The Sun. — London, England, 1854-07-05 00:00:00

.6 / / I I e_ e rr e / G~ 1 -- / Lma; ' 41111111111111 ..- - „ - . / • . . .. „ . , . . sz .. _ :o_,' , -* 1 4 114111° 4 . ii* ~ .. • 1 .... ~ , , 4 ... . - • , • . • ~___ ~, ~:4..%-, i ,•_. ' ' t..t 'r ''; i 4. , ~, , t ...., ; ii. .• " -. .jr..„,....-..., ~..f . .- - -",,, ' , i•- - `''' (: 0 4 , .......,..0 .- -.T . 7, ri i - --- ,..7:e . , o.: ~,,,,Ik. r it . , '-'• .4., 0- -.;,.., • ~• 4 4 • .4. .!..4 . : -: li -V I 4 , ..- - , z , t's*-, . ~-- -- -7, 4; 4' ..-e - 44 , 414. 14 4 6 '' : ' • ''''' .. , 4; 11 tY 4 . . J„ r .,.' . t;.':., ; io' $., , T ,, 1 .-.-,-; , * f• • '''' 1 4 ._..: , $. , -.4Xg ' ,•,/, 9.1_ • :' * ' ' ' ''' ' ' , -.4 ,7 . ':;l, ?----'-' C V •it ' . ~ • .` "7:,-". 1 ‘e- . It,. 1 4 / I .',. ...-t ) -- -,*- '''',/ -.. ), - • )._,,, .# ...____ 51 , . t 7 , -. . , 0 . . --... t ..../.4 , .',.:? - *-4-•C-?_..-' • :q f , ,, • •• • ;:t 4 .7 --- •• , /,t '.• .. ~ ...--...,,, •S. .°' ' . 14 • I) ft Of T ' ' 'Ol '42 , 4 , ' •' " - . , , ,-: 1 ....,',. ,-..- . I MR. ALBERT SMITH'S MONT BLANC, including the BE RNESE OBERLAND and the SIMPLON, THIS EVENING, and Every Evening at Eight o'Clock, (excel., Saturday) ; and Tuesday, Thurs day, aud Saturday Mornings, at Three. Stalls, 3s. (which can be tak, n at the box-office every day from till 4; area, 25.; gallery, la.—Egyptian Ha'l, Piccadilly. •••.. N. • 11 EAST INDIA HOUSE, 27th APRIL, 1854. THE COURT of DIRECTORS of the EAST INDIA COMPANY do HEREBY GIVE NOTICE, That the Transfer Books of the said Company's Stock will be shut On TilnatineT, the Bth June, at 3 o'clock, and opened again on TittnteDAT, the 13th Jul)', and That the Warrants for the Di-idends on the said stock payable on the 6th July, les i, under the 1 1 th section of the act 3d an] 4th Wm. IV., cap. 85, will be ready to be del vered on that lay. J.131E3. C. MELVILL, 4ecretary. No. 19,274.] LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, J ULY 5, 1854. [PRICE SD. PUBLICATIONS. IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. should be referred; whether it should be a branch of the Court of Chancery, or a separate court, though not alto gether resembling the Ecclesiastical Courts. Considering that this was a question of much importance, and consider ing the late period of the session, the Government had de termined not to proceed with the Testamentary Jurisdic tion Bill this session. (Hear, hear.) With respect to the Divorce Bill he rather believed that the .Lord Chancellor proposed to make some alteration in it. Tho first part of it was founded on the report of the Commissioners on the Law of Divorce; it was not conne c ted w ith the other parts of the report w hich referred to the Ecclesiastical Courts. It was a separate question, and the Lord Chancellor was of opinion that it might be taken separately; the Govern ment reserved their opinion on the other parts of the sub ject. TRANSLATION OF THE CONVENTION BETWEEN AUSTRIA AND PRUSSIA. _ _ _ _ _ _ GUILDIIA T.L, Jimy 3, 1854. THE COMMITTEE for LETTING the CITY'S LANDS will meet at Guildhall, on Wednesday. the 12th day of July inst., at Ohs o'clock prec•selc, to receive Tenders for Letting on Lease for 21 years, fro .n 31kh !elrnas, 1-54, a House, 81, en the east side of ^•lark-lane, Fenchurch-stre t. Further particulars and i'la.;s may be seen, and Forms of Tender obtained, at the Architect's Office, Guildhall. COMPLETION OF MISS BURNEIN DIARY. HOUSE OF LORDS-(YESTERDAY.) /cow ready, the SEVENTH VOLUME (compl , ting the work), price 3s. bound. with Portrait, of the Their lordship; assembled at 5 o'clock. Lord CAMPBELL presented a petition from a place in Scotland agtinst the Scotch Bankruptcy Bill. Lord BROUGHAM repeated that the measure was supported by the great n - ,ajority of the mercantile classes in Scotland. 1 - 1 REAP EDITION OF MADAME D'ARBT,AY ,, DIARY AND LETTERS, Pm: fished for Henry Colbarn, by his successors, Hurst and [Hackett, 13, Great 31,r1borough-street. FERDINAIi D BR AND, Comptroller. T HE ELECTRIC TELEGRAPH COMPANY. Jl (Incorporated by Act of Pardament, 1 , 46.) NOTICE IS REIRE'tY GIVEN . , that the S;ISENTEENTII HALF-YE A.RLY GIIIERAL MEETING of the PH01'11,1E1'011:3 of this Company w,ll be he d at the t en ral Station of the Company in Founders' Court, Lothitury, London, on WEDNESDAY, the Twenty-sixth day of July instant, at Two o'clock preesely, pursuant to the Act of Incorpor,tion: and that the Register of Trawlers dill be closed for fourteen days from the twelfth day of July instant. Now ready, at all the Llhrariem, In three v.'s., iM SLICK'S NEW WORK, " THE AME- K. 7 it IVA NS AT BONI ; or, BYEWATS, BACKWOODS. and PILAU:UM Ld:ted by the Author of " Sam Slick." "One of the most amasimf hooks we ever r , ad." Standard. " The Americans at Home' will not be less pcpul than any of Judge Haliburton's previous works."—Morning Post. thirst and Mackeit, Publishers, sucessors to Henry Colburn, 13, Great Al arlborough-street. The Earl of CHICHESTER presented a petition from Lewes against the employment of dogs in drawing carts. CFt LIE LTY 'TO ANIMALS BIL Lord ST. LEONARDS, in moving the second read ing of this bill, said its object was simply to extend the present law against the use of dog-carts, which was applicable only to the metropolis to all parts of the country. By order. y J. S. FOURDILLNIER, Secretary. Lothbury, July 5, 18!. 4. HAN WELL COLLEGE and PRE PARATOR LSL'HUO. The Vacation closes the 2 Ith inst "rianwell College, conducted by Dr. Elm tton, is fullrsustaining the high character it has acquired. We find that former pupils of Hanwell College have been either h.gh wranzlers or first-class men of our Universitiesduring tit- present year; and this is the twentieth in stance of success at Sandhurst or Add ise , .m be we have had to record within a short time."— United ziervice Gazette. Prospectuses may be had on application to the Rev. Dr. EmEarost, Hanwell College, Middlesex. NEXT OF KIN.—If the Relations or Next of Kin of WILLIAM FttEDERI(:K GOODYER, late of N - o. 5, Ladbroke-place East, Notting-hill, in the County of Middlesex, Surgeon, who did on or ahiut the 29th of M:ty, 1853, will apply to the solicitor for the affairs of her Majesty's Treasury, at trio Treasury Chambers, Whitehall, Lcnuon, they may hear of something to their advantage. C ARSON'S CREEK CONSOLIDATED COMPA NY.— Me Dir.ctnrs be,,t to announce that the question submitted to the votes of the shareholders, 01 procepdin; With or abando• ing the undertaking of this Company, under the cir cumstances set forth in the " Statement" ad tressed to the Share holders, under the d ite of the 6th of June hst, has results.: in the following returns being sent in to the °dice : Total number of votes sent In 53,200 For proceeding .. •• • • ........ • 37,465 For abandoning ...• • • 15,735 Majority for proceeding .... 21,730 Which majority is ii.dependent of the shares held by the Directors, who (lid not vote. Lists, in numerical order of t' e dmoting numbers of the shaves 'n respect of which votes have been recortl.-d, may be obtained on application to the Secretary, at ih, Company's otlices. By Order, H. N r:S I ', ,secretary. Allhalo% s-chambers, Lombard-street, July 1, 1554. THE MAIL STEAM-SHIP for AUSTRALIA, August 4, 1854.—The magniticii,t screw steam -sMp AL CUM," 1,800 tons, Captain J. Goonam,, another of the tine fleet belonging to the General Screw Steam Shipping Comp ny will be despatched with her Majes y' Mails for Adel - tide, Port-Phillo, awl Sydn , y, on the 4 - h August next. This fie vessel has maintained het high reputation for rapid sa Inc an i punctuality, and is a sitter ship to t e " Argo." which has made the quickest v y.ege to and from Australia up to this time. The Calcutta has been employe I carrying the Mails to and from England and Calcutta, and from her superior sailing and steaming qualities, it may be fairly assumed that she will make the run in 60 thy's. Rates of Passage from 30 to 100 guineas. She will be followed, on the 4th of October, by the acnsus, of 2,500 tons. Full particulars as to Frei. ht and Passage Money at the Com pany's Officer, '7 Cannon-street, City. STEAM TO THE CAPE OF GOOD HOPE. In compliance with numerous applications from persons de siring to proceed to the Cape of Good Hope, the Directors of the General Screw Steam Shippitg Company have determined to de- Eltatch their Steam ship " CAcE OF GOOD I iOCE ' to TABLE BAY, on the 7th of Jule next. Th " Cape of :food Hope," R. I BENSON, Commander, has just returned from a most successful voyage to Constantinople with passengers and general cargo, 700 lons burthen, and 100 horse-pow , r Built by Messrs. Mare & Co., of Biackwail, and an extremely fast ship. lier a , commodations for faseengers are little if at all inferior to thiscompany's flat-cia-s steam ships so well known os the Cape and ('alcutt a line. Thr rates of passage money are,—: - iist Class, 60 and 65 Guineas ea .h ; Sec nd (lass 35 to 45 Guineas each. The ship will load and sail from South ampton As her capacity for pass, tigers and freight is limited. early application should be made to the Company's Offices, 27, Cannon- Street, City. LAURENT'S CASI NO, ARGYLE Rooms, (Lessee, Cuss. C. LAIJ&SNT, Onslow-bouse, Fulham-road), —The above Rooms are now OPEN FOR THE SEASON. and will continue open every evening, with LAURENT'S CELEBRATED BAND. Constantinople Quadrille, Sultan Polka, Fair Star Waltz, and Overland Mail Galop, by D'Albert ; a!so, by 11. Launnt , the following Waltzes La belle Fraucaise, Leonora, Villi kins and his Dinah, Admission, is. Doors open at half-past 8. Dancing to commence at 9 o'clock, and terwinate at half-past 11. ROYAL POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTION. Under the Patronage of H.R.H. PRINCv. ALBERT. The Pub is is respectfully informed that this Establishment is now placed UNDER ENTIRELY NEW MAN GEMENT. and that alterations and improvements are in progre.s in alt its department., whi , h it is hoped will render it even more worthy of the support of the public than it has hitherto been. Ccmmuntcattons in future should be addressed to d. H. Pepper, Esq., the Heald eat Direc - or. All the LECTI'RES, OPTICAL and other EXHIBITIONS, are continued as usual. Open daily from Eleven till Five, and every Evzning except Satur day from Seven tid Ten. • "7t., Admission, Is.; Schools and Children under ten years of age, - • TRIESEMAR, protected by Royal Letters Patent of England, and secured by the Seals of the Ecole de Pharmacie de Paris, and the Imperial College Medicine, Vienna. TR tEsElt AR, No. 1, 8 a remedy for Relaxation, Spermatorrhon, and Exhaustion of the System. TRIESEMAR, No. 2, effectually, in the short space of three days, ccmpletely and entirely eradicates all traces of those Disorders which Caoivi and cubits have so long been thought an antidote for, to the rain of the health of a vast portion of the popnlation TRIr..;-EII.IR, No. 3, is the great Cont nental Remedy for that class of Disorders. which unfortunately the English physic an treats with Mercury, to the ,n -evltable destruction of the patient's constitution, and which all the sarsaparilla in the world cannot remove. TRIEsEMAR, No 1,2, and 3, are alike devoid of taste or smell, and of all nauseating qualities. They may lie on the toilet table Without their usr being suspected. Sold in tin cases at I ls. each, free by post, 2s. extra, divided late separate doses, as adminstered by Valpeau, Lallemtiod, Roux. &c., &c.