The Sun. — London, England, 1830-03-18 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF LORDS-(LAST NIGHT). A Return was moved for of the Amount and Rate of Duty levied on Grain, imported between tlie 25th July, 1828, and the sth of January, 1830, in order to complete the Corn Returns. After a few words from Lords ROSSLYN and MALMESBURY, the Return was ordered. Lord WHARNCLIFFE presented a petition from Swailedale, in the county of York, praying for a further protecting duty ou corn imported.—Laid on the table. Lord CLARE presented a petition from Mon mouthshire, praying for a revision of the Tithe Laws.—Laid on the table. LORD ELLENBOROUGH'S DIVORCE BILL. In the House of Lords, on Monday, the evidence taken upon the second reading of this Bill, which i, intitled "An Act to dissolve the marriage of the Right Hon. Edward Baron Ellenborough, with the Right Hon. Jane Elizabeth Baroness Ellenborough his now wife, and to enable him to marry again, and for other purposes therein mentioned," was ordered to be printed. Yesterday the evidence was laid on their Lordships' table. Lord and Lady Ellenborough, it will be recol lected from the statement which appeared in our paper of yesterday week, were married by special license on the 15th of September, 182-1. at the resi dence of Admiral Digby, her father, in Harley-street. The following is the copy of the special license, which was produced and put in : Charles, by Divine Providence, Archbishop of Canter bury, Primate of all England and Metropolitan, by autho rity of Parliament, lawfully empowered for the purposes herein written, to our beloved in Christ, the Right Bon. Edward Lord Ellenborough, a widower, and Jane Eliza beth Digby, spinster, a minor, health : whereas it is al leged ye have proposed to proceed to the solemnization of a true, pure, and lawful marriage, by and with the con oent of Henry Digby, Esq., Rear Admiral in his Ma jesty's Navy, the natural and lawful father of the said minor, earnestly desiring the same to be solemnized with all the speed that may be ; that such your reasonable de sires may more readily take dui effect, we, for certain causes us hereunto especially moving, do, so far as in us lies, and the laws of this realm allow, by these presents, graciously give and grant our license and faculty, as well to you, the parties contracting, as to all Christian people willing to be present at the solemnization of the said mar riage, to celebrate and solemnize such marriage between you, the said contracting parties, at any time, and in any church or chapel, or other meet and convenient place, by any Bishop of this realm, or by the Rector, Vicar, Curate, or Chaplain of such church or chapel, or by any other Minister in Holy Orders of the Church of England, pro vided there be no lawful let or impediment to hinder the said marriage. Given under the seal of our Office of Faculties, at Doctors' Commons, this Sth day of Septem ber, in the year of our Lord 1824, and in the 20th year of our translation. CHARLES MOORE, Registrar. The letters read by Mr. Adam, in his address to their Lordships, at the close of his speech, which were put in, but not then read, are in these terms : The first the Learned Counsel described as having been received by Lord Ellenborough from Lady Ellenborough on the 23d of May last, the day after her separation from him, when she had quitted town for Roehampton. This letter was represented us intended to lull any suspicions in his Lordship's mind—should any have existed—prejudicial to her honour, lest the affair might terminate in a duel be tween the injured husband and the paramour. R— [Roehampton], Saturday Night. Forgive me if Ido wrong in writing to you. A note just received from Lady Anson seems to imply that you have expected it. I had begun a letter to you this morn ing, thanking you from the bottom of my soul for your unbounded kindness in act and manner : it was far more than I deserved, and am deeply grateful. I again renew all the assurances I gave you last night, that in act I am innocent. I hardly know what or how to write to you. I dare not use the language of affection : you would think it hypocrisy. But though my family naturally wish all should be again as it once was between us, those feelings of honour which I still retain towards you make me still acquiesce in your decision. I continue to think it just and right. I have not been able to speak to them on the subject I confessed to you last night. I have spoken little to-day, but have never for an instant swerved from my own original opinion. I write this to you, if it is possible, for you to keep what I have said from them.* Do, as they would only set it down as another proof of unkindness on my part. Could you write me a line, through Henry, were it only to tell me your opinion, be assured I should think it right. But oh ! Edward, dear, dear Edward ! ought not time, solitude, and change of scene to be tried by me to conquer or obliterate senti ments so inimical to our mutual peace ? Pray write to me all you think upon the subject—all you wish me to do, I will now answer you candidly, and without a shade o deception.—God bless you, dearest Edward. JANET. If my aunt has misunderstood any expression, and you did not expect or wish to hear from me personally, forgive me; although I long to tell you how gratefully I feel to wards you, yet I confess I should never have ventured to write.—Ever your's. [Envelope superscribed.] To the Lord Ellenborough, &e. &c. &c., Connaught place. 4 No explanation was given by the Learned Counsel of the c ommunication alluded to. The next letter was received by Lord Ellenbo rough, the Learned Counsel said, on the 28th of May, two days before her Ladyship quitted Roe hampton for Ilfracombe. It was gratifying, ob served the Learned Gentleman, to find that Lord Ellenborough had acted so generously and stably to wards his wife, who herself acknowledged, in reference to the allowance which he had made her, that it was more than site wanted. It was super scribed " Lord Ellenborough," and ran thus : My dearest Edward,—l know you will believe me when I say I feel myself utterly ur.cqual to writing to you to-day. I cannot thank you for your kindness, but I in treat you will not think of making me such an allow ance; indeed it is more than I can possibly want. I will send back the green box to-morrow morning. —Ever, ever your's, JANET. The correspondence was identified as Lady Ellen. borough's writing by the Hon. Spencer Law, Lord Ellenborough's brother. The Earl of ROSSLYN moved the third reading of Lord Ellenborough's Divorce Bill. The Earl of RADNOR rose to oppose it. He founel himself compelled to say not content to the question for the third reading of the Bill, although it was with the most sincere pain and regret that he opposed the remedy which was sought by a Bill of this kind. It