he would ask, pursue any other line of conduct consistently with the dignity and security of the country? Was it ever heard of or known, that a body of troops, disciplined in this country without the knowledge of Government, had been suffered to remain here? It was necessary for the character of Ministers that a stop should be put to such a system. But besides these Portuguese, Ministers learned that there was a body of 200 or 300 Germans recruiting on the Continent, who were to come to this country, and finally to embark with the Portuguese force, for which purpose they had transports in the harbour of Plymouth. He would not depend on any statement of his own, but he would refer to the language of the Marquis Palmella himself, who admitted that the appearance of these troops would excite fear amongst one party, and give confidence to the other. What did he say? Why that this levy of troops would create dismay amongst one party, and give pleasure and delight to the other. As to the law of nations, no one could doubt what he was about to state,namely, that a body of troops belonging to one of the belligerent parties, and going to a neutral state, could not be allowed to remain there for the avowed object of opposing one party or of supporting another. Such a proceeding could not be tolerated; and on that principle they had acted with respect to Portugal. What was the next step? Why, the Marquis Barbacena applied for permission to do what? To embark these men for Terceira: and for what purpose? Why, to give succour to one of the contending parties: for, in considering this case, they must take the whole of the Portuguese dominions as being engaged in the struggle. The Marquis Barbacena wished to proceed there, under a British convoy, to strengthen the young Queen's party. But he asked, if they had consented to that, would they not have been breaking their neutrality? And could any man, if such a project were allowed, attempt to argue that this country had acted fairly? The next proposition was, to send these troops to Rio Janeiro, and Ministers were asked, would they give a guarantee that they should not be molested? They would not give a guarantee, but they offered a convoy; and he doubted much whether they had a right to do so. There was, however, an express arrangement that those persons should go to Rio Janeiro, and not to Terceira; but that

engagement had been broken. It was said that all this was harmless, as they were unarmed men. But that argument was altogether untenable, because, as they were. organized, they had no right to go there; and he asked what did it matter whether their arms were at Terceira or in this country? When they said they would go to Rio Janeiro, and not to Terceira, he maintained that we had a right to keep them to their promise. They received ample notice, when off Terceira, that they would not be permitted to land. They were desired not to approach, and one or two shots were fired to warn them off; and it was not till they were approaching Praia, that the gun was fired which was attended with such melancholy consequences. The consequences must, however, rest with those who were guilty of the gross breach of faith which he had stated. These were the facts placed in the narrowest compass, and those facts justified him in asserting, that from the beginning to the end good faith was maintained with these parties. Government was willing that they should proceed to Brazil, and it was not until they adopted a contrary course that steps were taken to make them adhere to their engagement. No public right was violated, and therefore there was no occasion for the Motion of the noble Lord.

Lord Holland, in explanation, said, that his motive for not alluding more at length to the point adverted to by the noble and learned Lord, did not arise from any feeling of its weakness or want of importance. The noble Duke had charged him with having omitted the point of notice. He did not intend to have done so. But he would now trespass on their Lordships' indulgence to say a few words in answer to that point. He would suppose that the noble Duke, instead of prosecuting Mr. Alexander, had given him notice, that if he should write another inflammatory article he would give him a drubbing, and that upon Alexander writing such an article he had given him a drubbing: would the noble Duke have been justified in thus taking the law into his own hands? It appeared to him that the two cases were not very dissimilar

The Lord Chancellor said, that in the Terceira case the parties had professed to submit to the wishes of our Government, and therefore had no right to complain of the consequences resulting from their breach of faith.

