amount paid was 246,3471. 4s. 9d.; making a total amount of duty paid in those countries, upon 707,975 quarters, of 769,8867. Now the malt-distillers suggested the substitution of an increased duty on spirits of 6d. He would accede to an increase of 8d. per gallon. The total number of gallons distilled in Scotland in the course of last year, was 7,979,000, and in Ireland, upwards of 9,200,000; thus making together a total of 17,259,958 gallons. Upon this, the increase of duty would realize to the revenue upwards of 600,000l., and, therefore, all that the noble Lord would, by the adoption of the proposition, be called upon to give up to the distressed agriculturists of Ireland and Scotland, would be, about 169,000l. By this arrangement the resources of the noble Lord would not be much trenched upon, while a great boon would be extended to both countries. He should not vote for the Motion of the hon. member for Oldham, but he had felt it his duty to call the attention of the House and the Government to these facts, with a view to redress the grievances and burthens by which the agriculturists of Scotland were oppressed and borne down.

all the profits which ought to appertain
to him, for his skill, industry, and capital.
The Committee which had been acqui-
esced in last year by the noble Lord
opposite, had, by their Report, shown the
state of the existing distress amongst the
agricultural interests, and had pointed out
some measures of relief; yet a modification
of the Poor-laws, and other remedies sug-
gested, would not afford any relief to the
agriculturist north of the Tweed, neither
would any alteration of the Tithe-law
affect the distress then consequent upon
the low prices obtained for agricultural
produce. In Scotland, all collision be-
tween the occupying tenants and the
clergy had been avoided, but, though no
outcry had been raised, the former had to
contribute to the Church, though in a dif-
ferent shape, all that was paid by tenants
occupying lands in England. The Scotch
agriculturists had used great efforts, and
with success, to improve the lands, but
their condition was now daily becoming
more distressing, and they were more and
more unable to maintain a respectable and
useful position in society, and the lands
were passing into the hands of attorneys,
money-lenders, and legal craftsmen-a
change than which none more injurious
could be conceived. He was not pre-
pared, however, to break the national
faith, and sacrifice the provision for the
exigences of the State, and, therefore, he
could not vote for the Motion of the hon.
member for Oldham, but he would take
the liberty of suggesting to the noble Lord
opposite (Althorp) a means by which a
partial relief could be afforded, without,
to any considerable degree, affecting the
revenue. The suggestion was contained
in a memorial signed by the malt-distillers
of the Inverness collection, and those me-
morialists recommended as a very essential
amendment, the repeal of the Malt-duty,
and the substitution of a Spirit-duty,
which they were willing to increase to
3s. 11 d. or to even 4s. per gallon. Now,
as the modification of the Poor-laws,
the proposed alteration in the tithe system,
could not affect the agricultural distress
in Scotland or Ireland, his proposition
was, that the noble Lord opposite should
separate the question of the Malt-duties
with reference to those two countries,
from the question as affecting England.
Leech, J.
It appeared that during the last year, the Lennard, Sir T.
duty on malt paid in Scotland was Lister, E. C.
523,5391. Is. 6d.; and, in Ireland, the | Mills, W.

or

The House divided on Mr. Cobbett's Motion-Ayes 59; Noes 142: Majority 83.

List of the AYES.

ENGLAND.

Adams, E. H.
Aglionby, H. A.
Astley, Sir J.
Attwood, T.
Barnard, J. G.
Bell, M.
Bowes, J.
Buckingham, J. S.
Burton, H.
Chandos, Marquess of
Chaplin, Colonel
Clayton, Colonel W.R.
Crawley, S.
Curteis, Captain
Faithfull, G.
Fancourt, Major
Fielden, J.
Foley, E.
Folkes, Sir W.
Gaskell, D.
Hume, J.
Ingilby, Sir W.
James, W.
Keppel, Major

Question again put, that the Speaker England had refused her assistance, had leave the Chair.