was most painful and disagreeable to stand in the way of the relief applied for under such circumstances; and the more so, considering that the person soliciting this indulgence was a Noble Lord and a Member of this House, and also one of she Ministers of the Crown. But, at the same time, because the Noble Lord was a Member of this House and one of his Majesty's Ministers, their Lordships were so much the more bound to take care that in this proceeding every thilig should be done openly, fairly, formally, and deliberately. But their Lordships were aware that tho formalities usual in these cases had not been observed in this case. It had Hot undergone investigation in the tribunals below; and, under those circumstances, it arcs peculiarly incumbent on their Lordships to in quire strictly and carefully into the whole of the case. Another circumstance worthy of observation was, that it was usual oi; these occasions for a Learned Counsel to attend on the part of the lady, and really and bone fide to oppose the all. Now, uny one who attended on the hearing of the evidence must be aware, and could not avoid seeing most plainly, that the Counsel who attended apparently for the purpose of oppos ing the Bill, was a mere blind, and never Contem plated nor intended a re n al and bona fide oppoion. These were surely circumstances which required much consideration before their Lordships consented to pass this Bill. Now, it did appear that the evi dence was in many pub; loose, vague, and unsatis factory. On the first branch of it there was much doubt as to the identity of Prince Swartzenberg ; and the Counsel for the Bill was, therefore, desired to carry the case further; and then he produced the evidence as to visits of the lady to Prince Swartzen berg, in Harley-street, three or four times every week, and her staying with him, and going to bed with him for some Hours. He confessed, us 1111 honest man, that on hearing the evidence he had no doubt of her guilt, and that he bad no doubt of the identity of the parties. But his objection was, that the conduct of Lord Ellenborough throughout the transaction was such that he was not entitled to the relief which he prayed. He could understand, as well as any man, that it might be an invidious task to oppose a man when struggling for this kind of remedy ; but at the same time it was not unfair to do so under the circumstances of this case, how , ever grievous and irksome it might be to those par ties to be kept in the miserable bondage of marriage after what had happened. But there were other considerations to be attended to besides the wishes and the feelings of the parties. If the proposition were to be admitted that the wishes of the parties were the main consideration to be attended to„then when mar ried parties differed in temper, or from any cause were disagreeable to each other, that would be a suf ficient ground for a divorce. What his own opinion on the subject was he would not now state. It was quite enough for him at present to show that this Bill ought not to be passed, and could not be passed consistently with the principles by which their Lordships had been governed in proceedings of this description. At present no lawyer could say that the mere wishes of the parties formed a good ground for a divorce; and if the Right Rev. Prelates had been present, he would confidently put it to them whether the mere wishes of the parties farmed a good ground for divorce. Of all the evidence, how ever, that with respect to the terms on which the parties lived together formed the weakest point. To prove that the parties lived happily together, the best witnesses were relations of the 'family who were in the constant habit of visiting them and observing their conduct, or others who were in the habit of seeing them. In the present case it was easy to have produced many witnesses of this de scription, but only two had been, in fact, produced. One of these was Mr. Law, a brother of Lord Ellenborough, who stated that he was in the habit of seeing them for two years and a half from the period of their marriage ; but then he had been abroad, where he staid a considerable time; and all he could say was that they appeared to live happily together for some time after their marriage, and that they appeared to be happy together after his return. Miss Stephen, the governess, who ap peared to be rather a reluctant witness, said indeed that they lived happily together, but she did not live in the house, and knew little about the matter. Another remarkable circumstance was, that for six or eight months prior to the separation, the parties hal separate beds, and did not cohabit together; and although the governess stated that in the Ecclesiastical Court the Counsel did not think proper to examine her to that point here. And then, it appeared from the evidence, that the lady was in the habit for a year and a half, or nearly so of going to Harley -street to visit Prince Swartzenberg three or four times in the week, of remaining with him each time for some hours, and going to bed with him, and then going away in broad day, and as openly as when she came. Now he would ask whether any man of common sense, who paid any attention to the conduct of his wife, could fail under such circumstances of know ing what was going forward ? or if he did not know, was not this an instance of the grossest ne gligence and inattention ? Then consider the age of the lady. She was a young woman of twenty-one years of age, and was stated to be very beautiful. NOW was it consistent with the proper degree of attention in the husband to be allowing a young and inexperienced woman to be ranging the streets of London in this way unattended and unguarded, espe cially when it was known how superior to her in knowledge of the world Lord Ellenborough was ? He owned that this did appear to him to be very gross negligence, and his not cohabiting with her for so long a time was worse than negligence ; and under these circumstances he did not think the husband was entitled to a divorce a vinculo matri monii. If this Bill should be passed, it might be said that the bare fact of adultery was a good ground for a divorce, although, in the Queen's case, a Right Rev. Prelate was severely reproved for saying some thing like that. It was a sound doctrine, that the man who came here for a divorce ought to come with clean hands; and another Right Rev. Prelate had quoted, in support of this passage, from the Gospel by St. Matthew, " He that putted] away his wife without a cause, causeth her to commit adultery ?" Now did not this negligence and inat tention, and want of cohabitation, provoke the wife to commit adultery ? To a woman of that kind negligence itself was a great pro vocation. All this might be explained; but, as the evidence stood, he could not think that the husband in this case was