The Sun. — London, England, 1844-02-28 00:00:00

a general revision of the valuation of poor-law unions In Ireland ' • and if so, how soon the rev i s i on w ill-be commenced. 2. Whether it be still the intention of the Government to appoint an Assistant Poor-law Commis sioner for the superintendence of such revision. 3. Whe ther it be still the determination of the Govern ment that the valuation of property for the purpose of county assessments in Ireland (Called the Griffith's valuation) shall be continued, notwithstanding the com mencement of a general revision of valuation, for the purpose of poor-rates • or, whether it bo proposed by the Government to int roduce any measure for the conso lidation of the several valuations, so that county rates, pohr-rates, and other local taxes, may be levied on one uniform scale of valuation ? Sir J. GRAHAM said, with regard to the appoint ment of a Select Committee to inquire into the opera tion of the poor-laws in Ireland, he adhered to the pro mise made by the Government at the close of last ses sion, that if a desire was evinced on the part of Irish Members to have such a Committee of inquiry, the Go vernment would not oppose it.—(Hear, hear.) With respect to the first question of the Honourable Member, he thought he was under a misapprehension with regard to the valuation; where a valuation was unduly made, there was a power given to the Com missioners to raise the valuation. As to the second question, respecting the appointment of an Assistant Commissioner for the superintendence of such revision, it was necessary to appoint one for that purpose. With regard to the third question, we understood the Bight HIM Gentleman to say that it was intended that there should be a revaluation. Sir D. NORRBYS then gave notice that he would move for a Select Committee on the Poor-lawain Ireland, unless the Government took the subject into their con sideration. STATE OF PAUPER LUNATICS IN WALES. Mr. W. 0. STANLEY said he wished to put a ques tion of great importance to the Right Hon. Baronet the Secretary of State for the Home Department, re specting the state of pauper lunatics in Wales. There were 157 pauper lunatics in Wales, and only twenty of them were in any asylum or licensed house. There were 31 pauper lunatics in the county which he re presented, not one of whom was in a proper place of confinement ; and, in many instances, they were treated in a most improper manner. The question he wished to ask, was, whether the attention of Government had been called to the treatment of pauper lunatics, or whether any compulsory steps could be taken to make several counties join together to support pauper lunatics, which they were enabled to do under the Act of the 9th George IV? Sir JAMES GRAHAM said that he quite agreed with the Hon.. Member, that it would be desirable if the smaller townships combined together under the Act to which he referred, for the purpose of erecting lunatic asylums. No object could be more important; but, as at present advised, he was unwilling to render it com pulsory upon them, and he was not prepared to say that he would introduce any measure on the subject. Mr. W. 0. STANLEY then gave notice that he would, on a future day, bring the subject under the con sideration of the House. THE LATE OUTRAGE AT BRIGHTON. Captain PECHELL begged to put a question to the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite the Secretary at War, respecting the outrage which had taken place some time since at Brighton, and with regard to which he put a question on a previous occasion,- when the Right Hon. Gentleman acknowledged that an outrage had been committed by the troops, but that it was provoked in consequence of an attack upon a soldier by some of the inhabitants. A trial was then pending, and was now over, the result of it being that the soldiers were convicted. Lord Chichester, who was chairman at the sessions, in passing sentence upon them, said that they had been guilty of a very serious of fence, and that be would punish them to show that the peaceable inhabitants of the town were to be protected from the soldiers, who had been placed there for the ' preservation of the peace. The inhabitants of Brighton felt that a stigma had been cast upon them by the Right Honourable and Gallant Officer. He now wished to ask the Right Honourable Gentleman whether he had made such an inquiry as would remove this impression from the people of the town, that the inha bitants brought the outrage upon themselves, and whether the officers of the regiment intended to remune rate the parties whose property had been destroyed? Sir H. HARI)INGE said that it was an erroneous impression to suppose that in any statement, of his he cast any stigma upon the inhabitants of Brighton. Be was led to believe at the time that the soldiers had received an insult, but from the result of the trial, it appeared that they had received no previous provocation of any kind. He had stated before his opi nion that the regiment had misconducted itself in break ing the peace; it was a serious offence, and he hoped the sentence they had received would teach them in future, to observe the laws of the land. They had been each imprisoned during a period of ten months, with hard labour, for the assault. What he stated with regard to compensation was, that the soldiers of the regiment, and not the officers, were ready to subscribe to compensate for the injury which had been done. An order had been issued by the Commander-in-Chief pre venting - any soldier from entering the town unless accompanied by a non-commissioned officer. TAHITI. Mr. HINDLEY said, that having seen, by a second edition of the , Times, that the French Government had disapproved of what had been done in Tahiti by Admi ral Thouars, and that it was their intention to adhere to the Protectorate treaty, he wished to know from the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite (the First Lord of the Treasury) whether he had received auy official informa tion on the subject ? Sir R. PEEL said that be had not received any in- , formation on the subject beyond what had appeared in the second edition of the 7 Imes, and which had been received by express. He had no reason to doubt the authenticity of the information which appeared in that journal, for it gave the quotation from the Moniteur, which was the official organ of the French Government, to the effect that it was the intention of the French Government to adhere to the treaty of 1842. He said he deprecated hasty questions on the subject, and he had a strong and con fident impression that the French King and the French Government had- acted on the impulse of their own feelings--(Hear, hear)—and he was rejoiced that they had acted in a meaner which was so satisfactory to the feelings of many persons in this country who were interested in the welfare of our missionaries. He be lieved the statement in the Monitear was perfectly correct, and that the act of Admiral Thouars had Snot been ratified by his Government ; and he was bound to add, in justice to the French Government, that this act was the voluntary act of the French King and the French Government, and that it was not neces sary that any communication should be made - on the subject by this Government. On the motion of Mr. DUNCOMBE, A return was ordered of cases of insanity which oc curred in the Pentonville prison. GAMING TRANSACTIONS BILL. . M. GIBSON wishecl to know whether it would not be desirable that the Gaming Transactions Indem nity Bill, which stood• for a second reading, should be printed,in order that the House might judge of its pro visions before it sanctioned the second reading ? He Would also express a hope that the Government would not bring on the third reading of the Horse-rachig Bill at a late hour. , „ Sir R. l'Btl;said that the Hon. Member for*Man cheater seemed to have a most curious notion, of what were measures of the Government, and what were not. The measure he had last alluded to was not brought forward by the Government, or • any person connected with it. •He thought it was but reasonable that the Gaming Transactions Indemnity Bill should be printed before it was read a second time:---(Hear.) Mr. M. GIBSON wished to know What Hon. Mem ber had the conduct of the Bill ? To this question no answer was returned, and after some further discussion it was agreed that the Bill should be printed before it was read a second time. FACTORIES BILL Mr. BRIGHT wished to khow from the Right Hon. Baronet opposite, the Secretary for the Home Depart ment,' when he intended to proceed with the Factories BilL At present, he believed, it was fixed for Friday. Sir JAMES GRAHAM said, that it was intended on Friday to proceed with the Committee of Supply ; but, on that day, he would state when he would bring the subject forward. NEW POOR-LAW. Mr. BORTHWICK wished to put a question to the Secretary of State for ' the Home Department. He understood, that in another place, of which they often heard, an -imperttuit conversation had taken place between a /tight Rev. Prelate, and one of the Members of her Majesty's Government, from which it was to be presumed that the Government would, in the course of the amendment of the Poor-law Bill, adopt some measures for the religious instruction of the poor in unions, by chaplains of the Church of England only. He wished to know from the Right Honour able Baronet whether it was the intention of the Go vernment to introduce any such provision ? Sir J. GRAHAM had no hesitation in answering the question put to him by the Hon. Member, or in stating what the decision of the Government was upon the point referred to by him. Her Majesty's Ministers were perfectly satisfied with the exercise of the dis cretionary power vested in the Poor-law Com missioners wi th respect to the appointment of chaplains its workhouses ; he was sure that they would appoint persons according to the necessities of the different localities i n which these ap pointments were to take place. He was not prepared to propose any alteration in the law. As at present ad vised he was perfectly satisfied with the state of the law, and in any discussion that might take place on the sub ject he would be prepared to show to the satisfaction of the House that the discretion placed in these responsi ble officers had been exercised in a most proper manner. , DUELLING. Mr. TURNER) in pursuance of notice, asked the Right Hon. Barcenet, the First Lord of the Treasury, whether it was his intention to bring in a Bill for the more effectual prevention of duelling? Sir R. PEEL said that her Majesty's Government had not failed 0-take , this important subject into their consideration, but they were not prepared to bring in any new legislative enactment in reference to duelling. If the practice of duelling still existed, it was not owing to any defect , in the letter of the law, and her Majesty's 'Government greatly doubted whether any good object could be promoted by altering the law.