Vtiatts auh turtrhiugn in at-Haunt.

PRINCIPAL BUSINESS OF THE WEEK.

Horns OF Loans. Monday, May 5. Debate on the Treaty of Peace ; Address agreed to. Tuesday, May 6. County Courts Acts Amendment ; Lord Chancellor's Bill read a second time—Joint-Stock Companies Winding-up Acts Amendment Bill read a second time.

Thursday, May B. General Williams ; Message from the Queen—Mercantile Law Amendment ; Lord Chancellor's Bill referred to a Select Committee—Vote of Thanks to the Army, Navy, &c.—Lord Dalhousie's Pension ; Lord Clanrlcarde's

Question.

_Friday, May 9. General Williams •, Answer to the Queen's Message—Business of the House; Lord Redesdale's Motion—Public Executions ; the Bishop of Ox- ford's Motion—Bankruptcy (Scotland); Lord Chancellor's Bill read a second time.

Horsz OP COMMONS, Monday, May 5. Treaty of Peace ; Address moved ; debate adjourned—Fire-Insurance Bill committed pro forml—Dissenters Marriages Bill committed.

Tuesday, May 6. Treaty of Peace ; debate concluded, and Address agreed to. Wednesday, May 7. Tithe-Commutation Rent-Charge ; Mr. Philhmore's Bill read a second time—Aggravated Assaults ; Mr. Dillwyn's Bill thrown out—Sleep- ing Statutes ; Mr. Locke King's Bill read a second time.

Thursday, May 8. General Williams ; Message from the Queen—Vote of Thanks to the Army, Navy, &c. _Friday, May 9. Political Pardons ; Mr. T. Duncombe's Question—Murder of Miss Hinds ; Mr. Kennedy's Complaint—General Williams; Answer to the Queen's Message—Police (Boroughs and Counties); Sir George Grey's Bill in Committee— Married Women's Reversionary Interest Bill read a third time.

TIME- TABLE.

The Commons.

Hour of Hour of Meeting. Adjournment.

Monday 4h (on) 2h Om

Tuesday 46 (n)) 211 30m Wednesday Noon .... Si, 50m

Thursday 4h 7h 45m Friday (srs) 2h em Sittings this Week, 4; Time, 15h 45m — this Session, 49; — 113h 55m

THE TREATY DEBATES.

The House of Peers was filled to overflow on Monday evening by an audience eager to hear the debate on the treaty of peace. The listeners were not confined to the Peers ; their ladies and their sons and other strangers largely mingled in the throng. But the interest rapidly died away with the speeches of the earlier orators, and by the time that the Earl of Malmesbury had got half-way through his address the greater part of the audience had vanished. The Earl of ELLESMERE moved the address printed in our last paper, in an elegant speech, which reads like a graceful scholastic " theme." He dwelt on his own unfitness for the task ; on the satisfaction he felt at the terms of peace—a satisfaction without drawback or mitigation. Not such a satisfaction as France might have felt with the bulletins of Ulm or Austerlitz or Jena—that satisfaction he could forego without regret— but a satisfaction derived from the fact that the reward for our exertions cad sacrifices has come up to the mark we prescribed for ourselves at the outset, and is in the main all to which reasonable men looked forward. He took pains to show how unjust were those suspicions that represented England as unwilling to make peace, and Lord Clarendon as the bearer of instructions to Paris to make it impossible for other powers to accept conditions with which they were satisfied. He praised the conduct of Lord Clarendon and Lord Cowley at the peace negotiations ; spoke in

The Lords,

Hour of Hour of

Meeting. Adjournment. Monday 5h .. Ilk Oro Tuesday 5h 7h Sm Wednesday No sitting. Thursday Sb 9h 40m Friday litt 711 rim

Sittings this Week, 5; Time, 405 Sm this Session, 58; — 427h 33m his terms of the exertions of our army and navy, and with.affectionate

re of Lord Raglan. •

Lord GLP.NELG seconded the address. He discoursed of the means whereby the Allies had gained their successes, and contrasted the in- fluence of Russia in Europe ten years ago with her influence now. He spoke of the moderation of the belligerents, the purity of the motives of the Allies, and the high qualities shown by the people of England throughout the war. The Earl of MALMESEUBY began by remarking that it was time they should hear something of the treaty they were invited to discuss ; for although two eloquent speeches had been delivered, he doubted whether any one of their Lordships knew more about the treaty than he did when he entered the House. He was unwilling to raise the smallest objection; but her Majesty's Government had made use of such exaggerated lan- guage that he could not concur in it. He did not think the treaty would warrant them in expressing "joy," or even " satisfaction " ; and he should propose to leave out all the words of the second paragraph after the word "learnt," and to substitute these—".That her Majesty has been enabled to reestablish peace upon conditions which appear to her Majesty and her Allies adequately to effect the great objects of the war.' Whether he would press that amendment to a division, would depend on the feeling manifested during the debate. In giving reasons for the course he took, Lord Malmesbury quoted the third and fourth articles of the treaty,—the restitution of Kars by the Russians, and of Sebastopol, Kertch, Yenikale, Kinburn, Balaklava, and Kamiesc1i by the Allies,—and argued, that the juxtaposition of the two articles proved that Kars was given as an equivalent for Sebastopol and the other Russian towns. It was even stated in the protocols that Lord Cowley had objected to the conjunction of the two articles, because it would appear as if the belligerents were making an exchange ; but he was " repressed and suppressed." Nor was it only all the towns mentioned above that had been given in exchange for Kars. Russia was allowed to resume possession of the Circassian coast, and to rebuild the forts there. "In plain English, my Lords, we have deserted the Circassian." We begged their assistance ; we benefited from it to a great extent—(An ironical cheer from Lord Pan- mure)—why, it was the inroad of Schamyl upon Tiflis that compelled the Russian army to retreat when about to enter Anatolia in 1854. No wonder the Government desert the Cireassians, when they thus forget their obliga- tions. He questioned the safety of the arrangements for making the Black Sea a neutral sea. Russia could only maintain there six ships of war.; but she might build transports of 1000 or 3000 tons, keep them in the im- pregnable harbour of Sebastopol, arm them, and send them forth with troops at pleasure to assail the Turkish coast. ieferring to the discussion in the protocols on Nicolaieff, he pointed out that there is nothing to prevent Russia from building what ships she pleases there, except the good faith of the present Emperor. The maintenance of the military maritime arsenal of Nicolaieff should have been forbidden, and the fortifications of Sebastopol should have been razed. He severely criticized the alteration made in the portion of Bessarabia to be given up : the portion ceded, he said, bears about the same proportion to the territory that was to have been ceded as his thumb-nail bears to his ann. Insisting that this was another instance of the influence of the fall of Kars on the negotiations, he confined the re- mainder of his address to the circumstances attending the fall of that fortress ; and by no means spared condemnation of Lord Stratford. The Earl of Cuatiornon' before he answered Lord Malmesbury, made his acknowledgments to Lord Ellesmere and Lord Gleneig, and said that any commendation that might be awarded to himself applied equally to Lord Cowley, from whom he had received all aid and support at the con- ferences.

