The Sun. — London, England, 1833-02-16 00:00:00

-- , -- ---- - - -- - - - :. . ~ ,-- - ---) \ • i-r 7-1.-- ------ .----_ ,i. (---- ) r- , ..', c> ,,,, ....._.._ .. . ~ ..., . ../-2-e--)-z -, ..„, ,1 ...,..,...,..„, .•....i. •.. Zustli-,. //:\-' yn , ir ri;Lt to priforee thele 4 ,-1 ( 1.. r ee.... ✓..--------- ..,): in ha co t l u s n in c e il e_rel i y a fe t e e ss o t p n i.im. I tiitertain 'f - " * k \ efft:',• ..-7 —.- "%5......e- . -1. ee 4 rti ......--Q- ... , ~./ 6 , . . . -/ ilk . - 44. , Nilige* , ~, ~. . o. U - 1 - ... 3 ., . . .„, -,,„ 01 . 01 ~.. ~ .. .... • ! against the law of nations—in rt.- ( i t ( ____ - ,•j;;;,'' S' ' s- - '1 I, ll,l'''' =--' : 7- ------"A ,i, ..' . ~n ; , ( :., 9 . ~k . , ~•e ••;9.‘-, - ~, ,), - re - , , ,'\ . L - 41, ~,, - a-, _: \ ... , , a .O ..0. 4 , . . Ai. ‘.- .J;l;, '. gr., .; / i -1, „4/) • 1",,,F,. 7 tit ..... .`c.:,.. i , 0,4 ot ,.- ~.0 . • +- i even su gge o e p io p u os s e f t . ,... public n- ,. i .....,_..:—e a.--..:—..-- -a 41,„...,,,-1..r.;:, 0nn.41 .." 1 .1 .1j.7i...._,, '';‘,, ,• . F . • 1- - ' -4,4 i. , .„ „ 4 , . 4 „ 4: 6 , 1 !2 , ,-,- ~t. ,. ,, ~ , . 4 .2„._, 4416 - 0) , ttn /lii,„„, ~....,,p„i,,,mr,.„„,,,...,.,,0_L.,., toi,,„„t„,. i r ,10 o f etib• )tentistil As o f the the Yo st ,rtIERS T ,LEY" . DAY). this'!, $ :Joni. f nday LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, FEBRUARY 16, 18:33. (No. 12,617.) (PRicE In.) 00 0 I 4Plll' qr 4• 00. rough of Carmarthen, complaining of the election of their Magistrates. Mr. TYNTE moved for a return of the sums paid in all the counties of England on the personal estate tax. Mr. SHEIL presented a petition from Lismolyn, in Tipperary, for the extinction of tithes. The Hon. and Learned Member ease notice, that in the Committee on Irial) Church Reform he should move a clause to exclude Irish Bishops from the House of Lords— Ilear, bear, hear)—and that on the 25th of Kbruary he would move to bring in a Bill to enable Roman Catholics to hold scholarships and lay-fellowships in the University of Dublin. Mr. ROEBUCK presented a petition from Bath, for the repeal of the assessed taxes. from certain electors of Southampton, complaining of an undue retur❑ for that borough. ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE. On the motion of Lord AL THORP, it was ordered that at its rising the House should adjourn to Monday. BANK CHARTER. IMPERIAL PARLIAAIEtT. rj ,.. , Th e si.4 O F COMMONS, FEBRUdlir 15. I °4 o,1 0 , 1 ,: 4 Ila took th e Ch a i r a b out f i ve m i nutes b e f ore to th e I After prayers a number of Members went up Qask e to be s worn, among whom was Mr. Pease, the byl. ;lettiber. Th e other Members were sworn as usual h td th e ‘ tt Z' the Chief Cl er k , wh i le that Hon. Gentleman 1 4 by Ayj itt ,,, sls o admin is t ere d to hi m at t h e corner o f the *id t aers 1 , 41 " toera Jun. O n s h a ki ng hands w i th the Speaker , the l cheering from both sides of tbe House, *Mel hilt riot). Member ackeowledged. He then went and Sir o. nn th e Ministerial side. 1,1;4441 ~,IQBW 4 ITH brou g ht i n t h e L on d on an d 8ir. 14 11 N ( 4 ) 1 1 11 „w, , Y Bill, whi c h was read a first time. wieldrr.TH gave notice, that on the Qd of April afe Nati Inove for leave to bring in a Bill to make the eth m , ' 4 of a Quaker equal to the oaths taken by PaLliel:Zna, whereby he might be enabled to fill any tn an WOOD move d f or several returns re the !leap trade. oe •Ah,CkSTONE presented a petition pr a ying f o r rvanc e of the Sabbath Day. p~TTER presented a petition from the Unitarians praying for a system of general education. KS sup ported the prayer of the petition. He to see that a not i ce had been given for a Select to consider of this subject, the deliberation of would lead t o a great good. goTHER TON also supported the prayer of the 4 short speech, not one word of which reached CAVENDISH presented a petition from a Sussex, praying for a better observance of the ; also one praying for a commutation of tithes. R TE'S said, from the frequent communica 'ad had of late with his constituents, be was nothing at present agitated the public mind this subject nothing that they so much de eommutation of tith es . H e h o p e d th e su bj ec t o f i!,f,°rlto would not be co n fi ne d to b e l an d, b u t wou ld to England,where it was almost equally needed. ti from the liberal measures now put forward werntuent, that the public would not be in their just hopes. To show the Church Reform in England, he would only instance. There was the parish of Peveusey, 6e vi car h ad not done ' duty, in which, in d not set his foot, for the last seventeen this Vicar was an advocate for Church well as. he himself was. His opinions aeC h i 'ubject of Church Reform, were well known, , o,t l nev di e Wh o • Gentleman was one of the only six clergy ktluPporteil him at his election. He moat cor uPPortea a t l• t i LON also supported the prayer of the pe , , l a I ate, °Pen that in these d a y s o f R e form th e hooder whi c h t h e Di ssenters l a b oure d wou ld not 4 51 ' F r i end Such Such a case a s h a d b een cited by his fa t was enough to open the eyes of any one to pt ta. 14 ,ettessity t h ere was for a speedy and eff i cient Re -44t2144 4 , it to be allowed that such cases should be "hit, as that a man should draw upwards of ' R I a parish, and yet for such a length of time 'near th at place, wh i ch i t was supposed (and Net enanced by receiving the money) he was W '' lt ? Unless tithes were completely extin triergies of the country would continue to be 'd pauperism increased by her resources being Order to bestow them on pluralists and ah- I the present instance. The system required a 'R and comprehensive reform. ' L UNT said, that if every parish in Sussex ' t it Petitions similar to this, the excuse would being unaware of the justice of its prayer, °o the subject, but because they had the l eper in his Majesty's Ministers taking it up. wro , then laid on the table. 'Ant. CURTEIS presented a petition from „- e aunty of Sussex, praying for a re p e al of the ire concurred in the prayer of the petition. BRELL supported the prayer of the petition, ° Pportunity of objecting to the Beer Bill, said, had tended greatly to demoralize by tempting labouring men to spend at the beer shops, instead of brew ',l"orne beverage at home. Besides, these i nstead of having their own beer, as was ex h"Pplied for the most part by the great brew ni many of the shops belonged. If 'alt duty had been taken off instead of it would have been much better. Elt said that lie had always opposed the er duty, and it had precisely the effects he h . ' Would. Not o ne o f t h ese b eer - s h o p s b rewe d " t er, but received it all from the great public had reaped all the benefit. At Quarter every where else that Magistrates had the if c onvening together, they were all ready to to the evil effects of repealing the duty. effenees for which persons were tried at the 41 s, were found to have originated at these Wh ich were not as much under the control 'crates a s the public houses. 131-4{TON said that the test of success II required to he applied by the Hon. Member, 4 Possibility lie applied to any Bill. The Hon. beer,laie that the beer-shops id not bre but were supplied by the gr d eat brewers. 