The Sun.
London, England, 1832-03-27 00:00:00

BRISTOL.

Mr. BAILLIE brought in a Bill to grant compensation
to such of the inhabitants of Bristol as had suffered during
the late riots.

The HoN. MEMBER also brought in a Bill for the Im-
provement of the Bristol Police. These Bills were seve-
rally read a first time. The Belfast Railway Bill was
read a third time and pissed.
A Bill for regulating the Police of the city of Edin-
burgh was brought in, and read a first time.
Lord STANLEY brought up the report of a ISM for

widening and improving, as we understood, t
llanchester.
Mr. HUNT hoped the Bill wound not be hurried through
e House in Committee, while five were to be considered
quorum, two only were present, and he, one of them,
ibjected to the Chairman's proceeding. The Chairman,
however did proceed, and be should therefore now move,
that the reception of the report be postponed for a week.
Mr. HUME seconded the motion, as there were
.orne clauses in manuscript proposed in Committee
of which the framers of the Bill bad not been cognizant.
Lord STANLEY explained.
THE REFORM RILL.
Shortly after five o'clock, Lord J. RUSSELL rose from
his seat, and advanced to the table of the House, where
the Reform Bill was deposited, for the purpose of convey-
ing it to the House of Lords. This was the signal for
nearly every Member on the Ministerial side of the House,
and a large portion of those on the Opposition, to
rise for the purpose of accompanying his Lordship in his
"resentation of the Bill at the bar of the Upper House of
Parliament. Among the two or three Members who re-
mained immoveable on the first Opposition Bench was Sir
Robert Peel, to whom, however, Lord John Russell, in
passing, did not fail to give an invitation, to join him, but
which was declined by the Right Hon. Baronet, with that
half-smiling, half-melancholy shake of the head for which
lie is occasionally so conspicuous.
A message from the Lords announced their Lordships'
concurrence in a private Bill.
Mr. FOLEY presented a petition from the silk manufac-
turers of a place in the county of Worcester complaining of
distress.
Mr. FITZROY presented a petition from Bury St.
Edmunds, Suffolk, in favour of the Factories Bill.
Lord COLE presented a petition from the Elders, Mem-
bers, and Minister of a Presbyterian Congregation at Muir-
bead, against the new system of education.
Mr. HEYWOOD presented three petitions from cer-
tain operatives in different parts of the country against the
Factories Bill.
Mr. SADLER said such petitions were to be received
with great suspicion, as the petitioners were wholly
under the command of those who employed them.
FOREIGN POLICY.
Sir J. GRAHAM moved the reading of the Order of
the Day for going into a Committee of Supply.
Lord ELIOT rose, having intimated on a former even-
ing his intention of making some observations on the
foreign policy of the present Ministry, for th it purpose.—
In looking at the political horizon, and beholding the
darkness which reigned around, it certainly was difficult
to -ay where the storm would first burst ; but that the re-
sult must he war was, in his opinion, but too evident whe-
ther the clash of arms was first heard in Holland, in Italy,
or in Portugal. With respect to Holland, he thought that
no reasonable man could doubt that that country would
resist a portion of the treaty to which this country was a
party ; for those who knew the firm and uncompromis-
ing character of the inhabitants of that country, and the
pitch of enthusiasm to which they had of late been
wound up, were well able to judge of the sacrifices they
would he prepared to make sooner than yield one iota
of that position which they imagined that they had a just
right to maintain; and in particular it was well known
that they would never submit to grant a free navigation of
the internal waters of their country—a point that in the
treaty was uncompromisingly insisted upon. but which (as
he believed) would never be carried into effect till an Eng-
Hob fleet bad possession of the Scheldt and every Dutch
gun-boat was blown into atoms. The condition, there-
fore, in which the Noble Lord (Paluserston) bad placid
this country was such that either the faith of England
must be violated, or we must he involved in an unjust war
with an ancient and faithful ally. He must, likewise, be
permitted to observe that the Noble Lord, on a previous
evening, had, when speaking on the question of the Dutch
Debt, treated the obligation of a guarantee very lightly;
and had drawn a somewhat strung distinction be-
tween a guarantee and a surety. Now he was ready to
concede to the Noble Lord that a surety could be called
on to fulfil that for which it had rendered itself liable ;
but he had yet to learn that a guarantee was not bound
to do all in its power to secure the performance of that
which it had guaranteed, even to the extent of resorting to
force for the purpose of accomplishing that object. He
was quite aware that it had been said in former days that
a guarantee was like lillagree work ; but, certainly, the
course pursued by the Noble Lord—that of proclaiming
beforehand the inefficiency of the security of a guarantee—
had something very novel in it He would not, however,
pursue this topic any further, as it was vested in much
more able hands than his; and when the proper time
should arrive, he had no doubt that the Hon. Member for
Oakehampton (Sir R. Vyvyan) would do ample justice to
the question. To turn the attention of the House to
another subject, he would ask—Was the prospect of affairs
in the Peninsula more cheering ? How did the case stand
there ? An expedition had been fitted out in this country,
and had sailed to attack Portugal from these shores, not
only in violation of our own declared neutrality, but con-
trary to the whole spirit of international laws. That ex-
pedition, too, was commanded by British officers, for, in
addition to Captain Sartorius, he was credibly informed
that other British officers were acting in that expedition
under assumed names. That expedition too was manned
by British seamen ; and to convey still further the idea that
England was taking part in the quarrel, they had descended
to the artifice of dressing the marines in the British uniform.
The policy of the present Government with respect to Por•
tugal appeared to be, that when an injury was to be re-
dressed, there was an instant promptness to act ; but when
protection was to be afforded, a deaf ear was turned to all
supplication ; so that the present Government of that
country might be said to exist in a double capacity—it was
legitimate enough for our purposes, but quite unrecog-
nizable for its own. But though it was true that Portu-
gal was in no condition to go to war with England, was
not Spain equally interested in that question which was
so vital to the present Government of Portugal? Was it
not notorious that a part of the plan of the threatened in-
vasion of Portugal was to hurl the Spanish Royal Family
from Vie Throne, and to place the Crown on the head of
Don Pedro? That, lie believed, was a fact that could
not be denied. After mentioning these countries, he
was naturally brought to turn his attention to France.
That France was highly-gifted by nature, be was net dis-
posed to deny; nor did he regret seeing that country oc-
cupy its proper position among the nations of Europe.
But the question, in his mind, was, whether our station
was not falling in proportion as that of France was rising,
and whether, instead of being looked up to by the whole
of Europe as the protectors of the weak, we were not be-
ginning to be regarded in the light of oppressors—whe-
ther, instead of the old maxim, " parcere subjectis," we
were not reversing it, and acting upon that of " parcere
superbis ?" The Noble Lord then adverted to the speech
of M. Perier, and contended that that by no means bore
out the statements made in that House by Ministers. It
was impossible for him to overlook the manner in which
the French claim on Portugal had been carried into effect.
No mediation, no negociation, had taken place ; but the
demand had been made at the cannon's mouth, and such
sums, by way of compensation, had been levied as
in the arbitrary will of the superior appeared sufficient
to indemnify the expence incurred. But passing by
Portugal, and going on to Italy, what was he
to say of the conduct of the French Government
there? In his opinion, never bad there been committed a
more flagrant violation of the international laws than those
transactions which had taken place in consequence of the
French troops landing at Ancona. What was the real
outline of the case ? The present Government had thought
it right to call in its nearest neighbour, the Austrian Go-
vernment, to assist it in quelling the disturbances that had
taken place; upon this France, uncalled for, and without
even the pretext of being a neighbour to the spot, inter-
fered by force of arms, and actually took and retained poe
session of a town belonging to that friendly Power;—nay.
even more, had placed her tri-coloured fl ig on the walls
of Ancona—a course of which he believed had not been
pursued by Russia even in the case of conquered Varna.
M. Perier, in his late speech, remarked that the expedi-
tion to Ancona, like that to Belgium, had for its obj-et
the giving new activity to those negociations, which were
calculated to give se urity by efficient and durable means ;
a declaration, which, in his (Lord Eliot's) opinion, pretty
plainly evinced how dieinteres ed the conduct of France
bad been with respect to Ancona. But to watch the cre-
dulity displayed by the present Government on these mat-
ters, one would suppose that they believed that the na
tional character was as easily changed as the national
cockade, and that the French love of glory was ready to
disappear as a m tier of course, as coon as Louis Philip oc-
cupied the throne in the place of Charles the Tenth.
But what was it that M. Perier said on this topic ? Hi►
remark was, that the French Government bad done every-