that aid had been asked of England by | to any other European power for ten years." the Porte, and refused, and that if England The writer adds, that the other articles of had thought proper to interfere, the pro- the treaty were unknown; that the treaty gress of the invading army would have was clandestinely concluded; that Lord been stopped, and the Russian troops Ponsonby and Admiral Roussin remonwould not have been called in. The aid strated, and were told that assistance had granted by Russia was merely to repress been asked in vain from England and Mehemet Ali. The integrity of the Otto-France against Egypt, and that they had man empire should be maintained. The left the Porte no alternative; and that the noble Lord said, "The taunt, of the Go- Ambassadors had despatched couriers to vernment being afraid of war is puerile, their Courts for instructions. The writer and I defy any man to show, that we have said nothing with regard to the Dardamade any sacrifice of the honour or inter- nelles. This letter was, as he had said, ests of the country for the sake of main-published August 21, 1833, in London. taining peace." He (Mr. Sheil) would not interrupt the order of the statement here by any commentary on this intrepid and chivalrous declaration, but would content himself with whispering "Poland" in the ear of the noble Lord. The noble Lord concluded by saying, "that he had no doubt that Russia would honourably withdraw her troops, as soon as peace should be established, and fulfil the pledges which she had made in the face of Europe." The 11th of July was the day on which this speech was delivered. How little did the noble Lord conjecture, that only three days before, on the 8th of July, a Treaty had been clandestinely signed at Constantinople between the Sultan and Count Orloff, who, while he appeared to be engaged in the reviews, shows, and illuminations of the seraglio, was secretly and silently conducting the Sultan to the ruin which had been prepared for him. Of this treaty our Government knew and heard nothing until it was announced in the Morning Herald of the 21st of August. On the 21st of August a letter from the private correspondent of that Journal appeared, in which it was stated that, "while Count Orloff was apparently complying with the wishes of France and England, he was preparing a stroke which only became known the day after his departure, which has since covered the Ambassadors of those countries with confusion, and has placed Turkey in the hug of the bear. He prevailed on the Sultan to sign a treaty, offensive and defensive, by which Turkey is bound not to make any treaty or call for assistance from any other nation for ten years. One of the articles confirms all prior treaties, in particular that of Adrianople; another binds Russia to furnish every assistance necessary to protect her from internal and external enemies; and the third, interdicts her from resorting

On the 24th of that month, the gallant member for Westminster introduced the subject to the notice of the House. He asked whether the Russian troops had entered Turkey with the consent of France and England. He adverted to the fortifications of the Dardanelles, under the superintendence of Russian engineers, and added that it was rumoured that a treaty, offensive and defensive, had been entered into between the Sultan and Count Orloff, without the intervention or knowledge of the other Ambassadors. The hon. member for Oxford (Sir Robert Inglis) referred to the letter in the Morning Herald, and trusted, that the noble Lord would not allow the House to receive its information from the newspapers, but would give it in the usual manner. The hon. Member trusted, that before the prorogation of the House, or on the earliest occasion, the noble Lord would lay before the House, not merely the treaty, but the communications connected with it. He hoped the noble Lord would be able to contradict rumours of a treaty so injurious to the honour and interests of England. The noble Lord replied that a treaty had been signed; that it had not yet been officially communicated; that he knew nothing, except on vague rumour, at that time, of what the treaty contained. He said, that England had not objected to the entry of the Russian troops into Turkey, and that the Porte had, in the autumn of 1832, applied to England for assistance, but that the application was refused. On the 29th August, five days after, his Majesty's Speech on the prorogation of Parliament was delivered, and contained the following passage: "The hostilities which had disturbed the peace of Turkey have been terminated; and you may be assured that every attention will be carefully directed to any events which may

in more caustic phraseology, and in the same style of contemptuous repudiation as the article in the St. Petersburg Gazette on the presumption of our interference in the affairs of Poland? To return to dates and facts, on the 1st of January, Count Pozzo di Borgo addressed the King of the French, and on that occasion the accomplished Corsican pronounced on Louis Philip an eulogium, accompanied with protestations, characteristic of both, of the party who indulged in, and the party who was graciously pleased to accept, the hollow panegyric. Six days after, in bringing up the address, M. Bignon delivered a speech, which was received with equal surprise and acclamation. He denounced the conduct of Russia towards Poland, and held out the aggressions upon Turkey as indicative of that deep and settled pur

affect the present state, or the future independence of that empire." From the King's Speech he should pass to a very momentous communication made by France to Russia, in the following October. The interests of France and England were bound up together in the whole question, but more especially with respect to the passage of the Dardanelles, as by the Treaty of Paris in 1802, the rights of France and of England were placed upon precisely the same footing. In October last Monsieur Le Grenee addressed the following note to Count Nesselrode:"The undersigned Chargé d'Affaires of his Majesty the King of the French, has received orders to express to the Cabinet of St. Petersburg, the profound affliction felt by the French Government, on learning the conclusion of the Treaty of the 8th July last, between his Majesty the Emperor of Russia and the Grand Sig-pose, of which he had, in his official canior. In the opinion of the King's Government, this Treaty assigns to the mutual relations existing between the Ottoman empire and Russia, a new character against which the powers of Europe have a right to protest.' To this note, Count Nesselrode replied, in the following offensive and almost contumelious language:" It is true, that this act changes the nature of the relations between Russia and the Porte, for in the room of long-continued hostilities, it substitutes that friendship and that confidence, in which the Turkish Government will henceforth find a guarantee for its stability and necessary means of defence, calculated to insure its preservation. In this conviction, and guided by the purest and most disinterested intentions, his Majesty the Emperor is resolved, in case of necessity, to discharge faithfully the obligations imposed on him, by the Treaty of the 8th of July, thus acting as if the declaration contained in the note of Monsieur La Grenee had no existence.-St. Petersburg, Oct. 1833." This note was taken from the Augsburg Gazette, to which it purported to have been transmitted in a letter from Paris on the 23rd of December. Here let one remark be made, which would not break in on the distinct classification of facts. If the French Government remonstrated, it was to be presumed that the noble Lord did not remain silent. Where was his correspondence? Was a note as affronting written in reply, or was it even couched

