The Sun. — London, England, 1830-06-12 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF LORDS—(LAST NIGHT.) Lord HOLLAND presented two petitions against inflicting death for forgery ; one from a parish of Somersershire, and the other from Dorking. The Duke of GLOUCESTER presented a peti tion from the Ant:-Slavery Society, for the entire abolition of slavery. Lord KING presented a petition from a town of Devonshire, against the monopoly of the East India Company. The Earl of LIMERICK presented a petition from the county of Galway, in favour of the Gal way Franchise Bill. The Duke of WELLINGTON presented a peti tion with a contrary prayer, from the Rev. Mr. Morgan, Vicar of one of the parishes of Galway. Earl GROSVENOR presented a petition from Chester, against the East India Company's Mono poly ; and another from the lead miners of Flintshire, for teprotecting duty on foreign lead. Lord GODERICH presented a petition from car _tain brewers of Surrey for the removal of existing restrictions. .COMPOSITION FOR TITHES. Lord DURHAM referred to a measure upon the table, called the Tithe Composition Bill, which had been brought in by a Right Rev. Prelate. He wished to know when, after a pause of several .weeks, it was intended to propose the second read ing; and he gave notice that whether it went through that stage in this Session or the next, he would move that the whole question be referred to a Select Committee, as he did not think such a Bill `ought to emanate from parties so deeply interested. The Archbishop of CANTERBURY said, that .having brought in the Bill, it was not his intention to press it in the present Session. He should, - therefore, merely suggest that it. should be read a second time, pro .forma, and then committed, that certain amendments might be introduced. Lord KING contrasted the preamble of the Bill with that of the Irish Tithe Composition Bill, which expressly declared that it would be expe dient to extend the principle only to Ireland. He wished to know the reason for now finding it expe dient to extend the principle to England. The Archbishop of CANTERBURY repeated 'that he wished dig Bill to be read a second time only pro forma. The Earl of MALINIESBURY complained of some of the provisions of the Bill, and especially of the manner in which the laity were compelled, in every instance, to pay the expence of a composition. Lord DURHAM hoped that ample notice of the second reading would be given. The Archbishop of CANTERBURY was anx ious to collect the opinion of the country upon the, subject. Lord HOLLAND warned the House that by con seuting to the second reading pro forma, it pledged itself to the principle of the Bill. Lord GOWER presented two petitions from Ross—one in favour of the Scotch Judicature Bill, and the other against the duty on inventories. The Marquis of CLANRICARDE presented two petitions from the Magistrates and Roman Catholics of Galway, in favour of the Galway Franchise Bill. GREECE. The Marquis of LONDONDERRY rose to move for additional papers regarding Greece. He complained of not having been treated with much courtesy by the Noble Earl at the head of the foreign department, and expressed his hope that the Noble Duke (Wellington) would give him more full and satisfactory information on, perhaps, the most extraordinary diplomatic transaction in history. The House would not fail to remember that the Noble Earl had called the great event of the con sent of Turkey to the arrangements for Greece " an insulated fact ;" and he hoped the House would always bear this singular expression in mind. The Noble Earl said that he could produce no let ters between Prince Leopold and himself prior to the first communication in the papers upon the table ;. but, nevertheless, it was clear that some faing had passed between them. He now begged to put the same question to the Noble Duke. On the 31st January the Noble Earl had warned Prince Leopold against certain political advi sers, who would counsel him to a course inconsistent wits the dignity of his 'character; and yet, on the 9th February, Prince Leopold had stated to the Duke of Wellington that he should not ask the advice of any person until he had received an answer to his letter, or before he had named to his Grace the individual by whose judgment he should like to be assisted. He (the Marquis of London derry) wished to know whether the Noble Duke believed that assertion of Prince Leopold ? If he did believe it, then lie must necessarily agree with him (Lord Londonderry) that th e letter of the Noble Earl, on the 31st January—asserting, in the strongest terms, that Prince Leopold had consulted political a Ivisers—was not by any means warranted. He hoped that the Noble Duke would give him an an swer whether he did or did not believe the statement of Prince Leopold ? He also wished for some fur ther information on another part of the same letter horn the Prince, in which his Royal Highness re ferred to the separation of Candia from Greece, and observed, that " the hidden interest which caused that separation to be determined upon, augured no good to the new State. There was a further point ill the papers, which required more explanation than the Noble Earl had attempted to give, and before lie adverted to the Protocol of the 12th July, 1827, he would remark, that all the great treaties were conducted by the five Great Powers of Europe ; here, however, a new position was taken up, and Austria and Prussia were for the first time excluded from their share of weight and instru mentality. Surely it was of importance, neverthe less, that the opinions and wishes of those two Powers should be ascertained and consulted, and when the Protocol of the 12th of July, 1827, said --" Vous pourriez d'ailleurs lc prouver, car les Plenipotentiares d'Autriche et de Prune recevront l'ordre de seconder vos denzarches, et cellos de vos collegues de France et de Russie ; c'est dtc moins l'ussurance gui nous est donnee"—he wished to ,know what the assurance was—in what form—and to what :.'teat ? He afterwards saw no statement of the positive opinions cf Auatria and Prussia upon the subject, and for this reason he intended to move for copies of