The Sun.
London, England, 1845-07-09 00:00:00

E SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, JULY 9, 1845.

an immense field for the profit from this traffic. The slave
dealers of Cuba thought themselves fortunate if they could
secure one cargo out of six. Since 1814 great efforts had been
made by the blockading the rivers, and no doubt great benefit
had arisen from the energy which had been used in the course
of humanity. They had failed to a certain extent in carrying
out the treaties which had been made with other countries.
Treaties had been entered into with Holland, Spain, Portu-
gal, and Brazil, and with several of them negotiations had been
eminently successful; had the treaty been carried out to the
fullest extent, there would still be the evil of smuggling.
Sweden, Denmark, and he was happy to say Portugal, had
fulfilled their engagements in the best possible manner. But
France, he had no hesitation in saying, had lately entered into
a treaty with the Imainn of Muscat for the transferring of
slaves to the island of Bourbon. The Brazilian Government
had evidently winked at the practice, and it appeared by the
return of the colonial authorities, that large numbers of slaves
had been imported into the United States. Portugal, by a
spontaneous effort, had effectually reduced the number of
slaves imported into the colonies. The distinguished man, of
whom the Right Honourable Baronet (Sir Robert Peel)
had spoken as exerting his authority when Governor of
Cuba, was a noble exception to the general rule, for,
excepting him, the Spanish authorities had entirely failed in
carrying out the terms of the treaty during twenty-seven
years. The efforts of the country would seem to have been
feeble, if not altogether useless ; but, since the correspondence
that had taken place in 1839, the progress had been consi-
derable ; and the years 1841 and 1842 showed a large reduction
in the negroes transported to the South American districts.
There had been a very beneficial change in the Brazils, he
was aware, since the measures of the Govern-
ment, of which he had been a member, had been
carried out. But still much care would be requisite
to effectually reduce the evil of which all united
to complain. Yet he had no fear but that, with even common
regard to the general interests of the world, the suppres-
sion of the slave trade would be almost, if not entirely, accom-
plished. It was unfair to say that their measure had failed, for
at various times causeshad arisen which hadled to the removal
of our slave cruisersfromtheirregular stations; and this practice
had tended to give an impetus to the slave trade. Our operations
in China in 1839 and 1840 led to the removal of the squadron

engaged on the coast of Africa, and the present engagements or
Government in the River Plate had compelled them to
divert their cruisers from the coast. All these things had
tended materially to interfere with the full operation of our
naval police, and therefore it was that he did declare that the
system had been fairly tried and found to be defective. The
fact was it was their rickety cruisers that were defective, and
not the system, for they had vessels upon the coast which were
such slew sailers that they could catch nothing. Unless, there-
fore, the naval police was inspected by constables who could
run, instead of those old charlies, who could do nothing, in fact,
unless they applied the new police to Africa, he was afraid
it would be in vain for them to think that the country
would place any confidence in our cruisers engaged in sup-
pressing the slave trade. The country now held treaties with
foreign Powers, binding them to discountenance the traffic—
treaties sanctioning the right of search, and treaties binding
foreign chiefs not to sell slaves, but the late Commission had
entirely denied to the country the privilege of enjoying the
power of the right of search. This was the result of a ne-
gotiation between this country and France, which ne-
gotiation had led to the appointment of the Commission
to which he had just alluded. The Commision examined naval
officers connected with both countries touching this matter of
the right of search, and it was evident the examination took
place with a view of seeing whether this right was or was not
essential for the effectual suppression of the slave trade. But
be that as it might, the Commission did examine officers,
both English and French, and he knew nothing of
what those officers said, except what he had gleaned
from the common rumours of the day. He had, however, been
informed, and, he believed it, because it was natural that many
of these officers, beth English and French, had stated to the
Commission that they considered it material that the right of
search was indispensably necessary to render the naval police
engaged in suppressing the slave trade effective. He said, then,
as a treaty was to be based upon this evidence, they had a right
to have it produced, and he could conceive nothing which
could justify the Government in withholding it from the coun-
try. At all events, however, whatever reasons they might
urge against the production, he should certainly take the sense
of the House upon the matter. It might be said, however, that
the production of the evidence would be injurious to the public
bat he confessed he could not agree in such an opinion; and,
without meaning any disrespect to the Government, he must
say he did not believe such a declaration would be believed by
anybody. Now, in what way was this evidence likely to
affect the country? It might, in the first place, contain state-
ments and facts relative to the stratagems resorted to by
traders in slaves. Well, bad not the papers which had been
annually published on the subject done the same, and instead
of injuring the public service it had benefited it? In the
second place, this evidence might contain suggestions
from these officers as to the means which ought to
be adopted for defeating these stratagems, and he
for one denied that these suggestions could prove injurious in
the slightest degree to the public service. 'Then, in the third
place, these officers might have entertained strong national
feelings, and made statements which might, if published, give
rise to the existence of differences between the two countries.
He did not think, however, that such serious consequences
c mid result from the production of this evidence, and still
he thought that the House had a right to know what was the
opinion of the officers who had been examined. They had a
right to know what were their feelings with respect to this
treaty. The Government may feel a great reluctance to pro-
duce that which may give them an opportunity to condemn
them, but still they ought to feel it their duty to produce that
evidence. The treaty abolished now and for ever the whole right
cf search. They were giving up a most useful power for the
accomplishment of that purpose which both England and
France professed to desire, namely, the abolition of the 'slave
trade. It had been given up without obtaining an equivalent
measure. In the fifth year of the ten years during which this
treaty was to continue the skill and dexterity of the French
was exercised to put an end to the treaty. He thought that
Iheic skill and dexterity was deserving of praise, but he was
sorry that it should be exercised in so bad a purpose. So that
at the end of ten years, unless the feelings and opinions of
France should entirely change, and unless France should come
back to the desire to engage in a mutual right of search, there
would be an end to the engagement. The right of
search was not of any value whatever to England
for any object except for the suppression of the
slave trade. The agreement was an inconvenience that they
willingly submitted to on both sides, because they thought it
conducive to the great object of humanity. But as to the idea
of its being conducive in any way to the English interest, ex
cept to the interest of abolishing the slave trade, it was per-
fectly absurd. The clamour of the Government abandoning
this right of search, was a clamour arising from the slave-
traders not only in France, but in the Brazils and in Cuba.
It was stated that in Cuba the slave-traders raised subscriptions
fn. abusing the English in the French newspapers. It was a
clamour raised for interested purposes, by parties who
were inclined in favour of the continuation of the
slave trade. He thought that all the clamour arising out
of this matter attached to the Government. The Right Hon.
Baronet would not inquire who was to blame, or to whom it was
to attach. The Duke of Wellington, in his address in 1841,
said that he quite concurred in the course which they had
adopted, and that there would be ne diffi ulty in carrying out
tha policy. They had the approval of the rest of the Gevern-
meet. The French and English agreed to form two squadrons.
one from each country, fur the suppression of the slave trade on
certain parts of the coast of Africa. The right of search was
then more extensive, as it comprised the West Indies, the
coast of Brazil, the western coast of Africa, and a radius
round the island of Madagascar. They were to have twenty-
six vessels each. He (Lord Palmerston) called for a return,
some time ago, of the vessels of each country having warrants
for the suppression of the slave trade, and found that the num-
ber of French vessels having warrants from the
English Government for that purpose, amounted only to the
number of fifty-two, and the English vessels having warrants
from the French Government amounted to fifty-four, and those
fifty-two vessels were not equal to fifty-two vessels of the old
style. These vessels were of no use except for their own
country. The slave-traders had the opportunity of obtaining
flags and papers from any country they wished. When a
French cruiser met one of those traders, the slave-trader then
produced her English flags and papers, and it was supposed by
the French vessel that all was right, and it passed on after
having seen the papers. In the same way the slave-trader could
deceive the English trader by hoisting French colour: and ex-
hibiting French papers, so that, unless the French and Eng-
lish were like the Siamese twins, and hunted in couples,
it was impossible that many of these slave-traders
could not escape. And there had been lately a treaty entered
into by the French Government with the African Princes on
the eastern coast for the transmission of slaves to the Isle of
Bourbon. He did not know to what extent the treaty entered
into by this country with the Imaum of Muscat, who was our
friend, was interfered with by the French treaty with the
I iaaurn. Much had been said of the horrors of the middle pas-
sage. Certainly the middle passage was horrible. Its horrors
were not exaggerated in the description. But they were
nothing to be compared with the horrors of the slave trade on
the east coast. The Noble Lord read an extract from returns
relating to the east coast of Africa, of which we could collect no
snore from his reading than that they were in all respects
frightful to humanity. Out of one hundred miserable captives,
not more than eight reached their distination.—( Hear, hear.
He asked why it was that France in making this treaty was not
required to abandon her participation in this branch of the
trade? In his ( Lord Palmerston's) negotiations, that slave
trade by the coast was made by the French authorities a par-
ticular exception.—( Hear, hear.) He could not understand
how her Majesty's Government, with all these facts before
them, had not taken measures to repress this horrible traffic.
The'Noble Lord then read extracts from a report in which it
was stated, that the slaves who had been so much weakened by
the voyage, as to be unable to prosecute the land travel to the
utmost, were left upon the shore until the waves of the sea would
clo them that mercy which man had denied them, by
shortening their sufferings.—( Hear, hear.) He considered
that the treaties bound France not to enter into any treaties
with chiefs in latitudes between 15 N. and 16 S. He did not
think that the French had faithfully followed out that part of
the treaty. Although he did not approve of that portion of
the treaty, he would have felt s wne satisfaction if he had found
that the French had acted upon it. They had not done so.--
(I Lear, hear.) He objected also to the clause which enabled a
cruiser of the one country to prevent the mercantile vessels of
the other to enter into the bight or bay, whilst the cruiser re-
mained there. He contended that, in the whole of the treaty,
he found little to satisfy him. The Noble Lord then read the
preamble of the treaty, in which, he said, it was stated by
enfesence that the t British flag was used for the con-
tinuance of the slave trade. That statement was a foul
calumny upon the British flag and the British people.--
-(Hear, hear.) He never would put his name to that treaty
which cast so calumnious an imputation upon the British name,
.and 30 foul a stain upon the British flag. The clause 9 stipu.
lated that her Britannic Majesty would not allow the slave
trade to be carried on in her colonies. The meaning of that
clause was that there was a probability that slavery would be
renewed in her Majesty's colonies.—( Hear, hear.) He, for
,one, would have died before he set his hand to a treaty so dis-
gracefel to the country. He had stated so far his reasons for
objecting to the treaty.—(Hear, hear.) He would now refer
shortly to the Parliamentary papers, with which Honour-
able .Members must be familiar. He was sure that
those papers would show, on the part of the Go-
vernment—not to say neglect—but, at least, great apathy.
The Governors-General of the colonies were in possession of
the facts relating to the landing of negroes, the arrival of slave
vessels, and other such practices, in contravention of treaties,
but though cognisant of their existence they took no steps to
prevent them. The Governor of the island of St. Jago de
Cuba, when informed of the continuance of the most illegal
practices, finding the representations of the Consul-General
rather irksome, looked into some old laws enacted about
the year 1760, and announced that colonies allowed Consuls
only to act commercially. When, therefore, he heard
the complaint, he replied he was sorry to hear it, but that
the Consuls had nothing to do with it. The Consul at St.
Jago de Cuba, however, chose to do his duty, and reported to
the Government at home, who passed their censure upon him
for not informing the Government of the province. Orders
ewer. sent out to that Government to receive the documents
of the Consul ; but it being the fashion to treat Eng.
3and with contempt, both that and the parent Government at
(pain merely replied by reference to the old law of Consulate
is Spain. Thos, the Consul had applied to the Government
in England, the Goverment in England to that of Madrid, the
Covernment of Madrid to that of Cuba, and the result
was a reply from the Governor-General of Cuba that
the circumstances had occurred a year ago, and
yore entirely forgotten, To that rude answer by the Spanish

