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

.v : via. ALBERT SMITH'S MONT BLANC, -Mk including the BERNESE OBERLAND and the SIMPLON, THIS EVENING, and Every Evening at Eight o'clock, (except •:, Saturday) :and Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday' Mornings, at Three. i It Stalls, 3s. (which can be taken at the box-office every day from li '. till 4; area, 25.; gallery, ls.—Egyptian Bail, Piccadilly. . ~. ' :t.t.• ''' 14,t :,,,t -,:gt .., XT"` . - ' : ,i; .., J. 1.% t 4 \ \ tih;ak.— ....., , ! 4 ,N,'`' . UNA\.Ar*:,4 ° I, •-,.... v 14 4 )411, „.. g: ' .. ~ ,..: 1-!tsrk , i ii t., '-, 4i . :,. ir:= 4 r4.‘' , i'', . ' .. i - I.Z lvr C. ~ .Trl. ` " - - 4 4t4veft. .. •rk.. , _ ). ~.1' i,„ . _, 7 -..„. 47.>016.4' .-r 0 - 41;: -.--* ; 6i,..*-'‘>";YL if 1.!..,c 't- = 4 : 1 . '74: ) e. cc 4.- i .., ,: . )i,)> -4 ' . #lO ' ‘.. . 1 4 .. • .- =.-- . . ~. . ~ - j-, ,- ~*. 1 . ' -kk w- ta---- fr: , ... . I 8 4 v , Y . ll' C1".'14. 4 441 / 4 ".1.'. ..- ...4, H''.' .-.''' ' ' ipit %4 1 L (4514 ' , ' A801,.. — ,4.., ' 4 . 4I 1 4 0410 . 1 ,1: + 0 , 1 4:-C 1 ' I IT- _ . ), / 8 ;1‘ ,4.- '.. 1 3 r, 48r.r. ' Rs .' 4 .. ''' . . ... .L . ;,. ? \ 4° . )".) x efi.: ,'. A r e :"7. ... .....- -4., .DlEl."' • ../ Z‘..,.,,,, '' ' l ' s 0 1 " ' ' O% - •=c; '' l "APV "'• 'ti;,:x.a................,221. ~.. 4.% iiiir ::l.:::. ' ,:. 1: i ...,. 1.....,;...,::: .. „.7.. + EAST INDIA. HOUSE, 27th Aram, 1854. THE COIII[RT 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 TarritsbAT, the Bth June, at 3 o'clock, and opened again on THURSDAY, the 13111 July, and That the Warrants for the Disidends on the said stock payable on the 6th July, Issl, under the llth section of the act 3d and 4th Wm. IV., cap. 80, will be ready to be del vered on that day. JAMES. C. MELVILL, Secretary. GUILDHALL, JULY 3, 1854. THE COMMITTEE for LETTING the CITY'S LANDS will meet at Guildhall, on Weclne/day. the 12th day Of July inst., at One o'Clock prec'selv, to receive 'fenders for Letting on Lease tor 21 years, fron 51i:11 elmas, 1.54, a House, 81, cn the east side of Mark-lane, Fenchurel,stre t. Further part!cular4 and Flans may be seen, and Forms of Tender obtained, at the Architect's Othee, FERD NAN D BRAND, Comptroller. T HE ELECTRIC TELEGRAPH COMPANY. (Incorporated by Act of Parliament, 1846.) NOTTCE lIEREttY GIVEN. that the SEVENTEENTH HALF-YEARLY GENERAL MEETING of the PROPRt E fORS of this Company will be he'd at the • 'en ral Station of the Company in Founders' Court, Totlitittry, London, on WE , NESDAY, the Twenty-sixth day of July instant, at Two o'clock pr , c , sely, pursuant to the Act of Incorpor . .tion; and that the Register of fran-ters will be closed for fourteen days from the twelfth day of July in tent. By order. J. S. FOURDRINIER, Secretary. Lothbury, July 5, 18! 4. ',UNWELL COLLEGE and PREPARATOR sCIIOOL. The Vacation closes the 24th inst " Nanwell College, conducted by Dr. Emerton, is fully sustaining the high character it has acquired. We find that former pupils of 'Unwell College have been either h.gh wramTlers or first-class men of our Universities during the present year ; and this is the twentieth in stance of success at Sandhurst or A ddisc ,, m be we have bad to record Within a short time."— United Service Gazette. Prospectuses may be had on application to the Rev. Dr. Esimtrox, Ilanwell College, Middlesex. NE XT OF KIN.—If the Relations or Next of Kin of WILLIAM FREDERICK GOODYER, late of No. 5, Ladbroke-place East, Notting-hill, in the County of Middlesex, Surgeon, who died ou or about the 29th of May, 1853, will apply to the Solicitor for the affairs of her Majesty's Treasury, at the Treastlry Chambers, Whitehall; London, they may hear of something to their advantage. CARSON'S CREEK CONSOLIDATED MINING COMPANY.—The Directors bez to announce that the question submitted to the votes of the Shareholders, of proceeding with or abandoning the undertaking of this Company, under the cir 'ftras....T. set forth tel Statement" addressed to the Share holders, under the date of the 6th of June last, has resulted in the following returns being sent in to the office : Total number of votes sent in •• •. • • • • 53,200 For proceeding •• •• • • 37,465 For abandoning .. • • Majority for proceeding .. • . 21,730 Which majority is independent of the shares held by the Directors, Who did not vote. Lists, in numerical order of the denoting numbers of the shares in respect of which votes have been recorded, may be obtained on application to the Secretary, at the Company's offices. H. N FiS 'IT, Secretary. By Order, Allhallows-chambers, Lombard-street, July 1, 1854. THE MAIL STEAM-SHIP for AUSTRALIA, August 4, IBs4.—The magnificent screw steamship "CAL CUTTA," 1,800 tons, Captain J. GOODALL, another of the fine fleet belonging to the General Screw Steam Shipping Company. will be despatched with her Majesty's Mails for Adelaide, Port-Philip, and Sydney, on the 4th August next. This fine vessel has maintained her high reputation for rapid sa ling and punctuality, and is a sister Chip to Vie " Argo," which has made the quickest v yage to and from Australia up to this time. The Calcutta has been employed 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 GO days. Rates of Passage trom 30 to 100 guineas. She will be followed, on the 4th of October, by the CacEsus, of 2,500 toes. Full particulars as to Freight and Passage Money at the Com- Pany's Officer, a 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 Shipping Company have determined to de spatch their Steam ship "CAVE OF GOOD HOVE" to TABLE BAY, on the 7th of July next. The " Cape of Good Hope," H. D, BENSON, Commander, has just returned from a most successful voyage to Constantinople with passengers and general cargo, i, 700 tons burthen, and 100 horse-power Built by Messrs. Mare & Co., 01 Biackwad, and an extremely fast shin. Her accommodations for Passengers are little if at all inferior to this Company's first-class steam ships so well known OM the Cape and Calcutt4 line. The rates Of passage money are,--4 lest Class, 60 and 65 Guineas each ; Sec nd Class 35 to 45 Guineas each. The ship will load and sail from South ampton. As her capacity for passengers and freight is limited, early aPPlicgtion should be made to the Company's Offices, 27, Cannon street, City. LAURENT' S CASINO, ARGYLE Rooms, (Lessee, CHAS. C. LAUSENT, 011810 W-house, Fulham-road), The above Rooms are now OPEN FOR THE SEASON. and will continue open every evening, with L A URE N T'S CELEBRATED BAND. Constantinople Quadrille, Sultan Polka, Pair Star Waltz, and Overlan4 Mail Galop, by D'Albert ; also, by H. Laarent , the following Waltzes La belle Frangaise, Leonora, Villi kins and his Dinah, Admission, Is. Doors open at half-past 8. Dancing to commence at 9 o'clock, and terminate at half-past 11. No . 