all correspondence relating to that as surance alluded to in the Protocol of the 12th of July. Ile thought it very important that the House should be informed upon the subject, for if his intelligence were correct, Austria, whom he regarded especially as Puissance conservatrice of the peace of Europe, entertained an opinion the veep opposite of what was implied by . the Pro tocol. It seemed unaccountable that she should have been so kept in the back ground, or perhaps kept herself there; she seemed to have put the Noble• Earl forward, and to be con tented to pull the wires, as if she thought the whole transaction disgraceful, and she would not personally appear in it. This was a species of policy hardly justifiable at any time, and Great Britain had fallen into it by the endeavour of her Ministers to steer too near the opinions of various preceding statesmen, without having any decided straight-forward course of their own; first, they had guided themselves by the opinions of his lamented and illustrious relative —next, by the opinions of Mr. Canning—and lastly by the notions of some other statesmen whom they were willing to follow. The effect was to paralyse everything, and Great Britain, instead of being the star by which all other States steered, had sunk into a second rate power, and was obliged to submit to the dictation of those to whom once she had dictated. He was sorry to trouble the House again at such length, but information was necessary, and notwith standing the Noble Earl's assertion that he was so ready to give it, he had withheld it on several ma terial points. How could the Noble Earl defend the expression he had used with reference to Prince Leopold without further papers ? How could lie explain the manner in which Austria and Prus,ia had been deprived of all participation regarding G ree ce, without further palms ? Ho hoped that the Noble Duke would not be so niggardly; and if he (Lord Londonderry) found that he was mistaken as to the opinions of Austria on the subject, it would go far to induce him to alter the decision to which he had come 'after reading the papers upon the table. The Noble Marquis concluded by moving for copies of the papers to which he had adverted in the course of his speech. The Earl of ABERDEEN begged first to be allowed to give the Noble Marquis a piece of advice, viz. to take the trouble of looking at the documents upon the table before he made a speech and moved for further papers. There the Noble Marquis would have found all the information he wished for regard ing the assurance of Austria and Prussia; for he would have seen the express instructions those two Powers gave to their Ambassadors at Constanti nople : Prussia not only acquiesced, but enforced upon the Porte the demands of the three Powers; and the Austrian Internuncio only waited until he received instructions from his Court. In one of the Protocols, it m as particularly mentioned, that he had been blamed by his Government for not supporting the Declaration of the three Powers. Lord HOLLAND asked the date of that Pro tocol'? The Earl of ABERDEEN replied that it bore (Lite on the 12th October, 1827. The instruction to which the Noble Marquis had referred was dated in London on the 12th July ; it was executed at Constantinople on the 16th August, by the Prussian Minister, and as soon as he had received directions from Vienna by the Austrian Internuncio. It was therefore quite clear that upon this point no further information was necessary, since none could render it more clear. The Noble Marquis had also made some remarks upon the correspondence with Prince Leopold, and seemed to think that lie (Lord Aber deen) would not be able to defend himself, and had in fact admitted his inability. He had made no such ad mission, nor did he think the accusation came in such a shape as to require him to defend himself. It was quite obvious on the face of the correspondence that although the letter, of the 31 st Jan. 1830, was the first written communication, there had been much previous personal intercourse, which justified all the expressions in the letter. He was ready to enter nto the discussion of that transaction whenever the Noble Marquis desired. With respect to the papers themselves, their Lordships would see that the last paper was a Memorial from the Greek Senate to his Royal Highness Prince Leopold. That Me morial was communicated to him (Lord Aberdeen) by his Royal Highness after lie had declared his renunciation of the Sovereignty of Greece. That paper was in an inclosure, with others which had been sent from Greece, and he should do no more than present them to their Lordships. Since that time Prince Leopold had sent him a letter addressed to the Prince by Count Capo d'lstrias—a letter which had formed one of those in the inclosure. These papers were, however, of importance, as their Lordships would see, when they heard that one of them was the letter of the Senate addressed to Count Capo d'lstrias, in which they unanimously expressed their approval of his answer to the three Powers. That was, therefore, a letter which set at rest the question of the unanimity of the Senate. Ile would give among the letters, that addressed to the Prince by Count Capo d'lstrias, which ap peared to him material, and the contents of which he thought they ought to know. He, therefore, proposed to lay this letter, together with those in the inclosure, upon the table of the House. Ile would now say osie word as to the question the Noble Marquis had put with regard to his conduct. This was not quite the time to introduce the discus sion of such an extensive subject ; but he would make this observation, that the union of the three Powers was a matter which he had not first taken up, but which he had found arranged and settled when he was placed in the situation he now held. When the Noble Marquis considered, as he seemed to do, that the Government had had delusive views on this subject, he was quite mis taken. The Government had only had in view the object of carrying into effect an engagement already made, with as much consistency and steadiness as the nature of that engagement, the position of the contracting