Government no reply had been made by the British Govern- ,
ment, which had, in consequence, become the laughing-stock
of the whole island of Cuba. With regard to the practices at
Surinam, five or six thousand slaves who had hien carried
there for sale were entitled to their freedom. Th Chief Ad-
vocate denied their assertion, but he affirmed it, and though it
might seem presumptuous to dispute the opinions of a law
officer of the Crown, he would fearlessly declare it was as bad
in law as in principle. A demand had been made of the Dutch
Government for inquiry into the practices resorted to at that
island ; the reply, although more civil than that of the
Governor-General of Cuba, and though the officer
did not return the letters of the Consul, the judge de-
clared that the latter had nothing to do with the judicial
circumstances of the country. The Government of the
Hague, when referred to, had taken no notice of the affair.
He (Lord Palmerston) would not trouble the House by multi-
plying instances of a similar character, all evincing the feeble-
ness in remonstrance, and apathy in representation, by the
Government. The Right Hon. Baronet would probably ask
why he did not specifically accuse the Government of bringing
forward a resolution of censure. It was very well for a Minis-
ter, with a majority of one hundred in a full, and a propor-
tionate preponderance in a thin House, to meet a question of
such importance, by defying the minority ; he (Lord Palmer-
ston) did not, therefore, appeal to the House. The majority
could not be persuaded by argument, and though occasionally
expressing their dissent from the views of their leader on any
question where party was materially concerned, would rally
in
a phalanx and support the Administration.—(Cries of
" Hear, hear.") He, therefore, addressed himself to the
people of this country. He appealed to the nation
at large. They entertained a reciprocal feeling on the
slave trade ; and let them remember the lessons taught in
history, that the crimes of nations seldom failed of meeting
with their just punishment.—(" Hear, hear," from Sir R.
Inglis.) Men in general attributed disasters to immediate
cause or effect contiguous to the times ; the more philosophical
mind traced such visitations to a just and retributive Pro-
vidence, punishing national crime.—( Cheers.) The people of
England would not be doing their duty if they did not urge
and encourage the Government, without endangering the peace
of the country or perilling a failure, in putting down those
abominable and accursive crimes connected with slave traffic.
Sir R. PEEL said, towards the close of his speech the
Noble Lord opposite doubted the utility of taking a vote of that
House. As he had done him the discourtesy of saying he should
disbelieve the statement which he (Sir R. Peel) would make
in reply, he would return the compliment, and unhesitatingly
tell the Noble Lord that he did not believe the reasons assigned
for his declining to take the sense of the House.—(Loud
laughter.) It was not from a fear of being vanquished by a
Government majority, but from a knowledge that many who
were his usual supporters would desert him on the present occa-
sion.—(Cheers.) And he would state, moreover, and prove
that a better means of putting an end to the odious system of
the slave trade had been effected by the convention entered into
by the present Government, with the second power in Europe,
than by the convention of the Noble Lord. The Noble Lord
began by stating that the treaty lately entered into enabled
France to take the subjects of the Imaum of Muscat and
bring them into slavery, and that the reason of the
refusal of France to enter into the treaty of 1841
entirely arose from the circumstance of that treaty
putting an end to the abominable traffic. He thought
the Noble Lord should not deal in such insinuations.
He thought that they would not tend to allay that irritable
state of feeling which had for some time unhappily existed be-
tween the two countries.—( Hear, hear.) He should not, in
referring to the Imaum of Muscat, make statements. He ad-
mitted that great precautions were necessary, and those pre-
cautions were taken. From Zanzebar they learned that slaves
were removed in large barges. Every inquiry, however, would
be made whether such conduct on the part of France was com-
patible with the treaty which had been lately entered into.
The Noble Lord ought to have read on further. He took
only what suited his argument, and left out those passages in
the pamphlet which bore against it.
Lord PALMERSTON denied that he omitted anything.
Sir R. PEEL begged the Noble Lord's pardon. He did
not read the passage which referred to the slaves being taught
trades. He was not sufficiently acquainted himself with the
subject to pronounce a positive opinion on the various circum-
stances of the case, but the conclusion which the Noble Lord
wished the House to come to, in reference to it, was very different
from that which the actual state of the case warranted. Then the
Noble Lord referred to the conduct of the Government in its
negotiations with Spain. The Noble Lord said that they showed
tameness in those communications. Now he would read them
a specimen of the tameness with which they were charged.
The Right Hon Gentleman then read an extract from a dis-
patch which Lord Aberdeen wrote to Mr. Bulwer, the Am-
bassador at Madrid, in which he tells him to convey to the
Spanish Government that the Government of England were
well acquainted with the bribes which the authorities in
Cuba were receiving for their connivance at the infamous
traffic, with the sum that was received for each slave—that
if such conduct were persisted in, the treaty of 1835 would
become void, and that General O'Donnell must be re-called.
Now, he would ask, was that an instance of tameness ?
Having now disposed of Surinam, the case of the Imaum of
Muscat, General Donnell's conduct, and the indignity evinced
to our own Consul, he would now proceed to address himself to
the main point aimed at in the Noble Lord's (Palmerston)
speech—he meant the treaty lately entered into with France.
His belief was, that a more wise or prudent, as well as a
more effectual mode, could not be adopted for the
suppression of the slave trade. Was the Noble Lord
prepared to say that the refusal of France to enter into the
treaty of 1841 was in c insequence of a desire to encourage the
slave trade ? The Noble Lord said so. He agreed that it was
an imprudent act. The Noble Lord challenged him to an in-
quiry as to the cause of that refusal. In 1842, 1843, and
1844, the objection to that ratification was recorded by the
Chamber of Deputies of France. How, then, could the Noble
Lord state that it was the clamour of the slave trade
which brought about that refusal? He thought that the
right of search was objected to from the irritable state of the
public mind. The Noble Lord referred to the aid which he
received from himself and the gentlemen on that side of the
House for the suppression of the slave trade. He should not
then make that support a matter for reproach to them now.
For his own part he did not want to inquire—he gave his full
concurrence to everything that might put an end to the ini-
quitous traffic. He must, however, do the King of that
country the justice to say that he did not believe
he approved of the course which the constitution
or representatives of France had adapted en that occasion.