'ne illde in manu f actures , t h at a l arge quant i ty ,TP li ed at a cheaper late than a small one, and enapt from th e op e r at i on o f thi s pri n ciple. h e e ' "r ') Whilst the small beer shops could r cheaper from the great brewers—cheaper uli b iew „ it themselves—it was natural they fro nt them ; and surely no law ought to be t 4 upset this natural arrang••tnent,— r espect to the immorality which had resulted 1 , 41 the B eer D uty , o f course , if t h e H on . "crkshi re said that the part of the country Waver his e y e h a d su ff ere d i n i ts mora li t y, b ut ton) `var could not positiv e ly contra lr.with respect to the district with Warburton) was best acquainted, namely, u,irttricts he could fearlessly say that the One working classes had been, if any thing, 4 tl. " °Perrino of tt e Bill. He could, -m ttot for a good deal of the attacks on, ip 4) to, the Beer Bill manifested by country ' ar o the circumstance , mentioned by the Hon. Berkshire, namely, its having taken the ex of all t h e poor man ' s p l easures an d recrea vheir ir hans.—( Hear Ho n ) ° RD said the . Member for Bridport 'Y treated the argument. He (Mr. S.) fully 1 the assertion, that immorality had greatly ei losequ ence o f t h e esta b l i s h ment of b eer remit hail particularly so in the county to 'Ned• As to the privilege possessed by 41 licensing public-houses, he knew that there tb q a M ag i strate ' s duty so unpleasant and so 1 a) ;"•-•—(Hear, hear.) The Bill was no doubt at ra ge in great t owns , but it operated very in a country lON said that in that part of the country -tl fteed there was scarcely a murder or a ',Plated but bad its origin in beer-shops, eo l'igh time that the Legislature took 4ideration the best means of altering the regretted th e remar k s t h a t h a d b een made °Y ; and h e i mp l ore d H onoura bl e Mem "' t he difference in the mode of conducting kid b eer-shops. In the former there was „ooletontrasted w i t h t h e l atter . —(H ear .) H e 4 : the Sense of the Magistracy when he h av l °lle of th em reste d a part i c l e of h i s f ame gas ne h control over the public houses. He and th e fashie n of the day to attack the ,to brin g i nto di srepute a c l ass o f per a;tlucY,7lt was t o keep other classes in order. w oo of opinion that it would be better aild - t e b lt a r t i tY were . required from persons keeping th e b In taking away the supervision . of the thi 'lll hail done very great injury. In eiee:prr:iciture, where the labouring classes were rat % • they soud prceed wth grea care I. ' th e ' by ado h pti l n g a o middle i course, t they th e e vils c omp l a i ne d o f , an d at t h e same hi t " e riefit s of the measure. 71' "It was of opinion that the greatest tlqiikatt al Riven t o t h e peop l e woul d b e t h e die] Hear, h ear .) %Oto s . I. not attribute the evils complained of, t)i . the poor, to the beer-shop ; and he Th e hut tb i 4 csain g them none of the ev i ls would • - 4 Wh a l People would be dr i ven to the g i n ea ttr Wttr i : of this evils he attributed to igno heeler„°t. edueation : r e move those causes, •• iRyF th a „_ t h e peopl e , an d not h ing was to be le d were allo we d to b e cont i nue d open . if t tle r`mgly advocated the repeal of the d u o tvh6 e ''fla of ena b ling the poor man to brew lot t hat y e u 3 "ne beverage. At present he iel d atoll "' t wo reasons ; th e fi rst was , that no t II purcha se utens il s, and the next fo r br e ° 4. °ta' thern for any person whu per of ."K 'llbjected himself t o a penalty of °ntrk Li t t) (Air. Harvey's) was tined 50/. for talai retying utensils. The petition was Preitented a petition fro m the bo- o w; , A mt. , vaq verl,l',ol* t de L e 3 r rif il P 'e at .4 . t b :day's -th, 11 -A r dily et o#,` ei 4r tter i t ; prodLO„ of yl, i I ' o l d ds or co ,. 0 ,. 6. o P ... o 0 iivt 4 . 4) II 00 4 C o glad 4 , : ayes A 4 6 mit t .. W.- w hich h 3 P 1, ....... too . o o R C tog* th t, i n I "!" !itkiler 7ti E 1 , T. a 'iot t los i ko, l th), s 4 t lo ior... 91 51 ap p he bar ling. : t i 11 tt • th at n ........ 4 1 el l 141 th e •.•••••• Ot e h,, 41. lief I ' l 4 moderatt tt„ of e t was t r ° Y L , 44 ted, buyers, a, nnd, 7,0 ea ed n a nd . n ted f „. DTI " 3 44 , axne as o,' tt 773 ; call ft t (.a( e "t t„ 0. „, ytt"ti'l 14 111 ,3 4 0 j t Rer h e r dt_.1.12.:„./ cli44lvho end ,;'," 4, 1 to " to 1 2 1. ; 1)44:04 fro eXi 2 . 2 31 b 0 1 1: 4 b ni a 1 ' 4 6 nea is Si ,tt, en unt 50 0 5 ?aii, Y we 39 de p tl ? 9 0 521 drk,Std en,, 2 0 • tnt, and 22 31 "IN" i rt P. et o 4 to Nt , e 92 • Itat r eh .' tl did O g a 21 2S #1 b e rlo P e l 3 t LU 22.........?„10 ill 4i t "P , at r 14 fall ' t ir h e . •eb• 1 5 12 f e. t o 0,1 h e ." t0 46 Y 4 petit' toct 484. to 5, to .J t i ie, Fp n Way • 2 3 o t ,I , ti er, •••• to -41, t „ 4 , to a Vi e . 'd:to 19 )9:11 0 ,; 4 t o , t i t it Ft R io to '255.,1 pet tb lb, 4 , he at p 1. th e j r K ph , card ) A Y .) 4, 1) 1) 3 tks, W holy a 9'er , o Lisbon r tt, 9 ) o,, t ,:,"ted do patch t, suPi row S r 14 e 4 11 4 h em Aw l 11't'f 4ty, it :tSC,lftllettetr;EE 3111 Will n 't i d I .'ip tt the b will tatte 9 or y b a td it Woe eel w ill not co r' !rtnined ° se -1 tite r , but I ,o t 4 4, h, ev I „ rt ut)•,, l 'd of .f3"°e, of et which t' "I'tt (!4, 11Y of: 4 , r ny to ~ e c ei 4 ffr of tto bee 4i„„ t h • e t o her her in `" to y t hing vE2 , r, a , l lt, A ro il t. bee' Ni,„,,4„ th n tioue „ se i it ' 0w 441 e r"' ' r theraols:i 4 titer, :9 took eV 1.14 pri it nig ht" 14 ' N nei P t f4l eeitOPic;il 014, ht th AM er bteaasr, l 0 ' l '4 'l e Y to . g.) ine nt, oo 1 E 1 4 4 Rey °l'l Govern ri (H t hi , It ft . oll win g Or _P ltr 4, ) t i , t) esen t felt' AI i tn t %„. 'ltith tee riff Ti.) kr Re , Iflocrr:eltdtlersio to di et ( t l, : t r I Y undo sr e bikt but Iveral cc dtll 4 , 4 , t d (N ir. for the It itt (4 ° tr Of I 'l preSe.• i t ()%, th, sequeOtq , 41,4 N, tt .ntfiteh her, itain I°' titi n e n nr b etgle tol t frO I ! aloft I pot 1 . I N le 4) ut tble_ p a iil ft), ' I N ton t ' lier is supe;,,tcr Aft,'l4t 4 ;01 by the u 'd N t v.,,thei in t bci i t os' 5%c f accounts e subiect'aeicir,lboliNd • th at th e r 0 idivihi I ct irl co j I1 . 1•,' 11 1, 1, 1 r) I r etire - 1 7 1 % , :t i ltt .t Torrn ,tot 44 9 l a can nil4 O rt N tt 11 I' l °o t 44 E c r td th at r 4°Et ' tipatche'„ 11' 11 ,„ : Yi n 4 tag to Dl'D°"ttli'' Iv); 1., the officia l " o " ob4 e din ° ry th , rect „aro •to el° r let it 'ltem 130 pis it 4 c o a e h; „ the ri n - t it it t° 11- 4, 4 4 re gret (i d s t t kibli to t4gisti,a. "eotti IttttLho:k at ; ie or der A gr it etl* he ."' :k 311.- Of or Ot t ' `Pok e eg.thi ~a t t 14„ t ;4 1 , 4i at "Y it h '' i A 4,,,,„ cs. Lt7 and yci3O , f V 1,, ...... , Il et c) 1• 41 ' t i ; ...... ::* 5741,ti',4tp:,at„ at ....... 44, 4 1, knd . " 1' so it Y, ..... r t . th e 1' and 9t6 c, efts e':Il, eel N t) v ) a t 1 CO ° •ho At' 4 "°, th e of ,P ,re tal 04, he I°4l oft P!%11 of ilsttir e "` cliz 3 ° r egir ( i. ll' ' 4 1, re o fßo pe th,"milltr'R r trt 14 k i' 4 ' l aV td r -90 13Te ;pd f Oi t ane hn Grace. Coo t, Th e ,qu: , r e• I a nd'' '% !Art e ared • e t: 1 , ti Ito ~ , o r ti , „ th e •dt4e `l';t;';fot4',,ll;Y"'ru ,il t ",' 11 h lte biz, and gr. t o A o l, tt t pt 1 ,1 4 h e °l4l e. 9013114 at he not act. ," Ur co uld tayit che iten b eedi oft! for > < l 'de, P 0 ' ,141) °14. It, the T HE %CS. ~........ LATE ELECTIONS. Mr. HUME rose to present a petition from certain in habitants of South Shields, complaining of improper prac tices at the late election. It complained that, during the last election, the various parties who had signed the peti tion had been subjected to such influence as prevented them from giving an honest and conscientious vote for the elec tion of Members to represent them in Parliament. Mr. INGHAM (the Member for South Shields) entered into an explanation respecting the particulars of his elec tion, with reference to the allegations of the petition. He assured the House that, to the best of his belief, no corrupt practices had been used on the occasion of his election ; that he had been privy to no such practices ; and that he did not believe their existence. It had been his firm deter mination not to be privy to any act which could by possi bility interfere with the entire freedom of the election. The real secret of all the opposition on the part of the Hon. Member for Middlesex was, that in the excess of his be. nignity he had condescended to recommend a Member to the people of South Shields ; and that gentleman, so re commended, had been last on the poll. He was decidedly of opinion, that the adoption of the ballot would by no means remedy the evils of which complaints were made. He could not give his assent to the prayer of the petition. Mr. HUME observed, that it was out of deference to the feelings of the Hon. Member, that particular instances in proof of the allegations of the petition had been omitted. He complained of the use of certain expressions on the part of the Hon. Member for South Shields. Mr. INGHAM disclaimed any intention of using offen sive expressions. Sir M. W. RIDLEY bore testimony to the incapabilty of Mr. Ingham's having recourse to illegal practices. THE REV. ROBERT TAYLOR. Mr. HUME presented a petition from the Rev. Robert Taylor, confined in Horsemonger-lane, complaining of the sentence which he had been subjected to—a confinement of two years, with a further imprisonment of two years unless he could pay a fine of 2001. and find securities for 1,0001. He submitted to the House whe , her the offence of Mr. Robert Taylor ought to subject him to such penalties. He expressed as much abhorrence as any one could 9glinst the principles of Mr. Taylor, hut he considered it impro per, on general principles, that any man should he sub jected to persecution for his opinions. Petition laid on the table. Mr. HUME wished to ask the Noble Lord (Althorp) whether there was any objection to ordering a reprint of the Report of last Session relative to the means of making that House more convenient for the purposes of business ? Lord ALT HORP observed, that it would probably be unnecessary to order a reprint. Mr. HUME expressed his intention of proposing the building of a new House. NORTHERN POLITICAL UNION. Mr. GROTE presented a petition signed by Mr. Chas. Attwood, as Chairman of the Northern Political Union, praying for the ♦ote by ballot and the repeal of the Sep tennial Act. Lord ALTHORP objected to its being received, as the petition of an unrecognised body. The SPEAKER decided that it was irregular. Mr. WARBURTON stated a case in favour of the ad mission. After a few remarks by Sir M. W. RIDLEY, Mr. HUME, and Mr. BARING, Mr. GROTE consented to with draw the petition. UNSTAMPED PUBLICATIONS. Mr. Sergeant SPANKIE presented a petition from Mr. Henry Hetherington, confined for vending unstamped publications, praying that be may be discharged out of custody. Mr. HUME remarked up , tn the impropriety of allowing any portion of the Six Acts to remain in force in the second year of a liberal Ministry. These Acts bad been directed against Cohbett's Trash, as it was called. The 11,n. Member alluded to the opinion of Sir James Mac donald, and stated that these had been already 250 vic tims. He gave notice that he should move, at an early date—to-morrow or Monday—for a return of convictions. He believed the number was 173. Much as he blamed the Right Hon. Gentlemen, the late Metnbers of his Ma jesty's Ministry, he mu-t say they were less to blame than Lie Maje ty's present Ministers. The latter had certainly procured the passing of the Act in question, but they had never put it in force in a single instance. His Ma jesty's present Minister-, when out of office, had de claimed night after night against the Act, yet, when they got into power, it was found that they put it in force far more rigidly than their predecessors, who had caused it to be passed. They had obtained the power, but they had never us-d it. Lord .ALTHORP observed, that the whole number of these prosecutions, instead of 250, was only 16, of which Hetbei ington certainly had given occasion to three cases. There had teen tinny more cores certainly ; hut these were not instituted by the Government. With respect to the repeal of the taxes on periodical., the Noble Lord was understood to say, that a modification was intended to be proposed by the Government. Mr. 0 CONNELL observed that it was extremely de sirable that Government should state, as soon as possible, what its intentions might be with respect to that portion of the Six Acts which still remained in force. He hoped that these Acts would soon be obliterated from our laws. lie was surprised at what had fallen from the Noble Lord in his attempt to show that the Government had not been over severe in enforcing the penalties of the Act. If, out of 250 cases, only 16 had been brought forward at the instance of the Government, it showed either a great re missness on their part, or a strong feeling of the injustice of the law which they had to enforce. There was another point of view in which the petition of Mr. Hetherington deserved consideration, and that was with relation to the power which it appeared that the persons who had the regulation of the gaols had of inflicting torture ; for he considered the confinement of a person for the time men tioned in the petition in a damp cell was neither more nor less than a species of torture. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL observed, that the con victions had nothing political in them. A representation had been made on the subject in tie proper quarter, and he had no doubt that proper steps would be taken respect ing it. Mr. LENNARD believed his Hon. Friend the Member fur Taunton intended to move for the repeal of that part of the Six Acts which had been referred to. After a fe v observations from Mr. RUTHVEN, Mr. O'DWYER, and the ATTORNEY-GENERAL (who stated that the Crown Lawyers had nothing to do with these prosecutions), the petition was ordered to lie on the table. Mr. HADDOCKS presented a petition from the town of Denbigh against negro slavery. On the motion of Mr. METHUEN, an account was ordered to be laid before the House of the expenses of passing Scjtch and Irish vagrants during the Isst ten years, distinguishing the amount paid in each county. On the motion of Mr. WIGNEY, an account was or dered to be laid before the House of the amount of the house and window tax, distinguishing the amount paid by each county. General PALMER presented a petition from the parish of St. Michael, in Bath, praying for the repeal of the house and window tax. Mr. 'I'YNTE and Mr. ROEBUCK expressed their cordial concurrence in the player of the petition. IRISH SOAP MANUFACTURE. Mr. O'CONNELL, adverting to the gi ievance suf fered by the Irish soap manufacturers in consequence of the large drawbacks obtained by the English manufacturers of soap, observed that the Noble Lord opposite had stated the other day that he contemplated a measure which would ch ck the evil. Was the Noble Load prepared to state his intentions in gener,il terms ? It was a matter of great importance to the Irish manufacturers. Lord ALTHORP hoped he should be able to propose a measure which would check the evil as much as was possible. SOUTHAMPTON ELECTION. The SPEAKER stated, that he had received a petition Mr. HERRIES wished to ask the Noble Lord for in formation on a subject of great importance. Perhaps the Noble Lord wou'd have the goodness to state at what time it was probable tie would be able to introduce his Bill ; and especially if it would be before Easter or after. Thy information would lie highly sitisfactory to many persons who were much interested in the subject; and he was sure that the Noble Lord would give it, if in his power. Lo d ALTHORP hoped to be prepared to bring in a measure upon the subject befire Easter. EMBARGO ON DUTCH TRADE. Lord ALTHORP having moved the Order of the Day far the House to resolve itself into a Committee of Supply, Sir ROBERT PEEL rose, in pursuance of his notice, I to make some observations on a subject of