parties, and the interests of this country allowed. The Noble Marquis was right in what he had said on a former occasion as to the attachment he (Lord Aberdeen) bore to a certain individual; but he must object to any argument as deduced from that circumstance; and above all, he must protest against the Noble Marquis taking upon himself to become the interpreter of the language and senti ments of that individual. The DUKE of WELLINGTON—I wish, my Lords, to say a few words in answer to the ques tions put by the Noble Marquis. One of these ques tions relates to the paragraph contained in the letter of Prince Leopold, in which he speaks of a secret influence having been exercised as to the determi nation of the Government with respect to Candia. He wants to know what that influence was ? For an answer to that question I beg leave to refer him to Prince Leopold, for I have no answer to give. The Noble Marquis then asks, whether I believed the statement made in the letter of Prince Leopold? I am sure that when the Noble Marquis comes calmly to consider that question, he will see that it was not a proper question to put to me—l feel it, at least, to be improper, and I must, therefore, de cline answering it. Lord DURHAM was glad that it was the inten tion of the Noble Earl to lay these papers before the House. Prince Leopold's explanation would then be laid before the House and the country, and he was sure the more the matter was examined by both, the more satisfied would every one be that the conduct of his Royal Highness had been such as to be most conducive, not only to his own honour but to the real interests of this country. He would not enter into the discussion of the reasons why the arrangement that had been made was contrary to the general interests of Europe, but would merely content himself with saying that the Noble Marquis had not fairly subjected himself to the blame cast on him by the Noble Earl opposite, for he had only moved for papers with a view to gain information on these subjects. The Marquis of LONDONDERRY said, that when the Noble Earl presented himself to the House with papers, he fairly became subject to the objection that these papers were not sufficient for the purpose He trusted that those re marks were made with all proper courtesy; and he believed, indeed, that they had been made with more courtesy than the Noble Earl had shown to others: He would tell the Noble Earl that he (Lord Lon donderry) had read the communication of the Austrian Minister, but there was this difference between that communication and the papers he wanted, that the first were communications from diplomatic servants abroad, while the others were the statements of our own agents to the Govern ment at'home. They all knew what diplomacy was. —(Hear.)—lt was 'riot always what a Diplomatist said that explained what were his real sentiments. —(Hear, hear.) —He wanted the despatches from our Ambassadors to explain the real state of the fact. Let the Noble Earl put those papers on the table, and let their Lordships see whether those des patches corresponded with that flummery.—(Hear, hear.)—They knew very well that what a Diplo matist said when he talked about cordial coeoperation with others, was often complete bombast; and he wanted these papers to see what were the sober steady opinions, and the well-judging opinions of his Majesty's Ministers at that Court upon these c ommunications. They were persons whose testi mony could be relied on. In all diplomacy there were various absurd phrases used that he believed were called the apocalypse of the proceedings.--(A laugh.) —He would now say a word or two upon the laconic and dignified manner in which the Noble Duke had answered him with respect to the information he sought upon two important points. He believed that, upon one of those points the Noble Duke had told him to ask Prince Leopold for an answer. Prince Leopold was not in that House, and there fore could not be asked the question; but when lie asked the question of the Noble Duke, he supposed hat, as the Noble Duke bad got the letter, he, of course, understood what was meant by it. With respect to the other point, Prince Leopold must have come to the Noble Duke, as the King's Minis ter, and have put the paper-into his hand, and must, no doubt, have asked him who was the proper per son to advise with on the subject. He must say that he did not think the question he had put de served the marked and sharp mode adopted in gii? 7 ing the answer. He had at first understool they were to have the papers; but now it seemed only some were to be granted; and he believed that, in fact, the Noble Earl would have given the papers, if he had not been arrested in it by the Noble Duke. Viscount GODERICH said, if any blame was intended to be cast on those who bad been the ori ginators of these diplomatic relations, he, for his part, should be most ready that all the papers connected with the transactions in which he had had a share should be produced. A doubt had appeared to be thrown on the accuracy of the Protocol of the 12th of July, and in his opinion the papers ought to be produced, in order to elucidate that doubt. The Earl of ABERDEEN observed, that the Noble Marquis appeared to think that there was some doubt as to the accuracy of that Protocol, but the instructions given by Austria and Prussia to their agents showed that no doubt could be fairly entertained on the subject. By those instructions they were called on to co-operate with the other Ministers in forwarding the objects of the Treaty of London ; and when their conduct, which had fully satisfied the Russian agent, and those instructions were coupled together, lie thought enough would be shown to prove that the Protocol was quite correct. As its accuracy was thus established, he did not see the shadow of a reason for producing the papers that the Noble Marquis called for. Lord HOLLAND thought there was no question upon the accuracy of the mere Protocol itself, which stated, that such an assurance of co-operation had been given by the Governments of Austria and Prussia, but there was some doubt as to the sin cerity of that assurance; and what he understood the Noble