Lord PALMERSTON remarked, that if he appre-
hended the speech of the Noble Lord rightly, his main ob-
ject was to show, that, in the first place, we had no solid
assurance for the maintenance of the peace of Europe ;
and that, in the second, the Government was pi acing an
undue reliance on the assurances of the French Ministry.
With respect to the first of these points, the Noble Lord
insisted, that out of one or other of the numerous transac-
tions to which he had alluded, war must arise. In roomer
to this, he (Lord Palmerston) would only ask the House
to look back to the state in which Europe was placed at
the time when the present Government first came into of-
fice. Let the state of Europe, as it then existed, be com-
pared with the state of Europe as it now existed ; and then
let any one say whether there was not better reason now
to reckon on the preservation of the peace of the Continent
than there was then. At that former period there was
hardly a man that could assert that he had a reasonable
confidence that peace would last for three months longer.
Immediately, however, on the accession of the present
Government to office, it was stated that one of the
chief objects of the Ministry was to preserve the tran-
quillity of Europe ; that tranquillity had been pre-
served for fifteen months by she Government, and
whatever the Noble Lord might please to antici-
pate as to the future, at least he meal not contra-
vene the facts of the past. With respect to Bele-iuni, he had
already fully explained what difference he supposed there to
be between a guarantee and a surety; and as the affairs of
that country were shortly to come before the House on a
motion of toe Hon. Member for Cheltenham, be would say
nothing further upon that subject at present. The Noble
Lord had then gone on to speak of Portugal, and had said,
that with respect to that country, he li-d pursued such a
system cf oppression as to give to Portugal a just ground
for going to war with us. Now, he (Lord Palmerston)
would at once admit that ground enough for going to war
had been given ; but the whole of the provocation had
been on the side of Portugal—provocation enough to
justify a war fifty times over within the space of the last
four years. It was to the credit.—he might almost say,
that it was to the honour—of the late Government, that
it had not done all that it might have done towards Por-
tugal; on the contrary, it had been forbearing to an ex-
tent which some might even think blameable, and which
could only have taken place between a strong Government
and a weak one. For, had the powers been equal, public
indignation would have been rieorous in exacting redress.
The Noble Lord, however, had stated, that we had not
fulfiled one part of the treaties with that country; but he
had not thought proper to state those parts which had
been left unfulfilled ; and therefore, he ;Lord Palmerston)
had some difficulty in knowing to what the Noble Lord al-
luded. Did the Noble Lord mean to say that there was
any existing treaty which gave Portugal a right to call on
this country to assist it in a civil war arising out of a dis-
puted succession to the throne? Or, did he mean to say
that a Government not acknowledged by this country, and
which by the late Ministry was pronounced to be a usur-
pation, had a right in the name of the Portuguese nation
to demand assistance—nut against a foreign enemy, but in
the case of an internal commotion ? If, indeed, the ques-
tion had been the invasion of Portugal by Spain or any
other country, for the purpose of conquest, he would ad-
mit that the case would assume a very different aspect;
fboreaoci
nsa u
country
eo,unw
foreignt
rhye hwgegarrseiwsbei,,ouna kd ntoTowhpel
re
od
Ntgeed:
protect
eDr.
,Fotruradgi iguel or not,
api,roacseaedSettlat;o,
reply respecting the occupation of Ancona, but he was
inaudible in the gallery, in consequence of the noise oc-
casioned by a great number of Members returning from
the House of Lords. With respect to the march of the
French troops into Belgium, he had on another occa-
sion explained, that, although circumstances did not
allow the French Government time to consult the
Conference, their troops rendered essential service to
the cause of peace ; and that Government gave
every proof, that in their interference they had nothing in
view but to accomplish the purpose for which the Con-
ference was held. fie referred to the speech of M.
Casimir Perier, to show that the feeling of the French
Government was not to obtain military glory for France,
but to maintain peace, and promote order. It was not
fair to impute to the French Government intentions which
it disclaimed. The speeches referred to, as spoken in the
Chamber of Deputies by leaders of the movement, were
such, certainly, as tended to disturb the amicable relations
of France and Great Britain, but he thought it was as un-
fair to reproach the Ministers of the King of the .French
was an unfriendly disposition towards this country on ac-
count of such speeches, as it would be to attribute to fail
Majesty's Ministers in that House the desire for war, which
would seem to be manifested in the conduct of Hon.
Members opposite.—(Hear, hear.) It had been said,
that in the treaties respecting commercial reciprocity, the
advantages were all on the side of France. He thought
far otherwise ; and he believed that this country was, on
the whole, a gainer by the adoption of a more liberal com-
mercial policy.—(Hear.) He denied that the honour of
England had been compromised by the foreign policy of the
present administration. There never was a period when
England was more respected than at present in her foreign
relations, in consequence of her good faith, moderation,
and firmness.—(Hear, hear.) The peace of Europe de-
pended in a great measure upon the maintenance of the
strictest alliance between this country and France.—
(Hear, hear.) He had thought it necessary to trouble
the House with these observations in reply to the Noble
Lord opposite, inasmuch as lie WdS especially responsible
in the matters referred to by the Noble Lord, he (Lord
Palmerston) having held, under the former administration,
the office which he bad still the honour to fill.—(hear.)
Sir R. VYVYAN would not deny that peace had been
maintained for fifteen months by the policy of the present
Administration ; but he would ask at what price had its
maintenance been purchased ?—(Hear.) Nothing could
be more easy than to preserve peace by making every con-
cession which an aggressing Power might demand.—
(Hear, bear, hear.) From the last speech of the
French Minister for Fort ign Affairs, addressed to
the Chamber of Deputies, and received in London that
day (Monday), it would appear that England was bound
in honour to compel the King of the. Netherlands, not
merely to acknowledge Leopold as King of t.,e Belgians,
but to accept the twenty-four articles of the treaty of Lon-
don. He would consider any such compulsion excessively
unjust to the King of the Netherlands, and he wished to
ask the Noble Lord if it was the intention of his Majesty's
Government to enforce it ? Surely, if the Dutch King
consented to recognize Leopold as an independent Sove-
reign, all matters of dispute between them ought, in fair-
ness, to be left to a separate negociation.—(Hear, hear.)
fle would not then trespass on the time of the House by
going into a discussion of the question respecting Portugal,
but as his Majesty's Ministers had nut explained the posi-
tion in which they stood in respect to the occupation of
Algiers by the French, he would take that opportunity of
requesting some information ou that tile ject from the No-
ble Lord opposite (Palmerston). It could not be denied
teat Ministers were following in the wake of the Ft ench
Government. The Minister who, in this country, was
playing with so much skill and success the cards et France,
was the first diplomatist in the world ; anti he had gained
for his own country, without bloodshed, everything which
ngu thde.
Le(cuoueladr,hahveearw.)ishedliteowg,iiunldartiotthe
trespassexpenseu
i r;feElan r
o
time of the House at present, a. it was his intention to
bring forward
haveardthew hboeelensinabtlfie
ectdais,the ,soonfivase
Powers.
Sir treatys of
London should
Sir R. PEEL could not acquiesce in the doctrine that a
perfect silence should be maintained in the House of Cum-
none on the subject of the foreign relations of this country.
He would not then go into a discussion of the affairs of
Belgium, farther than to say that he hoped that the King
.if the Netherland., on the one band, would make every

