The Sun.
London, England, 1837-03-18 00:00:00

STATUTE LABOUR.

Sir J. BECKETT brought up the Report of the North
Midland Railway Bill.
On the motion of Mr. WILLIAMS, the Ashby (Norfolk)
Inclosure Bill was read a second time.
DEPTFORD AND DOVER RAILWAY.

Sir E. WILMOT moved that the time for the Committee
to Report upon the Deptford and Dover (Kent) Railway Bill,
be extended to the 17th of April.—Agreed to.
On the motion of Mr. CHALMERS, the time for bring-
ing in the Leith and Newhaven Pier Bill was extended till
Thursday next.
Sir J. Y. BULLER presented a petition from the Trades
House, Glasgow, and some individuals, against the Glasgow
and Ayr Railway Bill, and praying to be heard against it by
their Counsel and Agents.

Arne.

Lord WHARNCLIFFE said that he would take this op-
portunity of asking a question from the Noble Lord in respect
to the Highway Bill. Previous to the new statute every pa-
rish had been obliged to supply a certain portion of statute
labour; but, by the new statute, statute labour had been done
away, and the consequence was of course that this evil was ex-
tended to the turnpike roads. This state of things had
produced another equally bad in many parts of the country
where the only resource was, in order to secure the repair of
the roads, to have recourse to the common law, and to indict
the parishes. Ho wished to know if any step would be taken
to remedy the evil.

The Duke of RICHMOND said when the Highway
Bill was introduced, a Committee of their Lordships' House
had been appointed to consider its provisions. A great many
Peers had attended that Committee, and all its provisions had
been narrowly watched. They had then discovered what had
been overlooked in the House of Commons, that by destroying
statute labour they would injuriously extend that provision to
turnpike-roads, and he (the Duke of R.) had been directed as
the Chairman of the Committee to state the existence of the
clause; and in order to got over the difficulty—as it was not
the custom of their Lordships' House to alter money Bills—
he bad proposed that the Bill should not come into operation
till March 1838, and the statute labour could have been collected
before then. Last Session he stated the same thing as he had
stated now, that if the Government did not do something, the
turnpike trusts of the country would be in the greatest dis-
tress. He agreed with his Noble Friend who had asked him
the question with respect to statute labour, that it was, in his
opinion, the worst species of labour for repairing the roads. In
his opinion there was a great deal more mischief done to
the roads by means of that labour than there was good.
He was perfectly aware of the abuse that existed in
the system of management of the turnpike roads of
the country. He bad called that subject to the at-
tention of their Lordships several times ; he knew
that the Trustees were spending more money than they re-
ceived, and that in many instances they were actually borrow-
ing money to pay the interest, and added to that there here
many bankrupt concerns. He would never consent to statute
labour, as he did not think it right to tax the farmers.
His object, in the recommendations he had given to their
Lordships, always had been that a Bill should be brought in
to amend the Turnpike-laws of the country, in order to en-
able the trustees to exercise a proper economy. He believed,
if the consolidations proposed last session had been made
the law of the land, the trustees of the roads would not re-
quire the imposition of any additional tax. That Bill had met
with opposition in the other House of Parliament by the clerks of
all the Trustees of the roads ; the cause of that opposition was
easily explained, because by that, instead of 1,000 Clerks of
the Trustees being requisite, only 500 would be required.
In answer to the question of the Noble Lord, he would
only say that he did not feel himself in a condition to
propose to the House any measure of the sort he
had alluded to.—( Hear.) He thought the best way
of getting rid of the grievances complained of, was to pursue
that line of conduct which would get them out of the difficulty.
The Marquis of SALISBURY thought it would be a
little too hard to inflict on the parishes an expense merely for
the purpose of encouraging a system of profligate expenditure.
He trusted the Government would take the matter into their
early consideration.

CHURCH-RATES.
The Earl of WILTON presented a petition from Middle-
ton against the abolition of Church-rates.
Viscount ST RANG FO RD presented several petitions from
Canterbury and other places to the same effect.
IRISH MUNICIPAL BILL.
Viscount STRANGFORD presented a petition from the
Guild of Merchants in the City of Dublin, sealed with their
Corporate Seal, praying that in any Act introduced for the
Reform of Municipal Corporations iii Ireland their private pro-
perty might be respected.
Tho NOBLE VISCOUNT then presented petitions from Kings
Sutton, Northampton ; Hopnorton, Norfolk ; and other places,
praying the House to preserve its privileges inviolate.
The House then adjourned till a quarter to Four to-morrow.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, MARCH 17.

The SPEAKER took the Chair at Four o'Clock.
On the motion of Mr. CAVENDISH the Newbold Derby
Inclosuro Bill was read a third time and passed.
Mr. BOWES brought up the Report of the Committee on
the Clarence (Durham) Railway Bill.
The Report of the Committee on the Leith any' Newhaven
Harbour Bill was also brought up, stating that the Standing
Orders had not been complied with.
WEST CORK MINING -COMPANY.
On the motion of Mr. RUTHVEN the West Cork
Mining Company Bill was read a second time and ordered to
be referred to the Committee.

Mr. HINDLE Y was about to make some observations on
the iniquitous propositions in this Bill, but was informed by
Mr. Ruthven that the Bill had been read a second time, and
the Hon. Member then stated he should defer those observa-
tions till the next stage of the Bill.
SOUTHWARK AND HAMMERSMITH RAILWAY,
Mr. BROTHERTON presented a petition signed by a
Member of the House (whose name we could not hear) and
the Directors of the Southwark and Hammersmith Railway,
denying the allegations contained in a petition which had been
presented by an individual impugning the conduct of the peti-
tioners. The prayer of the petition was that it might be re-
ferred to a Committee, by which the truth of its allegations
would be ascertained.

BRIGHTON .
Sir C. BURRELL presented aRAILWAY petition against Rennie's
line of Railway to Brighton, which was ordered to be referred
to the Committee on the Bill.
OVER INCLOSURE.
Mr. TOWNLEY brought up the Report of the Standing
Orders' Committee on the Over Inclosure Bill, which was
then ordered to be read a first time.
Mr. VILLIERS presented a petition from Northampton
in favour of the South Union Railway,
BIRKENHEAD AND CHESTER RAILWAY.
On the motion of Mr. WILBRAHAM, the Birkenhead
and Chester Railway Bill was read a second time and ordered
to be committed.

TFIE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY, MARCH ig.), 1837.