19,274.] PUBLICATIONS. COMPLETION OF MISS BURNEY'S DIARY. Now realy, the SEVENTH VOLUME (completing the work), price 3s. bound. with Portrait, of the ri HE , VP EDITION OF I\:TADAME D'AuBLAy. = DIARY AND LETTERS Purlished f.r Henry Colburu, by his successors, Hurst and Blackett, 13, Great Marlborough-street. Now ready, at all the Libraries, in three vols., ►A AM SLICK'S NEW WORK, " THE AME RICANS k T HOME; or, BYEWAYS, BACKWOODS. and PRAIRIES. Edited by the Author of " Sam Slick." "One of the most amusing books we ever read." - Standard. " The Americans at Hume' will not be less pepul+r than any of Judge Haliburton's previous works."—Morning Post. Hurst and Macke t, Publishers, successors to Henry Colburn, 13, Great Marlborough-street. Just published, New and Improved Edition, price Is., I'IHE CURABILITY of CONSUMPTION ; being a Series of Papers, presenting the most prominent and important Practical Points in the Treatment of the Disease. PURSUANT to an Order of the High Court of Chancery, made in a cause, TRUEM \N. against lIORN. CASTLE, the Creditors of THOMAS CHESTER, late of the Haven Farm, in the parish of Firbeck, in the County of York, farmer, de ceased, who died in or about the month of Octobei, 1851. are, by their Solicitors, on or before the Twentieth day of July. 1854, to come in and prove their Debts, at the Chambers of the Vice-Chaacellor Sir Richard Torii' Kindersley, No. 15, Old square, Lincoln's-inn, Middle sex ; or in default thereof, they 'will be peremptorily excluded from the benefit of the said Order. _ . . Monday, the 24th day of July, 1854, at 12 o'clock at noon, at the said Chambers, is appointed for hearing and adjudicating upon the Claims. Dated this 19th day of Jtme, 1854. CHARGER PUGH, Chief Clerk. ROB T. GILLSND, 2, Coleman-street-buildings, Moorgate-street, London, agent for W. E. SIIITH, DO-Caster, Plaintiff's Solicitor, N ATIONAL LOAN FUND FIFE ASSUR ANCE SOCIETY. 26, COILNIIILL, LONDON, 21st June, Mi. NOTICE IS HEREBY . GIVEN, That the II ALF-YEARLY IN TEREST on the CAPITAL STUCK of this SOCIETY, at the rate of 5 per cent. per annum. due on the 300. instant, together with the B 'NUS thereon, declared at the annual meeting in May last, will become payable on the 10th July next, and proprietors may receive the same at this Office on that or any subsequent day, between the hours of 11 and 3 o'clock. And notice is nercby given, that the Transfer Books of the Society will close on the 301 h inst., and open on the 11th day of July next. By order of the Court of Directors. W. S. B. WOOLIIOUSE. Actuary. ROYAL POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTION. Under the Patronage of 11.R.H. PRINCn ALBERT. The put, is is respectfully informed that this Establishment is now Placed UNDER. ENTIRELY NEW MAN • GEMENT, and that alterations and improvements are in progress in all its departments, Which it Is hoped will render it even more worthy of the support of the public than it has hitherto been. Communications in future should be addressed to J. H. Pepper, Esq., the Resident Director. All the LECTURES, OPTICAL and other EXHIBITIONS, are continued as usual. Open daily from Eleven till Five, and every Evening except Satur day from Seven till Ten. Admission, is.; Schools and Children under ten years of age, Ralf-price. TRIESEMAR, protected by Royal Letters Patent of England, and secured by the Seals of the Ecole de Pharmacie de Paris, and the Imperial College of Medicine, Vienna. TRIESEIIAR, No. 1, Is a remedy for Relaxation, Spermatorrhcea, and Exhaustion of the SYstem. TRIESEMAR, No. 2, effectually, in the short space of three days, completely and entirely erldicates all traces of those Disorders which Capivi and Cubebs have so long been thought an antidote for, to the ruin of the health of a vast portion of the population. TR I A R, No. 3, is the great Continental Remedy for that class of Disorders, which Unfortunately the English physivan treats with Mercury, to the in evitable 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 use being suspected. Sold In tin cases at its. each, free by post, 2s. extra, divided into R !Par ate doses, as administered by Valpeau, Lallemand , Roux , Btc., &c.—To de had Wholesale and Retail in London of Robert John ten, 68, Cornbill ; Hannay and Co., 63, Oxford-street; and Sanger, 150, Oxford-street. NITY OF FRANCE AND ENGLAND.- Mutual co-operation has taken place—an unity of interests has been discovered, that will render the two nations the admiration Of every kingdom en earth. They have their C.istinet talents and Peculiarities, but, once amalgamated, there is no bound to their pro gress. It will have been observe l that E. MOSES and SON were the first to exhibit the commercial consequences of the unity of France and England. France produced its tancy fabrics forSUM MER ATTIRE, and E. MOSES and SON fashioned them into the Most approved costume for that season, for special or ordinary wear. .bus France has produced for E. MOSES and SON, and they have Manufactured for them—having their Fatrons in France as well as an other countries. E. MOSES and SON never overlooked the advantages which the -uttblie derive from the unity of France and England —their present Stock of SUMMER ATTIRE is the most satb.ractory illustration ....which could be attained in HATS, CAPS , FANC Y H OS IE RY, -L ADIES' DRESSES, SHAWLS, MANTLES, PARASOLS, &c. Prance and England are represented in the most fft:ctive manner a t L. MOSES and SOY'S City and West end Branch Estatli-hments, _and the benefits of the international compact are disce rned in the v ery economical prices charged for the most elegant articles of the Season. JUVENILE ATTIRE, which E. MOSES and SON have produced for the MIDSUMMER HOMO AY'S, partakes of all these ativan 142es, and is distinkuisbed for novelty and cheapness, which exceeds ail former preparations. The WHOLESALE DEPARTMENT, which is the largest and Most select Stock of SHIR IS, BO; )TS, ant SHOES, &c., secures the most desirable advantages to Merchants, Captains, Emigrants. or Country Buyers, the articles being much better and considerably Cheaper than at any other house. Full LIST , of OUTFITS for Ladies and Gentlemen , with ship - Sailing information, may be had on application grat s or post tree. CAUTION.