deep interest to the commerce of this country, and greatly affecting drat of other nations. It was his intention to make these obser vations on Wednesday, but as the Hon. and Learned Member for the Tower Hamlets and the Attorney-Gener a l were not then in their places (for which, however, he did not attach to them the slightest blame), he had been in duced to postpone doing so until the present occasion. The subject to which he relerred was the Order in Council, issued by his Majesty in Council, and bearing date the 6th of last November, which imposed a restric tion on British ships from entering and clearing out for any of the ports within the dominions of the King of the Netherlands until further orders ; laid a general embargo on all ships belonging to subjects of the King of the Netherlands in British ports; and authorized the seizure by the Commanders of his Majesty's ships of war, of all merchant vessels bearing the flag of the Netherlands, in the open seas. In the debate which had taken place on the address in answer to the speech from the Throne, he (Sir R. Peel) had stated that he entertained conside rdble doubts whether the power:which that order assumed was constitutionally exercised. He felt, however, that it did not become him, who had no other means of knowing the law on such matters than that which was possessed by Hon. Members generally, to be very tenacious of his opinion upon the subject, and if he had received from the Hon. and Learned Member for the Tower Hamlets any satisfactory solution of his doubts, he should certainly not have brought the subject again under the consideration of the House. If the authority of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman's declaration had been supported by arguments as powerful, he (Sir R. Peel) would have remained silent; for as far as authority or talents went, no man had a greater respect for the Hon and Learned Gentle man. But it should be remembered, that if the autho rity of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman were not sustained by satisfactory argument, that circumstance was favourable to his (Sir R. Peel's) position. For the House might be quite sure that every thing that could he urged in the way of reasoning, would be urged by a person of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman's great ability and extensive information. It was because, therefore, the Hon. and Learned Gentleman's reply was not satisfactory—it was because the doctrine maintained by the Hon. and Learned Gentleman did net appear to be warranted by law—that he again called the attention of the House to this important question. He did not, how ever, require them to pronounce any opinion upon it on the present occasion. He merely wished to give an oppor tunity for further explanation respecting it. If lie should feel convinced by the arguments of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman and his friends that he was in error, he should not hesitate to say so, and he trusted that they would follow his examples and not refuse to listen to the reason which induced him to believe that his view of the subject was correct. The Order in Council to which he referred com pletely forbade all commercial intercourse between Iris Majesty's subjects and any of the ports within the domi nions of the King of Holland. It went further than most Orders of a similar character, for it authorized the forcible seizure on the open seas by his Majesty's ships of war of all merchant vessels bearing the flag of the Netherlands, and the sequestration of their cargoes for the present. No reason was assigned in this Order in Council for so violent a proceeding. It merely stated that by order of his Majesty, with the advice of his Privy Council, these re strictions were imposed on our commerce with Holland, and these directions given to seize the merchant vessels be longing to a nation which was nevertheless at peace with Great Britain.—(Hear, hear.) The order was simply signed " Charles Greville." Now he was bound to say that in his opinion this Order amounted to neither more nor less than a suspension of an Act of Parliament. The trade with Holland—with a country with which we were at peace—was suspended without uny motive a•sign e it. This was at least an assumption of great power on the part of the Crown—a power capable of much perversion. To Order in C. uncil was followed by other Orders in Council, suspending the operation of the first Order, with reference to vessels having perishable cargoes. He was far front imputing any undue motives on the present occa. sion, but it must be evident to all who reflected on the subject, that great opportunities existed for perverting such powers. A corrupt Government might exercise them in a manner favours le to their friends and sup porters and fatal to their opponents.—(Hear, hear.) He was prepared to maintain that the Order suspended the Statute Law of the land. No one could deny that the power which it claimed to exercise was a dispensing power of that nature. No one could deny that by the Statute Law of the land merchants-strangers belonging to a country in amity with this country had a right to carry on their commercial intercourse with this country uninter ruptedly. It could be proved, step by step, that such merchants had as clear a right to free inter course with the shores of this country as the natives of this country themselves had.—(Hear.) This right was conferred by the earliest statutes. It was con ferred by Magna Chute. In Magna Charta it was de clared that " All merchants (if they were not openly pro hibited before) shall have their safe and sure conduct to depart out of England, to come into England, to tarty and go through England, as well by land as by water, to buy and sell without any manner of evil tolls, by the old and rightful customs, except in time of war."—(Hear, hear.) It then went on—" And if they be of a land making war against us, and be found in our realm at the beginning of the wars, they shall be attached without harm of body or goods, until it be known unto us, or our Chief Justice, how our merchants be intreated there in the land making war against us ; and if our merchants be well intreated there, theirs shall he likewise with us."._ (Hear, hear.) Now he wished to know whether that declaration was consistent with the Order in Council which had been issued in November last ? He claim d to have established by that statute what he was sure a Re formed Parliament would nut deny, that merchants strangers had a right to carry on a free commercial inter course with this country, unless they belonged to a nation with which this country sik as at war. Lord Coke even hold that in case of war the prohibition of foreign commerce must be by Act of Parliament. In that he might be going too far, but the extract which he (Sir Robert Peel) had read from Magna Charta, proved that foreign merchants might continue to trade with us while their country remained at peace with us. In the present instance we were at peace with Holland, and yet we se questered the property of her subjects. In the 27th Edward 111., cap. 2, it was provided, that " to re plenish our said realm and lands with money and plate, gold and silver, and merchandises of the lands, and to give courage to merchants strangers to come with their wares and merchandises into the realm and land aforesaid, we have ordained and established that all merchants-strangers which be not of our enmity, of what land or nation that they be, may safely and surely, under our protection and safe conduct, come and dwell in our said realm and lands where they will, and from thence return with their ships, wares, and all manner of mer chandises, and freely sell their merchandises at the staple, and elsewhere within the same realm and lands, to any that will buy them, paying the customs thereof due."