The Sun. — London, England, 1835-03-14 00:00:00

petition from the same County against the present Tithe Sys sem. ; The House then adjourned. NO USE OF COMMONS, MARCH 12. rae SPEAKER took the chair at three o'clock. On the motion of Mr. EMMERSON TENNENT, the Belfast and Crumlin Road Bill was read a second time. Mr. RUTH VEN brought in a Bill to enlarge and extend the powers of the Dublin Oil Gas Company. . This being the last day for receiving petitions for private Bills, a great number were presented to the House. Mr. HODGES presented petitions from various places in the couty of Kent, in favour of the Dover Railway. NORTHFLEET PIER. Mr. HODGES moved the second reading of the Northfleet Pier Bill. Sir W. GEARY, as we understood, opposed it, but from the noise in the House, we were unable to catch any of his observations. • Mr. WARBURTON thought the Hon. Baronet opposite had furnished no just argument why they should not proceed with the second reading of this Bill. It was customary to send such Bills into Committee, and indeed Committees were established for the very purpose of enquiring into all the cir cumstances connected with private bills. The Hon. Member said it was the enterprise of an individual, and why should it sot be so ? In proportion as he was successful in the enter prise the public would be benefited. Let any man doubting the advantage of such a bill look to the improvements on the Clyde, and observe the, towns and villages rising up there, and then let him say whether he would do any public service by oppos ing this bill. Mr. WILKS said the arguments urged by the Hon. Member for Kent tended rather to recommend this bill to the adoption of the House, than to induce it to refuse the second Teading. It was said that the erection of this pier at North fleet would interfere with Gravesend, but the question was not • one of partiality, but one of public convenience. Mr. HODGES hoped the House would agree to the second reading for the purpose of sending the bill into Com mittee. Sir W. GEARY withdrew his opposition, and the sill was read a second time. MANCHESTER AND BURY RAILWAY. Mr. W. PATTEN presented a petition from the Manches ter, Bolton, and Bury Railway Company, praying for a grant to enable them to extend the railway (as we understood it) 31 miles further, at right angles from the railway they were originally appointed to construct. He moved for leave to bring in a bill for that purpose. Mr. LITTLETON begged to apologize to the House for being obliged to trespass on its attention on the introduction of a private bill, but he had to discharge a public duty. The petition was from the Manchester, Bolton, and Bury Railway Company, and prayed for power to make an additional railway. The Company had not complied with the standing orders of the House, a compliance with which was the only security the public had against any imposition on the part of the Bury Canal Company. In the year 1831, several par ties obtained a majority to petition for a Bill enabling them to convert the Canal into a Railway. He '( Mr. L.) did not mean to say that they were guilty of any impropriety in ob taining that power. They have, however, been so rash in their speculations, that he did not think it safe to intrust them with the additional grant they sought for, especially as the Com pany had offered no security ; and the best proof that they cannot undertake this project with any hopes of success is - this---that they are unable to finish the thirteen miles of the railway they first engaged to complete.---( Hear, hear.) He was sure that in making this application he was not asking anything unreasonable. This perhaps was not a moment when the standing orders should be enquired into, but the present was a case of such a nature that he thought he was not tres passing on the House in calling their attention to it. The measure was so unusual, so extraordinary, and so prejudicial to the public interest, that he felt it his duty to resist it. Mr. W. PATTEN said he had applied for information on the subject, and when the proper time came he hoped to be able to answer the objections that had been made. The SPEAKER was understood to say, that the proper way would be to refer the petition to the Committee, to in quire whether the standing orders of the House had been com plied with, and then the question would come in a more regu lar shape before the House. Lord MORPETH said that the question was, whether a Company incorporated for one purpose could apply for leave to bring ins Bill for a purpose entirely distinct from the original one? The Company was incorporated for the construction of a rail-way thirteen miles long, and the present petition was for leave to add to the railway another thirty-one miles, being to ano ther place twice the distance, and involving an expenditure of three times the amount. If a corporate body applied for a purpose in which they could not legally act, they ought not to be allowed to usurp a right that (lid not belong to them. Mr. WILKS thought it better that the petition should be referred in the usual way to the Local Committee. Unless there-was something requiring the interposition of the Com mittee upon standing orders, they should not interfere. After some observations from Mr. WILSON PATTEN and Sir Jour; WROTTESLEY, the petition was ordered to lie on the table. Mr. HALL presented several petitions from different parts of Monmouth, in favour of the Newport Harbour Bill. Mr. HUME brought up the report on the Chelsea Water Works BM Mr. D. JACKSON presented a petition from Bandon, praying the House would take into consideration some mea sure for the protection of the Church of Ireland and its clergy, and complaining of the course that had been pursued with respect to the Irish Church. POOR LAW COMMISSION. The Marquis of C II ANDO S, in presenting a petition from the inhabitants of the town of Stoke Poges, said it was a pe tition of great importance, affecting the late Act of Parlia ment in its operation on the poor of the parish. In this parish the inhabitants had alway s been able to maintain their own poor, and they therefore objected most loudly to the provisions of an Act which compelled them to unite themselves with 18 other parishes, where such was not the case. They had drawn up a memorial complaining of such a course to the Commis sioners of the Poor Law Bill, but the memorial had been neglected, and they were thus obliged to abide by the decision of the Commissioners that the arrangement was to be carried into effect, and that this parish was to be united with eighteen others, whereby those other parishes would take the advantage of this parish, which, as he had be fore observed; was enabled to maintain its own poor. It would appear that this particular district was not like many others in the neighbourhood ;—there were many landed proprietors and gentlemen residing there who employed the poor, and conse quently reduced the demand on the inhabitants, as well as in creased the comfort of their labourers. They, therefore, loudly objected to having the poor of other parishes forced on them, which would have the effect of reducing them to the greatest distiess. There was, however, one part of the Bill of which they loudly complained, inasmuch as by its provisions wives might be sent to one workhouse and husbands to another. If this were to be generally acted upon, he (the Noble Marquis) was convinced it would create the greatest discontent through out England, and he begged most loudly to protest against such an act of injustice. He had communicated this fact to the Right Hon. Gentleman, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, and he earnestly called his attention to it, for it appeared that the Poor Law Commissioners had apower superior to the Secretary of State himself. Major BE AU CL ERK said he did not object at the time of the discussion on the Poor Law Bill to this power being granted to the Commissioners, but he considered that it was a most unjust proceeding to force the poor of one parish on the industrious of another. He hoped his Majesty's Ministers would take the subject into consideration, as many districts with which be was acquainted had complained to him of this pro ceeding—many of them declaring that they would rather die than go to a workhouse. Mr. WILK S considered that every parish in the country was under great obligations to the Noble Marquis for having brought forward the petition. They were told that this parish supported its own poor.