—E. MOSES and SUN regret flaying to guard ..he Dablic against imposition, hr.ving learned that the untradesman-like faliehk od of " Being connected with their Establishment," or It's the same concern," has been resorted to in many instances, anu for obvious reasons, they beg to state that they have - - - No CONNEXION WIWI ANY OTHER HOUSE IN OR OUT Or LONDON, except their own Establishment!, 2,9 follows : London 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, Bart-street, all commuicating. Bradford (Yorkshire) Branch, 19 and 20, Bridge-street. Sheffield Branch, 36, Fargate. Colonial Wholesale Branch, Melbourne, Australia. Merchant Tailo.s Clothiers, Hatters, Hosiers, Furriers, Boot and - Shoe Makers, and General Outfitters for Ladies and Gentlemen. IMPORTANT.—ShouId any article not give satisfaction, It will be exchanged if desired, or, if preferred, the money will be returned Without hesitation. All goods are marked in plain figures, the lowest price, trom which no abatement can be made. The Establishments are closed from armee • on Fridays to sunset on Saturdays, when business is resumed till 12 o'clock. A new Book, with illustrations, entitled" The Echo of Public Opi nion," containing full lists of prices, our system of self-measure &c., &c., may be had on application, or pot-free. Ici l'on parts Francais. Qui si tiler spricht man Deutsch. Aoua se habla Espano. THE SECRET INFIRMITIES OF YOUTH AND MATURITY. 'lust published, price 25., illustrated with cases; free by post for 30 stamps, NERVOUS DEBILITY; Its Causes, symptoms, and Cure.—An Essay on Sper rnatorrhma, 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 examination, the real cause and effect of every variety of complaint , whether arising from solitary habits, tXcesses, accident, or climate. followed by practical remarks, founded ° ,l twenty years' experience in the treatment of Impuissance, __ ervons Debility, Local Weakness, Spermatorrhusa, &c. To which are added, Commbntaries 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, M.D. 87, BEDFORD-SQUARE, LONDON, Doctor of Medicine, Matriculated Member of the University of Edin burgh, Honorary Member of the London Hospital Medical society, Licentiate cf Apothecaries' Hall, London, &c., &c. Theesscntial object of this treatise is to point out the fearful eon " Venus resulting from certain habits, irregularities and excesses, Which ha ,- e 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 modem pathologists. Its perusal is Particularly recommended to persons entertaining secret doubts of their physical condition, and who are conscious of having hazarded the health happiness, and privileges to which every human being is entitled. It is absolutely necessary thatall men should know, that there are Principles of personal management which cannot be violated without incurring grievous penalties, and when wisdom and regret succeed the heyday of inconsiderate self-indhlgence, how these penalties may be mitigated, how the sting of their bitterness may be removed, and how the evil and its consequences may be avoided, and above all, that there is scarcely any decree of physical infirmity or functional d erangement 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 U nfortunately been too generally confided to the care of ignorant "nPirics, who inflict great injury on those who are induced to place faith in 'their pretensions. NERVOUS DEBILITY may be bad, price 2e, of Messrs. Piper, S rotten and Co., 23, Paternoster-row; Hannay, 63, Oxford-street; kann, 39. Cpmhill ; or free by post for thirty stamps, to any address from the Author's residence, 37, Bedford-square. At home for consultation daily from Eleven till Two, and from (II; till Ma* LAW UNION FIRE and LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY. Chief Otticev, 45, Pall-mall. Capital, One Milton, in 100,000 Shares of 101. each. The Fire and Life Depart. ments are under one management, but with separate funds and accounts. DIRECTORS. Sir WILLIAM FOSTER, Bart., Chairman JAMES PARKER, Esq., Baddow-house, near Chelmsford, Vico- Chairman Mr. Scrjeant Manning, Q A.S., 3, Serjeant's-inn James Alexander Douglas, Esq., 16, Rtbsell-square E. Slaughter, Esq., 15, Mansfield-street, Porthnd-place John Wool eti, Esq., Barrister-at-Law, 5, Brick-court, Temple Charles Foster, Esq,, Lincoln's-inn, and 13, Bruton-street, Berkeley- square James Cu ddon, Esq., Norwich Charles John Whishaw, Esq., 3, Gray's-inn-square John Lambert, Esq.. Salisbury J S. B ,rnes, Esq , Clerk of the Peace, Colchester R. J. Sisson, Esq , St. Asaph Edward Burkitt, Esq., Carriers'-hall, London-Ivan Henry Mason. Esq., firm Lindsay and Mason, 84, B tsinghan-Street J. Molyneux Taylor, Esq , 2, J , .hn-street, l.lzdford-row J. C. Rees, 38, Lincoln's-inn. fields Charles John Palmer, Esq., Gr eat Yarmouth Edward King, Esq , B th J F Robinson, Esq., The Hall, Hadleigh, Suffolk Francis Ridout Ward, Esq., i3ristol John Batten, jun., Esq., Yeovil Henry Tremenheere Johns, Esq., Ringwood, Hants Joseph Coverdale, Esq., I ngatestone-hall, Essex Vincent Gosford, Esq., Cheriton, Alresfo (1, rants Li. E. Marsh, Esq .2, Charlotte-row, Mansion-house, City Medical Director—Henry Hancock, Esq , 59, Harley-street, Cavendish-square. SECURITIES' COMMITTEE. Vincent Gosford, Esq. 11. Marsh, Esq. James Parker, Esq. Sir William Foster, Hart. Charles John Whishaw, Esq. James Cuddon, Esq. J e sepli Coverdale, Esq. St a nding Counsel—Wm. Hayes, Esq., 4, New-square, Lincoln's-inn. Solicitor —George John Darren - , Esq , 45, Londrn Bankers—Messrs. Bouverie and Co. Haymarket. M.D. Lond., M.R.C.P , 13, Esq., F.R.C.S., 59, Ila . rley- Country Bankers—Messrs. G irney and CO. MV o i v ca o l m A h d ir v e is .s e q rs u — are ito ; be H r ) t ,. B u ar a n n e c s, ock, street, Cavendish•square. Consulting Actuary—Ar t air Seratetiley,Esq.,M.A.Cantab.,F.H.A.s. In the FIRE DEPAR TMENT. The terms are in gener al the same as those of the principal fire insurance offices. The business is confined to the best classes of insurance. The advantages consist in— The extent of the capital responsible for losses. The return . to the insurer of the discount allowed by on the Government The liberality and promptitude with which the business Is con ducted. In the LIFE DEPARTMENT. The benefits of mutual Insurance are combined with the advantage of the guarantee of an ample subscribed capital. The Premiums have