33 data nu ruiug iii ar Haunt.

PRINCIPAL BUSINESS OF THE WEEK,

Horn OP LORD8.—Monday, June 19. The Eastern Question ; Lord Lyndhurst's Speech—Excise-duties Bill read a third time and passed.

Tuesday, 20. No Sitting. Th urs , June 22. Breach of Privilege ; Lord Clanricarde's Complaint--En- cumbered states (West Indies); the Duke of Newcastle's Bill read a second time —Canada Legislative Council Bill postponed—Church-building Acts Amendment Bill read a third time and passed—Public Statues Bill committed—Witnesses; Lord Brougham's Bill read a third time and passed—Customs-duties Bill read a third time and passed. Friday, June 23. Russian Blockades; the Duke of Newcastle's Statement—Lord Aberdeen's Speech; Notice of Explanations from Lord Aberdeen, for Monday next.

HOWE OP COMMON8,—Monday, June 19. Mr. Strutt's Explanation—Oxford lJni- versity Bill reported as amended—Supply ; Civil Estimates—Parochial School- masters (Scotland) Bill read a second time—Juvenile Offenders; Lord Palmer- ston's Bill read a first time.

Tuesday, June 20. Wreck and Salvage ; Mr. Cardwell's Bill committed—Baron de Bode; Mr. Chambers's Motion negatived. Wednesday, June 21. Registration of Bills of Sale Bill committed—Church-rates ; Sir William Clay's Bill thrown out on the second reading—Bankruptcy (Ireland) Bill read a second time.

Thursday, June 22. Drainage of Lands; Mr. Her Seymer's Bill committed—Ox- ford University Bill considered as amended; Mr. Ile7ood's Dissenters-Admission Clause carried against Ministers by 252 to 161—Excise-duties (Sugar) Bill read a third time and passed. Friday, June 22. Lord Aberdeen's Speech of Monday ; Mr. Layard to call at- tention to it on Thursday next—Oxford University; Lord JohnRussell's Bill further considered—Convict Prisons (Ireland) Bill read a second time—Supply; Estimate for Prisoners of War—Stamp Acts Bill reported.

TIME- TABLE.

The Lords.

The Commons.

Hour of Hour of

Hour of Hour of

Meeting. Adjournment.

Meeting. Adjournment.

Monday

Oh 5m Monday 4h .(m) lh Om Tuesday No sitting. Tuesday Noon.... 1h Om

6h .(m) 12h 15m Wednesday No sitting. Wednesday

Noon „ Oh 30m

Thursday 5h Oh Om Thursday Noon . 4h Om

6h ,(et) lOm Friday 5h .... 712 Mtn Friday 4h .114) 111 30m Sittings this Week, 3; Time, Oh 402a — this Session, 69; — 169h Om Sittings this Week, 7; Time, 46h 36m — this Session. 90; — 62355 22Ea

ThE GERMAN Comers AND Taz WAS.

Lord LYNDHURST, on Monday, called the attention of the Peers to the memorandum relative to the Eastern question transmitted by the Cabinets of Vienna and Berlin to their Envoys at Frankfort to be presented to the Diet. Although it had not been laid on the table of the House, and per- haps could not be in point of form, he presumed it had been read by most of their Lordships, as it had been widely published both on the Continent and in this country. It has given rise to much discussion, and has been viewed with much anxiety and uneasiness by some persons ; and be there- fore thought it his duty to submit it to the House and the Government, in order that a distinct understanding might be come to with respect to it. The first passage. was this—" Both Cabinets have agreed with those of Paris and London in the conviction that the conflict between Russia and Turkey could not be prolonged without affecting the general interests of Europe, and those also of their own states. They acknowledged tit common, that the maintenance of the integrity of the Ottoman empire and the independence of the Sultan's Government are necessary coo. ditiona of the political balance ; and that the war should under no cir- cumstances have for result any change in existing territorial positions."— The correct interpretation of this passage means " territorial positions" as between Turkey on one aide and Russia on the other. The passage is not so precise as to be free from all doubt ; but if any doubt exists, it will effec. tually be removed by referring to the protocol of the 5th December. In that document the four Powers express themselves in these terms—" In fact, the existence of Turkey in the limits assigned to her by treaty is one of the necessary conditions of the balance of power inEurope ; and the undersigned plenipotentiaries record with satisfaction, that the existing war cannot in any case lead to modifications in the territorial boundaries of the two em- pires, which would be calculated to alter the state of possession in the Ead established for a length of time, and which is equally necessary for the tran- quillity of all the other Powers."—It is therefore perfectly clear from the protocol, that no alteration is to take place, whatever be the result of the war, in the territorial limits between Russia on one aide and Turkey on the other ; in other words, the status quo ante helium is to remain established. But it may be said that the protocol referred to was framed previously to France and England entering into war with Russia. It was so; but after war had been entered into, the four Powers met, and in distinct terms con- firmed the principle upon which former protocols had been founded. It is therefore extremely difficult to come to any other conclusion than that, what- ever be the results of the war, we are to put an end to it by restoring Russia to and leaving Turkey in the same state as that in which they were anterior to the commencement of hostilities.

The memorandum referred to adopts the same language, and goes on to say—" The last of the protocols shows that, although France and Great Bri- tain have entered into the war against Russia, the four Cabinets invariably adhere to the principle proclaimed heretofore by them in common, and have united in regard to the basis on which to deliberate as respects the appro- priate means for obtaining the object of their endeavours." In conclusion, they came to this determination, that the principle laid down in the original protocol is to be acted upon whatever may be the result of the war. Un- doubtedly, that is the principle on which Austria and Prussia are now act- ing; and if Russia agreed to withdraw from the Principalities and guarantee the integrity of the Ottoman empire, Austria and Prussia would withdraw from the contest; and if that be true with respect to these two Powers Ivhen they are acting in common and in one common principle with the two other, Powers, it is clear almost to demonstration that we also must be content to terminate the war upon that principle. But in the memorandum Austria appears to be acting inconsistently with that principle ; for she declares in the strongest possible terms, that the free navigation of the Danube is of the utmost importance not to her alone but to Europe. Now, what is the state of that river ? By the unfortunate treaty of Adrianople, Russia secured to herself both banks of the Danube, and the right of establishing a quarantine in one of the islands; and thus for many years she has had the absolute control of that river, and she bas effectually interrupted its free navigation. Remonstrances have had no effect ; and therefore unless Russia be removed from that position, the free navigation of the Danube cannot be insured. It has been said that all this may be arranged by treaty : but no faith can be placed in a treaty of this kind made with Russia. She has had a treaty with Austria on the subject for fifteen years, Russia engaging to keep the river open, Austria to pay a toll ; yet Russia has done nothing to keep the river open—she has obstructed the navigation, but she has extorted the toll. The consequence is that in- tended—great advantage has been given to the rival port of Odessa. The Turks left sixteen feet of water at the mouth, now it is reduced to only nine. The papers laid on the table afford a lively instance of the shuffling, the mendacious policy, the diplomatic craft and falsehood of the Court of St. Petersburg. To secure that object which Austria and Germany deem so important—the free navigation of the Danube—a change must take place in the territorial possession of the mouths of the Danube : but that object is in contradiction with the principle that the status quo is not to be altered.

