SHIPPING EMPLOYED IN THE TURKEY TRADE.

All British, 1831, 28,249 tons (outwards).

1832, 28,882

1833, 24,831

1834, 28,789

Foreign, increased about 1000 tons the last two years, equal to our tonnage in the China trade.

It would, therefore, be madness to shut our eyes to the immense value which the Turkish trade was to this country, a value not less than our trade with China. In further illustration of the views he was labouring to impress upon the House, he begged to state that, in 1830, the transit trade through Trebizond, consisted of about 5000 bales, valued at £250,000; in 1834, it had increased to 12,000, valued at £600,000; and in 1835, to 19,300 bales, valued at £965,000; and in the ports of Persia connected with it during 1835. Thus, in five years (1830 to 1835), trade increased 140 per cent.; in the sixth year, as compared with the first year, 300 per cent.; and as compared with the preceding year 60 per cent.; consisting of European manufactures, nine-tenths being British.

After alluding to the disastrous treaties extorted from Turkey ever since the year 1812, the Hon. Member alluded to the retention of Silistria, and its occupation by a garrison of 6000 men, and there was another fort within a very inconsiderable distance of it, and the garrison became thereby linked with another army of 40,000 men. In direct violation of the treaty of Vienna, which enacted that the navigation of the Danube should be free to ships of all nations, Russia had recently extorted tribute from British shipping passing down that river, and not only had she put a stop to the trade of England, but to the trade of the whole of central Europe. Our remonstrances had hitherto been fruitless. He claimed the protection of the British Government to our trade in the Black Sea, a protection which, as

we had so lately increased our navy for the purpose of protecting our commerce, he earnestly hoped would not be withheld. He concluded by moving that " An humble address be presented to His Majesty, praying that He will be graciously pleased to take such steps as to His Majesty may seem best adapted to protect and extend the commercial interests of Great Britain in Turkey and the Euxine," and sat down amidst loud cheers.

SIR EDWARD CODRINGTON begged to contradict a misrepresentation which had appeared in the French papers, of his sentiments with regard to the Russian fleet. He was stated to have spoken disrespectfully of that fleet, but the fact was, that he had never done so, for he had seen them in battle, and it was because he felt that the Russian fleet was very powerful that he was anxious the navy of this country should be strengthened, so as to meet them on equal terms. It was evident to him, that we had the means in our power of stopping the aggressions of Russia. It was the old mode, and one which had always been successful-it was to arm. (Hear, hear.) If we did not, we should only lead Russia on from aggression to aggression-if we did not, we should lose one by one, the allies whom an earlier show of determination would have maintained in our interests, and what is more, we should lose our own honour.

We were bound to send a fleet into the Black Sea to protect our commerce against the aggressions of Russia, and if we took that line of conduct, and exacted reparation as we ought, it would put an end to the danger of that war which he as much as any merchant deprecated.

LORD PALMERSTON, whilst complimenting his Hon. Friend on his very able and eloquent speech, wished to correct the opinion that the Cabinet was divided on this question. They were desirous of maintaining peace so long as peace could be maintained consistently with the honour and interests of the country, but they were alive to the interests of British commerce, and they indulged the hope of being able to protect their interests without having recourse to war.

His Majesty's Government entirely concurred with the Hon. Member in his expressions of the extreme importance-politically and commercially-in respect to the relations of the country with Turkey and the countries beyond the Black Sea. His Lordship admitted the rapid increase, in recent years, of our trade with Turkey and Persia. He could assure the House that there existed no desire or disposition to submit to aggression from any power. He begged to take this opportunity to correct an error in the reports which had gone forth as to his views, on a former occasion. What he then stated was, that if the Government of Russia did entertain the project of exterminating the Polish nation, the attempt would be hopeless, for that it would be impossible to extinguish a nation of so much bravery. LORD MAHON, after lamenting that assistance had not been afforded by

England to the Sultan against Mehemet Ali in 1833, added, that with regard to the statement that British vessels had experienced obstacles in the navigation of the Danube, he was of opinion, that not a moment ought to be lost before the complaint was investigated, and if proved to be well founded, the amplest satisfaction should be insisted on.