entitled to a divorce. He did not mean to impute collusion to the parties ; but if there had been collusion, the matter could not have been better managed. He did think that under all the circumstances this Bill could not be allowed to pass, if their Lordships chose to adhere to the principles by which they were usually governed. The Earl of MALMESBURY also felt great pain in opposing the Bill, but he was bound to look at the question impartially, firmly, and with a single eye to the purposes of justice. Such a divorce might be necessary to prevent a spurious issue being palmed on a man and inheriting his property. But this Bill went much further than that, the object being to place the husband in the same situation as if he had never been married. He had the curiosity to ascertain what was the number of Divorce Bills that had passed this House during the last 10 years, and he found that from 1820 to 1825 six Bills of this kind had passed ; and from 1825 to 1830, 21 Bills. So that the number of Divorce Bills was on the increase ; and this evinced an increasing pro fligacy in the higher classes, or a greater facility in their Lordships in granting these divorces. He said the higher classes, because the remedy was so ex pensive that the middling and lower orders were deprived of it. The points raised by his Noble Friend were highly deserving of their Lordships' attention. If these parties had been living happily together, where could have been the difficulty of producing a dozen of the most competent witnesses to prove the fact ? Instead of that, they called only the brother and the governess, neither of whom for the reasons mentioned by his Noble Friend, knew much about the matter. The lady, it was true, was stated to have confessed that she was with child by Prince Schwartzenberg ; but then, how easily could a story of this kind be got up, if parties intended to collude together to get a divorce ? He did not mean to say that there was collusion in this case, but then their Lordships must consider what effect the passing of the Bill might have by way of pre cedent, and whether it would not have a tendency to encourage profligacy in the upper classes. The Earl of ROSSLYN contended that the evi dence was already complete and satisfactory. The Noble Lords had disclaimed the imputation of col lacion; otherwise, that was an insinuation which he would have been certainly prepared to repel. But then they asked, why more abundant and satisfac tory evidence of the parties living happily together had not been produced. What better evidence eoeld there be produced than that of the Noble Lord's brother and the governess, who had the best opportunities of knowing on what terms they lived ? But then the Noble Lords said, that, as only these two were called, the evidence was vague, loose, and unsatisfactory. In that respect he dif- fared from them ; but, in point of fact, there was more evidence on this point, to which the Noble Lords had not adverted ; and that was the two let- Us.rs which had been put in, and which were expressed in tenses which proved that the parties I:ve d on good terms together. llc thought it was impossible to doubt the tact of the adultery; and the question then resolved itself into one of collusion or negli gence, lii his opinion there never had been a case in which there was less of either than in the pre sent. The Noble Earl had referred to the great number of Divorce Bills that within the last five years had passed through Parliament ; but surely there svas no reason on that account to refuse the passing O f th i s Bill; for even if it were true, as the Noble Lord seemed to suppose, that these Bills were in general granted with so much facility, that circumstance ought not to prevent an individual who had fully made out his case to be deprived of the remedy he sought. Lord WHARNCLIFFE had never seen a stronger case of adultery. The Noble Earl oppo site bad talked of the negligence of Lord Ellen borough, and seemed to impute the adultery of the lady to that cause. He begged to say that in his mind there was not the slightest ground for the im putation. Lady Ellenborough went to Halley street, to visit Prince Swartzenberg, in the day time. Why, was there a Peer in that house who did not know that his wife was in the habit of going out at two o'clock in the day, and returning at five ; and was there any one who, merely because she was absent from home during those two hours would accuse her of being unfaithful towards him ? But then it was said she went to Harley-street. True; and what was there in that circumstance to excite suspicion ? If Prince Swartzenberg lived in Harley street, so did Lady Ellenborough's family ; a n d if Lord Ellenborough had inquired where his lady had been during the morning, and had been answered that she had been in Harley. street, he would naturally have concluded that she went thither to visit some member of her family. The time and the place, therefore, were both of a kind that in them selves precluded suspicion ; and they must know that a husband was always the last man whom his servants thought proper to inform of any suspicious circumstances. On the whole, if he were a Juror giving his verdict on his oath, he should say most conscientiously that he never saw a case in which adultery was more decidedly proved, or in which there was less appearance of negligence or improper conduct on the part of the husband. The LORD CHANCELLOR said this Bill was founded on the adultery of the lady, which had been proved so clearly and unequivocally, that nobody who read the evidence could doubt of its having been committed. His Lordship here referred to the evidence of the groom of the visits to Har ley and Holles-streets—of the meeting at Brighton : all of which he asserted, even without Miss Steele's testimony, was sufficient to show the fact of the adultery, and to establish the identity of the par ties. The previous mode of life of Lord and Lady Ellenborough was proved by Miss Steele to have been kind, affectionate, and happy ; but on that point he must say, that he concurred fully with the Noble Baron who had preceded him, that such proof was not necessary in support of a Bill of Divorce. Yet the proof had been given, and given in a man ner that must establish the fact beyond all doubt ; for not only had Miss Steele, who for years pos sessed the most perfect opportunity of acquiring a knowledge of the subject, proved the affectionate arid happy terms on which they lived together, but Lady Ellenborough herself had given by her own letters the most conclusive, the most con vincing testimony in support of the same fact. He knew not how Lord Ellenborough could justly be ac cused of negligence towardshis wife's conduct. Every Noble Lord must recollect that Lord Ellenborough, during the whole of these transactions, had been an active