He thought that the question would have been materially al-
tered if the Executive Government, having signed the treaty,
had sought the means of escaping from the obligation of that
treaty. The question was, was the reason assigned for the non-
ratification an honest one, namely, the control and influence
exercised by a popular assembly. He believed that it was, al-
though he thought they had a decided right to remonstrate.
After the debate in the French Chamber M. Guizot proposed
that the protocol should be left open, and that modifications
should be made in the treaty. This Government peremp-
torily declined acceding to that proposal, as far as
the modifications were concerned. The Noble Lord
had said that they had tamely yielded without a remonstrance.
Lord Aberdeen, in writing to Lord Cowley, on February 12th,
1840, said that the recent decision as to the non-ratification by
France of the treaty appeared to her Majesty's Government to
injuriously
to pregnant with mischief, and would operate more
to the lawful exercise of the royal prerogative of France than
any event which had taken place for many years, and that it
would be the means of distrust being engendered against
France by the other three Powers who were the contracting
part'es in the treaty. This was what Lord Aberdeen said, and
yet the Noble Lord said that there had been no re-
monstrance. Then, as far as regarded the modifica-
tions, Lord Aberdeen said, " the proposed alterations
in themselves are confessedly of little value." It was proposed
by France to make slight modifications for the purpose of con-
ciliating the public feeling in France. The answer of Lord
Aberdeen was, " the proposed alterations are confessedly of
little value, but they involved a great principle." Now, he
( Sir R. Peel) thought that he had demonstrated that the ac-
cusation of the Noble Lord (Palmerston) was clearly
without foundation. The French Government refused to
ratify the treaty of 1841. The treaty, however, was ratified by
the other Powers, and it was now binding upon them. The
refusal of France to ratify that treaty left the relations
of this country and France, as far as regarded the slave
trade, depending on two conventions which were entered into,
the one in 1831, and the other in 1833. He need not for his
present purposes allude more particularly to the treaty of 1833,
as it was supplementary to the treaty of the year 1831. The
treaty of 1833 merely defined the zsnes within which the right
of search was to be exercised. The treaty of 1831 did not give
such a right of search. He felt most strongly that the provi-
visions of the recent convention were more effectual fur the
suppression of the slave trade than those of the treaty of 1831.
He presumed it would be admitted that the right of search per se
was not a good thing for the country. The value of it depended
upon its efficiency for the suppression of the
slave trade. It was required for no other purpose. It was
not asked for the purpose of giving an advantage to our co-
lonies, nor was it asked as a triumph over France. All that
it was asked for was, as an efficacious instrument for the sup-
pression of the slave trade. What was the convention of the
year 1831 ? That convention established a reciprocal right
of search. It was not a universal right of search, as the
right was limited, on the west coast of Africa, to that part
which extended from Cape Verde to about 15 of north lati-
tude to 10 of south latitude. That part of the coast of Africa
was not the only point where the slave trade was carried on.
The slave trade was carried on between Africa and the Brazils
several degrees below the tenth. The convention, therefore,
was not perfect. It gave no right of search in certain parts of
the coast of Africa. The Imaum of Muscat could be reached
for instance.
Captain PECHELL—There is Madagascar.
Sir R. PEEL would state the whole effect of the treaty.
The right of search was given to twenty leagues from Mada-
gascar. The treaty did not stipulate that France should keep
up a number of vessels, and France might therefore refuse to
keep up any vessels. This country, therefore, under those cir-
cumstances, was almost powerless in the right of search. The
warrants authorising the right of search were annually renew-
able. In 1831 the Noble Lord asked the French Government
'o consent to an unlimited right of search, but they refused to
do so. The Noble Lord proposed upon that, that each Govern-
ment should furnish a number of cruisers, and that the cruisers
of each country should furnish the others with warrants
to be in force for the search of vessels for three years.
The Noble Lord had said it appeared that this partial and tem-
porary experiment might prove extremely useful. Instead of
three years' duration of warrants, the time was limited to one
year. The French Government was to limit the number of
cruisers employed by the English Government to their own
number. The convention was dated on the 7th April, 1831,
and was signed on the 30th. The Noble Lord approved of
the substitution of one year for three years. The Noble Lord
did also at the same time make a most important communication
to the French Government, to the effect that, if they would
not consent to a general right of search, they should send
cruisers to the coast of Africa to co-operate with the Engl sh
cruisers. There could be no reason to doubt that the united
efforts of England and France would be attended with success.
The Noble Lord told the Government of France that the con-
vention of 1831 was a partial experiment, to be held within the
control of both Governments, and he also informed the French
Government that if they would seed a sufficient number of
cruisers to co-operate with the English cruisers, there was little
doubt that the united efforts of the two countries would speedily
put an end to the slave trade. Now he (Sir R. Peel) wished
to contrast the advantages which would be derived under the
present convention with those which had resulted from the
old convention. He admitted, with the Noble Lord that, when
their new treaty should come into operation the right of search
was nominally relinquished. He would mquire for what was
the right of search made ? Was it in order to search French
ships ? It could be truly asserted that no French subjects
carried on the slave trade in French ships. If they did, he
admitted that they had lost the right of search, under the
new convention. But he would maintain that the carrying
on of the slave trade by subjects of France was virtually at an
end. He made this assertion on the statement of Mr. Homily,
who had made a return of all the vessels belonging to all na-
tions engaged in the slave trade since 1819. They amounted to
6,398, and of this number there were only 13 which were French
vessels, employed by French subjects ; and, further, of these
13 vessels there were eleven which were included between
the years 1819 and 1831. Since the year 1831 there had been
only two cases, according to Mr. Romilly, of French vessels
carrying on the slave trade. The two vessels to which he had
alluded were named the Sennaar Sambre and the Marathon ;
and those were the only two vessels belonging to French
owners which had been condemned in any court as having
been connected with the slave trade. He therefore consi-
dered he was justified in saying that the right of search, for the
purpose of preventing the occupation of French vessels in the

