The Sun.
London, England, 1849-06-13 00:00:00

r

! re not qualified to settle disputed qusations of
boundary,
Mr. HUME—The bcundary was settled though.
Lord PALMERSTON—Nut by a " geographer."—
(Laughter.) His Hon. Friend said that there was
eething new at the bottom of his proposal. He assured
his Hon. Friend he was miAaken in a material fact, be-
;tose it was not true that when a Government sent a
Plenipotentiary to carry on a negotiation, whether for
Peace or war, notwithstanding that full and entire powers
were entrusted to him, that the Government were bound
to Co— y
with everything he id. Salon as h con-
fined himself to his instructionsd, the Governmente were
oeund not by his acts, but by their own authority; but
the moment the envoy outstepped his instructions, his
Government were not bound by his acts. A treaty
concluded—although there might be no reason to
Suppose that the Envoy had exceeded his instructions—
!al of no avail until it had received the ratification of
~Lee Government for which he was acting. Ile assured his
`l°ll. Friend then that his proposal was new. His Hon.
Friend hid quoted several cases of international nego-
tiation. If his Friend had quoted cases in which arbi-
tration had succeeded—in which, he would say, arbitra-
tion' had frequently been submitted to, and, having been
submitted to, had succeeded—he (Lord Palmerston)
'Tight be disposed to view his motion in a more favour-
-5°15 light. His Hon. Friend had enumerated several
cases where he said the principle of arbitration had been
successfully carried out; and amongst these cases he had
referred to those of the Vixen and the boundary ques •
ticm, to which he had already alluded. But the case in
relation to the Vixen had been amicably settled between
this country and Russia, without the intervention of a
tnird party; therefore that case did not illustrate the
advantages of the principle of arbitration. Then there
was the American boundary question. In that case ar
• bitration, as he had shown, had failed, and ultimately
the matter was disposed of in the usual way, through
the medium of negotiation. This example, instead of
being in favour of the principle of arbitration, went to
'now that it was wholly unnecessary in the settlement
of disputes between nation. Then, in the case of the Ca-
rolina, the United States and this country were anxious
"`' come to a mutual settlement respecting it, but the Pre-
sident and the United States could come to no under-
standing with England on thee subject, as the State of
New
.•Yo'rk might object to the arbitration, and, there-
lore, it was neces3ary that the qestion should be settled
to a court of law. This again showed that arbitration
could not always apply beneficially. At the same time
he must say that he thought it was a most destrable
thing when two nations fell out that a third party, who
could and would act impartially should be called in, in
order that he (night effect by his calmer reason a corn
tromlie tietivenh'tie:contending parties.—(Hear, hear.)
But he thought the practice at present existing between
nations was opening the door to this principle becoming
very, general. He had himself acted very much on this
principle, and for which he had frequently been held up
to public obloquy.—( Hear, hear.) But he felt very easy
under those charges—satisfied that England, whether
she succeeded or not, was justified from her high political,
manufacturing, and commercial position, in offering her
Mediation in respect to the affairs of other countries with
whom she was on terms of friendship.—(Cries of
i
Ilear, hear.") His Honourable Friend, and those
who act with him, must be gratified in finding
the principle upon which their views were based
was cowing into general operation. his Hon. Friend
had said that the wars which now convulsed the conti-
nent of Europe were not the wars to which it was pro.
Posed to apply the principle of arbitration. He quite
agreed with him in this view of the case, and he must
here observe that it was a satisfactory proof of the im-
proved civilization of nations. and of classes, to find that what was now going forward had not embroiled the na-
irna of Europe in hostile wars. Such matters could not
„aye occurred half a century ago without the nations of
Europe being in direct hostility with each other. The
traetiee of mediation had prevailed in many places, and
bea'w.ci been put into operation by this country
would be the
duty of this Government, or of any Government, as it
would be also their pride, to soften down the asperitiesa
arising between nations, and to endeavour to settle the
differences existing between them, either without having
recourse to war, or by shortening war. Therefore, the
Motion of his Hon. Friend was not one which he could
advise the House to assent to. He thought it was one
which no foreign country could adopt, and it would be
dangerous for this country to be bound by the principle
Involved in it. For these reasons he could not agree
with the motion. He should not, however, negative the
proposition, but would move the previous question, as
~e that would be the most courteous mode of meeting it.