the Standing Orders' Committee. He thought the practice
prevailing in the Standing Orders' Committee eves not con-
formable with the intention of the House in establishing them.
By the Resolution of the House the Sub- Committ eke was bound
to report to the Standing Orders Committee any special reasons
which might exist for their forming an opinion, provided
there were any alleviating circumstances in the arse, and the
Standing Orders Committee should report accordingl,v to the
House. In the present case no alleviating circumseanees
e ere reported, and the House had no means of term-
ing an opinion of what might be the nature of
any evidence tendered to the Committee. If the Committee
excluded any evidence offered by the parties, it certainly was
a great hardship upon them ; and he understood there were
circumstances connected with this case of an alleviating nature.
In the case of the Brighton Committee, the House would
bear in mind that it had been preceded by a petition, stating
facts upon which that House could not express itself too
strongly in condemnation.—( Hear). That there had been an
agreement that the parties would not avail themselves of any I
objection that might be taken before the Standing Order 1
Committee, it was quite obvious that if such a course was
allowed the whole of the Standing Orders might be got rid of.
In all cases in which there had been a non-compliance with
the Standing Orders, the buildings had been disiectly inserted
in the book of reference, and in the present case the question
turned upon this—it was stated, and not denied, that the barn
had not been inserted in the book of reference, and it was
also stated that it had been originally in the book, and was
struck out.
Lord EBRINGTON made an observation.
Mr. POULTER rose to address the House amid cries of
" Order, Chair."
The SPEAKER observed that these contradictions only
showed the House was not sufficiently informed upon the facts.
He had paid every attention to the facts, and confessed
GRANTON PIER. that he was unable to come teeny definite conclusion, but from
On the motion of Sir G. CLERK, the Granton Pier Bill all he had heard he thought it a case in which the parties were
was read a third time. entitled to redress.
BIRMINGHAM AND DERBY RAILWAY. Lord EBRINGTON explained.
Mr. TANCRED had to call the attention of the House to Sir ROBERT PEEL had so much doubt upon the subject
a petition from the Directors of the Birmingham and Derby that he had felt it his duty to appeal to the Chair, in order to
Railway Company, whose Bill was (as we understood the obtain the opinion of the Speaker. He had a very strong im-
Hon. Gentleman to say) lost on account of some informality by pression that injustice had been done in this case ; and it would
a non-compliance with the Standing Orders of the House. be most important to know whether or not other Railways
That had been productive of a loss of upwards of 5,0001., and had been permitted to pass, in which buildings had not
the promoters of the Railway Bill felt satisfied that that had been included in the book of reference which had not been
occurred, from a misunderstanding on the part of some parties. on the enlarged scale, because if they had the House would
The circumstances of the case were shortly these : last year have contrary decisions. If the Honourable Gentleman
a Bill had been introduced for the purpose of con- would consent that the parties should be placed in their
netting the town of Birmingham and Derby by Railway, original position, and if it should be found that there 1
Another Bill had been introduced to correct the original line, was any Standing Order contrary to this Bill, that then the
and for connecting with it the towns of Tamworth and Rugby. Bill should be rejected, he (Sir R. Peel) thought that that
The principal objection which had been made in the Standing would be right.
Orders Committee was that a barn in the pasture property me POULTER explained.
of Sir George Chetwynd had not been engraved upon Mr. ESTCOURT said, that he felt bound to oppose the
the plan. When the Bill was before the Sub-Committee motion.
the agent had proceeded to obviate that objection, but he was Mr. PEA SE did not consider that it was a breach of the
given to understand that in that stage it was not necessary to Standing Orders. The engineer had struck out the word
proceed farther. Afterwards, when the Bill went before the " Farms" from the book of reference, saying that they did not
Standing Orders Committee, it was thrown out in consequence want it—the opponents now came down and said but they
of that informality—thus an enormous expense had been fruit- might yet take it. He would give the motion his support
lessly incurred. The Company never contemplated carrying the After a few words from Sir R. Price, Sir E. Knatchbull,
works over 50 yards of the park, and the building in question Sir T. Fremantle, and Sir J. Wrottesley,
was not required. He hoped there were some of the Members Mr. R. WA SON moved the Standing Orders be con-
of the sub and superior Committees present, for the matter firmed.
was not yet understood; this was the first Session in which Sir ROBERT PEEL thought the proper course would be
the Committees had 'been subdivided, and it was no wonder to bring in a Bill.
that parties should frill into such a mistake as this Company Lord SANDON reminded the House that the line was a
had. Under these circumstances he proposed that the Bill be very short one, and no inconvenience could result from their
referred back to the Committee. coming to Parliament next Session.
Mr. POULTER rose to second the motion, which he Mr. TA NCRED said, after what had been stated, all he
trusted would be conceded. As, a member of the Committee, would ask for was, for leave to present a petition to bring in
he could state that the objections appeared to the Committee a Bill for making a Railway between Rugby and Tamworth.
to be of a very trivial nature, and as it was quite clear that the A Message from the Lords brought up several papers.
appeal Committee would be able to give relief, whether erro- Strangers were ordered to withdraw, and the House
neous or not, the Sub-committee did not think it of importance divided upon the motion for leave to present a petition
what decision they came to on those trivial objections. The Com- to bring in a Bill for making a Railway between Tamworth
mittee certainly acted on the supposition that the appeal Com- and Rugby.
mittee had power to grant relief, and, under such circum- For the motion
stances, he hoped the motion would be conceded. Against it
Lord EBRINGTON objected to the motion, but before Majority —s7
stating his reasons, he would detain the House a few moments TRANSFER OF AIDS BILL—POST-OFFICE.
with some of the facts that had really taken place. The Speaker On the Order of the Day being read for receiving the Ro-
he was sure would recollect that when the petition of the pro- port of the Transfer of Aids Bill,
meters of the Railway was first brought forward by the Hon. Mr. WALLACE wished to know from the Vice-President
Member for Warwickshire, a motion was made fur referriog it of the Boai‘d of Trade whether any new regulation had been
back to the Standing Orders Committee. On that occasion come to by the Post-office relative to the charges of postage
the Speaker had stated it as his opinion, that it on the Commercial Shipping Gazette.
was not proper that such a reference should be made Mr. LABOUC HE RE said the Post-office was engaged in
without the express consent of the Standing Orders Committee, an inquiry respecting all fees, and the point to which the Hon.
and it was in consequence of that opinion that in conference Member alluded had come under their consideration with the
with the Hon. Member for Warwickshire he had inserted the rest.
words which were objected to. Upon the motion being Mr. O'CONNELL moved for copies of returns relative to
brought forward by the Hen. Member for Staffordshire, the the number of persons tried at the County Assizes in Ireland.
Chairman of the Standing Orders Committee said Mr. BE RNAL brought up the Report of the Transfer of
he could not consent to the insertion of the words until an Aids Bill.
opportunity had been had of consulting the Standing Orders STORES SUPPLIED TO SPAIN.
Committee, and in consequence of that the discussion was Mr. M'ls EA N said he understood a ship had been sent out
postponed. At the next meeting of the Standing Orders lately with ammunition and stores for the service of the Queen
Committee, the subject was discussed, and the members of of Spain ; he wished, therefore, to ask the Noble Lord whe-
Committee present at the time stated distinctly, and as ther such was the fact, and also whether the Government had
far as he recollected, unanimously, their objection to received any payment for stores hitherto furnished, and, if not,
the assumption of their consent.--( Cries of " Hear, hear.") whether there was any guarantee for payment ?
A resolution was then framed, omitting that part of the order. Lord PALMERSTON said he could give no answer to the
In consequence of the discussion which took place at that first question, as he had no knowledge of such a circumstance ;
time, with respect to what the Hon. Member for Staffordshire and his answer to the second was, that his Majesty's Govern-
considered the course of the House, he was induced to withdraw ment had furnished the stores in conformity with the engage-
his opposition, and by that he certainly considered that an talents entered into by the Quadruple Treaty.
extinguisher was put upon all opposition to the Bill.—( Hear.) Mr. M'LE AN—Without any guarantee ?
He would fairly admit there was an obscurity and difficulty in Lord PALMERSTON—We were satisfied with the gua-
the constitution of these Standing Orders ; but he would sub- rantee entered into during the Government of the Right Hon.
mit to the House, if it considered the construction which had Baronet the Member for Tamworth.
been put on the Standing Orders by the Sub-Committee was Mr. • M‘L E A N—On that occasion there was no guarantee.
not correct, it was the duty of the House in the first Lord PALMERSTON—An exchange of notes.
instance to amend the Standing Orders, and then give the Lord MAHON wished also to put a question. He un-
parties liberty to proceed with their Bill. He did not know perstood that the sum of 540,0001, put down in the esti-
w hether it was necessary for him to go into the particular merits mates as expenses for the service of the Queen of Spain, was
of the case, but if the House thought it necessary he would do not all the expense that had been incurred in the transaction.
so. The Standing Orders Committee had determined to hear He did not say there was any error in the accounts, for he had
all the statements seriatim ; they were all read over, and tne ' not had an opportunity of examining them, but he had been in-
Committee proceeded to discuss two or three of them. The formed that provisions and stores and other supplies had been
main point, however, upon which a decision was come to, was furnished by his Majesty's Government for the service of the
the absence from the book of reference and from the enlarged Queen of Spain since the estimate was drawn up. He wished,
scale of all notice of a barn, which was within less than one therefore, to know from the Noble Lord whether any supplies
hundred yards of the proposed railway. It had been in the had been furnished in addition to those included in the esti-
book of reference but was struck out. lie should :confess he mate, and also if he could give anything like an approxima-
saw no reason to alter his opinions, and he would therefore tion to the expense.
oppose the proposition for referring back the case to the Stand- Mr. CHARLES WOOD said he believed the most pre-
ing Orders Committee. eise information was given in the accounts made up, one ac-
Sir EARDLEY WILMOT explained. count to the 15th of February, and the other to the 24th of
Sir G. CLERK was most anxious to have the decisions of February, when the Noble Lord gave notice of his motion.
the House always consistent with each other ; and therefore Ile was not aware any further supplies had been sent out since
he thought this case ought to follow that of the Brighton case that period. He had further to tell the Noble Lord, that no
last night. If the Standing Orders Committee were not very supplies for more than a year were furnished at one time ; that
strict, the landowner would have no security at all. The
the whole of the naval stores had been furnished two years
people interested in railroad lines must be particular in their ago, during the Administration of the Right Hon. Baronet,
plans, or who was to know whether his lands were to be effec- and when the Noble Lord was Under Secretary for Foreign
ted or not? He would cordially support the motion of the Affairs; and any supplies sent out since that period did not
Hon. Gentleman. amount to more than 601.
Mr. GR. EENE, as one of the Members of the Standing COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY—TREATY OF ADRIA-
Orders Committee who had been particularly alluded NOPLE, AND SEIZURE OF THE VIXEN.
to, felt it necessary to state what took place in the Com- On the Order of the Day being read for the House resolv-
naittee. In his opinion, the consideration of the quell- ing itself into a Committee of Supply,
tion was gone through entirely, and the Committee had Mr. ROEBUCK ruse and spoke to the following effect :—I
come to a decision to which he still adhered, that hope for the indulgence of the House on account of the hoarse-
the Standing Orders had not been complied with. ness under which I labour, and on that account I shall make a
After that decision had been come to, he unquestionably did very short speech. I wish to call the attention of the House
state that he thought the parties ought not to feel much an- and the Government to a subject of no ordinary importance, a
noyed at the Report that the Standing Orders had not been subject interesting, not because it refers to individuals who
complied with, as he thought that the Committee would have lost their produce and merchandise, but because it in-
afford them relief. This he stated only as his own opinion, wolves a question on the principles of international law, and
but in consequence of that statement the parties said they had also a question of peace or war.--( Hear.) Some time ago a
delayed taking farther proceedings. If the statement was of any vessel was fitted out, and before she proceeded to her desti-
service to the parties he was bound to make it, that he never nation application was made in the regular quarter—to the
meant to express any positive opinion that would bind the Corn- Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs—to ascertain whether
mittee. He would only further observe, that in a conversation he there was any impropriety or danger to be apprehended if a
had with the Hon. Chairman of the Standing Orders Commit- vessel landed goods in any ports on the Circassian coast. The
tee, he was informed it was the practice of the Committee to application was made because fears of danger were enter-
call before it the agent, and investigate the matter. tained from the interference of Russia. The answer returned
After a few words from Mr. R. PALMER, which were by the Government through the Noble Lord to the merchants
not heard in the gallery, who applied was to look to the Gazette ; and finding no indi-
Mr. AGLIONBY said, the question really was whether cations whatever in the Gazette of any acknowledgment of
the decision of the Standing Orders' Committee could be con- blockade, and thereby concluding that the blockade was not
sidered conclusive. In his opinion the House ought to preserve recognised by the British Government, and that they were
its right as a Court of Appeal ; and in the present instance, not precluded by authority from landing goods and merchan-
great injury would be done to the parties if the resolution of dise in a Circassian port belonging to an independent nation,
the Standing Orders Committee was held to be final. When they dispatched a vessel ; and when at the port it was seized
the cottage alluded to was not in the book of reference, the by a Russian ship of-war, and the master and crew were im-
parties could not be required to put it in the enlarged scale ; prisonod. Here, then, is this extraordinary circumstance. In
and, under the circumstance, they could not take it even if they the first place, an English merchant vessel is prevented from
afterwards desired. It not being in the book of reference was entering the port of a country with which England is on
prima facie evidence that it was not their intention to take it. terms of amity by an armed force—a Russian man-of-war.
The finding of the Standing Orders Committee had been that In the next place, English subjects carrying on a legal
the building was not upon the large scale of the plan, and trade—a trade of which they had obtained no information
that it was not inserted in the book of reference. Now he from their own Government calculated to discourage them,
(Mr. Aglionby) would contend upon the precedents laid are coerced by Russia, captured, and thrown into prison. Sir,
down in the case of other Committees, the House was bound I have entered in the order-book a notice that I would move
to reverse the decision that bad been come to. He should for certain papers elucidatory of this singular transaction. The
therefore vote for relief being given to these parties. reason why I ask for these papers is, that I understand the
Lord G. SOMERSET thought the Hon. Member had the defence by Russia of this aggression is two-fold. The
rather assumed than proved his case. It was rather hard upon first, that she had placed the coast of Circassia in a state of
those individuals who, relying upon the decision of the Stand- blockade ; the second, that she had framed certain custom-
ing Orders Committee in their favour, had gone to an error- house regulations, to which it was necessary that the ships of
mous expense, to question that decision now, and he for one alljnations should conform.: I want the papers for which lam
should certainly object to it. about to move for three reasons. First, to ascertain if this
The SPEAKER said ever since he had the honour of country has ever acknowledged the right of Russia toblockade
sitting in that Chair, he had not had such a difficult case sub- the coast in question ; secondly, to ascertain if Russia ac-
mined to his notice.--( Hear, hear, hear.) He thought tually possesses the right of blockade ; thirdly, to ascertain if
it his first duty to give all the weight of his authority Russia has the right to make the custom-house regulations to
in favour of the Committees generally, but more especially which I have adverted. On all those points the papers for
to the Standing Orders Committee ; on the other hand, the which lam about to move, if they be produced, will probably
case then before the House involved the character of the Mem- afford us satisfactory information. The defence of Russia is,
hers composing both that Committee and the Sub- Committees. that, by the treaty of Adrianople, Circassia was ceded to Rus-
It was the manner in which this case had been conducted which sia by Turkey ; and consequently that Russia had a right to
caused all the difficulty. His opinion was, that though the House establish a blockade of the coast of Circassia, and to establish
ought to give large powers to Committees, and gene- whatever custom-house regulations she might think proper
rally to support them, still they ought not to part with in relation to her ports.—( Hear, hear, hear.) Now, in
the whole of their own power. But he thought the House the first place, I deny that the territory of Circassia is in
ought only to be called upon to give a decision, not the possession of Russia ; secondly, I assert that, not being
for the purpose of sending a Bill back to the Corn- in the possession of Russia, Russia has no right, according.
mittee.—( Hear, hear.) He on the former occasion un- to the law of nations, to make any custom-house regulations
derstood that the Standing Orders Committee were wil- in relation to the ports of Circassia ; and, thirdly, I maintain
ling to have the Bill refened back to them.—( Signs of dis- that Russia has no right to blockade the coast of the terri-
sent. ) He most certainly understood it so, and had tory of a free people against the entrance into its ports of
acted upon that understan-ling. He understood that upon an English vessel with English goods.—(Hear, bear.) 1
further consideration they were willing to reconsider know, stir, that I shall be met by a reference to the con-
their decision with a view to its being altered. duct of the British nation itself on former occasions. . I
When again it came before the House, the Hon. Member for shall be told that we then claimed the right to lay an em-
Warwickshire was induced to withdraw his motion, on the barge on the ports of a nation with which we were at war,
understanding that he should not be prevented from ap- against the whole world. I acknowledge that this was for-
pealing to the House, if such a course might be merly the rule laid down by the British people. But I ask
deemed necessary, in the way of a motion such as whether at this time of day we are disposed to place any
that now made. He understood there were several points part of the system of international law on a footing so to be be considered, three only of which were discussed before grantly unjust ? It is my earnest desire to maintain the