—(Hear , bear.) At the same time, they had , shown by the exercise of influence and authority, ti m ing the' recess, a disposition to discourage the prac tice 01 duelling, so far as it could he discouraged by the executive power. He believed that the Teeing which had lutes" y existed on this subject had been excited in a great , *me by the•unfertemate result of , a duel which took plat. in the course of last year. He thought there could be n , s doubt that the practice of duelling was on the decline; that the influence of civilisation was producing its necessary effect; and on this account he should de precate any interference on the part of the House. The officer who lost his life last year had served his country with great distinction. When his widow applied for that pension to which she would have been entitled had he died in any other way than by the hand of his antagonist, her Majesty's Go vernment felt themselves compelled to refuse the application. With respect to the survivor, as that of ficer did not come forward to answer the charge after the lapse of the period which was allowed for public feeling to subside, he was superseded. The widow of the deceased officer having been refused the pension, and the survivor having been superseded, he thought her Majesty's Government had shown that they were not unwilling to exercise their legitimate authority for the purpose of suppressing the practice of duelling ; but they were not prepared, as he had already stated, to in troduce any new legislative measures with that view. Mr. TURNER said, after what had passed, he should feel it his duty, on a future day, to move a resolution to the effect that duelling is immoral in its tendency ; that it brings into contempt the laws of the country, and is contrary to Divine command. Mr. T. DUNCOMBE said it had been stated by the Right Hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel), that the unhappy widow of Colonel Fawcett had, from the mode of her husband's death, been deprived of a pension she would otherwise have been entitled to. He wished now to ask whether it was the intention of the Government to dis continue pensions to the widows of officers who did fight duels, and to break officers, as was now the case, if they did not fight duels when challenged to do so.—(Hear.) Sir R. PEEL said that after the notice of his intention to move a resolution against duelling, just proposed by the Hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Turner) he thought it best to say no more upon the subjet•t, but to reserve his opinion until the subject was brought regularly be fore the House. THE SUN, LONDON, 'WEDNESDAY EVENING- 4 IFEBRU'ARY 26 1 1844. THE POLES IN PRUSSIA. Mr. VILLIERS STUART said, the House was aware that the King of Prussia had allowed fugitive Poles to take up their residence in the Duchy of Posen, and had conceded to many of them the rights of Prussian subjects. It had been lately announced, that his Prussian Majesty had given directions to withdraw the protection from these Poles. He wished to ask the Right Hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel), if he could give the House any information upon the subject. Sir R. PEEL said that he was not prepared at present to give an answer in a definite manner to the question put by the Hon. Gentleman. SCOTTISH LAW COURTS. Mr. WALLACE rose to bring forward his motion upon the above subject. He said that the legal tribunals in Scotland had been an immense expense to the nation. Instead of those Courts being called the Courts of Session, the more proper name to nee would be the Courts of Vacation, for they were idle for nearly seven months in the year, and during those seven months the judges sat only for five days in the week. He held returns in his hands which would prove beyond doubt that the law authorities in those Courts had allowed au enormous amount of arrears to accumu late from the year 1781 up to the present time. The number of cases which were in arrear in the year 1838 was 477, and he thought this was sufficient to require inves gation. The vacations of the Courts in general exceeded in length of time the sessions. There was another matter that called for remedy, namely, the choice of Courts, and he must say that he thought the delay and ex pense incurred in the Courts in Scotland were attri butable to the listlessness of the judges. He firmly believed that until a Court of Review (as we understood) was established, there would be •no satisfaction in the courts of law in Scotland. There was no court more dreaded, with the exception of the Court of Chancery, than the Court of Session. He would next advert to the expenses. In the first place he would state what these judges cost the country. The first division of judges cost the country 14,3751. a year. Owing to the short time during which they sat, the amount of their salaries and that of their secretaries was 1271. per day. The number of cases decided in the year 1839 by this division of the judges was 157, and therefore the judicial charge for each case—without any refer. nce to the charges of counsel—the j udicial charge for each case was 911. 1 ls.. while the cost in the courts pro • sided over by the other judges was 251. 14s. for each case. All this waste was at the cost of both countries. lie would now read to the House a statement of the yearly cost of this establishment, and he believed ad the Honourable Gentlemen who were friends of economy would be surprised to hear it. They had thirteen Judges of the Supreme Court, to a population of two millions and a half. They might know by the number of the English judges, whether this was a justifiable mode of applying the money of the people. The cost of the judges was 42,7001.; that of clerks of the court 17,000/. There were also thirty sheriffs, who cost 16,5001., or, on an average, 5511. each per year. He had no hesitation in saying that the most vic'ous part of their vicious system was the having three times the number of judges required. When the Noble Lord the Member for London introduced his County Courts Bill, the number of judges he proposed for all England was twenty-five chief judges, and four others in the event of illness of the Chiefs. The whole amount of the cost of the judicial establish ment in Edinburgh was not less than 150,0001. You might travel from one end of Scotland to the other, and you would not find one man who was not dis satisfied and disgusted with the whole system of the administration of the law in that coun try. In 1834, an Act was introduced by the late Government to raise the salaries of the judges, by which it was held that it should give great facilities to the means of obtaining justice—the rides of Court were to be altered, and the time of session was to be extended so as to do away with the arrears of which so much complaint had been made, and so justly. The salaries of the judges were at that time raised to 1,000/. a year each. The Court of Sessions and the Crown had the power of extending the sessions for one month. Now, by this act, which the Noble Lord (Lord John Russell) carried with the assistance of those who now sat on the opposite side of the House—for it was re marked in Scotland, that whenever anything was to be done to raise salaries, both sides of that House joined.— (Hear, hear, and laughter)—the causes in the Court had diminished since one-half, and this year they would diminish still more, in consequence of the general dis satisfaction with the Court.—(The Hon. Member then read an extract from the Act of Parliament, that gave the power to the judges and the Crown to extend the sessions by two months.) There was a place in Scotland where the Parliament used to meet, and there the Court of Session was held. God forbid he should ever see a Parliament held there again. But the judges were le• gislators as well as judges, and they made laws which ought to be made only by the Imperial Parliament. They had full power to make rules for expediting the public busi ness, but they had not availed themselves of that power. The Committee which had sat in 1834, and had re commended an increase of the judges' salaries, had evidently contemplated an increase in the labours of the judges. As a proof of this, he would refer to the evidence given before that Committee by Lord Elgin, Lord Brougham,. Dr. Lushington, and Mr. O'Connell. From their evidence it was clear that it had been con templated to make a considerable addition to the la bours of the judges. Then, with regard to the passing of the Acts of Sederunt, one of the most distinguished lawyers in Scotland, Sir Alan Campbell had brought in a Bill, in 1785, to reduce the number of judges, and at the conclusion of the Act there was a c l ause enacting that the judges should occupy themselves with revising and consolidating the Acts of Sederunt. That duty they had neglected to perform ; and at the present moment the Acts of Sederunt were an unconsolidated mass, which had not been revised for 300 years. The complaint they made was this, that they had 13 judges; and who did their duty ? Why the Lord Chancellor of England. What proof had he of this ? Why that nearly three-fourths of all the appeals coming to the House of Lords, came from Scotland. Why was this ? Why because the Scotch judges, although per fectly competent to do so, did not do their duty. At the present moment there were forty-five appeals from Scotland in the House of Lords, twenty-seven from England and Wales, and twenty from Ireland, whichwas a most unusual number. Then with respect to the superannuations, they amounted to 15,0001. a-year. Two of the judges receiving part of that superannuation had received upwards of 70,000 L, one having retired nineteen years, and another fourteen. The other day another judge was allowed to retire, though at a period of life that did not entitle him to claim retirement. It might be stated that his health was such as to compel him to do so, but if such was the case, it was not known to be so in Scotland. A very expensive Commission had been issued by the late Government to examine into the state of the Scotch Courts, with a view to improvement, and certain minor recommendations of that Commission were adopted ; but all the material points were entirely neglected. Since the present Government had come into office, three judges had been appointed—Mr. Hope, Mr. Robertson, and Mr. Wood. He had no hesitation in expressing his belief that the Government werejustified in these appointments, but judges.ahe p t e h rosuognhtttoh Everye yb one admitted made over a thenet headsipnrjpropriety injudicious all o t f c t hhteohi other teha ap pointment pointment of the Lord President, one of the most hard working and judicious judges on the bench. It was stated that the judges in the two inner chambers of the Court of Session did not afford sufficient time for the counsel to perform their duties. When Mr. Hope presided he occupied the time of the court and the public, not with attending to the argu ments of counsel, but in displaying his own eloquence. The consequence was, that the businese in his court was rapidly on the decrease. His (Mr. Wallace's) countrymen were a shrewd and reflecting body of men , and they knew well enough when a mart was doing hi s duty and when he was shamming it.