41 therefore begged to move the previous question.
Mr. M. GIBSON said that his Hon. Friend had con-
sidered this question fully, and he never entertained the
impracticable views suggested by the Noble Lord. It
the desire for peace was so general, how was it that it
becamebecame necessary to have such large armaments as they
had in this country? He did not think the Noble Lord
i°,!td furnished him with any good argument to induce
Vol to vote against the motion of his Hon. Friend. The
Noble Lord said that there were defects in the principle
of arbitration. Who denied this? But did fighting
settle it? Vatel, who was in favour of arbitration, had
admitted that it might be defective; but he went on to
say that it was better they should fail in arbitration than
have recourse to bloodshed. There was the question
which had taken place between America and England.
hie alluded to our taking British seamen out of Ame
riean vessels. We fought about it until both got tired
of doing so, and then came the treaty of Ghent, in which
not one word occurred in reference to this cause of
quarrel between America and England. We did not
settle it that day; it might still be a cause of quarrel.
Re contended that the question might have been settled
by arbitration. The Noble Lord object, dto prospective
arbitration. If the proposition of his Hon. Friend bad
one good quality more than another about it, it was the
fact of its anticipating differences between nations.—
(Hear, hear.) Ile confessed that he believed his Hon.
Friend's opposition was a most practicable one. It was
only asking nations to t ase their objects upon principles
et' justice. If their views were ambitions and their ends
aggrandisement, then he could understand why nations
might object to act in accordance with the object con-
templated by the motion of his Hon. Friend. If any.
thing could prove the value of his Hon. Friend's propo-
sition, it would be, the result of all their wars to crush
public opinion on the continent. Money had been spent,
a great amount of blood had been shed, and yet the
Power of public opinion was just where it was. The
Hon. Member then referred to the opposition given to
the proposition of his Hon. Friend by certain public
Journals, and yet one of these journals had recently an
able article to show the value of peace over war, and thus
JucstifSlog this motion, the object of which was to get rid
(12,4 war.—(near.) The Hon. Gentleman read an extract
the article in question in support of his statement.
ne could read to the House many extracts, to show
the horrors rs of war, which were greater than those
attendant
upon slavery. The Hon. Gentleman then
lead extracts from letters, in which the horrors of the
We Indian war were vividly pourtra)ed. The Right lo
e. Gentleman continued to read extracts giving de-
tails of the results of the war in India, and went on to
aay that a thing could induce men to adopt arbi ration
more than by lessening the advantages of war, and first
:e would do away with privateering.—(Hear, hear.) At
e time they had so many as 700 letters of marque in
this country. Nothing was worse than the system of
p.tivateering, as it was the worst species of robbery, and
tteserved the severest punishment. He would next do
away with prize money—(Hear, hear)—for it held out
an inducement to war, and asa precedent for the proposi-
tion of his Hon. Friend, he would call attention to a
tres.