peace of the world. But, ;. iir, the peace of the world is not
to be maintained by any six uffiing, unjust, or timid course ; it
can be maintained only by , a straightforward, bold, open, and
manly line of conduct.—(ll ear, hear, hear.) The rule must
be the rule of right—the rul e which alone is sanctioned by
the principles of internationa 1 law—the rule which must be
observed and upheld under all circum.tances of difficulty
and danger.—( Hear, hear, lit !az.) I care not what conduct
the English Government may have pursued in former times.
If unjust, it deserved to be .3-, tiFmatised, as it was stigma.
tised, by the whole world. .But there is a power rising up
which will put an end to all such oppressive and iniquitous
proceedings. The United S tates of America will presently
lay down the just law of naeions: with reference to the com-
merce of neutral nations, amid that law her naval power will
enable her to support. I con te now, Sir, to inquire in what
way the commerce of this country has been attacked by
Russia in the case in questicl n. The Circassians are in pos-
session of almost the whole of their coast, Russia possessing
only three points--mere forta. On a coast extending many
hundred of miles, Russia posy e sses only these three isolated
forts. All the rest of Circassi ais in the hands of the Circas-
sians themselves. They cultiv: ►te the soil—they reap the har-
vest ; and on their coast our mt •rchants have a right to stop,
and to negotiate their trade, inn 'epenolent of, and unobstructed
by, the interference of Russia.- -( Hear, hear, hear.) I may
be told by some persons that 11 ussia is a great power, and
that we ought to be careful how,. we offend her. Sir, that is
not my policy. If Russia were the most insignificant power
on the face of the earth, we oug bt to yield to her claim, if it
be one of justice; if Russia w ere the greatest power on
the face of the earth, we ought; to resist her claim, if it be
one of injustiJe.—( Hear, hear. ) But I maintain that the
claim of Russia is unjust, and that the power of Russia is con-
temptible. If Russia were to t: o. to war with England to-
morrow, in six months there would not be a RL'ssian flag flying
on the high seas, or on the Black Sea.—(Hear. j\ And further,
I maintain that a war with Eng laud would soon m eke the Em-
peror of all the Russians tremble! on his throne; for s'bere would
then be no British merchants t-u whom the Russiail people
might sell their goods. The tim e has been when Ruoia was
subjected to the coercion of a miy:htier power than any which
now exists in the world. When Napoleon was in the pleni-
tude of his strength, with Austria as his ally, and almost a U
the rest of continental Europe a.t his feet, he was unable to
prevail on Russia to renounce her alliance with England, be