been calculated on the latest report of Registrar-General, and are as economical as consistent with safety. Whole-world policies granted on payment of a small fixed addi tional Premium. Policies indisputable, except in cases of fraud. Assivnaien s or Polides registered and acknowledged. Loans on reverAons, life interests, &c. The leg .1 business In connection witk mortgages may (under judi cious regulation.) be transacted by sJlicitors of known respectability, being share! , olders. _ Fire and Lite proposals will be received and every information g'ven at the chief offices, 45, l'all-mall ; at Edward Burkitt, Esq , Curriers'-hall, London-wall; at J. C. (tees, Esq., 38, Lincoln's-inn fi:•lds; Mcs-r:. Lindsay and Masons, 84, Basteghall-street ; and 11. E. Marsh, Esq , 7, Charlotte-row, Mansion-house, .Loidun ; and at the offices of any of the Country i)ire , :tors... . _ . Forms of proposal, Bc,c pust free, on application to the Secretary, FRANK 31.,iEDY. A RE YOU GOING TO THE HIGHLANDS TIIIB SEASON ? If so, you must visit the TARTAN and TWEED WAREHOUSE, 12, High-street, Inverness, where you will find the splendid speci mens of Ilighl•snd Manufacture which rained the Prize Medal in the Great Exhibition in Imsl, and the INDUSTRY and PRODUCTIONS 01 the HIGHLANDS of SCOTLAND, and CLOTHING of every kind for DEER•ST ILKING, GROUSE- 'HOOTING, 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. and all his Patterns may be seen at 19A, Golden-square, London, from 2 to 6 o'clock, until let July. DR. DE JONGH'S LIGHT BROWN COD LIVER 011,—The most effectual remedy for Consumption, itrochitis, Asthma, Gout, Rheumatism, and all Scrofulous Complaints. Pure and unadulteratel, containing all its most active and es+ential principles—eilecting a cure much more rapidly than any other kind. Prescribed by the most eminent medierd men, and supplied to the 1 , adisg hospitals of Europe. Half-pint bottles, 2s. 6d. ; pints, 4s 9d. Imperial Measure.—Wholesale and retail depot, ANSA% HAR FORD, and CO., 77, Strand. AUTlON.—Messrs. ALLSOPP and SONS ll 1 find it necessary to caution the Public, and especially Shippers of their Ales to the Coloqies, aga'nst Irauds committed by parties in selling spurious Ales for those of Messrs. Allsopp and Sons. Messrs. ALLSOPP and S@NS have felt compelled by the extent to which this disgraceful practice has been carried, to proceed in several cases by obtaining injunctions from the Court of Chancery, and have ultimately been driven to prosecute criminally for the com mission of this offence. They beg to call attention to the Case of the QUEEN Y. GRAY and Gosrax, in which Lord Campbell 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 rea son tO doubt the genuineness of any article sold under their name, to send them the earliest Information, in order that immediate steps may be taken for prosecuting the parties. ➢iessrs. ALL ;OPP and SONS will be happy to flirnish the names of respectable houses, where a supply of their Ales may be depended on as genuine from the Brewery. Brewery, Burton-on-Trent. ARCHEOLOGICAL INSTITUTE.—The approaching meet ing of the Institute at Cambridge promises in every respect to be 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 be 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 no 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. Weetwaeott, the Hon, R, C, Neville, and Dr. Brum By FRANCIS 11. RAMADGE, Fellow of the College of Physicians, late Senior Physician to the Royal Infirmary for Diseases of the Chest, Bt,c. Also, by the same Author, A TREATISE on AS fIiSIA and on DISEASES of the HEART. Price 10s. 6d. London : Longman, Brown, Green, and Longmans. IRELAND. LOUGHCOOTER CASTLE, GORT, COUNTY GAL WAY. IMPORTANT to CAPITALISTS.—It is intended to submit to Public Competition, early in the Month of August next, at the Commercial Buildings, in the city of Dublin (unless previously disposed of by private contract), the Fee-simple and Inheritance of the Castle, Offices, and Demesne of Loughcooter, containing about 1,260 acres, stivute measure, and on which a sum exceeding 80,0001. was expended by the late proprietor, Lord Viscount Gott, together with Vie Lake (three miles in length), and Islands therein, A Parliamentary Title can be given. Full particulars will appear in future advertisements. For all forth, r information application to be made to James Sin nott, Solicit ,r, 23, Lower Ormond Quay, Dublin, who is authorised to receive proposals for the purchase of same, and from whom tickets to view may be had. IMPORTANT TO HOUSES OF BUSINESS. Reduction on the Gov- rnment Duty on Fire Insurances to Insurers. UNITY FIRE INSURANCE ASSOCIATION. Capital Two millions, with Seven Thousand :4harehol , •e , s. Ch.vf Offices :-40, Pall-mall, Lemdon. Insurers in the " UNITY " are allowed the full Discount which the Office receives from the Government upon the Duty chargeable on their Policies, at the rate of 51. per cet.t. on Country, and 11. per cent. on Loudon policies. Insurers receive Two-thirds of the Profits Parties desirous of insuring with this Association may be personally waited upon by a gentleman from the Office, and thus be spared all trou le or loss of time. Appl cations for Prospectuirs, Agencies, and all other Information, are reqae,ted to oe made to THOMAS H. BAYLIS, General Manager and Secretary. LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, J ULY 5, 1854. I AWE RI AL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF LORDS-(YESTERDAY.) Their lordships assembled at 5 o'clock. Lord CAMPBELL presented a petition from a place in Scotland against the Scotch Bankruptcy Bill. Lord BROUGHAM repeated that the measure was supported by the great majority of the mercantile classes in Scotland. The Earl of CHICHESTER presented a petition from Lewes against the employment of dogs in drawing carts. 