—To be had Wholesale and Retail in London of Robert John ton, 68, Cornhill ; Hannay and Co., 63, Oxford-street; and danger, 150, Oxford-street. jT NITY OF FRANCE AND ENGL AND.- Mutual co-operation has taken place-an unite of interests has been discovered, that will render the two nations the admired oi of every kingdom i n earth. They have their tastinct talents and peculiarities, but, once amalgamated, there Is no bound to their pro gress. It will have been observe! that E. MOSES and SON were the first to exhibit the commercial consequences of the unity of France and England. France produced its fancy fabrics for SUM MER ATTIRE, and E. MOSES and SON fashioned them into the most approved costume for that s.a.son, for special or ordinary wear, Thus France has produced for E. M. )S ES and SON. and they have manufactured for them—having their Patrons in France as well as all other countries. E. MOSES and SON never overlooked the advantages which the Public derive from the unity of France and England—their present stock of SUMMER ATTIRE is the mot sati , fa.qory 11,u , tration which could be attained in HATS, CAPS, FANCY H)►SIERY, LADIES' DRESSES, sII kWLS, MANTLES, PARASOLS, &c France and England are reprkseeted in the most ffictlve manlier at E. MOSES and SON'S City and West end Branch Estahli , hments, and the benefits of the international compact are discerned in the very economical prices charged for the most elegant articles of the season. JUVENILE ATTIRE, which E. MOSES and SON have produced for the MIDSUMMER HOMO tYS, partakes of all these advan tages, and is distinguished for novelty and cheapness, which exceeds all termer preparations. The WHOLESALE DEPARTMENT, which is the largest and Most select Stock of SHIRTS, HOOTS, an i SHOEs, &c., secures the most desirable advantages to Merchants, Captains, Emigrants, orCountry Buyers, the articles being much better and considerably Cheaper than at any other house. Full LIST-' of OUTFITS for Ladies and Gentlemen, with ship- Bailing Information, may be had on application Brat s or post free. CAUTION.—E. MOSES and SON regret having to guard Lhe against Imposition, having learned that the untradesman-like falieht 01 of " Being connected with their Establishment," or " It's the same concern," has been resorted to in many instances, ann for obvious reasons, they beg to state that they have No CONNEXION WITH ANY OTHER HOUSE IN OR OUT OF LONDON, except their own Establishments, as follows t Londen City Establishment, 154, 155. 156, and 157, Minories, 84, 85, and 86, Aldgate, opposite the Church, all communicating. London West-end Branch, 506, 507, 508, New Oxford-street, 1, 2, and 3, Hart-street, all commuicatlng. Bradford (Yorkshire) Branch, 19 and 20, Bridge-street. Sheffield Branch, 36, Fargate. Colonial Wholesale Branch, Melbourne, Australia. Merchant Pail°. a Clothiers, Hatters, Hosiers, Furriers, Boot and Shoe Makers, and General Outfitters for Ladies and Gentlemen. IMPORTANT.--Should any article not give satisfaction, it will be exchanged if desired, or, if preferred, the money will be returned Without hesitation. AU goods are marked in plain figures, the lowest price, trom which no abatement can be made. The Establishments are closed from sunse on Fridays to sunset on Saturdays, when business is resumed till 12 o'clock. A new Book, with illustrations, entitled `• The Echo of Pablic Opi nion," containing lull lists of prices, our system et self-measure raent, &c., &c., may be had on application, or post-free. Id l'on parte Francais. Qui 81 parla Italian°. Hier spricht man Deutsch. Aqua sa habla Espano THE SECRET INFIRMITIES OF YOUTH AND MATURITY. Jut published, price 25., illustrated with cases; free by post for 30 stamps, NERVOUS DEBILITY; Its Causes, Symptoms, and Cure.—An Env on Sper- Inatorrhcea, with Practical Observations on a safer and more successful mode of treatment of the diseases of the Generative System, obtained by the use of the Microscope in detecting and distinguishing, by urinary exad.ination, th.+ real cause and t ffevt of every variety of complaint, whether arising from solitary habit, excesses, accident, or climate. tollowed by practical remarks, founded On twenty years' expert-nce in the treatment of Impuissance, Nervous Debility, Local Weakness, -perinatorrhres, &c. To which are added, Commentares on the Physiology of Marriage, with pre cautionary hints on the evils emanating from empirical practice, and on the dangerous remedies advocated by various writers on these important disorders. By SAMUEL LA'MERT, IL% 37, BEDFORD-SQUARE, LONDON, Doctor of Medicine, Matriculated Member of the University of Eldin burgh, Honorary Member of the London Hospital Medical Society. Licentiate of Apothecaries' Hall, London, &c., &C. Theeasential object of this treatise is to point out the fearful con- Sequences resulting from certain habits, irregularities and excesses, Which have produced more misery in Youth, degradation in Man hood, and premature decay at all stages of Life, than, perhaps, any other class of disease known to modern pathologists. Its perusal is particularly recommended to persons entertaining secret doubts of their physical condition, and who are conscious of baring hazarded the health happiness, and privileges to which every human being is entitled. It is absolutely necessary that all men should know, that there are principles of personal manacement which cannot be violated without incurring grievous penalties, and when wisdom and regret succeed the heyday of inconsiderate self-Indulgence, how these penalties May be mitigated, how the sting of their bitterness may be removeil, and how the evil and its consequences may be avoided, and above all, that there Is vcareely any degree of physical infirmity or functional derangement to which the timely aid of science cannot apply a cure. The Author has for a series of years been engaged in an extensive Practice in the treatment of these delicate complaints, which are Unfortunately been too generally confided to the care of ignorant einpirlcs, who inflict great injury on those who are induced to place faith in '.heir pretensions. NERVOUS DEBILITY may be had, price 2s, of Messrs. Piper, Brothen. and Co., 23, Paternoster-row; Hannay, 63, Oxford-street ; Mann 39, Cprnhill ; or tree by post for thirty st amps, to any address from the Author's residence, 37, Bedford-square. At home tor consuatatips daily from Liam till Two, and from ma till Eight. Jast published, New and Improved Edition, price Is rHE CURABILITY of CONSUMPTION ; being a Series of Papers, presenting the most proinnent and important Vractical Points in the Treatment of the Disease. By FRANCIS El. RANIADGE, Fellow of the College of Physicians, late Senior Physician to the Royal Infirmary Mr Diseases of the Chest, Re. Also, by the same Author, A TREATISE on Asrinik and cn DISEASES of the HEART Price 10s. 6d. London: Longman, 1.1. i own, Green, and Longmans. PURSUANT to an Order of the High Court of chancery, made in a caT.e, TItUEM N against HORN CASTLE, the Crediiors of NIOMA , CIIES rE it, le a of the Haven Farm, in the parish -f Firfieck, in the County of Yo t, farmer, de ceased, who died 'nor about the month of Octobe , , 1851. are. by ti.eir Solicitors, on or before the Twentieth day of July. 1854. to come in and prove their ebts, at the Chatn•,ers of the Vice•Ch.,cell .r Sir Richard Ice in Kindersley, No. 15, Old square, Lincoln' -inn, Middle sex; or in default thereof, they will be peremptorily excluded from the benefit of the said Order._ :Monday, the 24th day of duly, 1854, at f 2 o'clock at noon, at the said Chambers, is appointed for hearing and adjudicating upon the Dated this 19th day of June, 1854. CHARLES PUGH, Chief Clerk. ROB T. GALLA D, 2, Coleman-street-buildings, lloolgate-street, London, agent for W. E. S 311 Th, oo,.c.ister, Plaintiffs Solicitor, IRELAND, LOUGHCOOTER CASTLE, GORT, COUNTY GAI, .X Y.- lAIP , R FAN I' to API PA LF , TS. —I is intended to suirna to i übl,c Competition, earl) in zhe %,onill of August next, at the Commercial Bodin:us, in the city of Dublin (unless ,reviomdy deposed of by private cmtractj, the Fee-simple and Inheritance ut the Castle, Offices, an t Dcniesne oY Loughcooter, contairtinz about 1,260 ~ c res, sta ute me,,isure, and on vt hien a su,n exceeding 81,00.4. was expended by the late proprietor, Lord Viscou , t ott, together with t .e Lake (three miles in lemth), and Is:ands therein. A Pa-liamentary Title c,n be given. Full particulars will at)! ear in fuzure a Ivertisements. For all turth r inform itiun app icaLloti to be made to James Sin nott, Solicit r, 23. Low,:r Ormond Quay, Dublin, who is authorised to receive proposals for the purchase of same, and from whom tickets to view may be had. N ATION -AL LOAN FUND FIFE ASSUR ANCE SOCIETY. 26, CORNHILL, LONDON, 21st June, 1851 NOTICE IS HEREBY . GIVEN, That the HALF-YEARLY IN TEREST on the CAPITAL STUCK of this SOCIETY, at the gate of 5 per cent. per annum, due on the 30tu instant, together with the oeclared at the annual meetihg m ay last, will become payable on the loth July text, and proprietors may receive the same at this Office on that or any subsequent day, between the hours of II and 3 o'clock. And notice is ez, by given, that the Transfer li.oks of the Society wit close on the 30,h inst., and open on the I Ith day of July next. By order of the Court of Directors. IV. S. B. WOOL IiOUSE. Actuary. IMPORTANT TO HOUSES OF BUSINESS, llRductiPn on the Gov rnment Duty on Fire Insur tuces to Insurers. 'UNITY FIRE INSURANCE ASSOCIATION. Capital Two millions, with Seven Thousand ~ harehol.,e, s . Oftici,:-40, L. radon. Insurers in the " UNITY " are allowed the lull Discount which the Office receives from the Government upon :he Duty char;eable opt 111,4 r I'oldes, at the rate of 5/. per ce-rt. on Country, slid 41. per cent. on Lundon policies. insurers receive Two-thirds ca the fronts Parties desirous of thiuring with this Asso,dation may be person:try waned upon by a gentleman from the °thee, and thus be spared all trou.,le or loss of time. App.cations for Prospectu.ses, Agencies, and all other information, are reci 1 e,ted to he made to . THOMAS H. BAYLIS, General Manager and Secretary. LAW UNION FIRE and LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY. Chief Codices', 45, Pall-mall. Capital, One In 100,000 Shares of 101. earls. The Fire and Lite Depart- ments are under one management, but with separate funds and accounts. DIRECTORS. Sir WIULTAM FOS r P.; hart., Cha:rman JAMES PARKER, Esq., Iladdow-house, near Chelmsford, Vice- Chairman Mr. Serjeant Manning, Q A.S., 3, Serjeards-inn Jatnes Alexander Douglas, Esq., 16, llu,sel-squa , e E. Slaughter, E-q., 15, Alatit;field-stre,t, PortlAid-pine John Wooltett, Esq., Barrister-at-Law, 5, Brick-cow t, Temple Charles Foster, Esq., taucolu's-inn, and 13, Bruton-street, Berkeey- squ,ro JAntes Caddo'', Esq., Norwich Charles John Whishaw, Esq., 3, Gray's-inn-square John Lambert, Esq. -alisbury JS. Hirnes, EiqL, Clerk of the Peace, Colchester , R. J. S'ssoo, Esq , St. Asaph Edward Burkitt, Esq., Currers'-h ill, London-wall Henry Mason, Esq., firm Lindsay and Mason, 84. B isinghaThstreet J. Molyneux cayior, h:sq , 2, J ht-street, B xliord.:ow J. C. hees, 3t, fields Charksdonu kahmtr, kart, eat —lisrmouth Edward King, Esq , B tit J F Pobiti.on, Th..l Hall, Ha lltigh, Francis itidout Ward, Esq.. > nstol John Batten, jun , Esq., Yeovil Henry Trern..n , eere John , , Esq , Itingwo3d, Hants J , ,seph Coverdale, Esq., I mtatestune-hall. E-sex Vateent Gosford, Esq., Cheritou, esf, d. ~ ..ants H. E. NI a:sh Esq .2, viansion-house, City Medical Di ectur—henry Hancock", , 59, Harley-street, Given lish-square. SECURITIES' COMMITTEE. Sir William Fester, Rai t Charle J Whish:tw, Esq. James uddon, Jo,,e,4o: ti verdale, Esq. S tan di ng Counsel—Wm, 11 : 7e,, i, ]sq., 4, ew-square, Lincoln's-Inn. Vincent Gosford, Esq. ' H. E. Marsh, Esq. James carker, t,q Haymarket. So eco,—Gcorge Joint Duri an , , Pall-m.lll. Lond Ba ikeri—Mesirs. Bouvtri ., an .1 Co., Haymarket.. C(.untry Bike s-31e...rs lx .rney and co., N orwic h. lieiical Arivis2rs--obe-t Barnes, Esq , Loud , C.P., 13, D evon shire squire ; Hy. [lane , ck, Esq., F.R.C.S., 59, !Earley street, Cavery , ish.square . Consultin4Actuary —Art , ur Serateliley, E4(1.