—(A laugh.) With'regard to the appointment of Mr. Robertson, it was a judicious one, and that of Mr. Wood was first rate. In the Report of the Committee which sat in 1840 there was a great deal to show that they had a right to expect a decided amelioration in the judicial system. In that short Report of nine pages, it w as stated nine or ten times ,how great was the just dissatisraction with the C our t or Session. In the original Report the dissatisfaction was ex pressed no less than thirteen times, (Hear.) He called the attention of the Noble Lord most particu larly to this matter. Such allegations were made before, and they would be made again if there were no improve ment. The present system was perfectly unwarrantable, and required instant amendment. Six courts were sit ting at the same time, and two counsel being obliged to attend in each case, great embarrassment ensued. He thanked the House for having so patiently listened to him, and as he understood that part of his motiou was irregular, he would only move the latter part of it. He then moved that " an humble address be presented to her Majesty, praying her Majesty will be graciously pleased to exercise the powers which are reserved to her Majesty, in the Act 2 and 3 Vic., c. 36, as to extending the sittings of the Court of Session, if there shall be arrears of business in the said Court,' or the state of the business otherwise may require it ;' and in virtue of the said power so reserved to the Crown, that her Ma jesty will graciously see proper to command that the sittings of the said Court of Session shall be extended by two months in each year, or by such other period as to her Majesty shall seem more proper." The SPEAKER called for a seconder, but as no Hon. Member answered, the motion fell to the ground. Sir J. GRAHAM said, that perhaps the Mouse would allow him, although no motion was before them, to answer one point of the Hon. Gentleman's speech. The Hon. Gentleman had commented very severely upon the character of the Chief Justice Clerk of Scotland. Now, he (Sir J. Graham) could state that that learned indi vidual was held in the highest possible estimation by the whole bar of Scotland. He was elected unanimously, at a moment when party feeling ran high, and when he was in opposition to the Government. His (Sir J. Graham's) duty was, in all cases where application was made for the mercy of the Crown, to refer such cases to the con sideration of the Chief Justice Clerk, and although it might be invidious to say FA yet he could not refrain from stating that he received no such full, careful, and well-considered reports from any other judicial autho rity as those he received from the Chief Justice Clerk. He (Sir J. Graham) knew that this learned individual had performed the important functions of his office with the highest credit to himself.—(Hear, hear.) DURHAM ELECTION. The SPEAKER informed the House that he had re ceived a letter from the parties petitioning against the return of John Bright, Esq., for Durham, stating that it was their intention not to proceed with the petition. DON CARLOS. Lord JOHN MANNERS then rose to call the atten tion of the House to the motion of which he had given notice. He felt that he was fully justified in calling upon the House to join him in imploring her Majesty's interference in behalf of a royal victim of oppression. He knew that it was a matter of delicacy for the House to ask her Majesty to interfere for the purpose of pro curing the liberation of a person who was detained by one of her Majesty's allies. But there were precedents for such a course when the honour and interest of the country depended on such a course to be pursued. He would first refer to the precedent of General Lafayette, and he would then proceed to show that the honour and interest of this country demanded the liberation of Don Carlos. In 1794, General Lafayette with his troops took refuge in Prussia, and he was immediately com mitted to a fortress by the King of Prussia. England was then at peace with Prussia ; but so strong was the feeling which existed in this country respecting what the people considered a hardship, that that House was called upon to interfere in the matter. General Fitz patrick moved an address to the Crown to interfere for the purpose of procuring the release of General La fayette. That motion was defeated. But the ground upon which he (Lord John Manners) now claimed sup port for his motion was the reason assigned for the defeat of the address of 1794 to which he had referred. Mr. Pitt opposed the address on the broad and intelligible ground that England having had nothing to do with the transaction, could not in fairness be called upon to in terfere. H avingf made this allusion to that precedent, he would proceed to show that this country was bound by justice to interfere for the purpose of procuring the release of Don Carlos. On the broad and eternal prin ciple of justice he (Lord J. Manners) demandedjhis libera tion. Where was the crime alleged against him ? What offence had been laid to his charge—what tribunal had delivered its verdict against him ? He (Lord J. Man ners) was aware that last year, when this subject was debated, the Noble Lord, the Member for Tiverton, said that England and Franco had a right to in carcerate Don Carlos after the Convention of Algarve. It might be that Don Carlos had had some private communication with the Noble Lord ; but all he (Lord John Manners) could say was that he could easily enter into the feelings of a gallant man, who had been deprived of a crown such as that of chivalrous Spain, by intrigues the most base that ever sullied the history of any country, finding himself guiltless of all intrigue, finding his claim to that crown defeated by those whom he loved because he knew them, who loved him because they knew him—he could con ceive, and enter into the feelings of that gallant man at such a crisis and he could not conceive how Don Carlos could have acted otherwise than he had done. But supposing the Noble Lord to be right, he (Lord John Manners) said that the Ministry now in power, and those who formed the majority of that House, could not avail themselves of the plea of the Noble Lord. So long as the war was commenced—so long as the gallant efforts, of the Spaniards to maintain the struggle against the Jews and stock-brokers of Algeria existed—so long the great Tory party in this country, and those who at present were its leaders, had a right to give their sanction to the proceedings of Don Carlos. The Noble Lord might rely upon his flimsy argument, to which he (Lord John Man ners) had referred, but those on that (the Ministerial) side of the House could not avail themselves of it. He (Lord J. Manners) therefore apprehended that he had a perfect right to call upon that House to interfere for the purpose of procuring the liberation of Don Carlos. HP asserted, in the most emphatic manner, that no deed had been committed by Don Carlos which could justify for a moment the imprisonment he was now suffering . If nothing had occurred previously to the break ing out of the war—if nothing had occurred during its continuance that could be said to justify the present incarceration of Don Carlos, had anything occurred since which could be said to offer the slightest pretext for it ? When Don Carlos entered France, he was told that he would be treated like an unfortunate prince. He (Lord J. Manners) thought he knew what would be the interpretation which an assembly of English gentlemen would put upon these words.