thoreasion that should be asked for in a spirit of modera-
tion ; and that, on the other hand, the Government' of
England would never insist upon any concession that
would affect the independence of -Holland. In the inva-
'Rion of the Papal States France toed placed herself in a
pitnettrya in which her conduct eemi liable to misconception,
and of that liabity he was desirous to see her relies: her-
self with as. delay as possible. He would reek, had hi-
Noble Friend seen the letter of the Finch Minister (31.
St. Aulaire) err the Foreign Minister of the Pope, dated
the Itth of January last ? That letter expresstel the
liroly satisfaction with which the French trlleciernment
viewed the legislative measures adopted fry the Pope in the
Edicts of the Ist of June, the :ith ni July, the nth of
October, and the 31st of October last veer. Indeed, if the
Government of this county- had had so much trouble
for the last twelve moo :as in hi inging about this meastre of
Reform, there was tout little reason for complaining that
the Pope had riot been able to effect tlee 'ten'or eleven Re-
forme which he had undertaken. It was meet unjustifi-
able for a powerful State to interfere berreen the subjects
sod the Government of a weaker State, compelling that
tteaker Government to bring at once into operation reea-
sures which it contemplated effecting by degree's, Not-
withstanding the strong expression of the minions of that
House respect'.ng the affairs of Pootogal given on a former
occasion, he (Sir R. Peel? continued to be of opinion,
that there was great hot oaks in the line of conduct pur-
sued by this Government towards Portugd. TLe law of
nations recognised only a state of war and a state of peace.
There was nothing but danger and evil would retteit if a
Government were to be considered at liberty to argue on
'he ground of any particular grievance which it might
have suffered from another state ; or en the ground of the
character of the individual at the head of that state, no on
the ground of the mode by which that individeat had ac-
quired his authority, that it heal a right to establish some
new relation between itself and that etete, not recognised
ley the law of nations. He had 'understood his Noble
Fiend to admit, that in the civil contest going on in Por-
tugal, we were bound by the law of nations to maintain a
strict neutrality.
Lord PALMERS'fON obserrerl, Across the table, that,
11 the law of nations, we might take what course we
pleased. What he had stared was, that our Gogerentieut
had determined to maintain a strict neutrality,
Sir R PEEL resumed, and said, tkat if that was the
ease, there was certainly a strong impteesion in the pub.
lie mind that that neutrality had not been observed.._
(Hear, bear.) His Noble I4iend had asked if the ex-
isting Government of Portugal had a right to require us
to assist it in repelling Don Pedro? Bet that was not
the question. The question was, if it was consistent with
neutrality to give aid to Dort Pedro? In support of the
doctrine that the law of nations demanded a strict neu-
trality on Our part, the Right Hon. Barnet quoted a
correspondence between Mr. Jefferson, in 1793, when
that gentleman was the American Secretary of State,
and when England and France were at war, and America ,
was neutral, M. Genet, the French Ambassador, nth
question that arose at that period. France claimed a
right to fit ont expeditions in the ports of the United
aga net this country. Mr. Jeffereon denied the existence
of such a right; and, on the contrary, contended, that as
the United States were neutral, they were bound to pre-
vent either of the belligerents irons making the ports of the
United States the medium of an attack upon the other.
Mr. Jefferson, who certainly had no friendly feeling to-
wards ns, on the 17th of June 1793, addressed a lottee to
31. Genet. In that letter Mr. Jefferson confirmed the
opinion of the President, " that the arming and eqiiipping
of vessels in the ports of the United Sates to cruise
against nations with whom they are at peace, r.-as in-
cornpatibie with the sovereignty of the United States ;
that it made them instrumental to the annorence of those
nations, and thereby tended to cenmeit their peace." He
then proceeded in his ad-Tess to NI. Genet—" You think,Sir,
that this opinion is contrary to the law of na,ure and the
iteage of nations. 'We are of opinion it is dictated by that
law end usage, and this had been very maturely inquired
into before it was adopted as a principle of conduct. But
we will not assume the exclusive right of saying what that
law and usage is." Mr. Jefferson then quoted the opinion
of Vette!, that "while a neutral nation wished surely to
enjoy that character, it ought to evinie: in all things exact
impartiality between belligerent!. For if it favour the
000 to the prejudice of the ether, it cannot complain when
the latter treats it as the adherent and associate of its
enemy. Its neutrality would be fraudulent, of which no
one would be the dupe. This impartiality which a neu-
tral nation ought to preserve, consists of this : it refers
solely to war, and comprehends two things ; Ist, Never
to give assistance when it is not obliged to do so ; not to
furnish freely either troops, or arms, or munitions, er any-
thing which contributes directly to tsar. I say, never to
give assistance, and not to give it equally; for it would be
absurd tor a State to help equal), two enemies," Sec. " It,"
proceeded Mr. Jefferson, " the neutral power may act,
consistent with its neutrality, furnish men to either party,
for their aid in war, as little can either enrol them in the
neutral territory by the law of nation,. Wolf ear, r Since
the right of levying soldiers is a right of sovereignty
which cannot be violated by a foreign nation, it is not
permitted to levy soldiers on the tePritory of others,
without the consent of the master of the teneitory.'
And 'Vette! states, The right of levvint soldiers
telongs solely to the nation, or to the Sovereign ; no
person can exercise it in a foreign country without the per-
mission of the Sovereign. Those who undi rt,ke to enlist
eoldiers in a foreign country without the periniesion of the
sovereign, and in general whoever seduces the subjects of
others, violates ere of the most sacred rights of the Prince
and of the nation.'" The conduct of the United States
at the time to which he alluded, was a practical illustra-
tion of this doctrine. And let it be recollected, that it
was at a time when the United States Were tinder great
recent obligations to France, and none whatever to Eng-
land—that it was at a time when she was smarting from
the conduct of the 'one, and greatful for the conduct of
the other, that she nevertheless determined to adhere
strictly to what she felt to be the law of nations. What
was the construction put upon this principle of the laity
of nations by the present Judge-Advocate-General in
18,29, in one of the ablest speeches which he (Sir Robert
Peel) had ever bad the food fortune to hear in that House.
That Right Hon. Gentleman, after stating that not only
was the weight of authority in favour of the principle of
the obligation of neutral pewits not to permit one belli-
gerent to prepare means in their territory for attaching
the other, proceeded to declare, " that not a single autho-
rity, nor the shadow of it, could be found in opposition
to this plain, clear, irrefutable position, that when a neu-
tral nation knowingly pernahted the levying of troops in
its territory, by one of two belligerents to go so far as very
materially to sway the fortunes of the war, then such a no-
tion was virtually departing from its neutral character,
and assuming that of an enemy, and this in the worst
manner, because not directly." This was the doctrine
which he (Sir Robert Peel) maintained. Portugal might
have given us twenty just causes of war ; but if we had
not gone to war with her on any of those causes, we
had no right to conduct ourselves otherwise than on
strictly neutral principles.—(Hear.) The question was
not whether this country had grounds of complaint
against Portugal for which it was entitled to redress, but
whether, being hitherto professedly neutral, it bad ad•
tiered to the principles of neutrality. On the occasion to
which he had already adverted, Mr. Role rt Grant pro-
ceeded to say, " The question was, whether the known and
uniform practice of Europe bad ever established or even
sanctioned this principle, that a State, having pledged its
neutrality to one of two powers engaged in war, might
afterwards permit the opposite belligerent to draw troops
from its population to any conceivable extent for the pur-
pose of deciding that very war, without affording the
slightest ground of just complaint to the power to whom
its neutrality was pledged ? Nothing of the kind could
be pretended even for a moment," Having thus shown
what was the principle on which by the law of nations
neutral States ought to act, and in what manner that