MR. WARBURTON, deprecating the event of war, suggested a more simple and less expensive recipe for maintaining and extending British commerce with Turkey. Let encouragement be given to importation from Turkey, by reducing the import duties, and it would follow as a matter of course that the amount of exportation to Turkey would be greatly increased.* (Hear, hear.) And let it be our care to secure powerful friends in whatever quarter Russia is to be feared. (Hear, hear.)

MR. ROEBUCK strongly objected to our interfering in European politics. Ours was an isolated position. Justice was a virtue, but justice like charity should begin at home. Were we bound to maintain a treaty which had been broken by every other power? (!) Supposing Russia was to send a diplomatic agent to some of the Rajahs under British control in India. Should we not speedily send him about his business?

SIR ROBERT PEEL could not concur with the Hon. Member for Bath, when he maintained that this country ought to withdraw from all connection and interference with continental affairs. He did not stand there to defend Russia, or to under-rate the importance of those aggressions, if aggressions had been committed. If there had been any undue encroachments on the part of Russia, he said, let us have redress. But if he was not to continue to leave the matter in the hands of the King's Government, and if he was to call for the aid of the House, of course before he took the first step that approximated him to hostile movements, he must have demonstration clear as day that such a proceeding was required. He must have direct evidence-he must have the treaty-he must compare the alleged infraction of it with its provisions. He must determine the character of that aggression, and then he would not content himself with calling on the King to take such steps as might seem to him best adapted to extend and promote the general interests of our commerce, but he would tell the Throne, and he would tell the House, that an injustice had been done to England, and that reparation had been refused; and he knew that the House would assure the King of their determination to support him in his demand for justice. (Loud cheers.)

MR. CUTLAR FERGUSON'S speech closed the deliberation. He could not refrain from remarking that the Hon. Member for Bath was, perhaps, the

We feel the fullest confidence that this idea, coming from such a quarter, and from so distinguished an authority on matters of general commerce, will not be lost upon the President of the Board of Trade.--ED.

only man in the civilized world who had appeared as the apologist of the partition of Poland! (Hear, hear.)

MR. P. STEWART said, that his Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs having acceded to his first proposition, viz. the appointment of a diplomatic mission to Cracow, and the second part being in substance conceded, he deemed it unnecessary to press his resolution.

We cannot abstain from offering a few observations on one portion of the speech of the Member for Tamworth, in which he made a sort of apology for our not having taken part in the late war in favour of Turkey against her northern antagonist. The honourable Baronet imagined that in order to defend Turkey in 1829, we must have incurred an enormous expense, unless we had been assured of the co-operation of the other powers. We feel morally convinced that the mere presence of two line-of-battle ships in the Black Sea, during the second campaign, would have decided the contest in favour of Turkey. The Turks had at that time a magnificent fleet in the Bosphorus, which on its first cruise in the Euxine captured the finest frigate in the Russian navy. Sir Robert Gordon, then our ambassador at the Porte, justly appreciated the resources of that power, and indignantly spurned the idea entertained in England that Turkey was lost because she had made peace on disadvanta

geous terms. It was by Russian diplomacy, not by the force of arms, that Turkey was compelled to make peace. The London Protocol of March, 1829, was the means by which Russia triumphed over our natural ally. It must not be forgotten that Turkey was paralyzed by England and France, acting in virtue of the Treaty of July, for the pacification of Greece, and that during the winter of 1829, the Conference of London proposed to extend the limits of Greece, and therefore the sphere of the Greek contest.

The struggle on the Danube, by drawing thither an immense majority of the forces of the Sultan, pointed out to the Greeks every chance of success in the southern portion of an empire then shaken by the double scourge of foreign war and of a sanguinary contest between its Greek and Turkish subjects. The unity and enthusiasm given to the former on the first arrival of Capodistrias seemed to secure these successes.

Capodistrias confined himself, during two years, to deploy more than 15,000 men from Athens to the Gulf of Arta, without there occurring the least combination in the military operations which could bring about the result which it was so natural to