member of his Majesty's Government; and every member of that Government could speak to the unremitting attention which Lord Ellenborough had paid to the discharge of the duties incident to his high station. But then it was said that there was collusion between these parties as to the man ner in which the case had been presented at their Lordships' Bar, and the affectionate terms of Lady Ellenborough's letter were referred to in proof of the statement. In his opinion, no man could read that letter attentively, and then come to the conclu sion that it was written collusively to forward the views of Lord Ellenborough. No man at all ac quainted with the human heart could avoid perceiv ing that the expressions of the writer were the un disguised and natural effusions of her own agitated feelings. His Lordship here read the letter, and laid particular stress on the assertion of her Lady ship, that Lord Ellenborough had always, in act and manner, been most kind to her; that she was grateful to him for his kindness; that though her conduct had excited his suspicions, she solemnly assured him she was innocent in act ; and that she only yielded to his desire for a separation in obe dience to his wishes. Evidence like this would be of the greatest weight, even if met by evidence of an opposite character, but there was no opposing evidence, and on every ground he felt convinced that their Lordships would come to an unanimous vote in favour of this Bill. The Earl of RADNOR said, the vote certainly would not be unanimous as far as he was concerned; and notwithstanding the speech they had just heard, he thought that if there were collusion between the parties, they would not hare acted otherwise than they had done. After a few words from the LORD CHAN CELLOR and Lord RADNOR as to the evidence of Miss Steele, the question was put and carried, and the Bill was read a third time and passed. The Mutiny Bill and the Marine Mutiny Bill were read a second time.—Adjourned. HOUSE OF COMMONS—(LAST NIGHT). Sir EDWARD C. DEERING took the oaths and his seat for the town of Wexford, in Ireland. Sir BYAM MARTIN presented a petition from Plymouth, praying for a revision of the criminal law. A similar petition was presented by Mr. SYKES from the town of Kingston-upon-Hull. A similar petition was presented by Mr. RAMS DEN from the borough of Maldon. Mr. S. RICE moved for a return of the amount of duty on coals received in Ireland during the last ten years; and also for a return of the number of gallons of spirits that paid duty in Ireland in each year of the last ten years.—Ordered. Mr. BENSON presented four petitions, numer ously signed by iron masters and different classes of manufacturers and tradesmen of W(st Bromwich, Wednesbury, Wedgebury, and other places in Staf fordshire, all against the truck system. Mr. CRIPPS presented a petition from King's Stanley, Gloucester, against the truck system. — Also a petition from the licensed victuallers of Cirencester against the system of abolishing licenses. Lord S ANDON presented a petition front a town of Staffordshire against the truck system. Mr. presented a petition front Lanark, against the renewal of the East India Company's Charter. Mr. FLUME postponed his motion relative to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, from March 23 toMay 1 1. Sir GEORGE CLERK presented a petition from the brewers of Edinburgh, praying that a higher duty might be levied on whiskey. PUNISHMENT OF DEATH. Mr. W. SMITH presented a petition from Nor wich, against the punishment of death for forgery. Mr. W. PEEL supported the petition. Mr. Alderman THOMPSON moved for an Ac count of the duties on are insurance for the last year. —Ordered. Mr. F. LEWIS postponed his motion for a Bill to consolidate the offices of Treasurer and Paymaster of the Navy till this day week. Sir L. kiNt A TCHBULL presented a petition from Romney Marsh, and from a parish in Kent, com plaining of distress, and praying for relief. Mr. WILBRAHAM presented a similar petition from Stockbridge. Mr. HUSKISSON presented a petition from Bolton, Lancashire, against the t ruc k system . Ar s . L n c presented p et i t i ons f rom var i ous p complaining o f great di stress, an d i,cier; praying for a reduction of the duties on malt and beer. Mr. LOCKHART presented a similar petition from a parish in the city of Oxford. Mr. LIT i'LETON presented a petition from the High Sheriff and Grand Jury of the county of Staf ford, complaining of the great charge of passing Scotch and Irish labourers. The Hon. Member also pre sented four petitions from the Lord Lieutenant and Magistrates of the county of Stafford, and from a parish in Stafford, against the truck system. TRUCK SYSTEM. Mr. LYTTLETON then rose to make the mo- tion of which he had given notice, for leave to' bring 1 in a Bill to prohibit the payment of wages in goods. He stated it was the wish of a great number of his constituents that the truck system should be abolished ; but though lie was desirous of attend ing to those wishes, he was convinced of the evils of this system, that had they not pressed the matter on him he should have been ready to take it up and remedy the evils. He did not mean absolutely to prohibit masters from keeping shops, but though they did, he would make them pay their men in money. At present many manufacturers made so much by keeping shops, that they did not care if they lost by their manufacture. The difference of price in what were called tommy shops and regular shops was very great. The Hon. Member the❑ read a great variety of statements to illustrate the difference. He earnestly intreated the attention of the House to a subject which appeared to him of more importance than was generally supposed. The mischief's of the truck system pressed with greater severity upon the working classes, and did more to keep many of them in a state of pauperism, than Hon. Gentlemen could form any idea of from the mere statements generally in circulation upon the subject. He requested it would also be borne in mind that a great number of petitions hail been presented on the subject ; and such were its visible effects, that no man who felt for the circumstances and condition of the working classes could refuse his sympatby, or could decline doing all in his power to put an end to that most crying evil. Honourable Members could not credit the extent of mischief which prevailed, unless they had opportunities such as he had of making minute personal inquiries. The Hon. Gentleman then referred to several letters, affidavits, and other documents, the greater portion of which were only confirmatory of each other. They went to show that the quality of the goods given to the poor working men in lieu of wages were greatly inferior to what might be purchased from any dealer in those commodities—that the masters who paid in goods often