`;,

cause in that event the Russian Nobles would have been de-
prived of the outlet which we afforded them for the sale of
their goods. If that was the calm when all the power and in-
fluence of Napoleon was exerted to produce an opposite result,
is it not more likely that such would be the case in the present
condition of the world ? Depend upon it, that whatever may
be the weakness, whatever may be the madness of the Empe-
ror of Russia, he would at once yield to the representations of
the English Government, and would not dare to brave the
resentment of a power which could crush him in a month.
—( Hear, hear.) Sir, it is contended that Circassia was
ceded to Russia by the treaty of Adrianople. But the Cir-
cassians are in possession of their own country. I deny that
Turkey had any right to cede Circassia to Russia. But even
if Turkey had a right to cede Circassia to Russia, yet see-
ing that Russia is not in possession of Circassia, I main-
tain that Russia has no right to proclaim a blockade of the
coast of Circassia.—(Hear, hear, hear.) I will suppose an
analogous case. Spain has not yet yielded her authority
over and her right to her South American colonies. Suppose
Spain were to cede the province of Mexico to the United
States of America, and suppose America were to declare
the port of Tampico in a state of blockade, would the right of
America to do so be recognised ?—( hear, hear.) But the
cases are strictly analogous. Turkey was not in actual pos-
session of Circassia, nor is Spain in actual possession of
Mexico. Turkey, nevertheless, cedes Circassia to Russia.
But would-Spain cede Mexico to America ? I ask the Noble
Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he should con-
sider America entitled to preclude English vessels from enter-
ing the ports of Mexico because Mexico had been ceded by
Spain to America ?—( Hear, hear.) If the Noble Lord would
'not allow this, and if the cases which I have described are per-
fectly similar, what ought the Noble Lord to do with reference
to Russia? The case of the Vixen is an individual case, it is
true ; but the Noble Lord should at once make his stand upon
it.—(Hear, hear.) It may be said that it is not a just case to
go to war upon. I say that it is a just case to go to war upon.
—(Hear, hear.) lam always against going to war upon ab-
stract political principles. I care nothing for what is termed
the balance of power. Russia may endeavour to obtain pos-
session of all the world, and I regard her efforts with indiffe-
rence ; but the moment she interferes with our commerce, I
call upon the Government of this country to punish the ag-
gression.—( Hear, hear. )It would be a just punishment, and
a punishment which, in the plenitude of our power, might
be inflicted without difficulty. For my own part, I
look upon Russia merely as a barbarous country ; or as
a country connected as slightly as may be with civili-
zation and its advantages. The power of Russia exists in the
imagination of those who have dwelt upon it, rather than in
real and substantial strength. I am prepared to declare,
therefore, that if the facts of the case be such as I have de-
scribed them to be, I would call Russia to a severe account
for her conduct.—( Hear.) I would do so, not because I wish
for war, but, on the contrary, because I wish for peace.—
( Hear.) I would not go to war with Russia on account of
any territorial aggression on her part ; but I consider it the
bounden duty of the English Government to protect English
commerce from attack and injury. Of this lam convinced,
Sir, that if we really wish and intend to maintain the peace of
the world, we must not evade meeting such a case as this—we
must not shrink, as the Noble Lord seems to shrink, from at
once declaring ourselves with respect to it. —( Hear.) I can-
not acquit the Noble Lord of blame in the whole of this af-
fair. Why were not the people who asked the Noble Lord
whether they might undertake this commercial expedition
prevented by him from doing so ? They had a right to
make the inquiry, whether the coast of Circassia was really
in a state of blockade; and it was the bounden duty of the
Noble Lord to give them information upon the point.—( Hear,
hear.) Sir, it is beneath the dignity of Great Britain to tam-
per with, or hesitate upon, subjects like these. If we are a
great people, let us act like a great people.—(Hear.) The
Noble Lord is bound to assert the principle of the freedom of
our trade, and to enforce that principle by our power. The
Noble Lord ought to declare that we will trade with any na-
tion not at war with us, with whatever other nation that na-
tion may be at war.—( Hear, hear, hear.) Unless some dis-
tinct principle of that kind be asserted—unless we specify
what we mean by interference or non-interference—unless we
state what, as a commercial people, we are entitled to, and will
defend—we may keep going on upon isolated cases, and never
have any certain or established rule of action. If the Noble
Lord will tell us what is the principle of international law by
which he has been guided on this occasion, I will endeavour to
understand him. I want to know what the British Govern-
ment has done to protect the British subject ? I want to
know if the British Government has acknowledged the
treaty of Adrianople ? I want to know if the British Go-
vernment has acknowledged, the right of Turkey to cede
Circassia to Russia ? I want to know if the British Govern-
ment has acknowledged the right of Russia to blockade the
coast of Circassia ? As to treaties, Sir,. all experience shows
us how insignificant and unavailing are the stipulations of
treaties when it ceases to be the interest of the parties to ob-
serve them. By the treaty of London it was stipulated that
Russia should not, in any way whatever, acquire territory
from Turkey. In the treaty of Adrianople, in spite of the
treaty of London, there is a distinct article stipulating that
Circassia should be ceded to Russia by Turkey. Why do
I say this ? Not that I care whether Russia is in possession
of Circassia or not ; but I want to point out the utter fallacy
of any Treaty, the stipulations of which it ceases to be the in-
terest of any of the parties concluding the Treaty to fulfil.
The principle of our policy ought to be, to trade with all na-
tions ; to enter into political Treaties with none. That is
the wise policy pursued by the United States of America.
The first thing they do when the trade of America is attacked
is to send a ship-of-war to protect it. They do not content
themselves with firing off a battery of protocols.—(Hear,
hear, and a laugh.) They do not talk about their rights ;
they enforce them.,—( Hear.) They do not meddle with other
people's concerns ; but they take care of their own. Now, if
I travel all round the world with the Noble Lord, what do I
find ? That the Noble Lord has interfered where he should
not have interfered—that he has not interfered where he
should have interfered. The Noble Lord " has done the things
that he ought not to have done ; and he has not done the
things that he ought to hare done."—( Hear, and a laugh.) If
anybody ask me why I introduce the discussion of this subject
on the motion for going into the consideration of the navy
estimates, I will tell him. In the Mediterranean a great por-
tion of our naval establishment is at present stationed. Most
of our men-of-war are in that sea enjoying a very agreeable
pastime. The " scions of a noble stock," who are there in
command, arc sailing about from port to port in their armed
yachts, taking their pleasure at the expense of the country.—
(A laugh.) The Hon. and Gallant Admiral opposite
seems much struck and amused with this view of the case.
He is an experienced officer ; but in his time the case was
different. Now, what is the state of our trade in the Medi-
terranean ? Why, that it is less secure there than in any
other part of the world I In its immediate neighbourhood,
in the Black Sea, an English merchant-vessel his taken, her
crew are made prisoners, and her captain is barely per-
mitted, by the supreme and supereminent mercy of the Empe-
ror of all the Russias, to keep his head upon his shoulders.—
( Hear, hear, hear.) Sir, that is not treatment to which Bri-
tish subjects ought to be exposed. At least we ought to un-
derstand where our people may go and where they may not go.
It is not surprising that an event of this nature should occasion
considerable excitement and sympathy among the countrymen
of those who have been so treated. I lay at the door of the
Noble Secretary all the sufferings which these British sailors
have endured. The Noble Lord ought to have been more ex-
plicit when he was asked by them what they should do. When
they inquired whether Circassia was a place to which they
might legally go, the Noble Lord ought to have told them,
and not to have wantonly exposed them to all the evils which
they have Suffered.—( Hear.) Russia, as I have already said,
is hardly to be considered a civilised power. Unless, there-
fore, we make a signal declaration in this House that we
will no longer suffer her aggrestions on our commerce,
that our relations with her and the rest of the world are
founded on a spirit of justice, and that being so founded, we
will never fail steadily to observe and promptly to enforce
them, we may assuredly expect further encroachments.
Russia must be told that we will not allow her, from any
freak, or at her own pleasure, to say to our merchants, " Here
you may trade, and there you may not ;" but that we will
pursue that undeviating course in which by the law of nations
we are justified.—(Hear, hear.) And if the Noble Lord de-
sires to do something that may benefit mankind, I recommend
him to inquire what the international law is on this subject,
and, having ascertained it, to insist upon its observance by all
nations. By such means, and by such means alone, can the
poace of the globe be preserved. It is useless to talk; let
the Noble Lord act, and ho will have the co-operation of every