He denied that the fall of Kars exercised a prejudicial influence on the negotiations. The Russian Plenipotentiaries alluded to it as an important event that gave them some title to favourable consideration, but Count Or- loff said that the conditions already accepted by the Emperor should be honourably fulfilled. The Allies could not admit that the restoration of territory should even form a subject of discussion. Compare the conditions of Vienna with the treaty of peace, and it will be seen that the fall of Kars has not exercised any injurious influence, and that the conditions have been developed and carried out to their legitimate conclusions. Colonel Williams was sent as Commissioner to the army at Erzeroum • and if Colonel Wil- liams had been an ordinary man he would have confined himself strictly to his instructions, and reported only the occurrences which took $ace. The instructions to a Commissioner sent by the Foreign Office without military command or any military duty, are to report to the Foreign Office or to the Foreign Ambassador the events and political occurrences which pass under his observation. If Colonel Williams had been an ordinary man he would have confined himself to those instructions; but he was not an ordi- nary man ; he exceeded his instructions, and he determined to carry out those reforms that were indispensable to the existence of the Turkish army. His conduct was approved, and he was encouraged to proceed. " True, in the early part of his proceedings he did not receive from Lord Stratford that as- sistance he was entitled to expect ; and no one regrets more than Lord Strat- ford that he left for so long a period the despatches of Colonel Williams un- answered. Even if Lord Stratford had employed himself in obtaining, and had been successful in obtaining all that e,olonel Williams desired, still it was a great error to leave a man like him, situated at a distance, in a position which might add to his difficulties and tend to dishearten him. I admit this—and Lord Stratford would also admit it—but it would be unjust to assume that because Lord Stratford did not write, that therefore he did nothing else, or to suppose that in a city like Constantino- ple things were as well organized as at Paris, or that procrastination was not the rule there and the performance of duty the exception." But the Turks dislike foreign interference. When Colonel Williams made his demands Lord Stratford had several important matters on hand,—the ces- sion of the coal-mines at Heraclea, of barracks for British troops, the forma- tion of the Turkish Contingent, and the pacification of the Greek frontier. Had the Government recalled Lord Stratford, they would not have saved Kars, but they would have deprived thepublic of the services of an eminent man at a critical period. Lord Stratford has his defects—who has not ? but his failings are not new; such as he is now, he was when Lord Derby gave him a seat in that House, and when Lord Malmesbury was willing tq send him as Ambassador to Paris. [Dissent from Lord Malmesbury.] Disre- garding this, Lord Clarendon pursued the subject of the fall of Kars' by contending that any eharge against the British equally applied to the French Government. "Wen I had the honour to attend her Majesty to Paris, I discussed the whole subject of Kars and Asia Minor with the French Government. I pointed out the dangers that might result to Turkey from that quarter; that both Powers were equally pledged to defend her front those dangers ; and that it was imperatively necessary, for that purpose, to relieve Kars. I found the French Government just as much alive to the dangers which threatened Kars and as desirous to send relief as we could be : but it was always urged upon me by the various persons whom I consulted, that Sebastopol was our chief object ; that to Sebastopol all our attention should be directed ; that if Sebastopol fell other things would follow as a

matter of course ; and that in all military affairs of consequence nothing was so unwise, so likely to produce failure, as a divided operation. The generals were consulted, and all of them—General Pelissier, General Simpson, General La Marmora—were unanimous in the opinion that not a man should leave the Crimes. What a feeling of indignation would have been raised throughout the country, if the Government had taken on them- selves—eetting aside the wishes of the Turkish Government and the re- commendations of the Generals—to send into Asia an army equal to com- pete with that of General Mouravieff ; which General Williams described

as the most efficient he had ever seen, which might have given a lesson on parade to the best European armies, and which was engaged in an extensive blockade, assisted by a large force of cavalry ! The fall of Kars was a great disaster—a deplorable incident in the war. What its consequences would have been if the war had gone on, I will not now pretend to say ; but I do declare that that disaster had no prejudicial effect upon the nego- tiations of peace." (Cheers.)

Referring to the juxtaposition of the third and fourth articles of the treaty, Lord Clarendon said it proceeded from a cause which Lord Malmes- burp evidently did not understand. The whole of the first articles relates

to the belligerents, and they are kept distinct. Having in the third and fourth articles provided for the territorial arrangements necessary, to complete the peace, the twentieth article, in conformity with the conditions of the treaty of Vienna, states that, " in exchange for the towns, ports, and territories enumerated in article four of the present treaty, and in order more full - to secure the freedom of the navigation of the Danube, his Majesty the ■ m- peror of All the Russias consents to the rectification of his frontier in Bes- sarabia."

Lord Clarendot next explained, that as regards the transports alluded to by Lord Malmesbury, "it was ultimately arranged that the conveyance of

troops might be secured by ships of war, and that six small ships of 200 tons each would be sufficient." With respect to Nicolaieff, he repeated the explana- tion in the protocols. Russia was not bound to make any engagement with respect to her inland waters. "But the declaration made by the Russian Plenipotentiaries in the name of their Sovereign, and recorded in a protocol which is signed by them, although it may not have all the binding force of a treaty, has the same moral obligation ; and I have no hesitation in saying that if one of those protocols were ever violated, it might be appealed to successfully by all the contracting parties, as a binding document." With regard to the line of frontier in Bessarabia, an alteration had been made because the frontier proposed by Austria was not the best frontier. It is doubtful whether any "chain of mountains" exists ; and it appeared that the line would intersect some free and prosperous Bulgarian colonies in which the Russian Government takes an interest. As regards the forts on the Eastern coast of the Black Sea, Lord Clarendon explained, that as we had not gained any military successes in that quarter, we were not in a con- dition to impose conditions. Either those countries must have been made independent, or they must have been restored to Turkey. it would have been a mockery to make them independent, and they would not have sub- mitted to be restored to Turkey. It is remarkable "that the only period during which there have been no military, movements whatever against the Russians on the part of Schamyl and the Circassians has been the two years of war. They have never shown the slightest sympathy with us, or the least wish to assist our arms. On one occasion, indeed, a chief did engage with the captain of one of her Majesty's ships to produce 10,000 men at a particular place on a particular day ; but-when the officer went to receive them he could not find a single man." The forts on the coast were for de- fence, not aggression. "Count Orloff stated, on the part of the Emperor of Russia, that he hoped the character of the people would be improved by the civilizing influence of commerce ; that the blockade and other restrictions would be removed ; and that all the ports of Russia in that quarter—seven or eight in number—would be opened to foreign trade, and would receive foreign_consuls." Having borne testimony to the good faith and straightforward proceedings of the Emperor of the French, and having pointed out that "his policy had its reward when, on the 30th of March last, the anniversary of the battle of Paris, the representatives of the same powers who had signed the treaty of Paris went in a body to the Tuileries to announce to the Emperor Napoleon that they had just signed with France, and not against France, another and a very different treaty of Paris restoring peace to Europe," Lord Clarendon continued—" I must acknowledge, my Lords, that when I arrived in Paris I became painfully sensible of the existence of a feeling there— produced by the tone adopted in Parliament and the press—that we did not intend to make peace, but to drag France on in a war with us, even after she believed that the objects for which the war was undertaken had been accomplished. But I must say that the Emperor did not share that feeling. The Emperor knew that what we had undertaken to do we should perform. He believed in the honour of England, and he believed that no British Minister and no British representative would undertake negotiations for the purpose of securing any selfish objects. But on the other hand, the Empe- ror well knew that, faithful as we should be to our own engagements, we should, at whatever risk or hazard, insist that engagements should be kept with us." He bore testimony also to the honourable and straightforward con- duct of the Russian Plenipotentiaries. " I think," he said in conclusion, " if your Lordships will reflect upon the state of things which existed two years ago,—if you remember the onerous treaties by which Turkey was bound, and which were so interpreted as to give Russia powers of interference in the Ottoman empire,—if you remember that Russia claimed a protectorate over the civil and religious immunities and privileges of many of the Sultan's subjects ; that Sebastopol, protecting a powerful Russian fleet, was a stand- img menace to Turkey; that Russia claimed a protectorate over the Princi- palities, and claimed and constantly exercised a power of armed interven- tion ; that she was able to obstruct the free navigation of the Danube ; that she was meditating the establishment of another Sebastopol in the Aland Islands ; that she was aiming at an occupation of Norway, which would have given her complete command of the Northern Seas,—ff you remember that Russia had created and justified the greatest alarm throughout Europe ; and if you reflect that now all the treaties between Russia and Turkey are annulled ; that the Sultan has granted reforms, privileges, and immu- nities to his Christian subjects ,• that Sebastopol and the Russian fleet are no longer a menace to Turkey; that the seas which were before closed are now open to free and unrestricted commerce ; that the Principalities will no longer suffer from Russian protection, or have cause to fear Russian in- tervention, but that the institutions which, in fact, they will give them- selves, will be placed Under the guarantee of Europe ; that a treaty has been signed, which is annexed to the general treaty, and therefore part of the national law of Europe, which guarantees the possessions of Sweden and Norway from aggression on the part of Russia ; that Austria is now more closely bound to the Western Powers by the treaties into which she has en- tered ; that Sardinia has gained great influence and prestige by the position which has been assigned to her in the Congress of the great Powers of Europe ; that the alliance between England and France has been strength- ened by the war, and that the common sacrifices and hardships which they have borne have cemented the ties of friendship, good-will, and cordiality between the two nations, —I think, my Lords, you will have no reason to be dissatisfied. I think: it will be admitted that the objects of the war have been accomplished ; and I trust that a treaty which secures those objects may not be thought unworthy of your Lordships' approval. I trust also, that the people of this great country—knowing, as they do, that their re- sources are unexhanated, that their energies are unim , that they were never at any moment of their history better pre for war than at the

present time—will be content to sheathe the sword with honour, and re- member the calamities of war only the better to appreciate the blessings of peace." (Lewd cheers.)