Marquis was, the means of procuring in ! formation from the English Ambassadors at those Courts as to whether that assurance had been acted up to or not. The Noble Earl had indeed, stated, that Russia had been satisfied—and perhaps she had reason to be satisfied with the conduct of Prussia, but it was doubtful whether the same feeling existed with regard to Austria—for the Austrian Internuncio had required time, and had sent home for further in structions. Without wishing to speak of the Austrian Cabinet more severely than of any other Cabinet of the same kind, he might say of it, as of all the Cabinets of despotic Princes that had ever existed, that in case of necessity it would make no scruple of making an assurance that it would give its assistance in for warding the objects of a treaty. The question, therefore, now was, whether, as Austria had re fused to join in the treaty, but had afterwards given its assurance to co-operate in its object, this Go vernment had received information that such as surance was sincere, and that these two Powers, Austria and Prussia, really did mean to act in the spirit of the treaty of July. He would not say whether that question was grounded on a well founded doubt, but it seemed to him that such was the question. He would not say that the words of the Protocol were strongly calculated to convey a doubt of the sincerity of those who used them, but that doubt did exist, and it was the object of the Noble Marquis's motion to get such papers as would confirm or destroy it. The Duke of WELLINGTON—My Lords, it really seems to me that the Noble Lord who spoke last, and the Noble Marquis who made the motion, differ very much from each other as to the object they have in view. The Noble Marquis says that he wants to show that this Government had no ground for saying that the Austrian Government had given their assurance to co-operate with the Allies in forwarding the objects of the Treaty of London, and he is desirous of knowing what was the opinion of the Austrian and Prusian Govern ments at the moment. But the Noble Baron tells us that he believes the Austrian and Prussian Go vernment did give this assurance, but that they never were in earnest, and he puts the case with re gard to them hypothetically, and be says that he wants papers to show what the real opinions of these two Governments were upon the subject of these transactions. What ground has the Noble Marquis made for your Lordships to grant his mo tion ? He states that the Protocol contains a doubt ful expression, which makes him doubt whether the Austrian Government was sincere. If the papers now on the table are sufficient to show that the sin cerity of that Government may properly be doubted, the Noble Lord ought to be satisfied with these papers. But the Noble Marquis says, " No, Austria has always said that she would co-operate, but I want to know what our Ambassadors thought of her promises." 1 must say, my Lords, that if the ob ject of this motion is to show that the Austrian Government has attempted to deceive us, or to charge us with having actually been deceived by Austria, that may be a proper ground for the pro duction of these papers; but to come and ask for papers as the means of grounding a charge that we have attempted to deceive the Parliament, is a little more than Parliament has been in the habit of de manding. The truth of the matter is, that when the Noble Marquis comes and asks for papers, he ought to show a ground for our producing them. It is not our duty to show that the production of these papers would be inconvenient. The Noble Marquis has failed in showing that ground, for we show that in conformity with the assurance given in that Protocol was the conduct of the Austrian agent at Constantinople. But then the Noble Lord says, " No, that is not a ground for refusing the papers, for though the assurance was given, the thing was not done." I sav, my Lords, it was done. On both grounds, therefore, I think the Noble Marquis and the Noble Lord have failed in ' showing that these papers ought to be produced. Lord HOLLAND—My Lords, the Noble Duke asserts that the object of the Noble Marquis and of myself are distinct and different. It may possibly be so, but we have, at least, one object in common, arid that is to ascertain a fact. The Noble Duke seems to have satisfied himself that he has knocked the arguments of the Noble Marquis and myself on the head by his mode of knocking them together. If he will allow me, I think I can return the obliga tion quite as completely, and knock his arguments and those of the Noble Earl on the head, by knock ing them together.—(A laugh.)—The Noble Duke says, that there is no Parliamentary ground for granting these papers. The Noble Earl said on out: occasion recently, that we should hare these papers to our hearts' content.—(Hear, hear.)—Now, the heart of the Noble Marquis is not so easily con tented, and he says that lie has an appetite for more.—(Hear, and a laugh.)—But the Noble Duke says that a fair Parliamentary ground has not been made out. Is it not, my Lords, a fair Parliamen tary ground to say, " let me see how these assurances are commented On by our own Ambassadors?" At present, my Lords, we are but imperfectly supplied with information on this question. We ask you to get us more. The Marquis of LONDONDERRY said that the Noble Lord who had just spoken so well under stood his object, and had so clearly explained it, that he should add nothing on the point. He would maintain, from till that now appeared, that Austria did not approve of the objects of the Treaty and on the Noble Earl to contradict that as sheertciaolnledif he [Auld; but to contradict it not by words, but by the production of the papers. The Earl of WI ia CHILSEA should- support the motion. The Earl of ABERDEEN wished-to state the facts relating to that expression of " giving papers to their hearts' content." The question on which he had used the expression referred to was on the subject of Prince Leopold. On that subject he had said that he would furnish them with papers to their hearts' content ; and he was most anxious to do so, for lie felt no other wish than that that affair