fiw
li
y
•1 ...
•I'ArrNi

civilised State.—(Hear, hear.) TheskqesTftr§islAlio' w
whether the Noble Lord has been sufficiently ilive ne im-
portance of the subject ; and they will also show whether he has
taken the right means of protecting the interests—l mean the
trading interests—of this country. The Hon. and Learned
Member concluded by moving for " a copy of all correspond-
ence between the Government of this country and the Govern-
ments of Russia and Turkey, together with a copy of all cor-
respondence between the two last-mentioned Governments
communicated to our own, relating to the treaty of Adrianople,
as well as to all transactions or negotiations connected with the
occupation of the ports and territories on the shores of the
Black Sea by Russia since the above-named treaty of Adri-
anople."
Mr. E WART declared himself as determined an advocate
for the miantenance of peace as any one in that House could
be ; but he did not conceive that an acquiescence in, or sub-
mission to, the conduct of Russia was the way to preserve
peace or to support our national rights. The papers of that
day communicated the intelligence of the condemnation of the
Vixen, and he would ask whether the British nation could or
ought to submit to such a dangerous awe such an audacious
act of aggression ? The Goirernment were bound by every
consideration, to afford protection to the trade of this empire ;
and he thought it due to British commerce that a fleet should
be stationed in the Black Sea.
Sir ED WARD CODRINGTON maintained that that
House had a right to know precisely the situation in which
the country was placed in) respect to Russia. Russia, not
only on paper, but with sincerity, was formerly determined
to execute the treaty of London. Now, would any man
say, looking to that treaty, that it was not in the power of
England and France to force Russia to abide by the terms of
the treaties she had entered into ? If this were not the case, then
indeed he must agree with the Honourable and Learned Mem-
ber for Bath that all treaties were mere nonsense. Now with
reference to the Greek question, he had no doubt of the sin..
cerity of Russia ; but it was in consequence of the Government
showing a disposition to break faith that Turkey forced Russia
into a war ; and then we left the Turks in the lurch, as we
always did, and as we had done in the case of Spain. With
regard to the present case, he had said two years ago that it .
was our duty to stretch out a hand to Turkey ; and after the
restoration of Greece, if we had done so, we should have
prevented the war with Russia, and left Turkey in a much
more favourable position. He hoped the Noble Lord would
produce the papers for which the Hon. and Learned Member
for Bath had moved.

Mr. B. 1-1 0 Y said that whatever might be done in the mat-
ter to which the motion referred would be done in the spirit of
fairness.

Viscount PA LiVIE RSTON—The Hon. and Learned Mem-
ber for Bath, when he rose, promised the House that he
would condense what he had to say into the narrowest com-
pass ; and never did an Hon. Member more correctly keep
his word than he did. But I never yet heard a speech of the
same length which contained more extraordinary and new
matter, or more astounding propositions, than the Hon. Gen-
tleman has promulgated. fie has laid down opinions upon
public law which I confess—(though I may be ignorant
on these matters)—appear to me to be calculated to
raise the shades of Puffendorff, of Grotius, and of Bynker-
shock—_men who devoted their lives to the study of interna-
tional law. But not only did the Hon. and Learned Gentle-
man broach the most extraordinary doctrines when he adverted
to what he maintained to be the proper law for nations to act
upon ; but, having afterwards complained of my interfering
too much in the affairs of other countries, he has had the good-
ness to set me a task which, whatever expectations he may
have formed, I certainly could not achieve.—( Hear, hear. )
Sir, the Hon. and Learned Member gravely proposed that I
should occupy myself by devising and putting together a code
of international law, to entitle any country to trade with an-
other, in spite of the contingency of wars which mat rage in
foreign lands. We are to get rid of this difficulty at the same
time that this new code comes into operation. But there
should be a perpetual peace, I presume, and, armed with this
single parchment I am to address myself to the nations of the
world. Now, I confess that whatever may be the talents of
persuasion of the Hon. and Learned Member for Bath, I have
too humble a notion of my own capacities to think the task he
has set me is one that I could fulfil. The Honourable and
Learned Gentleman asks me to state precisely what is
the principle of international law on which his Majesty's
Government intend to proceed ; and he says, do you
mean to maintain the antiquated doctrine that the bel-
ligerent has the right to blockade are you prepared to
maintain that principle ? I think, first, that the Hon. and
Learned Member is mistaken in supposing it to be the doc-
trine in the United States that every country has a right to
trade. sir, it is not necessary that I should agree to the
production of the papers connected with the treaty of Adria-
nople, because I assure the Hon. and Learned Gentleman that
his Majesty's Government are prepared to exercise themselves,
and they admit the right on the part of others to exercise, the
undoubted law of nations, which is, that the belligerents have
the right to blockade, if that blockade be effective and con-
sistent with the law of nations. It must not be a matter of
paper, but there must be the presence of force ; and I say
that, as a maritime nation, our power must depend on our
fleet. We arc satisfied that not only our commercial, but our
political existence is connected with this principle of maritime
law ; and I say, that any man who would persuade England to
renounce this principle, on the adherence to which the wel-
fare of the country depends, must be the greatest enemy the
country ever had.—( Hcaie ) I agree, indeed, with the Hon.
Gentleman, in the observation he made, that the question
which is now brought before the House is one not merely
involving the important question of international law, but,
by possibility, the question of peace or war between this
country and Russia; and such being the true definition of
the question before the House, I am persuaded that the House
will see that, fortunately for us, it is not a part of its policy
that in a case which may lead to the issue of peace or war it
can be properly treated in Parliament under circumstances like
the present; but that the matter should be left to the Execu-
tive Government, until it shall have arrived at that point when
it becomes their duty to communicate the facts to Parliament
itself. Such being the constitutional practice, lam sure this
House will feel that I only discharge an imperative duty if I
do not follow the Hon. and Learned Gentleman into any dis-
cussion of the practical question of the Vixen, to which lie
has referred. At the same time, in nay own justification, I
beg to say one word as to the charge which has been brought
against me. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman has said that
I gave an evasive answer to the owner of the Vixen, by which
he was misled; and as the Hon. and Learned Member has
directed his observations to that point, I will read the letters
which passed between Mr. Bell and myself. But I beg to
point out a distinction which has not been sufficiently ad-
verted to by the Honourable and Learned Member, with re-
ference to belligerents blockading. There is a distinction to
be drawn between measures which may be applied by one
Power to the ports and coasts of another Power with which
she may be at war, and a blockade maintained to enforce
municipal regulations to which a system of quarantine applies.
[Here the Noble Lord read the whole of the correspondence
that passed between the Government and the mercantile
house of Bell and Co., previous to the sailing of the Vixen.]
This constituted the whole of the correspondence that took
place between the Government and the commercial House of
which Mr. Bell was a member ; the fact at the time being as
appeared in the Gazette, that no blockade had been declared
by the Russian Government—at least, none communicated to
the Government of this country, and therefore none had been
acknowledged. I have already stated that I wished to draw
the attention of the House to the distinction that exists between
a blockade and the establishment of certain municipal regula-
tions. Acting according to what I conceived to be my duty,
I declined to give to Mr. Bell any communication as to what
the bearing of the municipal regulations established by Russia
on the eastern coast of the Black Sea might be upon the parti-
cular voyage he was about to undertake ; but I referred him to
the Gazette, where he would find that no blockade had been
communicated to this country. Therefore, , when the Hon.
and Learned Member (Mr. Roebuck) says that the voyage of
the Vixen was encouraged, that she was allowed to go out by
the Government as a sort of feeler to try a particular question
of international law, I think, from the correspondence I have
read, the House will see that all the replies of the Govern-
ment were of a discouraging rather than of an encouraging na-
ture. I quite agree with the Hon. and Learned Member in his
maxim, that we ought to do justice to all countries, however
small or weak they may be ; and that we ought not to sub-
mit to injustice from any country, however strong ; because
undoubtedly this country is sufficiently powerful to make her
rights respected by any nation that may be disposed to violate
them. But the Hon. and Learned Member complains that
we do not put in practice this maxim; and he says that we
have a fleet in the Mediterranean for no other purpose, as he
conceives, than to furnish yachts of pleasure to a certain
number of captains descended from high families in the land.
As a proof of the uselessness of the Mediterranean fleet,
the Hon. and Learned Member cites a case 'which took
place, not in the Mediterranean, but in the Black Sea,
and in which therefore the Mediterranean fleet could not in-
terpose. But I take upon myself to deny the assertion made
by the Hon. and Learned Gentleman, and to declare that
that the Mediterranean fleet has been most useful in pro-
tecting our commerce, which is the chief and main object to
which the policy of this country should be directed. But
the Hon. and Learned Member made a very singular proposi-
tion—he said, " I care not for the balance of power, I care only
for the commerce of England; I care not if one power gain
possession of the whole world, as long as the commerce of
England is maintained." But what would be the position of
our commerce if the Honourable and Learned Gentleman's
proposition were established ? What would be the position of
England, if her commerce with all the rest of the world hap-
pened to depend on one single will by which the rest of the
world was governed ? I am sure be would see that his indif-
ference on one side, and his anxiety on the other, were incom-
patible in their results; and that the only mode of continuing
a free commerce is to keep a watchful eye upon that balance of
power which he thinks should not be a matter to occupy so
much attention as the Government were disposed to lavish
upon it. The Hon. and Learned Member states that Russia
has broken faith with regard to the arrangements entered into
in the treaty of London, by which she engaged not to acquire
any territory at the expense of Turkey. Ido not consider that
that particular engagement applied to a case of war between
Russia and Turkey. lam of opinion with the Gallant Ad-
miral (Codrington) that it was limited to transactions con-
nected with the settlement of the affairs of Greece. At the
same time I must say that Russia, though she was not bound
by that particular stipulation, did nevertheless, at the time she
was commencing her war with Turkey, voluntarily enter into
an engagement, by a declaration to the whole of Europe, by
which she did bind herself, as far as a voluntary declara-
tion can be considered binding on any power, that let the re-
sult of the war with Turkey be what it would, in no case
would she look to any acquisition of territory. lam bound,
therefore, to say that the criticism of the Hon. and Learned
Gentleman, although the reasons upon which he founds it are
not correct, yet holds good as far as the extension of the