The Earl of DERBY followed out the line traced by Lord Malmesbury; repeating most of his arguments, and interspersing them with comments on Lord Clarendon's speech. He looked upon the peace as one that might have been worse, but that might have been better—" a peace with which they are willing to put up, but not a peace which they think com- pensates for the sacrifices, the sufferings, the labours, and the expenses of the war." Besides following Lord Malmesbury in his attack upon the conditions, he took special objection to the " surrender of our maritime supremacy." " There is no protocol which tells us what were the arguments in its fir- your. There is no discussion as to the objects to be gained by it. There is no statement whether it was volunteered by the British Minister. But this I know, that right or wrong, volunteered by the British Minister or sur- rendered by him to the feelings, prejudices, and desires of other countries, it was done in the dark, without the knowledge of Parliament ; and that the Minister, sent and trusted by the country to conduct negotiations for re- storing peace on certain bases known to the country, took advantage of his position to make an important alteration in the maritime law of England, without the knowledge of Parliament, and without our having the least idea that such our birthright was being given away. (Cheers.) This question is too large to be argued now ; but I should have thought myself unworthy of a seat in your Lordships House, if, while we are discussing the terms of this treaty, I did not advert to the contents of the paper which I have seen with astonishment and indignation forms an adjunct to the treaty, of which it is undoubtedly no part." Earl GRANVILLE replied to Lord Derby, without adding to the previous remarks of Lord Clarendon ; but he told Lord Derby, that as regards the declaration on maritime law, the Government would be able to show that they strictly followed the precedent invariably set with respect to treaties or conventions with foreign nations, and that what was settled will not only be a great advantage to mankind, but particularly to this country. The Earl of ABERDEEN rejoiced that the warlike reputation of Lord Palmerston had rendered it possible to make a peace wise and honour- able in itself, "but which if it had been made under my auspices might perhaps hive produced discontent and excited serious reprehension." It is not of the triumphant character of that treaty which it was his good fortune to sign in the same capital some forty years ago, but it it one which amply fulfils the objects of the war, and ought therefore to be satisfactory. He pointed out two objections, however, in detail. What will be the- operation of the article with respect to the neutralization of the Black Sea ? He was afraid that it would be found practically impossible. "The douse must either give enormous advantages to Russia, or it must be inapplicable. The Turkish fleet can enter the Black Sea when It pleases ; it will be pre- vented from doing so merely by the obligation of the treaty ; but if Russia ever had reason to apprehend an attack by the Turkish fleet, and applied to you, what are you to do ? You must either guarantee her from any such attack, or you must allow her to make preparations for her own defence. Either you guarantee Russia from an attack by the Turks, or your neutrali- zation comes to nothing." The other objection was, that the treaty of Paris precludes the contract- ing Powers from interfereng in Turkey with the view of seeing that the Hatti-scheriff is executed. Yet without the constant superintendence of the other Powers, the Hatti-scherilf will not be worth the paper it is written on. While Lord Stratford remains at Constantinople, ho will take care to see that the Hatti-scheriff is executed; but suppose Turkey were to call in Russia to prevent interference with her internal government, would not Russia have a right to oppose our proceedings, as contrary to the treaty of peace ? Lord COWLEY, speaking for the first time in public, replied to Lord Aberdeen. With regard to his first objection, it is met by the treaty, which provides that if either party violate the treaty, the Allies shall as- sist the party requiring help ; while the parties are bound not to com- mit any act of aggression without giving the other Powers an opportu- nity of meeting the difficulty. As regards the lfatti-seheriff, "it wary not the intention of the Congress to limit the power of diplomatic inter- ference, but to prevent the Government of the Sultan from being con- stantly harassed by foreign applications with regard to the interns/ affairs of the empire."

Earl GREY was led to take part in the debate by the observations of Lord Derby on maritime law ; from which he utterly dissented. He felt deeply grateful to the Government and the Plenipotentiaries for what he believed to be " one of the greatest advances made for a long eourse of years in the progress of civilization and humanity." One other comment he made : he objected to the system of hatti-echeriffs, and to the whole system of European interference in Turkey ; which he predicted would inflict more suffering on Christians than the old Turkish laws. The Go- vernment is too weak to enforce the new laws.

" We call upon Turkey to admit her Christian subjects to an equality of rights and privileges with her Mahometan subjects. Now, is it possible for any government to rule with mildness and equality subjects whose affection. it does not possess, who regard it with feelings of bitter hostility, and who look forward with anxiety to the time when they may be able to contribute to its overthrow ? Are not these the feelings of the Christian sub'ects of the Porte, and were they not manifested during the late war ? Was it not solely by the intervention of the British and the French that an insurrection in Selma was prevented ? It is impossible, after four hundred years of the most galling tyranny, that any other than the most hostile feeling towards their oppressors can exist in the minds of the Christian population of Tur- key ; and therefore I say, that to ask the Government of the Porte to admit this portion of its subjects to an equality of rights and privileges with the Mahometans, is to make a demand upon it which it is not in its power ef- fectually to concede ; and it is vain to imagine that the system you seek to establish can ever practically work. This was one of my main objections to the original policy of the war—objections only the more confirmed by all that has since occurred."

The Duke of ARGYLL took a view the opposite of that taken by Earl Grey. Lord CAMPBELL expressed his deliberate opinion that the new convention respecting maritime rights had been agreed to in a strictly constitutional form ; and he rejoiced at the change that had taken place. So ended the debate, at midnight. Lord Mslmesbury did not press Iris amendment; and the address was agreed to nem. con.

In the House of Commons, the address was moved by Mr. E. DENI- SON, and seconded by Mr. HENRY HERBERT. Both regarded the peace

concluded at Paris as one that should call forth feelings of joy and satis- faction. Mr. Denison, however, spoke in a higher strain of triumph than his seconder. Mr. Herbert referred to the prevalent regrets that the fully-developed strength of England should not have an opportunity of showing what it could achieve. But, he said, at the moment when we are inclined to something like arrogant self-confidence, we should re- member the chances of war, and that by continuing the strife when peace was possible, we might have forfeited the Divine support, by which we had been enabled to bring the contest to a successful conclusion.