—( Hear, hear.) Why, then, should there be any interference with an arrangement which was satisfactory to all parties ? It was too bad that such an arbitrary power should be placed in the hands of people, by whom it was so much abused. He hoped the House would take the subject under consideration. The petition was ordered to lie on the table. Mr. POULT Elt presented a petition for the better ob servance of the Lord's Day. Sir MICHAEL S. STEW ART presented two petitions from Greenock and Lochwinnoch, for the protection of the Church Bstablishment in. Scotland. Mr. J. MAXWELL presented a petition from 1,700 hand loom weavers of Glasgow, complaining of want of employment, and.praying relief. Captain PECHELL presented a petition from the inn. keepers and licensed victuallers of Brighton, complaining of the additional tax imposed upon them by the License Bill of last Session. They also prayed to be relieved from the respon sibility of making good the property of visitors which might be lost in their houses. • LICHFIELD ELECTION. Mr. HUME presented a petition from an individual whose name we could not learn, which stated that he had entrusted it to the Hon. and Learned Member for Chester ( Mr. Jervis) complaining of an undue return for the city of Lich field, with the understanding that it should be presented on the last day allowed for that purpose—that the Ho nourable Member had presented it upon the 6th instant, and the petitioner having been out of town was unable to per fect the securities within the limited time. The question then was, whether the petitioner had been deprived of his right by his own negligence, or by that of an Hon. and Learned Member of that House ? If the latter had been the case, he ( Mr. Hume) was satisfied that the House would not deny the peti tioner an opportunity of perfecting his securities. Mr. C. W. WY NN hoped the House would not listen to such an excuse as that urged by the petitioner in the present instance. The parties complain that they had not time to enter into the recognizances, but he did not think that under the circum stances, the House, without notice, should go into the matter. Would not the better plan be to bring the matter again under the notice of the House ? Mr. HUME agreed, and would do so on Monday. Mr. Secretary GO ULB URN trust e d that as the petitioners bad most clearly violated the Act of Parliament, the House would not allow them now to ceme and succeed in such an ap plication, because it was alleged that a Member of that House had not acted according to the instructions he received. If so, they would open too wide a door, , and set their own ru l es a t de fiance. It appeared that the petitionin question was entrusted to an Hon. Member, with instructions not to present it till the 10th, which was the last day for receiving such petitions—but that the Honourable Member had presented it on the 6th, and they complained that they were not aware that the time for entering into the recognizances had come—but the Totes of the House were published and it ought to be known to every one. He considered it would be very im politic to open the question afresh. Mr. HUME said the parties in question never saw the votes, and did not know any thing of what had passed relative to their petition. He trusted that the House would not punish any one, because of the forgetfulness of any Hon. Gentleman. Sir J. CAMPBELL said he believed there were many pre cedents for extending the time to parties in such circumstances. As to what had fallen from the Right Hon. Secretary relative to the votes—it was well known that the votes were printed for the convenience of the House, but they were not supposed to get into the' hands of the public. It was clear the parties in this case had not the means of knowing their time, and there fore would it not be better to allow further time for the consi. deration of the matter ? _ . The SPEAKER said, that if the mistake had been com mitted by an agent, it would not be a ground for a party to apply to that House ; and the circumstance of the person making the mistake being a Member of that House, and not an agent, did not alter the case. Mr. HUME said, that as the opinion of the Speaker was against allowing further time, he felt it his duty to with draw the petition. The petition was accordingly withdrawn. CONFIDENCE IN HIS MAJESTY'S MINISTERS. Mr. HUME said he had received a petition this morning from Leicester, stating that the petitioners had received with much pleasure the decision of the House upon the choice of Speaker.—( Loud cheering and laughter.) And next to the announcement of the election of the Right Hon. Gentleman—(renewed cheers and laughter from the Ministerial benches)—that they had felt highly grati fied by the adoption of the Amendment to the Ad dress—(tremendous cheering from the Opposition benches) — in reply to his Majesty's speech. But while they felt this, they could not but express their alarm and apprehension at the tenacity with which his Majesty's Ministers—( Tremendous cheers and laughter)—Mr. Hume repeated—they could not but express their alarm and apprehension at the tenacity with which his Majesty's Ministers clung to the offices of the Government, which they had so surreptitiously obtained— (Renewed cheering, which continued for some time) — that they could not forget that the present Ministers had been the most determined opponents of Parliamentary Reform, and of all Municipal Reform—( Great cheers, and counter-cheers from the Ministerial benches)—that they had publicly avowed principles which they now for the sake of office deny, and that their promises were mere hollow pretences to con ceal their determination to retain substantially all abuses. The Petition was signed by upwards of 2,500 persons, and it humbly entreated the House to keep a vigilant and watchful eye upon the measures that should be brought forward by his Majesty's Ministers, in order to secure those reforms in the insti tutions of the country which were so essentially necessary,and not to grant any supplies for a longer period than three months. —( Cheers and laughter.) He entirely concurred with the prayer of the petition, and he could assure the House that in the whole course of his life, there never was anything he so much regretted as the determination he had made last night, of his intention not to bring forward the motion he had given notice of, which would have fulfilled the prayer of the petition. (Hear, hear, hear.) The principal means by which that House could control the Mi nisters of the Crown was withholding the Supplies, and although he agreed with the petitioners, he could not but think that the House ought to have anticipated a petition like the present, and taken the sense of its members as to whether Ministers had or had not the confidence of the country ?—( Hear, hear, and loud cheers.) He trusted the time was not far distant when the subject would be brought forward. He could only again regret that circumstances had occurred to render it ne cessary for him to withhold his motion, but he begged it to be understood that, although it might appear that there was dis union among the reforming side of the House on many sub jects, still, upon all great points, they were united.—( Cheers. ) The petition was ordered to lie on the table. ELECTION PETITIONS. Mr. S. RICE rose to v resume the discussion, which had been postponed the day before, respecting the letter from Mr. Wallace relative to a petition against a return at the last elec tion, which had been lodged with the clerk of the Crown Of fice in Dublin. He considered that there would be no objec tion to receiving this petition in the usual manner; and no error or omission ought to debar any individual from the right of petitioning. He would move that the discussion of this subject be further postponed until Monday week, to give an opportunity both to the Clerk of the Crown Office in Dub lin, and to the petitioner, to forward to that House further particulars in the matter. Mr. C. W. W YNN, after a few observations which were inaudible in the gallery, read the regulations respecting elec tion petitions, from which it appeared that all such petitions must be printed within 14 days, and be accompanied with a copy. He requested that the House would not allow a petition to be stopped in its progress by any officer. Mr. L EFROY said he would wish to call the attention of the House, on behalf of the Members for the city of Cork, that the subject might be postponed from the 2d of April until after the Assizes. There had been a question against the validity of the election of the present Members. Seve ral persons had been summoned, most of them public of ficers, whose attendance would be required at the time of the Assizes, which generally occupied about a fort night, and would therefore interfere with their attendance in this House. If they were compelled to be brought over at the date of the present petition, it would be attended with great inconvenience to the parties summoned themselves, as they comprised the Mayor, Sheriffs, and Town Clerks of the city, as well as a great expense to the petitioners themselves. The Hon. Member contended that the same principle had been acted upon in the case of a petition against the sitting Mem ber for Clonmel. He would remind the House that the duty of the Clerk of the Crown was of a very multifarious and im portant nature, and that it would be quite impossible to procure his attendance ; he therefore moved that the petition be taken into consideration on some day after the Easter recess. Mr. F. O'CONNOR denied that a case had been made out by the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite for postponing the consideration of this petition. It was well known that no Cork City Assizes lasted longer than three or four days. Under those circumstances, he trusted that the House would not suffer the rights of the petitioners to be interfered with. No case had been made out for the postponement ; and with respect to the attendance of witnesses, only a few of them would he required at the commencement of the sittings of the Committee. Mr. O'CONNELL said the Carlow case which had been alluded to had been postponed for the purpose of accommodat ing both parties. There was no business done the day after the ballot in such election petitions. The following day would be a Saturday, so that if the case was stated, and one witness examined, there would be sixteen clear days after the com mencement of the Assizes, to enable the other witnesses to attend. So far as his experience went, be could corroborate the statement of the Hon. and Learned Member for Cork, that no Assizes for that city lasted longer than three or four days. Mr. JACKSON said that although the Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin was perfectly correct with respect to the Assizes for the City of Cork, he had completely lost sight of the business of the County of Cork.