these means; but also we had put out many millions in such a way as to bring us into contact with every Power of the world. If a debtor was in danger of impoverishment, we must interfere. If we heard of diplomatic differences, we must diplomatize. If armaments were increased, we must arm too. We thus always embroiled ourselves with other's embroilments. When war threatened, our Exchange trembled, and our capitalists forced the Government into war. He believed that this improper employment of capital was the real cause of all our meddling, and interference, and "bloated armaments," and "profligate expenditure."

MR. FREELAND said, that they were voting large sums for an outlay arising out of their connection with Turkey. In this Vote alone no less a sum than £12,090 in the whole was asked for. He should like to know whether the reforms promised by the Turkish Government, especially those in which British subjects were interested, were being carried into effect? He particularly wished to know, whether the route from Trebizond, by way of Erzeroum to Tabrez, over which great quantities of British merchandise passed to Persia, had been improved?

MR. LAYARD said, in reference to the Morocco loan, that all we had to do was to allow our agents there to receive a portion of the Custom-house dues, and to hand them over to the creditors of Morocco. He also denied that we had been at war with Mexico. The road to Erzeroum, to which allusion had been made, had not, he was afraid, been carried out, as ought to have been the case; but the Turkish Government would, he trusted, see the expediency of taking the matter vigorously in hand.

LORD ROBERT MONTAGU said, he was astonished at the denial made by the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, that we had been at war with Mexico. He (Lord Robert Montagu) must therefore call a witness into court to prove that point. The witness should be no less a person than the noble Viscount himself. The noble Viscount, in answering the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli), the other day, accounted for the great expenditure of this year and last year and the year before. In doing so he particularly mentioned the war with China and the war with Mexico as unavoidable

causes of expenditure. He made particular mention of the war with Mexico as an argument and excuse. If, therefore, the Under Secretary be right, the noble Viscount was wrong. If the noble Viscount was right, then he must correct his Under Secretary. He (Lord Robert Montagu) appealed to the noble Viscount. Then, again, the Under Secretary took exception to the word "mortgaged." If he lent money to any landholder, which was secured on the income from the creditor's lands, then the land was said to be mortgaged to the debtors. It surely, then, was a very fair figure of speech, and not by any means far-fetched, to say that the Delta of Egypt and the Empire of Morocco were mortgaged to us. We had lent £426,000 to Morocco, which was raised in 5 per cent bonds. The amount of Customs revenues collected in that country were £322,900; out of which the half (£160,000) were yearly secured to us. And yet the amount of interest and sinking fund annually due to us was only £38,000. This therefore, was excellent security. Then, again, with regard to the Egyptian loan the same may be said. He alluded to the loan of £1,600,000; in return for which £176,000 were secured to us by the Viceroy, to be paid annually out of the revenues of the Delta. The Delta was, in fact, mortgaged to our bondholders. He repeated that this system of loans embroiled us in the difficulties of others; and was a cause of our vast expenditure.

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON said, his hon. Friend (Mr. Layard) had not stated that the Government had not taken any measures against Mexico to obtain satisfaction of our just claims; what he stated was that the claims we had made upon that Government did not apply to debts due to bondholders. The claims against Mexico had reference, in the first place, to the non-payment of certain sums which, by convention, the Government of Mexico had agreed to pay; and in the next to the restoration of a sum of 600,000 dollars which was forcibly taken from the House of our Minister. This money was under scal, and the seal was broken as he was on the point of leaving the country. Such acts as these were national injuries-a breach of faith, and an outrage for which they were entitled to demand satisfaction. He might add that it had been the invariable rule of the English Government not to undertake to require payment for British subjects who, of their own authority

his right hon. Friend near him seemed to be more easily satisfied than some of the economists who were not there. He

thought the hon. Gentleman had given no assurance that there would not be a repetition of this Vote of £40,000. He would move that the Vote be reduced by £20,000.

Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That a sum, not exceeding £20,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1863, for Surveying the Line of Boundary between the British and United States Territory, in the Western part of North America."

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON said, that his hon. Friend had come down to the House late this evening, and he supposed must have his joke. But he supposed his hon. Friend did not mean that this boundary was not to be traced, or that people were not to be paid for tracing it. The American Government were in perfect concert with ours in this matter, and had agreed to share the expense.

MR. BERNAL OSBORNE said, he wanted the noble Lord to give a pledge that the cost would not be repeated.

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON said, he could give no pledge without knowing the facts to which it was to apply. He suggested that his hon. Friend should move for a report of the probable amount that would be required to complete the

survey.

MR. BERNAL OSBORNE said, he would do that too.

MR. LAIRD wished to know, whether the money had been well expended? He therefore asked, whether the American Government were so far agreed with us as to the boundary?

MR. PEEL believed they were entirely agreed with us.

COLONEL DUNNE hoped a tracing of the boundary line would be laid before the House.

MR. E. P. BOUVERIE wished to know, whether the expense had been borne by both Governments.

SIR CHARLES WOOD said, there was a treaty between the two Governments that there should be a boundary line. The American Government were acting with us in order to trace that boundary and prevent disputes. It was surely reasonable that it should be traced at the expense of both parties.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn. Original Question again proposed. Whereupon Motion made, and Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.'