Lord JOHN MANNERS delivered a very long speech against the treaty, enriched with large quotations from documents and newspapers. The terms of the address, he said, might faithfully represent the feelings of the French people, and be gratifying to the great man who sits on the throne of France ; but the words "joy and satisfaction" do not repre- sent the feelings of the English people. He admitted that the integrity and independence of the Turkish empire are secured now; but the treaty fails to secure it for the future. He insisted that such was the case es- pecially in Asiatic Turkey ; and he charged the Government with having in 1854 excited the Circassians to renewed hostility to Russia whom they have now "basely abandoned to their exasperated foe." With what object could Russia rebuild the forts on the Eastern coast of the Black Sea, but that of conquering, perhaps exterminating the Circassians? Arms, money, and ammunition, were sent to the independent chiefs ; we pledged them our honour and good faith ; and then we threw them away like a sucked orange, and permitted the forces of Russia to proceed to their final subjugation. He denied the right of Russia to these territories : we had never acknowledged Russia's right to them as set up by the treaty of Adrianople ; but now, the first fruits of our successful war is that Russia has obtained the sanction of England to the possession of territories hitherto regarded as independent. He regarded the treaty as establishing the political supremacy of Russia throughout Asia, as ren- dering Persia a satrap of Russia, and placing Circassia at the feet of her foe. We have fatally impressed upon the mind of every Eastern ruler that we are as unable to baffle the Russian armies in war as we are un- able to cope with them in diplomacy. He trusted that Lord Palmerston, if he wished the address to pass unanimously, would see that the untrue description of the peace in the second paragraph should be modified.

Mr. MONCKTON Mxnxas could not think there was anything in the peace degrading or dishonourable to England. The war had not been viewed in the same light by the Government and the people ; and the attainment of the political aims of the former did not carry with it the fulfilment of the hopes and desires of the latter. The people now look upon peace without joy, as they had looked upon war without fear ; but when the terms of the peace arc carefully considered, they will look back to the results obtained with a moderate satisfaction. He thought that the aggressive spirit of Russia had been checked and curbed ; and that the integrity of Turkey had received an unhoped-for guarantee. As regards the Circassians, Lord John Manners had exaggerated their claims upon England. The small share taken by the Circassians in the war had dis- appointed the advocates of freedom, and in fact showed the intimate re- lations that exist between them and the Russian Government. Mr. Mines thought that some consideration should have been shown for the Poles who had taken part in the war. He severely condemned Lord Clarendon's language with regard to the press in Belgium. Mr. LAYARD criticized the peace in a moderate spirit. Reviving his blame of Lord Aberdeen's Government for its errors at the beginning of the war, ho said he thought they had placed England in a false position with regard to France—a position that put us in her power. But the House was called upon for an impartial verdict on the treaty, for which the pre- sent Government is responsible. Mr. Layard ran over the heads of the treaty. The most important point is that regarding the Christians : here much more has been done than he could possibly have expected—the Ad- ministrative Reformers themselves could not have asked for more. He approved of the exclusion of the firman from the treaty. It would not be wise to call on the Turks on one day to alter all their laws and reli- gion; that would only retard the end all have in view. On the whole, the position of the Christians in Turkey is one that reflects great credit on its Government. Touching in like manner on the other prominent topics, and expending his censure on the conduct of the war in Asia and the omission of Circassia from the protocols, he confessed that the terms of peace obtained far exceeded his expectations. Referring to the proto- cols, he commented at some length on the miserable condition of Italy, and the policy of Austria in regard to that country; and he spoke of the language of Lord Clarendon on the subject as well according with his position as Foreign Minister and with the true interests and dignity of England. Lord Clarendon's language respecting the Belgian press is not open to the remarks made upon it; but he must say that Count Wa- lewaki's resume of the result of the discussion on the five points he sub- mitted was not borne out by the facts, and that he was astonished Lord Clarendon should have signed the protocol. Lord Joux RUSSELL remarked, that although Lord John Manners called the conduct of the Government " base," yet as he had not moved any amendment, the debate had lost much of its interest. Still it was a subject of great moment. He thought that the conditions of peace fully accomplished the great objects of the war; and if the House believed so too, then no lower or feebler terms should be used to express that senti- ment than those in the address. Taking up the great heads of the treaty, Lord John reviewed and commented on them in a favourable tone. The arrangements respecting the Danubian Principalities are very efficient ; all Europe will derive advantages from the freedom of the Danube itself; as regards the preponderance of Russia in the Black Sea, as much security has been taken as could well be taken to prevent it. Coming to the fourth point, he said that he considered it wise not to insist on the insertion of the firman as an article of the treaty. That document is referred to in the treaty, and we must expect that the Sultan will do his utmost to carry it out. But as he had not the same respect for the Turkish Government that Mr. Layard had, ho could only hope to see the day when the Sultan would enact just laws and appoint persons whom he can trust to execute them. Lord Aberdeen's Government would never have considered themselves justified in entering on the war had they not hoped to see some security for the better government of the Christians in Turkey. We cannot in any article get perfect security. Napoleon at St. Helena predicted that the next war would arise out of

an attempt of the Russians to get Constantinople ; that France and Eng_ land, and perhaps Prussia, would unite to prevent it but that Austria would join Russia. In 1853, the Emperor Nicholas spoke with a similar confidence in regard to Austria. But the course taken by Lord Claren- don was to induce Austria to resist instead of aiding Russia she had shown much backwardness, but Lord Clarendon had persevered; and the result was, not only the treaty under consideration, but a treaty signed by Austria, England, and France, guaranteeing the integrity and in- dependence of Turkey. Lord John thought it honourable to the Government, that, having the power to induce the nation to continue the war, yet being satisfied its objects were attained, they preferred peace to further bloodshed.

Lord John made some remarks on the protocols, especially on those sections relating to Italy, and the duration of foreign interventions there. " The time has surely come when we may ask, Do you mean your occu- pation to be perpetual, or at what period do you propose to withdraw ? ' If the occupation beperpetual, it is the same as a power seizing a territory which does not belong to it ; it is an overthrow of the balance of power so far as that state is concerned. We should ask, too, If you do not mean to occupy in perpetuity, what are the measures by which the authority of the legitimate sovereign will be strengthened and be enabled to restore order ? ' That question might, I think, be answered ,• but it would be by the sacri- fice of a good deal of the priestly power which has been the source of so much misgovernment in that unhappy country. It might also be answered by the sacrifice of the Austrian protectorate over Italy. I am very much in favour of the legitimate dominion of Austria, where she has a legitimate dominion. I think her position in the centre of Europe eminently useful to Europe, and that her influence and authority have often been used to withstand powers more ambitious than herself. But she has no claim to the protectorate of Italy beyond what is given to her by the treaty of peace at Vienna in 1815 ; therefore, I trust that the words used by Lord Clarendon at the Conference, and which I am assured by one who could not be mis- taken were stronger than those put in the protocol, will not be allowed to fall to the ground. Because, if you make a protest against the present state of Italy—if it is taken up by Austria with a refusal to discuss the question at all—you leave Italy in a worse state than you found it, and you will not be justified in what you have done."

Lord CLAUDE HAMILTON, denying that the peace is honourable, and treating mainly of the desertion of the Circassians' moved as an amend- ment in the second paragraph of the address, after the word " learnt," to omit the words "joy. and," and after the word " conditions" to omit the remainder of the sentence and to substitute for it " which have ac- complished to a great extent the objects for which the war was under- taken."

Sir Cuainss WOOD met the arguments and statements of Lord John Manners and Lord Claude Hamilton with reference to Circassia; • gene- rally defended the Government ; and vindicated the arrangements of the treaty. The debate was adjourned, on the motion of Mr. LECDSAY j Mr. WA.L- roLE consenting to postpone his motion on Education, that the discussion might be continuous.

On Tuesday, Mr. LINDSAY opened the adjourned debate. Taking the treaty altogether, he admitted that it contained more than he had ex-

pected, and accomplished all that they had gone to war for. But in addition to this, there was a most satisfactory declaration on maritime law. Lord Palmerston had carried out all his promises, and had brought the country triumphantly through the perils of war to an honourable peace.