— (Hear. hear.) Now he would say that the Crown had not the prerogative to dispense with the law on this point, but be would say that it was manifest that by the statute law of the land, merchants-strangers of a country in amity with us, had a right to free commercial intercourse with us; and that if his Majesty's Government issued an Order in Council, prohibiting that intercourse, they dis• pensed with the statute law of the land. Those statutes were in full force at the present moment, and it was im possible to refer to them without noticing and admiring the liberal principles by which our ancestors were actu ated in their regulations respecting fort ign commerce. All .hose who were the friends of free trade, might refer with peculiar satisfaction to those statutes which preceded the Navigation Act, and all other Acts of a prohibitor nature. ' Those statutes were founded on the principl that the prosperity of English commerce was interwoven with the prosperity of foreign commerce, and that regu lations favourable to the commerce of other countrie• would prove favourable to the commerce of our own. —(Hear, hear.) Having said so much with respect to the law on the subject. he would proceed to state his autho rities on a question so deeply interesting to the corn move of this country. He would begin with the authority of Lord Erskine, who had placed on record his opinions by moving certain resolution's, which he should read to the Howe, and it should be borne in mind that his Lordship was Chancellor of the Administration of which Lord• Grenville and Grey were Member'.—(The revolution• were, in effect, that in any emergency, calling for such measures, the King should forthwith assemble Parlia ment.) His (Lord Erskine's) opinions went at least as far as his own, and he was a man selected by an Ad ministration holding opinions similar to those avowed by the Honourable Gentlemen opposite. The opinions of the writers on the law of nations were also on his side of the question ; but, as be supposed this House had the same indisposition to lengthy extracts that a former House had, he should not give them in fu'l. He should merely refer to such parts as more particularly upheld and enforced his argument. One of the documents on which he most relied was a pamphlet which bad been universally ascribed to Lord Brougham, with what justice he knew not, though it was certainly written with a learning and ability worthy of so reainent an individual.—(This extract was a very long one, quoting the opinions of Hale and Holt in support of the writer's views, that the ports could only be shut against the trade of natives or foreigners by Statute.) From the earliest times there was nothing more remarka ble in the history of this country than the tenderness of the Constitution for the trading interests. He had the words of the Statute Law—he had the opinion of Lord Erskine —the supposed opinion of Lord Brougham (or rather, he should say, the opinion of that exalted individual, for he believed there was no doubt of the authorship of the work)—and next he had the declara tions of Holt and of Hale to maintain the rights as laid down by the statute law, in every case except that of war. The power assumed in'these Orders of Council, he contended, could only be justly and properly exercised, either from a necessity for reprisals for actual injuries on our own subjects, or in the circumstance of an imminent contemplation of hostilities. To say that, on the mere arbitrary allegation of State necessity, such violent mea sures vs the detention en the high seas of the vessels of other nations could be resorted to, was placing most im portant interests not under the law, but under a discre tionary power of the most dangerous description. The Right Hon. Baronet here read extracts from several Acts of Parliament in support of his argument. In 1766, when there was a famine, the Administration of which Camden and Chatham formed a part, ♦entured to pub lish an Order in Council, prohibiting the export of wheat and other corn. The sense of Parliament, however, over-rul , d the measure, and an act of indemnity, as well to the officers enforcing the order as to the Mi nisters who issued it, was brought in and passed. The Right Hon. Baronet next read the preamble to the Act of 7th Geo. 111., and he referred to it, he said, as showing that the Parliament had ever been extremely and properly jealous of the prerogative of the Crown on every occasion where such great powers were attempted to be exercised. The question more immediately to be con sidered was, whether such a step as this could be taken except in consequence of injuries received, or in the appre hension of hostilities; and he contended that the preroga tive could not be vindicated but on the two grounds thus stated. Now they had had no public information that hosti lities between England and Holland were intended. The speech from the throne did not even hint at such a possibi lity. It referred only to the embargo. But it was not a mere embargo, let it be recollected—(Hear, hear)—but an Or der in Council, authorizing the forcible detention of ves sels belonging to an ally with whom we professed to be in perfect amity.--(Cheers.) He did not hesitate to say that the order went further—much further then—with the ex ception of one or two instances—bed ever before been known in the history of this country. The question then was, did the circumstances of the case justify it ? He did not deny the existence of the prerogative—that was not his argu ment at the present time—but he warmly denied there were any circumstances to justify its exercise. How could they contemplate a state of hostilities, after reading the speech from the Throne, in which it was directly stated that negotiations were again opened with that Power, against whose vessels these confiscations were directed ? There was no hint of any danger of war, but an express statement that all other Powers were in amity with us.— (Cheers.) It was impossible to say then that this Order in Council had been rendered necessary either by way of reprisal or from an apprehension of hostilities; they could not take that ground. If Ministers would declare they bad a bona fide ground for expecting a state of hos tilities, he would admit the propriety of the embargo, and withdraw the subject from the notice of the House ; but, short of that, they would have no jus. tification for the extreme course they had resorted to. In a speech which was made by the Noble Lord (Palmerston), he bad himself declared there was no war, nor the prospect of one ; and as no injury had teen attempted against us by Holland, as we bad no cause for reprisals, and, on the Noble Lord's own asseveration, no expectation of hostilities, on what ground was it that this Order was issued ? The speech of the Noble Lord was the only public declaration to which he could refer upon the subject. If correctly reported, the Noble Lord was made to say, in plain English, that he would take the hull by the horns, and not he daunted by the cry of Dutch war, for that it was the mere creature of a vivid imagina tion and exuberant fancy.—(Lauehter and cheers.) The French expedition, then, was no war ?--(Cheers.) The seizure of Antwerp, the slaughter that attended it, the capture of prisoners, did not constitute war.—(Cheers.) It was merely exuberant fancy! There was neither war nor apprehensions of war, as the Noble Lord said, at the very time 70 000 men, equ:pped abundantly with every munition of war, were marching to attack the citadel of Antwerp. Why, then, this embargo ?