• NI.A..Cantab.,F.R.A.S. In the FIR& Da'Aill'AlENT. The terms are in general the same as those of the principal fire insurance offices. The buslrwss is coillned to the best clasei of insurance. The advantages consiA in— The ex , ent .:f the ca ,ita.l responsible for losses. The return to the insurer of the discount all owed by Government on the duty. The liberality and promptitude with which the business is con ducted. In the LIFE DEPART lIENT. The henntits of mutual insuraticz are corn tined with the advantage of the guarantee or an ample sub-tribe I cap tal. 'the Premiurns have been calculated on the latest report of the Iteg•strar•GeneraL and are as economical as culls scent with safety. whole-world policies granted on payment of a small fixed addi tional Premium. Policies indisputable, except in cases of fraud. Assign:netils of Policies registered and acknowledged. Loans on reversions, ife intere,ts. &c. The leg bu-iness in eonnec!lon wits mortgages may Oilier judi cious remlation•) be transacted by slicitirs of known respectability, being share - oilers. Fire and Lite proplsals will be received and every inform ttion t ven at the chief offices, 4i, Pall-mall ; at Edward liurkitt, Esq , Currlers'-hall, Lor,don-wall; at .1. s, Esq., 38, Lincoln's-int - 1- ft 1.(18; .lies-r:. Lin !s ty and ‘las.n's, 84, Bas lighall-street ; and H, E. Marsh, E , l , Charlotte-row, Lo rd .n ; and at the offices of any of the Country isire-tors. Forms of proposal, &c , pest free, on application to t' ,, e Secretary, FRANK Al' iEDV. A RE YOU GOING TO THE HIGHLANDS Tlll4 SEASON ? If so, you must visit the T IRTAN and TWEED WAREHOUSE, 12, High-street, Trivcrnesq. where you wi'l find the spoendid speci mens of Highland anuiacture which valued V e Prize "'teal in the Great Exhibition in 1t451, and the INDUSTRY and 'eItODUC PIONS of the HIGHLANDS of SCOTLAND, and CLOTHING of every kind for DEER-STA ',KING, GROUSE-SHOOTING, and for Ladies and Gentlemen TOURI,TS' Wear, with an unrivalled selection of Plaids, Shawls, and Ladies' Tartans, Tweed,, and Linsey Woolseys, &c., &c. D. MACDOUGALL. Inverness. Mil. and all his Patterns may be seen at 19A, Golden-square, London, from 2 to 6 o'clock, until Ist July. DR. DE JONGH'S LIGHT BROWN COD LIVER OlL.—The most effectual remedy for Consumption, Brochiti., Asthma, Gout, Rheumatism, and all Scrofulous Complaints. Pure and unadulterate I, containing all its most active an I essential principles—effecting a cure much more rapidly than any other kind. Prescribed by the most eminent medical men, and supplied to the I , ading hospitals of Europe. Half-pint bottles, 2a. Gd. ; pints, 4s 94. Imperial Measure.—Wholesale and retail depot. ANSAR, HAR FORD, and CO., 77, Strand. CAUTION. —Messrs. ALLSOPP and SONS find it necessary to elution the Public, grid especially Shippers of their ties to the C. lo ies, aga nst 'rands committed by parties in selling spurious Ales for those of Messrs. Allsopp and - , ons. Messrs. ALLSOPI.' and SS have felt compelled by the extent to which this disgraceful practice has !!Qell carried, to proceed in several cases by obtaining injunctions from the Court of Chancery, and have ultimately been driven to pro •ecute criminally for the coin mission of this offence. They beg t c iii attention to the Case of the QUEEN 'Y. GRAY and GOBLIN, in which Lord CAmpt ell sentenced the parties charged to " Twelve Months' imprisonment, with Hard Labour."—Vide " Times" and " Morning Advertiser," of the 18th May. Messrs. ALLSOPP and SONS will thank all persons having Tea• son to doubt the genuineness of any article sold under their mime, to send them the earliest information, In order that immediate steps may be taken for prosecuting the parties. Me srs. A Li. , OPP and SONS w.ll be happy to furnish the names of respectable houses, where, a supply of their Ales may be depended on as genuine from the Brewery. Brewery, Burton-on• Trent. ARCHMOLOGICAL INSTITUTE.—The approaching meet ing of the Institute at Cambridge promises in every respect to he attended with the most interesting results. Both the University and the municipal authorities show every wish to promote the objects of the society, whose opening meeting will take place on Tuesday evening, when it is believed that a discourse will he given by the Disney Professor of Archaeology, Cambridge being the only university in this country which at present has recognised the subject as of sufficient importance to be entitled to a professorship, founded there by the libe rality of a private individual. The town-clerk will also read a memoir on local subjects. The Prince Consort has graciously intimated his intention of being present at the proceedings on Wednesday, which will take place at twelve o'clock, in the Senate•house. On this occa sion Dr. Guest is expected to read a dissertation on the remarkable boundary Dykes of Cambridgeshire, which are probably to be regarded as the vestiges of the great struggle which occurred in the eastern parts of Britain about the commencement of the Christian era. Profes sor Willis has also prepared an architectural survey of all the ancient buildings of note in the University, which he will n• doubt illustrate with his accustomed success. The following days will be distributed amongst excur sions to Bury, Ely, Audley-end, and Hengrave, and in the intervals the sectional business will be carried on. Several valuable communications have been announced from Mr. Weetmacott, the Ron. R, C, Neville, and Dr, Bruce. The Earl of EGLINTON was sorry to differ from his noble at:d learned friend as to the necessity of the bill, which he considered was a piece of over legislation. He never yet heard a case mentioned, on authority, of a dog having gone mad in conse quence of being used in drawing carts. He moved that the bill be read a third time this day three mouths. Lord BROUGHAM considered that, as dogs were not designed by Providence for the purposes of draught, it was an act of cruelty to employ them in carts. The Marquis of WESTMINSTER tendered his thanks to Lord St. Leonards for introducing the bill. If the present law were allowed to remain, it ought to be ap plied to all the country districts, where the nuisance of dog-carts was more felt than even it was formerly in London. Lord HATHERTON was understood to support the bill The Earl of MALMESi3URY said there were 1,500 persons in Sussex at.d Hampshire alone who got their living by means of these dog-carts, and if this bill passel their property would be confiscated. - They were to be made liable to an imprisonment of three calendar month, for driving dogs., which was out of all proportion with the offence. They should take care that in preventing cruelty to dogs they were not inflicting cruelty on men. The Duke of ARGYLL said the arguments against the bill were not conclusive. They prevented the use of dog-carts in London, and if they committed an injustic, then, it ini;„ht well be argued that they ought to commit it now. (Much laughter.) Earl GRANVILLE thought the argument of hi= noble friend was not calculated to recommend the bill. (Hear, hear.) It appeared to him that the case of cru elty had broken down. It was said that dogs were no: beasts of draught, but this very bill showed that they were. (Hear, hear.) He thought it was a dangerous principle to legislate against dog-carts, the means of living of one class of persons—because they were less respectable than the carts of the class above them. (Hear, hear.) The Earl of CHICHESTER supported the bill. The Earl of WICKLOW said this bill had passed the House of Commons. It was not right, therefore, to say that it was petty or over legislation. The number of petitions in favour of the bill showed that it was neces sary. He believed that the employment of donkeys or asses would be more economical. The Earl of EGLINTON withdrew his amendment, but signified his intention of pressing it in committee. The second reading was then agreed to. ECCLESIASTICAL COURTS BILL. On the motion of Lord BROUGHAM, the Ecclesiastical Courts Bill, the object of which is to enable those court, , to take evidence vird voce, was, after a discussion, read the second time. The Bishop of DOWN and CONNOR gave notice of his intention to move in committee that the operation of the hill should be extended to Ireland. The Bleaching, &c., Works Bill, the Customs Dutie - , (Surr. - tr and Spirits) Bill, the Excise Duties (Sugar) Bill anti the Warwick Assizes Bill, severally went througl, committee. The Encumbered Estates (West Indies) Bill was read a third time and passed. The Vice-Admiralty Court (Mauritius) Bill was read a second time, and Their lordships adjourned at 7 o'clock. HOUSE OF COMMONS—(YESTERDAY.) The SPEAKER took the chair at 12 o'clock. PRIVATE BUSINESS. The Lords Amendments to the following bills were considered and agreed to :—Bolton Improvement; Brad ford, Wakefield, and Leeds Railway ; Leeds, Bradford, and Halifax Junction Railway ; York, Newcastle, and Berwick Railway (Construction of Docks, &c.) The following Estates bills were read a third time and passed :—Flerning's Estate ; Masters' Estate ; Smith's Charity Estate ; Thornhiles (Clara) Estate. The Oxford Poor Rate Bill was ordered to be read a third time to-morrow. The Aberdeen Shoemakers Trade Estate Bill and the Ratcliff Gas Company Relief Bill were read a second time, and ordered to be committed. PETITIONS. Petitions were presented . bfMr. GREENE, from Lan caster, against the Mortmain Bid ; Mr. GEO. DIINDAS. from a place in Scotland, against the Scotland Valuation Bill ; Mr. I. Burr, from the Secretary of the late Board of Eleaith, in Ireland, complaining that his office had b,en abolished without compensation. VALUATION OF LAND (SCOTLAND) BILL. The house then went into committee on this bill. Mr. A. HASTIE moved as an amendment to clause 4, that the time br giving notice of valuation under tie bill should be extended from the 15th to the 31st of August. The committee divided, when there appeared, For the amendment. Against it 39 —24 The amendment was consequently lost, and the clause was agreed to. Mr:DUNLOP moved the following proviso at the end of clause 5 : —Provided also, that when lands and te f h e d e u t ogd roundruet relief e for fromannual, ground th e s a t al annual, the heritages othr e tphreoppr iae a rt r toy e r s si u nh b a j l e rl b t g eh to te ot a fi t to deduction from the fen duty or ground annual payable by him, of such proportion of all assessments laid on according to the valuations made under this act, which, in so far as effairs to such feu duty or ground annual, such proprietor is not by contract or obligatioi, in