should be probed to the bottom. As to other subjects, he could on!) , furnish papers according to his sense of duty. The Duke of - RICHMOND might perhaps have thought that -we should never have interfered in this Greek question; or that, for two or three years, we should have confined ourselves to negociations. PerhaPS; too, he might think that Russia might make use of our interference , in order to take step s towards greatly_ aggrandizing . her own power in Eorope. It was because doubts like these might be entertained, that he thought it was imperative on the Government to grant the papers required. The Marquis of SALISBURY differed from the Noble Dnke who had just spoken. The papers now on the table appeared to him to give a com plete history of what had occurred. Those now moved for were antecedent to those on the table. The Marquis of CLANRICARDE should sup port the motion, because he thought the papers would show that Austria was unfavourable to the objects of the Treaty of London. Lord CALTHORPE said, there was one point which he wished to press upon the Noble Earl at the head of his Majesty's Foreign Affairs. He was anxious to know if he refused these papers upon the grounds that they would be inconvenient and detri mental to the public service ? The Earl of ABERDEEN had no hesitation in stating most explicitly, that it would be very incon venient and detrimental to the public service. The House was then cleared for a division, but their Lordships did not proceed to a vote. We un derstood that Ministers were anxious to press the matter to a division, but that it was strongly opposed by the Duke of RICHAIOND. On our re-admission into the Gallery, we found Lord DURHAM on his legs, speaking amidst cries of " Question !" He declared that he would not be prevented by any prior occurrence from ex pressing his opinions. He complained of the course pursued by the Noble Earl, in reserving his declara tion respecting the inconvenience and injury of pro. clueing these papers up to the last moment. The effect produced on the Noble Duke (Richmond) and himself was, that he could not properly vote for the motion, and consequently that it would not be right for the Noble Marquis to press it. Such was their impression, and he certainly was astonished at the conduct which had been pursued. In the anxiety of the Noble Lords opposite to secure what they considered a triumph, a scene had been exhibited as little befitting the sober dignity of that House as had ever taken place in any British Parliament. It was a miserable triumph indeed when, after an hour's dis cussion, a Minister came forward, and upon his responsibility as, such, declared, that it would be de trimental to the public service to produce these papers, while he, nevertheless, actually wished to force the Noble Marquis to-a division, for the pur pose of showing his small minority. For himself, he thought the triumph as little befitting the dignity of that House as any well could be. Lord ABERDEEN was no party to devising any triumph, nor had any been sought. The eonclusion of the motion was, in his opinion, very proper. Lord LONDONDERRY remarked that the Noble Earl disclaimed the wish for any triumph, and he certainly had none. He certainly would not have pressed the motion if he thought it would have been detrimental to the public service. The motion was then negatived without a division. The Insolvent Debtors' Bill was, on the motion of the LORD CHANCELLOR, read a second time, and ordered to be committed on Tuesday next. His Lordship promised to make some amendments in the Committee. The house then adjourned at twenty minutes after Seven o'clock. HOUSE OF COMMONS—(LAST NIGHT.) Mr. CALLAGHAN presented a petition from the exporting merchants of Cork against the Graziers' Steam Navigation Bill.—To be printed. Mr. JEPH SON moved fora return of the stamps issued to Newspapers in England, Wales, and Scot land, excepting London, from 1825 to 1829. Agreed to. Mr. SADLER presented a petition from a place in Armagh, against the increase of stamp duties in Ireland. The same Hon. Member presented a pe tition from a parish in Westmeath, praying that pro vision might be made for the Irish poor.—Both to be printed. Lord STANLEY presented a petition from the master calico-printers of Manchester, against the Half-pay Apprentices' Bill.—To be printed. Lord MANDEVILLE presented a petition from the county of Huntingdon, against the malt tax.— _ To be printed. Mr. WILBRAHAM presented a petition from an individual named William Brookes, against the state of the Ecclesiastical Courts in the county of Chester.—To lie on the table. _ . . Sir M. S. STEWART presented petitions ' against the renewal of the charter of the East India Company, from Greenock, and two other places in Scotland.—To be printed. Mr. W. SMITH presented petitions from a Con gregation of Protestant Dissenters assembling in St. Thomas's-square, Hackney, against the punishment of death in cases of forgery—from the deputies for the protection of the civil rights of the three deno minations of Protestant Di, , ,senters in London, and within twelve miles of the metropolis, praying for the abolition of West India slavery.—Both to be printed. Mr. MARSHALL presented a petition from Leeds against the Select Vestry Bill, which After a few words from Mr. HOBROUSE, was ordered to be printed. Sir G. CLERK presented a petition from the Noblemen, Justices of the Peace, and Freeholders of the county of Mid-Lothian, against the Scotch Ad ministration of Justice Bill ; and The LORD ADVOCATE presented a petition in favour of it, which was not read. Mr. PROTHEROE presented a petition from the Colliers of Dean Forest, against the Coals' Duty Bill.—To lie on the table. The same HON. MEMBER moved for a return of the Commissioners, Sub-Commissioners, and Clerks employed in the revision and publication of Ancient Records, from 1819 to the present time.—Agreed to. Mr. RICE presented a county petition from Kil kr nny, against the increase of Stamp Duties; a simi lar one from the Chamber of Commerce, Limerick; and a petition from an individual named Fitzgerald, against the duty on Window Glass.