"We have, by the superiority of the combined fleets, shut up the Russian fleet in the harbour of SebastopoL They cannot come out, encountering our superior ships of war ; and in consequence of this they have been compelled to desert and destroy all their establishments, except that of Anapa, on the Eastern coast of the Black Sea,—a whole chain of forts which they have been fifty years in constructing, in order to extend their territories in that direction, and keep open their communication with the country South of Circassia. Can it be supposed possible, after we have encouraged the Cir- cassians by every means in our power to oppose themselves to the Russian forces, that we are prepared to restore their country again to Russia, by placing that power in the same position which she occupied before the war. How unjust would that be to the Circassians, and to our allies in that part of the world ! I think it would be wrong to conclude that such a course of pro- ceeding could by any possibility, or under any circumstances, be adopted." , "If we are to place Russia in the situation, as far as territorial position is concerned, which she occupied before, whatever the events of the war may be, what will be her future position with respect to Turkey ? After the ter- mination of the war, which ended by that unfortunate and disastrous treaty of Adrianople, Count Nesselrode, by the direction of the Emperor of Bassist wrote to the Grand Duke Constantine at Warsaw, giving him an account oi the provisions of that treaty and the relative situations of Russia and Tur- key in consequence ; and I wish to refer to the language of Count Newel rode for the purpose of showing in what position Turkey will stand in fu- ture with respect to Russia if the status quo ante helium be adopted. He says—' The Turkish monarchy is reduced to exist only under the protection of Russia, and must comply in future with her wishes. The possession of the Principalities is of the less importance to us, as without maintaining troops there, which would be attended with considerable expense, we shall dispose of them at our pleasure, as well during peace as in tune of war. We shall hold the keys of a position from which it will be easy to keep the Turkish Government in check, and the Sultan will feel that any attempt to brave us again must end in his certain ruin.' "

The policy which Russia would pursue when unembarrassed by European combinations against her was shown by the counsel given by Prince Lieven,

who was consulted previously to the commencement of the war terminating in the treaty of Adrianople. "The words of Prince Lieveu are—' Our policy must be to maintain a reserved and prudent attitude until the moment ar- rives for Russia to vindicate her rights, and for the rapid action which she will be obliged to adopt. The war ought to take Europe by surprise. Our movements must be prompt, so that the other Powers should find it impos- sible to be prepared for the blow that we are about to strike.' That is just the policy which Russia is likely to pursue if she is restored, whatever may be the events of the present war, to the position which she occupied at the conclusion of the treaty of Adrianople." "Give me leave to call your attention to another document of no incon- siderable interest connected with this subject—a document contemporaneous with the letter to which I have referred. The Emperor of Russia was dis- satisfied with the conduct of the other Powers of Europe with respect to the course they pursued at the time of the great Greek insurrection. He wanted to adopt a policy of his own, and to advance his own purposes upon Turkey. He therefore freed himself from his allies, and determined to act for himself; but, secret and reserved as to the course he should pursue, he resolved not to take any measure without the utmost caution, and before making him- self acquainted with the whole circumstances of his position. He directed Count Nesselrode to write to the different Russian Ambassadors at the Euro- pean Courts, inquiring what course they were likely to take if he entered the Principalities with a view to coerce Turkey. He wanted to know, in the first place, what course they were likely to adopt individually, and in the second place, what probability there was of any concert between them. The answers are interesting. Some of my noble friends in this House have read them, and I can assure your Lordships that they are of the most curious description. Perhaps the most interesting is that of Count Pozzo di Borgo, who extends his observations to all the principal Powers of Europe. He begins first with England ; and in answer to the question of what England will do, Count Pozzo di Borgo says—' England has recovered from her finan- cial and commercial crisis. She is in a condition to go to war. She perhaps may oppose you, and may be able to do you considerable mischief on the sea, but not an injury that is altogether irretrievable. With regard to her military forces, she can do nothing. She cannot oppose the march of your armies; and therefore I submit that the Emperor has nothing to fear from England.' He next goes to France, and after lavishing some abuse upon the Minister, he answers the question of what France is capable of doing in the following terms—' As to the marine of France, it would be of no importance whatever, because everything that could be done by naval forces would be effected by England. With regard to her military forces, her internal con- dition would prevent her sending them against us ; and, besides, her armies Well know when they come into contact with ours, what they have to ex- pect:—My Lords, we shall see what will be the result of that meeting with respect to which Pozzo di Borgo, who I believe was a Corsican' expressed so confident an opinion ; and perhaps the Emperor may see that England and France have now raised a barrier against his ambition greater than he ever expected to meet. (Cheers.) Count Pozzo di forgo having stated his opinion with respect to England and France, and having come to the con- clusion that even if united together they cannot by any possibility prevent the accomplishment of the projects of Russia, then proceeds to Austria ; and, after expressing the utmost rage and indignation against Prince Metternich, who at that time was anxious to form an alliance between the four Powers against Russian ambition, he goes on to say= To every country war is a calamity ; to Austria it is certain ruin.' The result, therefore, of his con- siderations and his advice was, that the Emperor might prosecute his design without any seeming embarrassment, because none of those powers, either collectively or individually, would be able to oppose him with success. Such is the policy, the caution, the perpetual activity of Russia, always bent upon increasing her power—sometimes by silent means, sometimes by falsehood and trickery, and sometimes by open violence, as in the case to which I have referred. But before I go further I must refer to Prussia. I quite forgot Prussia. (A laugh.) I do not wish to read all the remarks of Count Pozzo di Borgo with regard to Prussia : they might weaken some very tender friendships at the present moment. (A laugh.) It has been said, I know not with what truth, that a change has taken place in the policy of Prussia. I can assure your Lordships, however, that the cohesion between Russia and Prussia is of long standing. Count Pozzi di Borgo says—' Being less jealous, and consequently more impartial, Prussia has constantly shown by her opinions that she has a just idea of the nature and importance of the affairs of the East ; and if the Court of Vienna had shared her views and her good intentions, there can be no doubt that the plans of the Imperial Cabinet would have been accomplished.' I may say this very moment, that if the Cabinet of Vienna had shared' the views and the good intentions' of Prussia some short time back, the objects of Russia might have been accomplished. "Count Nesselrode expresses himself in these terms—' The Count Alopeus transmits to us the most positive assurances, which leave no doubt touching the favourable dispositions on which Russia may reckon on the part of Prussia, whatever may be the ultimate course of events.' Now, my Lords, I have gone through the opinions expressed by Count Pozzo di Borgo and Count Nesselrode upon the Western Powers of Europe, and as to what the Emperor had to fear either from th3ir separate opposition or from their union ; and I think they afford us a satisfactory lesson of the precaution which we ought to exercise, of the apprehensions which we ought always to entertain, of the proceedings of the Court of St. Petersburg in endeavouring to carry out and effect the long-desired object of the annexation of Turkey to the empire of Russia."