his titles, or by law, liable in payment of, and that without relief, as shall correspond to the amount of such feu duty or ground annual as compared with the amount of the valuation of such lands and heritages under this act." there After ap;:e r o a m t r heeed — di sc ussion, the committee divided, when 23 proviso 52 Against it —29 Majority The proviso was accordingly lost. to 14 inclusive. Clause 5 was agreed to ; as we re also clauses from 6 On clause 15, vie lV w lr t . o C a ß ho tU sh Ff ie ß tin D ut m io o n v s e o d f parnopearmtyendbrmouegnht w t tc i ) t v h ai t u h a e . tion. The committee divided, when there appeared — For the amendment 26 Against it 56-30 The amendment was consequently lost, and the clause was agreed to. The remaining clauses were then agreed to. Mr. E. ELLICE than moved the following new clause :—" That no minister, or pastor, or preacher, or priest of any Christian congregation, of any donomina tion, shall be liable to any rate or assessment, in respect of his manse, glebe, or stipend, or the annual salary or emolument of his office, from whatever source derived, anything iu the said act of the Bth and 9th Vic., cap. 83, or in anv other act or act of Parliament to the con trary notwithstanding." After some discussion the clause was agreed to. Some other new clauses were proposed and agreed to, and the bill, as amended, was reported, and the house resumed. PAROCHIAL SCHOOLMASTERS' (SCOTLAND) BILL. This bill passed through committee without discus sion, and the house again resumed. SUPPLY—REPORT. Mr. BOUVERIE then brought up the report of the committee of supply, which was agreed to. At four o'clock the sitting was suspended. The house resumed at six o'clock. CANADIAN AFFAIS. Sir J. PALING' ON wished to put a question to the Secretary for the Colonies in consequence of rumours which prevailed with regard to the recent intelligence from Canada. It was reported that after the opening of the session by the Governer -General an amendment had been moved to the address, which had been carried against the Government, on the question of the clergy reserves, and in consequence of that adverse vote, the Governor was abont to dissolve the legislature, and that a change of the ministry was about to take place. He wished to ask whether the right hon. gentleman had received any official intelligence on the subj ec t ? Sir G. GREY said her Hajesty' s G overnmen t h a d no t received any official intelligence on the subject. The latest accounts were contained in a despatch from Lord Elgin, dated the 17th ult. and containing his speech on the opening of the session, but no further intelligence had been received. THE ECCLESIASTICAL COURTS. THE TESTAMENTARY JURISDICTION BILL GIVEN UP. Mr. WALPOLE said that a bill relating to matrimony and divorci had bee❑ introduced into the other house, and it was probable that or bills relating to church discipline, church rates, and other matters over which Ecclesiastic d Courts ha I jurisdiction, would also be introduced. He wished to put two questions on the subject to the noble lord—firstly, whether the Government thought it right, under these circumstances, to proceed with the Testamen tary Jurisdiction Bill this session ; and whether , s would not be desirable that all the bills relating to the Ecclesias tical Courts should not be before Parliament previous to legislating upon the subject. Lord J. RUSSELL said, since he had last been ques tioned on the subject he bad been in communication with the Lord Chancellor, and he was now in a situation to answer the question of the right hon. gentleman. The Lord Chancellor has introduced into the House of Lords a bill on the subject of divorce ; but as regarded church discipline, no bill had been introduced, and that was a matter which must receive the consideration of the Govern ment. There was much difference of opinion with regard to the nature of the court to which :natters of this kind Lord W. GRAHAM begged to ask — the Lord President of the Council, who is responsible for the translation of a foreign document lately presented to this house, intituled, " Additional Article to the Treaty between Austria and Prussia, dated April 20, 1854," some impoltant words being omitted in the translation. In the 3d paragraph of the convention it was stated that Austrian and Prussia " were united in the derire to avoid every participation in the war between Russia and Turkey, France, and Eng land " In the original Garman the words "if possible" followed after the word " avoid, but they were not to be found in the translation. He wished to know who was responsible for the translation. Lord J. RUSSELL said he could not tell the name of the gentleman who made the translation. The convention was translated in the first instance at Berlin, and certainly this fault in the translation had been inadvertently over looked. RAILWAY ACCIDENTS. _ Mr. SCOTT wished to ask her Majesty's Government whether it was intended, in the present session, to intro duce any measure for the more effectual prevention of rail way accidents ? Mr. CARD WELL said that a bill was drawn on the subject, but he hail nut had time to enable : , him to intro duce it ; -and looking to the period of thlr•prcsent session, he did hot see any prospect of introduoing it so as to pass it into a law this session. THE IRESH MILITIA. Mr. ESMONDE begged to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Dapart.nent whether it was the intention of 4overninent to enrol the Irish militia; and if so, when it was intended to embody them. Lord PALMEMPON said it was the intention of the Governmeat to take steps to embody the whole or a por tion of the Irish militia. With regard to training, it must be leinembered that there was a difference between train ing and embodying; as embodying meant that the men 9hould keep their arms for the whole year. If the num ber of men enrolled was sufficient, the training would take place, but h hardly thought there would be a sufficient number for that purpose iu the present autumn. FAIRS AND MARKETS (IRELAND.) Mr. ESMONDE begged to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether it was the intention of Government to lay on the table, during the present session, a bill for the re gulatio❑ of fairs and markets in Ireland? Mr. KEOGH, in the absence of Sir J. Young, said it was the intention of his right hon. friend to introduce such a measure, but not to proceed further with it than to en ,ble him to collect the opinion of the grand jurors in Ire land upon it. TREATY OF ADRIANOPLE. Lord J. RUSSELL brought up a copy of the despatch written by Lord Aberdeen on the Treaty of Adrianople. NAVAL PRIZES. Mr. J. G. PHILLDIORE rose to move that it is the opinion of this house, that however, from the peculiar cir cumstances of this war, a relaxation of the principle that the goods of an enemy in the ship of a friend are lawful prize, may be justifiable, to renaunce or surrender a right so clearly incorporated with the law of nations, so firmly maintained by us in times of the greatest peril and distress, and so interwoven with our maritime renown, would be in consistent with the security and honour of the country. The bon. gentleman said it was his intention to call the atten tion of the house to the extraordinary deviation which had recently been made from the principle by which Great Bri tain had hitherto been guided in her maritime affairs. That principle was that the goods of an enemy iu the ship of a r'riend are lawful prize. There seemed to be a general opinion that the policy now adopted by the Government, if en grafted on our system of maritime law, would cause a great change in the miseries of war. He was of a different opinion, and it was because he was of that opinion that he was induced to trouble the house with the observations he was about to make. The principle which he had stated, and which had been abandoned, was laid down by all the authorities. It was first laid down in the Consolata del Hare, which had been confirmed by Grotius and Vattel, It was erroneously supposed that the law of France was loss severe than that of England, but in fact it went much further than the principle he had laid down, and even confiscated a friendly ship with enemy's goods on board. There had been private treaties, but thee° private treaties had been made in such a way as to do no injury to this country. They were made with France and with Hol land, with whom we had been always at peace in naval warfare. The first that the principle that free ships made free goods was enunciated by that remarkably unscruplous monarch Frederick the Great, who obtained an exposition des motifs, which, however, was completely answered. In liBB the Baltic Confederation was formed, but we refused to allow that principle. He thought he had established his position aslar as maritime European authorities went. But there were American authorities. In 1793, Mr. Jef fereon, writing oe this subject, sai..l,,•—`! The general law nations was that the goods of an enemy were lawful prize if found on the vessel of a neutral." There was also a letter from Secretary Pinkey on the same subject, incul cating tho same principles. There was also the opinion of : - ,"haticellor Kent, who said :—" Neutral ships do not create a protection for an enemy's property, which may be seized if found on board a neutral vessel beyond the limits of the neutral's territory." The same principle was laid down by Mr. Wheaton, in his book. Then Chan eellor Kent said,—" There is also a marked difference in she rights of war carried on by land and sea." But was it true that continental proceedings formed a striking cantrast to our own ? What was the character of Turenne ? ,Vhat was the character of Frederick the Great What were the instructions given to the French generals during she last century? The fact was that the injury committed 'u continental war was often wonton and unnecessary, whereas in maritime war it was absolutely essential that that which alone could justify any war, that which would di minish the enemy's power should be dons. There being no doubt as to the authorities, let them now consider the rea son of the thing. He took it for granted that those prin ciples should prevail which would render war less probable, but if the principle that free ships made free goods was to prevail, it would have a tendency to increase the probabi lities of war ; it tended to make a neutral nation involve other nations in war because they then gained advantages from which at other times they were excluded. What principle was it that contraband of war, and on wh ich they c onfiscated a ship allowt,bthere o et c rde k o a m a d uy th bilmet himself. belligerent s . a o r t prohibited neutrals from carrying carrying despatches, or which attempted to break a d t o he th p at ri b ncip a le ne t u h t a ra t l they return,and t r but sure thatex pe n r d e e l : s u l tu' r s tr a h e h ey ich w h o e uld cou n l o d t should surely l there oidtupwl ydwramas anothernisuoctdesirablee btheeobtained greatest b tte principle bs they blood possible 'Mowed their enemy to enjoy a great many of the advan tages of peace, whi c h h e would enjoy if he was a ll owe d t o carry on by neut ra l s hi ps that commerce w hi c h h e cou ld not otherwise car r y on. He could perfectly un d ers t an d his hon. friends the members for Manchester and the West Riding, who held the benevolent., but as he thought, the