—The first two to be printed. Mr. O'CONNELL presented a petition from the parish of Fermoy, in the county of Cork, complain ing of the statute under which parish rates are levied in Ireland. Petitions from three parishes in Clare against the increased tax on newspapers, which the petitioners said amounted to a revival of the old law, which inflicted penalties upon any man who followed the occupation of a schoolmaster. Also a similar petition from a parish in Cork. A petition from the debtors confined in the Four Courts, Mar shalsea, Dublin, complaining that Bankrupts could not claim to be discharged as insolvent debtors under less than three years' imprisonment. A pe tition from a parish in Kilkenny, against the tithe system. One from the town of Tipperary, against the increased tax upon newspapers.—All to he printed. Lord CLEMENTS presented a petition from Moyle against the increase of stamp duties in Ireland. Mr. HUME presented a petition from Mr. Green, of Whitechapel-road, relative to the repeal of the law inflicting punishment on persons con victed of a second libel. Mr. HUME said that a paper had been returned to the House, showing, that in 1f629 there were no less than 161 persecutions, falsely called prosecu tions, under the Pamphlet Stamp Act ; and that, up to May in the preient year, there had been 4.8 and he should, therefore, now move for an account of the law expellees, &c., incurred in those 161 prosecutions. Mr. HUME moved for an account of the stamp duties on Alumanacks during the last twenty years, and on pamphlets during the last fifty years. CONVICTS. Mr. HUME moved for Returns showing the Expences of the Penitentiary at Milbank, from 1820, to 1829 ; also a Return showing the Expences of the Hulks for the same time; also the number of convicts sent abroad in 1828 and 1829, and the expellees thereby incurred. Sir M. W. RIDLEY said that, since he had last addressed the House on this subject, he had been informed that great liberties had been allowed to convicts in New South Wales, who, within a week or ten days of their arrival there, were found to be living in a style of expellee quite unsuited to their condition. This was particularly the case with per sons sent out there for forgery ; and he understood that it was by no means uncommon to see such per sons with their carriages and horses, and generally supporting a style of the first consequence there. He, however, had reason to believe that steps had been taken to remedy that evil; but if this were not the case, it was so necessary that it should be re medied, that he begged again to call the attention of the Right Hon. Baronet to the question. Sir R. PEEL—He quite agreed with what had fallen from the lion. Baronet, and that was one of the reasons he had urged against the abolition of the punishment of death in the case of forgery.—(Hear, hear.) For if they transported a man who had forged to the amount of 5 or 6,0001., let them make what regulations they pleased, they would find a difficulty in submitting such persons to hard labour under the command of individuals who were quite inferior to them in education and habits; and the difficulty was the more felt, as New South Wales had, in a great measure, lost the character of a penal settlement. Still, however, there could be no doubt that there was great necessity for alteration in this respect. The Secretary of State for the Colonies, however, was the proper person.to apply to on the subject; and if the Hon. Baronet would furnish him with any documents, he would submit them to his Right Hon. Friend. Sir M. W. RIDLEY explained. Mr. HUME—If the Right Hon. Gentleman would undertake to appoint a Committee, be him self would undertake all the labour, and 'give evi dence of the futility of the present system. The Hon. Gentleman concluded by moving for returns to show the number of convicts in New South Wales from 1826 to 1829, together with various other par ticulars respecting them; also for the number of ex officios filed by the Attorney-General of that colony; also the number of suspensions from office by Go vernor Darling. Sir G. MURRAY said, that there would be some difficulty in furnishing returns for 1829, owing to the distance of the colony. Mr. HUME said that returns for the previous years would answer his purpose. Mr. H. GRATTAN moved for certain returns connected with the Grand Juries and Assizes of :reland. CLIMBING BOYS. Mr. W. SMITH referred to a case in which a climbing boy had been forced to climb a chimney, in consequence of which he had been severely wounded and killed. He wished to know whether any in qu'ry had been instituted ? Sir R. PEEL—Such an inquiry belonged to the district Magistracy; it was impossible for the Secre tary of State to investigate everything he saw in the newspapers. If any case were submitted to him, he should be most happy to direct an inquiry to take place. Lord MILTON was anxious that the machine should be introduced wherever it was possible ; but he was doubtful whether it practicable in all cases. Sir R. PEEL had made use of machinery in his own office, and had recommended it to all the other public offices, where it was found to answer very well. CONSOLIDATED FUND. Sir J. GRAHAM said, that votes out of the Consolidated Fund were in their progress through the House; but no explanation had been given on the subject by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that it was a mere matter of routine , ; the time for debate was when the estimates were brought on, and the sum voted from the Consolidated Fund was only for the purpose of carrying on the current ex pences. SUPPLY—CONSULSHIPS. The Order of the Day for further consideration oi Supply was then read, and the House went into Committee. Lord F. L. GOWER moved that 5,000/. be granted for the public works in Ireland for the year 1830.