—(Cheers.) Why, for thirteen weeks, this stoppage to British commerce? Why authorize English vessels to scour the high seas, and seize the ships of a Power with whom we are in perfect amity ? He complained of that girder. It was very rarely, indeed, that England resorted to measures of such extreme violence, for above every other nation, she had been hitherto proudly distinguished by her respect for the right, of trade. He instanced the embargo on Dutch vessel., the seizure of Spanish ones in 1801, and the embiego on Dutch ships in 1803 unac companied, however, by an order to seize vessels on the high seas. The present case he looked upon as one of most grievous injustice. He denied that the opinion of Lord Stowell, which had been quoted by the Learned Civiiian (Dr. Lushington), was against him ; for, if the whole of the case were read, it would be found in no de gree to support the view of that Learned Gentleman. We had no right whatever to make reprisals fur a third party —no right, either as mediators or arbitrators, to redress their grievances, by laying an embargo on the commerce of an ally, still less by harassing that of our own subjects. —(Ci eers.) They had seized trading vessels of another Power, when there was not any reason to apprehend the ceaninencement of hostilities with that Power. Such a course was completely without justification in the ak of nations. But even if it could be justified by la w,9lllllkas absolutely necessary to show that the case in which it bad been adopted was perfectly plain and clear in its circum stances. Attached to this right of seizure was a di►pens. i ng power which might be exercised upon an imminent emergency, but it was not one that aver ought to be used a s an instrument of negotiation.—(Hear, hear.) They might think Holland was unreasonable in not yielding the question of Belgium to France and England, but they must not on that account seize the vessels of the subjects of a foreign State, because that State did not please them and did not obey their wishes, nor must they do so because the seizure of vessels was a degree less forcible than actual war. There were recognised states of war and peace, but that intermediate state, which this embargo exemplified, was on e for which no country, especially a country like this, with its innumerable commercial relations, ought lightly to set a precedent.—(Loud cheers.) Ile would net go into the circumstances of the dispute between Belgium and Holland. It was not necessary fur the pur poses of his argument. He might admit all that they said with respect to the unreasonableness of Holland, hut he denied again and again that that conduct furnished them with a justification for the conduct they had adopted. We are not, said the Right Hon. Gentleman—we are not living under laws of Orders in Council, signed " Charles Greville"—(A laugh) —o ne to authorize you to suspend the trade of your own and another country. Many great questions may arise as to the extent of the powers of a country or its Government under such circumstances, but I will not enter on all of them. I will content myself with addressing my observations to one point. What is the authority of Vattel on this subject? He calls it a contested right—l mean the right of calling on other states to obey conventions entered into between yourselves and another Power—he calls it, I say, a contested right, and be declares that for the purpose of enforcing it on any state you are not authorized to place neutral vea , els in the state in which you have placed them by this embargo. Why, Sir, what oppression may be exercised under colour of such an authority ?—(Hear, hear.) Whet arbitrary octs may be committed ?—(Hear, hear.) When I make this observation, do not let it be thought that lam making an accusation. I mean to make none. I have not heard that there have bee any abuses committed ; but I have a right to argue this question on the pos sibility of abuse. Look, Sir, at what has been said upon the trading by license. See the abuses of which that system is said to be capable. - tinder Orders in Council of this nature the same opportunity will occur.—(Hear, hear.) The law of the land gives to every subject of this country the opportunity of trading ; the Orders in Council suspend that right, and the Ministers of the Crown have the right, and, for anything I know, ought to possess the right, of remitting these Orders in Council. Are nut these circumstances such as to afford the opportunity for great abuses? and ought we to encourage a system that is liable to be thus abused ? But whether there have been abuses of the authority or not, there can be' no doubt that, under the authority itself, the most grievous wrongs have been sustained by individual merchants.—(Hear, hear.) These were the practices of former times.—(Hear, hear.) We appear, Sir, to be going back to those times when, for a nation's quarrels, injuries were inflicted, not on the State, hut on individuals.—(Hear.) If we dis countenance rapine and plundering on land, on the ground that a public quarrel should not be visited upon indivi duals, by what right can we possibly recognise treatment of this kind exercised towards individual property at sea? —(Hear, hear.) These are the arta, Sir—these are the devices, equally of ancient barbarism and of modern civili zation. —( Hear, hear.) You seize on Dutch vessels peaceably coming from the Dutch Colonies to Holland— I (Hear)—vessels which have never received notice of your hostility. You make no war on armed vessels.—(Cheers from the Opposition.) You confine your hostility to unarmed merchant ships, which could not possibly have heard of your quarrel with their country--( Hear, hear)—and you seize on these vessels in spite of the repeated declarations of Lord Hale and Lord Holt, of which you have so often boasted that "la mer snit ouverte."—(Cheers.) You say that you permit the cargo to be landed here. Why, suppose a cargo of sugar, after a winter's voyage damaged by the water, you permit it to be landed, do you ? You allow all vessels to unload into a British warehouse. Why, you might as well authorize the landing of a cargo of ice in the summer time—it is all melting away. (The Solicitor-General said, that vessels with cargoes liable to be spoiled might be released.) But have they been released ? ( The Solicitor-General—Here is the Order in Council.—(A laugh.) You say that where the cargo has received damage, you permit it to be landed. I say that such a permission is illusory. You do not permit in this country the refining of foreign sugars—your permission to land it in the case of such a cargo as I have described, is good for nothing, for if you allow nothing else, it amounts in fact to a positive denial of justice. But, Sir, with re gard to ourselves, what is the fact ? Why, that the loss falls on the British insurer. —(Hear.) Most of these vessels are insured. (Something was said to the Right Hon. Baronet across the table.) I do not know whether it is strictly the law that the insurer is liable, but such I understand is the feeling of honour of the British insurer that the loss will be borne by him. I say, then, that it is to the disadvantage of your own subjects that you are exercising this arbitrary and discretionary power. You assume the right to enforce a treaty, and to annul the ordinary laws of nations, and you do this under ordi nary circumstances, and by doing it inflict injuries upon individuals and losses on your own subjects. Ido say, Sir, that this is a matter deeply deserving the consi deration of the House, to decide whether or not it is justice that we should persevere in enforcing these Orders in Council.