tY, which had the sanction of the names of Adams,
Jefferson, and Franklin—a treaty which had been en-
tered into between the United States of America and
Prussia, in the time of Frederick the Great, and which
Was called the Treaty of Amity and Commerce. Ac-
cOrding to that treaty, cultivators of the land, fishermen,
and unarmed reerchants of the seas were to be protected,
and exempted from the horrors and the consequences of
war.—(Hear.) The Noble Lord (Palmerston) said that
the four cases which had been cited by his Hon. Friend
had been settled in the ordinary way. Now, as to the
Oregon case, be (Mr. Milner Gibson) had no doubt that
the force which the Noble Lord said this country had at
its back at the, time rather increased the difficulty than
smoothed the way to a settlement of the boundary ques-
tion. Before he sat down he would address a, few
words to his agricultural friends, who were said to be
favourable to war, and would desire, to impress we them
that the time was gone by when they could associate
in their minds a state of war with :a rise in prices.—
(Hear.) The state of protection had passed away, and
they could not again, as in 1815, fall back on the laws
England was not likely ever again to be
efigeged in a long war. They could no longer increase
their indirect taxation—and it was abundantly proved
that, if England should engage in war, the property
of the country must pays and that was a grand
security they had against the chances of war.—(Hear.)
lie was sorry the Noble Lord had concluded with the
motion he had made, as he would rather have seen the
motion of his lion. Friend decided upon its own merits.
Although the proposition of his Hon. Friend
could not
Operate in such a case as that of the unjustifiable inter-
ference of France in the affairs of Rome; and although
the Noble Lord had disclaimed any participation in that
interference, there had been some suspicion thrown upon
the Government, partly owing, to the articles which had
appeared in certain English journals abusing the Tri-
umviratet, the de facto Governors of Rome, and portico-
-4'sl Mr. Mazzini, whom he had the pleasure of know-
ing, and from that knowledge he felt confident that the
aspersions cast upon him had been most unfounded.
Whatever opinions.had been previously entertained, they
hid now the satisfaction of having a distinct disclaimer
op, the part of the British Government, which he hoped
would not be without its weight, as nothing he
conceived could be more unjustifiable than the course
which had been pursued by France with reference
to. Rome.
Mr. ROEBUCK said the Hon. Member for Man-
chester (Mr. M. Gibson) had expressed his regret that
the Noble Lord had concluded his speech by moving the
previous question, but he (Mr. Roebuck) must say, that
although he disliked the conclusion of the Noble Lord's
speech, he must at the same time admit that he had
never listened to any speech of the Noble Lord's with
more pleasure, or one that was throughout distin.
guished by more enlarged and liberal views, and by a
morecomprehensive philanthropy.—(Hear, hear.) lie
said that without intending to admit that the Noble
Lord's acts were always in accordance with his speeches,
n ,ras it his intention to enter into an examination of
tang „Noble Lord's foreign policy. He disliked the mode
of argument adopted by the Hon. Member for Man•
chester in the course of his speech, and the very minute
details. he entered into of individual misery. They
livers all aware of the miseries of war.—(Hear.) It
Was his belief, however, that they should read the na-
tions of Europe a good lesson, and it was upon that
ground that he meant to support the resolution of the
lion. Member (Mr. Cobden). He did not participate in
any Utopian views on the subject, nor did he expect
that people would be altogether preTented from going to

war. The sole proposition which would he embraced
in the adoption of the motion of his Hon. Friend would
be this, that with all their strength, and all their power,
and all their advantages, tnis country would be the first
to ask other nations to settle their differences by an ap-
peal to reason.—(Hear.) And how had that proposition
been met by the Noble Lord (Lord Palmeeston)? He
did not directly oppose it; but he moved the previous
question, which was, in fact, admitting the principle,
but simply saying that the present was not the time for
adopting the proposition. Now he (Mr. Roebuck) would
say that, considering the state of Europe, the present
was precisely the time for its adoption, and he would,
therefore, fix the Noble Lord to that, and meet him
upon the point. Nations, like individuals, lost their
tempers too frequently, and went to war instead of
appealing to common sense. Tho case of the Caroline
was peculiarly the case of a nation losing its
temper. The Government of the United States was at
war on that subject with the British Government. The
Governments, if left to themselves, would have no diffi-
culty in settling the dispute ; but the people interfered.