Now what is to be the guarantee of the integrity of Turkey ? The gua- rantee of the four Powers will be valid as long as they hold together and do not quarrel. But the guarantee of Russia will not be worth the paper on which it might be written. Look at a recent instance. Sir Hamilton Sey- mour heard that troops were being collected on the Turkish frontier, and he mentioned it to Count Nesselrode; but Count Nesselrode contradicted the statement ; saying it was only an ordinary change of quarters, usual at that season of the year. Is this the system, and are these the persons, on whose assurances we are to depend ? A noble Lord on the cross-benches had made an eloquent but not convincing speech as to the necessity of placing confidence in a person with whom we might be negotiating ; but when great interests are depending, caution, jealousy, foresight, should characterize our negotiations. "I am of the same mind as Charles Fox was when he said he preferred the old Parliamentary word 'jealousy' to the modern one con- fidence.' (Cheers and laughter.) When the interests of millions are at stake—when the liberties of mankind are in issue—away with confidence. Confidence generally ends in credulity." (Loud cheers.)

The history of Russia is a history of fraud, duplicity, trickery, artifice and violence. The Russian Government has all the characteristics of Asiatic barbarism. St. Petersburg is only a second ToboL3k. As Pitt said of Na- poleon nothing is too vast for her aim, nothing too small for her rapacity. ohetuls doubled her European territories within half a century. She goes to Khiva—for what purpose ? Aggression and lust of territory. She sends two armies to gain a place which is not of the slightest value except as a po- sition to enable her to extend her power and influence, and to annoy us in Stn. territories in the East She has now attained her object ; but the expe- dittons for securing Khiva and the Sea of Aral were prepared and sent out in a tune when she was at peace with us. "I might go on for ever with these

transactions." In the most recent instance, while Nicholas was pretending to protect Turkey and trying to cajole the Sultan, he was planning the partition of his empire. Count Nesselrode assured our Government that Prince Menschikoff's mission only related to a dispute between the Greek and Latin churches : Prince Menschikoff sent a military officer to Athens, and the Greek insurrection was the result.

" These circumstances should put us on our guard against placing the slightest reliance on any engagements into which Russia may enter. We must have guarantees for the fulfilment of her undertakings. I do not mean personal guarantees—they are worthless. Russia has coined a new phrase of which we may avail ourselves—'material guarantees.' (Cheers and laugh- ter.)Russia must give us what she calls material guarantees ; and if we hold in pledge or mortgage something valuable which she would not like to lose, we may hope to bind her to her word ; but as for moral guarantees— her faith, her honour, or her word—they are one and all valueless. What course,' I may be asked, ' would you propose to pursue ? ' My reply is, that that would depend a good deal on the events of the war. ("Hear, hear !" from the Ministerial benches.) This, howevef, I unhesitatingly declare, that in no event, except that of extreme necessity, ought we to make peace without previously destroying the Russian fleet in the Black Sea, and laying prostrate the fortifications by which it is defended. (Great cheering.) If we leave Russia that fleet and those defences, we leave her in a position in which she will be sure to coerce Turkey., because in that case Turkey. must—to use the words I have already quoted

— be submissive to her will. I know not what course Austria intends to pursue ; but I think I may venture to state that in Hes matter she has far more at stake than either England or France. Should Russia hold per- manent possession of the Principalities, the whole Southern frontier, and indeed the independence of Austria, would be threatened. If this monstrous — I know not what to call it—this leviathan which stretches forth its arms so many thousand miles from West to East, and presses on the Northern and Eastern frontiers of Austria, should also succeed in establishing itself on her Southern frontier, Austria must be crushed. What course Russia will take if she should succeed in obtaining possession of the provinces of Turkey in Europe it is not for me to predict. That she will not stand still—that she will not remain stationary, is certain. She knows—to use the emphatic language of the Emperor—that surrounding nations contemplate her colos- sal power with awe, and know that her vast armies only await the signal for pouring like a deluge over the states and kingdoms of the world. My Lords, I feel strongly on this subject ; I believe that if this barbarous nation —this enemy of all progress except that which tends to strengthen and con- solidate its own power—which punishes education as a crime—should once succeed in establishing itself in the heart of Europe, it would be the greatest calamity that could befall the human race." (Continued cheering.)

The Earl of CIARENDON before replying to the substance of Lord Lyndhurst's speech, remarked in point of form, that the House was not in a position to pass judgment upon the memorandum referred to ; a docu- ment the contents of which most of their Lordships had, he believed, that night heard for the first time.

The document merely recapitulated the transactions in which the Four Powers were concerned, and stated that they were resolved to maintain the independence and integrity of the Turkish empire. Austria and Prussia had concluded an offensive and defensive treaty, which they communicated to the Diet, in order to secure the union of Germany and the support of the armed force of the Confederation for German interests. It was not only natural, therefore, but indispensable, that the declaration of Austria and Prussia should have reference to German interests alone ; and therefore they in- formed the Confederation, that the military occupation of the Lower Danube would prove fatal to the material and political interests of Germany. The ambiguous allusion to the status quo has reference solely to German interests on the Lower Danube ; and the object of the declaration is to announce that the contracting Powers would not consent to territorial changes in any of the great states of Europe that would injuriously affect German interests.

After the philippic they had heard against "confidence," he was almost afraid to confess his confidence in Austria. Full allowance is not made for her difficult position. Her alliance, especially as far as the inland operations of the army arc concerned, is essential to us; and it would not be out of place to state the facts on which he founded his confidence in Austria. She cannot remain neutral, because if Russia possessed Constantinople and closed the mouths of the Danube, the commercial prosperity of Germany would be destroyed, and Austria would not be the independent ally, but the ignomi- nious vassal of Russia. She has not shared the ignominious awe with which some of the German Powers look upon the imaginary omnipotence of Russia; she has not yielded to the influence arising from Russia's claim to her grati- tude; and from the moment that Austria and Prussia rejected Russia s de- mand for a convention, a separation took place between Austria and Russia. It is said that Austria has not moved with vigour : but it must be borne in mind that in 1853 she did not believe war possible; she did not think the conservative Emperor of Russia would become the disturber of the peace of Europe. We must also remember that the Emperor of Austria had a strong personal regard for the Emperor of Russia ; and that an alliance with the Western Powers on the part of Austria was "nothing less than a complete revolution—a change of policy so great as was not to be expected." When he found that the object of the Em- peror of Russia was not peace, he brdered the concentration of thirty thou- sand men on the frontier between Transylvania and the borders of Walla- chia; formed a treaty with the Porte that troops should enter Servia if the Russians did so ; and was prepared to act more vigorously, but had been prevented by insurmountable obstacles. He did, however, agree to the protocol of the 9th April ; formed an offensive and defensive treaty with Prussia ; and by an additional article of that treaty, not communicated to the Conference, because it had reference to matters beyond what imme- diately concerned Germany, it was provided that Austria and Prussia should require Russia to suspend all warlike operations within the Turkish terri- tory, and make no onward movement ; it farther provided that a definite answer should be demanded on these two points; and if that answer should not give complete satisfaction, then by the Convention, Austria and Prussia pledged themselves to take the offensive. At the beginning of this month that determination was formally announced to Russia ; in anticipation of an unfavourable answer, Austria proposed a convention with the Porte, per- mitting Austrian troops to enter the Principalities ; and, said Lord Claren- don "my belief is that at the close of this month, or at the beginning of next, the Austrian army, fully organized and equipped for active service, will amount to three hundred thousand men." Under these circumstances, we may feel some confidence in the assurances of Austria, that her objects are the *lame as our own. Nor could he believe that, after the knowledge Austria has acquired of Russian policy, and her experience of the value of Russian friendship, she will be so wanting to her interest and dignity as to conclude such a peace as that alluded to by Lord Lyndhurst—" which could be nothing but a short and hollow truce ; a peace to which Englaed could not be a party,"—(Loud cheers)—and which would leave Austria at the mercy of Russia, and Europe "for ever afterwards subject to the pernicious influence and oppressive policy of that Power."