—( Hear.) He was sure that the object of the petitioners was justice, but he was much afraid that it would not be done if the prayer. of the petition was granted. Mr. C. W. WYNN would not attempt to give an opinion as to the duration of the Assizes. The Hon. Member's ob servations were almost inaudible in the Gallery, but we under stood him to say that he was opposed to the postponement of the petition until after the recess. No circumstance connected with any public officer should be permitted to cause such a delay. Mr. WARBURTON said it now appeared that the exa mination of the witnesses would not take place immediately after the appointment of the Commission ; and that there were sixteen clear days from the commencement of the Assizes. Even admitting that the Assizes would last thirteen days, still there were three clear days for the witnesses to come over. Could it not be arranged that the business of the citizens might be a little expedited? Had not the Learned Ser geant opposite admitted that the criminal business seldom lasted longer than five days ? It was his opinion that nothing like a ease had been made out, and he thought that a very clear case should be established before the House would in terfere.—( Cries of question.) Mr. S. RICE thought that no grounds had been laid before the House for postponing the investigation of this petition to so late a period. There were a great many other election petitions to be taken into consideration with which the present, if postponed, would interfere. The motion was then agreed to. IRISH CHURCH. On the motion " that the House do resolve into a Committee of Supply," Lord J. RUSSELL said that it was well known to the House generally that he had given notice of a motion of great importance for the 23d of March. He had to give his warm est thanks to the Hon. Member for St. Albans, for the hand some manner in which he had given up that motion entirely into his hands.—( Cheers.) At the time he gave that notice, he was informed that the report of the Commisssioners would be on the table of that House. He wished to ask the Hon. Bart., whether that report was likely to be on the table by that time, for he had since been informed that such was not likely to be the fact.—( Cheers.) He did not doubt for a moment, but that whenever such a report reached the Govern ment, it would at once be laid upon the table. He only wished to say that on whatever day, whether on the 23d, or on some subsequent day, he should fix his motion, he proposed to move a call of the House for that day.— { Hear, and cheers.) He only wished to know when the information he required would be offered, as he would be pre pared to bring forward his motion either on the 23d, or any other day that would be fixed for convenience of all the parties. Sir H. H A RDINGE said that if the Noble Lord had in timated that he intended to put this question, he should be pre pared to give him an answer as to the date at which he expected the report.—( Hear.) He could now only trust to memory, and could state that some ago he made inquiries, and was informed that the report would be made at the end of March or the beginning of April.--( Loud cries of " Hear, hear.") He would only say on the part of the Government, that they had not thrown any interruption or impediment in the way of the Commissioners ; on the contrary, they had shown every readiness to afford all the facility in their power. When the report was received, the Noble Lord would be im mediately informed of it. Lord J. RUSSELL—With regard to the answer he had received, he begged to state that he had been informed by one of the Commissioners that there would be a report shortly ready, but that there was also to be a general report. He was informed also by a Commissioner, that some of the Commissioners were not supplied by the Trea sury with funds to enable them to prosecute their inquiries. If there was any delay, it was, he was slue, a delay of form, but not of intention. Under the circumstances, however, he wished to know the sense of the House on the THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY, MARCH 14, 1835. subject. At present it was his intention to wait till Monday. In the meantime he would know the precise day to bring forward the question, and then he would move a call of the House. If it should be brought forward on an order day, be would move an amendment, that the House should go into a Committee of the whole on the state of the Irish Church. THE ADMIRALTY. Sir E. CODRINGTON wished to ask the Noble Lord (Ashley) if the Gallant Admiral now commanding the Ja maica station, and had been appointed a Lord of the Admi . . ralty, received both salaries. Lord ASHLEY said he was not entitled to both sal., ries, and would not demand them. Sir J. P. BERESFORD could vouch for the Gallant Officer that he would not receive it, if it were offered to him.— ( Hear.) Sir GEORGE GREY said, whether ho had received two salaries or not was not the question, but whether he was not entitled to two for the last period, because in the event of his death his legal representatives would have a legal right to sue for those two salaries. THE NEW HOUSES. Mr. HALL wished to know from the Noble Lord opposite whether it was intended to confine the plans for the new houses to those submitted to the Committee by Sir Robert Smirke, or whether it was intended to throw them open to all architects, for if the former course was intended to be pursued, he should submit a motion to the House.—( Cheers.) Lord G. SOMERSET.—Opinions had been expressed on the subject in the Committee, but it was impossible for him satisfactorily to state what course was intended to be pursued by the Committee. MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS. In answer to a question from Mr. PRYME, Sir R. PEEL said that the report of the Commissioners had not been received. It was his impression they had stated it would be ready about the end of February. Mr. BLACKBURN said that it was in a state of forward- ness ; it was almost all printed, and the only obstacle was in the form, as some places of small extent had not been visited, and from which he almost feared he should scarcely be able to obtain a report at all. This, however, did not interfere with the principle of the Bill, as all the largest towns had been all united, and the reports on them were complete. Mr. PR YME observed that he was sorry this question had not met with a more satisfactory answer, considering the im portance of the question, and the great interest the public at tached to it. Sir R. PE EL said that every Member was certainly en titled to ask any question he pleased, and it was always his intention to answer him as fully as he could. THE ESTIMATES. Mr. P. THOMSON said he was anxious to know whether the Right Hon. Bart. intended proceeding with the estimates this evening, or whether he was inclined to postpone them until after April 2 ; and he hoped by that time the House and the country would be put in pcssession of those reforms, both as respected the Church, and this particular inquiry, which were so anxiously looked for. Sir R. PEEL said, that in consequence of the termination the financial year having been fixed in future for the Ist of April, he should endeavour to bring forward his financial statement as early as possible after that date as was consistent with that accuracy and satisfactoriness of detail without which it appeared to him such statements were of very little use. His observation of the last two or three years' proceedings, had convinced him that the slight delay of two or three weeks was an unimportant consideration, if it enabled the Minister to bring forward a more complete and accurate statement. He repeated that he hoped to be prepared with all the informa tion the subject embraced by a very early day after the Ist of April, after. which he proposed to move the House into Com mittee of Supply on each Monday and Friday, till the whole had been gone through. AMBASSADOR AT CONSTANTINOPLE. Mr. HUME inquired whether it was true that his Majesty's Government, or rather the late Government, had ordered a palace to be built for the English Ambassador at Con stantinople ? Sir. R. PEEL said that as the Hon. Member's inquiry re ferred to an act of another Government, he had rather not make any reply until he was enabled to do so with perfect ac curacy.