That was not a case to be brought forward against the
proposition of the Honourable Member for the West
Riding. As had been truly stated by the Noble Lord at
the head of the Foreign-office, arbitration was in this
matter of the Caroline employed between England and
America. The King of the Netherlands acted as an
arbitrator. He gave a decision in our favour.: The
Americans, however, objected to it, and by their con-
duct rendered the arbitration null and void. This was
accepted by the British Government, possibly because
it was thought certain the United States Government
would not accept -it. Now, what he wanted was
that England should, by adopting his Honourable
Friend's proposition, set an example to all nations to
avoid, as much as possible, appeals to arms.—(Hear,
hear.) He did not believe that, if they adopted the
proposition, wars would cease at once, or that there
would be less chance of war occurring among
the less instructed people ; but he did believe
that the effect of their adopting such a resolution
would be to induce other nations to come to their de-
cision. All he asked the Noble Lord at the head of her
Majesty's Councils to do was, to give them the sanction
of his opinion that the plan, it in could be adopted,
would be a wise mode of settling the disputes of nations.
They ought to consider the effect of that night's debate
on the empire at large. The speeches there delivered
would go out to the world as the sentiments of the
greatest deliberative assembly in the world—an assem-
bly at the head of a most powerful and peaceful people.
They represented a united people, and the force of their
expressions were estimated, not by the worth of' the in
dividuals who gave them utterance, but of the commu-
nity in which they were uttered. It was not he that
spoke, but the House of Commons, through the humble
individual who then addressed them. What would be the
effect of truncating his Hoe. Friend's proposition by
moving the consideration of the previous question? He
regretted much that the Noble Lord at the head of Fo-
reign Affairs had lost the present opportunity of sanc-
tioning by his adoption a proposition which tended, not
only to the liberty of mankind, but of national civiliza-
tion. He lamented that the Noble Lord did not grasp
that opportunity of reading a lesson to the nations of
Europe which in their present position they so much
stood in need of. At the present moment, when the
name of England, he believed, had been partly employed
as a means to sanction such proceedings as were a dis-
grace to humanity—he allud' dto the attack made by the
French Government an the people of R ;me—he regretted
that the Noble Lord had not availed himself of the op-
portunity, not only to repudiate all connexion or assent
in those proceedings, and to withdraw the British name
from all participation in them, but to raise up the
standard of civilization and peace, and to ask foreign na-
tions it they were willing to join England in appealing,
where disputes arose, to common sense and reason, in-
stead of to war and the sword.
Mr. W. MILES approved of the course taken by the
Noble Lord at the head of Foreign Affairs in meeting
the proposition before the House by moving the previous
question. The previous question in this case meant
that the Noble Lord and those who supported him agreed
in the fundamental principle of the resolution. The
Hon. Member for Sheffield had told them that the
present period was fit and opportune for determining the
question submitted by the lion. Member for the West
Riding, but he did not think the Hon. Gentleman had
succeeded in establishing that point. He told them that
the state of Europe was one of convulsion, marked less
by tumult than strikieg injustice. This surely was not
the peculiar moment at which the Secretary for Foreign
Affairs could adopt as a practical measure a proposal of
general arbitration to the Powers of Europe. Could
they name any nation with whom there was the slightest
chance of success of entering into such an arbitration.
If they proposed it to the French Government, consider.
ing the condi-ion of the French Republic, the Noble
Lord at the heat of Foreign Affairs could scarcely ex-
pect a favourable answer. Was it to such a Govern-
ment as that of Russia that they could hope to enter
into a negotiation of this nature? He believed it could
not be done with advantage to this country or to the
cause of mankind; and, therefore, though he agreed in
the principle of the [notion, he should support the amend-
ment of the Noble Lord.
Mr. fIUME thought the course adopted by the Hon.
Gentleman who last addressed the House exceedingly
strange. He approved of the conduct of the Hon.
Member for the West Riding, he approved of the prin-
ciple of the motion of the Hon. Member, and yet he said
he would vote against it.