Russian frontier is concerned on the mouth of the Danube, the
south of the Caucasus, and the shores of the Black San, and.
which certainly is not consistent with the solemn declaration
wade by Russia in the face of Europei would previous to the COW,
Tnencement of the Turkish war.
wistont with my public duty to enter further be entirely incen-
into a discussion of
the merits of the particular case of the Vixen ; but I can
assure the House that his Majesty's Government feel
quite as strongly as the Honourable an
the
and Learned 'Alorriber
for Bath or any other gentleman in the House can do,
great importance of the question itself, as well as the
consequences that, in one way or the other, enay result
from it. I assure the House that the question occupies
the serious attention of the Governmentonfid
those who feel any degree of c en ; aa'.t I trust that
ce in the Government
will act consistently with the usual practice of Parliament—
will permit the Government to deal with the question in
the manner which it deems most in accordance with the
rights, interests, and honour of the country ; and will not
peremptorily call upon it to enter into explanations which can
have no other effect thinq to mar the very object which the
Hon. and Learned Member for Bath professes to have in view.
With regard to the papers for which the Hon. and Learned
Gentleman has moved, to the production of such of them as
relate to the case of the Vixen I must object, upon the same f
grounds as those that induce me to abstain romenteringinto
a discussion of that particular case. As regards those which
have reference to the communications which have taken place
between England and Russia, the Hon. and Learned Gen-
tleman has laid no ground for their production, except as con-
nected with the case of the Vixen. Therefore, upon the
same ground as I have already stated, I must object to their
production also. If they bear upon a question now under
consideration, their production would be dangerous ; if they
refer to questions that are gone by, they can obviously be
of no use to the Hon. and Learned Gentleman who moves
for them.
Mr. MACLEAN saw no reason why the papers should not
be produced. He would go farther• he would Say that it
was of importance that the House should be put in possession
of the Noble Lord's construction of the treaty of Adrianople.
_-(Hear.) The Noble Lord would not fail to recollect that
• the Duke of Wellington had, whilst that treaty was pending,
protested against the propositions of Russia in respect to it r ;
Lo
and he (Mr. Maclean) wished to know why the Noble
d
assented or dissented from the opinion of the Noble Duke
He (Mr. M.) would contend that Turkey had never secured
such a hold of Circassia as would have allowed her to cede it
to Russia. The Emperor of Russia had not alleged that the
Vixen had been captured for a violation of any municipal re-
gulation, as had been inferred by the Noble Lord, but for
smuggling only. It did not appear even that it was in conse-
quence of a blockade ; for in the manifesto published by Rus-
sia, she declared not only what she had done, but what she
intended. But, he would ask, what evidence was there that
the Vixen had been engaged in smuggling ? There was no
evidence that any part of her cargo bad been landed, and
therefore there could have been no smuggling ; but the conse-
quence was, that the Vixen had been seized, the property of
the merchants confiscated, the persons on board deprived of
• their liberty—they owed it to the clemency of the Emperor
that they had not been deprived of their lives ; and vet the
House was told by the Noble Lord, when an Hon. Member
moved for papers which would enable the House to consider
the subject, that they must be refused, because the question
should necessarily be left entirely with the Executive.
Dr. LUSHINGTON concarred in what had fallen from
his Noble Friend, as to the imprudence of making public any
facts or circumstances connected with the blockade. The
Hon. Member who had just sat down bad referred to a mani-
festo published in the St. Petersbargh Gazette, in reference
to the capture of the Vixen, and had remarked that the word
blockade did not appear in it. Now, in his ( Dr. Lushing-
toa's) judgment the word blockade did not apply to the case
of one country which was in the possession of another. What
Russia said was, that it had established sanitary regulations ;
that it had forbade all trade whatever on the coast of the Black
&a ; that it had captured the Vixen, which had attempted to
trade in violation of these regulations; that, in doing so, the
vessel had violated the right de jure, and the possession de facto
of Russia. That, in consequence of this violation of the rules.
the vessel was therefore taken, and the cargo confiscated.
Now, with respect to what had been said by the Hon. Gentle-
man regarding smuggling, it was not by any means necessary
that the cargo should. have been unladen in order to constitufre
smuggling ; for, if a vessel came within three miles of a coast
where traffic had been prohibited, it was as much a violation
of a law against smuggling, and the vessel was as snbject to be
condemned, as if she had entered the port and landed her cargo.
Russia claimed the right of seizure on the principle which she
bad stated ; but the Hon. Gentleman had asked upon what
principle was a blockade to be established. Now it was im-
portant that the principle of a blockade should not be doubted
by the House of Commons. That the right of blockade ex-
isted was in accordance with the law of all nations, snider
these regulations—if one country was at war with another, it
bad a right to blockade its coasts, ptovided it maintained the
blockade with a sufficient force, and gave sufficient notice of
its intention. He would cite the case of Spain and South
America. The latter country had been under the dominion
of Spain ; and if Spain had warred with its own dominion,
then it had a right de jure ; and having possession de
.facto of
that country, had the right of declaring it in a state of
blockade. Bet there was another case in which the right of
blockade did not exist. It was not a blockade when a country
prohibited intercourse with a portion of its internal posses-
sions ; there was no such thing as blockade in such an in-
stance. Under such circumstances of occupation de facto,
that country had the right to exclude the whole world from
any commercial intercourse with its internal possessions.—
( Hear, hear.) Now, if Russia were right or wrong as to the
authority of Turkey to cede to her the territory in question he
would not argue ; what Russia said was, that she had a right, by
virtue of Circassia having been ceded to her by competent
authority, and being in possession of that State, to make what
sanitary regulations she chose to eatablisli. He beeged it to
be understood he did nut stand there to defend Russia; he
mei not arguing that she had a right to the possession of
Circassia, so ceded by Turkey, or that Turkey ever had
possession of the coast of Circassia, or had de jure a right
to cede it to Russia—he was not agitating this question.
but whether, be the ground of the proceeding right or
wrong, Russia had a right to declare the blockade. The
Honourable Member had said that this country had a right
to have received notice of a blockade, if there had been one.
The answer to this was, by his Noble Friend, that he did not
know of the blockade of the coast in question ; and it was also
said that Mr. Bell had a right to ask at the Foreign-office whe-
ther sach a blockade existed, and that if such information had
not been furnished there, that Great Britain had been wronged
in consequence of a blockade having been instituted without
sufficient notice. But Mr. Bell had mane further than this.
He had asked,-if prohibitions of another kind had been esta-
blished by Russia. But his Noble Friend had not given any
anawer on this point; all he said was that the subject did not
come within his department, and that he was not bound to
notice such prohibitions, if they existed, any more than this
country, in the case of instituting similar prohibitions would be
compelled to inform other countries of it, when they only re-
garded her own dominions; and surely no one would contend
that he was bound to communicate such a notice. As to Mr.
Bell—as his Noble Friend had said—if he chose to engage in
a speculation, he did it at his own risk, and he must not ex-
pect the Government of this country to do what it never had
done in the course of his (Dr. Lushington's) experience.
Mr. Bell had a right to ask what was the state of the public
laws; but he had no right to demand what was the state of
the municipal law, or the sanitary regulations as to the trade
of any foreign nation.
Mr. HUME said that the question before the House was as
to what was tho real effect of the treaty of Adrianople ? The
merchant had a right to ask the question as to the state of the
coast with which he wished to trade. The Noble Lord rays-
,
tfied the reply he gave so as not to say in whose territory that
coast was. if the Noble Lord did not give the information,
he thought we had no business whatever with such a useless
office as the Foreign-office. The question should have been
explicitly answered, and he still hoped the Noble Lord would
not persist in a course, hereafter. so contrary to that which
he was officially bound to follow for the protection of British
interests.
- Mr. ROBINSON wished to know how long the British
merchant was to be prohibited from trading with the eastern
roasts of the Baltic, in consequence of the dispute now pend-
ing between us and our ally ?—( Hear.) The ground of confis-
cation by the Russian Government was, that the Vixen had
violated a sanitary regulation. The commercial community
was deeply interested in the solution of the question whether,
under the treaty of Adrianople, Russia was in possession de
jure of these coasts, so as to preclude us from trading there.
He had no hesitation in saying that, in imprisoning the ma-
riners, and seizing the vessel, the Autocrat had exceeded any
acknowledged right he possessed in those regions.
Mr. O'CONNELL thought the Noble Lord had answered
the question of Mr. Bell sufficiently distinctly previous to the
Vixen going out—namely, that the coast of Circassia was not
then blockaded. He referred Mr. Bell to the Gazette, and
no notification was to be found. Mr. Bell was perfectly au-
thorised in going there. A British subject had been thus
robbed of his property in going there. It became this Go-
vernment so to represent it to the Court of Russia ; and he
was firmly persuaded that the very worst way to procure justice
for this aggression was to suffer time to be wasted in need-
lessly protracted negociatios. A spirited remonstrance would
produce the best effect on the arbitrary spirit of that Court,
and teach the Russian that the British GOvernment and people
would not permit him to circumscribe, by arbitrary interfe-
rence, the trade and commerce of England ; and that instead
of allowing its subjects, thus illegally made prisoners, to be
insulted by the Autocrat's permission, as an act of favour and
generosity, to go to Constantinople, she would demand, and
not desist till she had obtained, reparation for the indignity,
restitution of the vessel, and compensation for their detention
and losses to the owners of the Vixen.
Lord DUDLEY STUART said, the subject was not a
question of personal loss to the merchant, but a question whether
Russia should be left to exercise a prejudicial restrictive power
over our growing commerce. The blockade was not kept up
efficiently ; for this vessel had been thirty-six hours at anchor
in the roadstead, which plainly demonstrated that the blockade
was net properly maintained. The Russian Government had
equivocated in its assertion of its pretension to the right of
seizure, and resorted to a second right to interfere, founded
upon the belligerent's title to seize munitions of war; but
the Vixen, it was proved, had nothing on board but salt, and
a few patterns of British manufactures. This second pre-
text was equally unfounded as the first. Then a claim was
set up against the right of the Vixen to visit the port in ques
tima, which was under the interdict of Russia by virtue of se-
nitary regulations. But the quarantine, it appeared, had never
been notified. The claim of territory, in consequence of the
alleged cession of Circassia to Russia by Turkey was nega-
tived by the fact that no Pacha of Turkey—no Governor of
Turkey, and no tribute payable to Turkey, had ever been
recognized in this independent country. Occupancy, there-