principle had been enforced by the practice of one of the
most powerful Governments, that of the United States;
and having shown that whereas there existed in this
country a municipal law, prohibiting the fitting out of any
expedition in our own ports to be directed against a neu-
tr 11 power—to permit the fitting out of any expedition
was a violation of that municipal law ; he should now in-
quire what were the facts of the case respecting the late
expedition. Was Ilia Nable Friend really ignorant of the
circumstances attending that expedition? bid he not know
that a very gallant officer, distinguished in our navy, and
possessing a❑ extensive local knowledge of the shores
of Portugal, bad the command of that expedition ?—(Lord
Patt)tEasToN said, across the Table, as we understood
the Noble Lord, that he was not aware of any other naval
officer being lit the expedition). He (Sir R. Peel) would
state to the Ile Lord what he believed to be facts ; hut
which he should be very happy to hear contradicted. He
stated, that Captain &mark a had the command of the
expedition. fle stated that the Cos,gress was commanded
by a Commander of the Royal Navy, under an assumed
name. He etated that the Asia was commanded by
another Commander in the Royal Navy, also under an
assumed mute. There were other Naval Officers in the

expedition. There were 3 000 British subjects in the
expedition. He had seen a letter from a British officer,
stating that he had himself enlisted 2,000 men to serve in
the expedition. He stated that four vessels of war were

Etter! oat in this country, ani proceeded to a French port,
there to unite with a French force. It was notoriou4,
therefore, that it was a conjoint French and English ex