Mr. M. MILES—I intend to support the motion for
considering the previous question.
Mr. HUME—The Hon. Gentleman should know,
after what had fallen from the don. Member opposite,
that moving the previous question was an admission of
the principle of the motion of his Hon. Friend. The
Noble Lord at the head of Foreign Affairs admitted
fully and fairly that he concurred in the principle of the
motion, but that be doubted the practicability of carry-
ing it out. That was the entire difference. How much
more good would be effected if the proposition had the
assent of the Noble Lord and of the Government, and if
the m, tion were carried unanimously. He was much
pleased that the debate had taken place, because the
Noble Lord made a speech which he heard with great
satisfaction, and made a declaration which he hoped
might be carried to every part of the habitable globe,
for it would have the effect of removing an impression
that now existed unfavourable to his Lordship, namely,
that instead of promoting feelings of friendship, and pre-
venting war between different states, he had fostered
discord and disunion, He was quite surprised that the
Notle Lord could for a moment hesitate adopting and
giving force to a principle which he declared himself
to have taken such pride in promoting. He regretted
that the Government had taken the open step of op-
posing the motion, for he held that it would be for the
interest of England if they gave their sanction to the
adoption, as well as to the principle, of the plan sug-
gested. What the country wanted was, that war should
be avoided by every means.—(Hear.) This was the very
country which, from its position, ought to set the example
of lessening the incentives to war; and he therefore put
it to the House whether they were nut in a position to
do so at the present time. In consequence of the Otaheite
affair the whole fortifications around the coast were
strengthened, and a large amount of money was carelessly
spent; while, had the system of his Hon. Friend pre-
vailed, they would have been save,' all that expense.
Again. in regard to the dispute with America as to the
boundary line, they were put to an expense of one mil.
lion sterling, in order to get up their naval force, in case
of a war. That dispute was, in the end, settled by com-
missioners; and, had that means of settlement been at,
first adopted, that expense would have also been saved.
lie supported that expenditure, because he thought
America meant to bully them; and he also supported in
that House a vet a of thanks to Lord. Ashburton for the
successful manner in which he had discharged the duties
of his mission,—(Hear, hear.) Thus, the system pro-
posed by his Hon. Friend had been already successful,
and it was with regret that he found her Majesty's Go•
vernment opposing. By war they had gained nothing
but increased taxation. The war they were engaged in
with America had entailed upon them upwards of 60
millions to their debt, while the French war had greatly
added to that sum, and from the effects of these a system
of the most grinding taxation had been given rise to. By
a system of proper arbitration that load of debt might
have been prevented from being entailed on them, and
he now regretted that after the admission of the Noble
Secretary for Foreign Affairs, that be agreed in the
principle embodied in the motion, he should have felt it
his duty to vote against it.--(Hear, hear.)
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said he had hoped that the
speech of his Noble Friend the Secretary for Foreign
Affairs, was so clear and distinct that it could lead to no
inisconcer ion, but he found that those who had followed
his Noble Friend, instead of answering his arguments,
hh aedutotally
againstm is c o Etcheei v ed
mo
ttiho en m eHa n
is Ring
iog fh
tt h objections
asan rtdtyho
the
htt
ohe
esdeteeastMemberoetlhaheti
there
desolation
ono
pwr
ianansiManchester
nnowi
difference
ff expenseh
e r respecte
ni had
tce
created.
consideredroteioattoehdpei.
leivolvirils
With
Friendnweacre,
respects
(Hear.) There was no party in that House who would
stand up and say that war was productive of good, or
that it ought to be courted; there was no party who ad-
vocated it as a system; and, therefore, the greater pot.-
tion of the speech of his Right Hon. Friend was not ap-
plicable to the present case. But his Right Hon. Friend
said the question was that they should settle their dis-
putes by arbitration or negotiation, but that was not the
question either, for the motion of the Hon. Member for
the West Riding had only reference to arbitration.