Mr. ROBERT PRILLIMORE agreed with much that had been said in the debate. For portions of the treaty he was most grateful; but the reli-

gious freedom of the Christians in Turkey should, he thought, have been secured by treaty. With this brief preface, he called attention to the additional paragraph which he wished to introduce into the address. By giving up the immemorial right to capture enemies' goods in neutral ships, we have made a great sacrifice. He did not wish to retain a barbarous custom for the sole purpose of maintaining our maritime supremacy ; he de- sired to retain it because he thought that its abandonment would prolong instead of diminishing the horrors of war. It has never been disputed that we should capture enemies' goods • we have that right, and the right of search ; and if we find enemies' goods in a neutral ship; why should we not take them ? We may seize contraband, because the neutral may minister to the force of the enemy ; but does not furnishing food minister to his force ? It is a mere question of degree and not of principle. His proposition hind a remnant of barbarism, but an opinion rooted in natural law. Going into the history of the subject, he described the various attempts made to intro- duce the principle on which the maritime declaration is based, with the view of showing that it had heretofore been proposed as a measure striking at the heart of the naval power of England ; that it had been resisted by Lord Mansfield, Lord Grenville , Lord Shelburne, and Mr. Pitt ; and that so late as 1842 Sir Robert Peel, concluding a treaty with Portugal, made it a condition that she should give up her exemption from the general law of nations—that enemies' goods were not free on board neutral ships. Mr. Phillimore insisted that all international lawyers agree with him ; and quoted largely from the writings of Jefferson, Story, and Kent, to show that every American jurist maintained the doctrine now abandoned. It was said that if England enforced the ancient maritime law of Europe, she must be prepared to go to war with America :'but it would be hard for an American Senate to go to war in the teeth of the proclamations, decisions, and opinions of her most eminent jurists. If we are not to be a great military power, surely we should not weaken our naval force. The question might have been profitably debated in Parliament before the change was finally adopted. He did not wish to embarrass the Government, and at present he should not move the addition to the address of which he had given notice.

The Marquis of GRANBY, reviving his old objections to a war entered into without sufficient cause, said that the treaty contained as much as

we had any right to expect, and that the country ought to accept it. But all the advantages obtained might have been obtained without war, had we listened to the invitations of the Emperor of Russia in 1853, and em- ployed ourselves in making Turkey listen to reason.

Mr. SIDNEY HERBERT, in examining the provisions of the treaty, asked, first, whether it obtained the objects of the war; secondly, whe- ther it bears a just proportion to the degree of success we have obtained; thirdly, is the moment well chosen for concluding peace ? There is a feeling in the public mind that we might have hoped for greater successes had we carried on the war: but to carry on the war for the purpose of obtaining great military successes, would be an offence against the laws of God and man, that would be sure to meet with just retribution. Besides, what were our prospects ? After Sebastopol fell there was not the same energy displayed. As long as Lord Raglan lived his authority and ex- perience compensated for our inferiority in numbers; but after his dettms the direction of affairs became predominantly French. It was the opinion of the late and the present Government, that next to Sebastopol, Asia was the point of paramount importance : but instead of directing attention to Asia, an expedition consuming much tune and a large force was sent to Kinburn. Marshal Pdlissier said that Kinburn was the key to Nicolaieff; yet the troops were kept inactive until Todtleben had converted Nicolaieff into a second Sebastopol. It must have been obvious that Aaia was a more important field of action. What could account for the change in the pro- spective character of the campaign which terminated in the capture of Se- bastopol, but that the direction of the military movements of the Allies had been assumed by the French? They were more disposed—and they did not disguise it—to conclude than to continue the war. Surely these were mat- ters which had an influence on the opinions of the British Government as to whether the war ought to be carried on.

Mr. Herbert vindicated the conduct of Austria. Ho thought it was a great error not to have adopted the Austrian proposal last year, a proposal useless as regards peace, but invaluable for war, because it would have kept her armies in the field, perhaps shortened the siege of Sebastopol, and saved Kars. But the negotiationswere broken off by the impatience of the people; Austria, when her terms were refused, drew back ; and the Russians were able to pour vast reinforcements into the Crimea. As to the neutralization of the Black Sea, he thought that was not a policy for a great maritime na- tion to adopt. It is our interest that wherever there is water our ships shall float. Neutralization is only an old friend in a new shape—limitation under a new name. It is popular, but he had no great faith in the principle. He did not concur in the argument that we were bound to insist that the forts on the Circassian coast should not be rebuilt, in return for the assistance given by the Circassians and Schamyl in carrying out the war. Schamyl is not a Cir- cassian ; he did nothing to help us during the war, except to carry off some Russian ladies. Would they have been prepared to carry on the war, and perhaps break up the alliance, for the sole object of preventing Russia from rebuilding those forts ? He thought the Government wise in refusing to in- sist on the demolition.

" Looking at the general result of the war, I must say that we have grounds for the sincerest congratulation. The great bubble of Russian in- vincibility has collapsed. We have in a singularly short time proved that the power of Russia has been greatly overrated. When we entered into the late war, we were haunted with a species of hobgoblin which inspired terrors -within ourselves ; and we thought that the power and ambition of Russia were so great that state after state would fall a victim and be engulfed in her insatiable maw. I am one of those who never believed that the policy of Russia has been dictated by a long-cherished and preordained ambition. I think, on the contrary, that it has been a necessity, and therefore much more dangerous to Europe,. and much more necessary to be curbed. It has been a necessity of her position, such as we have ourselves found in India, such as the French have found in Africa, and such as our Transatlantic cousins have found in America. Hence it became neeesaary that some force should be used to confine her within her own boundaries, and to show that the public law of Europe could not be violated with impunity. No man can deny with justice that, looking at the treaty as a whole, we have attained the main objects of the war." Passing a warm eulogium on the conduct of Lord Clarendon,—whose skill, vigilance, untiring patience, and promptitude, have gained by negotiation what was lost in the conduct of the military campaign,—Mr. Herbert con- cluded with an earnest protest against that passion of this country, more especially of the press, to interfere in the affairs of other nations. The popular opinion is that all our alliances should be founded upon political eympathy with respect to domestic institutions and forms of government. That is a great error. Recent events have broken up the great Northern alliance founded on political sympathy. "We have found, in the ease of France, that we can be closely allied with a country which does not possess our form of government ; and I trust that, having established a good under- standing with Austria—having detached her from the Northern Powers— we shall not think it necessary by hostile and incessant criticism upon her internal government to alienate her people as we did before. I believe that the only moderate and safe course for us to pursue is to cultivate the friend- ship of all the great European states, whatever their form of government may be ; and I am convinced that by such means we shall best secure the great object which we ought always to have in view—the promotion of civilization and the happiness of mankind." (Chem.) Mr. Darmiroini, regretting that so many important subjects arc mixed up together in the discussion of a treaty of peace, made a speech on the state of Europe, Count Walewski's proposal to intervene in Belgium, the persecution of Protestants in Austria, France, and Tuscany,—with the view of showing that the root of all the troubles is ecclesiastical power ; which he proposed that Lord Palmerston should, in conjunction with die Emperor of the French, attempt to put down. To this proposal Mr. BOWYER made a long reply ; standing up for the King of Naples- " a man of the most virtuous character and the greatest piety" ; and for the Pope, than whom no sovereign is "more beloved by his subjects "- it is a monstrous fallacy to suppose that he needs French bayonets for his protection. Why do we not seek to get rid of our own abuses before we interfere in the affairs of other countries ? why do we not "pardon Smith O'Brien," before we ask other Governments to pardon their poli- tical offenders ?

Mr. BENTENTCK, approving of the treaty, looked upon all its advan- tages as more than counterbalanced by that false step of Lord Clarendon, the signing of the declaration of maritime law. Mr. CARDWELL took up that point. He made the fullest admission that what Mr. Phillimore and Mr. Bentinck contended for is undisputed and indisputable international law. But the objectionable state of that law made it an event that Eng- land, for the first time in history, had given her authority to the princi- ple in the maritime declaration. The great point of the controversy— that free ships ought to make free goods—is a concession, but not to France or Russia ; it is a concession to the principles of humanity and justice, which, more than her maritime supremacy, have made Great Britain paramount. Neutrals, uninterested in the quarrel, were greatly injured by the strict enforcement of the maritime laws of war ; and they had a fair right to demand that their privileges should not be infringed more than the exigencies of war require. We could not carry on a war twelve months on the principle that free ships did not make free goods, without being involved in hostilities with many great neutral powers. Mr. SEYMOUR FrrzemtALD objected to the treaty, that it leaves the Christian subjects of the Porte in a worse position than ever; and that it has increased the preponderance of Russia in the Black Seal.