mistaken principle, that war ought to be abandoned. If they went upon the Mr. T. MITCHELL saaigdriee have the advantage of war against him, then they peace while they were carrying on principle that their enemy . should . ea Q te ni s Qui te enitehaeurseovferesoee. their ships and isband trusted that they would their army. For these reasons he should be consistent to recall would second the resolution, because he had promised some time ago to do so, but he to his resolution. that coutherelcould b be could not concur in the first part of it.He certainly had no interest in objecting to the relaxations which had been made was no man well acquainted with Russia who was not of employed against that country was closing the trade with it. o b p y in th io e n G t o h v a e t rn th m e en g t t That country exported of late years about 15,000,0001. worth of produce annually, a large portion of which went directly in the shape of revenu e to the large landowners ; and if they stopped up that outlet it was tantamount to coercion believedtha destroying the revenue of the landowners—the only class that had any influence on the Government except the Em peror himself. The proper course we should adopt was to stop the whole export trade of that country. Instead of that considerable relaxations h ad been made. The First Lord of the Admiralty had no doubt acted from the repre sentations made to him, but he (Mr. Mitchell) was con vinced that the course pursued was an erroneous one. In December, when it was almost certain that a war would take place with Russia, two of the most eminent merchants went to Lord Clarendon and asked if it would be safe to make the usual advances to Russian merchants. Lord Clarendon, more frankly than he Should have expected, told them it would be hi g hly unsafe fo r English merchants to make those advances. They did not make them, and the consequence was that the value of goods in Russia de clined 20 per cent., and most of the Russian houses ab stained almost entirely from trade with Russia. A. few houses however bought is considerable quantity of goods at sed a reduction of 2 0 per cent. cau Ss the general feeling in the trade, and by Lo rd Clarendon b s information, and when war proclaimed they went clamorously to th e G overnment and said " We boug ht these goods before any declaration of war ; we had no idea of war, and we call on you t o l e t us take the goods away from Russia." A period was gained no to the 15th of May, and he believed that 115 vessels went to Riga, and a t least half the goods they were l oa d e d with were actually b o ught at Riga after the d ec l ara ti on o f war. Then it was intimated that a blockade was to take place of Archangel, but it was h not known w h en , an d is wome vessels were being abo ut, at t_ _ t, to be sent to Archangel to be taken away before the n block a d e . Then with regard to the Black Sea, they had had a distinct inti mation that there would be a blockade of the Black Sea, but no blockade had taken place, and neutr Ivessels were g •ne there earning m ost enormous frei g hts ; and while going there ea ruine most enormous freights; and while English merchants had refrained from operations, a nunr• her of Greek merchants were buying up goods at rates which would yield a high profit, and wore loading these neutral vessels which wore getting freights, which he hail no hesitation in saying wo uld pay 50 per cent. on th e cos t of the vessels. He spoke of the feeling of trade, and he said if they were to have a blockade let them know when it was to take place, so that they might be put on the same footing as their neighbours, and act accordingly. Now, with reference more particularly to the motion, there was no doubt that to a certain extent they could not prevent the transit of goods between Prussia and Russia, and if they prevented the inspection of goods on neutral vessels, the trade would be extended. The fact was, that goods sent from Russia might be readily 'distinguished. He happened to know that great fear was entertained that if the right of search was exercised in these neutral vessels, Russian goods would be recognised and seized. Another alteration had been made. On the 11th of April a letter was received either from the Foreign-office or the Board of Trade (he rather thought from the Board of Trade), stating that any British merchant buying goods, the pro perty of an enemy, would be liable to have those goods seized. On the 15th of April, only four days afterwards, an order was made by the Privy Council, entirely abro gating this letter, and stating that they were perfectly free to buy goods in Russia, and to have them shipped Now that had had a most important effect on the trade with Russia. Up to that period the English houses connected with Russia, and who, he might say, had nearly the whole trade of that country—and they were most of them houses of 50 years' standing or upwards—he happened to know had a very strong feeling indeed to do nothing against the law of this country. Of course he could speak for his own house, but he believed he could speak for all the great English houses, that they had made up their minds not to buy any produce of Russia which would have been unlawful and could have encouraged the enemy. They, therefore, as a body, determined to have nothing to do with it. But on the 15th of April they found it was lawful to engage iu it, and from that moment they did engage in it. It might be main tained that if English houses did not embark in the trade foreign houses would, but practically that was not so. On the frontier towns of Prussia there was hardly a house possessed of large capital, and without the aid of British capitalists it would have been utterly impossible for them to have bought goods in Russia and brought them to Memel. He had no doubt that the order of the 15th May had led to English houses purchasing goods in Russia and bringing them to Memel. The same trade was now going on, and the Emperor of Russia was affording the merchants every possible facility; but he was speaking there as a British subject, anxious for the speedy termination of the war, and he had taken this opportunity of expressing his opi nion that these continual relaxations in the law, and this utter state of uncertainty, were highly detrimental to British commerce, and was so felt by all classes connected with the trade. He did not say the First Lord of the Ad miralty was responsible, but he was or the Privy Council were. On these grounds he supported the resolution. Sir W. MOLESWORTH—The resolution of th 3 learned gentleman contains two distinct propositions. One is that " from the peculiar circumstances of this war a relaxation of the principles that the goods of an enemy in the ship of a friend are a lawful prize may be justifiable." That is one position. The other proposition is that "to surrender a right so clearly incorporated with the law of nations, so firmly maintained by us in the time of the greatest peril and distress, and so interwoven with our maritime renown, would be inconsistent with the security and honour of the country." Therefore the motion of the learned gentleman raises two distinct questions; one a practical question of political expediency, the other a theoretical question of international law. The theoretical question is whether the subjects of a neutral state ought to abstain altogether from carrying in its ships the goods of belligerents, and herefore, whether a belligerent state ought to have a right of confiscating the goods of its enemy not contraband of war on board the ships of a neutral state. Assuming that the subjects of a neutral state ought to abstain alto gether from carrying in its ships the goods of a belligerent, then the practical question of political expediency is, whe ther, in existing circumstances, it would be wise and politic for this country to seize Russian goods not contraband of war on board neutral vessels, or whether it would be more politic and expedient under existing circumstances to waive for the present that belligerent right. Now with regard to the practical question of political expediency, the learned gentleman has admitted in his resolution and likewise in his speech, that in the peculiar circumstances of the country a relaxation of the principle that the goods of an enemy in the ship of a friend are lawful prize, may be justifiable. I will assume, for the sake of argu ment, that the principle laid down is a sound one, and I will endeavour to demonstrate to the house that in exist ing circumstances it would be wise and expedient for this country to waive this right. But, first, I will consider the theoretical question of international law. The learned gen tleman asks the house, by the terms of his resolution, to declare that to renounce or surrender a right so clearly in corporated with the law of nations, so firmly maintained by , us in times of the greatest peril and distress, and so inter woven with our matitime renown, would be inconsistent with the honour of this country. Therefore, if the house wereof this t° country : gle e . to tained in it. I tt t oh h i i ms nk ai en tertained. Therefore, in order to induce the house to any proposition of the thisntrtua resolut i on, n h h o f u o sr which te w wv i eo l r l u tl a n hd ode p ledg e o in g ts e ih a te y i i o t h s n b o e e n l cfo: honou r of r: en tertain the resolution, the bon. gentleman ought to prove that the proposition is indisputably proved. The learned gentleman has cited many learned authorities in favour of the rule for confiscating an enemy's goods. He began by tracing the origin of it from those dark ages that immedi ately followed the downfall of the Roman empire. He quoted the Consolate del Mare, which was not drawn up till the eleventh century. Then he quoted Grotius. But many of the rules that were laid down by Grotius in his celebrated work have become obsolete in consequence of the progress of humanity, and nothing could be more bold and meagre than the chapter in the great woi k of Grotius on the rights of neutrals—l mean the third chapter of his work. The reason is obvious. Grotins wrote at a period when the rights of neutrals were little understood, and less cared for. In fact, Grotius had only in one single place distinctly referred to the right of confiscating an enemy's goods. The only case where he quotes from the Consolate del Mare in the fourth chapter, in which he merely quotes it without asserting or denying it. Therefore I deny the right of the honourable and learned gentleman to quote the authority of Grotius in favour of the principle that the goods of an enemy in the ship of a friend are lawful prize. The hon. and learned gentleinau..also quoted the authority of Vette], who is a very able writer, but iu the chapter in which he treats of confiscating an enemy's goods in a friend's ship, he merely states that the rule in question is a law of Europe without assigning any reason. The learned gentleman likewise mentioned the names of gentlemen learned in the law, but those gentlemen aro apt to assume that what is law ought to be law; but the hon. and learned gentleman has omitted to mention a great many authorities on this subject. What ought to be the public law of nations, though it is in accordance with the present public law of Europe. For the present public law of Europe may, like the municipal law of many of its in dividual states, be imperfect in some respects, and