The Earl of Carnarvon denied that the Marquis of Palmella had given any distinct pledge that the troops should go to the Brazils, and not to Terceira. On the contrary, it appeared that the Marquis had acted throughout with perfect candour and good faith. Their Lordships were told that this country was entitled to maintain its principle of neutrality, and to exact attention to it on the part of those who had found an asylum here. That was the case while they were in this country; but that principle gave us no right to make a hostile attack on these unfortunate people for the purpose of driving them from their own shores. When they had got to those shores they were entirely out of our jurisdiction. But it was said, that they had | sent arms before them, which were ready to be put into their hands when they arrived in the island. Was it clear that such was the fact? Certainly he found no satisfactory evidence of it. The noble Duke feared to keep them here as a body. That was rather an extraordinary fear on the part of the noble Duke; but it appeared that he feared as much to allow them to go hence as a body. The noble Duke wanted them to disperse; but they preferred, naturally, to leave the country; for, if they should be dispersed, they must starve, as the subscriptions would then, | probably, cease, and their subsistence depended on their remaining as a body. The real question had been always blinked by the Ministers; which was not whether they had a right to expel the refugees from our own ports, but whether they had a right to pursue them from one quarter of the globe to another. While here, Ministers might have a right to control their proceedings and motions; but what had that to do with the act of driving them, by a hostile attack, from their own shores? That was the point in which the Ministers had violated the law of nations. Well, but, said the Ministers, perhaps we did act contrary to the law of nations, but then we had a right to do so, since they violated their promise. He did not think that they had violated their promise; but if they had, that gave the Ministers no right to violate the law of nations. Suppose they had violated their promise, were they the only one of the two parties who had done so? Was there not a much more grievous violation of promise on the part of Miguel? He was one of those who

thought at one time that this question of neutrality had been sufficiently discussed, but he thanked the noble Marquis for bringing it forward again; for it was now so manifest that the neutrality had not been preserved, that the question might be considered as at rest for ever. We had violated that neutrality in opposition to that side which both our honour and interest required us to support, and the Ministers justified the course by a kind of special-pleading arguments. He should vote for the Motion, because he considered that the Ministers, by their conduct, had put an end to all the hopes of the loyal party, and had sacrificed both the interest and the honour of the country.

The Duke of Wellington explained, that he was apprehensive of the consequences, in case the troops had refused to obey the order to disperse; and therefore had felt a disinclination to issue such an order; with respect to what had fallen from the noble Baron as to the notice, he must say, that he had twice given them notice that they must not go to Terceira,

Their Lordships then divided, and the numbers were- Content, present 21; proxies 10; total 31. Not-content, present 61; proxies 65; total 126. Majority 95.

Against this decision the following Protest was subsequently entered on their Lordships' journals:

PROTEST-TERCEIRA.-" Because the forcible detention or interruption of the subjects of a belligerent state, upon the high seas, or within the legitimate jurisdiction of either of the belligerents, by a neutral, constitutes a direct breach of neutrality, and is an obvious violation of the law of nations. And such an act of aggression, illegal and unjust at all times against a people with whom the interfering power is not actually at war, assumed in this instance a yet more odious and ungenerous aspect, inasmuch as it was exercised against the unarmed subjects of a defenceless and friendly Sovereign, whose elevation and right to the Crown of Portugal had been earnestly recommended and openly recognized by his Majesty, and whose actual residence in Great Britain bespeaking confidence in the friendship and protection of the King, entitled both her and her subjects to especial favour and countenance, even if considerations of

MINUTES.] Lord FRANCIS LEVESON GOWER brought in a Bill to continue for a time, to be limited, the several Acts for the encouragement and improvement of British and Irish Fisheries. Read a first time.

[The Act was only intended, his Lordship explained, to continue those Bounties for the present Session.]

His Lordship also obtained leave to bring in Bills to consolidate and amend the laws respecting Tolls and Customs in Ireland, and to regulate the importation of Arms into that country. The Illusory Appointments Bill was read a third time and passed.