Mr. Mimi= Gresox was glad to see the principles embodied in the declaration on maritime law incorporated in the public law of Europe. He did not think the United States, however, would concur in the aboli- tion of privateering. They laid down a good principle, that it matters little whether, if a mercantile ship be plundered, her plunderer is a re- gular cruiser or privateer. Mr. Gibson thought that both should be put

an end to. As to the address, the whole debate appeared to him to be without practical utility. He felt sincere pleasure that peace had been concluded. Not understanding the objects of the war, he could not say that they had been fulfilled—he believed the Austrian solution of the four points was embodied in the treaty. To say the peace is honourable, he looked upon as a formal phrase, and was prepared to assent to it. But he thought it questionable policy to guarantee, as Austria, France, and England have done, that the Turks shall rule to all time over a re- gion called Turkey in Europe. We abjured all right of interference in Turkey, yet in the same protocols we are invited to interfere in Greece, Naples, and Rome. We make the Turk think himself a political neces- sity to Europe, no matter how bad his rule. It is not sound policy to keep in the Turk in order to keep out the Russian, because by maintain- ing the dominion of the Mahometans over the Christians we shall throw the Christians into the arms of Russia. Mr. Gibson warned the House against interfering in other countries ; made them merry with a sparkling quotation from Sydney Smith on the subject of a former interference ; and expressed a hope that now the war is over Lord Palmerston will take an early opportunity of remembering that he is a Minister of peace, and of stating his peace policy. Mr. Gibson and his friends are ready to sup- port not merely military reforms or administrative reforms, but Parlia- mentary, reform.

Mr. 1VHITERDE made a brief speech, reserving to the Opposition the right to discuss, at some future time, the matters involved in the proto- cols—especially the question relating to the press of Belgium.

Mr. GLADSTOZ•ZE rallied the Opposition on the not very broad character of the question they had raised. The House was asked to express its joy and satisfaction on the occasion of the peace. Lord Claude Hamilton had moved an amendment objecting to the ex-pression of "joy," and proposing an expression of " satisfaction " alone. There was to be no division, but if there had been it would have been some consolation that while the majority would express its joy the minority would express its satis- faction.

For his own part, Mr. Gladstone offered his tribute of thanks to the Go-

vernment, which had, perhaps at some sacrifice of political popularity, in bringing about a peace. He welcomed the peace with joy, not merely, like Mr. Gibson, because it is a peace, but because it is an "ho- nourable " peace,—using that term not as an idle phrase or formality, but because it indicates that the objects of the war have been obtained. If he thought that the peace bound us to maintain the law and institutions of Turkey as a Mahometan state, he should not be content with expressing his satisfaction, but he should look out for the most emphatic word of con- demnation. We have no further concern with the internal institutions of Turkey than to countenance their improvement, and to see that those who profess the same faith with ourselves are not trampled upon. Mr. Gibson had also misapprehended the formal renunciation of interference with the internal affairs of Turkey. The article does not affect our right or duty of interference; it only provides that no right of interference shall grow out of the fact that the hatti-scheriff has been communicated to the Powers. The great benefits achieved by the war are not to be found in any single article, nor in the united terms of the treaty. Those great benefits are—the moral and physical demonstration of Europe impressing on the mind of Russia the opinion of Europe with respect to her aggrandizing tendencies ; the purity of motives in which the war originated ; the rapidity with which, by the aid of science, it was carried on, so that we were enabled to expand our naval and military operations to as great an extent within twelve months after the declaration of war as would formerly have been possible in ten, eighteen, or twenty years. He regretted, however, that a more substantive existence had not been secured to the Principalities : but that was not the fault of England and France. He took the same objection to the neutralization of the Black Sea as Mr. Sidney Herbert, and predicted that in time of war it would be found that neutralization meant nothing more than " a series of pitfalls." It would have been wiser also to have recognized some rules to regulate interference on behalf of the Christians, instead of leaving each Power to do what it may think best. Touching on the proposal to submit international differences to arbitration, and looking upon its recognition as a great triumph, he pointed out a danger. If encouragement be given to trumped-up and untenable claims, more quarrels will be made than mended; and he laid it down that no country ought to resort to arbitration until it has reduced its claims to a minimum which it is ready to support by force. Lay down that rule, and a resort to arbitration will be a powerful engine on behalf of civilization and humanity, which he hoped would lead to a diminu- tion of that great scourge of Europe the enormous cost of its military esta- blishments.

Mr. Gladstone now came to a consideration of the protocol of the 8th April, and gave great development to the Belgian point. He had the great- est doubts as to the prudence of the course taken. If you look to particular cases—Naples, for instance—he would say that what passed pleased him ex- tremely; but although an individual might be justified in saying these things, yet it is a grave question to consider—it is an innovation in the his- tory of conferences of pacification—what results might grow out of enter- taining such subjects and of publishing the decisions arrived at. What is the position of the Powers not represented at the Conference ? "I should also like to know what is the exact force or value that belongs to those re- cords that are inscribed upon the protocols. Are they treaty engagements ? Certainly they are not. Do they approximate to the character of engage- ments ? If they do, how near do they come to it ? If they do not, how far are they from it ? If they do not partake at all of the nature of engage- ments, what are they? They are authoritative documents. Those who like them may claim them as allies and powerful auxiliaries. Those who do not like them may endeavour to depreciate them. Infinite discussions may arise upon their character. Plenty of room for difference of opinion and debate, and I am afraid plenty of risk of something like confusion in international rights and arrangements, will be supplied by these semi- authoritative records, to which no man can give a certain character, and to which every man may give whatever character he thinks best." The important cases raised were those of Naples, Rome, and Belgium. Of Naples he had spoken. The Papal Government he believed to be incurably bad. But the question most pressing on the attention of the House was that relating to the state of the press in Belgium. He would not comment on the language of Lord Clarendon ; the contents of the protocols showed what his feelings were—he wished to discourage what was going on. But some very unfortunate mishap must have occurred with respect to the pas- sage in the four points summing up the protocol. It recites as follows- " That all the Plenipotentiaries, and even those who considered themselves bound to reserve the principle of the liberty of the press, have not hesitated loudly to condemn the excesses in which the Belgian newspapers indulge

i with mpunity, by recognizing the necessity of remedying the real inconveniences which result from the uncontrolled licence which is so greatly abused in Belgium." These propositions are of a most formidable character ; they touch us nearly ; " and, standing here in the first and principal fortress of European freedom, I do think