—( Hear, hear.) IRISH MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS. Mr. HUME then asked when the report of the Com missioners on Irish Municipal Corporations might be ex pected. Mr. BL ACKBURN had reason to believe that the report was in a very forward state. Mr. O'CONNELL gave notice that he intended asking a question on Monday next respecting some transactions in which the Orange party were concei ned at a place, the name of which we did not hear, in Ireland. AMBASSADOR TO ST. PETERSBURGH—AF FAIRS OF THE EAST. On the motion that the Speaker leave the Chair, for the House to go into Committee on the Navy Estimates, Mr. SHE IL rose to move as an amendment, that there be laid before the House a copy of any appointment made within the last four months of an Ambassador from the Court of London to St. Petersburgh, and of the salary and emoluments attached to such Embassy. It was obvious that our political relations with Turkey mainly depended upon the nature and efficiency of our diplomatic relations with the Court of St. Pe tersburg-h. The illustrious Duke now at,the head of the Foreign Department was fully aware of the importance of this subject, when in 1826,notwithstanding the inclemency of the weather, he thought it necessary to send a special mission to the Russian Court relative to the affairs of Turkey. The Hon. and Learned Member then briefly adverted to the history of the Ottoman em pire during the past four years, from the time of the battle of Navarino, down to the signing of the treaty at Adrianople, by which the Turkish Emperor was prostrated before the nod of Russia. It was a treaty of offensive and defensive alliance, and of such a binding nature, that if Russia were to go to war with England, Turkey must necessary do so also, and the Dardanelles would be blockaded against our ships. He could not help thinking it was unfortunate that the Duke of Welling ton had refused to assist the Turkish Sultan at the time he applied for means to this Court, and thus his impending doom been arrested. There was at the present moment a large Russian army waiting on the frontiers of Turkey, and only waiting for a favourable opportunity to enter upon them. Under these critical circumstances, it became a consideration of great importance, who was the individual by whom this country was represented at the Court of St. Petersburgh. In 1832 Sir Stratford Canning was appointed to that mission, but owing to his appointment not meeting with the approbation of the Russian Autocrat, Sir Stratford did not proceed there. Whoever was now appointed to the va cant post, should be a person of extraordinary q ualifications. He should be firm, sagacious, and discreet ; devoted to the principles entertained by the majority of the people of the country, and capable of vindicating them against the perni cious principles which swa2 - ed the Russian Court. Finally, he should represent in his own person the honour and dignity of his country. Whether such an appointment had been made or not in the present case, it remained with his Majesty's Government to inform the public. He had heard the name of a Noble Individual who it was rumoured had been appointed to this post. The first he had heard of it was from the Times of Jan. 2d, where he read the following paragraph :—" We notice, merely to discountenance an absurd report that Lord Londonderry has been, or is to be, named Ambassador to St. Petersburgh. The rumour is a sorry joke." The next he had read of it was in the Courier, which copied the above pa ragraph, and added that they had ascertained the rumour to be true, and then entered upon remarks which might be ap propriate, coming from an editor of a newspaper, but which he (Mr. Shell) would not repeat. But it was not by the opinions of newspaper writers that he wished to con sider the qualifications of the Noble Lord ; but from the deliberate opinion expressed by the House of Lords - . The Hon. Member read, in a low and rapid tone, a passage from a speech of the Marquis of Londonderry in the House of Lords in June 27, on a motion of his respecting the pen sion of Ambassadors, in which the Noble Lord maintained that from his services he was entitled to a pension ; that from the return laid before the House he was an injured man in not being included in the return for the allowance to Foreign Ministers, which was 27,000/. In that speech his Lordship said that the Secretary of State had brought false charges against him. He had a correspondence with the - Noble Lord opposite the Foreign Secretary ( Lord Dudley and Ward). To that correspondence he would appeal, and by that he would be judged. In answer to that appeal Lord Dudley said that the Noble Marquis declared be was an injured man ; that he was entitled from his long and arduous sorvices to a retiring allowance. Into the particulars of the transaction he would not then enter, but would remind the House that the subject had been originally referred to Lord Liverpool, and that in Lord Liverpool's hand-writing there was this comment on the Noble Marquis's application, " This is too bad."— ( Cheers from the Opposition.) After that condemnation of the claims of the Noble Marquis to compensation, and, by im plication, the condemnation of his fitness to discharge the high and complicated duties of the Representative of the interests of Great Britain at a foreign Court, was not the present ap pointment too bad?--( Hear, hear, from the Opposition.) Lord Dudley, in reply to the Noble Marquis, went farther, and showed that the Noble Marquis was ten years in office, and during that time received 160,000/. of the public money. After that fact the Noble Marquis had the boldness to say that he would stand or fall by his right to a retiring pension. He (Mr. Sheil) stated facts which were notorious. They were registered on the records of Parliament ; they were matters of history. Upon such transactions it was idle to descant. Com ment was unnecessary, for it would only weaken the force of stubborn, convincing, and unanswerable facts.—( Hear, hear, from the Opposition.) He (Mr. Shed) would say he was fully conscious of the services of the Noble Marquis. He was a fierce debater, and a violent partisan. He might be qualified as an orator at Hillsborough, in Downshire, but he was not fit to execute the high trust of an Ambassador from free and en lightened England to the despotic and wily Court of Russia. —( Hear, hear, from the Opposition.) The Hon. Member then put his motion. Mr. C. FERGUSON next addressed the House. He did not wish to raise any objection to the appointment of the Noble Marquis on the ground of personal character ; but he objected to his appointment on public, on national grounds. He ob jected to him on principle. The opinions which the Noble Lord expressed of the relative rights of Russia and Poland, on which the anxiety of this country had been so eagerly fixed, ought alone to have presented any Minister from appointing him to the important post of Russian Minister. There were motions made in that House, and opinions expressed ,there. which were the echo of the voice of the country, with respect to the condition of Poland, and the rights to which she was entitled; by the faith of treaties and the law of nations. These opinions went to embody the national conviction that Poland was entitled to freedom, that any invasion on that freedom was an invasion on established treaties, on the right of nations, and on the first principles of justice. Poland had not for- feited any one right as a nation, by her annexation to the Crown of Russia; on the contrary, she had her independence guaranteed by the treaty of Vienna, which made the Russian Autocrat her sovereign. By that treaty she got a free consti tution, which the monarch had sworn to uphold and defend. (Hear, hear.)—He hoped the attention of the present Go vernment would be directed to the treatment that gallant and unhappy nation had endured. He (Mr. Ferguson) brought three motions before the House on the subject. The object of one was that this country would never submit to a violation of the treaty of Vienna, and that the Poles did no one act which would entitle them to the horrors they were subjected to, and to the last calamity—slavery.—( Hear, hear.) He thought it fit for the Government to choose as the Ambassa dor to Russia a person who was not objectionable by the de claration of his public opinions respecting Poland. In August last the Noble Lord said, in reference to our interference with the affairs of Belgium, if England intended to adopt a separate line of conduct from the other States of, Europe in relation to Belgium, she would be entitled to adopt a similar line as to the rebellious subjects of Poland.