slave trade, was no longer necessary ; but this did not extend
to the abolishment of the right of search with regard to vessels
of other nations bearing the French flag ? He would proceed
to compare the convention of 1845 with that of 1831.
The convention of 1831 was limited in its operation
along the coast of Africa from Cape Verde to the
10th degree of south latitude, whereas the present convention
included the whole of the west coast of Africa in which the
slave trade was carried on, from the 15th degree of north lati-
tude to the 10th degree of south latitude; consequently, we
had under this treaty, six degrees more of the African coast
subject to the operation of this convention than that which had
been subject to the convention of 1831. The instructions
which the English Government had given to the cruisers con-
♦eyed distinct authority to exercise that right of visit which had
been sanctioned by the law of nations. These instructions were
confirmed by the present convention. It contained an admis-
sion on the part of France that the English cruisers had a right
to visit those vessels falsely bearing the French flag, perfectly
unaffected by the convention, to ascertain the national cha-
racter of those vessels. He would now address himself to the
question whether, under the present convention, there existed
efficacious means of preventing the abuse of the French flag by
other countries. With regard to this matter the French law
was a much more stringent one than the English. He was
speaking now of the power to visit vessels bearing the
French flag. He had admitted that right under the
present treaty. The French law distinctly authorised any
French officer who should descry a vessel under suspicious cir-
cumstances, bearing the French flag, in boarding that vessel,
in order to ascertain the nation to which it belonged. The
persons engaged in the slave trade were generally persons who
committed acts of piracy. Under the French law it was con-
sidered piracy for any vessel to have double sets of papers.
Other small ineongl cities are held under the French law to
constitute acts of piracy. The instructions of the French Go-
vernment authorised French officers to apply this law of piracy
to vessels engaged in the slave trade. There were now 54
vessels on the coast of Africa engaged by the two Govern-
ments in the suppression of the slave trade. He
admitted that the French cruisers had not the same
powers as the British cruisers as respected the
right of search. The French Government did not possess the
power of visiting vessels belonging to the Spanish and Brazilian
' Governments, and therefore the British cruisers in this respect
have greater authority. The French cruisers with regard to
vessels belonging to Spain and Brazil would remain precisely
the same as respected their right of search as before. He
would ask, would not the assistance of 26 cruisers, co-operating
with the English cruisers, be taking an effectual precaution to
the assumption of the French flag by the slave-traders of other
countries ? The Noble Lord had said he approved of that part
of the convention which provided for the destruction of the
barracoons on the African coast. He had expressed his ap.
probation of that part of the treaty. The whole burden of the
expense of putting an end to the slave trade had fallen hitherto
on this country. The Noble Lord had said that this constant
burden borne singly by this country had tended gradually to
diminish our force on the African coast, and that in consequence
the slave trade had increased, and had received a stimulus
which now rendered it difficult to be restrained.
They took the precaution, with the consent of France, that
there should be never less than fifty-two cruisers to
blockade that part of the coast of Africa where the slave
trade was carried on, and otherwise to give effect
to the treaty entered into between the two greatest and
most powerful maritime nations of western Europe. The
Noble Lord had asked a question as to what was the meaning
of the preamble of the treaty of 1845, and had expressed an
opinion that it was disgraceful to the country. He ( Sir Robert
Peel), in answer to that, would say that the preamble of the
convention merely set forth that the old arrangements for the
suppression of the slave trade between France and England
being found inefficacious for the suppression of that trade
that therefore a new convention had been agreed to. The
Noble Lord denied that the treaty which had been agreed to
had anything to do with the suppression of the slave trade.
But what were the terms of the treaty of 1831? In the con-
vention of 1831 the conditions were precisely the same as those
contained in the convention of 1845. Whatever difficulty
might be found in the latter the chief responsibility lay with the
Noble Lord, for he had made the difficulty in the arrangements
he entered into in 1831. The convention of 1845 was not
necessary for the suppression of the English slave trade. That
was suppressed long ago ; but it was required for
general purposes—for the object of putting down the
slave trade sanctioned by other countries. The Noble Lord,
in the treaty of 1831, set forth that the Courts of Great Bri-
tain and France, considering that measures were necessary for
the more effectual suppression of the slave trade, agreed to con-
elude a convention for that salutary purpose, so that French
vessels should be allowed to search English vessels that might
be suspected of being engage' in the slave trade, and that
English vessels should he allowed to do the same in return.
The provisions of this treaty were the same in their general
purport to the one now concluded, and of which the Noble
Lord complained so much. The Noble Lord wanted him (Sir
Robert Peel) to explain the third article of the convention.
The object of that article was, that certain stations on the
coast of Africa should be supplied by French and English
vessels, according to the proximity of those stations to the
colonies of these two countries—English vessels to he placed
contiguous to the stations belonging to the English Govern-
ment, and French vessels to those belonging to the Govern-
ment of that country. But it was further necessary that power
should be given for English cruisers to enter French stations,
as they had more efficacious means of suppressing the slave
trade. Spanish or Portuguese vessels might be engaged in
the traffic, and these the French vessels had not the
power to search, whereas the English vessels had,
and hence it was that a provision of this sort,
was necessary to give effect to this object of the con-
vention. He trusted that this explanation would be satis-
factory to the Noble Lord. It was only to enable them in certain
stations in the occupation of the French to enter at discretion,
and to exercise superior powers, which did not belong to the
other country. The whole convention was based on the dis-
tinct understanding that neither country should be engaged in
the slave trade. The Noble Lord had endeavoured to show
that France was engaged in the slave trade, and yet he objected
to a reciprocal engagement between the two countries that the
slave trade should not be entered upon or encouraged by either.
So far from the convention implying any dishonour on this
country, it was the contrary. It was entered into solely
from the merciful and humane consideration of suppressing
the slave trade ; and they had the assurance from
France of its cordial co-operation in that important
object. For this purpose the powers agreed to were such as to
supply a more extensive line of coast with cruisers, and to give
greater powers of search than were provided for in the old treaty ;
and for this purpose the present convention was entered upon
with the cordial goodwill of France, and from the consideration
that it would prove a more efficient instrument for the sup.
pressioa of the slave trade, and provide a more full and valua-
ble remedy than what had been provided in the instrument of
1831. ( Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord bad asked why the
evidence on which the treaty was founded had not been pro-
duced and placed in the hand. of Honourable Members. He
(Sir R. Peel) could assure the Noble Lord that it had not been
withheld, except upon the most mature consideration. The
evidence had been given by French and English officers who
had been engaged on the coast of Africa, and as it referred to
matters connected with the whole proceedings of the slave trade,
which he considered it impolitic to make public, his duty to the
public compelled him to adhere to his declaration in an-
swer to a question put by the Noble Lord, to withhold
the evidence altogether. The convention had been concluded
on the part of the two countries by two men of high standing
in their respective conventions —men of the greatest integrity,
worth, and honesty of purpose both in their public and private
character, but above all in their opposition to the disgusting
slave trade—men who throughout their lives had been engaged
in continued efforts to put down the detestable trade in slaves.
—( Hear, hear.) Dr. Lushington, who throughout his life
had been opposed to the political views of the present Ministry,
had, nevertheless, been chosen as the one party, from his known
an 1 consistent opposition to the traffic in question ; and the
Duke de Broglie, who stood equally high and consistent on
the other side for his long, tried, and highly honourable
exertions. These were the men chosen to make the regula-
tions for the suppression of this nefarious traffic, and
they had signed the treaty between the two countries,
which, in his opinion, was the most powerful ever
yet devised for the suppression of the slave trade.—( Hear. )
He thought the convention had been recommended to the
House, so far as authority was concerned, by the highest which
could give it weight. It was also recommended to the House
by the application of reason to its provisions, and contrasted
favourably on this head with previous conventions. But it was
still more powerfully recommended by these considerations—
that they had every assurance of carrying it into full effect,
they had the cordial consent and co-operation of the most power-
ful maritime country in the world, with the exception of Eng-
land. if they wished to rely on the letter of the treaty of 1831
let them depend upon it they could net have that cordial co-
operation which was the life and soul of engagements of this
kind; they certainly had a right to expect the literal execu-
tion of that treaty, but, in his opinion, the example of a con-
cert between France and England would add great force and
weight to the execution of measures for the suppression of the
slave trade, such as they would look for in vain
in the letter of treaties—they would have with them the feel-
ings of a great people and their legislature—the feelings of the
public mind on the one band, whereas, were the strict letter of
the treaty to be enforced, the national sympathy would be
thrown, not on the side of the suppressors of the slave trade,
but would be excited in favour of those who carried it on.
Those feelings, he repeated, which would be under present
circumstances excited in favour of humanity, would be neu-
tralised by stirring up the question of the right of search. The
treaty of 1831 might be maintained—might be executed, but
he looked forward with confidence to the cordial and harmo-
nious concert of the two countries, rather than to the mere
letter of an engagement, which seemed opposed to the general
feeling of the people of France. That treaty might certainly
be carried into effect, but in the present state of the public
mind it could not be with that unanimity and determination
which could alone give force to engagements of this kind.
Mr. SHEIL said the question before the House was, whether
the names of those who gave evidence before the mixed British
and French Commission was to be produced. But much
collateral matter, chiefly referring to the Imam of Muscat,
had been introduced, as well as the state of the slave trade in
Cuba. The Right Hon. Gentleman, who twitted his Noble
Friend that he had not read the documents relative to the
Imaum of Muscat, did not himself seem to have perused a
portion of it closely referring to the allegations of the Noble
Lord. These were the concluding words of that document :
" It appears to us that the treaty, as far as regards the sup-
pression of the slave trade may do mischief (the treaty with
France) as it will keep up the coasting trade in slaves."
This passage must have escaped the attention of the Right
Hon. Baronet, otherwise he would no doubt have read it
to the House. But the Right Hon. Gentleman should read
the dispatch from the Earl of Aberdeen, which was couched in
strong, almost peremptory language, and which referred to
General O'Donnell, whose conduct, whose habit of acquisi-
tiveness characterised him. That dispatch was dated Feb. 1844.
But General O'Donnell was still Governor of Cuba, so that
the remonstrance of Lord Aberdeen had not yet been at-
tended with any practical efficacy. He did not see the use
of the threat of Lord Aberdeen, unless it was followed by
some practical effect.—( Hear, hear.) But he turned to the
real question before the House. He had been greatly struck
by one assertion made by bis Noble Friend (Lord Palmerston)
and waited with impatience for its confutation. He stated
that not only was it currently reported, but universally believed
that the officers who had been examined before the mixed
Commission had stated that a surrender of the right of search
would be most prejudicial. He thought that the Right Hon.
Baronet would have endeavoured to answer that statement ; but
no contradiction had been made. His Noble Friend was entitled
to call for evidence relative to that part of the case. He
only asked for extracts. He (Mr. Sheil) had read his notiee
with attention. The Right Hon. Gentleman said that much
of the evidence taken referred to the coast of Africa—to the
relations between England and France in reference to Africa,
and that it was inconsistent with the public service to
produce that part of the evidence—it was not inconsistent
with those relations to exercise the right of search, which was
the real point at issue.—( Hear, hear.) And instead of that
ratiocination of which they had heard so much—instead of the
comparison between the treaty of 1841 and the convention of
1845, instead of passing encomiums on the Duke de Broglie
and just praises upon Dr. Lushington, it was better to give
the evidence of the officers on which it was pre-
sumed the convention had been founded.—( Hear. )
In the course of the speech of the Right Hon. Gentleman a
Gallant Friend behind him (Captain Pechell) repeated the
words " West Indies."' The treaty of 1831 extended to the
West Indies. The convention was limited to the coast of
Africa ; but on that part of the case he did not touch. The
treaty of 1831 gave the right of search in the West Indies—it
gave it to Cuba...to the whole coast 0 the Brazils—it gave it