But in respect to the question, so far as it related
to the avoiding of war, he thought he was justified
in saying that the history of the present generation
showed that negotiations had been employed in all pos-
sible cases for the avoidance of war, and that in most
cases it had succeeded. He did not know if it was alto-
gether right, but his lion. Friend the Member for Mid-
dlesex had charged some Hon. Members with instigating
the war of 1793. Nay, he believed he even went so far
as to accuse some of them of instigating the American
war—(Loud 1 au gh t
wer )h--reb;atrhdetothtohuegphrtestehnatt
generation
enermaitgiohnt
safely affirm that, it
itnt that
promotingthe y w were ethfree v from
bwlhaomehaind
havingseats
of
war. When they considered the various and important
questions in which this country had been brought into
inbee thnat forward House,
contact, and been engaged with other great nations in
discussing—the dispute as to the Vixen with Russia—the
Oregon boundary—the Caroliee and the M'Leod affair
with the United States—the conduct of the French at
Otaheite—the Syrian question—and many others, all of
which had been questions of great peril in themselves,
some of them exciting to a considerable degree the feel-
ings of a great people, and yet that under the different
Governments which had succeeded each other, these had
been settled in such a manner as to prevent war and
bloodshed, and friendly relations established betrieen
those powers—(Hear, hear)—this he thought was one
of the best arguments which could be used in favour
of the system heretofore pursued, as well as a sure indi-
cation of the desire of those at the head of affairs to pre-
serve peace.—(Hear, hear.) That then was a proof
that they did no require any pressing With regard to

the preservation of peace. But it so happened that in
almost every eve peace had been preserved by the old
method negotiation entered into with the powers con-
cerned. His Hon. Friend the Member for Montrose
had referred to the appointment of Lord Ashburton to
America, to settle the Oregon dispute, and argued from
that in Favour of the motion of the Hon. Member for the
West Riding ; but Lord Ashburton did not go to
America as an arbiter, he went there as a negotia:er.—
(Hear, hear.) He negotiated with Mr. Webster, who
met him on the part of the United States, and without
the aid of any umpire they settled satisfactorily the dis-
pute between them. He should say that it was not no
cessary to alter that method, as they had hitherto been
so successful with it. Ms Honourable Friend the
Member for Montrose had sail that they were hound
to pass the present motion, and thereby give a general
opinion in favour of peace. But the motion went fur-
ther than that, as were it slowed, the Secretary for
Foreign Aff sirs would he bound the day after the ad-
dress mentioned in the motion was presented to her
Majesty, to communicate with foreign powers, in-
forming them that in future all disputes would be
decided by arbitration. That was more than a mere
expression of pacific desires, it was a practical ques-
tion, which, if the motion was carried, must be im-
mediately carried !into effect.—(llear, hear.) It was,
therefore, impossible for Government to agree to such a
motion, unless they were prepared immediately to
act upon it, and, although, so far as the Govern-
ment was concerned, they might be prepared
to give a direct negative to the motion, they
had contented themselves with moving the
previous question. He did not believe, that were the
proposed system adopted, it would secure any better
means of preserving peace than they at present had.
At present, should any question arise which it was
thought could be better decided by arbitration than by
negotiation, they had in their power to employ that
means of settling it. Some cases might arise, intricate
in themselves, and in regard to the points disputed, in
which neither party would give way, for the decision of
which it might be fitting that arbiters should be ap-
pointed; but there were other questions again, involving
the dearest interests of the country, in which the honour
of the country was at stake, and which, if Government
.proposed to refer to arbitration, the force of public opi
nion would at once compel them to relinquish any such
idea.—(Cheers.) As an example of such a case, he might
refer to the invasion of Holland by Louis XIV. That
was a question of invasion on the one hand and of
independence and freedom on the other. Had there
been a treaty of arbitration between the parties, the ar-
biters appointed might have proposed that the Dutch
should give up a certain city or some portion of their
territory, in order that peace might be maintained ; but
would the Dutch have subscribed to any such finding?