—(Cheers.) The Poles were as much entitled to an independent sovereignty as any other nation in Europe; as much so as Prussia ; and the se lection of an Ambassador to Russia should have for its main object to secure her nationality to Poland, and restore to her her independent Constitution.—( Hear, hear, from the Oppo sition.) If ever there was justifiable resistance on the part of a nation it was that of Poland. When he brought forward his motion last Session with respect to Poland, he heard it said on the Opposition side that the time was gone by when they could interfere in the affairs of Poland. On that oc casion the Foreign Secretary (Lord Palmerston) said he could not object to the spirit of the motion—that the conduct of the Poles in resisting the encroachments of Russia was not rebellious.— ( Cheers from the Opposition.) It was like the conduct of France. The Noble Lord did not oppose his motion, and further used the remarkable ex pression, that England already did what the motion pro posed—that she remonstrated strongly against the fate to which the Poles were subjected.—( Hear, hear.) After that declaration from the late Government, could the present Go vernment with any show of fairness or of regard to the opinions of the House and the country venture to confirm such a nomi nation ? The Noble Marquis had asserted in his place in Par liament last session that our interference on behalf of Poland was unjustifiable, and that the conduct of the then Government was calculated to alienate Russia from that good understand- ing with England which it was desirable should exist between the two countries.—( Hear, hear from the Opposition.) He (Mr. Ferguson) never heard that England aid too much; on the contrary, he heard and felt that England, and France too, which had an especial interest in defending the principle on which the Poles grounded their resistance to despotism, had done little. When the Noble Marquis used language like that to which he referred, was he a fit person to be sent to St. Petersburgh ? He trusted it was not yet too late to check this mischievous and ill-judged mission. Lord MAHON said, when the question of the affairs of Turkey came before the House, he would be enabled to afford an explanation which he thought would be acceptable to the House. The subject was, he would affirm, introduced in order to make an attack on Lord Londonderry. (No, from the Opposition.) He would affirm that the speech of the Hon. and Learned Member ( Mr. Shell) was delivered with that view.—( Cheers from the Ministerial side.) The lion. and Learned Member passed over the affairs of Turkey in a cursory and unsatisfactory way. In place of entering into a long and statesmanlike view of our entire relations with the empire, he took a few isolated facts, and fastened on some dates ; and this garbled mode of dealing with the question he fancied would be taken as a condemnation of the foreign policy of the present Government.—( Cheers from the Ministerial side.) In place of hearing facts that would tend to con demn the present Government, he only heard of a renewal of the stale story of the opinion of Lord Liverpool, and a re ference to a debate many years ago in the House of Lords. —( Hear, hear, and laughter.) Supposing that Lord Liver pool did use the words attributed to him, could that circum stance be held as evidence damnatory of the conduct of Lord Londonderry ?—( Hear, hear.) Lord Liverpool's opinion was but the opinion of an individual; and ought that to be considered sufficient evidence of the capabilities of a man who had so long discharged high and important duties to the State ? The disclosure of that opinion was a breach of confidence. Did the Hon. and Learned Gentleman know how that disclo sure was made ? Did he know, in reality, that the opinion was really expressed, or that it was intended for publicity ? If the person who made that disclosure were found out, he would have been expelled from office.—( Laughter on the Opposition side, and some interruption.) The Noble Marquis, it was true, did bring in a motion in the Lords under which he claimed a pension ; to that pension he thought he was fully entitled, and, when he was entitled to it, what just or reason able objection could there be to his claiming it? Since the Noble Marquis was engaged as a public functionary there was no doubt a change in public opinion ; but surely that change should not affect him. That House should not pass an ex post facto judgment against him ; it was neither a judicious nor an honest mode of proceeding.—( Cheers from the Ministerial side.) If the services of an individual were calculated to pro mote the public interest, if they were acceptable to a Court with whom we had close and extensive relations, it was desir able that the appointment should be made. The Hon. Mem ber for Tipperary's views in bringing forward his motion were personal and factious.—( No, no, and laughter from the Op position side.) He ( Lord Mahon) maintained they were no other. The Hon. Member (Mr. Ferguson) said, in reference to the case of Poland, that the time for our interference with that country had passed. Mr. FERGUSON denied having said so. Lord MAHON thought he said so. Well, it was of little consequence to the point at issue, which was the fitness of Lord Londonderry for the mission about to be entrusted to him. Even were the political opinions of an individual objectionable to the general feeling of the country, yet if he possessed other qualities to suit him for the mission, he should be appointed. ( Hear, hear.) He was convinced there was not a single man in the country more able or more zealous to serve its interests in Russia than Lord Londonderry. For the mission to Russia, he was peculiarly fitted, considering his former connexions and influence with the rulers of that empire. If Hon. Gentle men were acquainted with the difficulties of the case, if they were aware of the feelings of the Russian Court, they would suspend their opinions.—( Hear, hear.) Mr. HUME asked if the appointment were already con firmed ? Lord MA HON said it was not formally, though it was virtually. Mr. HUME should consult the public revenue, which he was always anxious to see economically expended, by oppo sing the nomination.—(Laughter from the Ministerial side.) The appointment showed the wisdom and prudence of the present Administration. What could the country expect from the Government after such an appointment? Judging from the amount of salary attached to this embassy, he could only look on it as a piece of Ministerial favour. There were only two appointments to foreign Courts which were worth 10,0001. each a year; that to Russia was one, with an addi tional 1,0001. for house-rent, and 3,0001. or 4,000/. for other expenses. This appointment was a good sample of the ex travagance of our foreign department. For many years the diplomatic branches cost from 400,0001. to 500,0001. a year. A considerable reduction was afterwards made, and only two embassies were allowed 10,000/. a year each. Were the services of the Noble Marquis, he would ask, worth 15,0001. a year? It was an outrage on public economy to grant him that sum. If he went he might soon return with a claim to that pension which he sought before, and who could tell that the appointment was not made in order to entitle him to a pension ? England ought to send to Russia a person of li beral principles, who would uphold free institutions, who would carry to that Court the hopes of his country, that he would represent its feelings, wishes, and interests. The speeches and principles of the Noble Lord were opposed to everything liberal and tolerant. What could England or Europe expect when such a man was appointed under such circumstances—when a man was sent to Russia as the Repre sentative of Great Britain who had ever been loudest in his opposition to liberty, and had supported every measure that made the heart of England wring with anguish and vexation? —( Hear, hear.) But let him be sent, and the time might soon come when that House would withhold the money for paying him. ( Hear, and laughter from both sides of the House.) Yes, withhold it ; and the people would be glad if it were withheld from his Majesty's Ministers to support Lord Lon donderry, for there was no man more objectionable than his Lordship. Lord STANLEY and several Members rose at the same time, but there were loud cries for his Lordship, and the other Members gave way. His Lordship then proceeded : From the answer of his Noble Friend the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, that the appointment had not formally taken place, the motion must necessarily fall to the ground. But he (Lord Stanley) hoped the effect of the discussion that night, and the effect of the feeling of the people of England, so far as that feeling could be heard in that House through the declared opinion of their representatives, would have the influence they ought to have on the completion of an appoiut ment which it was evident was not acceptable to the people or the House of Commons.