"My noble and learned friend has asked what were the terms which would be proposed for effecting a peace with Russia. My Lords, I cannot possibly say, any more than my noble and learned friend, upon what terms peace can be made. That must depend upon the chances and the contingen- cies of war. And indeed, my Lords, if I did know upon what terms we alone would be prepared to make peace—if I was prepared to say that we would accept no other terms than those which the noble and learned Lord himself would accede to—I assure your Lordships it would be the most imprudent course I could possibly take. But this we know, that the policy of Russia, and the power she has hitherto possessed of carrying it out, have been and are dangerous to the peace and wellbeing of Europe, and that both are adverse to the cause of progress and of civilization. And we also know, that the object and interest of Europe must be to curtail that power and to check that policy. We know that the means of doing it are now so great and effectual, and that the opportunity is so wonderfully favourable, that if we were now to neglect it we should in vain hope for its return. (Cheers.) All Europe is not to be disturbed, great interests are not to be injured, the people are not to have fresh burdens imposed upon them, great social and commercial relations are noteto be abruptly torn asunder, and all the greatest Powers of Europe are not to be united in arms, for an insignificant result. I -think you must agree that repression will only postpone the danger, and that safety can alone be found in curtailing a power which menaces the peace of Europe and the cause of progress and civilization." (Cheering.)

The Earl of DERBY made a brief speech, supporting the view which Lord Lyndhurst took of the treaties between Austria and Prussia ; and

he contended that shold Russia evacuate the Principalities, Austria and Prussia might consideFtheir obligations at an end. At the close of his speech he treated of the conditions of peace.

He was rejoiced more than he could express on hearing that declaration repeated by Lord Clarendon ; because sure he was that the people of this country, greatly as they might be indisposed to enter upon a war at all, much as they might feel the pressure upon their interests, much as they might recoil from all the dangers and all the horrors that would be incurred, their disinclination would be infinitely greater to arrive at the conclusion of a shameful and a dishonourable peace; and a dishonourable peace he was confident they would declare that to be which would not effectually cheek the growing ambition of Russia, and restrain her not merely within her ex- isting limits, but rescue from her those portions of her conquests which ren- dered her so arrogant and overbearing, and take from her those territories which should afford a material guarantee against a renewal of those ambi- tious projects by which any further disturbance of the peace of Europe might be effectually and permanently prevented. (Cheers.) But this he would say, that the people of this country, having expended very large sums of money, having made incredible exertions, and being prepared to make still greater exertions and meet all the inconveniences of a war, he was convinced they would not be satisfied unless the Government resolved that from hence- forth there should be security taken for the independence, not of Turkey alone, but of the neighbouring states of Russia, against Russian aggression. But above all, as Lord Lyndhurst had said, one great object with them ought to be—as well in point of honour as of policy—not to desert that gallant people whose course we had advised, and who had so valiantly pursued that -course—not to make our own terms, and then finally leave them to the ven- geance of Russia when she had no other enemy to deal with. Were we to adopt such a course, we should be guilty of a base betrayal of our duty. (Cheers.) For the future, it was impossible to permit that the Black Sea should be a Russian lake, or that the Danube should be a Russian ditch choked with mud and filth. (Cheers.) We must have a material guarantee for the peace of Europe ; and he rejoiced in the language which had been held by his noble friend on the part of her Majesty's Government. That language would give perfect satisfaction ; and he trusted that the country would see it followed up by the whole of her Majesty's Government, by acts as vigorous and decisive as Lord Clarendon's language.

The Earl of ABERDEEN said, that after Lord Clarendon's full expres- sion of the views and intentions of the Government, little remained for him to say ; but he could not help making a few observations on the speech of Lord Lyndhurst.

That speech would have been more appropriate three months ago, when it might have been necessary to stimulate the indignation and the martial feelings of the country ; but now that we are at war with Russia, that eloquent and protracted philippic was not required. It reminded Lord Aberdeen of old times. "I recollect, twenty-five years ago, having had the pleasure of making known to him, then sitting on the woolsack, the French Ambassador of the day, a man of lively imagination and much wit; and the Ambas- sador's observation to me afterwards was—' Chancellor, do you call him ? surely, he is a colonel of dragoons.'" (General laughter.) Lord Lyndhurst's speech partook of the characteristic thus ascribed to him. Lord Aberdeen was happy to see that he retained all his vigour and martial energy ; but his speech would have been more appropriate before we entered into war then now, when incentives to hostilities are not needed. As the war was strictly defensive at its commencement, he could fully understand the cause of the apparent ambiguity of the expressions referred to. Her Majesty declared war to resist the unjustifiable aggressions of Russia against the Turkish territory—such was then exclusively the cause of war. Therefore it never occurred to provide against Turkish conquests on Russian territory. Consequently, there might be ambiguity in confining the objects of the war to those points, and in not having in view the possibility of any encroachments on the Russian territory : but that does not follow the least in the world from any engagement to which we are parties. Austria is an independent power, acting with a view to her own interests and the in- terests of Europe ; but if she do not go further than those engagensepts, what power have we to compel her ? Austria is now listening to the advice of that veteran and able statesman Prince Metternich ; and, no doubt, she will be guided by him, and by a due regard to her own interests and those or Europe. "As to the conditions with which we would be satisfied, en the conclusion of war, and the objects which we should have in view, it would be both premature and unwise to pretend now to decide. My noble and learned friend, to be sure, has given the Emperor of Russia due notice that he had better lose no time in fortifying Sebastopol ; for my noble and learned friend has already announced his desire to lay his hand on that stronghold, and I dare say his Majesty the Emperor will follow my noble and learned friend's advice. (Laughter.) But the conditions for the termination of hostilities are, I say, these which can only be described by the expression, 'a just and honourable peace.' Now, that must depend in great measure on the pro- gress of the war. If it should happen that you find the Russians at Constan- tinople, it is perfectly clear that the conditions of peace may be very differ- ent from what they might be if the Allies find themselves at St. Petersburg. Therefore, the whole course of negotiations must be based on the progress of events. All I can say is, that at all times I shall advocate an honourable peace, though bent on obtaining the great objects we have in view—the se- curity, integrity, and independence of the Porte, and, as far as reasonable, what is called the security of Europe ; which, however, I cannot say I feel to