—Agreed to. Mr. DAWSON then moved that the sum of 87,9701. be granted for defraying the expences and paying the salaries of our Consuls on foreign sta tions. He had the pleasure to acquaint the House that this estimate was on a very considerably re duced scale compared with any which had gone be fore it for some years past. This reduction was owing to a variety of causes; in some instances it was occasioned by vacancies, occurring through death, which had not been filled up, the superan nuation allowance of Mr. Burke having ceased alto gether, and the scale of salaries being generally re duced. The present system, which was called the new system of foreign Consulates, was that of 1825, and was adopted by the House from the re commendation of the Right Hon. Member for Liver pool, in consequence, it was believed, of the severe animadversion Just then made by the Hon. Member for Aberdeen upon the paltry mode in which these foreign Consuls were then paid. That Hon. Mem ber then stated in his place, that there was scarcely any sum too great, or which the public would not rather pay, than that the system should go on of paying these Consuls out of the fees which they charged upon the execution of certain dudes con nected with their official and public station. — (Hear.)—lf there were then any change meditated against Government for its introducing this new or der of things, the blame ought, in fairness, to be shared by those who started the proposition and supported the measure which followed—of allotting separate and fixed salaries to each of our foreign Consuls. It would, however, now be his duty to ullude to the alterations which had been determined on by the Noble Lord at the head of the Foreign Office, and the reductions consequently de termined on in the salaries of these public servants. The estimates stood thus—the Consul-General at Rio Janeiro, who hitherto received 2,5001. a year, was to receive now but 1,5001. a year—(Hear)—of Pernambuco, who received 1,2001., now 1,000/. a year; of Ostend, formerly receiving 600/., now 4004 a year; of Bogota, formerly receiving 2,0001., now 8001. a year; of Havannah, formerly receiving 5001., now 3001.; of Linea, formerly receiving 2,500/., now 1,600/. a year. The Consulates of Madeira and Palermo had both fallen vacant by death, and reduced the estimate by 1,2001. a year each. After this statement he thought the House would think there was little ground afforded to the charge, which had been made with some acrimony and sarcasm, against the present Government, of being any thing but an economical Government. Such a charge had been made by the Hon. Baronet the Member for the county of Cumberland, who bad a motion on this subject to submit shortly to the House; and he thought, after the statement he had just made, the pretext for these insinuations was totally at un end. The refutation which lie had been hap pily able to give to that charge was founded on statements drawn from official papers, and a compa rison of the expence of the scale of remuneration to the country formerly, with its future cost unelet these retrenchments. Such statements, founded on public documents, and contrasted figures, could not easily be overthrown by the ingenuity or eloquence of that Hon. Member. After explaining the cir cumstances under which Mr. Schenley and Mr. Nu gent were allowed to receive their full salary, whilst absent from their duty on leave, and that it was the usual practice to allow such officers, when at home from ill health, to draw their full salarie , , he concluded by stating that, in future, it was in tended to subject these officers to a stricter accoun t during absence from their duty, with a view to greater retrenchment in this department. In al itch cases of absence the salary was to be divided thus : one half to be drawn by the officer himiklf whilst in retirement ; a moiety of the other half to be devoted to the payment of those who performed hii duty pending their principal's absence; the other moiety to be placed to the account of the public, The Hon. Member then moved his resold tion, that the sum of 87,9701. b• granted for the payment of the allowances and salaries of Consuls.- General abroad, and the discharge of retired allow ances in that department. Sir J. GRAHAM said, he laboured under-some inconvenience in bringing the motion, of which he had given notice, before the House, from the cir cumstance of the Hon. Secretary of the Treasury having now announced a very different state of ex pence as being about to be adopted by his Majesty's Government with respect to our foreign Consulates• This change of intention on the part of the Govern ment—it had been, in fact, inferred by the Hon• Member—was attributable to the sarcastic allusions thrown out by himself, on a former occasion; but he might, with far greater propriety, have traced them to 'opinions which were gaining ground dallY out of doors on that subject, and the formidable re° collection of the recorded sense of the House on $ lute occasion.--(Hear.)—After making every allow ante for the reduction now adopted, and which he could not but consider as - quite an afterthought of Ministers, arising out of a 'regent transaction within those walls, he must say that he still thought the reduction was inadequate, and it was his intention to move, this evening, that a still greater reduction of these salaries should take place forthwith. 't he proposition for putting these servants of the public on fixed salaries, instead of allowing them to take fees and perquisites of office, had been attempted to be fixed on an Hon. Friend of his; by a qu otation from the Hon. Member's speech, which savoure d so much of ungarded liberality of the public money , t o appear to be a genuine transcript of that great ad vocate of economy and retrenchment. — (Hear, an d laughing.)