peditious which it was evidslt ertu'al not have been
formed without the connivance of France and England.
It was to he joined oleo by 2,000 Poles. It was neither
mere nor lees, therefore, than an indirect, but powerfct
interference between the two parties. We. had an Act to
prevent the enlistment of. his Stajesaal. taaojecta, and the
equipping of vessels for foreTra earvice in the ports of this
country without. the king's- permission. If, therefore,
any 4f thae 'wing's Officers had, by mistake, entered into
at t. .such service, a Proclamation ought to he issued to r
call them to their duty. That ..-eotild tea a p‘_cc:'
the neutrality and impartiality of Govern-
-nient. Excited failing-9 TesagTat be produced in
that House thseefiAsa on the character of Don
Miguel ; htt, 6, late; of nations recognised no reference to
the 'alsdaa'elar of iridividuals. Was it in the dominions hf
...lan. Xing of England that an expedition way aareatain',
without permission, to attack ti ntataa! :Lion To do
this without the King t ftelan'Ssion was a great violation
of the tights of soarartignty; And yet an advertisement
had appeased in the papers for a regular enlistment in the
ar-fatiee of Dun Perko. While we were at peace as a na-
tion, were we to allow the subjects of -the King to go to
war? Had his Noble Friend read the deposition,' on the
subject of the expedition in question sworn before the
Lord Mayor ? Those deposititsno tenstituted a prinicryiicie
ease; and, if smelt to aaere not to he acted upon, it
would be battler at since to repeal the Foreign Enlibtitent
„act. What was the conduct of Mr, 'Canning towards
the Spanish refugees ? nee, ilia he address them? " I
respect your princiselea—your labours for the amelioration
of your ccuna:y ; 1 give you credit for all the sacrifices
you lessee made. Here vou shall find a r fuge and an
aasimo. But, in order that we may he tellable.' to
afford a refuge and an asylum to the discussed people
of other criontriee, rat shall not be allowed to
convert the porta of England into places of prepa-
ration t 1 liosti!ity." Mr. Canting and himself
ha't at that period seen a diatieguished Spanish
General Officer, and hod told him that they had
certain informatiote ni his being engage 1 in preparing
an expedition against Cuba, and that if he did not inane-
diatetay abandon it, the Alien Act should he enforesti
against him. Mr. Canning also felt it his dirty to com-
municate the fact to the Spanish Government. if ever
there was a time when this law of nations ought to be es-
forced—if e'-er there was a time when this country ought
not to be made a party to the unsettling of the Peninsula,
it was the present. If Don Pedria having Ttrceira, dies -
to direct an expedition against Portugal, he admitted with
his Noble Friend that we were not obliged to afford any
aid to Don I‘.l';auel. But Doh Pedro bad no right to come
to this country, fit out vessels, enlist men, and then unite
With a similar preparation in France. Independent Por-
tugal had a right to require from us not to permit this.
We were not at liberty to create new relations unknown to
the law of nations. Bet if we were, ha was at a loss to see
the wisdom or prudence of making Don Miguel our anta-
gonist. It had been alleged that Don Miguel had forfeited
the pledges which he had given to this country. But did
Don Pedro :lever forfeit any of his pledges ? Were the war
between Buenos Ayres and Rio Janeiro, the assumption of
illegal authority on that oecasion, and the confiscation of
British propel ty, forgotten ? Were we to refer to the acts
ef tyranny of any iedividual in Portugal ? It was for the
Portuguese to look at those acts. If any acts of tyranny
h'en committed towards English subjects, we should
he entitled to demand redress ; but we had nothing to du
with any acts of tyranny committed towards Portugu,
subjects. He had heir? no satisfactory explanation from
his Noble Friend respecting the conduct of our Govern-
ment tetaards-Portugal ; an i be could see no hope of per-
manent tranquillity, except by adhering to the established
laws of nations.
Colonel EVANS contended that the authorities quoted
by the Right Hon. Baronet were not at all at variance
with the course pursued by his Majesty's Government.—
He denied that any power in Europe had assumod the right
of fitting out fleets in our ports. With respect to the
conduct of the United States, adverted to by the Right
Hon, liaronet, he believed there were few contests in
South America in which the subjects of the United States
had not been concerned. He did not believe that troops
had been enlisted, and vessels fitted out in this country for
the purpose of invading Portugal ; and he contended that
the detention of vessels which had taken place was a vio-
lation of law, those vessels being the property of a mer-
chant in France, arid no law existing which prohibited
vessels front being carried from the ports of one country to
the ports of another. With respect to Ancona, the
French officer was to he tried by a Court-martial. While
Austria had troops in Italy, the French were justified in
also having troops in that country. If the Austrian troops
were withdrawn, the French troops must he withdrawn
also. The small number of the troops sent by France to
Italy showed that the expedition was merely for the pur-
pose of asserting a principle. With respect to Belgium,
although he agreed with the Right Hon. Baronet in his
sympathy for Holland, he was astonished to hear the
Right Hon. Baronet say that the paramount policy of
Europe at present was te maintain the rights and interests
of Holland. He denied that. The paramount policy of
Europe at present was to maintain the peace and repose of
the various nations of the world, at the smallest possible
sacrifice of individual interests.
Mr. HOPE was of opinion that there was a prima
facie case of an expedition hostile to Portugal having been
fitted out in the ports of this country, and that his Ma-
jestv's Government ought to have inquired into it. He al-
lowed, with the Gallant Officer who bad just spoken, that
the object of Europe was to preserve peas e on the equili-
brium of States at 'lt le ist p issible sacrifice.
Mr. HUME thought that the Right Hen. Baronet bad
in hi, . ingenuous speech assumed circumstances which
bad never occurred, and a state of things which had never
existed, which did not exist, and which never woo'.

exist. He (Mr. Hume) was unable, therefore, to arrive
at the conclusions at which the Right Hon. Baronet had
arrived. What were the facts of the case ? He well re-.

membered the passing of the Foreign Enlistment Act, and
of his having divided against it in every stage. Flow had
it been violated ? Before it was enacted troops were fre-
quently raised in this country in Liigades, to serve in
Spain, France, and every other part of the world. He
contended that the fact of Government having declared on
one night that they had received no official information of

Captain S3rtorius having ace 'pled a command in a foreign
expedition, and ye, removing h;na on the following day,
in consequence ci taunts from the Opp, sition side of the
House, was only one of the many instances of weakness
upon the part of the Noble and Hon. U.--mbers on

the Treasury Benches.—(Cheers and laughter.) He
main•ained, tco, that the facts deposed to before the Lord

Mayor did not constitute a violation of the Act. This he

said, but at the same time wished to express his modem-

nition of the provisions of that Bill. He also remarked
that the Right Hon. Member for Tamworth was die last

person in the House who ought to condemn' the Govern,

went on this occasion, liecau;e, shortly after the passing of
this Act, when he was Home Secretary, a large expedition
for a foreign Power was sent forth from Cork, without his
attempting to interfere. In conclusion, he begged to re-

peat the opinion, that if we suffered arms and ammunition
tc be shipped frotn London for Don Miguel, upon every

principle of fairness they should permit arms, ammunition,

and men to be shipped for Don Pedro.
Sir C. WETHERELL observed, that the Hon. Member
for Middlesex had, with his wonted ingenuity, contrived to

make one part of his speech answer the other. This
saved him the trouble of attempting a reply. He entirely
agreed with his Right Hon. Friend (Sir R. Peel) as to
the grounds of his charge against Government. He
would merely state, that the Hon. Member fur Middlesex

was completely mistaken as to the fact of there being ao
power upon the part of Government to prevent foreign
enlistment before the passing of the Bill. The truth was,
that previous to this Act, the offence against which it was

intended to provide was a capital fekny. The Learned
Gentleman► then went over the several provisions of the
Foreign EnliNtment Bill, and contended there had been a

positive breach of neutrality.
Sir F. FRENCH maintained, that the affidavits before
the Lord Mayor were entitled to all credit; and that al-

lowing London to he used as a port and arsenal for Don

Pedro was a positive breach of neutrality.
Sir JOHN MILLEY DOYLE rose for the purpose of
asking his Majesty's Ministers whether they were aware of
the nefarious projects of the Spanish Government respect-
ing its intention of ()prising, the wishes of the Portuguese
nation, and assisting the present Usurper on the blood-

stained Throne of P:rtugal, notwithstanding its pledge to
the contrary to France and England? And if they were,

whether any intimation had been made to the Government

of Spain that a teal, and not a mock neutrality would be
insisted upon by this country ? He begged to call the at-