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 quies'iion of much importance, and consider ing the late period , Jf the session, the Government had de termined not to proceed with the Testamentary Jurisdic tion Bill this sess'ion. (Hear, bear.) With respect to the Divorce Bill he gather believed that the Lord Chancellor proposed to mn . .ke some alteration in it. The first part of it was founde A on the report of the Commissioners on the Law of Divexce; it was not connected with the other parts of the repo r t which referred to the Ecclesiastical Courts. It was a separate question, and the Lord Chancellor was of opirr.on 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. Lord W. GRAHAM begged to ask the Lord Presilent 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 important words being omitted in the translation. In the 3d paragraph of the convention it was stated that Austrian and Prussia " wore united in the &fire to avoid every participation in the war between Russia and Turkey, France, and Eng land " In the original German 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 ? kr. CARD WELL said that a bill was drawn on the subject, but he had not had time to enable him to intro duce it ; and looking to the period of the present session, he did not see any prospect of introducing it so as to pass it into a law this session. THE IRISH MILITIA. Mr. ESMONDE begged to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it was the intention of Government to enrol the Irish militia; and if so, when it was intended to embody them. Lord PALMERSTON said it was the intention of the Government to take steps to embody the whole or a por tion of the Irish militia. With regard to training, it must be remembered that there was a difference between train ing and embodying; as embodying meant that the men should keep their arms for the whole year. If the num ber of men enrolled was sufficient, the training would take place, but he 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 gulation 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 able 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. 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 in 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 orthe Privy Council were. On these grounds he supported the resolution. Sir W. MOLESWORTH—The resolution of th • 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 t o 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 maritime renown, would be inconsistent with the honour of this country. Therefore, if the house were to agree to this resolution, it would pledge the honour of this country to maintain for ever the proposition con tained in it. I think this house will not pledge itself to any proposition of the truth of which a doubt may be en tertained. Therefore, in order to induce the house to en tertain the resolution, the hon. 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. Ho 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 work of Grotius on the rights of neutrals—l mean the third chapter of his work. The reason is obvious. Grotius 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 gentleman also quoted the authority of Vattel, who is a very able writer, but in the chapter in which ho treats of confiscating au enemy's goods in a friend's ship, ho 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 are 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, an d 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 queatium, 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 bea ,- , 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 on board neutral ships founded on true priuciples 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 expunge 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 against the rule of confiscating enemy's pro perty on board 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 lawful 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 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 euenoy'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 cared for, that it was a misapplication to neutrals of the Roman law with regard to the subjects of belligerents. For when the Eu ropean states which sprung from 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 legists who made those attempts were conversant only w ith the Roman law, and they adopted as rules of their public law ucan w y . Roman I maxims taken without alteration from the rights) a grave error was introduced into the p Ists th u e interests Europe, which has been very injurious to In this manner (say the friends of the extension a public law of neutrals. For the Roman law was not _ the Roman of nations, but only the municipal law oonly determined determined empire. 'Therefore the Roman law sulsects of Rome what ought to be the conduct of the lt had j no concern towards the enemies of Rome. be the conduct of free with the question of what ought . to porators of Rome pro fisiotal e t d t o punish, their dis obedient n d independent neutrals. The li lt entitled to prohibit, their hibited, and as sovereigns were en an enemy, or carrying on board subjects from trading with of Rome. They p _ las yt of f l their ships the goods of the enemies n provisions not only to their subjects ished ,an ton of the goods and which contained the goods of the enemies even of the ships of Rome. The sovereigns of Europe adopted the provisions of the Roman law with regard to trade with enemies, but whom they as sovereigns were entitled to command, but they frequently extended those provisions to neutrals, over whom they had no sovereignty whatever. It is self evident, however, that because a sovereign is entitled to they applied those issue certain commands to his subjects, ard to punish dis obedient subjects, it does not follow thet the OWN 5070, C RUELTY - . 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. The Earl of EGLINTON was sorry to differ from his noble arid learned friend as to the necessity of the bill, which he considered was a piece of over legislation. He never yet heard a case aientioned, on authority, of a dog having gone n iad in conse quence of being used in drawing carts. 