—( Loud cheers from the Opposition. ) He did not look to the peculiar appointment—he did not ob ject to Lord Londonderry because he would receive a certain salary—he did not consider the question in that narrow and penurious light, and be should fairly state that he never heard the tone of a discusaion so lowered, or a line of objection so narrow and unworthy of the high attitude that should be taken by a statesman, as he had that night in the speech of the Hon. Member for Middlesex.—(Loud cheers.) He did not think this question was a sordid question of money ; he thought it one of high principle, and his objection to the appointment was the same as that of the Hon. Member (Mr. Ferguson. ) ( Cheers.) He was a member of the Administration that felt it necessary to perform a most painful duty, to resist the propo sition of the active interposition of this country on behalf of the Poles. lie felt for their sufferings, and was most anxious to relieve them ; and he, in common with that Government, deemed it necessary to use every means to soften the evils which they could riot prevent.--( Hear, hear, hear.) Every man must see that the appointment of the Noble Marquis— an appointment that was talked of, and he hoped only talked of—(Loud cheers from the opposition) —was unpalatable to the House and the country. If it were necessary for this country to take high grounds—if it were necessary to prevent injurious interposition on the part of a foreign and aspiring Power —if it were necessary that the exertions of an Ambas sador should be directed to the ends of upholding the inte rest and dignity of this country—then should there be ap pointed a man who would really represent the feelings of the Sovereign and the people.—(Hear, hear, hear.) Lord Lon donderry was not that man • he was the last man to represent either. The Noble Lord below him (Lord Mahon) said the comment of Lord Liverpool on the conduct and claims of the Noble Marquis was a by-gone transaction, a stale story, which ought riot to be reverted to. But that comment was the ex press opinion of 'a Prirue.Minister who bad good grounds for forming; a sounri opinion of his pretension; ; it was the last re cord they had of his conduct.L-(Loud cheering.) But if they were not to look so far back were they to take as no thing the avowed opinions of the Noble Marquis in his place in Parliament ? The Noble Lord might say that the Noble Mar quis would go out with instructions to this effect and to that effect ; hut did the Government believe that any instructions they could give would counteract the known opinions of their Ambassador ?—( Hear.) Did they believe—could they believe —that the influence of the Noble Marquis would be exerted at the Russian Court in the direction that the opinions of his country and the professed opinions of the Government to which he belongs pointed; or t ,at he would not use his autho rity for the purpose of encouraging severity—he would not say active severity—and for the purpose of encourag:s4 the feelings he entertained against the Poles ? Did they believe he would give to the Russian Court the impress of his own feelings, or the impress of the feelings of his country at large ? He had no intention of addressing the House upon the present motion, but finding that the appointment of the Noble Marquis had not as yet taken place, and that there was yet time to make. known to the Government the feeling of that House and of the country upon the subject, he could not help express ing his humble but earnest hope that the Right Hon. Ba ronet at the head of the Government, whom he begged to remind (although satisfied that it. was unnecessary) that the whole responsibility of the appointment would rest with him, would yet pause before he gave the sanction of his name to an appointment which he was inclined to believe was fo reign to his own inclinations, and which he must add was at direct variance with every principle of liberal policy to which the Government had upon taking office pledged itself.— ( Loud cheers.) Mr. OTWA Y CAVE expressed his hope that all idea of the appointment of the Noble Marquis would, in consequence of the expressions of opinion just made, be abandoned. It could never give satisfaction in any quarter. Mr. C. PEI, HAM trusted the Government would not be led away from their intention of appointing the Noble Marquis by the speeches they had that night heard. Mr. ORD thought that upon this the first act of foreign policy of the Government to which he belonged, the House were entitled to the benefit of hearing the Right Honourable Baronet, the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The appoint ment of Lord Londonderry as Ambassador to the Russian Court was quite of a piece with their appointments in Ireland. They evidently wished to prove, as well to the Emperor of Russia as to the Orangemen of Ireland, that they did not in tend to act up to the professions they were obliged to make when entering office.—( Hear.) Mr. GISBORNE asked if the Noble Lord's (Mahon) speech was the only defence the Government could make for the appointment, and what was the amount of that speech? It was compressed in a few words. "In the name of Europe behold the man."—( Hear, and laughter.) He had heard it said that the appointment was a most unnatural one—it ap peared to him a most natural one.—( Hear.) It was in com plete accordance with the principle on which the Government took office. Sure he was that if those men who opposed Reform in all its stages were the most fitting persons to work out its results, the Noble Marquis, who was so pleased with the conduct of Russia to Poland, and who had de nounced the Poles as rebels, was the most proper person to represent to the Russian Government how deeply the British nation sympathised in the sufferings those Poles had been made to endure.—( Hear.) But why had not the Noble Marquis commenced his journey ? It was now two months since his appointment was announced. Oh," it was said, "the season is not now propitious." Now he chanced to remember that some years ago a certain Ambassador on his way to Constantinople thought proper to delay so long at Naples, that an inquiry as to the cause of his sojourn there was made in that House ? It was answered that the seas were not sufficiently propitious for the voyage, upon which a certain person, who should be nameless most felicitously displayed his classical acquirements by quoting the passage— " Otium Dives rogat in patenti Prensus Ego simul atra nubes Condidit Lunam, neque certa fulgent Sidera nautis." He could not give the quotation the effect the Right Hon. Baronet did on the occasion to which he alluded ; but still it was not altogether inapplicable to the case of the Noble Mar quis. But was not the Russian Government one of sufficient importance to justify the expense of a land journey for the British Ambassador ?—( A laugh.) Seriously speaking, how ever, he trusted the Noble Marquis would never be put to the trouble of the journey. The House, in his opinion, was bound in some way or other to approach his Majesty, and ex press to him the feeling of the country upon the appointment he wai understood to have sanctioned.—( Hear.) Sir R. F E EL—Sir, I was certainly not aware that to the other charges I am liable, could with any degree of justice be added that of an unwillingness to take a fair share in the dis cussions of this House ; and I confess it was with no small de gree of surprise I heard the Hon. Member who spoke last but one in this debate attribute it to me. While, however, I quite admit the right of that Hon. Member—or any other who may coincide with him in thinking I am called upon to defend my conduct with reference to the appointment in question—to comment upon my silence, I must claim from him in return the right of postponing that defence until such time as may appear to my own mind most suited for the purpose.—( Hear.) But, Sir, even if I were not to avail myself of that prero gative, I think it will not, upon consideration, appear unrea sonable that I should have, at all events up to the present moment, refrained from presenting thyself to their atten tion. I think when lam told from so many quarters that be the result of Lord Londonderry's appointment what it may, the main responsibility . must at all events rest on me—when I am in general terms informed that the Government to which I belong will forfeit the confidence of those over whose inte rests they are selected to preside, by selecting for the situa tion of Ambassador to the Court of Russia an individual whose conduct disentitled him to that honour, it was but natural I should wish to hear what were the specific charges which could be adduced against that Noble Lord, or against myself, before I took an opportunity of making a reply in his or my own de fence, the more especially when it was quite clear that in compliance with the forms of the House I could only address myself to it once.