tention of his Majesty's Ministers and the nation (whose
honour was concerned) to the statement which appeared
in the Courier i f Saturday last, and which, with the per-
mission of the Hou,e, Ise begged leave to read, knowing
the statement to be matter of fact We learn, from a
private source, on which we have reason to rely, that,
notwithstanding the assurances of the Spanish Ministry to
the contrary, it is intended, in the event of the invasion of
Portugal by the forces under the command of Don Pedro,
that the Spanish troops, now on the frontier as an army of
observation, shall enter Portugal for the purpose of aiding
Miguel in his endeavours to retail, an usurped Crown.
Shortly after the reply of the Spanish Cabinet to the re-

monstrances of Lord Palmerston, a meeting of the Apos-
tolic Junta was held, at which it was resolved, with the

direct concurrence of the King, that as the restoration of

the constitutional system in Spain must ietti..itabiy follow
the success of Don Pedro re'rit.:gal, it was essential for
the, peoteetien ??: the Throne and the Clergy that assist-
er-tCt should be given to Don Miguel. This having been
unanimously agreed to, it was suggested that private orders
should be given to the Generals commanding the arktlY of
observation, to ewer Portugal on the eoinFlonit el' the Usur-
per, with an inti!natioh. Lldiougli it might becout.
neceasato.• 7-art of the Ministry to disavow the act,
',he .!.':::nta and the King would take especial care to reward
the officers who should by their obedience to the orders of
the Junta evince their regard for the Altar and the Throne.
It will be asked, perhaps, how a proceeding intended to he
kept secret shoold be khown te its ^ 117 e can only reply-,
~.....
that the akithoc.it4j epen which we mike it public is too
~reataeCtel;:e to admit of doubt."—The Hon. Meath&
ahould have much pleasure, if permitted by the Noble Se-
cretary for Foreign Affairs, to place documents before hire,
for the information of Government, which would fully
prove the perfidy of the Cabinet of Spain, supported by the
beloved Ferdinand and his enlightened councillors the
Apostolic Junto. He felt it the more necessary to trouble
the Noble Lard with three questions, as it wa'a generally
ttnderstohd that the Gallant General at the head of the
Foreign Department in Prance had, from courtesy to our
Cabinet, abstained from taking any part in the Portu-
guese question, except with the concurrence, and indeed
at the suggestion of Great Britain. He was quite sure,
however, that General Sebastiani wou'd cheerfully second
any measure which our Government might adopt to secure
the red neutrality of Spin.
Mr. FANE was opposed to the foreign policy of the
present Ministers, It would be a piece of successful arti-
fice on the part of the French Government if it could dis-
arm its most powerful opponent. He deprecated such an
union between France and England.
Mr. GALLY KNIGHT, on the contrary. rejoiced at
the friendly feeling now existing between this country and
France. The Gentlemen opposite were particularly alive
to the dangers of French interference, though they saw
the interference of other Powers in the affairs of smaller
States without the slightest alarm. The interference of
Austria in Italy upon a recent occasion had given them
much pleasure, because it was intended to crush those
who wished to improve the condition of their country—
(Hear, hear)—while the interference of France nas
looked on with displeasure, as it was supposed it would
favour the other side of the.question. It was impossible
to deny that the condition of the Governments of Italy
was to be deplored ; while they were desperately tyranni-
cal, they were at the same time very weak, so weak in-
deed that they could not protect their own subjects from
the banditti that infested their States. He protested
against the constant interference of Austria, which was
always directed to prevent improvement in the social con-
dition of the people. Such had been the interference of
Austria with Naples, more recently of Austria with the
Papal States, and such too had been the interference of
France with Spain ten years ago, and in all these cases
the effect produced was most injurious to the pe,ple. It
was said the other night that but for the known disposi-
tion of the present Ministry, France would not have sent
soldiers.to amwer was, that but for the known
disposition of the late Ministry, Charles X. would not
have published those ordinances that finally drove him
from the throne. He trusted that, whatever might occur,
the Government would not interfere in the affairs of
Portugal.
Mr. P. COURTENAY, with respect to what had been
said about Austria, begged to observe, that there was a
great distinction between the two occasions in which Aus-
tria had interfered, and the present when France inter-
fered. In the first instance, as hail been truly observed
by the late Lord Castlereagh, Austria interfered on account
of the safety of her territorie., which lay contiguous to
thos r where the troubles existed, and in the recent instance
of Austrian interference, the Austrians hail been called
upon by the Government of the country. He repeated,
that he wished to know on what footing the French troops
stood in Ancon
Sir R. FRANCO was happy that there existed a spirit
of open friendship and cordiality between the Governments
of France and England. The late -Government had not
done their duty firmly and cmsistently. He believed that
at the moment Lord Aberdeen was writing letters to the
Portuguese Government complaining of their conduct, his
Lordship had given a great degree of moral support to the
Government of Portugal by the speeches he nsade in the
House of Lords, and that in that manner he weakened, if
not destroyed, all the effect his letters seerne,l intended to
produce.

Mr. BARING agreed with those who thought that a
good understanding between this country and France was
a matter of great importance to this count-y, to Europe,
and to the world at large ; and there was no man who slaw
it with more pleasure than he did ; but if France and Eng-
, land were to determine the question of interference or non-
, interference by the point whether the country about which
an intert.erence was proposed had a good Government
or not, peace would be sown broken. In fact, such
an union between these two countries would then be-
' came an intolerable tyranny, and make a dictation of
' two Pimp; sof Europe over all the rest. He thought
that the rule of their conduct should be to respect strictly
the principles of international law. He was no admirer
of the state of things either in Rome or Portugal, but still
he thought that the English Government should not inter.
fere with the concerns of either. If we did, we should
increase, as we had originally created, the immense debt
that now oppressed Us. With respect to Portugal, he
must say that he did not think there was much to choose
between Don Miguel and Don Pedro.—(Hear.) lie re-
gretted, therefore, that a wholesale armament had been
allowed to be prepared in this country. With respect to
Belgium, he did not know whether we had been over--
reached in that country by our friend and ally, but cer-
tainly the result of the arrangement was, that that court.
try had been left in a most satisfactory state for France,
and in a most uns itisfactory state for England. He be
lieved that if more patience and forbearance had been
shown by England and France—if they had not at once
declared that the separation between Belgium and Holland
was inevitable—the people of those countries would soon
have found it to be their advantage to be united ; the Bel-
gians would have been speedily tired of their revolt, and
the two countries would have been as friendly and as
united as ev, r. He thought that in the Conference the
boundary lines of Holland bad not been properly settled,
and that Antwerp and Maestr;clit ought to have b"en al-
lowed to remain with Holland. France had flatteted our
vanity by allowing us to cl-oose the Sovereign of the
Belgians, but she had taken care that every essential
thing should be French.—( Hear.) King Leopold (whose
name he never wished to mention without paying a
tribute of respect to his private worth) was as much de-
pendent on France as was any Nabob on the banks of
the Ganges upon the will of the Governor-General. By
our negociatione with respect to Belgium, we had con-
trived to make deadly enemies of our friends, the Dutch,
though before that period there was hardly a man in Hol-
land who would not almost have died in support of English
interests. The two canals had never been free—they had
been declared free by the King of the Netherlands, but
that was because the two countries were then united, and
his subjects of Belgium were allowed the benefit of using
them. The present arrangement bad, in fact, destroyed
the independence of Holland, and as Belgium would at
some future time be a department of France, all the ad-

