The Sun. — London, England, 1821-06-20 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF LO DS, JUNE 19. Counsel was heard on the claims to the Strath more Peerage, and further proceedings Were postpOned till Tuesday. Mr. Johnson,, from the Office of the Chief Se cretary of State for Ireland, presented certain papers pursuant to an order - of the House. On the motion of the Earl of LIMERICK, the London Wharfs' Bill was read the second time and ordered to be committed on Friday. _ The Marquess of LANsoowN postponed his motion respecting the Foreign Slave Trade Bill, which stood for to-morrow, till Monday next, in consettuence of the absence of the Noble Earl (Liverpool) at the head of his Majesty's Council. The Earl of DARNLEY postponed his motion respecting the Navy till Tuesday, for the same eason. THE LORD MAYOR OF DUBLIN. The Earl of PARNLEY, on rising to mike his Fomised motion respecting the supply' of Sta tionery to the Government Offices in Ireland, said that he rose to perform a duty in some re spects painful, as he should be obliged to make . some personal observations on alluding to the papers before the House. Of the individual to whom those papers referred he knew nothing,' having never seen him to his knowledge. That individual was, at the present moment, Lord Mayor of- the City of Dublin ; it would, there 7 fore, become a part of his official duty to receive his Majesty,lf he should carry his intention of visiting Ireland into effect; and, hr doing so, he had no doubt that his Majesty would experience a very warm and a very Irish reception. It was, - tniwever, a matter of regret to him (Lord Darn ley) that the person with whose conduct the pre sent question was connected, had always been a warm partizan of principles which he had as con stantly opposed—he meant that of hostility to the Catholics. But whatever his feelings might be, )re was resolved to do his duty ; and if the 'task • he had to perform appeared in any respect invi dious, the fault was not in him, but in those by whose'conduct he was compelled to undertake it. 'Their Lordships would see, from the papers on the Table, that a, patent was granted to Mr. Abraham Bradley King, in 1780, in • lieu of a former patent granted to Mr. Abraham Bradley, in 1760, giving him the monopoly by supplying air the offices of Government with articles of 'stationery. No one, he apprehended, would at this moment, and in this country, advise such a monopoly to any person. Under that authority, the present Patentee continued to supply every department of the Government, with the excep tion of the Commissariat, which was better and more cheaply provided than the rest.' And it . appeared, that during the last ten years the sum of :..)28,6061. 17s. Sid. had been paid by Govern ment to this Gentleman, amounting to an average of 35,1291. 13s. Bd. a year. In 1814, Mr. King claimed the right of supplying the Excise De partment with stationery, which was admitted, and it had been since discovered that various frauds were committed which could not haVe taken place if the offices had been supplied as in this country. The monopoly was in itself a temptation to abuse and fraud, and the circum stances contained in the papers constituted at least a case for inquiry, as he trusted their Lord ships would see. If the individual was entitled to compensation for the removal of this right, the compensation should be regulated by an estimate of his fair profits, but the very suspicion of fraud rendered it 'incumbent on the House . or the Go vernment to proceed to an investigation. If in one instance there was reason to think ,that any unfair dealing had taken place, it would justify a suspicion of fraud in more extended transac tions. In the article of rulers alone, he under stood there was a considerable overcharge, and a fraud appeared to have been practised by the substitution of an inferior binding for vellum, amounting to an overcharge of 1,1921.165.6 d. It did not appear that this fraud could be traced to Mr. Bradley King, or that lie could be proved to have any corrupt participation in it. But even if it happened through neglect, it was an abuse which ought to be remedied. The 1,1921.165.6 d. overcharged in the binding department, was not the whole of the loss stsstained by the public ; for it was stated in a lettbr from Mr. Roe, Chief Clerk in the Stationery Office, that the paper was of an inferior quality, while the.price charg ed amounted to nearly double the. price in Eng land. After some further details, illustrative of this part of the case, the Noble Lord concluded with moving the following Resolutions, in which all the facts are particularised " That it appears, by Papers laid before this Ifouse that on the 21th of December, 1780, a patent was granted by his late Mejsty to Abraham Bradley and Abraharn Bradley.. King, saddle survivor of them, during his Majesty's pleasure, to save with Stationery ware all Offices within his 'kingdom of Ireland, which were supplied therewith, at his proper charge. " That in consequence of claims made and allowed at dif ferent times under the said Patent, the said Abraham Bradley King has for many years past enjoyed the exclusive monopoly of furnishing the principal Departments of Government in fe , aland, with stationery, and that during the last ten years tine sum of £223,606 17s. fi4d., appears to have been paid by Government to the aforesaid Patentee, Abraham Bradley King, the average of which, calculated on the number of years in each case, will be found to amount to the sum of .