Returns Ordered. On the Motion of Mr. WARD, of all Fines imposed during the last three years on Dealers in Foreign Wines:-On the Motion of Mr. HUME, of all sums expended on the Bridge, Harbour, or other Public Works of Londonderry since 1814, specifying the dates, and all other particulars necessary for the information of the House of all Officers who had been dismissed the service without trial by Courts-martial since 1827, together with returns of all general regimental and district Courtsmartial held from 1820 to 1829:-On the Motion of Sir THOMAS FREEMANTLE, of the total quantity of Butter imported between 1801 and 1850 inclusive, distinguishing the countries it came from; and of the foreign Butter and Cheese imported during the two last years:-On the Motion of Mr. JEPHSON, Copy of Correspondence between the Commissioners of Charities and the Trustees of Morden College:-On the Motion of Mr. BERNAL, of the sums received by the Corporation of the Trinity House of Deptford Strond, under the Act of the 6th of Geo. 1th cap. 125, sec. 4, with a list of the names of river pilots :--On the Motion of Sir HENRY PARNELL, in consequence of Lord L. Gower having intimated his intention to bring in a Bill on the subject of the Fisheries, of all sums of Money expended on the Fisheries of Great Britain for each of the last five years, together with the Expenses of the Establishments connected with them.

For Relief in Distress, by Sir GILBERT HEATHCOTE, from the inhabitants of the County of Rutland:-

[The hon. Baronet bore testimony to the respectability of the Petitioners, and urged upon the House the necessity of effecting a reform in the representation of the people.]

By Mr. RAMSDEN, from Huddersfield, praying also that Salaries might be reduced :

[In this prayer the hon. Member said, he heartily joined, though he had no wish to unsettle the Administration.]

By Admiral SOTHERON, from the Owners and Occupiers of Land in the County of Nottingham also, and earnestly praying for a reduction of Taxation:

[Mr. S. Lumley supported the prayer of the Petition.]

By Mr. WESTERN, from the Hundred of Clackclose, Norfolk, signed by 500 persons, and against the Bill of 1819: --By Colonel DAVIES, from the manufacturers and others of Dudley. For removal of disabilities in the Jews by Mr. HUME, from the inhabitants, being Jews, of the northern and eastern divisions of the Metropolis:-by Mr. MONCK, from a person named Thomas Flanagan. For a Registry of Births in Ireland, by Lord CASTLEREAGH, from Archibald Hamilton Rowan and George Cockburn. For a License Duty on Hawkers and Pedlars of 251., by Lord G. SOMERSET, from the regular dealers in the county of Monmouth. For holding the Parliament in Ireland once in every three years, by Mr. MONCK, from Killsaran and Slabannaun. Complaining of the conduct of the Corporation of Londonderry, by Mr. HUME, from John Sheehan, whom Sir George Hill described as a stranger in Londonderry. Praying for the abolition of Capital Punishment in cases of Forgery, by Mr. DUGDALE, from the Clergy, merchants, bankers, and manufacturers of Birmingham. For the repeal of the Malt and Beer Duties, by Mr. CAVENDISH, from the farmers, tradesmen, and other inhabitants of Brede and Udimore, Sussex. For making Houses let in Tenements liable to the PoorRates, by Sir M. W. RIDLEY, from Newcastle-on-Tyne. Against the Free Trade in Beer, by Lord STANLEY, from the inhabitants of Bury. By Lord NUGENT, from Mr. Thomas Wilson, an architect, praying to be heard at the Bar of the House, in favour of a plan he had completed for the erection of an immense Pyramid, intended for a National cemetery, and calculated to hold five millions of bodies. This building would, as he alleged, prove both ornamental and useful, and afford occupation to the living, as well as a place of secure interment for the dead,

EMIGRATION.] The Marquis of Chan

by Sir JOHN WROTTESLEY, from the Protestants of Hanley and Lane End, Staffordshire. For a reform in the Administration of the Laws, by Mr. HUME, from the inhabitants of Carlisle. For the abolition of the East India Company's Monopoly, by Mr. Hume, from the inhabitants of Wootton-under-Edge, and from the Clothing Districts

in Buckinghamshire, for the application of a portion of parochial Poor-rates to the assistance of voluntary emigrants. noble Marquis, in supporting the prayer

The

THER, from the inhabitants of Carlisle. For the removal of impediments to the cultivation of Anatomy, by Mr. WARBURTON, from the Surgeons and Physicians of Sheffield.