fore, by Russia, could not he set a.e ,to justify this act of
scandalous piracy by that aggress ee es Power, because the
Autocrat possessed no part of Circ• Wei a, except some frontier
forts out of which the Russian tr. sops durst not venture.—
(Cheers.) . There never had been . a shadow of title in Rus-
sia to the sovereignty of this count ry on the ground of actual
possession, nor had the Porte itsel I ever held in sovereignty
the country of those brave and inds pendent warriors.--( Hear,
hear.) He asked the House if it was net disgraceful at this
time of day, in two months after thn news had reached this
tnb,thatw
country of the British flag having ben,and the li-
berty of British subjects interfered violated,e
should now
be debating and deliberating, an
i i 'ndeavouring, unsucces-
fully, to obtain from the Noble I Joe d any information as to
what he had done, or was about to do. In illustration of what
had been done informer days by this country, he felt much
inclined to tell a story told in th et I louse in 1783, by Mr.
Pulteney, who was much attached. to I Zepublicanism, and who,
referring to the time of the Cegnrs ,onwealth, said that two
English merchantmen having been t aken in the chops of the
Channel and carried into St. 'Mall se s, the master of the ship,
who was an honest Quaker, as soon as he came
home, presented a petition to • the Protector, in Coun-
cil, praying for redress. The Protector, having heard
the petition, told the man's couns ail that he would take that
case upon himself, at the same time ordering him to attend him
the next morning. He examined . strictly into the circum-
stances of his case, and finding fr nu his answers that he was
a plain, honest man, and was eng aged in no unlawful trade,
asked him if he would go with E l letter to Paris. The man
having answered that he would, the Protector gave him a
letter to Cardinal Mazarin, instrus' sting him that if he did not
within three days receive an answer, 'which answer was to be
the full value of his shirts and carg
'op et,
e was to return to him.
The individual fulfilled his instru stio ns to the tittle, and Car-
dinal Mazarin (to u'. the words of .Mr. Pulteney), according
to the manner of Ministers when t hey are in any way dis-
tressed, begun to ',hale, and, then eft ge, the Quaker returned.
As soon as thy, Protector found t'ha t he had not got his mo-
ney, that gr eat man, without ev an acquainting the French
Minister at. this Court, sent a s nun-of-war to seize all the
French sllaps she could meet. S'h'e accordingly seized two or
three siips, which the Protector o rdered to be sold, and paid
the Csestaker the value of his ship PMI d cargo. He then sent for
the. French Minister, and told him that the balance should be
}sanded over to him, in order to be paid to the owners of the
French ships which had been taken . This was Oliver Crom-
well's manner of negotiating and of obtaining reparation ; and
what had been the consequence ? :It produced no war, but the
French took special care never again to interfere with the
privileges of British navigation ; and so long as Oliver Crom-
well lived our rights were respecessd. He did not say that
the policy which he had described was precisely in every
respect what he would advise the Nloble Lord to adopt; but
there was a want of vigour, and an apathy to the honour of the
country, at present displayed whiele was highly culpable. He
would come now to more modern !times. In the administra-
tion of Mr. Pitt there was no sutra vacillating, hesitating, un-
certain, cowardly policy as we nova witnessed. In 1790 the
Spaniards captured two British vessels in Nootka Sound, and
as soon as it was known Mr. Pitt directed the British Ambas-
sador at Madrid to demand restitution and reparation, without
previcus discussion. A message from his Majesty was conse-
quently sent to that House, intimr.ting that that demand had not
been complied with, and recommending his faithful Commons
to take measures to enable his Majesty to make such an aug-
mentation of his forces as might be necessary to obtain redress.
But those who were not favourable to Mr. Pitt might say,
" This was a great Tory—we hate his name, and will not fol-
low his example." Let him, however, add, that Mr. Pitt,
having moved an Address to the Throne, and it of course
was an echo of the Speech, it was seconded by Lord Gren-
ville, and supported by Mr. Pitt's great rival, Mr. Fox, who
ridiculed the idea of Spain having any title to the coast she
claimed—a title founded only upon a grant sanctioned by
the Pope, who had as much right to grant it to Spain as the
Sultan bad to grant Circassia to Russia.—(Cries of " Hear,
hear, hear.") He was followed by Mr. Burke and Mr.
Grey, the present Lord Grey, who in no less positive
terms supported the Address. When that was disposed of,
Mr. Fox got up and moved for an account of the value of the
trade to Nootka Sound; but Mr. Pitt reminded him that the
question did not relate to the value of the trade, but to an in
suit offered to our flag ; and Mr. Fox was so convinced by
the argument of his great rival, that he withdrew his motion.
He (Lord D. Stuart) wished the Noble Lord would read
history, and take a lesson from it. He had no doubt the
Noble Lord was well versed in history ; but there was no use
in reading it, if we did not profit by the examples it contained.
This was not the first time Russia bad set up such arrogant
and insolent claims of stopping our ships. Two years ago a
British vessel (the Charles Spencer) was seized in the Black
Sea, under circumstances as objectionable as those of the
Vixen. The Noble Lord could not deny it. Why bad we
not a fleet in the Black Sea ?—( Cheers.) Until we had,
there would be no security for our merchants or our trade.
Our commerce was increasing rapidly there, but such In-
crease must be all a farce, if we did not protect the trade.
An injury had beets inflicted, and if the cure were not rapid
and' radical, the consequences would he fatal. No reason
could be assigned for the outrages offered by Russia to British
commerce and British subjects, but her constant aim to obtain,
if possible, the supremacy of the sea, and to do everything in
her power to insult and lower this country. She exhibited the
true character of the bully—arrogant, haughty, and domineer-
ing to the weak—base, abject, and cringing to the strong.
Hoe; different was our policy to other states from that which
we had adopted in reference to Russia. Last year an insult
was offered at Constantinople to Mr. Churchill, who could not
be acquitted of the imputation of having acted indiscreetly.
We remonstrated, and the Reis Effendi was dismissed from
his place. He should he glad to know if Count Nesseirode
would he dismissed ?—( Hear.) So far from that the captain
of the Russian frigate and the admiral under whose orders he
acted had received honours arid distinctions for having insulted
this country. When an insult was offered to 113 at Car-
thagena a fleet of 12 sail was immediately sent to obtain repa-
ration ; but when we had to deal with Russia we were
humble and quiet, hesitating, vacillatingsand not knowing what
to do, until the interests of our merchants were sacrificed, and
the honour of our flag disregarded. He hoped we should not
have reason to continue to complain of so terrible and so
odious a system. He did not think the Noble Lord could have
done better than to accede to the motion. Let Russia only
know that we would punish aggression, and our commerce
would be unmolested The Duke of Wellington's Government
had not been so indifferent to what had passed in the East; as
not to remonstrate. If the Noble Lord would give the papers
the House would be better able to judge of the circumstances
which had given rise to this motion.
Mr. C. PELHAM said a few words, but was wholly in-
audible in the gallery.
The motion was then put from the Chair, and negatived
without a division.
Mr. HUTT rose and inquired if any steps were in con-
templation fur the purpose of transferring to the Bank of Eng-
land the management of South Sea Stock ?
Mr. P THOMSON was of opinion that no measure such
as that alluded to by the Hon. Member would be introduced
during the present Session.
RUSSIA COMPANY.