realised six or seven thousand a year solely from the truck system, in addition to their other profits—their charges often exceeding 25 and even 50 per cent. beyond the value of the goods, even supposing them to be of average quality—how much more beyond their value when it was the fact that the goods so trucked were far below the ordinary standard ! By that system three classes most mate rially suffered : the working men themselves, the retail traders, and the masters who paid in money. It might be said by an lion. Member opposite, why did not the operatives quit the truck masters ? that might not prove so easy ; the labouring classes were often in debt to their employers ; and even were they not so, many impediments presented themselves to a change of employers. He had had himself recently a communication► from Staffordshire, stating the number of blast furnaces in one district, and stating that forty-five of them were at present out of blast. Of that forty-five, there were fifteen only belonging to truck masters, which showed that one only out of every three was out of employment ; a proof that the truck system enabled those who practised it to carry on business, when their rivals, who paid money, were unable to do so. Another effect of the system, if allowed to continue, would be to displace the coin of the realm, and substitute for it the truck notes. The only mode of establishing equality would be to put an end to the system alto gether. The Hon. Member then stated briefly the purport of the principal clauses of his Bill. The first went to prohibit all payments in goods, either di rectly or indirectly ; the second to empower Ma gistrates to compel the production, by persons ac cused, of their books and papers as evidence ; and the third clause made a very serious addition to the penalties for offences. The Hon. Member concluded by moving for leave to: bring in a Bill to render more effectual the laws requiring the payment of wages in money. After a few words from Mr. HUSKISSON, Sir C. COLE, and Mr. HERMES, expressing their assent to the propositions of the Hon. Member, but desiring to postpone the discussion of a measure of so much importance on a day not usually devoted to public business, Mr. HUME agreed to postpone his amendment ; and the Debate was accordingly adjourned until to morrow. GAME BILL. The Committee on the Game Bill was, for the same reasons, postponed until Monday next. The Ellenborough Divorce Bill was brought up from the House of Lords and read a first time. The House then adjourned at a few minutes after Seven o'clock. CHAMBER OF DEPUTIES. FURTHER PARTICULARS OF THE FIRST DAY'S DEBATE. [The following particulars are extracted from the Na tionale, a new opposition paper:]— " The parliamentary debates were to-day of a highly in teresting nature. We shall relate all that we have heard on the subject, and though we are only able to give the rumours of the day, we have every reason to rely on their authenticity. " A numerous crowd of curious spectators flocked to the Palais-Bourbon at an early hour of the morning. Long before the appointed hour a great number of depu ties filled the Chamber and the adjacent rooms. All were struck with the gravity of the occasio❑ : it was said that, for the last 15 years, such an important day had never oc curred. The address, and what had passed in the com mittee, was the general subject of conversation : the secret, kept till then with great prudence, began at last to be disclosed. The manner in which the labours of the committee had been effectuated was now known, and every one related it to his neighbour. From what we have been able to learn, it would appear that the com mittee has received many projects, amongst which was one not by a member of the committee. The project of address prespo'sed by M. Gautier has been preferred. It has undergone several modifications, especially in the points concerning the external policy of the Ministry, which M. Gautier seemed too much disposed to approve. The project for paying off the Five per Cents. appeared also too explicitly adopted, and the primitive draft of the address has been amended on this head. The last para graph, which was the most important, has been the sole object of discussion during several days, and was elabo rated by all the members of the committee. It was at last decided upon yesterday, unanimously, as well as the other parts of the address. During the course of the evening the whole project was, as is usual, communicated by the committee to the Ministry, who have consequently had 21 hours to meditate and prepare to answer it. It was known at the King's play, and all the solicitations which were made use of towards the Members of the right centre were prompted by especial and predetermined motives.— They may have heard, as it is now the fashion to say, that the prerogatives of the Crown are attacked,—they may have even learned in what terms those prerogatives have been attacked. " The sitting opened at an early hour. At a quarter to one the President and Secretaries entered the Chamber. The debates commenced at twenty minutes past one.— More than 400 Deputies were present. Never since the restoration had our political men showed so much zeal in fulfilling their public duties. The Ministers were all pre sent, except M. de Courvoisier, who labours under a mo mentary indisposition. M. de Polignac affects the sar castic ease and tranquillity of a courtier. Such was his attitude during the debates, and it is not the first time that courtiers hare affected indifference in the midst of the most important circumstances. M. de Bourmont evinced that true carelessness of a man accustomed to civil wars ; AI. Guernon de Ranville, the assurance of an advocate ; M. de Chabrol seemed dejected, as every man of sense ought to be. MM. de Montbel and d'Hausscz appeared to share his mental embarrassment. " The greatest silence reigned on all sides, when the President began to read the long-wished-for address. He had hardly read a phrase, when the sound of a shrill voice was heard on the light. It was that of the Baron de l'Epine, who asked permission to oppose the address. Numerous marks of impatience, and much laughter, were produced from all quarters by this demand. It was said that the Baron might at least have waited to oppose the address till he knew what it was. After this incident, the President continued to read the address, which was listened to with great satisfaction by the left side and the two centres. It was then read a second time, according to the custom, and received with still more decided marks of approbation, as it was better understood than at the first rea&ift, On the right side there appeared to reign great discontent, but no signs of astonishment. " M. Hyde de Neuville makes rather a long speech re specting Portugal, which he concludes