requ i re amendment ; because the present public law of Europe has derived its origin from two distinct sources, partly from those abstract notions of what is right and just which form what is termed the law of nature ; partly from the custom and usage of nations in their intercourse with each other. It is evident that those rules of the present public law of Europe which are based on correct notions of what is right and just cannot require amendment. Not so those rules of the present public law of Europe which have been founded. on custom and usage ,• for the custom and usage of na tions, especially with regard to war, have frequently been at variance with correct nations of what is right and just ; and the jusbelli which has chiefly been founded upon custom and usage has differed in different nations and in different sets and families of nations; it has varied in the same nation at various periods of its history ; it has changed with the change of the religion, manners, and in stitutions of a nation. Grotius says, " that is often, jus quentiunt in one part of the world which is not so in an other." According to Montesquieu "every nation has its own law of nations, even the Iroquois who beat their pri soners have one, they send and receive ambassadors, they know the laws of war and peace, but the evil is that their law of nations is not founded upon true principles." The question is, is the rule of the English law of nations with regard to the capture of enemy's property onboard neutral ships founded on true principles or not? Though this rule has been generally acted upon by European states in their wars with each other, yet the majority of them have maintained and still maintain, that the rule in question is an improper one, and have constantly endeavoured by means of treaties to expun g e it from the public law of Europe, and to substitute for it the rule that enemy's goods should not be liable to confiscation on board neutral ships. I will refer briefly to the arguments which have been urged ag ainst the rule of confiscating enemy's pro perty on boa rd neutral ships by the persons whom I will call the advocates of the extension of neutral rights. They say, that in the earlier periods of history and among the less civilised nations, the rules of war were far sterner than at present, that the maxim, that it is lawfal for a belligerent to injure his enemy by every possible means, was acted upon to the fullest extent, that neutrals scarcely existed, their rights were unknown, and the law of war was the will of the most potent belligerent. But, say they, the tendency of civilisation has been, and still is, to mitigate the severity of the code of war, to establish and enlarge the rights of neutrals, and to protect weak neutrals against the tyranny of powerful belligerents ; that this tendency has as yet, however, produced less change in the rules of war by sea than in the rules of war by land; that at present the rules of maritime warfare are the same as those which were practised in war by land in rude and barbarous ages; that for instance, private war by land eosithowwshlbiflhihbebetepatjiihdirhtitelirelterftohtainhri ti:etnei has been abolished, but private war by sea is still sanc tioned by the code of maritime war; that to seize the private property of the peaceful subject of an enemy for the sake of gain is repugnant to the usages of modern war by land, and is an act which would meet with the con demnation of all civilised nations, but to do similar acts on the sea, and even to hire foreign buccaneers with a license to pillage peaceful merchants, are conformable to the pre sent rules of maritime war. Now, say the advocates of the extension of neutral rights, though valid reasons may have been assigned why the laws of war should be sterner by sea than by land, why the rights of neutrals should be more limited on the ocean than on the continent ; yet no valid reason has ever been assigned for treating neutrals on the sea in a manner that neutrals on land have never been treated since the existence of neutrals was recognised. (Hear, hear.) They affirm that the rule of capturing enemy's property on board neutral ships was introduced into the public law of Europe at a period when the rights of neutrals were little understood and less eared for, that it was a misapplication to neutrals of the Roman law with regard to the subjects of bellig erents . For when the Eu ropean states which sprung fr om the dismemberment of the Roman empire began to emerge from the barbarism consequent upon the downfall of that empire, the want of some rules to determine the conduct of sovereign states to wards each other began to be felt, and attempts were made to frame an international law. The early legif4; in w a il__ made those attempts were conversant only with th e law m any law, and they adopted as rules of their public laan law. maxims taken without alteration from the .I.tom of neutral In this manner (say the friends of the exten sion public law of neutrals. For the Roman law wa l s aw n Rune. They pun or carrying on board rights) E uro pe a , brave wh which r h r a o a r bweaesn very introduced in injurious r i i i c t , t u o s the ot,t: faptiltitehb the i i o ncoßot i fe a ou r meefeara o rin f aei of nations , but only the municipl lawt h e sounbljecttsi eotefilltme'el t l o ti w ti a i i i i i d a s ep t e h ti e den e t ne n m ef, i t e t s mhj7 o st- f The 1 entitled r t o prohi b it , pro hibited, ought question i o,u a tTd e t ab i e s nh i h n sat et e s teost ic o l i y rrg a o t v sea s obi le f: e loiv r w i x ot e r w ein i e i s t it t g g . ie el h%tiovniehwtgsf,thinihcertetßeoeht with ought 3. ltal were lte regard I h mno , l t im o eet smnttaeeoieo. Roman nt: neofl t i i s e )r yb d ra e : l ) : t v tt e o i th s ° ‘i h , l o u . i a3e nt n ( s ' f' t , onuec Rom e t iee neutrals,i s r i b l i u s • t confiscation of the goods and even of the ships which contained the goods of the enemies of Rome. The sovereigns of Europe adopted the provisions they app li e d those provisions not only to their subjects whom they as sovereigns were entitled to command, but they over whom they had no sovereignty whatever. It is self evident, however, that because a sovereign is entitled to issue certain commands to his subjects, and to punish dis obedient subjects, it does not follow that the URN MT. reign is entitled to give the same commands to free and in dependent nations, and to punish the disobedient as if they were his subjects. Now, under the Roman law, the ship upon which the goods of the enemies of Rome were seized, the ship which was confiscated for containing those goods, and the trade which was prohibited with the enemies of Rome, were the ship and the trade of the subjects of Rome, and not of neutrals. By adopting as rules of the public law of Europe the rules of the Roman law with re gard to commerce with enemies, the sovereigns of Europe have at various periods and repeatedly laid claim to and exercised three rights very injurious to neutrals, namely, the right of capturing enemies' g oods, not only on b oar d the ships of their subjects, b u t also on board the ships of neutrals; secondly, the right of confiscating, not only th© ships of their subjects, but also the ships of a neutral state, for containing enemies' goods ; thirdly, the right of pro hibiting, not only the tr a d e o f th e i r su bj ec t s, b u t a l so o f neutrals, with the enemy. Tho two last of these claims have long since been abandoned in theory, though not in practice ; the first alone now exists, and the friends of the extension of neutral rights affirm that it is destined to share the fate of its companions, and ought immediately to be expunged from the public law of civilised nations. They affirm that a neutral state is entitled in reason and justice to say to a belligerent, " As a neutral, I have nothing to do with your quarrel, you may injure your enemy as much as you like, provided that in so doing you do not injure me ; you may hit your antagonist as hard as you can, but you must not strike me in order to hit him ; and if he hurt you, you must not retaliate upon him by hurting me. All that you, as a belligerent, are entitl e d t o deman cf me as a neutral, is, that I will not tak e any part against you ; that I will not directly succour and aid your enemy; that when you are fighting I will not furnish him with munitions of war ; that when you are blockading his ports, or besieging his towns, 1 will not interfere, nor supply him with the means of prolonged defence ; but:pro vided that I abstain from doin g these things, as a n eu t ra l I am entitled to carry on with your enemy a trade as free and unrestricted as he and I may think proper to permit." For, say the friends for the extension of neutral rights, the sea is free—Grotius has proved it, and Seldon was unable to refute him. Therefore, no portion of the ocean is the exclusive property of any state, except that portion of it which is temporarily occupied by the ship of is state, over that portion the state whose ship occupies it has for the time sole and exclusive jurisdiction. A neutral ship is a floating portion of the territory of a neutral sovereign ; its inhabitants are his subjects ; they are bound to obey his municipal law, and no other law ; if they commit crimes on board the ship, they are tried and punished by his penal law ; and the ownership of every article of property on board the ship is deter mined by his civil law. Therefore, say the friends of the extension of neutral rights, addressing a belligerent sove reign, your quarrel, with which the neutral sovereign has nothing to do, rnd to which as a neutral he ought to be perfectly indifferent, cannot destroy his rights on the free ocean, cannot entitle yeu as a belligerent to interfere, with his floating territoi y more than with his fixed territory. But it must be admitted that the subjects of a neutral sovereign the inhabitants both of his floating territory, and of his fixed territory, ought not to directly aid and succour your enemy ; for if he were to sanction such con duct on the part of his subjects he would cease to be a neu tral, and would become your enemy ; therefore, he ought to prohibit the inhabitants, both of his fixed and of his floating territory, from directly aiding any succouring your antagonist ; and he ought to authorise you as a belligerent, and you ought to be authorised by the law of nations to enforce that prohibition, by visiting his ships and confis cating contraband of war, and by seizing his vessels in the event of their attempting to break through your blockade. But though it must be adulated that the subjects of a neu tral sovereign ought to abstain from doing those things, the evident aim and intention of which are to directly suc cour and aid your antagonist,—ought to abstain from all acts which, if done by his commands, or by his ships of war, would justify you in treating him as an ally of your enemy ; yet it does not follow that the subjects of a neutral sovereign are bound to abstain from doing those things, which without directly succouring and aiding your antago nist, may tend to benefit and enrich him ; and by enrich ing him. may tend to strengthen him; and by strengthen ing him, may tend to render it more difficult for you to vanquish and overcome your enemy. For you must admit that the established and universally recognised laws of European warfare