be very much in danger by the chance of _Russian aggression. For let me re- mind my noble and learned friend, that si hen that disastrous treaty of Adrian- ople, to which he refers, was concluded, at a time when the Russian troops were within fifty miles of Constantinople—a treaty, I admit, to be most onerous and disastrous—still no acquisition of Turkish territory was made by Russia. (Intimations ofdissent.) Two or three small ports in Asia were taken possession of by Russia, but not an inch of territory in Europe ; and the Principalities were evacuated. [An exclamation of The Danube r] The Danube ?—No doubt ! I have already expressed my opinion in this House with regard to the treaty of Adrianople ; and no one has ever described the disastrous and onerous nature of its conditions more strongly than myself. But I say, considering the position at that time of the Russian army, which was almost at the gates of Constantinople that treaty did not show any great desire of territorial aggrandizement. Ind what happened since that treaty was made, twenty-five years ago ? Since that moment has Russia ac- quired a single inch of Turkish territory? Has Russia had any hostility with Turkey at all ?—None in the world. The only interference that Russia has had with Turkey has been to save the existence of the Turkish empire by sending a Russian army to Constantinople to protect it against Egyptian invasion. That is all that has happened since the treaty of Adrianople. There has been no war, there has been no aggression, but only a single service rendered to Turkey by Russia. I think that if we can secure tran- quillity for twenty-five years to come, we shall not do amiss; - and that ought to be the object we should have in view. I quite agree with those who, not- withstanding they may have been led away by the excitement of the moment at the commencement of hostilities, still think that we ought never to close our ear to the voice of peace ; and I for one, so long, or as soon as ever I see the prospect of a just and honourable peace in view, shall most cer- tainly endeavour to attain it. Now, this may not suit the spirits of those who are more bent upon hostile measures ; but it must not be taken as im- plying that I am indifferent to the conduct of the war. On the contrary, I venture to say, that those who most desire peace may be most prepared to carry on war with the utmost vigour and determination—not to wreak ven- geance on an enemy for whom personally we can feel no hatred, but to ob- tain with more certainty and security such a peace as we ought to desire. That is the reason and that is the motive which will induce me to carry on the war with the utmost possible vigour : and I do trust, that in carrying on war, animated by these feelings, which ought to inspire all Christian na- tions' we may look for the attainment of the great object, peace, in a shorter time than many noble Lords think probable?' ("Hear, hear !") After a few words from Lord BEAUMONT, commenting on the difference between the language of Lord Clarendon and Lord Aberdeen, the subject dropped.

In the House of Commons on the same evening, Mr. COBDEN having asked that a day might be fixed for discussing the papers relating,to the Greek insurrection, so that Lord John Russell might make some expla- nation, Lord Josue RUSSELL said that he could not fix a day; especially if Mr. Cobden merely wanted him to make a speech, and did not intend himself to bring forward a motion. Also in reply to Mr. BRIGHT, Lord Joins said that he had not heard the rumour that Lord Stratford had been recalled from Constantinople; and certainly it is not true.

OXFORD ThervEasrrsz REFORM.

Further 'progress was made with the Oxford University Bill on Mon- day. In Committee, Lord Joule RUSSELL stated that the two additional Commissioners would be Mr. Cornewall Lewis and the Earl of Harrowby. The two Secretaries would be Mr. Goldwin Smith and the Reverend Mr. Wayte.

Mr. Maack= moved a clause, to the effect that "it shall henceforward be unlawful to administer any oath on admission to any office or emolu- naent in the University or the Colleges thereof." Mr. GLADSTONE remarked, that the bill provided for the abolition of that class of oaths relating to the statutes, but did not touch promissory oaths; and as there is a difference of opinion in the University with respect to the latter, it will be better to leave the whole matter for the consideration of the University and the Commissioners. The clause was negatived by 109 to 71. Mr. J. G. PHILLIMORE moved a clause, enacting "that from and after the 1st day of December next ensuing, no person shall on account of his rank be permitted to pass his examination, or to take a degree, sooner than any other under-graduate." Negatived by 67 to 66. Mr. BOWYER proposed, but subsequently withdrew a clause, the object of which was to restore to the University the faculty of Law, by pro- viding that the degreo of Civil Law should be bona fide a test of the qualification of the person taking the degree. On the motion of Mr. GL,U)STONE, all the words in the preamble re- ferring to collegiate endowments were struck out, became the substance of them has been carried into clause 31.

The House resumed ; and the bill as amended was reported.

On Thursday, when the bill, as amended, was "considered," Mr. HEYWOOD moved two clauses; the first of which was as follows- " From and after the 1st day of Michaelmas term 1854, it shall not be necessary for any person' upon matriculating in the University of Oxford, to make or subscribe any declaration, or to take any oath, save the oath of allegiance, or an equivalent declaration of allegiance, any law or statute to the contrary notwithstanding." Oxford, Mr. Heywood said, is the only University where students are required to subscribe articles of religion on their matriculation. It was neither beneficial to the University nor to the students. The subject was not new ; and efforts had been made at different times, ever since 1772, to get rid of these oaths. He briefly narrated the history of the Articles, to show that, although they were acceptable to the nation three handred years ago, they do not represent the opinions of the present day. MF, COLLIER seconded the motion; pointing to Cambridge as an ex- ample that the introduction of: Dissenters does not subvert discipline and disorgaWze the studies of the University. In the course of the debate, Mr. MILNER GIBSON urged that the House should pass the measure, and let the House of Lords take the peril of throwing it out. He appealed to Lord John Russell for his speech and vote, and asked the Government to make it an open question. As ori- ginally constituted, there were no teats in the University, and there is no reason there should be any now. Lord John Russell's Church-rate speech on Wednesday had acted like a rocket among his Liberal sup- porters, and Mr. Gibson hoped he would make some reparation. Sir Torts RAMSDEN, as a member of the Established Church, argued against the intolerance of the exclusion, and insisted that its abolition would benefit the University. Lord STANLEY supported the clause, but could not go the length of abolishing religious tests for degrees. Ministers had dealt with this question as they do with every question of principle— they would not oppose it on any broad principle; and the result was convenient to them, but not to the country. Mr. LUCAS said, that he should vote for the clause, but he did not believe the Boman Catholics

would take advantage of the alteration. Mr. W. J. Fox dwelt upon the fact that no one had shown the necessity, moral or intellectual, for subscribing the Thirty-nine Articles; and argued against the immo- rality of that proceeding.