vintages now given to Belgium would become a source of

greatness to France. The communications between the

,!lieldt and the Rhine, which the possession of the narrow
waters would establish, would enable the French to turn

the whole defence of Holland at any time that it might
suit her to do so. The people of Holland were opposed to
this arrangement, but then came in these two great bullies
—(A laugh)—and forced them to suffer. He must say
that our Government had taken a most unjust view of the
subject, and that they had been quite mistaken on the
paint of policy. He objected to our Government giving a
guarantee to maintain any arrangement of this sort—a
guarantee by which the people might be com Felled to go
to war to support the arrangement, whether they were
prepared for it or not.

Mr. Alderman THOMPSON regretted that recruiting
for Don Pedro had been allowed in this country ; for
though it was true that the tyranny of Don Mituel was

barbarous, yet British commerce had not suffered from his

conduct; and there never was a Prince against whom
British subjects had so many grounds of complaint as
against Don Pedro.
Mr. HUNT contended that a clear breach of the law of
natienr.had been established, and that it was no justifica-
tion of the present Government that they had only fol-
lowed the bad example set them by their predecessors in
office.

The SPEAKER then put the question, which was,
that the House resolve itself into a Committee of Supply.
Lord PALMERSTON began by adverting to the modest
portico of a moti.m to the wide-spread structure of a de-
bate founded upon it, to the precedents collected from the
time of Jefferson, and to the learned accumulatio❑ of au-
thorities from the works of Puffendorff, Vattel, Grotius,
and Binckerschoek. Any one of the ttipics introduced on
the mere motion that the Speaker leave the Chair, at
another time would have been deemed sufficient to occupy
the attention of the House for a whole night, and
he must say that the present was not the most
convenient mode of discussing them. He had certainly
not been aware that this opportunity would have been

liken to rig before the House the whole of tliesiai;;Ot".
Italy, Belgium, and Portupl. With regard to Algiers,

it was perhaps enough to sac that that event had occur taxi
before the present Ministers came into office: but he woul
venture to add, from the experience he had had of the
good faith of the French Government, that he had no
doubt it would be strepaed to make good all its engage
mente, Gf the transactions at Ancona, it had been re
marked, that although the Naval Commander had been
recalled by France, the Military Commander had con.
tinned with the troops. He (Lord P.) was not aware
precisely how the fact stood, but he apprehended that the
Commander of the Naval three was Al,O tbe Commander
of the Militate, gaisi he !-Ad teen recalled because he was
reSponsihie lor the conduct of oth. He (Lord P.) had
been asked whether he was prepared to state on what
grounds the expedition had been undertaken? In answer,
he would only refer the Hon. Alembo to the declatations
of the French Government, in which it was asserted that
the expedition was undertaken to endeavour to restore
tranquillity to the Papal States, and not with any view of
aggrandisement, cr to assist the revolted subjects
against the public authorities. It had been stated
also that the Pope had done all he had un-
dertaken, and that nothing remained for him to do. He
(Lord P.) was not prepared to subscribe to such a doe-
trine ; for he thought that the Pope had not carried
into effect tense improvements in the system of Govern-
ment of the Legations which he had promised. Neither
the Austrian nor the French troops were intended to be
employed to compel the Pope to complete those changes,
but merely to preserve the peace of his dotninions. He
now came to the more import int question of Belgium--
and here he would observe, that it was impossible for him
to give a satisfactory answer on detached points without
taking a full and complete view of the whole question—
a course at this moment, and under existing circum-
stances, inexpedient, especially ia a thin House, and with
a separate notice on the hooks on the subject. The Hon.
Member for Thetford had asserted, that in the arrange-
ment for Belgium, regard lard been had to the interests of
France, while those of Great Britain were neglected. It
was his (Lord Palmerston',) sincere opinion, on the con-
trary, that in the unfortunate situation of Holland and
Belgium, not only the interests of both those countries
had been effectually securest, but that the arrangement had
been equally beneficial to Great Britain and France. It
would have been impossible to have created Belgium into
an independent kingdom without giving to her Maas-
tricht and Antwerp. Any other course would have been
most impolitic, as far as this country was concerned.
The question, whether a military farce should be em-
ployed to restore the King I,f the Netherlands, had
been decided before the last Government resigned their
seals, and most wisely, properly, and on the soundest
principles, they bad advised his Majesty to refuse that
species of interference.! The question, then, became one
merely as to the mode of separation ; because, from the
moment of the unfortunate events at Antwerp, a union of
Holland and Be'giuna, under the same Crown, although
with separate Legislatures, seemed impossible. It then
became the clear policy of Great Britain that Belgium
should be erected iutu a bone fide independent State,
while it was our duty also nut to be a party to any arrange-
ment which would endanger the separate security of Ho!.
land. The fact was indisputable, that in point of terri-
tory and military defence, Holland was at present in a
better situation than at any former period. The question
of the free navigation of the waters of Holland had been
settled by the treaty of Vienna, fifteen years ago, and it
had been secured by the treaty let ly negociated. Not
only had Holland obtained an accession of territory, but
she had saddled Belgium with a large proportion of her
debt; end looking at the arrangement as a my ole, it ought
to satisfy all parties. The treaty rested upon the necessi,y
' of it for the purpose of maintaining peace, and the allies
had interfered because Holland and Belgium ha' themselves
could agree upon no terms. The Five Powers,. hail,
therefore, stepped out of their strict province of
mediation and required obedience to the arrange.
:vent that hail been made. The stipulation for
the navigation of the canals and rivers of Holland
was absolutely necessary to the commerce of Belgium,
and the apprehension of V,e Hon. Member that
the tarpaulin of the barges would be used to
cover troops, was not less extravogant than it wan new.
Exactly the same article had been introduced into a treaty
between Hanover and Prussia, so that it could not be con-
tended that that part of the arrangement was unprecedented.
With regard to the guarantee, the distinction he (Lord P.)
had taken was not his, hut that of Vatted, who stated that
in cases of money it was wiser to obtain a surety than a
guarantee. The reproach that neutrality had not been ob-
served as to Portugal. carne rather singularly from those
who had planned the expedition to Terceira—
" outs tulerit Gr.:elms de seditione querentes?"
He conttndcd that they had nut been guilty of ally breach
of neutrality--that the Right Hon. Gentleman had not
proved they had been so—and that not one of the cases
cited by the Right Hon. Gentleman bore on the point. He
contended also that the Government had not given per-
mission to Don Pedro to recruit in English ports nor fit
out his vessels under their auspices, and that it was not
even charged against them. From all the accounts he had
heard the vees,ls were not armed ; one vess I was pierced
for guns, but another was laden with the arms; and was
there, he would ask, any law in this country which pre-
cluded arms and. military stores from being exported by
way of merchandize ?—( Hear, from the Opposition.) He
also contended that it was clear the Foreign Enlistment
Act had not been violated, and therefore the vesssls were
released. If the law was violated, he would ask the question,
which he had never heard answered, why was it that the
Portugese Consul, possessed as he was of the very best in-
fortnation and advice, had not. enforced it? That ques-
tion, unanswered, was, he thought, conclusive on the sub-
ject. He would contend also, that where British subjects
were found serving a foreign State there was no breach of
neutrality, if it took place under circumstances in which
England was impotent to prevent it. With respect to
Spain, he would only say that, as long as that Power and
ether Powers remained perfectly neutral, England would