— (Hear, hear.) Don Carlos did not—he could not—have anticipated the meaning which was put upon them when they were uttered by a constitutional Government ; for imprisonment was a measure meted out to their unfortunate victim by a Liberal Govern ment. Had Don Carlos, he would again ask, done any thing since his imprisonment which oould be urged as a justification of it ? Every one knew that Donna Chris tina at one time was willing to risk not only Spain, but even the life of her daughter to supplant Espartero. It was also equally notorious that Don Carlos was solicited to aid her in her views. Straightforwardness and ho nesty had always characterised Don Carlos, and he at once rejected these overtures. He (Lord J. Manners) must ask the House to pause for a moment, and reflect upon the different reception Donna Christina had met with to that given to Don Carlos. Donna Christina, with the countenance of all Europe, had instigated bloodshed, anarchy, and insurrection, and she was al lowed to pass through Europe with regal pomp, while Don Carlos, who refused to enter into her unholy ma chinations, was kept captive in a fortress. "Probitas laudatur et alget." These were the reasons which induced him (Lord J. Manners) to demand, in the sacred name of justice, the liberation of Don Carlos—in the name of justice which was seldom invoked in vain, he made that de mand. He would now allude to the formation of the Spanish Legion, and he had the authority of General Evans himself for stating that that Legion was formed against the expressed opinions of three of the highest military authorities in the kingdom, viz., the late King, the Duke of Wellington, and the late Commander-in- Chief. Now he (Lord J. Manners) said that the man ner in which that Legion had been formed was amply sufficient to justify that House in interfering to set Don Carlos at liberty. With every wish to speak well of our soldiers and sailors concerned, he was bound to state his sincere and honest conviction that the moment they arrived in Spain a system of double dealing and treachery of the most disreputable kind, was commenced. In the annals of England he know of no more disgraceful transaction than that connected with the English ships during the siege of Bilboa. For nearly two months, while the Car lists were beleaguering that town, exposed to the fire of its guns, the English troops stood "passively, and wit nessed the strife. Perfect neutrality was their position —full impunity from danger was the result. But when victory had already, he might say, crowned the Carlist army—when Bilboa, in fact, had surrendered—in the middle of the night a body of these English troops rushed in and derived the Carlists of that success to which they were entitled. By the disgrace that transaction attached to England, he asked the. House to adopt the address with which he was about to conclude. Nor was this disgrace all. The House would remember that Lord John Hay continued to carry on the communi cations between the traitor Maratto and Espartero. Lord John Hay had interfered against Don Carlos in every possible manner. So far from taking the least care that the life of Don Carlos should be guaranteed, it was mentioned as a subject of congratulation by Colonel Wilde to the English Government, that Don Carlos' name had not been mentioned in any article of the Con vention. The House might easily guess what would have been the fate of that illustrious prince, if he had fallen into the hands of his vindictive enemies. In 1836, the Government sent an order to the Captain com manding on the Cantabrian coast, that if Don Carlos should seek for an asylum in an English ship, that asylum should not be given to him. He asked the House to put these tacts together, and was not the conclusion irresistible, that throughout the whole Spanish war, from the commencement to the close, England was the great interfering power. The Church and State had been despoiled by that tyrannical spirit of liberty whieh now devastated Spain, and which had compelled Don Carlos to seek an asylum in a foreign country, in order to avoid falling into the hands of mer ciless enemies. —(Hear.) From every motive of honour i and of justice they were compelled to interfere. The Noble Lord had not yet forgiven the man whom he had so deeply injured ; and one of the last acts of his office— h w i) h ao n e n n d C, paoornwl Governmentote hs r es h shp a hoa d our , tvdi showed def. fat,ocscontinue tmni nge departed l ojaf fturi theoi e m Bm i 4mpl releasingr—. tst h w ho ene a e t rr onei Prince, d ee o e ehf - , but the Noble Lord interfered, and refused to accede. Away, than, with this cant of liberalism about securing the tranquillity of Spain. The efforts of Queen Christina, and of the Regent Espartero, had done much more to disturb the tranquillity of Spain than Don Carlos—the feting at the Mansion-house was more to be dreaded than the prisoner at Bourges. It was not because D oi , Carlos had injured or offended them—not because he had injured or offended France —not because he had borne his captivity with resignation—not because the freedom of Spain de manded his incarceration, but in order to gratify a tyrannical, sacrilegious, and licentious liberalism. In 1808 Bonaparte had imprisoned Don Carlos in Valen ciennes ; in 1841 the remains of Bonaparte found Don Carlos a prisoner in Bourges. After exhorting the House to interfere on behalf of this exiled and deeply injured Prince, the Noble Lord concluded with the Following motion:—" That an humble address be pre sented to her Majesty, representing to her Majesty that the detention of Don Carlos and his family in a town belonging to her Majesty's ally, the King of the French, is opposed to justice and the honour of this country, and humbly praying her Majesty to intercede with the Court of the Tuileries for their deliverance therefrom. The motion having been seconded, Sir ROBERT PEEL felt it his duty to call upon the House not to accede to the motion of the Noble Lord. The Noble Lord called on that House to present an ad dress to her Majesty, denouncing the conduct of the French Government—of our ally, the King of France, and declaring their acts inconsistent with the honour of this country. Although he opposed the motion, still he was not devoid of sentiments of natural sympathy for the fate of an illustrious Prince, nor of a hope that his treatment would continue to be in accordance with the dictates of humanity—(Hear, hear).—but he deprecated, as a great political principle, that this House should interfere in respect to the conduct of the French Go vernment. The matter had been brought under discus sion in the French Chambers last year. In the House of Peers, the Minister for Foreign Affairs was asked two questions; the first—was the restraint of Don Carlos a condition of the Quadruple Treaty? The second—whe ther Don Carlos was not restrained at the instance of the British Government ? The first question was answered in the negative, the Quadruple Treaty having expired before Don Carlos was placed under restraint. The second question was likewise answered in the ne gative, by declaring that Don Carloi was restrained solely on account of their views of French policy, and entirely in consideration of French interests. Did any Hon. Member think it would be right for the House of Commons to interfere under such circumstances, and tell the French Government they were not acting in ac cordance with the principles of justice? The Noble Lord said Don Carlos was restrained as a prisoner, within a French town. The policy of the respective nations should be taken into consideration. In this country a foreigner could not be placed under any re straint unless he offended against some law, since the expiration of the Alien Act; but in France refugees from foreign countries were placed under a system of surveillance and restraint; and in this instance the same rule was applied to Don Carlos as to the o th er p oor peasant refugees, which was not unfair, as Don Carlos had certainly greater power of disturbing the tranquillity of France and Spain than these poor people. Don Carlos had claimed the hospitality of France in common with Cabrera and 12,000 refugees, and he must act in accordance with the laws and regu lations of France. The French Government took steps to prevent their country from being made the focus of intrigues and indirect efforts of hostility. Suppose the Noble Lord's motion was acceded to, and that the Queen had requested of the French Government to liberate him, and remonstrated with that Government on the in consistency and impropriety of restraining Don Carlos, would not the French Government very naturally say, " No, we will we act upon the principles we have hitherto acted ; we consider it the policy of France to restrain him, and we shall not change our policy regarding the Prince, because the British Government imagine that its honour is involved in his liberation." And he (Sir Robert Peel) thought the French Government would be quite right in so saying. These were facts which in duced him to believe that this motion, if carried, would have the effect of disturbing, those prospects of peace which now so happily existed between the two countries. He thought that the House of Commons, according to the recognition of the French law, had no right to inter fere in the domestic relations of France. In saying this, he felt bound to express the strongest hope that no un necessary or harsh restraints would be imposed upon Don Carlos ; and he felt confident that th e r e wou ld b e all that attention and respect paid to him, which could be demanded by a member of the illustrious Bourbon race. No person could, for a moment, refuse their sym pathy to Don Carlos ; but he (Sir R. Peel) could assert that, far from his being confined in a prison, he had the privilege of parole to the extent of four leagues, an d within this circuit there was not the slightest restriction imposed upon his intercourse and associations. If Don Carlos was to give an assurance that he would abandon all his relations with Spain, and go to any p ar t o f Europe a ft er having made this promise, there would not be the slightest objection to his at once being free to quit France. He thought that England could not pos sibly interfere in this matter by a vote of this House, demanding the liberation of Don Carlos, without sub jecting herself to the chance of engendering a hostile feeling between this country and France. Such being his opinion, he should most decidedly vote against the motion of the Noble Lord.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. SMYTHE said it was with great regret that he felt bound to vote against the Right Honourable Baronet at the head of her Majesty's Government. France was the nation which fought the fight cf private judg ment, and yet by the course which they now sou4ht to take with respect to Don Carlos, they wanted that country to inflict pains and penalties upon private judg ment. With respect to Christina, he should certainly say, that there was but little of Spanish nationality about her, while she was much more closely identified with French intrigue than with the interests of the Spa nish nation. The Carlist party were those in Spain which most decidedly favoured the English interest in the country. He knew it were vain to expect a tangible result from any decision of this House, but he would appeal to the great man who now held the reins of go vernment—(Sir R. Peel, as we could guess from the fact of the Hon. Member pointing at the Right Hon. Baronet) —whose name would be handed down to posterity, first, for his character as a statesman, but above all, as being an example of every domestic virtue and happiness, not to allow his fame to be tarnished by lending himself to anything like the oppression of a fallen man.