Mr. HUME asked his Right Hon. Friend if it was in-
tended to propose any measures respecting the Russia
Company ?
Mr. P. THOMSON was not aware of any such intention.
NAVY ESTIMATES.

The House then went into a Committee on the Estimates.
Mr. C. WOOD proposed a vote for 33,700 seamen and
marines, and supported the vote on the ground of the state of
other maritime States of Europe. The Russians had it, the
Baltic last year a fleet of 30 sail and 30,000 men, therefore, it
was necessary for us to keep up a respectable force.
Capt. B OLD ERO wished to know whether the 700 ma-
rines ashore in Spain were estimated for separately or not, and
whether, in the event of any marine officer losing his life in
that service, his widow would be entitled to a pension ?
Mr. C. WOOD said the marines afloat and ashore
were estimated for under the same head ; and should any ma-
rine officer die on service, whether at Madrid or elsewhere,
the widow of that officer would receive a pension.
After a few words from Mr. C. DULLER and Lord
PALMERSTON,
Mr. HUME contended that the marines were landed at
Lisbon for a purpose in which he could not concur, because it
was an unjust interference with the Portuguese, and which
had created a stronger feeling against this country than had
existed for centuries.
Mr. WARBURTON said, if the Government had given
orders to the English fleet to interfere at Lisbon against a
popular movement, then they had taken from the people of
Portugal the only means that people bad of protecting them-
selves against a bad administration, and he must consider their
conduct as greatly to he censured.
Mr. BOR.T H WICK said the English Government was
endeavouring to propagate its political principles in Spain
sword in hand.
Sir H. HARDINGE had no objection to the amount of
force proposed in this vote. In the present state of Europe
that force was necessary. He did not approve altogether of
the mode in which the marines had been employed in Spain.
—( Hear, hear.) But he rose chiefly to notice what the Hon.
Member for Bridport had said. Did that Hon. Member mean
to say, that this Government should not interfere with its
forces at Lisbon, even to save the life of the Queen of Portu-
gal, if that Sovereign acted against the will of the people ?
If that was what he meant to say, he was giving utterance
to a ferocious principle.—(Hear, hear, hear.) He called
'upon the Government to say frankly and boldly that it had
ordered the landing of the troops, because such a proceed-
ing was necessary in order to save the life of the Queen of
Portugal.
Lord PALMERSTON said that the orders given to the
Admiral were to afford protection to the person of the Queen
if it was necessary. The Admiral placed himself in commu-
nication with his Majesty's Minister at Lisbon, and under-
standing that the person of the Queen was in imminent
danger, he landed the troops distinctly to protect the per.
scn of the Queen.—( Hear, hear.) The Admiral withdrew the
troops the moment he found that the danger to the Queen's
person had ceased.—(Hear.) He had withdrawn the troops
much to the disappointment of one political party, which
wished that the troops- would continue on shore. But the
Admiral, having once provided for the Queen's safety, left the
different parties at Lisbon to settle their differences amongst
themselves. In answer to a question from Mr. Hume, the
Noble Lord said it had been no part of the instructions given
to the Admiral to interfere to overthrow the popular constitu-
tion.

Mr. 1-11:ME moved that the vote be reduced by 5,000 men.
The amendment was negatived without a division; and
the original motion was agreed to.
1,296,0001. was moved for the expense of the seamen and
marines.
Captain PECHELL asked if the Board of Admiralty had