in war.

Lord J. Russell said, he did not wish to take an exaggerated view of this question. He must say that a great deal was to be said on behalf of the Government, and that our Minister would have been quite wrong to advise Portugal to resist by force of arms the demand of France, violent as it was, and thus expose Europe to the risk of war. The question was, therefore, not one for censure; it was one for comment and criticism on the mode in which the negotiations had been carried on. In his opinion, this was one of those doubtful cases, in which the honour of two States was concerned, and which, under the protocol of Paris, should have been submitted to arbitration; and if the English Government had had influence with its ally, and Lord Malmesbury had spoken firmly and in conciliatory language, he would, he believed, have been listened to by that ally. He thought it was owing to the manner in which Lord Malmesbury had conducted the case that it had not been referred to a third Power. This was proposed by Count Lavradio, and the proposition should have been supported by all the influence of this country; instead of which, Lord

Malmesbury was all through suggesting that Portugal must be in the wrong, and that she should yield. The worst result of the correspondence was the disposition which the French Government had shown to adopt the spirit of the protocol of Paris, and he feared that the Government of this country had not at Paris that influence which it ought to have.

The Solicitor-General, after some passing criticisms upon the speeches of Mr. Lowe and Lord J. Russell, observed that the right of Portugal to demand assistance from England depended upon the treaty of 1703, and Portugal had not applied to this country under that treaty, because no casus fœderis had arisen. But, supposing a casus fœderis, the Power to which the treaty applied was bound by international law, before interfering, to see if the ally was right or wrong. He then showed that doubts existed as to the case of Portugal, and that there were circumstances in it which withdrew it from the cognizance of the municipal courts, and transferred it to that of diplomacy. That principle was adopted by us in the recent case of the Cagliari. The main point was, whether the Government of this country and Lord Malmesbury had exerted all their power to accommodate_matters between France and Portugal; and he showed that our good offices were tendered unasked, and that Lord Cowley had proposed to Count Walewski to refer the matter to the arbitration of a friendly Power, and when that proposal was rejected, he immediately pro posed a mediation. This being

likewise refused on the 10th of October, on that day Count Lavradio arrived on the scene, and new negotiations were commenced, in concert with Lord Cowley, which ended in an arrangement a few days afterwards. In conclusion, he summed up the results of the correspondence, and insisted that Her Majesty's Government, using the valuable services of Lord Cowley, had from day to day exerted their good offices with France in favour of Portugal.

The debate, upon the motion of Sir Richard Bethell, was now adjourned, but owing to the sudden termination of the Session, it was not resumed. The only remaining occasion in this Session on which the subject of our Foreign relations came under the notice of Parliament, was a brief discussion on the right of search, and the negotiations on that subject undertaken by Her Majesty's Government, which originated in a request addressed by Lord Wodehouse to the Foreign Secretary, that he would lay the correspondence with the American Minister before Parliament. The noble Lord in the course of his remarks referred to a despatch of General Cass, in which, without proposing any plan of his own, that officer had said, that no right of search to verify the flag would be permitted.

Lord Malmesbury had no objection to lay the correspondence before the House. It would then be clear that he had not surrendered any British privilege. The right of search arose at a time when our navy was irresistible, and was the only navy that ould suppress the slave-trade.

But the right of search was not founded on right, and was unsupported by international law. As soon as France had rebuilt her navy she refused our right of search, and America followed her example. We had held out too long. But, if we had been inclined to run into one extreme, the Americans had run into the other; for they had denied that any such right of verifying the flag existed. That opinion had been subsequently modified, for General Cass had explained that a search might now and then be justified, but it must always be at the risk of the searchers, and that when exercised fairly, no Government could complain. He informed the House that an identical code of siguals had been established between the French and English Governments, which he hoped would be adopted by the United States. Assurances had been received from the United States of a sincere desire to suppress the slave trade, and a proposal for adopting a more efficient system had been forwarded from America. After alluding to the frank manner in which the French Government had given up the free immigration system, he said that the best hopes for suppressing the slave-trade consisted in the maintenance of peace, and that the strongest assurances of the permanence of peace had been received from France.

The Earl of Clarendon denied the position that either the late or the former Government had claimed a right of search in time of peace. Such a course would be contrary to international law. He thought that we ought to have some means of verifying

the nationality of vessels. But, whatever code was adopted should be universal, and not confined to the three chief maritime Powers. The Earl of Aberdeen read a despatch which he had written when at the head of the Foreign Office twenty years before, which showed that the principles then laid down were those acted upon by former Governments and were

not new.

The Earl of Carlisle thought that the principles so laid down were just, and he hoped that the identical code of signals would be adapted as early as possible.

The Earl of Derby observed

that no one contended that this country or any other had a right to board a ship, but the right to ascertain the nationality was not disputed. He hoped that some understanding would be come to between the French, British, and American Governments, as to the mode of verifying the nationality of vessels.

Lord Brougham remarked upon the absurdity of the doctrine that no cruiser had a right to stop a vessel, unless she bore the same flag.

The discussion then terminated.

HE increase and improve

one of the objects to which the attention of Parliament had been directed by the Royal Speech, and in the unsettled state of European politics, the impression had become general that the maritime defences of this country had been too much neglected, and that our Navy had been reduced to a degree inconsistent with national security. Public opinion had consequently become favourable to an increase of ships, and a more efficient mode of manning them, and the First Lord of the Admiralty, Sir John Pakington, had directed his attention with much zeal to the improvement of this branch of the service. An increased demand on the public resources was a necessary result of these measures, and when it devolved on the First Lord to move the Navy Estimates in the House of Commons it became his duty to afford to Parliament a fuller exposition than usual of the measures which the Government had adopted, and of the requirements for which large additional funds were required. He stated that the total estimate

Не

the increase being required for the purpose of placing the Navy in a more efficient state. went through the principal items of increase with explanatory com, ments, particularly remarking that there were at present only four docks in Her Majesty's yards capable of holding our largest ships, and that five others were to be enlarged so as to adapt them for that purpose. No less a sum than 4,000,0007. had been spent within the last few years upon marine engines for the Navy; and in order to secure a good future supply at proper prices, it was in contemplation to extend the sphere of competition, while other steps would be taken to economize dockyard expenditure generally. With regard to the number of men which the House was asked to vote, it was larger than had been demanded for many years past; for though nominally but 3000, it was actually nearly 7000 more than the number for last year. There was in reality no Channel fleet last year; but the Admiralty had since created one of six sail of the line, five of which were first