—(Hear.) Lord PALMERSTON said he should not have risen to speak on this subject were it not for some expressions which had fallen from the Noble Lord who had made the motion. Me should not go at any , length into the sub ject upon which he had touched, because that had been already discussed at considerabl e l eng th i n th a t H ouse . By the law of Spain , properly and equitably constituted, Isabella was the lawful Queen of th e coun t ry . I n f avour of that point the nation had p ronounce d it s op i n i on . The Noble Lord, in his speech, h a d i mpugne d t h e con duct of the late Administrati(oi with respect to Spanish affairs, but he must have never r ea d, or pa id b ut s li g h t attention to the articles of the Qaadruple Treaty. (The Noble Lord proceeded to read an extract from the treaty.) It was. therefore, quite a misapprehension of the fact to suppose that the Carlists vyere ignorant of the conditions of the treaty or the intentio ns o f the four Powers. No one could be ignorant what the intentions of the English were. The Noble Lord who made this motion admitted the fulfilment of the treaty, to its utmost extent. — (Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord said that England was the great mystery by_ which th e over th row of Don Carlos was e ff ected. He (Lord Palmerston) accepted the compliment. So far as the limited means of the Bri tish Government . had part i n t h at overthrow h e ac cepted the compliment.—(Ch eers .) B ut t h e success was owing to the Spanish nation.—(Ch eers.) T h e exert i on used by the British could not have turned the scale without the co-operation of the Spanish nation.— (Hear, hear, and cheers.) The Noble Lord had spoken in terms which he (Lord Palmerston) regretted to hear of the conduct of an officer engaged in that service. He said that Lord John Hay was a go-between.—(Hear.) Certainly the Noble Lord said that he did not use the words in an offensive sense. It would have been better then that he had used the word mediator, which was a good English word.—(Cheers.) Lord John Hay acted as b:carne an English officer trusted with an important service, and he performed his duty with great activity and success, It should be recollected that in the Basque provinces, by his mediation, an end was put to a civil war of n unparalleled . H i s of anycatrocity,t,o i civil greater than stained the a war in Europe.—(Hear, h c far from being a stain on eanra c con d uct, duothers v his own reputation, was an honour to his country, and above all things creditable to that part of the service of which ho was a member.—(Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord complained when I)on Carlos was expelled from Spain, Government ga ve orders that he should not be received on board a British ship. He (Lord Palmerston) would have been ashamed of himself if that order had not been given.—(Hear, hear.) When Don Carlos had been rescued by British offieers in Portugal from the fate which awaited him, and was conveyed in a British ship to the hospitable shores of Britain, and when he had rewarded that kindness with the brutal decree of Durango, and put British subjects to death in cold blood, he (Lord Palmerston) should feel ashamed of himself to be responsible for receiving him.— (Cheers.) He should be ashamed of himself if he had not performed his duty to those brave British subjects who had engaged in that service with the express consent of their Sovereign, and—he would not shrink from saying—with the direct encouragement of the Government.—(Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord (Lord J. Manners) also said that the British Govern ment interfered afterwards to prevent the French Go vernment from setting him at liberty. No doubt the British Government did communicate with the French Government on the subject, and did intimate that it would not be consistent with the peace of Spain to allow him to return, and renew the civil war in that country. But there was no intention whatever on the part of that Government to set him at liberty. In the whole course of the proceedings upon the treaty and in its origin, the French Government acted only for French interests.—(Hear, hear.) He thought it would be most unbecoming of the British Government to say to the French Government that it was necessary to the honour of Britain that France should do some thing within her own territory.—(Hear, hear.) Such a course would be most undignified—{Hear)—and France might very well say to us, " Keep your honour to your selves, we have our own laws."—(Hear, hear.) Or, did the Noble Lord (J. Manners) recommend that we should go to war upon a subject in which we had no interest ? —(Hear.) He (Lord Palmerston) looked only to the consideration of what was due to a person of royal birth, who had been brought up in expectations which the course of events had disappointed ; and he believed that the French Government treated Don Carlos with every indulgence and consideration consistent with the object of promoting his re turn. Ho believed that if Don Carlos were to give his word of honour that he would not go into Spain, he would be permitted to go to any part of Europe he thought proper ; and ho also was satisfied that if he pledged his word, he w ould keep faith.— (Tory cheers.) But, so far from giving that assurance, he would not surrender what he considered to be the claims of his son ; and any person of common sense must see, that if he were to return to Spain, already , torn by domestic troubles, he would plunge that unfor tunate country aen'n into all the horrors of civil war.— (Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord oppo site thought that this Government ought to take part with some one party or other in Spain.' But he differed from the Noble Lord, and thought that the duty of this Government was to take part only with the people of Spain.—(Cheers.) The interest independent, strong, England wa s, th a t Spain should be strong, and prosperous—(Hear, hear)—antl that was a Spanish, more than it was an English object.—(Hear, hear.) Whatever party in Spain sought for, and was capable of attaining that object—ought to have the sup port of the British Government. But as to joining any party because we could get from it a more favourable commercial treaty than from another, that was a con- sideration which ought not to sway any English Go vernment.—(Cheers.) The only object of his policy had been the interest of the Spanish nation; and that was a policy which no English Minister need be ashamed to act upon, and if acted upon it was sure to be successful in the end.—(Cheers.) Mr. BAILLIE COCHRANE was glad to hear the last words of the Noble Lord ; but he thought it rather inconsistent with that statement that the Noble Lord persevered in the course which he had followed, after he had received from Lord John Hay the assurance that parties were so equally divided that it was very doubtful in what way or when the contest would terminate. He was also glad to hear the Noble Lord acknowledge that if Don Carlos gave his word of honour he would observe it. But what obligation was Don Carlos under to the Government or people of France ? The circumstances of Don Carlos were poor indeed, and little had he to thank any one for. He had an income 15,000 f., or less than 7001. a year, and this he derived from his own family resources. His dwelling, consisting of a suite of only three or four rooms, was all that France provided for him. He (Mr. Cochrane) said it was all very well to state these facts, and to elicit year after year a speech upon them from a leading Member of the Government, but what was the result? There was no result. There was no alteration in Don Carlos' situation—no ame lioration—no relief ; and the feeling in his mind was that the Right Hon. Baronet was cognisant of, if not a party to, his present unhappy condition. Sir PEEL was understood to say the whole world was cognisant of it, but England was no party to it. Mr. B. COCHRANE—The feeling was certainly strong in the mind of Don Carlos that the manner in which he was treated and provided for was not merely known to the English Government but quietly sanctioned by it. The whole policy of France in respect to Spain was such as could not be justified. It was always de• signing and aggressive. No movement took place in Spain but what, sooner or later, France was at the bot tom of it. Under the Monarchy, under the Consulate, and under the Empire, France had only one object, and that was to make Spain her province. And Louis Phi lippe had other objects in his policy than those which were dictated by mere personal motives. Placed on a throne by such means as he had been, he was driven to overthrow dynasties, and to look with favour upon treason. It was a sad thing to look round Europe at the present moment, and to see how few were the suppor ters of monarchy—how few the advocates and examples of ancient loyalty and faith. He would say it plainly in that House, that loyalty, faith, and honour, were not by any means as con spicuous now as they used to be in earlier and better times. It was the interest of Louis Philippe to encourage these doctrines of violated faith and honour ; but was it the interest of England to follow so worthless an example? In the olden time they would have scorned advantages gained by and for a democracy, at the ex pense of monarchical dishonour. In vain did he now look for that public morality that used to be the cherished treasure of this and other monarchical countries. In conclusion, he would beg to say that, in his opinion, it was a wiser principle to conceal from countries that thrones were founded on revolutions, than to make a boast of such unhappy events, for the knowledge of them only caused bolder men to rise up and tell to the world that their idea of sovereigns and sovereignties was such only as themselves approved and chose for the time to uphold.—(Hear.) Sir C. NAPIER regretted that he was not in the House when the Noble Lord had brought forward his motion. If the Noble Lord knew all about Don Carlos that he (Sir C. Napier) did, he was sure he would be the last man who would wish that he should get out of prison, or rather out of comfortable lodgings.—(A laugh.) The Hon. Gentleman who spoke last had said that Don Carlos had never broken his word ; that might be true enough, because he had never been called upon to give it.