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

the preservation of peace. But it so happened that in
almost every case peace had been preserved by the old
method of negotiaion entered into with the powers con-
cerned. - His Hon. Friend the Member for Montrose
had referred to the appointment of Lord Ashburton to
Americl, to sttle the Oregon dispute, and argued from
that in favour of the motion of the Hon. Member for the
West Riding ; but Lard Ashburton did not go to
America as an arbiter, he went there as a negotiator.—
(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 ne..
cessary to alter that method, as they had hitherto been
so successful with it. His Honourable Friend the
Member for Montrose had sail that they were bound
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 alopted, the Secretary for
Foreign Affairs would be bound the day after the ad-
dross 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 Ties-

don, which, if the motion was carried, must be im-
mediately carried Into effece—(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
be 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 have proposed to do so, would
not have bs 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.—(Hear, hear.) It appeared, there-
'ore, to him that the particular mode of procuring and
maintaining peace was not a proper one.—(Hear, hear.)
As to the deszrableness of inaintaming p-ace, 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 processed.—(Hear, hear,
and cheery.) 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 cum•
witted in carrying out the same spirit; bur. those times
had p Lased away, and those practices had now ceased.
and if they looked to the peace which had prevailed from
1815 to 1848, they would find that all trace of the wars

of 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
somo 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 use 4 to decry war, and
setth 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 Hon. Member fur
the West Riding he could not, in their main 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 deferaug
rights no; 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, Hun. Gentlemen opposite, of the Man-
chester school, whom he believed to represent a Repub-
lican party in that country, were anxious to reduce the
naval and military establishments of the country. Did
hey, 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 Frenoh 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 an 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-
positions f r peace should be made. A religious body
in that country had pursued the question of peace for the
last twenty years with an. increasing perseverance; they
were at that moment joinei 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 not 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 opportunity 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
moment going on into the condition of the colliery popu-
lation of the country.
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'Cullagb, 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. NUGEN r 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 0.
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 rend a first time.
Lord PALMERSTON introduced a Bill relative to
marriages in foreign countries, which was also read a
first time.
The House adjourned at Half past Twelve o'clock.

HOUSE OF LORDS, June 12.
The Earl of EG LINTON presented et petition from
the Presbytery of Dunbar against tho Parliament ay
OathiP Dill.