—( Hear.) Sir, upon the question of re sponsibility I have but little to say. I trust I never have, I am certain I never shall shrink from any responsibility which properly could be said to belong to me, or try to transfer to another the responsibility that ought to attach to myself (Loud cheers.) I admit, Sir, distinctly admit, that for what ever may be done in any department of the State practically, though perhaps not constitutionally, I, who have the honour to fill the first post in his Majesty's Government, ought to be, and will, while . I retain that situation, consider myself altogether responsible to my Sovereign and to my country.—( Cheers.) Sir, I do not hesitate here, in my place in Parliament, to de clare that for every step taken in this appointment there is no individual belonging to the Cabinet who has contracted greater responsibility than myself, and whatever may be the course the House may think fit to take in consequence of that appoint ment, it shall never find me either anxious or desirous to shrink from the declaration I now make.—( Cheers.) That the ap pointment of Lord Londonderry to the post of Ambassador to the Court of Russia, or to any other office, however insig nificant, under the present Administration has failed in giving satisfaction to certain Honourable Gentlemen opposite, I do not—l cannot doubt. Is it not perfectly notorious that there is no one appointment connected with the present Government which gives them the slightest satisfaction ?—( Hear, and a laugh.) Nor is it very wonderful that such should be the case. Don't I know—don't we all know—that in proportion as men take an active part in politics, and in proportion as they desire to see the party they espouse gain the ascendancy in the State, in exactly the same proportion will the appointments of a Go vernment, maintaining principles in direct opposition to those they profess, be at all times, and especially at the moment they have ceased to hold power, unsatisfactory to their feelings, and eonsequently the objects of condemnation in their speeches ?—( Loud cheers.) Was their dissatisfaction ex pressed at Lord Londonderry's appointment alone ?—( Hear, hear, from the Opposition.) Why, not one single individual composing the Government was acceptable to them—not one single appointment the Government made appeared to give them satisfaction. Even their old friends and allies—even those whose co-operation and assistance they courted when themselves in office—have now become the objects of their attack and condemnation.—(Hear, hear.) Is not the Attor ney-General for Ireland under the late Administration, the Attorney-General for Ireland under the present Government? And yet are we not reproached with even that appointment? —( Hear, hear.) Is not my Right Hon. Friend the Paymaster of the Forces denounced by Hon. Members on the other side as unworthy of the trust reposed in him ?—( Hear, hear, from the Opposition.) Did not the Noble Lord, the leader of the Opposition, contrary I must say to his usual practice, and con trary I must also say to what prudence ought to have dictated to him above all others, rake up the forgotten quarrels of 1829, and, speaking of the language used by the Right Hon. Baronet at a time of excitement, and with reference to a measure upon which great difference of opinion prevailed, attribute to him expressions which, if the Right Hon. Baronet had ever used them, and he ( Sir R. Peel) possessed not the slightest recol lection of his having done so, he must in his calmer moments have regretted ; and having done so, did he not urge the inex pediency of his having been selected to fill an office under the present Administration ?—(Loud cries of hear from the Op position.) Hon. Members on the other side of the House cry Hear, hear ;" but, Sir, let me ask of them is it or is it not the fact that my Right Hon. Friend, whose appointment to the situation of Paymaster to the Forces is considered so con vincing an indication of illiberal dispositions on the part of the Government—whose appointment is considered sufficient to condemn in the eyes of the people the whole policy and inten tions of the Government—is, I ask, the report, which at the time was very generally credited, and, I may add, believed, that my Right Hon. Friend was offered by the Government of Lord Grey a still higher appointment than that he now holds true or false ?—( Loud cheers from the Ministerial benches, mingled with cries of no, no, from the Opposition side of the House.) All I can say is, I have heard it stated, and I have not before heard it contradicted, that the office of Secretary at War was offered to my Right Hon. Friend.—( Cries of no, no, from the Opposition.) My Right Hon. Friend did not himself tell me so, but as it was publicly stated, and as it has never been hitherto contradicted, I maintain I have a right to assume it was true.—( Renewed cries of no, no.) It was cer tainly so stated in tho only vehicles of news to which the public at large have access, and sure I am that in those publications it was not. contradicted. I know not, I repeat, whether the fact was as stated or not, but I do know it was publicly stated and that it was not publicly contradicted.—( Hear, hear.) Well, then, I say, Sir, if such an offer as that to which I allude was made to my Right Hon. Friend, it is not fair to blame his appointment to an office under the present Administration as an i ndication of its intention to pursue an illiberal or unpopu lar system of policy.—( Cheers.) I come now to the particular point of the question under discussion.—( Loud cries of " Hear, hear," from the Opposition benches.) Surely Hon. Members opposite aro not so impatient that they cannot spare me even five short minutes to make an mrinary preface to al, orcinar;, speech.—( A laugh.) Surely they .-tre not so impatient as not to allow me time to lay the groundwol:k for my defence.—(A laugh.) I will, however, not trifle with that impatience, and I at once proceed to the point in dispute. As I said before, have not the least doubt that the appoinfrae nt of Lord Loll donderry must be unsatisfactory to those 'Members of the House whose policy is directly opposed to ours ; but I want to s know, and I thought from the course the present ....lebate . taken that I might have attained the knowledge, „-hat a!-e t the allegations, what the specific charges, which canbe against Lord Londonderry, and upon what grounds it is Oa'. his appointment as Ambassador is to subject the Go versuner4; to which I have the honour to belong to the censure of 5 11 i 5 House. Up to the present moment I believe the sole charg e against the Noble Marquis is—and it is the charge of the - Hon. Member for Kircudbright—that of his having expressed an opinion in his capacity of a Peer of the Realm that the late • Government had pursued their interference on behalf of the Poles to an unjustifiable extent, and that he had termed thenr " the rebellious subjects of the Emperor of Russia."—( Hear, hear.) And was that alone sufficient to disqualify the Noble Marquis from being employed under the Government ? WilYr Sir, I heard but a few evenings since an Hon. Member on the bench opposite tell the House that unless everything his. Majesty's Canadian subjects required was conceded to them by the British Government they would become—l quote the Hon. Member's precise words—" rebellious subjects of the King of England." Was this sufficient in his own estimation to disqualify that Hon. Member from obtaining any Govern ment appointment ?—( Hear, and a laugh.) But, Sir, putting for the mument out of view this consideration., I have to say that the scraps of speeches upon which the Hon. Member for Tipperary has founded his allegations against the Noble Marquis do not appear in the authentic reports of the proceed ings in the House of Lords. I have before me Hansards Debates, and there I cannot find them. Mr. SHEIL—They will be found in the Mirror of Par liament. Sir ROBERT PEE L— I know not as to the Mirror of, Parliament, but I have here before me a work certain as authentic, and certainly as, if not more, carefully edited than that publication, in which I can find no such expressions as , those attributed to the Noble Marquis. lam not in a situae tion positively to deny his having used them, but I cannot find them in the very careful version of Parliamentary repo rts hold in my hand.—( Hear.) But Sir, are we to judge of in dividuals by the language they make use of in the excitemen t , of debate ?—(Hear.) Do we not daily see here within the walls of this our House of Assembly Hon. Members led asvai by the warmth of discussion, by their party feelings, or,--ant. I shall not have to impose a great tax on the recollectio n Hon. Members of stating the last of my incitements- -b Y their desire to criminate a Government to which they enter' : tain hostility—( Hear, hear, and laughter)—make use of ex ressions by which in their calmer moments they would muc h regret being obliged to abide.—( Cheers.) This takes place almost every day, and is it, I ask, fair or just, that upon such evidence the conduct of a public man should be judgcd?