permit the subject of a neutral sovereign to do many things of this description ; that according to the present public law of Europe, he is entitled to trade with your enemy, on every description of goods except contraband of war. He is entitled to enter any one of your enemy's ports which is not strictly blockaded ; he is entitled to laden his ships with goods and merchandise of the produce or manufacture of your enemy ; he is entitled to carry off those goods and mer chandise, and to sell them in other ports. You cannot deny that the subject of a neutral sovereign is entitled by the law of nations to do all these things ; but you affirm that he must do them subject to this strange and extraor dinary condition —that during the period that he is carry ing the goods in question from one port to another they should legally cease to belong to your enemy : and (say the friends of the extension of neutral rights) in order to as certain whether this extraordinary condition is fulfilled you claim as a belligerent the right of stopping neutral ships on the highway of the free ocean, not only for the purpose of ascertaining their nationality, and whether they are carrying contraband of war to your enemy, but for the purpose of searching and minutely inquiring and examining into the legal ownership of every single article of property on board a neutral ship ; and if you find anything on board the ship which you fancy belongs to your enemy—any pro perty the purchase of which from your enemy you suspect has not been completed according to the strict and techni cal rules of your law, you claim as a belligerent the right of detaining the neutral ship, and of compelling it to change its route, and enter one of your ports, in order that your judges may inquire into and determine the ownership of the property in question. Andif your judges decide that, according to the technical rules of that portion of your mu nicipal law, which you call your law of nations, the par chase of the property in question has not been completed, and that its legal ownership is still vested iuyour enemy you claim the right of confiscating that property. And (say the friends of the extension of neutral rights) you claim the right of causing thee powers to be exercised not only by the commanders of your regular ships of war, over whom you have direct control, and who are gentlemen, and have the honour and interest of their country at heart; but you claim the right of delegating these powers—at all times odious and vexatious, and which may be used to the great detriment and injury, and even destruction of the trade and commerce of neutral states—to the freebooters, bucca neers, and foreign cut-throats, who man your privateers, over whom you have little or no control, scourges of the ocean whose object is plunder, and who can only be dis tinguished from pirates by the mark of your licence to pil age. (Hear, hear.) Now (say the friends of the extension of neutral rights) your stakes as a belligerent give you no more right to enter a neutral ship to search for your enemy's property, than to enter a neutral port to search for your enemy's ships. (Hear, hear.) As long as you and the neutral sovereign are at peace, you have no right to meddle with any property on board his ship, except con traband of war. For he is sole and independent sovereign on board his ship, and in virtue of his sovereignty all pro perty on board his ship belongs in fact to him, for he can dispose of it, and does dispose of it, according to his will and pleasure as declared in the rules of his municipal law. Therefore, as long as you and he are at peace, you have no right to ask any questions about any property on board his ship, either how he became possessed of it, or upon what conditions he acquired it, whither he paid for it in hard cash, or obtained it on credit, whether he holds it for his own use or in trust for any body else. To insist upon ask ing these questions, to insist upon determining them in your courts of law, to exercise any power over a neutral ship which the neutral sovereign , does not concede to you, nor admit that you are entitled to exercise according to what he considers ought to be the rules of international law, are acts of violence to which neutrals have submitted only when neutrals have been weak and belligerents strong , and which neutrals have resisted and will aga i n res i s t whrever strong enough to defend their rights. Such is the lan guage which the friends of the extension of neutral rights consider that they are entitled to hold towards a bellige rent power that claims the right of confiscating enemy's goods, not contraband of war, on board neutral ships. They would tell the learned gentleman that the position to the eternal maintenance of which he would pledge the honour of this house and country, so far from being indis putably true, is demonstratively false ' and very many na tions would agree with them. For at various times the great majority of European states have been induced, partly by argument, partly by self-interest, to condemn the rule of capturing enemy's goods on board neutral ships, and they have repeatedly eudeavoured by treaties and conven tions with each other to expunge that rule from the public law of Europe, and to substitute the rule that free ships should give freedom to the goods which they contain. For instance, I find that during the century and a quarter that preceded the French revolution, the all but invariable rule of amicable relations as established by treaty between the great maritime powers of western Europe, viz., between England, France, Spain, the United Provinces_ o Ho ll an d ,f and Portugal, was " free ships, free goods. " That is, that the goods of the enemies of one contra cting power, on n board er,bepiTentaghhciaees belligerent, should not be liable to con fis cation ships of the other contracting power, be i ng a neutr o al f . rule is contained in almost every one of the t re aties and commerce which England concluded ins hhe latter part lof the 17th century and the 18 th century, the p owers which I have just mentioned. Th i s is eahn. ilhopr)otrertiaienrtt.hfaaTtchtle. which I think it affords so strong a havei precedent the Policy nt ewahticoh contains the prin ciplewhich her Majesty's Govetrrnematei will briefly enumerate t he greoZtr,:',/aii wwashtohmiantgnoooftif Westminster, first English treaty fre o e n o P g o r r e t autgearl ever "free ships in the year 1654:between John IV. that warrior anti statesman, yo w fs h eE c: ti, toaile the name and ruled the destinies of t teu r tfit s oon n na a r t ee it vh ni ei and whose alliance flag of Englan by d was co urte d arlerthece Europe. (Hear.) In the 23d article of that treaty it was declared, " That all the goods and merchandise of the enemies of the said re public or king found on b oar d the ships of either, or t heir people, or subjects, shall remain untouched." This treaty was confirmed in 1661 and 1703, and continued unaltered till 1810, when the rule of " free ships, free good" was re nounced. Therefore, for 156 years the invariable rule of our amicabl e intercourse with Portugal was " free ships free goods." (Hear.) I will next pass in review our trea ties with France. Iu the year 1655 the Lord Protector concluded. a treaty of peace with Louis XIV in the 15th article of w hi c h i t is declared that, " Omnes naves ad sub ditos et populares alterutriusque pertinentes, et in marl Mediterraneo, Orientali, sea ocean() negociantes, libera sint, atque etiam onus sumn liberum reddaut, licit, iu illas invehantur mercirnonia imno grans., regurninave qua alter utrius hostiuna sint." How long the treaty of 1655 con tinued in force lam unable to say. But in 1677 the rule "free ships, iree good" was inserted in the treaty of com merce of St. German en Laye, and was the rule of our amicable relations with France for the next 116 years. During that period we concluded five treaties of peace and three of commerce with France—namely, in 1677, 1697, 1713, 1748, 1763, 1783, 1786—0 f these only one (namely, in 1697), and which lasted only for five years, contained no provision with regard to the trade of neutrals during war ; in all the others I have found an article which either expressly contained the provisians that the flags of France and England should protect the goods of their respective enemies, or which renewed the commer cial treaty of Utrecht of 1713, which contained that pro vision in the fullest manner. I should observe that the commercial treaties of Utrecht of 1713 were the basis of the commercial relations between rtAliee - , 1 114 2 land and Spain before the wars of the French Revolution, and they 'still are the basis of the commercial relations between this c oun t ry an d S pa i n, and between Spain and distinctiontheir France. I w ill rea d an extract from the 17th art. of the commercial t rea t y o f U trecht between England and securitysail o f France :-" It shall be lawful for all the subjects of the to Queen Britain ship bw a e n ii nt d hg of a athede manner who most areo Christian f th l iber t ye pr o i p ar i in n ed (no Greatw i thg. tors of the merchandise laden thereon) from the places, ports, and havens of those who are enemies of both, or of either party, without any opposition or disturbance what soever, not only directly from the places of the enemy aforementioned to neutral places, but also from one place belonging to an enemy to another place belonging to an enemy, whether they be under the jurisdiction of the same prince, or under several ; and as it is now stipulated concerning ships and goods that free ships shall also give freedom to goods, and that everything shall be deemed to be free and exempt which shall be found on board the ships belonging to the subjects of either of the confede rates, although the whole landing, or any part thereof, should appertain to the enemies of either of their Majes ties, contraband goods being always exempted." The 17th article of the Treaty of Commerce of Utrecht was repeated verbatim in the 20th article of the Treaty of Commerce of Versailles cf 1766. This treaty ter urinated with the war of 1793. I have shown, therefore, that from 1677 to 1793 the all but invariable rule of our friendly inter course with France ; the rule for at least 75 years out of the 80 of peace, that was that " free ships should give freedom to goods." It. is worthy of remark, that by the commercial treaty of Utrecht of 1713, which con tinued in force, except during periods of war, for the subsequent 89 years, the subjects of one party were en titled by treaty to carry on the coasting and colonial trade of the enemies of the other party. I will now refer to our treaties with Spain. The first, which contained the prin ciple, " Free ships, free goods," was the treaty of Madrid, concluded in 1665. From that period to 1796, a space of 131 years, was concluded with Spain no less than i 3 trea ties of peace or commerce-viz., in 1665, 1667, 1670, 1707, 1713, 1715, 1721, 1729, 1748, 1750, 1763, 1783. In every one of those treaties there is an article which either ex pressly declares that "free ships shall give freedom to goods," or renews a treaty whi c h con t a i ns th a t prov i s i on . Therefore, for the 131 years ending with the year 1796, the invariable rule of our amicable intercourse with Spain as established by treaty was " free ships free goods. It is worthy of remark that the first additional