On the other side, Sir Wihrashu Heaencorn dwelt on the great diffi- culties there would be in disassociating secular from religious instruc- tion; and insisted that the University has always been identified with the Church. Mr. HENLEY said that the clause would lead to "complete heathenism." Mr. ROUNDELL PALMER contended at great length, and with a plentiful use of historical references, that the University of Ox- ford has always been the public school of religious education in connexion with the principles of the Church of England ; and that it was founded for that end. Even Lord Stanley, the son of the Chancellor of Oxford, would not go the length of his own principle ; but said, "I will admit to the University, but not to the endowments." Mr. Palmer had no bigoted feeling towards the Dissenters; he would do all he could, con- sistently with duty, to secure their good-will, but he would do no more. The three Cabinet Ministers who spoke necessarily occupied a more prominent position than the other speakers. Early in the debate, Mr. SIDNEY HERBERT expressed the views of the Government. The exclu- sive system at Oxford can no longer be maintained; it is not politic, it is not justifiable. But how is the admission of Dissenters to be obtained ? By adopting the clause, the success of the bill else- where will be imperilled ; the friends of practical reform in the Univer- sity will be discomfited, and new strength will be given to the retrograde party. Besides, it will not be wise to force the change on the University, thereby showing distrust of the new governing body they had created. His colleagues were of the same opinion as himself with respect to the ad- mission of Dissenters; and the object would really be advanced by de- laying to legislate. Mr. GLADSTONE added to these arguments, and ex- Tended them. He could never admit that the interests and position of the Church of England had no place in the discussion. While the Church is a national establishment, the instruction and government of the Uni- versity must be in conformity with the religion of the Church of England. So far as the endowments are connected with government, the Church claimed them ; other classes of endowment should be placed on a general footing. But if you admit Disseaters, you must admit Roman Catholics. With regard to the position of the Government, they had obtained great support in the University by keeping this question separate from the bill ; and to assent to this motion would be an ill return for the advantage they had derived from that support. The bill is an emancipating one ; it establishes a new and free constitution, but leaves everything else to — the University itself. Yet they were asked to make the admission of Dissenters an exception. Is that a practical proposition ? But the pro- posed clause would not secure the admission of Dissenters, because that exclusion can easily be effected without any recourse to the matricula- tion-test. If they left the matter to the University, the difficulties could be satisfactorily arranged by the willing application of men's minds. He deprecated anything like a menace to the Universities, but he could not say he would trust them for ever. Lord Joins- Wheel.", rose after Mr. Roundel! Palmer, and brought the debate to a close. He took up two positions. The first was, that the Dissenters ought to be admitted to the Univemity, and to the enjoyment of its emoluments and privileges, but should not become part of the governing body, because it is necessary that they should be members of

the Church of England, and dispensers elite religious instruction. But the nation ought to partake of its benefits; and bars ought not to be set up at every .entranoe, depriving a great portion of the people of those ad- vantages. It is the duty of the State to open the door; and whether Dissenters and Roman Catholics choose to enter or not, is matter for their Own consideration. This brought him to his second position—that the improvement

The question has been debated at intervals, and it is now six or seven years-since it was introduced. "This shows that the Dissenters have not thought the question one of pressing urgency. They have shown their will- lingness to wait. Having waited AO long, why not wait a few years longer ? (" Oh, ai" and laughter.) I believe that if you press the question now, you will fail in canning it, and that if you press it a few years hence you are pretty certain to succeed. (Laughter, and" Oki") For nay part, I have always voted for the admission of Dissenters to the Universities when- ever the question has -been brought an. It is not my fault that the question has not been pressed every year if it had, I should have voted for it : but I cannot consent to the introduction of the clause into this bill, because I think it would cause the measure to be defeated."

The House divided—for the clause, 252; against it 161; majority against Ministers, 9L The victorious party cheered long and lustily when the numbers were announced.

Mr. HEYWOOD than moved his second clause, expressed in similar terms,—to the effect that persons taking degrees in art, medicine or law, should not be obliged to subscribe any declaration or take any ot:th, save the oath of allegiance. Lord Joust RUSSELL said, after the decisive vote just given, he would not take a division. But Mr. Wahrohn said, if he went alone into the lobby he would oppose this motion. The first clause simply said that Dissenters should be admitted; the second would enable them to form part of the governing body.

The House divided a second time—For the clause, 196; against it 20.5; majority against the clause, 9.

Lord 'Dish RUSSELL proposed to take the report on Friday and the third reading on Monday.

SiB. WILLIAM CLAY'S CHURCH-RATE BILL.

On the motion for the second reading of Sir William Clay's bill abolish- ing Church-rates without providing a substitute, Mr. GOULBURN moved that the bill be read a second time that day six months. The bill, he con- tended, was unjust in principle, and opposed to every dictate of Christian charity. The payment of church-rates secured to the poor free access to public worship, and the abolition would prevent the poor from attending church. It was proposed by some that churches should be maintained by pew-rents : what are pew-rents but the exclusion of the poor ? If we ac- knowledge the principle that conscientious objections should exempt from the payment of rates, we should not only overthrow the Church but many other institutions. The law of church-rates requires considerable amend- ment, but he would never vanetion the abolition of the Tatee al together. Many Members engaged in the debate. Mr. Pelihrr, Mr. MUM:LOUGH, Mr. EDWARD Bahr., Mr. HORSHAN, Mr. YERNoN SAUTE, supported the bill. Mr. H. T. _LIDDELL and Mr. R. PIIILLIMORE supported the amendment. Mr. R. Phillimore maintained that every parish is under an imperative legal obligation to provide for the necessary repairs of the church, and for the incidental expenses of public worship. Mr. Hoes- war admitted the legal obligation, but pointed out that the difficulty lay in enforcing that obligation. The chief interest of the debate lay in the position of Ministers. Mr. GLADSTONE admitted the immense amount of local irritation and evil caused by church-rates, and the obligation incumbent on the Govern- ment to consider the question with a view to an equitable arrangement. The present state of the law, admitting a legal obligation without the means of enforcement, tends to weaken the foundation of all law ; and Par- liament ought either to place the legal obligation in a state to admit of enforcement, or to bring the enforcement no to the obligation. At present the state of the law is a grievance to the Established Church as well as to-Dissenters. But the law ought not to be abolished, for it works well in many parishes. There are eleven thousand parishes; and, estimating the number in which church-rates are contested or refused at five hundred, that does not appear to be an adequate reason for destroying the law in ten thousand and five hundred. In rural parishes, church-rates are a subsisting burden on the fixed property of the country, which it is not desirable to abolish. In towns, a large proportion, in some cases the majority of the population, is divided from the Church ; in other cases, the area of the church is occupied by cer- tain families in a manner which is one of the grossest abuses that could exist in a Christian country, shutting the doors on the people proposed to be taxed by church-rates. 'With respect to remedies, he should object to placing a charge for the sustentation of the fabric on the Consolidated Fund: it is a local charge, and ought not to be taken off the property of the coun- try. It was proposed to exempt Dissenters as such : but Dissenters consider a declaration of dissent injurious to them ; an objection be could not under- stand. But if the House considered the exemption of Dissenters desirable, that would not settle the question, because the members of the Established Church are nearly as much aggrieved as Dissenters by the monopoly of the floors of churches robbed from the people for pews. Neither could the ques- tion be solved by restricting the rate to the maintenance of the fabric. There is much to be said in favour of a plan which should divide parishes where the law of church-rates works well, from parishes where it works ill, —permitting the ratepayers to place themselves outside the law of church.- rates by a legal declaration; a plan which would leave the bulk of the rural parishes pretty much as they now are. If church-rates are abolished, then ratepayers ought to be enabled to take into their own hands the manage- ment of any fund subscribed by themselves. Mr. BRIGHT said he was puzzled by Mr. Gladstone's speech, not know- ing for which side of the House it was intended, but thinking on the whole that it was in favour of the abolition of church-rates. He sus- pected that there was a difference in the Cabinet on this question, not less remarkable than was supposed to exist upon others. Ile should prefer the speech of Lord John Russell—who had been strengthening himself. in the Cabinet, and might soon be the head of the Government—as an in- dication of what might be expected. Lord John had argued that they could not hope to satisfy the Dissenters, as every concession is only a stepping-stone to future claims ; and that the Church should not abandon its property in these rates without adequate compensation. Sixteen years ago, Lord John brought in a bill abolishing 1 church-rates, which though it enabled the funds to be so administered as to raise a sum to balance the church-rates, made no provision for compensation; and it is the height of inconsistency to make such a demand now. Whether Lord John would bring in a bill next session, depended upon the condition of' the Sublime Porte. Already six bills have been deferred, which he supposes& would be reintroduced next session ; and now Sir William Clay was advised to withdraw his bill because it could not be passed this session. But it does not follow that because Government are obliged to defer their measures, Members cannot get their bills through the HORN. Mr. Bright entered into the general argument against church-rates, making them out to be a griev- ance to both parties. Ile also considered the various remedies proposed ; scornfully objecting to the proposal for ticketing Dissenters, like carrels to. be sent by railway. Ile dwelt on the growth of Dissent and of the Volinh• tory system ; and quoted a speech of the Bishop of Oxford in the Home of Lords, showing that subscriptions in aid of building churches had increased as the aid of Parliament was withdrawn. Would not Lord John Russell take courage and abandon compensation altogether ? It would be monstrous to suppose that congregations would not provide for the washing of surplices and the sweeping of churches.