to those points where the slave trade raged.—( Hear. ) The
treaty extended to Madagascar, from which a large supply of
slaves were obtained, and where that traffic was carried on to a
frightful extent. Between the treaty of 1831 and the conven-
tion of 1835 there was a great difference, as the latter treaty
gave greater geographical advantages to those with whom
it was contracted. In the treaty of 1842 the right
of search was introduced, and the Queen, in a
speech delivered by her on the 3d of February, in
that year, said it gave her great satisfaction to inform the
Legislature that she had concluded treaties with the Emperor of
Austria, the King of the French---(Hear, hear)—the King of
Prussia, and the Emperor of Russia, for the prevention of the
slave trade ; and Lord Dalhousie, a member of the present
Government, expressed a hope, in a speech which he made at
that period, that the consequence of the treaty with France
would be the extinction of the slave trade. Instead of sub-
mitting to alterations in the treaty of 1841, they should not
have allowed the superstructure to be touched, yet they allowed
the base on which that superstructure was raised to be rooted
out. The Duke de Broglie, the French Minister, stated, in
1843, in a speech in the French Chambers, that he was the
party who had signed the treaties of 1831 and 1833, that the
French, in return for these obligations, asked no more than
that she should not extend this odious traffic. The Duke
de Broglie said the treaty was just—that no evil could
arise—and that it would be of the greatest good. The name
of Lushington was allied with great learning, high-minded-
ness, benevolence, and humanity, and he could not mention it
but with respect.—(Hear, hear.) When they found that the
treaty of 1841 had been successful, why was it to be aban-
doned? This was his (Mr. Sheil's) answer to what the Right
Hon. Gentleman urged with regard to the comparative merits
of the treaty of 1831 and the convention of 1843. There
were also objections to that treaty. They stipulated that
France should maintain a squadron of twenty-six ships on the
deep, whose quarter-decks wore to be constructed into floating
ports of the Admiralty. But his great and prominent objec-
tion to the: convention was this : by the convention, an Eng-
lish sloop-of-war might seise a French sloop, confiscate her and
her cargo, give light and liberty to the human beings con-
fined in it. But what was the case now ? After the treaty of
1845, what would happen ? From the topmast of
an English frigate a barque is seen in the dis-
tance. Her purpose is observed; she is pursued, despite her
swiftness. She is overtaken, she is almost doomed, when
suddenly the tri-colour is raised. She will pursue her course
uninterrupted to Cuba or Havannah, and the mariners of Eng-
land, struck with enthusiasm, will have to deprecate the con-
tract by which a crime so monstrous has been allowed to go un-
punished ?—( Hear, hear.) This would be the result of their
convention, and it would lead other nations to say that the
treaty would be incompatible with their honour. Not even
the treaty of Utrecht would relieve them from the stigma which
had been cast upon them.—( Hear.)
Sir ROBERT HARRY INGLIS complimented the
Noble Lord for the able and satisfactory way in which he had
brought forward the subject. In diplomatic relations between
independent nations, a single word in the preamble of a treaty
must compromise a principle which no statesman ought to con-
cede to another power. He felt with the Noble Lord the Mem-
ber for Tiverton (Lord Palmerston) that the words in the pre-
amble of the treaty justified the construction which he
had put on it—( Hear, hear)—simply that the con-
vention of 1831 and 1833 was to prevent the flags
of England and of France from covering the slave trade.
The Noble Lord had actually been active in spreading that
slave trade, which he termed "odious," in several parts of the
world ; and as to the Imaum of Muscat, he was the individual
who had first signed any treaty for the suppression of slavery, and
he trusted the example set by that potentate would be followed
by the ministers and sovereigns of other countries. With re-
spect, also, to the island of Trinidad, evidence could be ad-
duced to show the necessity for the supply of labourers, or the
unscrupulousness with which they might be supplied. He had
made these statements for the purpose of showing that his as-
sertions were well-founded, and he said something like the
slave trade was now going forward.—(" Hear, hear," from the
Treasury Benches.) Two Right Hon. Baronets had cheered
that sentence. Well, he would request their attention to a
letter which he had received from Gloucester, a village near
Sierra Leone, and dated April 23, 1845, a letter, he might
premise written subsequent to the receipt of the discussion of
the subject in that House. In that letter, among other matters,
they were told that the free labourers were inclosed in a great
stone-yard, and that the agent on entering was greeted with
loud cheers, so degraded were the feelings of these unhappy
persons. Their friends, and many of them, might be waiting
outside and not allowed to see them. He did not know whether
these statements had reached the Under-Secretary for the
Colonies, but he supposed they had reached him at the same
time they had been received by himself, and, if so, he trusted
and expected that some explanation would be given.
Sir C. NAPIER fully agreed both with the Noble Lord
(Lord Palmerston) and the Right Hon. Gentleman who had
just sat dwelt, that the present system of the slave trade and its
virtual recognition, if not support, by the treaties—plausibly,
but fallaciously, denominated the " right of search"—demanded
investigation. What had they given up—the right of search,
so that the main business of the treaty had been lost sight of.
What, then, had they got in return for the right of search.
They had got 26 vessels from France to act in concert with 26
vessels from Great Biitain on the coast of Africa, and to teach
the French, as the Right Hon. Member for Dungarvon had
very eloquently stated, all those arts by which naval
superiority is attained, and to make there a home
upon the deep. But did they not think that
the right of visit would be as great a source of difficulty as the
right of search. What could an officer do if he saw a vessel on
the coast of Africa but send his boat and overhaul that vessel,
whatever might be the colours which he carried? Now, what
were the instructions which had been given?—they
were, in his
opinion, much more fit for a drawing-room than for the cabin
of a man of war. The Gallant Commodore then read the in-
structions, one of which was to avoid anything like a collision,
but, if the weather would permit, to send a boat ahead in
order to ascertain whether the colours she carried were really
those under which she ought to sail. It might be Brazilian, or
Spanish, or Sardinian, but she was to know without overhauling
the ship. Nobody could possibly tell what should follow. He
would illustrate this by what had occurred to himself on the
coast of Syria. An officer in command of one of the ships on
that station, had, without much consideration, boarded a
French vessel. On discovering his mistake, he, of course,
immediately retired, but the fact had been observed,
and the commander of the French vessel, in order
to relieve himself from the false position in which
he had been placed, requested him ( Sir C. Napier) to
write him a letter to his Government. This was got hold of
by the French papers, and it was trumpeted through the whole
of the country that the French corvette had compelled a British
84 ship to make an apology. Of course he was the greatest
man of the day. The fourth and sixth articles of • the treaty
stated that the officers appointed should negotiate with the
princes on the coast of Africa. How could the officers whom
they appointed negotiate with ieences whom they saw infringing
the treaty ?He did cost also understand why the Frer.ch vessels
should not assist them on the east coast of Africa as well as the
west coast. He would much sooner see the English Govern-
ment undertake the whole expense of fifty-two vessels of war on
the coast of Africa than see them depend on the French Go-
vernment, or any other Government.
Mr. HOPE repudiated the notion that the Government
had encouraged slavery under the guise of free labour. It was
the duty of the Government to protect the African from
slavery, and they had done it by every fair means. The
negroes were enabled to earn high wages, and enjoy many
comforts in the West Indies, and, when they were emancipated
from slavery Government gave them the option of going to
work in the colonies, or return to their native land, and it was
quite erroneous to suppose Government would apply any force
or compulsory power whatever to them.
Mr. BROTHERTON moved the adjournment of the de-
bate.—( Cries of " Oh, oh," and Go on, go on.")
Captain PEC HELL congratulated the House, and thanked
the Right Hon. Barnet himself for the support which the
Member for Oxford invariably gave the Noble Lord (Palmer-
ston) in the discussions upon the present question. But
while he admired the gallant stand thus invariably made
by his Honourable Friend, hs was sorry to see the va-
cillation evinced respecting the right of search. M.
Guizot had declared in his place in the French Chambers
that it would be a degradation, a humiliation, to receive a re-
fusal, while his Government acceded to the demand. The
Duke de Broglie had also said he saw no necessity for the exercise
of the right, as the abuses were greatly exaggerated, even if
they existed at all. It was manifest that though collisions
m
might take place, yet if they asked the commercial classes they
would say that more danger was to be apprehended from the
French settlements on the coast of Africa than from any evil
resulting from the right of search. No naval officer could be
indifferent when such sacrifices were required, and he could not.
consistently with his duty preserve silence on this occasion.
Lord PALMERSTON was aware that it was an arrange-
ment with the Government that foreign parties should be
represented in that House.—(" Hear, hear," from Sir R. Peel.)
He ( Lord Palmerston) knew it, and it was the desire of every
sensible man in that House, that France and England should
always preserve a friendly footing. The reason the Right Hon.
Baronet assigned when he accused him of having spoken dis-
paragingly of France was, that they had allowed the slave trade
to be continued on the coast of Africa. By the treaty of 1831
the Crowns of England and France had determined to unite
for the suppression of the slave trade ; and the Right Hon.
Baronet defended the Government from the charge which he
(Lord Palmerston) had brought against it for want of vigour ;
and he added, that the Government had remonstrated at the
breach of the treaty of 1831. He thought it unfortunate that
the ratification of the treaty of 1841 was not accepted, for if it
had, the late treaty, he was sure, would never have been called for.
The Right Hon. Baronet quoted a dispatch from him to Lord
Grenville previous to 1831, from which he argued that the
negotiations proposed were only temporary ; but he thought
that if he had examined the correspondence he would have
found that it was not an experimental or temporary arrange-
ment which was then proposed, but one which was subsee
quently to be embodied in a treaty. He had now touched
on most of the points which had been referred to by the
Right Hon. Baronet. He hoped his amendment, in its modi-
fied state, would be now agreed to, which was that the names
of the witnesses should be produced, and extracts from that
portion of the evidence which related to the operation of the
right of search ; otherwise, he should feel it his duty to take
the sense of the House upon it.
Sir R. PEEL intimated his refusal to do so.
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw.
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For the motion ...... 5l
Against it
Majority against the motion —43
IRISH COLLEGES BILL.
Mr. WYSE moved, on bringing up the report of the Com-
mittee on Colleges (Ireland) Bill, That it is the opinion of this
House that, whereas the Act of Settlement enacts that 'a col-
lege be annexed to the University of Dublin in addition to the
college of the Holy Trinity, under the name and title of King's
College, and the Act of 1793 provides that all future colleges
that may be annexed to the University, after the passing of that
Act, be open to Roman Catholics and Protestant Dissenters
equally with Protestants in all their honours and emo-
luments, as well as studies ; the colleges proposed under
the present Bill be annexed to the said Uniuersity
under the condition which the Act of 1793 prescribes.
He hoped that the Government, in their future arrangements,
would not forget to take steps to open the University of Dublin
to the public generally, not only for the purpose of advancing
academical education, but also collegiate education. He
would not offer any opposition to the further progress of the
Bill, which he considered a step in the right direction, but
rather propose his motion es a general resolution. The Hon.
Member concluded by reading the resolution.
Sir JAMES GRAHAM said he believed the Hon. Gentle-
man had merely made his motion, not for the purpose of
dividing the House, but of recording his sentiments on the sub-
ject he had introduced. He was glad that the Bill had been so
amended as to satisfy the Hon. Member so far as to induce
him to withdraw his opposition to the Bill.
Mr. SHAW briefly replied to the remarks of the Hon.
Member for Waterford (Mr. Wyse) respecting the University
of Dublin.
Mr. BROTHERTON said they had now been thirteen and
a half hours sitting, and if any opposed motion were brought
on he would move the adjournment of the House.
FIELD GARDENS BILL.
This Bill was read a third time and passed.
Je The other orders of the day were then-disposed of, and the
f.) House adjourned at Two o'clock.
al a