article of the treaty of Madrid, 1841, ratified and confirmed all treaties of commerce which subsisted between England and Spain in 1796, and consequently confirmed many treaties, and among others the treaty of Madrid of 1667, which con tained the provision that '`free ships shall give freedom to goods." The treaty of 1814 is still in force. Conse quently the subjects of Spain are now entitled by that treaty to carry in their ships the goods of the subjects of Russia, and __if we were to seize Russian merchandise on " ''' wrimPly inforemosahould be,guilty_of a breach of treaty. With re f erence to our treaties will the 'Mita Provinces. The first, which contained the rule that " free ships shall give freedom to goods," was signed at Breda in 1667. It is contained in every one of the treaties which we concluded with the United Provinces during the fol lowing It 3 years-namely, in 1667, 1668, 1674, 1675 1685, 1639, 1403, 1711, and 1716 ; and it continued in force till the war of 1780, but was not renewed by the treaty of Paris of 1781. Therefore, from 1667 to 1780, the invariable rule of our friendly intercourse with the United Provinces as established by treaty-that is, the rule for 11.1 years of peace-was that the ships of the United Provinces should make free the goods of the enemies of England, and be entitled to carry on the coasting and co lonial trade of the enemies of England, and reciprocally. The treaties between England and the great maritime powers of Western Europe to which I have referred show that, in the interval between 1654 to 1793, we were six times at war with France, seven times at war with Spain, and three times at war with the United Provinces. We terminated these wars by six treaties of peace with France, seven treaties of peace with Spain, and three treaties of peace with the United Provinces ; and during the same period we concluded with the same powers and with Por tugal eighteen treaties of commerce or other conventions in all thirty-four. Of these only three-namely, two with France in 1667 and 1697, and one with the United Pro vinces in 1784, did not contain any provision with regard to enemy's goods on board neutral ships ; but all the other treaties of peace contained a provision to the effect that the ships of one contracting party, being a neutral, should make free the goods of the enemy's of the other contracting party, being a belligerent. I have now made good my position, that during the century and a quarter which preceded the wars of the French revolution the all but invariable rule of our friendly relations, as established by treaty with the great maritime powers of western Europe, was " free ships free g ods." I think, therefore, that it would be difficult for this house, in the teeth of these facts, to agree to the resolution of the hon. and learned gentleman, and to declare that it would be inconsistent with the maritime renown, the security, and honour of this country to do the very thing which, for a century and a quarter, we generally did when we concluded a treaty of peace or commerce with France, Spain, the United Pro vinces, or Portugal. The rule "free ships free goods" is invariably to be found in the treaties of peace and commerce which were concluded between the other great maritime powers during the century and a quarter which preceded the French revolution. For instance it is contained in the treaties between France and Spain of 1668, 1678, 1721, 1761, 1768, which declared that the subjects of France and Spain should enjoy all the privileges and favours ac corded, or to be accorded, to other nations by treaties, and especially by the Treaty of Utrecht of 1713. These treaties continued in force till the wars of the second French re volution. And in 1814, by the second additional article of the treaty of Paris, the commercial relations between France and Spain were re-established on the footing on which they were in 1792. Therefore the Treaty of Utrecht of 1713 forms at present the basis of the commercial relations between France and Spain ; and, consequently, Spanish subjects are now entitled, by treaty with France as well as with England, to carry in their ships Russian merchandise without danger of confiscation. In the trea ties between France and the United Provinces, the rule " free ships free goods," i s con t a i ne d i n th e treaties of 1662, 1678, 1697, 1713, 1739, and 1785. In the treaties between Spain and the United Provinces, the rule " free ships, free goods," is contained in the treaties of 1648, 1650, 1673, 1676, 1714, and continued in force till the wars of the French revolution. In the treaties between Spain and Portugal, the rule "free ships free goods," is con tained in the treaties of 1667, 1715, 1763, and 1778. The rule "free ships free goods," was also contained in the Treaty of the Hague, of 1661, between the United Pro vinces and Portugal, and continued iu force till the wars of the Fren h revolution. I believe that I have now re ferred to every, or almost every, treaty of peace or commerce which was concluded between the great maritime powers of Western Europe, from 1651 to 1793. These treaties contain fifty-seven bilateral en gagements, of these I can only find three ; namely, the treaty of peace of Breda between France and England in 1667 ; that of Reswick between the same powers in 1697, and the treaty of peace of Paris in 1784, between Eng land and the United Provinces, that did not contain the rule "free ships free goods." Every one of the re maining fifty-four bilateral engagements contained that rule either expressly, or by expressly renewing and confirming treaties that contained it; and many of these engagements declared that the subjects of one contracting party being a neutral, might carry on the coasting and colonial trade of the enemies of the other contracting party, being a belli gerent. I have therefore shown that or the century and a quarter before the wars of the French revolution, the all but invariable rule of amicable relations as established by treaty between the great maritime powers of Western Europe, was that "free ships should give freedom to goods." But it must be admitted that the theory of the great mari time powers respecting the rights of neutrals on the ocean, as expressed in their treaties of peace and commerce, was altogether at variance with their practice and edicts during war. The reason is obvious. During peace men's minds are frequently calm and collected, reason and justice have some influence over them, and the tendency of treaties of peace and commerce, is to conform to what ought to be the rules of international law. But in war, passion and hatred, and seeming necessity, and the fancied interest of the mo ment, are apt to determine the actions of combatants, and powerful belligerents, relying on their might, oftentimes set at defiance the best established rules of war. If the maritime rights of neutrals during war were to be in ferred from the custom and usage of the great maritime belligerents of Europe during the last two centuries, the inference must be that neutrals on the ocean have few or no special rights by which they can be distinguished from the subjects of belligerents. For during that period one of the great maritime powers of the west has repea tedly (as I have treated neutrals as subjects, applied to the m _ ew with already said) all the provisions of the Rom an 1 re gard to trading with enemies, has co nfis ca ted not only enemies' goods on board neu tra l ships , but confiscat e d neutral ships for containing en emy's good, and prohibit e d all neutral commerce with enemies. Iwill ' instances of this conduct by the great maritime powers of Western Europe within the last two centuries. In 1652, the United Provinces threatened to treat as an enemy any foreigners who should carry any merchandise to England, and to punish him with the confiscation both of his ship and merchandise. In 1089 the United Provinces and Eng land concluded a convention, by which they declared a blockade of all the ports of France, and prohibited neutrals from trading with France, under the penalty of the confis cation both of their ships and goods. In 1543, 1584, 1681, 1692, France issued edicts by which the ships of neutrals were to be confiscated for containing enemy's goods. The French edict of 1704 contained not only the well known rule, quo la robe d'un ennem t con fi sque cede d'un ami ;" but also declared that merchandise of the growth, or manufacture of the enemies of France to whomsoever be belonging should confiscated whenever found on board the ships of neu trals. The latter rule, but without the former one, was repealed in the edict of 1744, and continued in force till 1778, when a French edict established that " free ships should make free goods, and that rule, I believe, at pre• sent forms p ar t o f th e mar iti me l aw of France. The con duct of Spain towards neutrals during war has been the same as that of France. The Spanish regulations of 1702 and 1718 are said to have been founded upon the French edicts of 1681 and 1704 (by which, as I have already said, neutral ships were confiscated for containing enemy's goods, and merchandise of the growth or manufacture of an enemy, to whomsoever belonging, was confiscated on board neutral ships.) These regulations were repealed by the Spanish edict of 1779, which adopted the rule, that " free ships should make free goods." Nor has this coun try in periods of war shown greater respect than our neighbours for the rights of neutrals. By means of fic titious blockades we h a v e re p ea t e dly c l a i me d the rig ht of stopping the trad e o f neu t ra l s w ith our enemies. F or instance, in 1689, as I have already said, in comp any s with Holland, we declared a blockade of all the . ooa e st of the France, without sending a single ship to 7 , 1 _7 1 7 with blockade, and we prohibited neutrals from bothtr their France under the penalty of the confiscatio n . ships and their goods. This was cannon law, the famous • on as our third William called it, for it Lad no other sanct i on, human or divine, save the force of a bullet. (A augh In 1756 we prohibited the Dutch from trad ing w ith the colonies of France, and laid down the famou s . rule o f war of that year, in virtue of which we claimed a right of prohi biting • ' ' all neutral tra ffi c with the colonies and on the coasts of our enemy ; this rule was much contested by the Unite d States of Ameriea, and other powers, an d was a fruitful source of con tention between them an d us. A ga i n, in 1793, we concluded treaties with Spain, Prussia, Russia, and the Emperor of Ger...any, for the purpose of forbidding neutrals to trade with France. Lastly, iu the war that fol lowed the peace of Amiens, the combatants retaliated the blows which they aimed at each other by striking neutrals, and vied in disregarding neutral rights. According to Alison, the rage of belligerent powers, and the mutual violation of the law of nations, could not go beyond our orders in council and the Berlin and Milan decrees. In consequence of the conduct which was pursued towards neutrals by the maritime powers of the West of Europe in their frequent wars, the powers of the North of Europe, who were generally neutrals in those wars, repeatedly formed leagues to defend their rights as neutrals, and took up arms for that purpose. The first armed neutrality, as these leagues were termed, was a convention in 1693 be'