While Mr. Vernon Smith was speaking, Lord Jens: RUSSELL hitd in- terrupted him with the exclamation, "'We shall propose to settle it next year "; and be now rose, compelled, he said, to take part in the debate, in consequence of the expressions attributed to him by Mr. Br* ht Ile reiterated one argument imputed to him by Mr. Bright—that con- cession in the matter of church-rates would lead to new demands ; and in proof he referred to the speeches heard that day in behalf of the Voluntary principle. Not agreeing with these speeches, he could not vote for a bill that would lead step by step to the destruction of the Church Establishment. But as to the other argument imputed to him, that some compensation shoul&he afforded for the abolition of church-rates, he believed he did not use the word "compensation." What he held then and holds now is, that in

abolishing the fabricf the t m maintenance of sense provision should be made for the mntenance

o he church. That is not inconsistent with but essential to a church establishment. It is not only the "washing of surplices and the sweeping of church-floors" that is included in the maintenance of the church. There were to be maintained fabrics, built by our ancestors, many of them very beautiful. As time went on Dissent arose; and after persecution under the Charleses and Jameses came the Toleration Act, and Dissenters had free liberty of conscience. In those days, they did not consider that they were debarred by the Georges from exercising the liberty of conscience : on the contrary, Calamy, a distinguished, pious, and learned man, applauded the declaration of George the First, that he would firmly support the Establish- ed Churches of England and Scotland, without impairing the toleration al- lowed to Protestant Dissenters. The Dissenters of those days considered the Established Churches of England and Scotland as a great support of the Protestant religion. The great quarrel of the last half-centnry has not been with reference to ancient structures ; but new churches arise in towns where Dissenters are numerous. It is desirable that some remedy should be found for the sake of the community at large ; the great dispute is about that remedy. He objected to defraying the cost of repairs by pew-rents, and to the registration of Dissenters; and briefly indicated the principle of the plan suggested by Mr. Gladstone. "Whatever plan may be suggested—and there are various plans—we must retain the church ass national church, and we must retain the principle of calling upon the land to maintain the pa-

rochial church. consider these churches, not as the churches of a sect, but as national churches ; and, so cousidering them, I hold that they ought to be

jority, 27. So the bill was thrown 011I.

falling into decay."

the Church, they have universal suffrage, no primogeniture as to land, an hereditary aristocracy, and an hereditary Monarch; and all these things will stand or fall together.

stitutions are harmonious ; and while they have the voluntary principle in elective Senate and an elective President : we have a national church, an inseparably connected with the land, by which they have been hitherto sup- sent to any law by which the hazard would be incurred of the village church tem in the United States has produced great effects ; but there all the in- ported. It would be the worst of policy on the part of Parliament to con- Lord John was not disposed to question the fact that the Voluntary sys- The House divided—For the amendment, 209; against it, 182; ma-

SUPPLY.

In Committee of Supply, on Monday, a debate arose on the motion of Mr. SCHOLEFIELD to strike out an item of 100e for chaplains from a vote of 164,1651. for the maintenance of prisoners in county gaols and lunatic asylums. As they bad decided against subsidizing Roman Catholic priests, they ought to be logical and adopt the same decision with re- gard to the chaplains of other sects. Several Members took part in the discussion, which mainly turned on the propriety of the vote on Mr. Spooner's motion. Defending that vote, Mr. ADDERLEY said, that what they had voted against was the principle, that whether there were Ro- man Catholic prisoners or not in gaol, still there should be a Roman Ca- tholic chaplain : they did not object to spiritual provision being made for prisoners not members of the Church of England, where the number !van-anted it. Mr. SPOONER, however, insisted that he proposed the re- jection of the vote last week because it is not right that Protestants should pay for Roman Catholic chaplains. And the vote was a new one. Lord PALMERSTON denied that it was new; the only novelty was that a fixed payment was proposed in the place of payment for the number of visits made. It was not proposed to appoint a Roman Catholic chaplain in every gaol; the proposal was confined to three or four Government prisons. He rebuked the House for squabbling, like the Greeks of the Lower Empire, over these petty differences while the enemy was at the gate ; and for making convicts and lunatics the subjects of their experi- ments. Mr. SIDNEY HERBERT asked, why, if they objected to pay Ro- man Catholic chaplains, they did not move to rescind the vote with re- gard to Army chaplains, one-third of whom are Roman Catholics ?—They did not dare to do it. Mr. SPOONER said, he was not aware of that vote : he would not overlook it another time. On a division, the motion was negatived by 216 to 23, and the vote was agreed to.

WEST INDIA ENCUMBERED ESTATES BILL.

In moving the second reading of the Encumbered Estates (West Indies) Bill, the Duke of NEWCASTLE stated, that before he left the Colonial Office he received from Jamaica ordinances for confirmation which to a great ex- tent carry out the reforms suggested last year. At that time he also suq- te_ste4 another measure, essential to the prosperity of the West India Islands—a measure for establishing in Encumbered Estates Court. Nine- tenths of the estates in those islands are so heavily mortgaged as to wither up all prosperity ; and so extremely intricate are the encumbrances that improvements are impossible. The only remedy, strongly urged also by Sir Henry Barkly, is that of sale. He proposed, therefore, to pass this bill, almost identical in its provisions with the Irish Act. Estates will be wound up as under a bankruptcy ; sales will be judicially effected, the proceeds cheaply distributed, and an absolute title conferred on purcha- sers. A Commission, consisting of one Chief and two Assistant Com- missioners, will carry out the bill; the Chief Commissioner residing in England. Under him the Assistant Commissioners will form a Court, • either in England or in the Colonies, assisted by local Commissioners if necessary. In order to put the bill in force, it will be necessary to issue _ an order in Council, but only on the demand, by address, from the local Legislature; provision being made for the expense attending the opera- tion/of the act. In all cases, an appeal will lie from the decisionsof the Commissioners to the Privy Council. The Earl of DERBY and Lord ST. LEONARDS admitted the necessity of some such measure; but doubted the efficiency of the provisions of this i bill ; Lord St. Leonards referring especially to the proposal of selling the

states in this country. He thought it would be better to have a separate • e - Measure for each of the Colonies, adapted to their varying circumstances. The bill was read a second time.