BOILED LETTUCE.—Lettuces boiled and used a la
cabbage, make an excellent dish. We have been told that boiled
radishes are also very toothsome, but we have not yet made the
experiment. The boiled lettuces we can answer for.—Liverpool
Mercury.

Aberdeen • • • • • • ••• • • •
Armagh, Coleraine, ts)
Portrush •••••• • • • • i
Birmingham & Gloster
Ditto, New, iss. dis.
Do. Half Shares • • • •
Brighton, Lews,& Host.
Bristol and Exeter • • • •
Do. New • • ..
Ditto and Gloucester
Caledonian . . • •
Cambridge and Lincoln
Chester and Holyhead
Chichester & Brighton
Churnet Valley .• • • • • •
Coventry, Bedworth, &
Nuneaton • • • • • • • • • •
Coventry and Leicester
Cornwall •• • • •• • • • •
Direct Northern • • • • • •
Direct Norwich ••• • • •
Diss, Beccles, & Yrmth
Dublin & Belfast June.
Ditto aad Galway • •
Do. and Mullingar . •
Eastern Counties .• • • •
Do., Perpetual, No. 1
Ditto, ditto, No. 2. • •
Eastern Union
Do. Extension • • • • • •
Edinburgh & Glasgow
Ditto, Quarter Shares
Do. New Quarters • •
Ely and Bedford .•• • •
Grand Junction •• • • • •
Ditto, Half Shares • •
Ditto, Quarter Shares
Gt. Southern & Western
Do. Extension • • • • • •
Do. Additional.. • • • •
Great North of England
Ditto, New .• • • • • • • •
Do. New ••••• • • • • •
Great Western .••• • • •
Ditto, Half Shares • -
Ditto, Fifths.. • • ....1
Guildford, Farnham, &
Portsmouth .• • • • • • •
Harwich • • • • • • •• • • • • •
Hull and Gainsborocgh
Hull and Selby .• • •• • •
Ditto, Quarter Shares
Do. Half Shares •• • •
Kendal & Windermere
Kentish Coast • • • • • • • •
Lancaster and Carlisle
Leeds and Bradford.
Liverpool & Manchestr
Ditto, Half Shares
Ditto, Quarter Shares
nondon & Birmingham
Ditto, New Thirds
Ditto, New 14 Shares
London and Blackwall
London and Brighton..
Do. Consolidated Bths
[l,ondon and Croydon • •
Ditto, Guarntd. 5 p. c.
London and Greenwich
Ditto, Pref. or Priv. . •
London and S. Western
Do., New Cons. Bths
Ditto, New . • • • • • • •
Do. New • • • • • • • • • •
London and York . • • .•
Lndonderry & Coleraine
Do. & Enniskillen • •
Lynn and Ely ..
Do. & Dereham • • • •
M anchester and Leeds
Ditto, Half Shares • • '
Ditto, Quarter Shares
Ditto, Sixteenths . • •
Manchestr & Birming.
Ditto, Quarter Shares
Midland . • •
Ditto, Fifths .• • • • • •
Do. New ......
Ditto, Birm. Sr, Derby
Newcastle & Berwick
Newcastle & Carlisle • •
Newcstle & Darl. June.
Do. New Brandling'
Newry & Enniskillen • •
Newark and Sheffield. -
North British . .....
Do. New .. •••• • • • •
Northern and Eastern .
Ditto, Scrip, 189.51. d.
Ditto, Quai ter Shares
North Kent ••••• • • • • •
North Wales • • • • • • • • • •
Norwich and Brandon .
Ditto, New • •
Oxford & Worcester • •
Preston and Wyre • • • •
Richmnd & W. E. June.
Rugby •.• ..
Scottish Central • • • •••
Do. Midland • • • . !
Sheffield and Lincoln
Sheffield & Manchestr!
Ditto, Quarter Shares'
Shrws.,Wolv.,Dud.,Bir.
South Devon .•.• • • • • •
South-Eastern & Dovr.
Ditto, New iss. 32/.dis.
Do. New, No. 2 • • •• '
Do. New, No. 3 • • •• \
South Walee .•• • • • • • •
Staines and Richmond
Trent Valley
Trent Valley and Holy-
head Junction • • • • •
Waterford & Kilkenny
West Cornwall• • • . - • •
Yarmouth & Norwich.
Ditto, New
York & North Midland
Ditto, Half Shares • •
Do., Scarbro' Branch
Ditto, Selby Scrip • •
Ditto, Extension ....
Bordeaux and Toulouse
Do. and Cette • • • • • •
Boulogne and Amiens.
Dieppe and Paris Junc.
Gt. Northern of France
Lyons and Avignon.. • .
Orleans and Vierzon • •
Orleans & Bourdeaux
Paris & Lyons (Laffitte)
Do. (Ganneron's) • • • •
Do. (Calon's) • • • • • •
Paris and Strasbourg • •
Paris & St. Quentin • •
Paris and Orleans. • • • •
Paris and Rouen •• • •
Royal North of Spain ..
It urn and Havre • • •• I
Sambre and Meuse • • • •
Strasbourg and Bale • •
Tours & Nantes (Mac-
kenzie's)
Do. (Levevres) .•• • • •