these matters imperatively call for explanation." He hoped that Count Walewski expressed only his own views, and not the deliberate in- tentions of his sovereign. Russia wisely and. prudently declined to touch the matter ; but what was the conduct of Austria and Prussia ? Count Buol said that repression of the press, in whatever quarter of Europe—" perhaps in whatever island of Europe "—must be considered as an European necessity. having thus dealt pretty afflictively with the case of Belgium, when he arrived at the case of Rome and Naples scruples suddenly arose, and he found it impossible to consider the internal condition of states not repre- sented at the Congress. Baron Manteuffel rivalled the Austrian Minister; he would not countenance any discussion about Rome and Naples, but he was quite ready to deal with the Belgianpress. Mr. Gladstone hoped that these declarations were not indications of pa policy, but that they lightly issued from the mouths of those distinguished persons, and that having been uttered they will be regretted and forgotten though they cannot be recalled. But are the charges against Belgium just ? By the law and practice.of Belgium, refugees are not freely received, but are repelled, unless provided with perfectly regular passports ; and within the last few years no fewer than from 1000 to 2000 persons have been repelled. They live in an ex- ceptional state where they are ordered to live. Then Belgium has a law of extradition with France, and refugees preaching assassination may be punished by the law of Belgium and given up to France. The first article in the law on the press provides a punishment for those who in any culpable manner attack foreign sovereigns. Thus, the law is more stringent than any law in England. That law is based on trial by jury : but to remove the prejudice with which a foreign power might have to contend in appealing to ajury. of Belgians, it is provided that, on a " confidential " demand from a foreign Government, the Belgian Government shall institute and conduct the prosecution on its own respon- sibility. If there is impunity for excesses m Belgium, therefore, the evil la not to be attributed to the want of a law, but to the neglect of putting the law in motion. The Belgian law is based upon trial by jury ; trial by _jury for offences of the press is one of the articles of the Belgian constitu- tion: what is now suggested on the vague pretence of satisfying an " Eu- ropean necessity' is, that the Belgian people by their own act should de- prive themselves of the security of trial by jury. " The history of Belgium is that of a very small fraction of Europe. lent though small physically and as viewed on the map, morally it occupies a large position. The spirit of their forefathers dwells in unbroken force within the bosoms of the Belgian people ; and as it was the object of these conferences to dispel the clouds of war, not to create them—and to promote, not tumult and disorder, but peace and harmony among nations, I think it right to point out as clearly as it is possible for an independent Member of Parliament to do so, that this appeal to a people gallant and high-spirited as the Belgians are—an appeal which appears to be contemplated under the compulsion of foreign and some of them remote Powers, and having for its object the limitation by the Bel- gians of their own dearest rights and most cherished liberties—is not a policy which tends to clear the political horizon, but rather one which will darken and disturb it, and cast gloom and aspondency over a prospect otherwise brilliant and joyous." (Cheers.) Mr. ILimennn moved the adjournment of the debate ; but immediately -withdrew his motion, and moved instead, the insertion of a paragraph expressing a hope that her Majesty would avail herself of the friendly sentiments existing between this country and other Powers to negotiate in favour of commerce.

Lord Perareasron said that Mr. Hadfield's resolution would hardly find a proper place in the address ; but he hoped that Mr. Hadfield would not believe the Government are less disposed to carry it into effect than if they had agreed to it. Lord Palmerston. then addressed the House on the whole subject of debate.

It was satisfactory, he said, to find that no Member who offered an amend- ment was willing to take the sense of the House upon it, or to stake his reputation on a vote of censure. He was not surprised at this ; but he was surprised to hear a noble Lord describe the treaty as dishonourable and base, who yet was ready to express his satisfaction at that treaty. He re- joiced that the objects of the war had been fully obtained : and to prove this, he reviewed and vindicated at great length the main points of the treaty,— the arrangement for the Principalities • the securities for the free navigation the Danube ; the neutralization of Black Sea ; the satisfactory cha- racter of the arrangements for the security of the Christian subjects of the Sultan. He took the same view as Lord Clarendon with regard to the forts of the Russians on the coast of the Black Sea ; and commented in a similar manner, but more diffusely, on the conduct of Schamyl and the Circassians. He regarded it as a complete misapprehension of the facts to say that the destruction of those forts is of importance to the defence of Turkey. Nothing at all has passed on the present occasion which alters at all the position of Russia with regard to the territories on the Eastern coast of the R Sea. With respect to the firman, he thought it could not be revoked, and that it is sufficient to accomplish its destined purpose. Lord Palmerston defended the declaration on maritime rights, as likely to benefit all parties, and not the least ourselves. "Take the policy of the measure. It is said that this right of capture was essential for reducing your enemy. Now tell me any war in which any country was ever induced -to make _peace by the principle that free bottoms should not make free goods. The fact is, that wars are carried on by fleets and by armies—by the destruction of fleets at sea, and by military operations and the capture of strongholds on land. But the idea that the results of war depend on the capture of an enemy's goods on board of neutral bottoms can only originate in a mind wholly unacquainted with the most familiar lessons of history." Treating of the protocol of the 8th April, Lord Palmerston said it was impossible for the Congress to consider the mode of .terminating the occupa- tion of territory consequent on the war and wholly omit to notice an occu- pation that had continued during seven years of peace. Misgovernment led to that occupation, and it could only cease by removing the causes of misgovernment. Describing the government of the Roman States as bad, and that of the Two Sicilies as worse, he held that the representatives of France and England were perfectly justified in calling attention to the ano- malous and unfortunate position of Italy. Discussions took place also with respect to the Belgian press, and " Lord Clarendon very properly declared, that as the representative of a country of which the freedom of the press is one of the fundamental institutions he could not identify himself with any measure tending to destroy that liberty in any other country. The noble Lord might, indeed, have declared this determination in a more Seining and violent sentence, which would have brought down thunders of applause from every hustings, but which would have probably broken up the con- ferences and put an end to all negotiation. But the House might rely that the British Government would be no party to any foreign interference with a view of dictating to an independent nation the steps she should take to gag the press." (Cheers.) Lord Palmerston brought his long speech to a conclusion by describing in glowing terms the prospect of the future, including a complimentary para- graph on the Emperor of Russia. "Many people think that no reliance is to be placed upon Russia, but that she will continue her long-cherished projects of aggression. I do not concur in that opinion. My belief is, that

the present Emperor of Russia is a man of kind and benevolent feelings, not inspired by ambition of conquests, or at least that the conquests at which he aims are conquests over indolence, undeveloped natural resources, and all those difficulties which prevent the progressive improvement of a nation. My hope is, that he will turn the great power which he possesses to the promotion of the internal prosperity of his empire. If the Emperor of Russia should devote his energies to the development of the natural re- sources of his country, to the cultivation of those vast plains which are now arid and barren, and to the connexion of distant parts of his empire by the modern improvement of railways, he will increase the probabilities of peace : but, on the other hand, if those expectations should be deceived—if a period of repose should only be used for the purpose of organizing the means of fresh aggressions—then the alliances to which.I have pointed the common union which has been established between the powers of Europe, would oppose an insurmountable barrier to any attempt which might be made to violate the peace of the world." (Much cheeny.) None of the amendments were pressed to a division, and the address was agreed to nem. eon.

THE VOTES or Tireless.

The Thursday sitting was almost wholly occupied in both Houses in

voting thanks to the Army, Navy, Marines, and embodied Militia, for their "meritorious and eminent services" in the late war. The course pursued, the ground gone over was pretty much the same in both Houses. In the Lords, the Minister for War moved the vote of thanks, and the Earl of Derby seconded the motion. In the Commons, Lord Pal- merston was the mover, and Mr. Disraeli seconded.

In enumerating the solid services of the Navy, Lord Par./an:nue de-

sen-bed how they had carried to and fro during the war 450,000 men, including 52,000 French and 20,000 Sardinians; 54,000 horses, and an aggregate of 340,000 tons of stores. In speaking of the services of the Army, he described their bravery in battle ' - their endurance in the siege ; their fortitude under the infliction of disease and the hardships of a terrible winter. He showed that the health of the army in the Crimea—at present 70,000 strong—is superior to that in camp at Alder- shott. He showed that, up to the 31st March, our total loss, killed, dead of wounds and disease, and discharged, amounted to 22,467 men. The Russians had lost 500,000. He did not forget the Foreign Legion, now 16,790 strong ; nor the Turkish Contingent; nor the Militia. The Militia, indeed, deserved great praise. They now - muster 63,603 men ; since November 1854 they have given 33,000 men to the Army ; eleven regiments serving abroad are to have the word "Mediterranean" on their colours; thirty-eight regiments offered to serve abroad. Though we had mustered a more numerously-manned fleet and a larger body of troops than in any former war, yet every man on board the fleet and every man in the army was a volunteer. He cautioned the House not to rush back to the false economy of former times—to keep the army in masses, and not to weaken the fleet; so that both at any moment might be put on an efficient war footing.

In seconding the motion, the Earl of Denny echoed the panegyric of the

Minister for War, and joined in the caution that closed his speech. The Duke of CAMBRIDGE, the Earl of CARDIGAN, and Earl Gnarpamm, added their quota of eulogy. Earl GREY terminated the conversation with a protest against the allusion to the "false economy of other times " ; contending that not our economy but our system had been in fault. It was because we had fostered our resources in time of peace, and it was because Russia had wasted hers on immense armaments, ihat we had been able to cope with her.