—(Hear, hear.) Now what was the course that had been pursued by Don Carlos ? The Hon. and Gallant Member then proceeded, at some length, to de tail the course pursued by Don Carlos from the time of the acknowledgement by the Cortes of the present Queen,of Spain to his imprisonment, and stated that he did not mean to say that Don Carlos had broken his word, but he had bamboozled the Ministers of this country. Don Carlos was brought to this country with out pledging himself to anything, and what was the re sult ? Why in less than a week he was across the Channel, and in less than a fortnight he was in the Bas que provinces.—(Hear.) This caused the greatest bloodshed, and the Noble Lord wanted these scenes to take place over again. Was Don Carlos' the popular monarchy of Spain or not?—he wanted to know that. —(Hear.) Could any one assert that he was ? Don Carlos was doubtless a favourite in the Basque provinces, and from thence he sent out one of his officers, who, after plundering the country, was ill received by his master.—(Hear.) Something had been said about Lord John Hay. That Noble Lord had shown himself not only an excellent officer, but an excellent diplomatist. He had performed his duty to the satisfaction of every Government under which he had been employed.— (Hear.) It was astonishing to him that that Noble Lord had remained so long without receiving any reward for his services from the Government.—(Hear, hear.) Bilboa would never have been relieved but for Lord John Hay. The Hon. Member for Bridport had said that Don Carlos had never forfeited his word, he thought he could recollect an instance where he had done so to the Spanish Ambassador. The I - lon. Gentleman who spoke last had said that Don Carlos was living in France on 1,500 francs a year. Well, supposing he was so, could any man who committed the atrocities he had done under the Durango decree expect anything ? (Hear, hear.) He thought it would be a disgrace to any country to allow him anything.—(Hear, hear.) Hav ing stated thus much, he felt bound to vote against the motion of the Noble Lord. Mr. BORTH WICK supported the motien of the No ble Lord. This was not a question merely with respect to Don Carlos, but it involved questions that were inte resting not only to them but their children and their - children's children to all time.—(Hear, hear.) At the time the civil war raged in Spain, the army of Don Carlos was in a deplorable condition ; he had not as many pounds as he had men for whom to provide ; he had no horses at all. Such was the state of the army of Don Carlos in 1835. Yet the Noble Lord, the Mem ber for Tiverton, said the English troops were not an adequate force to assist towards the conquest of Spa in. But was not the moral force of England some thing ? It was the moral force of England that was the most influential in deciding the con test. In 1838 he (Mr. Borthwick) drew the attention of the House to the state of Spain ; he then stated that if Carlos and his Generals were prisoners in Spain, the country would be as far from being tran quil as ever. It was not a question to be decided by him or by his Generals. The whole transactions of that war exhibited a mass of treason unparalleled in the pages of history. He would challenge any one to show a case of treason so base as that of the Convention of Algarve. With respect to the conduct of Don Carlos, he contended that the decree of Durango was a decree of mercy.—(Oh, oh.) It was but little understood, but he con tended that it was a decree of mercy to General Evans and the unfortunate men who were deluded by the hollow pretences of the Government of that day into this unhappy struggle. That decree was an an. nouncement, on the part of Don Carlos, of what was the law of Spain (and is the law of England) long before Don Carlos was born. If at the time the Orange Lodges were existing in Ireland, there had been a civil war, and supposing the insurgents had landed a foreign army on any part of the coast of Eng land or Wales, would any quarter have been shown to those troops ? Would it not have been the duty of Englishmen to hang the invading force on the first tree they could find ? That was the law of Spain, and is the law of England. The Legion was not au English force, fighting under English colours, wear ing English uniform, and commanded by English officers. It was a foreign force, obtained by a suspension of the Foreign Enlistment Act, fighting for Spanish pay (which, by-the-by, they never got) for purposes entirely alien. The Durango decree apprised them that they were mere robbers, liable by the laws of the country to be put to death without the rights of war. Yet he did not know any instances in which that decree was acted on by Don Carlos ; many of those taken under it were treated as prisoners of war. He did not justify the cruelty of the reprisals on both sides ; but no act of gratuitous cruelty had ever been proved against Zumala carreguy. Allowance ought to be made for the Spanish. character. Among the Spaniards, life was not so much regarded as among Englishmen. Could any man in that House blame Cabrera for acting as he had done ? He was a student of law, and had no idea of entering the army; but being called on, in the University, to debate on the rival claims of Isabella and Don Carlos to the throne of Spain, he supported the claim of the latter, and joined his standard when he arrived in Spain. During the progress of the war his mother was taken. She was placed in the middle of a battalion, and shot, by the orders, he believed, of Nogueras, and with the sanction of General Mina. It was to the honour of Cabrera that he signed the Eliot Convention. They had heard a great deal of the pacification of Spain. Where was 1)on Diego Leon, that brave officer who had been shot for supporting the cause which Espartero had deserted? The papers furnished them with the details of the atro • cities which were committed recently in Spain. Seven officers had been shot on one side because they were prisoners of war, and Bonet commenced reprisals on the other, by orderingfourteen prisoners to be shot, amongst whom was Cerate, the uncle of General Roncali. Spain was for all useful purposes blotted out from the map of Europe, Was this owing to anything in the Spanish character which rendered them different from the people of other nations ? No; but because what were called free insti tutions were forced upon the people of Spain, which they did not understand, and because they tried to force a monarch upon the throne who was not acceptable to the great body of the people of Spain. Don Carlos w as the legitimate monarch of the country, and no law of the Cortes could be produced legitimatising the right of Isabella, except some law passed by the Cortes under Isabella herself. There were now three exiles from Spain, Don Carlos, Queen Christina, and Espar tero. It had been said that Espartero was t h e de jure Regent of Spain according to the defaeto Constitution of the country, and that he ought to be received in this country with every hospitality. He was accordingly feted at Windsor; while Don Carl os , w h o was Esparter6o's sovereign, who was the de jure Ki ng b y the de jure Con• stitution, was an exile in France. Wh a t were they going to do with the other exile Queen Christina? She was an agitator who threw the Hon. and Learned Member into the shale, and it was through her intrigues that those lamentable results, which they must all de plore, were brought about. Well, but it had been said that Spain must have liberal institutions, when the fact was that Spain had shown us the way to liberal institu tions. They might talk of the Inquisition. Spain might refer them back to the Star Chamber ; and, at all events, the Inquisition was no reason why the people of Spain should not be governed by their own laws. Guipuscoa, Navarre, and Biscay had their separatelegis latures. The mode of election was by universal suffrage, 'yet those legislators elected by the people taxed the property of the people to the amount of fifty per cent. in order to support Don Carlos. Would they have done so if Don Carlos was not the object of their choice? He should certainly give his support to the motion of the Noble Lord the Member for Newark. If Don Carlos were restored to Spain, he had no doubt that a large and powerful party would rally round him, and support his claims ; and he was equally certain that that large party, instead of introducing additional cruelties into the present civil war in Spain, would be a powerful instrument in putting an end to them.--(Hear.) The parties who supported the present motion were taunted with introducing the subject, in the hope that they might be able to effect the restoration of Don Carlos, so as to afford him an opportunity of getting something in the general scramble. Not only the in terests of Don Carlos and of Spain, but also the interests of Europe, depended on the adoption in the affairs of that country of the spirit of the present motion. He hoped they would allow Spain to work out her own re demption, and in that hope he would give his vote in favour of the motion. Sir H. DOUGLAS said, however much he admired the feeling which prompted the Noble Lord to bring forward this motion, he could not think of giving his vote in favour of it, as he did not wish to support any measure which would interfere with any line of policy which the Government thought proper to adopt in reference to a foreign country. Whatever might be the claims of Don Carlos, it was quite certain that his detention in France, which his partisans considered unjustifiable, greatly increased the sympathy which was felt for him. He (Sir H. Dou glas) deprecated foreign interference in the management of the affairs of Spain. The question of the Spanish monarchy was a question which Spain ought to have been left to settle for herself ; it was, in truth, settled by British intervention. He believed, however, that notwithstanding all that had taken place, it would yet be settled by Spain.