—(Cheers) And was it proper that any foreign person
should be appointed to decide whether or not a nation
should sacrifice its just rights and interests? There was
a question raised at the end of the correspondence be-
tween Mr. Webster and Lord Ashburton, in which the
former complained of the system of pressing British
seamen out of American ships, in time of war; but with
that Lord Ashburton had nothing to do; and should any
such matter be referred to negotiation, the powers
granted must be very guarded, as when war was declared
against a country it would be unfair should that country
he deprived of the services of its subjects, in order to aid
in the defence of it. The French expedition to Algiers
was another case in point. When that expedition pro-
ceeded to Algiers the Government of this country asked
if they went there for the sake of conquest ; and
the answer they received from the French Am-
bassador was, that it did not. But suppose that the
territory the French there might have acquired, should
have been referred to arbitration. So far as the right to
_ _

it was concerned, and that such arbitration should have
decided that the French had no right to territory there,
and that they should withdraw their armies, would the
French have obeyed?—(Hear, hear.) He believed they
would have done no so such thing.--(Cheers.) For any
Government who should ban proposed to do so, would
not hive b:'en able to resist the popular feeling; and
moreover, their doing so would not, in his opinion, have
much forwarded the prospects of peace between this
country and France.—(llear, hear.) It appeared, there-
tore, to him that the particular mode of procuring and
maintaining peace was not a proper cum—(Hear, hear.)
As to the desirableness of maintaining pace, they were,
as he had said, all agreed; and connected as the nations
of Europe now were, he dil not think that they were
destined to see a revival of those wars which had been
a disgrace to the humanity, and civilization, and Chris-
tianity which those nations professed.—(Hear, hear,
and cheers.) In looking back to ancient history, there
was a time when one party sallied forth and made
war upon another party, perhaps, not ten miles dis-
tant from him; and at a late period they had seen
how villages had been sacked, and every atrocity com-
mitted in carrying out the same spirit; but those times
had passed away, and those practices had now ceased,
and if they looked to the peaco which had prevailed from
1815 to 1848. they would find that all trace of the wars
et' the middle ages had been dispelled; and if that change
had taken place, what was to prevent a still further
change from being effected. The feeling was ;now
abroad that men were bound to make every sacrifice for
the sake of peace; and he believed that still greater pro-
gress would be made by uniting nation with nation in
the bonds of good will and fellowship. He did not ex-
pect they would be rapid or immediate, and certainly
what occurred last year gave them but little hope for
some time to come; but, nevertheless, he did not see
why the interests and the influence of the great Govern-
ments of Europe should not be used to decry war, and
settle all disputes in a peaceable manner. lie was the more
confirmed in that view when he looked at the two
great wars, which had taken place, one with America,
and another with France, as well as others which oc-
curred in the last century—all of which could'have been
settled if there had been a proper temper 'exhibited by
the different parties, without having a recourse to arms.
With the opinions, therefore, of the Ho'n.iMember for
the West Ridine he could not, in theirmain object, dis-
agree, except their applicability at that time, as well as
the practicability of having all matters connected with
nations settled by arbitration. But with regard to the
general object of maintaining peace, of not deferri,g
rights not absolutely necessary. so far he agreed in the
spirit of the observations which the Hon. Member made.
For the last 12 or 18 months they had reduced 6,000
men in their navy, and 10,000 in their army, so that
they had shown every disposition to preserve the peace
of nations. He believed for the purposes of their own
defence, and to preserve their influence with foreign na-
tions, it would be much better not to adopt the motion
of the Honourable Gentleman.
Captain HARRIS said that since the repeal of the corn
laws took place, Hon. Gentlemen opposite, of the Man-
chester school, whom ho believed to represent a Repub.
iican party in that country, were anxious to reduce the
naval and military establishments of the country. Did
they, however, recollect the force of France at that
moment, with a navy and army vastly superior to theirs?