by demanding in formation from the Government relative to the course they are about to pursue towards that country. " M. de Polignac is said to have replied to M. Hyde de Neuville in the following terms I regret that I can not satisfy the curiosity of the Hon. Member who has pre ceded me. I shall adhere simply to the King's words. Negeciations have been commenced ; and the Minister of Foreign Affairs ought less than any other to disclose the secrecy under which they are concealed. All that I can say is, that the political relations which had been sus pended at Lisbon, have not been resumed ; and if the principle of legitimacy is strongly eugraven in the heart of the Hon. Member, mine is not less impressed with the same sentiment.' EXTRACT OF THE SPEECH OF THE MINISTER OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, M. GUERNON DE RANVILLE. " Every man who devotes himself to the management of the atTairs of a country, should immediately consent to submit his public life to the severest investigation. The country has a right to scrutinize the opinions manifested by those whom the choice of the Crown have made the de positaries of the dearest interests of every one. In this case our life entirely belongs to you ; and we will never complain of a scrutiny whose investigations we can with stand. We will go still farther—we will deliver up to you our private l►ves, even the secrets of the closet. Examine and discuss, if you please, all our actions—we are ready to answer all the accusations which may seem to hare any foundation in those actions. You see we give up a vast career to our adversaries ; we accept all the con sequences that they can draw from our previous conduct. Let them state what that has been ; magistrates, ad►xi nistrators, publicists, we are not entirely unknown. What abuse of power—what arbitrary act—what unconstitu tional act can they signalize ? They name nothing, they have nothing to name ; and to what extent does not the blindness of our accusers go ? They reproach us even with inaction. What do they wish ? Do they object to what is called the inactivity of the Government ? The decisive measures so lung talked of, so ridiculously foretold, seem not to be required by them ; our inaction will be long upon this point. I❑ fact, in default of facts, they pretend to go even into our hearts—they pretend to scrutinize our thoughts--they do not fear to attribute to us aversions an►l distrust which never belonged to us. This is impos sible to tolerate. " ' We, say they, are distrustful of the sentiments of France. What proof can they bring in support of such an imputation? However, we have the right to oblige them not to accuse us without proof. No, gentlemen, we do not feel this unjust distrust. We know what France wishes; we know that, full of confidence in its King, the nation remains quiet in the midst of fictitious agitation of supposed uneasiness, with which they endeavour to frighte❑ you, in presence of the efforts that are snaking to inspire you with doubts of the loyalty of the depositaries of the Royal confidence; and it is not here a vain profession of principles, unsupported by unimpeachable facts. It is a parliamentary doctrine, that the speech of the Crown, at the moment of the opening of the sessions, is a manifesta tion of the opinions of the Government. The Hon. Members that drew up the address,—those that accuse us of a blameable distrust of the sentiments of France,—have they so soon forgotten this free declaration of the King, that in case of necessity he will continue the protector of the public liberties, and merit the just confidence of Frenchmen, and the lore that they have always manifested for their Kings? " Such, Gentlemen, is our opinion of the sentiments and reason of France—such is the homage that we render to this loyal nation, so worthy of the liberties that she re ceives from the legal power, and that, under the shield of this tutelary power, she knows how to defend herself with equal constancy against the violences of usurpation, and against the perfidious caresses of her false friends. Far from us the odious imputation brought against us: we will repel an imputation devoid of all proof, and falsified by our acts. After having absolved us of an accusation evidently unjust, you will decide in your impartial wis dom, if you can declare in the face of all France that you will, in its name, refuse your confidence to the men whom the most violent opposition can only reproach with haying obtained the confidence of the Monarch. " Whatever may be your determination, we owe you a free and loyal declaration of our intentions. " Called to the head of affairs by the wish of the King, we will not abandon them but by the orders of the King; we present ourselves amongst you, with the Charter in our hands. Faithful to the loyal inspirations of the Father of the country, we will invariably proceed in the Constitu tional course. Neither outrages nor menaces shall oblige us to deviate from that course that our honour and duty prescribe.—(On the right, Very well.')—df by weakness or by error, we were so unfortunate as to propose to the King measures subversive of the independence of the Crown, or of the national rights, the reprobation of our fellow-citizens, the just severity of the Chambers, would promptly punish our criminal excesses. We accept with. out hesitation all the responsibility.' " His Excellency on returning to his seat received very warm congratulations from a very great number of Mem bers of the right." " Baron DE L'EnNE, a Royalist, spoke first against :he Address. " Gentlemen, said he, the circumstances which preceded this Session are far from authorizing, on our part, any un usual forms of language towards the Crown. On the contrary, what has passed since our last separation, im poses a duty upon us to seek for a measure of respect and devotedness towards it, proportioned to the greatness of the offences which we have to avenge for its sake. The press has strangely abused our absence, to afflict royalty by grave disrespect, and by a manifestation of ingratitude which it is our duty zealously to disavow and condemn. Happily, we are not answerable for them, and this is our only consolation; but we might become responsible, if our first care was not to disavow them at the foot of the Throne. " Born to be moderators of the licence and the passions which prevail out of doors, it is our strict duty, if not to enchain them, at least to strike them with our severe dis faupnp(riaonbiaetniotani. la A w nd has is i e t h n o o se t n fo u r s ti o li f s, ni g a e t n u t r le e n a le g n e: athnadt had invested us, above all, with the:authority which is given by years ? " Let us hasten, then, to raise the dike of experience and prudent firmness against the floods which menace with so much violence the edifice of religion