—(Hear, hear.) When the war of succession was about to begin, they ought not to have recognised either party; Spain should have been left to fight his own battles. The anarchy of Spain was one of those sad inheritances which had descended to this Government as the result of the miscbievous inter ferences of those who preceded them. The cause of Espartero's fall was, that the great body of the Spanish people were inclined to a moderate monarchy. Many of his young friends who had been in Spain before that event took place, had spoken of it to him (Sir Howard Douglas) as matter of rejoicing, but the result proved that they did so without sufficient cause. Espartero had already disappeared; Narvaez would disappear be fore long. With regard to the former, he must say, that he had never known more dastardly conduct than he ex hibited in the whole course of his retreat from Albacete. Notwithstanding his views, however, in reference to this subject, as he had no wish to place the Government in an unpleasant position, he should not support the motion.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. TRELAWNEY said the party now denominated " Young England," had shown a great deal of misplaced sympathy for Don Carlos; they had shown farmore sym pathy for him than for the gr►evances either of England or of Ireland.--(Hear, hear.) He had understood that the Hon. Member for Evesham (Mr. Borthwick) had been made prisoner. (Laughter.) Mr. BO RT HWICK—No. Mr. TRELAWNEY had certainly understood that such was the case. Mr. BORTHWICK wished to explain to the Hon. Gentleman, that he had visited Don Carlos, but that he had never been taken prisoner. —(Laughter.) With re gard to " Young England," he did not refer to the Hon. Gentleman when he said that " Young England" was not the only school of youths—there was another party, which might be called "Young Bceotia."—(" Oh, oh.") Mr. MONCKTON MILNES did not think it any dereliction of the duty which he owed to his prrty to vote occasionally against the Government.—(A laugh.) If anything could have seduced him into voting with the Government on this question it would have been the speech of his Hon. Friend the Member for Bridport.— (A laugh.) His Hon. Friend had last year brought for ward a motion on the affairs of Greece, and had spoken of the King of Greece in terms which he (Mr. M. Milnes) had felt it his duty to reprehend.—(A laugh.) The speech of the Hon. Member for Bridport had been fol lowed up by a revolution—(Loud laughter)—and the Hon. Gentleman perhaps thought that the indecorous language which he had used with regard to the King of the French would also be followed up by a revolution which would restore the Duke of Bordeaux to the throne. He had perhaps been induced by the temporary success of his last speech to use the improper language which he had used with regard to the distinguished Sovereign who at present occupied the French throne. In voting for the present motion he begged it to be un derstood that he meant to cast no reflections on the character of the King of the French. Hon. Gentlemen who imputed such motives to the King of the French, should recollect that the accusation against Louis Philippe in France was, that he had shown himself too favourably disposed to the cause of Don Carlos, and had not been faithful to the Quadruple Treaty. He considered that the liberation of Don Carlos would, if anything could, tend to reduce the present anarchical state of Spain into something like order. It would tend to the pacification. of Spain by increasing the probability of a marriage be tween the Prince of Asturias and the present Queen of Spain, the event of all others the most likely to pro mote the settlement of the affairs of that country. Ile should vote for the motion of his Noble Friend. Mr. MONTAGUE GORE rejoiced that this motion had been submitted to the House, although, after what had fallen from the Right Hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government, he should feel it his duty, should the motion be pressed to a division, to vote against it. There was one great advantage resulting from the publication of the debates in that House. The discussions were known in every Court in Europe, and exercised an in fluence over them.—(Cheers.) He thought it would be better, that instead of indulging in recrimination both parties should endeavour to make Spain a united and a consolidated Government, so as to enable her to occupy again her proper situation among European States.—(Cheers.) There was one circumstance relating to Don Carlos which must always raise him in the estimation of all honourable men. At the time that the Spanish royal family had been made prisoners by Napoleon, the Infant had been offered the throne of Etruria in exchange for that of Spain—Ferdinand had expressed his acquiesence, but Carlos firmly refused to accept the offer of Napoleon.— (Cheers.) The manner in which he had discountenanced his own partisans was worthy of the highest admiration, and it was impossible not to admire the spirited manner in which he had thrown himself upon the hardy moun taineers, and joined thorn in their attempts to defend what he considered their rights and his own. These things reflected lustre on his character, and he was en titled to the sympathy of Englishmen in his misfortunes. —(Cheers.) Mr. Canning had refused to interfere in Spanish affairs, in order to be in a better condition Ito act as mediator; and he thought that it would be well that Mr. Canning's policy in that respect should be imi tated. He trusted the motion would not be pressed to a division, after the explanation that had been given by the Right Hon. Gentleman at the head of the Govern ment. Lord JOHN MANNERS, in reply, contended that all the events in Spain had been occasioned by fo reign interference, without which the Carlists would never have been put down. Had he consulted his own feelings, he should have pressed his motion to a division, but in deference to the wishes of his friends, he would withdraw his motion. He thanked the House for their attention, and he would conclude by expressing his earnest hope that ere long tardy justice would be done to Don Carlos.—(Loud cries of " Divide," from the Op position benches.) _ _ Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, but no divi. sion took place. The motion was negatived without a division. TOLLS ON LIME, Col. WOOD postponed his Bill to exempt lime from the payment of tolls to this day fortnight. On the motion of Mr. R. SCOTT, a return was or dered of the table of fees and allowances to the clerks to justices, and to constables, as settled by the justices in sessions, in the different counties in England and Wales. On the motion of the same Hon. Member, a return of all accounts of assignees in Bankruptcy, audited by the Commissioners for the District Courts of Bir mingham, Bristol, and Exeter, since 11th Nov., 1842 was ordered. PROTESTANT ADDRESS. Captain BERNAL rose to move for a copy of an address presented to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland from the Dublin Protestant Operative Association and Reformation Society, dated the 14th of October, 1843, together with the official reply of the Lord-Lieutenant, " Vice-Regal Lodgo, October 16th, 1843." He (Captain Bernal) thought it was a very objectionable practice for a Minister to read letters addressed to himself, as a prac tice likely to lead to abuse. It put him (Captain Bernal) in mind of school-boys who wrote love-letters to them selves. Lord ELIOT thought it highly inexpedient to give im portance to such documents as that to which the HOn. and Gallant Member had referred. The document, too, had already appeared in all the newspapers, and, there fore, to produce it now would only be likely to per petuate religious animosities. Mr. T. DUNCOMBE said, if the production of this document would be calculated to perpetuate religious animosities, then it was clear that the Lord-Lieutenant had received an address calculated to have that effect. The House then divided, when there appeared— For the motion Against it Majority -51 HORSE-RACING PENALTIES BILL. On the third reading of this Bill having been pro posed, _ Mr. CHRISTIE said, that several observations had been introduced into the Bill at the suggestion of his Hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, which very much improved it, but still the principle remained the same, and was highly objectionable. He need not go over the old ground, but he must say that all the reasons he had heard urged against the Bill were invalid, and not based upon strict equity. The statute which enacted penalties against the proprietors of gaming-houses should like wise be amended, if they wished to carry out their prin ' ciPIPI and Mr. Bond, who was fined in a heavy penalty for keeping a gaming -house, should be indemnified. Proceedings had been instituted against certain Dis senters in St. George's Folgate, a parish in Norwich, which was chiefl7 inhabited by Dissenters , at the suit of the A rc h es Court, Canterbury, because they re fused to vote at a meeting of the parishioners in favour of church -rates. This was the first attempt made to use the criminal jurisdiction of the Ecclesi astical Court. In this parish a great number of the inhabitants had some time ago atreed to pay half of the church -rates, provided those professing the prin ciples of the Established Church paid the other half. This proposition, fair though it was, was contemptuously declined, and the Dissenters were subjected to eccle siastical prosecution.—(Hear.) This was a sill which would be most likely to hold out a precedent for ta t facto legislation, and if no o th er M e mber in the , could be found to bring in a Bill for the same Pic o so far as the Dissent ers were concerned, he fo r 0 should bring in a Bill to apply the same principle° the Dissenters.