Feel IlouNd to remain neutra! al.o ; but the moment that

Spain attempted to depart from the urinciples of neutrality;
England would feel herself at liberty to adopt any course
which might seem expedient to her in lending as4istance
on the ether side of ti e que,tion. The Noble Lord, after
.b,erving that he believed he hid touched ot. every point
introduced in the debate, concluded by congratulating the
Noble Lord (Eliot) on-having get up, with a single ques-
tion, a discumsion of St) many hours' continuance.

Sir R. VYVYAN reminded the Noble Lord (Palmer-
ston) of the inconsistency of hi.. principles, in interfering
violently between Holland awl Belgium, while he refused
all interference between Don Pedro and Don Miguel. -
Colonel EVANS, advertise to the statement of the
Right Hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel,) that although he ab-

stained from mentioning the names of the officers in the
service of Don Pedro it was his intention to send a list
of them to the Government, observed, that the Right
Hon. Baronet should also furnish a of the General

Officers receiving emoluments from Don Miguel.
Sir 11. PEEL said, if there were any such is the service
of Don Miguel, they should undoubtedly be recalled, on
the same principle as he contended for the withdrawal
of British officers from the service of Don Pedro.
Mr. ATTWOOD contended that a naval armament had
been fitted out in the ports of England, and that that tact
was notorious at the time, and yet the Noble Lord had said
that the Government had had no right to interfere.
Lon! ELIOT repliAl. He contended that the Noble
Lord had given no answer to the points connected with
foreign policy which he had endeavoured to impress upon
the attention of the House; and, at all events, if the debate

had done no other good, he should not regret having
brought it forward, as it bad elicited the eloquent speech of
the Right Hon. Member for Tamworth, which was unan-
swered, and, in his (Lord Eliot's) opinion, unanswerable.
The only point in which he disagreed with the Right
Hon. Baronet was, as to the criticism with which they
might be allowed to look at M. Perier's speech. It should
be remembered that a speech in the F.ench Chamber of
Deputies was very different from a speech in the English
House of Commons; for in the former the speech was
prepared, and every sentence was duly weighed before it
was read from the Tribune. He was not a little surprised
at the Ministry affecting to say that they had not been
aware of the armament that was taking place in this
country, especially after the statements of the Hon. Alder-
man, the Member for London ; an attempt that 'appeared
to him little worthy of any Government.
The Speaker then left the chair.
e filli.,:tusveowteenvit,sint7o2a Committee
,000 i.
fort of Supply.
heu,agesof
NAVY ESTIMATES.
The
men em-
ployed in the ships in ordinary.
Sir G. CLERK thought that the estimate was too small.
Sir J. GRAHAM had hten able to make reductions
by which he thought that 72,0001. would prove sufficient.
—Vote agreed to.
30,3561. for salaries of officers, &c. in the Navy Pay-
office.—Vote agr,ed to.

20,051/. for salaries of officers, &e. of the several
scientific departments of the navy, &c.—Vote agreed to.
V,224/. for the salaries of officers, &c. in the King's
Dock-yards at home.

Sir G. CLERK thought that this vote wag toy small.
Deptford Dock yard would be rendered wholly inefficient
by the reductions proposed ; and the other dock-yards
would also suffer to a minor extent.

Sir JAMES GRAHAM contended, that the reductions
in Deptford Dock-yard were justifiable, owing to the

Woolwich Doektyaid being so 'lca'', and the one ssiving
as well for a receiving-yard as the other.
Mr. HUME suggested that it would be advisable to do
Away with the Do -k-yard at Pembroke.
Sir JAMES GRAHAM said, that that was Vie only
dock-yard which was devoted exclusively to building.
Mr. HUME contended that we kad already too many
ships.

Sir JAMES GRAHAM said, it was necessary to hay,
ships to be prepared for war.
Sir G. COCKBURN said, that we had no more ships
than were necessary, and he should be sorry if the Go-
vernment were perstia,:ed to put down Pembroke-yard.
The vote was then agreed to.
On the vote of 457,200/. for materials for repairs and
buildinz ship, Sze., _

Mr. HUME recotntnended that when old ships were
sold, they should not be sold on condition that they should
be broken up. -
Sir JAMES GRAHAM explained that this was neces-
sary to prevent the King's stores being in possession of
individuals.
Vote agreed to.

A suaiof 77,000/. was proposed for repairs of dock-
yards, including 30,00(4. for constructing two new docks
at Woolwich.

Sir G. COCKBURN deprecated the building of new
'locks at Woolwich. The Right Hon. Bart. said that this
country had already as many docks as all the other nation,
of Europe.
After some conversation, the vote was reduced 30.0001,
Sir J. GRAHAM consenting to postpone the 30.0001.
which was intended for the building docks at Woolwich
this year, till a comparative estimate could be made of the
expense of repairing the old and constructing the new docks.
A few other items were then agreed to without debate;
the House resumed, and the report was ordered to be
brought up on Wednesday.
The other orders of the day being disposed of, the House
adjourned at a Quarter-past Two o'clock.

PARLIAMENTARY PAPER.

NEWSPAPER STAMPS.

A RETURN of the NUMBER of STAMPS issued to each of
the NEWSPAPERS published in LONDON duriAg the
Year IKII, and the AMOUNT of the ADVERTISEMENT
DUTY paid by each.

Number

Stamps.

Amount of
Advertise.
ment Duty.