25 0
100 0
25 0
50 0
50 0
100 0

50 0
50 0
25 0
50 0

20 0 0

25 0 0

50 0 0
20 0 0
25 0 0
50 0 0
50 0 0
50 0 0
25 0 0
6 13 4
6 13 4
50 0 0
25 0 0
50 0 0
12 10 0
12 10 0
25 0 0
100 0 0
50 0 0
25 0 0
50 0 0
50 0 0
50 0 0
100 0 0
40 0 0
30 0 0
160 0 0
50 0 0
20 0 0

Bs. per sh.

2/. 5s p. sh.
l Is 3d pr. sh

10/. per ct.
101. per ct.
Mi. per ct.

6/. Os. p. sh.
U. p. sh.

U. per et.
8/. per ct.
8/. per ct.

50 0 0
20 0 0
25 8 0
h 0 0 0
12 10 0
25 0 0
25 0 0
25 0 0
50 0 0
50 0 0
100 0 0
150 0 0
125 0 0

31. 10s. pr. sh.
17s. 6d. pr sh

9/. per cent.
9/. per cent.
91. per cent.
101. per ct.
101. per ct.
10/. per ct.
6s.
IV. Os. per sh

32 0 0
25 0 0
16 13 4
50 0 0
50 0 0
13 15 9
9 0 0
12 15 4
18 17 2
41 6 10
40 0 0
50 0 0
40 0 0
50 0 0
50 0 0
50 0 0
25 0 0
25 0 0
100 0 0
50 0 0
25 0 0
6 5 0
40 0 0
10 0 0

16s. per sh

41. per share
10s. pr. sh.

1 5
1 5
3 0
2 10
1 0

1 10 0
2 10 0
2 10 0
2 10 0
14 16 0
6 13 4
0 13 4
10 0 0
1 10 0
50 0 0
12 10 0
2 10 0

1 5 0
,00 0 0
50 0 0
25 0 0
10 0 0
2 10 0
2 10 0
100 0 0
5 0 0
2 0 0
80 0 0
50 0 0
20 0 0

2 10 0
1 0 0
1 7 6
50 0 0
12 10 0
2 0 0
1 10 0
1 7 6
20 0 0
5 0 0
100 0 0
50 0 0
25 0 0
Stock.
2 0 0
2 0 0

50 0 0
25 0 0

6 0 0

12 0 0
2 10 0
2 0 0
2 10 ()
2 10 0
2 10 0
2 10 0
1 7 6
73 0 0
32 0 0
2 0 0
3 5 0
40 0 0
4 0 0
Stock.
2 0 0
2 0 0
Stock.
1 10 0
100 0 0
25 0 0
10 0 0
2 10 0
1 10 0
12 10 0
1 0 0
45 0 0
30 0 0
12 10 0
2 15 0
1 5 0

S/.l2s.persh,
2/. 2s. per sh.

121. per share,

61. per cent.