—(Hear.) Mr. ESTCOTT thought that the result of the would be, from one defect which pervaded it, that s, of the worst charact ers wou ld h ave th e same piv o t ; Lion as those who had every intention of paYing just debts. Mr. HAWES thought that, according to the P reer d o , dent established by this Bill, all that parties had.r uje , when they committed a f au lt, was to com e to this .1 0 0 1 and seek indemnity. H e h o p e d t h a t this system legislation would not f a il t o b e app li e d t o the Diseeno congregations of Norwich, who had subjected 0011° 0 to law costs, being, at the time, unaware that a law in existence to make them responsible for legal o sts. oo Sir J. EASTHOPE supp or t e d th e principle °f 00 BilL He thought that because injustice was done tf ) , man it did not follow that it should be done to ot;;, If the Hon. and Learned Gentleman brought in I t hicr sure to relieve the Dissenters of Norwich from to , liabilities, he for one, should most heartily , supPor i d to Strangers were then order e d t o w ithdraw, an House divided. The numbers were— , T _ _ _ _ For the third reading S S 1 Against it Majority 1:0 Sir R. PEEL said, that a s a ll th e or d er s and 111 °4' on the paper for to-mo rrow ( t hi s d ay ) h a d been roe poned, he thought it wou ld b e more conven ient tha t House at its rising do adjourn till Thursday. e a g The other Orders of th e D a y were t h en clisP°,r 01 0 and the House adjour ne d, a t a Quarter W o'Clock, till Thursday. THE SHIPPING TRADE TO rt( I Na AND OUR EASTERN POSSESSIO z " . "O In consequence of the great increase of our COn itl 2 o ,o with China, the East Indies, and our Eastern CO large number of vessels are lying in the var ious fo r being in course of pr e p ara ti on f or goo d s , to b e bo ti warded to the above destinations. There are eighty vessels which are announce d a t Lloyd's patch, many of them of heavy burden, and sixteen ! , of ing each above 1,000 t on s. Of t hi s fl eet o f vessef te s; firm charters fourteen ships, amounting to 13. 7 t r ili another nine ships, c a rryi ng 8,250 tons ; 'annw„, ships, of a burden of 4,400 t ons . Th e f o ll ow ing 8 — to names of the vessels, w ith th e amount o f Winn spectively ft The Seringapatam, 1,000 : th e Wellesley, 1 , 15, Owen GlendOier, 1,000 ; the . Agincourt, 1, 050 ! 0 Monarch, 1,400 ; the Earl of Hardwicke, I, O I W, Vernon, 1,000; the Prince of Wales, 1,350; the gascar, 1,000; the City of Poonah, the Northtl o3 ,'Sd i 900; the Windsor, 800; the Malabar, 700; the uS tk a 700 (the above being the property of Messrs. G ~T, tY Blackwell) ; the Colombo, 600; the Pekin, _ 6 ,,'",' 0 Robert Small, 800 ; the Ellenborough, I, l u u t iet Bucephalus, 1,050; the Gloriana, 1,100; the Pisl i 1,1 7 1,100 ; the Duke of Argyll, 800; the Tudor , l uir (which belong to Messrs. T. and W. Sulit l3 '_ castle-on-Tyne); the Semaran g , 600 ; the Es i l e a l—, 1, the Maidstone, 1,000; the C a l cu t ta , 1,350; so V . ; Briton, 800 (the owners of which are the Mb gram, gram, Blackwell); the Oriental, 600; the Anni v or,„, son, 500; the George Fyfe, 460; the Lady,S" 5 , 1; 500; the British Empire, 610; the Thomas ni; LA P . the John Knox, 540; the Earl of Durham, 650; ~ Orestes, 700; the Arab, 484; the Scindian, 50; v u Druid, 341; the Unicorn, 375; the Dowthorpt 1 00; tf Mellish, 500; the Royal Tar. 388; the Arabithl re Sumatra, 354; the Royal Saxon, 700; the Pi e P 550 ; the Vigilant, 400; the Raymond, 600; t i ,P p slit riett, 165; the Parland, 600; the Surge, 560; t" - 5 0; w, beth and Jane, 306; the Robert Matthews, ,S 4r , John Heyes, 400; the Sophia, 286; the John ~6;:( 3 9) 503; the Georgetown, 412; the Worcester, °7; 1; Timandre, 432.; the Africa, 300; the Brunette , 4v iee the Yare, 300. The united burden of the aboYe , i amounts to 44,274 tons. There are a lso the ire ' . or , the Poictiers, the Lady, th e E r i n . th e E a rl of i the Derwent, the Nelson, the Lady Grey, S ee "- ~ amount of tonnage is not stated. to corj When the trade of the East Indi es w as opel'..; ir, petition, the East India Company sold their In v iter vessels, as it was thought that s hip s o f a less s r would be sufficient to carry on that trade. MONEY MARKET and CITY 11 1. - 40 . CITY, TUESDAY The Stock Market closes rather better this. 7 030 0? Consols having rallied to 97i The heavy in . o remained about the same, n o r was th ere any alter O Unfunded Debt. The Foreign Market was very animated, andr t y.-4 1 .4, Three per Cents. rose t o 34i an d 3 5 , on accou nt of _,05, ment in M. de Ca s t ro ' s l etter, t h at the Mi n i s try zi;`,,;, 0 % mined to continue punctually to pay the interest. ;litirfa, per Cents. were 241 to 24g. Peruvian closed at _ . ;74 Mexican at 34i- ; and Portuguese Convert ed Dutch Two-and-a-Half p er C ents. were 541 to sho The additional transactio ns i n R a il wa y ShareM, oto"„ these :—Birminghain and Derby Thi r d s were (~t;_t t Counties, 12i ; and Ditt o , New, 125 discount ;.toc s or tern Half, 18 ; Brighton Loan Notes, 1* ; Birraogy s ofr oe , Quarter, 27 ; Manchester and Leeds, 37 to 3 8 ; it; it°4 and Norwi c h, 6* : N ort h ern and Eastern, t°0;0 and Havre, 6i ; an d W est London. Extension' o .` Manchester and Birmi ng h am were at par. Pri)v-i, 1 n cl of Ireland Shares w ere 16k , and Union' of Australiit, dor The Foreign exchan ges were scarcely so fatn s noon on one or two of the continental cities, 0 014 The party most opposed to the Treasury yiond ft_ A turned out to be Captain B r itt en, who offered a g n ' t ,.1( useless opposition. The resolutioi::3 were passed L,' ° attii see advertisement), and the tilowing terms were ng7.„iitte l "To Joseph Tacker, Chairman, and the C ow- ,L , . Spanish Treasury Bondholders, ~41 , 4 1 0 ; e f t ? London, Feb... pf "Gentlemen,—ln conformity with our recent cn, he/ and with the arrangement we have at length enter the satisfactory settlement of the claims of the Sloe,' sury Bondholders, I beg now to state, for your g ill it is to the following effect : beS # V " lit. That every 1001. of the Treasury Bondi„. 44. m or per cent. interest will be exchanged for 211 L "„sdr, two hundred and eleven pounds thirteen shillings pence) of Three per Cent. Bonds. Bonds r " 24. That the f ormer h o l ders of Treasury B°ll— changed them for only an equa l amount o f Threedsi Stock, when the capitalisation of the coupons' o'o 1837 to 1840, took place, will also be entitled to 7. , !so/ vileges offered to the actual h o ld ers ; and, the re % thsf, difference between the 1001. ofTh ree per Cent. stn ° tb i t n i received and the 211/.135. 4.1., after deducting from rence the value of the di vi d en d s pa i d to t h e w' t 130 , periods. A lifn " As I had the pleasure to hear from you an-, j , i ette;! / that you considered this arrangement as an equita" - ab :1:0' of these claims, it would, I think, be needless t ° , 00! attention to the advantages it gives to actual 13° ,... P tict to the spontaneous and even unsolicited act of c io geti Minister, in compensating-those holders who elcc cot. Treasury Bonds for an equal amount of Three per. Sr in 1842. fillo Ot to d Ki.e3o " I only beg, further, to assure you that the r t ow...t nistry, being fully, reso l ve d t o pay, as h ere tofore, git or of the Three per Cent. stock, most regularly and you will, I trust, find this a valuable and safe.„C ° ll , , . ' " I have the honour to be, Genti er yinte "Your very obedient oli " MANUEL BERMUDEZ DE t,7[.0 e! The following is the official of the 0 ,,,„rii11... lion from the port of London, for the week erlw-1 last : _ O A / . Il ir •' . Silver Coin to New York 00° '`': " Hong-Kong and M ac ao 6 , i Silver Bars to Rotterdam Gold Coin to New York 1,967,00 COURSE OF EXCHANGE.—(YEST'` — . ',40 Amsterdam CF. 12 6 Gib ra l tar ............ •,, .P:4 , 0 Ditto, at sight l2 4 L eg h orn ......... ; 4 . ' 0 7.", Rotterdam 2U.12 6i G enoa ........... .y..,... , Antwerp 25 80 Mil an .........•.•....* liamburgh M.B. 14 0 Venice ......, ........ if Altona l4 0 Naples ........ ... , :•::::1 65 "'alarm , - • Paris, 3 days' sight 25 65 . Ditto, 3 months 26 85 Marseilles ' 25 95 Bourdeaux 25 96 Frankfort on Maine 122 Petersburgh, 3Us 36% Berlin 7 Vienna, effect it 3 M 956 Trieste, ditto;. 9 58 Madrid 36i Cadiz Bilbao 36 Barcelona 36 Seville — Palermo, per 02. , LiSbOral ............. :„ Oporto. .............. Itio Janeiro ........ r, Bahia ................ Buenos 41yres••''';¢1; NewYork,2ldy s Phil a d e lphia ....... .... PRICES OF BUT:, :/ Foreign Gold, b' rt 0 1 1 P ou gal Gold COtiu'' 0 $ New Doubloolls.'"' 0 4 I New Dollarw.---:2 Silver in Bari ..... _. l BIRTHS , " • ' tti 14r0 On the 22d inst., at Effra-grove, Bnilon, Sa m " ,agt, of Edward Merrick Eldertou, Esq., of a son. d A7l V P On the 23d inst., Mre. Paterson, of ClePtt led/ c . On the 24th inst., in C aven di s h- squ are, t' )7 Stern, Esq., of a son. 141 e riA 4e ' frfd e On the 24th inst., in Porcheeter-place, - - H. Collette, of a son. 'o °l3' ' On the 25th inst., at Richmond Villas, I li 40 1 Dalston, Mrs. Francis Stephens, of a sou• we t, r o l l , On the 23d inst., iu tipper Montag da gge„f , , square, the lady of Francis Roose, Esq., ' 3 ' a wife ' / On the 23d inst., at Hyde-par-square, the 0 .01 Marshall, Esq., of a so n . ..., N villie o tor On the 23d inst., at Streatham, ..rs• Gaitakell, of a daughter. Partr idg* On the 25th inst., th e lady ofWilliem rister-at-law, of a son. ljo# MARRIED. n sarrly On the 22d inst., at St. Mary, Newillg t % ef t): *Maria, daughter of the Rev. J. S. Sergrove, "01 • Isaac, of Walworth. , it A th On the 19th inst., at Auchleeks House , Ma " e lis. ' shire, Edgar Walter Garland, Esq., to - 6 .,„ daughter of Robert Robertson, Esq., of Auchlel..coecto. On the 19th inst., at Pau, Basses Pyreneroghter 00$ the Hon. Byron Cary, R.N., to Selina 1 1' 01040c 0/ late Rev. Francis Fox, of Fox Hall, Longford,ii gr• dor On the 23d inst., at St. George's, CamberotiLr of ' Scott; of Peckham-rve, to Margaret, dant."'" Mr. Thomas Hall, of Ilishopsgate-street. T O 1,1 k it , London : Printed and Published by MUltntsgoiloi No 112, Strand, at The Sun 0ffice,1 0 . 11 _..., 14 County of Middlesex, Wednesday, Februm 41 I ~' . C7I:IJ VI L CUNLIELIII-117r, LO Actargaru.9 Air. Thomas Hall, of Bishopsgate-street. _oar fray oPr; DIED. th On the 16th fast., at Boulogne-sur-Mer,. rsbste,,,/ son of the Rev. Alfred Lyall, Vicar of Godalthn ,041 On the 17th inst., Sarah, the wife o f '" , w O 3 " Ripley, Derbyshire, aged 52. apz 11 1 * b et , ' On the 21st inst., at E a st Ham, EL" • o " , e wife of Mr. T. Simmons. ttb. Of ° On the 23d inst., Mr. William Burrows , s°i f oinf po tio On the 23d inst., Eliza Ann, the wife af B" • ing, Esq., M.D., of Newport, Isle of Wight- —,ftotit On the 23d inst., at 'r egn Villa, near Tei6', •IQ the wife of W. Kempe, Esq. 5,111-0411 ze ert eP e l On the 25th inst., in Bernard-street, Percival Beaumont, Esq., late Captain in the,7.es On the 22d inst., at Effingham, Maria Flc•n"g•-bato eldest daughter of H. M. Parrett, of ti.l uji Surrey, aged 18. t e On the 23d inst., in Chester-square , - 11 pg• Captain and the Hon. Mrs. Charles Stuart - tiallt_ n 4o l ! On the 24th inst., at Walthamstow, itar`acefi . F.P . :• l On the 24th inst., at Sanford-place, Stoic! _ Joseph Delvalle, aged 88. - ; ; tq • 12 . b., . ~ ,~ 116 :0 h ,L