The vote was unanimous.

In the House of Commons, before moving the vote of thanks, Lord

PALMERSTON appeared at the bar with a message from the Queen, an- nouncing, that as a mark of approbation she had conferred on General Williams the dignity of Baronet, with the style and title of " Sir Wit- liam Williams of Kars," and that she had granted him a pension of 10001. a year for the term of his natural life. Cheers from all sides greeted this announcement, and it was ordered that the message should be taken into consideration on Friday. [A similar message was pre- sented to the House of Lords.]

Lord PALMERSTON prefaced his motion of thanks with an eulogistic

commentary on the bearing of the Army and Navy in the chief-incidents of the war. Using the same statistics that Lord Panmure had-appealed to, he showed how our army had grown like the small cloud in Eastern climes, at first no bigger than a man's hand, from 10,000 men sent out to defend Constantinople, to 100,000 men now in the Crimea. He showed how our fleet, comparatively small at the beginning of the war-212 ships—had been augmented by the end of the war, in two short years, to 590. Like Lord Panmure, he spoke• of the noble qualities of tha " great man, that hero " Lord Raglan ; and he did not forget to stamp the merits of Colonel Wilson Patten—a Member of the House—whose Militia Regiment, in garrison at Gibraltar had won high praise from the Governor of the fortress. Lord Palmerston developed at some length the praise of our allies; especially the French—" we are too much in- debted to them for acts of kindness out of the field of battle, as well as for brave cooperation in the field, for the House not to offer its thanks for that cooperation."

Mr. Disnaem seconded the motion. Mr. Braman, putting in a word for Admiral Deans Dundee, and giving expression to some emphatic and touching praises of the rank and file, suggested that the peace should be distinguished by an act of grace—the liberation of young persons con- victed of light offences and in prison for the first time.

The motion passed with universal approval. Shortly afterwards, the House was counted out, when in Committee on the Reformatory Schools (Scotland) Bill.

TEA Mumma.

In reply to a question from Mr. DAVISON respecting the disembodying of

the Irish Militia, Mr. PEEL said-that the Irish Militia must be dealt with in the same way as those of Scotland and England. The course which it is intended to take is to disembody first the Militia that are billeted, and afterwards those that are encamped would follow. He had no doubt, that if the men were at their homes, as much employment might be found for them at this season as any other.

Law Rsroam.

On the second reading of the County Courts Acts Amendment Bill, the LORD CHANCELLOR made a statement of the nature Of the measure. The chief point in this explanation was, that whereas it was formerly con- sidered that the County Courts, like the Courts of Chancery and Bank- ruptcy, should be self-supporting, it is now proposed that the judges

should be paid, and the Court-houses provided out of the Consolidated Fund. The aggregate sum levied by fees in 1854 was 278,0001.; of which 72,0001. was expended in the salaries of the Judges. Under this bill, about half that sum will be raised. With regard to the amount of the salaries in future, the Lord Chancellor said he did not feel warranted in recommending an indiscriminate rate of 15001. a year; and therefore his bill only secures the existing salaries. The bill also extends, at the cogent recommendation of Mr. Pitt Taylor, the jurisdiction of the Courts to actions for damages as high as 501.; making the jurisdiction equal in fictions for debt and damages.

- Lord Cescesme said that Mr. Pitt Taylor, to whose guidance Lord Cranworth preferred to commit himself, seemed ambitious of making hirmelf a second Chief Justice in England. The majority of the County Court Judges are satisfied with their powers ; but Mr. Pitt Taylor— whose talents he respected, and whose friendship he enjoyed—wanted to revolutionize the whole system and give them unlimited ,jurisdiction. Lord Buouonem said, there was no reason whatever for looking upon Mr. Pitt Taylor as a rival for what they used to call the "cushion" in the Court of Queen's Bench. Any one would imagine from the speech of Lord Campbell that the bill proposed to give the Courts unlimited ju- risdiction, whether in cases of debt or tort. The object, however, was to make the remedy equal in both cases, because in the majority of cases it is impossible to draw a line between the two. One important improve- ment in the bill is the adoption of the optional clauses in an improved form. At present both parties have the option of having a case tried in the County Court to any amount of any kind. It is now proposed that the consent should only be required in the first instance of the party who sued ; that he should be allowed to bring his action in the County Court, but that the other party, if he chose, might stop it, and limit the juris- diction as it is at present. With regard to salary, Lord Brougham thought that 15001. a year is not too much to be paid to judges who per- firm such important functions.

Lord ST. LEONARDS thought 12001. a year a sufficient salary; and that the optional clause carried the amount too high.

The bill was read a second time.

- • Trriih-COMMUTATION RMUr-CHARGE.

In moving the second reading of the Tithe-Commutation Rent-Charge Bill, Mr. R. PH1LLIMORE set forth the grievances to be removed—the excessive and disproportionate assessment of tithe rent-charges—and explained the remedy. He proposed that, in estimating the rate at which the tithe rent-charge should be assessed, a fair percentage should be deducted, so as to arrive at the clear annual value ; that this deduction should include all the usual rates and taxes paid by the tenant, especially the land-tax, the salary of the curate, and the amount paid to Queen Anne's Bounty. The bill also provides against annual local taxation, by throwing open the property rated in the parish to inspection. The motion was seconded by Lord ALFRED HERVEY ; and a regular debate arose, in which Mr. BOUVERIE, Sir JOHN PAKINGTON, Mr. GLAD- TONE, Mr. KENLEY, and the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER took part. All the speakers admitted that there is a grievance which it is desirable to remedy; but all found some fault with the remedy proposed—Sir john Pakington and Mr. Gladstone less than the other speakers. At the suggestion of Mr. Gianstobi, the bill, having been read a second time, was referred to a Select Committee.

Ma. Dnm. eves Btu,.

At the Wednesday sitting, Mr. DILLWYN moved the second reading of the Aggravated Assaults Bill ; the characteristic of which is, that while it repeals and reenacts the existing law, it alters the penalty, and substi- tutes corporal punishment for six months' imprisonment. The bill met with considerable opposition, but was not without supporters. Among the latter, were Mr. WHITBREAD' Mr. BENTINCX, and Lord ROBERT CECIL. Their argument was, that the great object of punishnient is to • deter; that the men would not be flogged for their own benefit, but for that of those who are not flogged ; and that their brutality would be checked by a foreknowledge that corporal punishment would follow. On the other hand, it was held by Sir GEORGE GREY, Mr. Psalm, Mr. BIGGS, Mr. BARROW, Captain SCOBELL, Mr. MUNTZ, and Mr. STUART WORT.. 1..EY, that flogging is a brutalizing punishment ; and that it would have a bad effect on the future peace of families. Mr Bsanow, " as a free- born Briton, objected to being subjected to corporal punishment at the discretion of a magistrate and without trial by jury." Mr. MUNTZ bluntly pat the argumentum ad hominem by asking— How would any honourable gentleman meet his wife after she had been the means of getting him a-good flogging " He-suggested a bill to put divorce within the reach of the poor.

On a division, the motion, was negatived by 136 to 97; and the bill ieas thus lost.

LORD DALHOUSIE'S PENSION.

The Marquis of Cuatemenna, moving for papers, denounced as "pre- sumptuous and unconstitutional " the grant of a pension by the Court of Directors to the Marquis of Dalhousie • and asked whether that grant had been sanctioned by the Governmenb: Earl GRANVILLE declined to give any opinion on the matter, except to say that the grant, subject to all the forms, was valid ; but it will have to be approved by two General Courts of Proprietors, and be sanctioned by the President of the Board of Control. The Earl of ALBEMARLE entered his protest against this manner of squandering the money extorted by torture from the im- poverished people of India. The Earl of HARROWBY and Lord PANMURE took Lord Albemarle to task for this mode of treating the subject. The Motion was negatived.