11.125.6d.p.c.

141. Os. per sh.
id. per share.
11.145.10d.p.s

2i. ss.
Iss.

1/.105.6d.p.5.
2s. 10d. p. sli

40 0 0

25 0 0
[OO 0 0
25 0 0
25 0 0

25 0 0
25 0 0

50 0 0
50 0 0
12 10 0
50 0 0
25 0 0
20 0 0
10 0 0

12 0 0
1 0 0
2 10 0
50 0 0
1 0 0
1 0 0
2 10 0
1 10 0
1 5 0
95 0 0
8 0 0
2 10 0
15 0 0

50 0 0
20 0 0
20 0 0
50 0 0
25 0 0
25 0 0
[OO 0 0
25 0 0
50 0 0
50 0 0
33 2 4
50 0 0
50 0 0
50 0 0
50 0 0
20 0 0
20 0 0

4s. 6d.
101. per et.
101. per et.

8 0 0
7 0 0
2 10 0
2 10 0
1 0 0
2 0 0

10i. per et,

1914
16%
8%
5%
18M,

113
57
54%

20 0 0
20 0 0
20 0 0
20 0 0
20 0 0
20 0 0
20 0 0
20 0 0
20 0 0
20 0 0
20 0 0

O 0
O 0
O 0

0 0
0 0

0 0
0 0

JOINT—STOCK BANKS.
Dividend Amount
Name of Company. per of Paid. Price
Annum. Share.
£ s. d. s. d.
Australasia ...... 6/. per cent. 40 0 0 40 0 0 32
Britsh North American 41. per cent. 50 0 0 50 0 0 49
Commercial of London N. per cent. 100 0 0 20 0 0 22
Colonial ..• .• •• • ...... 5/. per cent. 100 0 0 25 0 0 15%
Londe and Westtainstr 61. per`cent. 100 0 0 20 0' 0 2714
London Joint-Stock .• . 61. per cent. 50 0 0 10 0 0 14%
Metropolitan ••.•• • • • • 25 0 0 710 0
Provincial of Ireland • • 81. per cent. 100 0 0 25 0 0 51%
Ditto, •••• • • • • 81. 8/. per cent. 10 0 0 10 0 0 20
National of Ireland •• Si. per cent. 50 0 0 17 10 0 20%
Nat. Provncial of Eng. 51. per cent. 100 0 0 35 0 0 38
Ditto, •••• • • • • 51. 5/. per cent. 20 0 0 10 0 0
Union of Australia— • • 25 0 0 25 0 0 25N
Union of London.•• • • 51. per cent. 50 0 0 10 0 0 13

DOCKS.
Dividend Amount
Name of Company. per of Paid. Price,
Annum. Share.
£ s. d. s. d.
ommercial •• • •
~.t and West India

,-----
I £ s. d. ' 'Z s. d.
Jommercial .• • •
fast and West India
East Country -
London • •
St Katharine •••• • • • • 5 per cent. Stock.
Southampton ••••• • • • ; 4/. per cent. ' 50 0 0 50 0 0 1

118%

INSURANCE COMPANIES.
Dividend Amount
Name of Company. per of Paid. Price.
Annum. Share.
-- -
X a. d. X s. d.
Albion ••••• • • • • ..... 31. 10s. 500 0 0 50 0 0 72%
Alliance Brit. and For. 6 per cent. 100 0 0 11 0 0 20
Ditto Marine....... 61. per cent, 100 0 0 50 0 6%
Atlas .•••• • • • • ..... .. 13s. 6d. pr sh. 50 0 0 5 0 0 17
British Commercial .. 7s. per share 50 0 0 50 0 7
Clericl,Med.&Gen.Life 51. per cent. 100 0 0 210 1 6%
County .. •••••• • • • • • • W. 100 0 0 10 0 0
r 9s. and /
I 6/. ss. bs. j 40 0 0 5 0 0 10
Eagle • 6s. 50 0 0 50 0 5%
Economic Life ... ..... i 58,p3eors.cbt..1 1000 0 0 250 0 0
Eng.& Scot. Law Life.. 51. per cent. 50 0 0 20 0 3
European Life-- -.. 5% per cent. 20 0 0 All paid. 20
Freemasons' .......... 51. per cent. 20 0 0 3 0 0
Globe - 143
Guardian • - .... ••• • • 5/. per cent. 100 0 0 36 10 0 50%
Imperial Fire .. ••• • • • 121. per cent. 500 0 0 50 0 0 230
Imperial Life..... •• • • 12s. 100 0 0 10 0 0 16%
Indemnity Marine •• • • 1/. sh. & be. 100 0 0 513 1 29%
Law Life .. ••••• • • • • • I/. ss. 100 0 0 10 0 0 45%
Legal and General Life - 50 0 0 20 0 6%
London Fire ••••• • • • • 10s. 25 0 0 12 10 0 15%
Itiondon Ship ••.•• • • • • 10s. 25 0 0 12 10 0 15%
Marine ... ..... ••• • • • 5/. per cent. 100 0 0 15 0 0 10%
Med. Invlid & Gen. Life - 50 0 0 2 0 0 3
National Loan Fund• • 51. per cent. 20 0 0 210 0 2%
National Life.
Palladium Life M. per cent. 50 0 0 2 0 0 2/. 2s.
Phoenix - - 195
Protector Life •••• • • • • 5/. par cent. 20 0 0 1 0 0 1/. 2s.
Provident Life. ••• • •
Rock Life •••••• • • • • • • 4s. 50 0 010 0 41i
Royal Exchange 5/. per cent. Stock. - 188
Sun Fire • . • • .• • • • - -
Ditto Life 11. 6s. - -
615 0 18
Universal Life

LIST 01' SCOTTISH COMPANIES' PRICES.
Dividend Amount
Name of Company. per of Paid. Price
Annum. Share.
----
.£ a. d. £ s. d
Bank of Scotland • • ... 6/. per cent. - 100 0 0 177
Royal Bank of Scotland 61. per cent. 100 0 0 171%
British Linen Company 8/' per cent. 100 0 0 230
Commercial Bank •• • • 61. per cent. 100 0 0 174%
National Bank 6/. per cent. ..... 10 0 0 16%
Union Bank of Scotland 7% /. pr cent. 50 0 0 981/ ,2
Western Bank • • • • • •
61. per cent. 50 0 0 85
• •
North of Scotland Bank 61. per cent. 50 0 7%
Clydesdale Bank.• •• .. 61. per cent. 10 0 0 15 y.
Eastern Bank •••• • • " 3/. per cent. 15 0 0 113 X-,
Caledonian Bank ••• • • 61. per cent. 210 0 3%
Edinblk Glasgow Bank 5/. per cent. 50 0 7%
City of Glasgow Bank . 5/. per cent. 815 0 153¢
Scottish Union Ins. Co. 51. per cent. 20 0 0 10 0 PA
Hercules Insurance Co. 71. per cent. 100 0 0 10 0 0 14%
Incur. Co. of Scotlnd.. Si. per cent. 10 0 0 All paid. 10
North British Insur... 9/. per cent. 200 0 0 10 0 0 28%
Caledonian Fire Incur. 101. per cent. 100 0 0 10 0 0 24%
Edinburgh Life Insur. 61. per cent. 100 0 0 10 0 0 19,4
Edin. & Giasg. Railway 51. per cent. 50 0 0 50 0 0 7334
Ditto, Shares.... 51. per cent. 12 10 0 All paid. 18
Edin., Leith, & Grantn 20 0 0 20 0 0 15%
Glasgvr & Ayrshir Rail. 5/. per cent. 50 0 0 All paid. 69
Glasgw&Greenck Rail. 2/. per cent. 25 0 0 All paid. 20%
Gis;,,wB.,Garnkirk Pail. 51. per cent. 145 0 0 All paid. 37%
Dundee& Axbroth Rail. 5/. per cent. [25 0 0 All paid. 36
Standard Life Assumce.l 5/. per cent. 150 0 0 I 2 10 0 I 8