—That Hon. Member was not' now in his place—but he should not be surprised to hear h im disavow that recommendation, at least to the ex tent insinuated. But it was clear to the most or dinary observer, that, this was.a case which ca lled for the immediate attention of Parliament, as being one of a great and grave character, aid involving n question of expence to the public which, was alto' gether indefensible. It was certain, from the re corded speech of Mr. Canning—from which the Hon. Baronet read an extract—that Mr. C. consi dered the change of system as to the mode of recur neratitig our foreign Consuls, but he disclaimed it as a measure likely to be produCtive of great inconve nience, and adopted without his approbation. As s° opinion had gone forth to the world that this systere had originated with Mr. Canning, he thought it but justice to the memory of that Statesman to she/ that on the contrary he had questioned theipolicy of the system, and expressed the strongest doubts whether it would operate, upon the whole, as an advantage to the public. He (Sir J. Graham) we' one of those himself who thought that the public, had suffered great injustice from the substitution 0.1 salaries for fees even in the Customs. But, whet' ever difference might exist as to thepolicy of adopt' ing the principle in the Customs, he thought there could be none in the instance of Consuls abroad' There was this obvious distinction between the two cases—that the Custom-house officer was employed in collecting the revenue for the benefit of the pub' lie, and therefore had a claim to be paid by the public; but the Commis employed abroad were 5 ° employed for the benefit of the merchant, and t here fore should be paid by the merchant. For this rev sun he thought that the adoption of fees would have, been a better mode of paying foreign Consuls,•a o especially as there was no way so calculated to er'' force the performance of a disagreeable duty:" (Hear, hear.) If the Consul was paid by fees.V would find it his interest to remain at his station, I: do every thing in his power to promote the inter° of the merchants, and in every way to discharge t," duties of his office fully and effectively. On the public i'ee other purse, hand, le payt him the receive Consul his a s t at e full salary d aum whe ti l fromt; ra he was at his post or not, and he would be deprivf of the strongest inducement to act up so oflicob . engagements. And this was actually the effect. H e was not talking of theories now; he was appealing to facts, and the House would see in a short w hile how the facts stood with regard to those Consular appointments. He would begin with the case of Mr' t Rickets, who was Consul at Rome. Mr. Rickets out in 1825, and during the first year he receive d 3,8551. In 1826 he received, including salary, house' rent, mad a few other items, 3,7631. In 182 7 1 being on the voyage home, he received 2,8 12 ' During the years 1828 and 1829 he remained 0 home, receiving his full salary; so that for five year s of service, two of which were spent at home, 1 16 received 13,6001. of the public money. His Right Hon. Friend (Mr. Dawson) had complained of hit° for taking notice of any transactions previous to 1827, as the present Ministers were not in °Me' until then; but his Right Hon: Friend, and mid of those who sat near him •on the Treasury bend' were in office during the Administration of DV' Canning, and were in office on their own account during 1828 and 1829, which were the y e ars which Mr. Rickets had received hit full salary °' home, and which constituted the most serious per l i of the charge. The next case to which he shoa l call their attention was that of Mr. Nugent, Wl ° : went out to Chili in 1825. He received, &nil the first year, 3,050/. The second year he receive' the same amount, having remained, as he now o f ° ' derstood, the whole or that year at his post. ' / e ) 1827 lie received 2,500/. In June, 1828, he r turned to England, receiving, during half that year] his full salary for doing nothing; and the whole ° 1829, during the gold en r e ign of the Earl of Abe r t i deer, the conscientious economist, he still receive,,, his full salary. He therefore charged the Not Earl with a waste of the public money in t hee . cases; ; for, up to a few days ago, when, for the fir ' t and for reasons which they might possib l e suspect, it was intimated that, in future, per3 oo absent from their stations in England should receiv e r but half their salaries. The next case was that Mr. Mackenzie, the Consul at Hayti. He receiv e ': 2,715/. the first year. The regular salary Or 1,5001.; but there was, amongst other extraor V , nary charges, a most extraordinary charge of 1,50: for travels in the interior. This gentleman returne! to England in 1828, still on full pay, having o', ceived in a.l 8,124/., though he had remained bo little more than one year at his post. He shoa l next allude to Mr. Schenley, who was Vice-Cons ° , at Guatemala, to which place lie went out in 1822 with a salary of 7771. a year. He remained out (hail the whole of 1826, but in 1827 he returned home, at continuing to receive his full salary while in Engine' up to 1829, the golden year of the Earl of Aberdee' , again, who, in his regard for economy and pub° purity, continued to allow the full salaries to 010 . who were at home. In 1829 he allowed 5001. # an outfit to the Consul of Hayti, he having remaioe, in England, for a reason which was well un d er stoo in that House—the reason assigned being urg' il ‘ private business.—(A laugh.) This gentleman W' re ceived altogether 4,8591. liut this was not tb whole of the charge connected with the Consulsi m at Hayti. There was also a charge for two Vic e ; Consuls. Mr. Fisher, who received a salary 37.5/. as Vice-Consul, was also detained in Engia ° , l —(A laugh)—so that there was a spare Consul e ° , a spare Vice-Consul in England, while Mr. Thor e i r i so n, the man who really did the business, was at ° post, receiving a salary of 5001. a year.—(Hear.) And here it might be necessary that he shoo glance a little ut the real economy of the Earl Aberdeen and the present Ministry. The caul', which was eating into the vitals of this country °I the Superannuation List. This was seen thr6 by the Committee of Finance, who directed ° attention of Parli a ment to the subject. If there directed attention any one subject which that Committee had u more than another, it was this very subject of perannuations.—(Hear, hear.) —They had in cated over and over again that no allowance she be made to any person under fifteen years' serve • gone a likely indiffe ever sitenc ( it, and Inencii perani Which than t salarie the pc pariso expen beion diplor year, year I t p o e n w s the pi porta durini the of value and e amou Upon civil judic was 'A 6,00( War, of 6, Justi Pend della only. reco ainou half I that with confi( sular well --(1-] ceivi AI sti wl