we should say, " God speed you." That, however, has not happened in the case of the Canadians. On the contrary, they much dislike the notion of annexa tion to their neighbour, and cling to their connection with this country. I say, then, that it would be disgraceful to this country, and would lower us in the eyes of the world, weaken our power, and lead to consequences which would be injurious to our national position, if, when these colonies desire to maintain the connection, we should do nothing for the purpose of assisting them. Sir, I think the Govern ment is perfectly right in proposing the vote which is now submitted to the house. We are of opinion that all objec tions raised by my right hon. friend are not practical ; we know that in winter the snow is deep in Canada, and that an army could only march through in a single track. We know that active operations are impossible in winter, and that such operations must, therefore, be limited to a few summer months. We think we can by the plan now pro posed, assisted by Canada itself, put that counry in such a state of defence as, with the assistance of our military naval forces, will effectually defend it from attack. But my right hon. friend has argued in a manner inconsistent with himself. He says you cannot defend Canada because the United States could bring so great an army into the country, and therefore you must defend it elsewhere. According to him, being unable to keep the United States from invading Canada, in consequence of the numerical superiority of their armies, we are to send an expedition to attack the United States in their own homes, at the centre of their own resources, and where they could bring a much larger force to the ground. I say that if we could not resist the United States in Canada we should have little cloaca, of making an impression on them in their own seaboard States. I really hope that the hon. member for Norfolk will be satisfied with the amendment he has moved, an d will not think it necessary to dispute the unanimity of the house, but allow us to pass on to the other votes on the paper. (Hear, hear.) Mr. BENTINCK said in reply that he differed, not from the principle of Canadian defence, but as to the mesa° which were being adopted for the purpose. He had been anxious for a full discussion, but he admitted he saw n ° prospect of having the committee participate in his views. He found that if he were to perseVere in the motion he should be placed in two positions both of which he should deprecate. In the first place, he should be giving a vote which would be open to great misconstruction, because 110 should find himself in the lobby with a number of distin guished men with whose sentiments he had no sympathy and in the second place, he should be getting the supicor of hon. gentlemen under false pretences. (No, no.) ye s ' yes; and he must beg to say that he declined to receive their support under such circumstances, and if a division took place he should take no part in it. The committee then divided (Mr. Bentinck leaving the house before the division took place)— • For omitting the item Against it Majority; ---235 The CHAIRMAN then reported progress. The report of ways and means was brought up :Ina agreed to. COURTS OF JUSTICE CONCENTRATION (SITE) BILL. On the motion to go into committee on this bill a dis cussion ensued, and finally the debate was adjourned. THE QUALIFICATION FOR OFFICES ABOLITION BILL. Mr. HADFIELD accordingly moved the third readi of the Qualification for Offices Abolition Bill. The boa. member was greeted with loud cries of " Order !" and jot" mediately resumed his seat. Col. GREVILLE wished to know whether the Drainag e Bill had been read a second time. Mr. HENNESSY again called upon the clerk to read the bill a second time. Sir G. GREY—I wish to ask you, sir, whether the order for the Qualification for Offices Abolition Bill is not lie rf before the house, and whether an hon. member is i n order in discussing an Irish Drainage Bill. (Loud cries of Oh.) The SPEAKER—It is perfectly true that the bill Was read a second time, and that it was read a second time ill the ordinary manner. There is no doubt an old usage."' quite obsolete—of the clerk reading the bill, but the bi 4 has been read in the regular and usual manner according to the forms of the house. Col. DUNNE moved that the committee on the bill b° fixed for that day six months. will Viscount PALMERSTON—Perhaps the Speake r state to the house the question that is now before it ? The SPEAKER—I believe there is some milder' standing in the house. The next order has been read 11 the clerk, though it may not have been heard by g entle' !men who have not been exactly attending to what ha s be : going on—(a laugh)—and that order is now before t house. Col. DITNNE moved the adjournment of the house.,„„ Mr. LYGON rose to order. (Renewed confusion.) hon. gentleman the member for King's County (Mr. nessy) had fairly raised a legitimate point of order,which '- humbly submitted must first be disposed of. (Hear) , he The SPEAKER—According to all our usages a' " present day the bill has been read a second time. tea Several hon. members here rose at once amid r e p ea cries for "Hadfield!" but the .call to "Order, order I n lit l ir sonorous tones of the Speaker