The Committee divided: - Ayes 29; Noes 46: Majority 17.

Original Question put, and agreed to.
House resumed.

Resolutions to be reported To-morrow; Committee to sit again To-morrow.

INCLOSURE BILL-[BILL No. 130.]

THIRD READING.

Order for Third Reading read.

MR. PEACOCKE suggested, that when any measure was in future proposed for enclosing any land in the vicinity of the metropolis, the attention of the House ought to be specially drawn to that fact. No one would imagine, from what appeared on the face of this Bill, that the Forest of Hainault, situated within nine miles of London, was intended to be enclosed by it. This was a matter seriously affecting the health and recreation of the poorer classes inhabiting the cast end of the metropolis, and neither the House nor the Government ought to afford facilities for such encroachments.

SIR GEORGE GREY said, that the proceedings upon this Bill showed that these enclosures could not take place without the utmost publicity. The Bill confirmed certain orders made by the Enclosure Commissioners, which orders could only be made after due notice to the whole neighbourhood affected. In this case certain persons interested in the question had petitioned the House upon it, and their petition had been referred to a Select Com. mittee in the same manner as if the measure had been a private one. The present arrangement had, he believed, been acquiesced in by all the parties interested. He would, however, consider the hon. Member's suggestion and communicate with the Enclosure Commissioners upon it.

Bill read 3o, and passed.

SHOEBURYNESS-EXPERIMENTS.

RETURN MOVED FOR.

LORD HENRY LENNOX, in moving for an Address for a Return showing the results of the late experiments made with Armstrong or other guns at Shoeburyness within the last six months, and specifying various particulars, said, he was surprised to find

that this simple and, at the same time, urgent Return was to be refused by the Secretary for War. A strange misapprehension had gone forth with respect to the experiments made upon the target of the Warrior, and contradictory statements had been made by high authorities as to the penetrating power of different descriptions of guns on iron plates. The accredited agents of foreign Powers had, he understood, been permitted to obtain information as to all the minutiae of these experiments, and the House of Commons alone appeared to be kept in the dark on the subject. The Return which he sought for would help to remove the uneasiness and uncertainty which now prevailed on this important matter, and he therefore begged to move for its production.

Motion made and Question proposed, "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, that She will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House, a Return showing the results of the late Experiments made with Armstrong or other Guns at Shoeburyness within the last six months, and specifying the charge of powder, weight of shot, and distance of object fired at; including a Copy of the diagram of the Warrior Target, showing the impact and penetration of the various shots.'

SIR GEORGE LEWIS said, that if there was any particular experiment as to which the noble Lord wished for information, and he would give notice of a question respecting it in the usual manner, he would answer such a question; but it was not usual for the Military Department to give a detailed Return of the results of an experiment like this. The Admiralty had not felt themselves justified in laying upon the table the report of the Iron-plate Commission which had been lately presented, and it contained detailed accounts of a series of experiments, exactly like that mentioned in the Return now asked for. He trusted that the House would not think it necessary to insist on the production of such a Return.

MR. MONSELL thought that the right hon. Gentleman was mistaken as to the practice of the Department, for, if his memory served him, detailed accounts were laid before the House in the case of the experiments carried on with Mr. Bashley Britten's inventions. The House ought to be thoroughly informed upon everything bearing on the question of fortification, which would have by-and-by to be discussed, these fortifications being

chiefly advocated on the ground that it was possible to make a gun powerful enough to penetrate the sides of the Warrior at a distance of 1,000 or 2,000 yards. It was therefore important to know exactly the result of the experiments carried on. There was no mystery on the subject. Foreigners went down to Woolwich day after day, and saw the whole process of manufacture. He had also been shown a diagram representing the result of the experiments; and if what he had been assured was correct, the newspaper accounts of these experiments were altogether unfounded.

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON said, his right hon. Friend (Sir G. Lewis) had undertaken to answer any question which might be put with regard to particular facts after due notice. But that was very different from laying before the House a detailed return such as that moved for.

MR. BERNAL OSBORNE said, that the fortifications were to be constructed with reference to a particular gun not yet made. How, then, could the House enter upon a discussion as to the expediency of constructing those fortifications if it had not the specific information now asked for? The House voted the money for these experiments, and why should it be left in the dark as to the results? He had been assured that the target had not been penetrated in the course of this experiment; that the shot had stuck in the skin; and that nobody would have been hurt on board a ship so defended. With regard to the diagram which had been spoken of, he had a photograph showing the impact of the balls upon the target. There was no secret about it, and he did not see why the Government should make one.

On Question, the House divided:-Ayes 16; Noes 19: Majority 3.

FISHERIES (IRELAND) BILL—[BILL No. 47.]

SELECT COMMITTEE.

MR. M'MAHON moved, that the Select Committee on the Fisheries (Ireland) Bill do consist of 19 Members, and that Lord FERMOY and Mr. GEORGE, be added to the Committee.

LORD NAAS opposed the Motion.

SIR GEORGE GREY thought special grounds ought to be shown for additional names.

LORD FERMOY supported the Motion. COLONEL DUNNE was of opinion that the Committee should not be increased.