31e moved that the bill be read a third time this day thre e mouths. Lord BROUGHAM considered that , as dogs were not designed by Providence for the purps sses of draught, it was an act of cruelty to employ them 'in carts. The Marquis of WESTMINSTER tent iered his thanks to Lord St. Leonards for introducing the bill. If the present law were allowed to remain, it sought to be ap plied to all the country districts, where 1 he nuisance of dog-carts was more felt than even it xs as formerly in London. Lord HATHERTON was understood to support the bill. The Earl of MALMESBURY said there were 1,500 persons in Sussex and Hampshire atom: who got their living by means of these dog-carts, and i f this bill passed their property would be confiscated. "They were to be made liable to an imprisonment of three calendar months 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 injustice then, it might well be argued that they ought to commit it now. (Much laughter.) Earl GRANVILLE thought the argument of his 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 not 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 courts to take evidence vial 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 bill should be extended to Ireland. The Bleaching, &c., Works Bill, the Customs Duties (Sugar and Spirits) Bill, the Excise Duties (Sugar) Bill, and the Warwick Assizes Bill, severally went through 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 :—Fleming's Estate ; Masters' Estate ; Smith's Charity Estate ; Thornhili's (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 by Mr. GREENE, from Lan caster, against the Mortmain Bill ; Mr. GEO. DUNDAS, from a place in Scotland, against the Scotland Valuation Bill ; Mr. I. BUTT, from the Secretary of the late Board of Health, in Ireland, complaining that his office had been abolished without compensation. VALUATION OF LAND (SCOTLAND) BILL. The house then went into eorntnittee on this bill. Mr. A. HASTJE moved as an amendment to clause ng fro n m otic t e he of l v s a th lua t t o io t n h u e nd n er st th o e f August. u l l t g h s u h a s t o t u . theld time e extended i The committee divided, when there appeared, For the amendment... l5 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 heritages are subject to a feu duty or ground annual, the proprietor shall be entitled to relief from the superior or the party in right of the ground annual, and to deduction from the feu 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 obligation in his titles, or by law, liable in payment o f, an d th at 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." also clauses from 6 to 14 inclusive. lterseoamreed—discussion, the committee divided, w h en 23 Against it Majority. . the Area pp • For the proviso 52 Thaeup se ro s vi N s v o as N\ a -a: r e a: d e accor asdingly lost.. C l On clause 15. Mr. ORAUFURD moved an amendment with the view to abolish distinctions of property brou g ht to valua 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 denomina 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 in 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 silting was suspended. The house resumed at six o'clock. CANADIAN AFFAIR. Sir J. PAKINGTON wished to put S 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 Governor-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 about 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 Majesty's Government had not 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 divorce had been introduced into the other house, and it was probable that or bills relating to church discipline, church rates, and other matters over which Ecclesiastical Courts had jurisdiction, would also ba 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 is 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 had been in communication with the Lord Chancellor, and ho 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 opiniou with regard to the ilaturo of tin court to which ulattea of this kind NAVAL PRIZES. Mr. J. G. PHILLIMORE 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 renounce 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 hon. 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 in the ship of a friend are lawful prize. There seemed to be a general opinion that i h now adopted by the Governm en t , if en grafted eaPrifjoiteY r system of maritime law, would c ause a grea t h In th e m i ser i es o f war. H e was of a different p u and it wa s b ecause h e was of th a t op i n i on that he opinion, n ig t oen 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 Corvolatn del Mae-c, which had been confirmed by Grotius and Vattel, It was erroneously supposed that the law of France was less 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 ou board. There had been private treaties, hut these private treaties had been made in such a way as to do no injury to this country. They were made with France and with Hel -1 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 1788 the Baltic Confederation was formed, but we refused to allow that principle. He thought he had established his position as far as maritime European authorities went. But there were American authorities. In 1793, Mr. Jef ferson, writing on this subject, said --" The general law of 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 the same principles. There was also the opinion of Chancellor 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 cellor Kent said,—" There is also a marked difference in the rights of war carried on by land and sea." But was it true that continental proceedings formed a striking contrast to our own ? Wh a t was the character of Turenne ? "What was the character of Frederick the Great ? 'What were the instructions given to the French generals during the lash century ? The fact was that the injury committed in continental war was often wonton and unnecessary, whereas in maritime war it was absolutely essential that that which alone could j ustify any war, that which would di minish the enemy's power should be done. 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 h ave a tendency to increase the probabi lities of war ; it ten.aed to make a neutral nation involve other nations in Year because they then gained advantages from which at other times they were excluded. What principle was it that prohibited neutrals from carrying contraband war, and on which they confiscated a ship carrying j 'aespatches, or which attempted to break a a r e cl t d ur n blockade, ? It was on the • • allowed treasure their huetir t e eh x na p et e m n y de t c o l allow a. belligerent to do that by a neutral which he could principle that they would not not by himself. But there was another principle. If thr,re must be a war, surely it was desirable that the blood returnsler n o j u w. 0 1 oy d hah r i gur produce eoatt hm t greatesth ea e noyhtoafi nteiclie iafd possible tvhaeny tages of peace, which he would en'o it he was allowed to carry on by neutral ship s that commerce which he could not otherwise carry on. He could perfectly understand his hon. f r i en d s th e membersfor Manchester and the West Riding, who held the benevolent, but as be thought. the mistaken principle, that war ought to be abandoned. If they w en t upon the principle that their enemy should have the advantage of peace while they were carrying on war against him, then they