--- (Cheers.) The Hon. Member for Tipperary admitted that as far as Lord Londonderry's personal character is conce rned lie has ever acted with the manliness, which is inseparable from his mind and character. Is this, let me ask, an unim portant quality in an Ambassador ?—( Hear, hear.) T h e Hon. Member for Middlesex, in order to make out a ease, against the Noble Marquis, has brought up the colla teral question of the salary connected with the office of' Ambassador' Sir, let me ask what is the Hon. Gentleman's authority for stating that the salary of the Russian Ambassador is 15,0 0 u" a-year ? Mr. HUME—I stated that the salary attached to the , office was 10,0001. a-year, but that in addition to that sum tiler; was an allowance of 1,0001. a-year for a house, which , % vit contingences calculated at 4,0001. a-year, brought the annual income of the office up to the sum of 15,000/. 1 ,, 1 Sir R. PEEL—I don't exactly know how the fact may and, therefore, cannot deny the Hon. Member's statement- The Hon. Member may be right, but still I must say he is n°,o so uniformly accurate in his statements that I would w ish he — take it on his representation alone.—(Laughter.) Bu t ' that as it may, was it exceeding the salary usually allotted t the Ambassador to the Court of Russia ? Was it more tb s .: the salary allowed to Sir Stratford Cannin? Was it n0t , 25 short, the rate of salary fixed upon by Lor c d Palmerston, i n sanctioned by the late Government ?—( Hear, hear.) \‘"_..- right, then, let me ask, has the Hon. Member for Middlesc--,. —nay, any other Hon. Members—to endeavour to create O l t impression against the individual by speaking of the anions of salary attached to the office he is appointed to fill ? W , ss ? the amount of the salary sufficient to vitiate the appointm ent ! If it be too high reduce it. If the character of the individ, t ns selected make his selection an improper one, attack it • do not endeavour to create a feeling against the indiviclO"' by joining the question of character with that of s alary ;: ( Hear, hear.) " But," says the Hon. Member for Micia l sex, " Lord Londonderry has been attacked by the 1 7 / 1 7 6 and, therefore, he must be an improper person to appoint g your Ambassador to Russia." Am I, then, to understst the Hon. Member as thinking that the Times correctly in cates public opinion ?—( Cheers.) Will the Hon. Gentlen take his own character from the Times ?—( Loud laugh,fte,f.' This, I think, is a very fair question, because, if the PIO Member can call the Times as a witness against the charse-0. of Lord Londonderry, he must allow me to say, that be to appealing to a witness that he won't find very favourabl e his own character.—( Roars of laughter.) But, Sir, would o r, • be justified in listening to the chance animadversions ; „0 public journal upon the conduct of a public man as suffiere, ground why he should not be employed in the public Ser gi lie) Lord Londonderry has for years served the public in a P eb $ capacity, and can appeal to the record of those services U r ,' cooler testimony than that of the Times, or of those 1 - I° l l,o able Members who sought, for party purposes, to NO 81 down. I presume that no one in this House, whatever Ito, be his politics, will venture to call in question the military c";,1 tinction of the Noble Marquis. I presume no one w ill d ory no officer, except perhaps my Gallant and !Resler Friend the Secretary of State For Foreign Affairs. nn er , whom he served, so nobly devoted himself to the public.gio vice, or exposed himself more courageously in defenc e e country, than the individual in whose defence I am now sl oe ing.—( Cries of Oh, oh, from Sir S. Whalley and other t he Members by whom he was surrounded.) " Oh," saY 5 , O O Hon. Member for Marylebene, ever ready to hear an atta;.iii those to whom he is politically opposed, and ever eq,..er ready to interrupt those who sought to defend the absent -erot unjust imputations.—(Loud cheers from the Mini° s benches) Sir S. WHALLE Y—l was not the only Member v‘n ° terrupted the Right Hon. Baronet. Sir R. PEEL—Perhaps not, but the Hon. IVlemb e ,, r o one of those who interrupted my defence of him who P I , or nobly served his country ; others joined him, but I w il l ' es e), take up the time of the House by noticing them.- - 4'.010' But it was not merely in the field the Noble Marqu is guished himself. From the year 1809 to 1813 he fille"J ie office of Adjutant-General in Lord Wellington's staff, al i o' that capacity received the marked approbation of that c oo trious warrior. The Noble Lord served in a diplomat s Bruis e city from 1813 to 1823. In 1813 he represented the be Court at Berlin, and in 1814 at Vienna, from when ce fpr e ver turned in 1823, at his own most earnest request. Be "0 0 has been made, and most unfairly made, to the circun39ooo‘ of the Noble Lord having applied at this time for a Pe oerro' —( Hear, hear.) True lie did so ; but it was under a o o loB' nexus impression of his being entitled to it. But all i n l ots Sir, I say allowing that the Noble Lord was guil t y ° nee ir than error in this application, would such a circumste"„dete duce Hon. Gentlemen to declare—l for one cannot ael l such an opinion—that it was a proof of unfitness? Suf i e ( 1 1 main question to be considered was, not whether he 61eatifsi. military station of Adjutant-General with honour, for Pots' admitted on all hands, but whether, in the diplomat ie fo relg o li f tions in which he had represented his Sovereign at . Courts he had given satisfaction ? During his Oro ten years at Vienna, to whom shall I turn for noe ttl,.,"' partial testimony of his public conduct ? If I ,7 t ea f j the opinion of Lord Aberdeen, Honourable Gentle test the opposite side of the House will not admit 0 ' tlrt fair, and if I appeal to the Duke of Wellingt e i 4t will equally protest against being bound by that., nt ientf refer to Mr. Canning, to whose Government Hon. u n re el opposite gave their support, not on account of their ag fa " with him on domestic matters, but on account of 0,4 0 0 1 policy—( Hear, hear)—and if I can show that Mr. ' O l , highly appreciated the integrity and qualifications sot, Londonderry. such testimony must be considered f;7, e d S O l 4 , tory to those who gave him such cordial and unetla w seci ecis port, and gave it him, I again repeat, especially hien ° of his foreign policy. When Lord Londonderry exPrereeei" wish to resign his office as Ambassador at Vienna, b e the following communication from Mr. Canning ief/' Oct. 15 ' e llen el. Foreign-office, " My Lord,—Having laid before the King your % c oos 5; despatch, dated 26th ult., requesting his Majestys g r :„ , , A 0 4,0% mission to retire from the eminent post of his 3faie s 'J '5 I LO sador at the Court of Vienna, I have received his Ma/ v es t i r i elr s o mands signifying to your Excellency that his Maj e f e j %Ink, pleased to grant the permission you solicit, accompanl,olo PI, 9 1 expression of his Majesty's deep regret for the loss of Y ro bstl°ol lent 's services, and of his Majesty s full and entire apg.,eark the manner in which your Excellency has for a s eries 0 1 4 5 I _ 4 cl in times of most critical importance, conducted the _"; i 0 t 1 ")0 1 embassy entrusted to your charge, and maintained ttetvieell and cordial good understanding so happily subsisting " Majesty and his Majesty's Imperial ally. $ Such was the testimony Mr. Canning gave t ° i b as tl ceC :et ls/ tions and conduct of Lord Londonderry o n the. 1 ' r e on which he was employed in the public service , _.%no ' re say, Sir, when we take this into consideration,iownderritbell member the intimate alliance that Lord 1- , °"%j o is Mold with the events of 1814, and the manner in r_ at so ne lo ptt performed his arduous duties, that I do think t n ap poin t ", more than angry speeches denouncing th is beiug t ow something more than an allusion to an applicatro 000 t o for a pension, ought to be requisite to cennt ell ) I 'I I e t mony given in this impartial manner—(Cheers'.'„eoeore know, said the Right Hon. Baronet, apart fro o m ble s 51 1111 judice, what allegation there is against the N otion s !! 00 1: • wil: admit of being substantiated. In cof:, airs of l o gie t? subject Hon. Gentlemen had alluded to the " Interf e L e a P tb e ..:of It was the duty of the Government, say they, to reve nw to the treaty of Adrianople, and thus nave ghat t he tio a vance of the Russian army. Ido not think. ,„ p eo. to or Commons would have sanctioned a great ro ilit e arl ito is% f oe! any such purpose. To have prevented tee d no snlat i ` from passing the Balkan would have re e qui e r mb er f°l "' e t and Ido not think, so long as the Hon. . ttl a c n h ' larg er 13u fe ilt# oo' :, p se a x ss e e n d te th rt is ain l s lo h u is se pr f e o s r en th t copsinuilolpnisy, that e st: rfo nla y , o f te t.bl o, ._ o4 (o. thirty-five thousand men, or even a inn . . st have 0 0_ 0 against a power like Russia, expedition_ : s u_, tite!„„, r ,l/ 0 7, expedition. The affairs of Greece a t th ot: 2 4. ere fo;i h -hole qu pore settled, and the suspension of the . Iva be ts ties must have been the result of any for Lord Holland approved of no such PO"