[The hon. Member said,that his opinions on the subject were unchanged, and his only reason for not renewing the Bill of last Session was, that he hoped a measure would be introduced in the other House, so as to get rid of some of the obstacles which had proved fatal to his Bill in that House.]

ment would take the subject into its consideration, as he knew of no more efficient mode of lessening the Poor-rates, and improving the condition of the working classes, than supplying those who were unable to procure work with the means to emigrate to such of the colonies as have a demand for their labour.

Mr. W. Horton begged leave to say, that he intended to bring in a bill to meet the wishes of the petitioners. Should the

House favour him with its support, he would endeavour to convince it of the practicability of applying a part of those rates to assist the unemployed operative to emigrate where there was a demand for labour, and also of its expediency and efficiency, and of the groundlessness of those objections which had been made against it.

Mr. Portman said, he coincided in opinion with the right hon. Gentleman, that this matter ought to be seriously taken up; but he regarded the Ministers as the only persons who could successfully carry it into execution. Government, he thought, ought to appoint a committee to investigate the matter first, and point out the proper methods in detail for executing the project. He conjured the House not to deserve the reproach of being unable and unwilling to do any thing to relieve the condition of the poor.

Sir Thomas Freemantle concurred in these opinions. He was sure that it would not cost parishes more to send their paupers to colonies, where they might be comfortable and happy, than it cost to keep them at home in want and wretchedness, where so little demand existed for their labour that they were set to break stones to keep them out of mischief.

Mr. Secretary Peel considered the subject to be one of almost equal difficulty and importance. His right hon. friend, the Colonial Secretary had directed his attention to the subject, and had, as a preliminary step, sent out an intelligent person with a view to establish a uniform system of emigration to the North American colonies. With respect to parishes mortgaging their poor-rates, that was a subject of great difficulty, and he did not yet see in what manner Government could take it up, and he was not prepared to give an opinion, either one way or the other. He would not then enter into a discussion of the points alluded to by the petitioners, but should reserve his opinions till his right hon. friend's (Mr. W. Horton's) promised measure was before the House. To the details and principle of that measure he would give his best attention, the rather, as his right hon. friend had, on a former occasion, displayed such a perfect mastery of the question in all its bearings,-had, in fact, so exhausted the subject that no committee or further inquiry was necessary. He was glad that his right hon. friend had announced his

intention of bringing forward a measure the tendency of which was to lessen the amount of Poor-rates, as it would afford the House an opportunity of examining his right hon. friend's proposition more carefully than it had done. He should be happy to give his assistance to a measure for consolidating the several laws respecting the poor, should any hon. Member take upon himself the task.

Mr. R. Colborne thought it was time that something should be done with the now undeniable superfluous population, for whose labour there was no domestic demand. Under such circumstances, the Act of Elizabeth could not be strictly adhered to. If relief were given only to sick and infirm, many able-bodied men must starve. He hoped, therefore, that either the Government or the right hon. Gentleman would succeed in introducing some practical measure.

Colonel Wood anticipated the best results from the intended bill of the right hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme. It was evident that a part of the evils of the Poor-laws arose from the mal-administration of them.

Petition to be printed.

Mr. D. W.

VOTING BY BALLOT.] Harvey presented a Petition from Colchester, for a Reduction of Taxes, a Reform of Parliament, Triennial Parliaments, Election by Ballot, a Commutation of Tithes, and relief to the productive industry of the country by a commuted Property-tax, and by applying a portion of the Bishops' revenues to lessening the public burthens, to all of which he cordially and cheerfully subscribed, save the prayer for election by ballot.

Mr. Hume supported the prayer of the Petition, particularly that part of it which requested that voting by ballot might be the principle of reform. That was the only means which could be adopted to check the operation of undue influence at elections, and to enable every man to give a conscientious vote. The hon. Member on a former occasion had stated, that his constituents were averse from election by ballot, but he was probably now convinced of the contrary. If the hon. Member canvassed the country, he would pro bably find that opinion was in general in favour of this measure, because it was the best means of preserving the popular power.