re

pacity, a perfect cognizance. In 1807, he said, Alexander had tendered all Southern Europe to Napoleon, provided he got Constantinople in exchange. He warned France to beware of the advances of Russian power in the East, and denounced, while he revealed her policy; and invoked his countrymen to awaken to a sense of the insults offered to the dignity of France, and the violation offered to her rights. To this speech the Duke de Broglie made an answer conspicuous in itself, and which his subsequent conduct rendered still more markable. He expressed his unqualified concurrence in all that had been said, and thanked M. Bignon for having given expression to the sentiments which he and his colleagues entertained. On the very next day, this very Duke de Broglie went down to the Chamber, and made a speech which was received with astonishment by both countries. He contended, that no violation of treaty had taken place,-expressed satisfaction with Russian policy, and stated, that there had been no material alteration made respecting the passage of the Dardanelles. M. Thiers, in reply to M. Mauguin, said nearly the same thing, and although M. La Grenee's note was yet fresh in every memory, and the Duke of Broglie's approval of Bignon's speech was ringing in every ear, expressed no sort of discontent at any one of the incidents which had taken place. M. Thiers, however, incidentally acknowledged, that it was a part of the treaty, that all vessels

pire. The Porte is relieved from the pressure of the engagements imposed on her at Adrianople; and we understand that the Principalities, with the exception of Silistria, will shortly be evacuated, and the sum exacted by the former treaty reduced one-third. Such relaxations of positive engagements are proofs either of the moderation and good sense of Russia, or of the influence which the union of England and France, and the firm and concerted language of those two Powers, have acquired in the Councils of St. Petersburgh." Was it not reasonable that this treaty should be laid before the House? It was to be observed, that, in any account of it, either in our journals, or in the Allgemeine Zeitung, not one word was said of the passage of the Dardanelles. The Principalities of Wallachia and Moldavia, indeed, were to be evacuated. That circumstance was a mere delusion, for Wallachia and Moldavia were as much dependencies on Russia as if they had actu

of powers at war with Russia, should be | Enough has transpired to satisfy the most excluded from the passage of the Darda-jealous that its spirit is pacific, and, innelles. Our own Parliament did not meet deed, advantageous to the Turkish emuntil the 5th of February, but before it assembled, an incident occurred which remained to be explained. The French and English fleets united proceeded to the Dardanelles, which Russia had spared no expense to fortify, and having displayed the tricoloured and "the national flag of England," as it had been nobly called, near the spot where Sir George Duckworth, when Lord Grey was Secretary for Foreign Affairs, expended a good deal of powder without much avail, both fleets sailed away, and instead of proceeding to Smyrna, gave preference to a more distant, but less commodious harbour, where, however, Russian influence was not quite so predominant as in that celebrated haven. The glory of this expedition belonged to the First Lord of the Admiralty, but it was to be conjectured that the achievement was suggested by the genius of the Secretary for Foreign Affairs. But in what did it result? That remained to be told, and for the satisfaction of that curiosity he that night afforded an oppor-ally been transferred. Their Hospodars tunity. Parliament met on the 5th. The King's Speech informed them that the integrity of the Porte was, for the future, to be preserved (the Sultan having been first stripped, and then manacled), and that his Majesty continued to receive as-key of the Lower Danube, commanding surances which did not disturb his confi- all Bulgaria, and a place so important dence that peace would be preserved. The that the Greek emperors constructed a Duke of Wellington, in another place, wall there to protect their frontier, and adverted to the Treaty of Constantinople, guard against the incursions of the barand Lord Grey retorted Adrianople upon barians. As to the remission of money, his Grace But, in the Treaty of Adrian- that concession was made to an inople, there was, at all events, nothing that solvent debtor; it was not the first time infringed upon our rights, as to the navi- that Russia adopted the same course; the gation of the Black Sea; and it was to payment of a tribute was of little moment be recollected that, whatever the First from a country which was almost incorLord of the Treasury might have said, the porated in her dominions, and would soon Secretary for Foreign Affairs declared meet the fate of so many of the Turkish that, "while he desired peace, of war he provinces. But how did this treaty modify was not in the least afraid." In that or effect that of the 8th of July? It did House no interrogatories were put. On not at all relate to it. It concerned the the 24th of February, the following para-Treaty of Adrianople, and, as far as they graph appeared in the Globe, which, from its being the supposed organ of Government, deserved great attention, the more especially as they were left to the news papers for their intelligence. That article stated:--" Another treaty between Russia and Turkey has been concluded at St. Petersburgh, which was signed by Achmet Pacha, on the 29th of last month.**

were virtually nominated by Russia; no Turk could reside in the country; and every appointment down to that of the humblest officer, was effected through Russian dictation. Silistria was retained, the

had nothing else on this question, the House was entitled to receive adequate information from the Government. With respect to the Dardanelles,—a matter of signal importance to England, affecting her commerce, affecting not only the navigation of the Euxine, but giving Russia a control over Greece, and the entire Archipelago,-it might be as well to state,