—(Hear.) The answer may be, that these Orders in Council promote the object which the Govern ment have in view ; that in the end they will create dis satisfaction among the subjects of the King of Holland; and that by their complaints be will be compelled to yield to the wishes of the two Powers. If that is your object-- if that is your expectation—again I deny your right to in flict these injuries on individuals, even for such a purpose ; for I say that your conduct is opposed to the laws of nations. Go to war, if you think yourselves justified in entering upon it, but do not affect to exercise a discre tionary power which no authority can justify. If you can even show that public policy demands the continuance of this embargo, that may be sufficient fur some; but it will not he sufficient for me. I should distrust such an argu ment—it is one that may be applied to sweep away every law and all authority.—(Hear, bear.) In discussing this matter, I have steered clear of the political question of Bel gium and Holland—l have not alluded to the statements which i.ave been made in papers both at home and abroad. I have taken the case on your own showing. But as far as I can form a judgment upon it, I must say that I doubt whether the object you have in view will be attained— whether the arrangement of this affair will be promoted by what you have done. I see nothing in opposition to appealing in a different manner to the parties you are now endeavouring to coerce. I see much to believe that your course would be facilitated by so doing. There have been conferences between the five Powers on the subject of Belgium and Holland. The five Powers appeared to have agreed on the principle of that treaty which was lately in part enforced by the French army, but they refused to take any part in coercing Hol. land. The main object of the Convention between England and France was the recovery of the citadel of Antwerp, and of the forts dependent on it. That object has been accomplished. The French army has returned to France. Why should not the English Orders in Council, passed at the same time, and with the same view —why should not they be repealed ? Is there anything inconsistent with the honour of England iu repealing them ? Since those Orders in Council have been issued the Scheldt has been closed. If they are repealed, it will again be opened. Are they not the chief impediments to the renewal of negotiations? The five Powers have re fused to take any part in forcible measures. A portion of your forcible measures are still in operation. Can they become parties to renewed negotiations while such mea sures contiune? Will Holland consent to negotiate with France and England, and to exclude those Powers which have ant, rtained a friendly disposition towards her, or at least so far friendly as to refuse to take part in measures of force directed against her? These are matters, Sir, for the consideration of the King's Government—it is for them to consider whether they cannot hut by' acts such as these promote the views they have, consistently with their own honour. It may still be said, I know, that these measures will produce dissatisfaction among the subjects of the King of Holland, and thus compel him to do what the two Governments require. But first, Sir, before adopting or continuing such measures, let his Majesty's Government ask themselves whether they are founded in justice.—( Hear, hear.) Let them beware how they resort to this mode of argument with a foreign State, without be ing fully convinced in their own minds that the measure is accoroing to the law of nations. There are some pressures upon nations, which, however those nations have been be fore divided, combine rather than dissipate the elements of public spirit.—( Hear.) You may summit nations to pres sures so severe that the spirit of resolution, of fortitude, of resistance to wrong, becomes sublime and refined, from the operations of those lower and those baser passions on which you may have calculated for obtaining subintssion.— (Hear, hear, hear.) Admitting that considerations of f rce may weigh upon the opinions and feelings of some men. by affecting their tears or their interests, and by deprivine them of commercial advantages, still there have been pe tiods in the history of our own country—(Hear, hear) in the history of other countries struggling for indepen. Bence—(Hear)—but, above all, in the history of that country of which we are now speaking—(Hear, hear, hear) —which prove that self-interest, that fear, that a!, the passions on which you may speculate, may be forgotten. and a spirit of independence, a spirit of resistance arise, which redresses the inequality of physical force, ano enables the smaller state successfully to contend against the energies of the more powerful.—(Hear.) Take care, then, I say, that your measures are founded upon the laws of nations; adopt not too readily the suggestions to expediency : or beware lest your speculations may other wise excite the indignation of the people of Holland, and farm an additional motive for rallying round their King, - r - nd defending him to the last. __(Hear. tn.the dot .at I sincerely feel as to yner ii ;1, t to enfoaC,e thei cede"' in Council—in the opimor, 1 entertain against the law of nations—in the belief thaiAlerllOY-,e,'= even opposed to public policy—in the convictioss4lNG suggestions of political expediency alone will not them, I must express my earnest hope that the Cavern- silent, and that this House, will seriously consider the question of the continuance of these orders in Council. Dr. LUSHING TON said, as the observations which he bad made on a former occasion hail been so frequently the subject of notice by the Right Hon. Baronet, the House would pardon him if he troubled them with a few remarks in reply. He assured the House that in doing eo he should not feel it necessary to detain them long, nor should he attempt to contest many of the propositions the Right Hon. Baronet had laboured to establish ; least of all should he he in the humour to deny the doctrine which the Right Hon. Baronet had eloquently enforced, that in all our dealings with foreign states, in all our intercourse with them, and more especially in dealings of any kind between Great Britain and states of minor importance, it was the duty of this country, as well as her interest, ever to adhere to those principl es of justice whereby the weaker are defended from the expressions of the stronger.—( Hears hear.) He had ever been the advocate of such principles, and he had often had to deplore that the Governments with which the Right Hon. Baronet had been successively connected had so often shown such little regard for the rights of foreign states—(Cheers)—and so little respect for those principles of magnanimity with which it was justly said smaller states ought to be treated.—(Cheers.) Indeed, he had but to look back to the year 1814, when what was called the settlement of Europe took place, to see the nu merous examples in which Great Britain had forgotten those doctrines which it now suited the purpose of the Right Hon. Baronet to maintain.