should be • •stent to recall consistent their ships and isband their army. For these reasons he trusted that they would agree t o his resolution. Mr. T. .11.IITCRELL said he w second the resolution, Borne time ago to cto so, but he could not concur in the first part of it. He certainly had no interest in objecting to the relaxations which had been made by the Government. Quite the reverse. He believed there was no man well acquainted with Russia who was not of opinion that the greatest means of coercion that could be employed against that country was closing the trade with it. That country exported of late years about 15,000,0001. worth of produce annually, a largo g portion of which went directly in the shape of revenu e to the large landowners ; and if they stopped up that otttlet it was tantamount to 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 had 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, snore frankly than he should have expected, told them it would be highly unsafe for English merchants to make those advances. They did not make them, and s that the value of good s i u R uss i a de the consequence wa clined 20 per cent., and most of the Russian houses ab stained almost entirely from trade _with Ru ss i a . A f ew houses however bought a co nsiderable quantity of goods at t caused by the • a reduction of 20 per cen •generalfeeling in the trade, and by Lord Clar endon 's inf ormation, and when war proclaimed they went clamorously to the Government and said " We bought these goods before any declaration of war ; we had no idea of war, and , we call on you to let us take the goods away from Russia. A A Period was ga in e d nn to the 15th of May, and he believed that 115 vessels went to Riga, and at least half the goods they were loaded with were actually bought at Riga after the declaration of war. Then it was intimated that a blockade was to take place of Archangel, but it was not known when, and vessels were being about, at this moment, to be sent to Archangel to be taken away before the blockade. Then with regard to the Blac k 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 d vessels were going there earning most enormous freights ; and while English merchants had refrained from operations, a num ber of Greek merchants were buying up goods at rates which would yield a high profit, and were loading th ese neutral vessels which were getting freights, which ho had no hesitation in saying would pay 50 per cent. on the cost of the vessels. Ho spoke Of the feeling of trade, and ho said if they were to have a blockade lot them know when it was to take place, so that they might be put on the same footing as their neighbours, and act accordingly. N ow with reference more particularly to the motion, th ere 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. H e 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 o f T ra d e ) , 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 w ero perfectly -7 1 ~~~~~~ [PRICE SD. 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' goods, not only on board the ships of their subjects, but also on board the ships of neutrals ; secondly, the right of confiscating, not only the 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 trade of their subjects, but also of neutrals, with the enemy. The 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 m e ; 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 entitled to demand of me as a neutral, is, that I will not take 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, I will not interfere, nor supply him with the means of prolonged defence ; but pro vided that I abstain from doing these things, as a neutral 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 Salon 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 a 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, end to which as a neutral he ought to be perfectly indifferent, cannot destroy his rights on the free ocean, cannot entitle you as a belligerent to interfere with his floating territory 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 admitted 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 froth 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 pur chase of the property in question has not been completed, and that its legal ownership is still vested in your 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 these 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 bo 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 pxoperty 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, whether ho 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 entitld 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 again resist wherever 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 endeavoured 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 of H olland, and Portugal, was free ships, free goods." That is ,that the goods of the enemies of one contracting p ower, being a belligerent, should not be liable to confiscation on board 'Phis the ships of the other contracting power, bei n g a neut rule is contained in almost every one of the treaties of peace and commerce which England concluded in the thelatter part of the 17th century and the 18th century, urya nimportant , fact. with powers which I have just mentioned. Tphriehsc is an tPh o a li t cy l I think it affords so strong a the which her Majesty's Government will briefly enumerate the t re ati w es h t to o h wh oo ic n h tae refer.lie first English treaty on record prin ciple "free s hips, free goods," was that of Westminster, in the year 1654, statesman, than IV.King whoih none of Portugal, and that warrior and t ruled the destinies of this nation, who mad e the name and flag of England respectedon every sea, and whose a lli ance was courted by all the monarchs of Europe. (Hear.) In the 23d article of that treaty it was declared, " That all t h e goods and merchandise of the enemies of the said re public or king found on board the ships of either, or their 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. Theref ore, f or 156 years the invariablerule of our amicable inte rcourse with Portugal was " free ships free goods." (Hear.) I will next pass in review our trea ties with France. In the year 1655 the Lord Protector concluded a treaty of peace with Louis XIV in the 15th article of whi c h it is declared that, " Ornnee naves ad sub ditos et pop u l aros alterutriuscl no P ertinentes, et in maxi Mediterrane o , O r