soon replaced them ill t ile se at s. (Cries of "Adjourn !") The house then divided upon the question of sai° lllll4 ment-- Ayes 72 Noes l4l Majority against the adjournment 69 be Tho SPEAKER then put the question that the bol now read a third time. After a few words from Mr. MOWBRAY, rd Mr. NEWDEGATE moved that the bill be rea d a thi time on that day six months. The house divided on tho question that the bill be 11° w read a third time— Ayes l3O 56 Noes.. Majority 74 The bill was then read a third time and passed. The other orders were disposed of, and the house A'A journed at two o'clock. COUNTRY MARKET BIRMINGHAM—THURSDA Y. of At this day's market there was again a short supPl9 r wheat. English and American were fully is per grade but this did not extend to Ghirka. Barley, be ans, a 6d to is per qr. higher. Oats held for more m oney. 360 Currencies :—English wheat, white, 40s to 44s ;dg to 41s per 36 stone. Malting barley, 28s to 34s ; r 22s to 25s per qr. Oats, 24s to 30s ; Irish, 19$ to 4 , - , t e 30 stone. Beans, 38s to 42s ; and peas, 38s to 40s per q BURY ST. EDMUND'S—WEDNESDAY. as The short supply of wheat here to-day enablei_l arZos. to obtain an advance of ls per qr. upon last week's r Beans, peas, and oats inquired after. barleff Talavera wheat, 44s to 48s; red ditto, 35s to 38s ; 32s to 355; secondary ditto, 28s to 30s per qr. 1 , 296 Averages :—Wheat, 789 qrs., 37s 7d ; barlen qrs., 28s 8d; oats, 91 qrs., 20s Od. MANCH TER--TnunsDAY . cOr There was about an ES average attendance at our Ait ioif, ° this morning. English wheat was in improved butt in el° and generally held for an advance of ls per qr., bu t t r sales effected this was scarcely obtained, and only s t 6 choicest samples. Foreign was in moderate requs s .„, bo la similar amendment. Approved marks of flour wTedoclA for 6d per sack over the rates of last week, whichLs an sales ; other sorts easier to quit, but not dearer. fir oatmeal were in favour of sellers. Beans were ww . dian corn was 6d to is per qr. higher. EDINBURGH—WEDNESDAY. 00 4 At our market there was a large supplY °„ f r e qr wheat, which sold well, and prices were at is vance on the rates of last week. ld 11 P' Wheat on the top, is Od up average, 18 ed tip Barley on the top, As 6d up average, 1 s o l d up Oats on the top, 2s Od up average, Beans on the top, is Od down average, 01 : B''cl Average prices. Wheat, 37s 3d O a t s, 225 6 4 I Barley, 2s7 7d Beans, 35s 6d Total supply and sales. Wheat Barley Oats ' a 1523 1404 886599 _ qci c ir r s rss ................................... s s so o o a a 8 5 ° 4 Beans 2OB qrs ............ sold a o tsit Town-made flour sells as follows :—White, 3 0 ° superfine, 34s 6d ; superfine, 33s ; fine, 31s 6d. GLASGOW—WEDNESDAY. WIL "' This day's market was tolerably well attendedlipel7. was 6d dearer per 2401 b. Sack flour unaltered Yr grto Ben rel flour 3d better per 1961 b. Barley 3d higher Bes firm. Oats improved 6d per 2641 b. 031 7601 17 ' is per 2801 b. Peas and Indian corn 3d to 6d Per fit oro f i ADVERTISEMENT.] - Holloway's Ointment. A ections.—All the varieties of these distressi-0bb113,2 plaints may be readily and effectively treated bi lle t, a h l o this ointment twice a day upon the neck alld, c 131 t ",d, supporting the strength by suitable nourishnaou-a thr°-„, simple means, diphtheria, ulcerated and r ela/ce da ips irritation of the, windpipe, quinsey, and all O a % the largements will have their progress arrested, al l o i o tn, struction they have caused repaired. Hollownead ePepi, is the most trustworthy remedy for all intern!' and e o r al throat ailments, and may be safely and el' ec s ,te , a Noyed in every case without regard to season 'etiro,4o constitution. It is highly extolled for its re 9 . 3r ag ree'''' spasmodic coughs, chronic hoarseness, an d all d' discharges from the throat and nose. ARCHER.—On the 22d ins_Bt.,iratthPsenge, surren wif , of of Joseph Archer, Esq., of a son. t he . ° HOLLAND.—On the 22d inst., at 25, Rutland -gat°, the of H. T. Holland, Esq., of a son. MoLEswonrn.—On the 22d inst., Soot l/ 1 the wife of Captain Morgan Crofton golesWor e. of a daughter. ;f of T jj a t Elm Grovo , t b, li• ' SISMEY.—On the 23d inst at S 13" ton the Nv— e . 7 Ur 1 ? Sismen Esq., of a son. " Marriages. ,e ; „ g too , t" i p s t BAYLEY—MAXWELL.—On the 21st inst., at ...- - - s el' - v. Henry Bayley, of Kingston, to Susan garfl siir daughter of Wm. Maxwell, Esq., of Falac e-1•°°)-" biton. -, a , sirig ° , l3 l7 l SCOTLAND—TRENOW.—On the 23d inst., at -.-viiyab.,- ' the third Humphrys Scotland, Esq., to Faun)" '' f o' .. third daughter of James Trenow, sc i."' ° sington. Deaths. , c iadjeS e%' BEADNELD.—On the 21st inst., at Tottenhani, -`"'" John Beadnell, Esq., aged 51. ,-. ffOrd9bil.r BRADFORD.—On the 22d inst. at at Weston, P ta ' _ or, P the Right Hon. George Augustus Frederick 1: 011 ' of Bradford, aged 76. OW 01 WATKIIiS.—On the 21st inst at Farrington chester, the Rev. William inst., at age d 77. Leggy lArms " 8 7 . b ors WILSON.—On the 21st inst., at Hammersnut 7 .Wilson, aged 86. ------4;' --- -- _ , A N Pit ' 4 ,t2o London: Printed and Published by %NIL LW-, ''' 140 "'" o f of No. 112, Strand, ranter, at THE SUN Ote6opti Strand, in the Precinct of the Savoy, fo t l Middlesex.—Friday, March 24,.1865.