—(Hear, hear.) That they might be observed was his perpetual prayer—that they might ever be treated as objects of respect he most ardently Jesired, and so long as he had a seat in Parliament he should ever be found, when any Administration swerved from theta, to be the first individual to denounce such misconduct. He should lee the last man in the world to justify the assumption of an authority which the laws of nations did not warrant. He had on ,a former occasion taken the liberty of showing that what had fallen from the Right Hon. Baronet was founded on a fallacy ; but be must he allowed to say, that in what he bad then expressed be had only given utterance to his own feelings, ignorant of any circumstances but those with which he had become ac quainted from the usual and ordinary sources of informa tion ; and for the arguments with which he was now pre. pared to defend his former opinions he alone was responsi ble. He should not repeat them if he were not convinced they were well founded in law and justice. The Right Hon. Baronet doubted whether the Orders in Council were in conformity with the laws of nations—with the muni cipal laws of the land—and lastly, whether they were not in themselves impolitic. It was evident, from the com mencement, that the Right Hon. Baronet Ltd come there in the full determination to answer the speech of the Noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs. addressed by that Noble Lord to his constituents. The Right Hon. Baronet said that these Orders in Council were not issued in contemplation of hostilities, and if that was so, that they were in violation of the laws of nations, and that they sere not issued as reprisals for injuries sustained. If the question was put, so he was afraid he must be of accord with the Right Hon. Baronet, for he must admit at once that if they were issued without the probability of hos tilities taking place against the State to which they re lated, he was not prepared to defend them—(Hear)—bet judging from the treaties on the table, they Premed to him to have been issued in strict accordance with the law of nations. He should not now enter into the consideration of the circumstances that led to those treaties. He was not now obliged to justify either the treaty of 1831 or 1832. He was perfectly aware of the principle on which those treaties were entered into ; but he was nut called on for, the purposes of the present argument, to go into any consideration of that principle. The Right Hon. Baronet had said that he should give no opinion as to the transac tions that had taken place between this country and Hol land, yet no one could have listened to the concluding part of his speech without seeing that he treated those transac tions in a manner unfavourable to the Government, and such as to prejudice the question under discussion. He (Dr. L.) would state the principle on which he meant to argue the question. He must assume that the treaties of 1831-1832 were justified by the law of nations. In what situation, then, was this country pieced ? He should answer that question by a quotation from the Con vention between France and England Being more over convinced that any further delay in tie execution of the same would seriously endanger the general peace of Europe, their said Majesties, notwithstanding the regret which they experience at finding that their Majesties, the Emperor of Austria, the King of Prussia, and the Emperor of Russia, are not at present prepared to concur in the active measures which are requisite for the execu tion of the said treaty, base resolved to fulfil their owa engagements, in this respect, without further delay." If that meant anything, it meant that the general tran quillity would be endangered by allowing the treaty to remain any longer unexecuted. That was a matter which was not to be lost sight of in discussing this question because, if the Government believed, and were prepared to prove that the general peace of Europe would be en dangered, then they came to the first general principle on which the laws of nations depended. If the Government believed this, it was not merely their right, but their duty, to take all measures, by negotiation, by embargo, by re prisals, or even by a declaration of war against that par ticular State, to secure the peace and tranquillity of other nations, as well as of Great Britain itself. That was his position. He maintained, from the beginning of the em bargo, that it was issued in expectation of hostilities. The Convention went on to observe, that the contracting Powers might see the necessity of interfering, and states the manner in which they should do so—first, by the entry of a French army into Belgium; and by a com bined English and French fleet being stationed off the Scheldt. If that was not a measure directly leading to war, it had at least a warlike tendency.—(Hear, hear, from the Opposition.) He conceived that such steps as these were generally preliminary to hostilities ; for if we banked during the last forty years, they had been observed whets we declared war, though, indeed, we had often made war without any declaration of war, for such had been the cus tom of the last forty years.—(Hear, hear, bear.) The Swedish embargo, for instance, was laid on in the month of May, and the declaration of war was not made till the July following.—(Hear.) No person could hesitate in coming to the conclusion that the treaty thus to be en forced was a treaty which in all human probability might lead to the commencement of hostilities. But at the same time it might not necessarily do an ; for it was not im possible that a country like lielland, seeing such powers as England and France were determined to enforce a par ticular measure, would yield, if not to the force of argu ment, yet to a sense of danger, and might thus concede the point in controversy. On that he defended these Orders in Council. The passage he had cited on a former occasion from Lord Stowell's judgment was stric ly appli cable to this case. And if any man knew Lord Stowell as well as he did—if any man had listened to the judgments of that Noble Lord as long as he had—that person would come from the hearing of theta convinced of this truth, that of all the Judges who had ever presided in Courts of Justice, there never was one who had taken such infinite .rains, care, and reiterated labour that no principle, no doctrine should emanate from him which could be app. cable in a manner different from that in wt ich he believed the law could be applied. All these judgments, too, it .hould be recollected, were corrected by Lord Stowell's own hand, and there was no rcan who could possibly think that the Noble Lord did not see when he delivered them what would be the full effect of them. That Noble Lord had given the judgment then quoted, not only with refe rence to the particul ir embargo et that time in question, nut upon the general laws of inflows; and, after stating that it could be justified by those laws, he aiiittlheTitlht,o:7‘te‘ Porte, and to disobey would be a high misprision." How was it possible for the Right lion. Baronet to deny that the an hority of Lord Stowell went farther than he (Dr. Lush ington) had done ? The Nehle Lord, speak:rig of the hr restated o e r t e n d b embargo o theha d conclusion u l g a i i o d n , .: P r a f riod t p h : e r" e ty r t n hi b en ar pt g hr o oe . psehrti l py t s w we a on s uwl a dh p bi r (e. ocess often resorted to in the practice of nations, for objects not immediately connected with the commencement of hostilities." Did the Nobles Lord mean by that a civil embargo ? No, he knew that 'rich an embargo would not be permitted in these days ; he meant an embargo imposed in consequence of diffe• rences with a foreign State—differences that it was proba ble would lead to hostilities. It was not necessary that hey should be itnmediately connected with the expecta tion of hostilities. All that was requisite fur him (Dr. Lushington) was to show that an earharee roiget tke place on the authority of the law of nations. "r,be Right Hon. Baronet had referred to Vattel. Wba!" 13 a r o u n c e : country on denied quoted i t oe e df d from R terpe t rp h i rs a i that as a l. t m h ht w e b a es Right ni b tt e .. (}, found in e i his o t u c iy)n h oh, ra ternert a Crow that r idi ; edc r: lu u wsn ; oi t ot wnb o . r ceats,tnqou Suppose Frant ran ce :t e p.i t nwr w rt : e v t o tai i i , dvi tb oa e friswt. question p would resemble th e od e s which the argument of th e Ri g ht Hun. Baronet The observation, th ere f ore , did not apply, for 7 1 h P e P t e Usa ed. odation of the whole proceeding was Ii