i entali, seu oceano negociantes, libera sint, atque etiam onus suum liberum reddant, licit, in illas invehantur mercimonia imo grans, reguminave qua alter utrius hostium sint." How long the treaty of 1655 con tinued in force lam unable to say. But in 1677 the rule " free ships, free good" was inserted in the treaty of com merce of St. German en Laye, and was the rule of our amicable relations with Franco 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 provisions that the flags of France and England should protect the goods of their respective enemies, or which renewed tho 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 i r~ sale of the commercial relations between France; Eng and and Spain before the wars of the French Revolution, land they 'still are the basis of the commercial relations between this country and Spain, and between Spain and France. I will read an extract from the 17th art, of the .c._ommercial treaty of Utrecht b e t ween England *rid /ranee :-" It shall be lawful for all the subjects of the Queen of Great Britain and of the most Christian King to sail with their ships with all manner of liberty and . security (no distinction being made who are the proprie 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 un d er th e j ur i s di c ti on of t f , same prince, or under several ; an d as i t i s now stipulate`" con c erning ships and goods th a t f ree s hi ps s h a ll a l so g i 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 p a rt th ere of; 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 of 1766. This treaty terminated with the war of 1793. I have shown, therefore, that from 1677 t o 1793 the all but invariable rule of our friendly inter course with France ; the rule for at least 75 y ears 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 80 years, the subjects of one party were en titled by treaty to carry on the coasting and colonialtrade 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 13 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 freedomlo goods, or renews a treaty which contains that provision. Therefore, for the 131 years ending with the year 1796, the invariable rule of our amicable intercourse with f_fintiti as established by treaty was " f r e e s hip s f ree goo d s ." 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 M a d r id o f 1667, w hi c h 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 board Spanish ships, we should be guilty of a breach of treaty. With reference to our treaties with the United 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 113 years -namely, in 1667, 1668, 1674, 1675 1635, 1689, 1i 03, 1711, and 1716 ; and it continued in force till the war of 1780, but was not renewed by the treaty of Paris of 1784. 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 111 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 Biz 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 gs_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 %treaty of peace or commerce with France, Spain the United Pro vinces, or Portugal. The rul e " f ree 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 1659, 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," is contained in the 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 in force till the wars of the French 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 Earope, from 1654 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 net 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 tor 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 , went, 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 th e ofsu T h e n ct a s r o n: f lt b l e u ll a i r g i e t r i e tn n e ts p . nw l e 'o rs r d o lt . i t i h n e g twheasttpheraisod repeatedly e v ry on e treated neutrals as subjects, applied to them confiscatedproliibitd. t d not only to trading with enemies, already said) all the provisions ofhtslise confiscated re gard elaw(aswiithhaveneneunintriaels'shgirsdfosrocnonbtoaainrdingneenuet.rmayl a a ie n s. ene l m n y l6 a s n 2 ; y en t e h m e ies. I will . . mention a few t s o w t o re c a e t nt a u s r great maritime powers of enemy's good, butt a instancesll ueutr a l of eo t m hi m s e c r e e n e d w uc it t h b merchandise to England, the United Provinces ' W es tern Europe . within and to punish him with the confiscation both. of his ship threatened th e last foreigners who should carry any a nd merchandise. In 1689 the United Provin ces an d 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, que la robe d'un ennemi confisque cede d'un ami ,•" but also declared that merchandise of the growth, or manufacture of the enemies of France to whomsoever belonging should be 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 part of the maritime law 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 have repeatedly claimed the right of stopping the trade of neutrals with our enemies. For instance, in 1689, as I have already said, in c00 2 1 , "Z with Holland, we declared a blockade of all the c oasts . s e t of g o f their France, without sending a single ship to rinff w ith e blockade, and we prohibited neutrals from cm France under the penalty of the confiscation bo th ships and their goods. This was the famou s " cannon" law, as our third William called it, for it had no o ther sanction, human or divine, save the force of a bullet. (A lau g h.) In 1756 we prohibited the Dutch from trading with the colonies of France, and laid down th e f a mous rule of war of all neutral that year, in virtue of which we cla im _ claimed a right of prohi bitingtraffic with the c olonies an d on the this rule was much contested by the coasts of our enemy ; United States of America , a nd other p owers, and was a fruitful source of contention between them and us. Again, in with _ _ 1793, we concluded treaties Spain, Prussia, Russia, and the Emperor of Germany, for the purpose of forbidding neutrals to trade with France. Lastly, in 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 r age of belligerent powers, and the mutual violation of the law of nations, could not go beyond <Tr orders in council and the Berlin and Milan decrees. in consequence of tho 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 Eu who were generally neutrals in those wars, repea f o rmed leagues to defend th e i r r i g ht s as neu trals, and up arms for that purpose. The first armed neutrality , as these leagues IMO termed, was a convoutioA ih 1693 be'