and the mo narchy. Let us hasten to prove, that if our dispersion has not permitted us to restrain and to break them, we have at heart the ravages which they have caused. " Up to this moment, gentlemen, we have the happi ness of being alre to say to ourselves, that we have not failed. We have still the power of choosing our course and our position. We have still the power of joining by our approbation in the sad errors which we deplore, or of repelling them by our censure. We have still the power of consecrating the faults which have been committed, and taking our share of them, or of leaving their weight and their consequences to those who are nut afraid of bearing them. " I repeat, gentlemen, this is an advantageous position for those who can take advantage of it; for we are not bound by any engagement which can embarrass us. As a body of the State, we are strangers to whatever has been done during our separation. That separation has been, if I may so express myself, a suspension of all political life, of which we have no account to render, and which does not engage us in favour of the factious passions which dare to snake use of our name. " Nevertheless, we must say, that the license of the press has neglected nothing to compromise the dignity of the Chamber. After the outrages which it has com mitted against religion and royalty, perhaps we ought the less to remark those which it has committed against our selves. " But can we, Gentlemen, be insensible to them, when we know that the press has gone so far as to mix us ❑p with the intrigues and agitations out of doors—when we know that it has gone so fur as to represent us not only as the ac complices, but as the principals, in certain acts stamped with public reprobation ? " I have not to examine, Gentlemen, if it was through malevolence or temerity that honourable names have been compromised in enterprises which are far from being ho nourable. It is not the intention which is now in ques tion, but the result. The result has been to create con fusion in thie Chamber, and to vitiate, in the eyes of the public a part of our votes ; for the public reasons, the public knows that it is not the usage to invoke, six months beforehand, the judgments which conscience may be able to dictate six months afterwards. It knows on this point the ordinary scruples of the Magistracy, who consider it as their bounden duty to conceal the secret of their thoughts. It know , o in fine, in what case it has a right to refuse Judges who have allowed their opinion to transpire other wise than in the sanctuary destined to receive it ; and the latter rarely wait till the parties claim their right of refusal. " If then, by means of its excessive license, the press had created impressions of this kind to the prejudice of a certain number of us, you may judge what interest we have in defending ourselves against it. " Among those of our colleagues whose names have been thus invoked by factious associations, the greatest number have felt that it would be an insult to their cha racter to connect them even in idea with these intrigues. Some have had recourse to publicity to declare that they' wish to remain strangers to them. Others have been sa•-', tisfied with despising them, without taking the trouble of repelling suspicion otherwise than by the dignity of their social position. As for the rest, gentlemen, during the interval of our Sessions, having entered into the ranks of private citizens, we preserve no public character, and it may be advanced that our opinions out of doors are not connected with our opinions within. Under all these points of view, I am permitted to repeat that we have not been wanting to ourselves, and that this Chamber enjoys the full liberty of commencing the Session of 1830, with out any reference to what has passed since the Session of . 1829 ; and it is because I look upon this point as incon. testable, that our position appears to me as easy to fix al if the wind of revolutionary anarchy had not blown upon, France during the recess. " Every thing depends, gentlemen, on establishing this position as a starting-post—every thing depends upon our first steps in the session of 1830--a session of hope and glory, if we begin with the desire of strengthening the throne and calming the just alarms spread around us—a session of wisdom and of happiness, if we knsw how to dedicate it to the re-establishment of order and the triumph of salutary doctrines ; but a session of regrets and dan gers, if we venture to enter into the frightful paths which eight months of license and fermentation have prepared for us—if we undertake to satisfy the vague desire of con , fusion which a certain number of writers endeavour to communicake to every one that surrounds them,—in fine, if we covetewith our responsibility the labours of anarchy in the state in which we now find them. " No, gentlemen, this fatal course which is proposed to you is not that which you would choose. You will repel the shameful part of being accomplices in the public dis orders, and in the agitations of this passing epoch of effer vescence and error. You will leave the responsibility of faults to those who have committed them, and you will refuse to associate yourselves with excesses to which you are strangers, in order to confer on those who are guilty of them the sad service of aggravating them by the autho rity of your example. This session, around which so many criminal thoughts are collected, will not be begun by afflicting the heart of the common father of his country, by carrying to the foot of the throne an address which breathes a❑ insulting defiance. Yes, gentlemen, you will feel the desire of repelling those grave attacks which Royal Majesty has received from unbridled licence. It is to us that will be given the pleasure of healing the wounds which have been inflicted upon the heart of our King. " Yes, you will resist the address which has just been read to you,—you will express the sentiments with which this Chamber is animated by a language stamped with the mo narchical spirit which directs you, and which will attest your loyalty. You will signalize your sentiments by tracing clearly before the eyes of the monarch the line of devotedness and fidelity which you desire to follow,-' you will signalize them by an exposition of principles cal‘ culated to re-assure good citizens, and to disconcert the bad,—you tvill say what you have all at heart, and that will suffice to dissipate, to annihilate the culpable hope' which are expressed around the Chamber. " As for me, Gentlemen, and my Hon. Friends, we know what declarations of principles we have to make, what prejudices we have to care, what mad accusations we have to repel. The press, in representing us, accord ing to its caprice—that is, as it suits its desire of war and persecutions,—has so strangely disfigured