THE CANADA LEGISLITP7E COUNCIL BILL.

On the motion for going into Committee on this bill, the Earl of DERBY said that papers relating to the probable course of the Canadian Legislature, and requiring mature consideration, had been laid on the table quite recently, and he asked for a postponement of the Committee. He denounced the measure, as one that would lead to the subversion of a limited monarchical and the substitution of a democratic government in Canada. It was not decent that such a bill should be considered in a House of not a dozen members. The Duke of NEWCASTLE said that he had told Lord Desert, who had inquired on the part of Lord Derby, then at Ascot, that the bill would come on that night. Lord Derby, therefore, had no right to ask whether

• it would be decent to go on. Although he felt the inconvenience of such a course, the Duke said he would postpone the Committee till next

'Thursday. Mn. STRUTT'S EXPLANATION.

Mr. &must made an explanation respecting the recent Ministerial changes ; which he thought due not only to the House and to the im- portant constituency be represents, but also to his own character. When the Government was formed, Lord John Russell, on behalf of Lord Aber- deen, offered Mr. Strutt, unexpectedly, the office of Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. At that time he knew little either of the nature or the extent of the duties of the office, but he knew it was sometimes held by a member of the Cabinet; and in accepting the post he placed his whole time and services at the disposal of the Government. Ile found the duties, although not unimportant, not more laborious than he had expected ; and the office not one calculated to be satisfactory to any man who was anxious that his whole time and energies should be devoted to the office intrusted to him. He made no secret of that opinion. On his return to town after the Whitsuntide holidays, he received a letter from the Lord President of the Council, and had an interview with him; when it appeared that the Government found themselves placed in a posi- tion of considerable difficulty with respect to certain arrangements which they considered to be most important to the public service, and that the

disposal of the office he then held would enable them to relieve them, selves from those difficulties. "I farther ascertained on inquiry," eau Mr. Strutt, "that all the necessary arrangements had been made. I ascertained also, that the acquiescence of all those parties who were con- cerned in those arrangements had been already obtained, and that, in fact, the final conclusion of them was only waiting for the expression a my concurrence." That concurrence he did not one moment hesitate to give ; in fact, it was impossible for him, with a due regard to the _public service and his own personal feelings, to take any other course. Before he sat down, he denied three reports ;—that he held the office on con- dition of resigning it ; that he had been consulted with regard to the proposed arrangements ; and that he had attached some condition to his resignation for his own benefit. Those reports are entirely without foundation. Thanking the House for its kind attention, he resumed his seat, amid general cheering.

THE BARON DE BODE'S CLAMS.

Mr. MorsTeecE CHAMBERS moved, "That the national good faith requires that the just claims of Baron de Bode, established after pro- tracted investigation, should be satisfied." Recalling attention to the treaties between the Governments of France and England in the years 1814, 181.5, and 1818, he traced the entire case,—the parentage of the Baron Clement de Bode, and his birth at Locksley Park in Staffordshire ; his purchase, jointly with his father, of the fief in Lower Alsace ; the security obtained for the property of British residents in France under the treaties of 1814 and 1815; the grant of money from the French Government to satisfy the claims of British subjects whose property had been confiscated; the claim advanced by the Baron in 1815; the objection that he was not a British subject, and the subsequent objections, with the successive dis- proof of those objections by Baron de Bode; the plea that no funds remained to satisfy the claim, because a balance which remained had been handed over to the Treasury ; and finally the Baron's appeal for justice to the House of Commons. Mr. DRUMMOND seconded the motion; calling upon Members to vote as they would feel their personal honour touched.

The ArronnEs-GesiERAL also recapitulated the ease, in order to show that the Baron de Bode had failed to make out his claim

The treaty of 1786. declared that British subjects might reside in France, enjoying protection for their property, and stipulated that they should have twelve months' notice of removal to enable them to realize their effects. The treaties of 1814 and 1815 refer to injury upon British pro- perty in France committed against the terms of the treaty in 1786, which was one of commerce and navigation. Sir Alexander Cockburn said the Baron de Bode eostld only be called a British subject in the sense that he was so by the accident of his birth ; and that even if he were a British subject, the wrong inflicted upon his property did not come within the class of injuries contemplated by the treaties of 1814 and 181fi. Sir Alexander also doubted the competency of the Baron de Bode to receive -the cession of the fief from his father, as the Baron was then a minor. The property had been confiscated, not beeause he was an Englishman, but because he had violated the laws of France, by emigrating; and /re had therefore no moral claim upon the British Government.

Sir FREDERICK THESIDER agreed to a great extent with this view.

Mr. BOWYER, Mr. THOMAS Cnesterais, and Mr. WArsoLE, on the con- trary, pointed to the fact that these objections had been duly examined by competent courts and authorities and had been decided in the Baron's favour. The claim was also supported by Mr. WILKINSON, Mr. Dicraz, and Mr. MALIN& Mr. Spoosims and Mr. Durum said, that, though originally in favour of the claim, they bad now been convinced by the arguments that the Baron did not come within the class of British sub- jects entitled under the treaty to compensation from this country.

Mr. Wusors referred to the exhaustion of the fund. Mr. GLADSTONE,

admitting that the claim must be decided on principle, and not on the in- convenience of repayment,—and that the decision could not turn upon the amount of the money, but must he the same whether it was four hundred thousand pounds or five shillings, contended that, although technically a British subject, the Baron de Bode was practically a French subject at the time, and that there was no such undue confiscation accord- ing to the laws of France as could entitle him to any compensation.

On a division, there were—For the motion, 67; against it, 82; ma- jority against the motion, 15.

BREACH OF PRIVILEGE.

The Marquis of CLANIUCARDE complained, that in the returns moved for by Earl Grey on the 7th April, respecting the administration of the Army, three out of ten papers were of a date subsequent to the order of the House for the production of those returns ; and that one of the papers, dated the 9th May, consisted of a reply from Sir Charles Trevelyan to Lord Grey's speech. It was a breach of privilege, and offensive to•the dignity of the House, that a subordinate officer should prepare an answer to one of their Lordships, and deliver it as a return to that House of Par- liament. The Duke of NEWCASTLE admitted that, by strict rule, it was irregular to present papers of a date subsequent to the order for the re- turn; but it was not without precedent. As to the breach of privilege, the returns had been submitted for his approval, and he observed the re- ference in them to a debate in that House : if they had merely attempted to refute Lord Grey in general terms he should have refused to place them on the table ; but when he read the letters of Mr. Filder and Mr. Weir, whose conduct had been impugned, he felt that it was a personal ques- tion, and those gentlemen would have been aggrieved by a refusal. The Earl of DEB.BY insisted that there had been more than a technical breath of privilege. The Duke of NEWCASTLE took upon himself the entire re- sponsibility; and, in deference to the House, he agreed to amend the re- turn.