Mr. COBDEN replied, the Hon. Member who spoke
last alluded to the force of the French Government, but he
forgot the state of the French funds, or their embarrassed
and almost bankrupt condition. No man of any sense
would think that France would keep up an armament
when in embarrassed circumstances. He believed that
neither the Chartists, or the Quakers, or any other per-
son in the community, wished for a republic. But they
did wish to prevent such on occurrence taking place.
—(Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord the Member for
London said they settle their differences of late by
arbitration ; but that did not prevent expense ; for
preparations were always made for war when
a quarrel took place. There never was a time
when that country was better prepared to go to war
than the present, and it was at such a moment that pro-
ipno stiht iaotncsofue
tpr
ye ahc
had
ds hpouurlsdu
pursued
de the made.
question religiousof p epeace
f 0 body
e
last twenty years with an increasing perseverance; they
were at that moment joined by another body anxious to
reduce the expenditure—(Hear. hear);—and when it
was recollected that seven-eighths of that expenditure
was for the purposes of war; the exertions of both par-
ties would be wanted to reduce them. He would, at a
future period, move an address to her Majesty, to be sent
to foreign Powers, praying them not only r.ot to aug-
ment their armies, but to effect a gradual decrease in
their present actual force. The present was not a peace
between nations, but an armed truce, which was far more
formidable than anything which occurred in the middle,
ages. The Noble Lord the Member for Tiverton, p"o-
-posed a course which deprived him of an opportun,ty of
getting the sense of the House, for which he was little
obliged, for he wanted the House to express an opinion,
and should elicit it on a future occasion. The Hon.
Gentleman appealed to the good sense of the country,
and in their hands he was satisfied to leave it.
The House then divided, when the numbers were—
For the amendment
Against it
Majority -97
In answer to Mr. WYLD,
Sir GEORGE GREY said that an inquiry was at that
lmatronenott gthoeincgouountirnyt.o the condition of the colliery popu-
Mr. 'OSBORNE then moved to nominate a Select
Committee on Receivers, Courts of Chancery and Ex-
chequer (Ireland):—Mr. Osborne, Sir Robert Peel, Sir
James Graham, Sir William Somerville, Mr. Solicitor-
General, Mr.' Napier, Mr. Monsell, Mr. Bright, Mr.
Henley, Mr. O'Flaherty, Mr. George Alex. Hamilton,
Mr. M`Cullegh, Mr. Page Wood, Mr. Turner, and Mr.
Tennent. •
Colonel DUNNE suggested that the Hon. Member for
Athlone (Mr.. Keogh) be appointed on the Committee
instead of the .Hon. Member (Mr. Bright) as he under-
stood the affairs of Ireland better, and proposed that if
his suggestion was not agreed to, he would call for a
division for the adjournment of the question.
Sir P. NUGENT seconded the motion.
Mr. MONSELL thought that any delay at this period
of the session would cause the Bill not to be carried this
session.
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For the adjournment ...
Against it ...
Majority ...

... 58
... -45

A desultory conversation then took place, in which
Mr. M. O'Connell, Major Blackall, Mr. B. Osborne,
Colonel Dunne, and Sir A. Brook took part, as to
the appointment of Mr. Bright, which was ultimately
agreed to.
The Highways (Annual Returns) Bill was then read
a third time.
Sir J. HOBHOUSE introduced a Bill for the punish-
ment of desertion and mutiny of officers and soldiers in
India.
Agreed to, and recd a first time.
Lord PALMERSTON introduced a Bill relative to
marriages in foreign countries, which was also read a
fir►t time.
The House adjourned at Half-past Twelve o'clock.

HOUSE OF LORDS, June 12.
The Earl of EGLINTON presented a petition from
the Presbytery of Dunbar against the Partin mentAry
Oaths Dill.