us in the eyes of the nation, that the nation might think it right to take us for public enemies, if it was not wiser and juster than its teachers. " I do not believe, Gentlemen, that these absurd charges are of a kind to do us any harm among t he judicious Members of this Chamber, from whom political dissension or different shades of opinion may separate us. Let us, therefore, fix our point of starting at the very commencement of the Session. Let us begin by a frank declaration of our principles and our sentiments. " Yes, Gentlemen, we desire the execution of the Charter—we desire the public liberties; nothing but the false interpretations given to our constitutional act can frighten us. " So far from being led by a retrograde spirit, as ha s been pretended,—so far from desiring absolute power, we are as proud as any of our adversaries that the Throne has thought us worthy of participating in the legislative p o wer. These liberties, of which we are said to be the enemies, are so much the more more dear to us, that we can look upon them in a point of view which renders them honour able and glorious; we can see in them one of those high marks of esteem which are only given to enlightened na tions, on the wisdom and good spirit of which sovereigns can repose. Thus we dread nothing so much as to see them endangered by the abuse which an odious ingratitude would make of them. We feel that the more favourable Royalty has thought of us, the more is our honour engaged to see that it shall have no cause to repent for being too zealous in showing us its esteem. " We believe, I say, that the means of obtaining more is not to act in such a way as to prove that we have de served less. " Among us, gentlemen, it is a settled point of doctrine that nobody can give what he has not, and consequently that sovereignty is not conlerred upon superiors by infe riors. We consider pretensions of this kind as fatal die turbances, which tend to replange society into chaos. " I am not bound to know the concatenation of causes by which Heaven governs the world. It is sufficient for me to know that if authority could only be conferred on princes by their subjects, princes would have no authority; and that if justice had no mission but that which it received from those over whom it is exercised, it would have no mission at all. In fine, I cannot imagine a paternal autho rity formed by the children of the family, and deriving its origin from their consent, their suffrages, or their permis sion. No ; it is not thus the right of governing families and nations can be formed : it descends from a hi g her source. " To those who make the objection that this order of things is notso invariable as not to undergo modifications, I shall reply, yes, Providence sometimes permits that poisu lar power should be substituted for legitimate power; but then this is a punishment which it inflicts, and legitimacy does not lose its right on that account; for the authority which Providence displaces in his anger does not change its nature. The usurpations of power are chastisements on nations. Let us not, then call them down upon our selves by our weakness, and let us not commence that series of misfortunes which such pretensions have once already drawn down upon us. I see in the address which has been submitted to you a germ of destruction to the public , liberties, and I therefore vote against it. I vote a gainst it because it contains a formal attack on the right of the King to choose his Ministers,—because it is a violation of the Charter, which declares that the administration of the kingdom belongs to the King; and because it would be an overthrow of the Government under which we live, and of which, according to the beautiful expression o f the Chamber of Peers,—' Monarchy is the foundation.' A GIER .—“ Gentlemen, I support the draught of the address, because it appears to me proper for accom plishing the imperious duty of dissipating the fears with which the throne is beset, and the disquietudes Odell torment the country. The security of the throne is dis turbed by the menace of a revolution—the tranquillity of the country by the dread of absolute power. Bat who in France can desire a revolution, except a few intriguers who need convulsions to exalt themselves? Many p e rsons possess property, many wish to acquire it by lawful means but to acquire as well as to possess, order and tranquillity' are necessary. The Revolution which burst out in 17897 but which had its origin in events and in times much more remote, has since the Restoration become an accomplished transaction, and can be nothing else. It is art - abyss closed by our institutions, and whoever should attempt to raise against them a rash and sacrilegious hand would 1.-spell it , It is therefore only a complete ignorance of facts, or a dis graceful want of good faith, which can induce any one to compare the present epoch with 1789, fur all that was then demanded is now possessed. It has been by passing through crimes and good actions, through blood and through glory, through anarchy and despotism, that F ran ce has arrived in port. There she wishes to ress, and threaten with her indignation those who would again cast her loose amidst tempests. She wishes to retain all that she holds from justice and the bounty of her kings. That is all she wishes, but she wishes it e arnestly. In 1789 t h e sp i r i t o f in novation might cause turbulence; in 1830 the spirit of pre sei vatiou produces moderation, and the spirit of preservation never separates the benefit from the benefactors, never sepa rates a charter from the princes who have given it. Who in France does not feel, does not recognise, that to over throw the dynasty would be to destroy our institutions% in the same manner as to attempt the destruction of those institutions would be to compromise the dynasty ? Thus an enemy of the monarchy would have but one thing to do, which would be to unite with some of its pretended friends and instigate to despotism, in the saint way as an . enem y to public liberty would only have to unite himself with certain exclusive partisans of liberty in order to in stigate to licentiousness. Besides, does not every one ill France know by experience, that usurpation can never be the friend of fixed institutions or rational liberty, and that it would therefore be insanity to give support to any usurpation Who then wants to make a revolution ? Are they those who wish to preserve to the country insti tutions by the monarchy, and the monarchy by institu tions ? Or are they those who wish to infringe our par liamentary system at the risk of seeing the monarchy it self dragged into the gulf formed by their violznee? Bat 1 Merit, a Crown constitt allow e to mail of ou , Wite f FRis 46 C„.._. 3(1 • = 0,,, • 20 pies St ; 724, k=xttha 23f. sz,, fear o: vents The HERR 1