£35,129 13s. Bd. per annum. " That in, the year 1814, it appears that the said Abraham Bradley King, his Majesty's Stationer for Ireland, having claimed the right, as Patentee of the Crown, to supply the Ex me Department with stationery for its use, he was recognised by Government as having a preferable claim thereto, provided he undertook to supply them of as good a quality, and at the. same prices at which they could be procured from any respect able and unexceptionable person in Dublin.' " That in the supply of Stationery to the Excise Department, by the said Abraham Bradley King, considerable frauds and impositions appear to have been practised in the binding branch thereof, amounting to an overcharge of 1,1921. 16s. 6d. with out adverting to any overcharges Which may have been made for similar hooks in the quarterly Bills which could not then be as certained.' In consequence of which, and ' having fully consi dered the manises, and the whole of the matter as, it stood be fare them,' - the Board ' were of opinion that Alderman King had forfeited his preferable claim to supply that Department with Stationery.' " That, notwithstanding the foregoing circumstances, and tEs declared opinion of the Commissioners of Excise, the Board i.; still supplied with Stationery by the Patentee; ' on the same conditions as previously,' by the express directions of the Go vernment of Ireland. " That it. addition to the frauds so detected in the binding branch bf Stationery supplied to the Excise, it appears by a let ter from James Roe, first Clerk in the Stationery Stores, to the Commissioners of Excise, dated 18th February, 1319; that the quality of the pmier generally supplied by the 'Stationer (the said Alderman King) for the use of that Department, was very inferior, although the price allowed by the Board for each de- SeriP4OV. WA such that certainly the very best quality of each should be supplied, and that if it bore a fair ratio with the price charged, the Officers would have had no reason to complain, as they generally did, of the badness of what was furnished them for Revenucpmpcses.' .That in the lest Bill furnished by the Stationer' (the said'Abraham Bradley King), there was-a charge for 103 reams of Second Imperhil, charged at 51. 6s. Od. per ream, which Yudges more competent than' himself valued at no more than 21. 10s. per ream, making a difference in that item of the bill of 30111. 16s. Bd. "'1 hat the Report of Mr. James Bourns, Inspector of Paper Duties, it appears that the prices charged by the said Patentee to the Board of Excise, were, in his opinion, regu lated by the highest or retail scale for articles of the best qua lities,' but that of the papers in store, very few were, in'his opinion, of the best qualities, and the quality of the inferior de nominations was extremely low.' That by the letter of James. Roe aforesaid, to the Honour able the Commissioners of Excise, dated March 16, 1819, it ap pears that 8276 reams of paper of various denominations had been received from the said Patentee,' on which, according to the estimate of Mr. Bourns, there was an overcharge of 61621. 18s. sd. but it does not appear by the" papers before the House, that the difference between the prices and qualities of the paper so furnished by,the Patentee,and its actual value, has occasioned anv proceedings on the. part of- the Board of Excise, or of any other Department of Government. " That, under all the circumstances of the case, as set forth in - the Papers before the House, it appears that the public in terests have materially suffered under a Patent 'of Monopoly.; vicious in principle and in practice, liable to the greatest abdses." Lord SinmouTit said, that the Resolutions Vvhich the Noble Lord had read, involved a charge of fraud and, imposture against a person concerned in the supply of Stationery to the pro vernment of Ireland, and of gross neglect on the part of the Patentee. With respect to the fraud, it appeared to have been committed by a perion of the name of Fox, of whom it should be con fessed at the same time, that he derived - no bene fit whatever from the imposition. As soon as Mr. Bradley King was named patentee, he ap pointed this man, at the recommendation of some of those .who now inculpated his conduct: " It was to be observed, that the very officer whose duty it was to examine the article, and who made the complaint at last, had neglected his duty, or the fraud could never have been committed: When the complaint Was made to the Lord Lieutenant, he wrote immediately to Mr. Bradley King, who called for an investigation in reply. An inquiry then took place before the Commissioners of Excise, and on the case being filially referred to the Attorney and Solicitor General, their opinion was, that there was no evidence to sustain the charge. He was accordingly acquitted of con nivance or participation, but ordered to make good the losses which the public had sustained. With respect to - :. 4 .1e overcharges, an inquiry had been instituted, and certainly a respectable per- Son, who was appointed to investigate the sub ject, had reported that the charges were too high. l The prices paid in England, hoWever, would fur nish a bad criterion of the prices in Ireland. An investigation was now going on, under the direc tion of the Irish Government, to ascertain whether overcharges -had been made ; and if it should turn out that such was the case, the patentee would be immediately deprived of his patent.— The public had not suffered, as was stated in the last paragraph of the Resolutions, for the loss had been replaced ; and the average of the yearly receipts was taken too high, at 35,0001. — it did not exceed 22,000/. His Lordship con cluded by repeating, that the inquiry was now in progress, and moving the previous question. The Marquess of LANSDOWN expressed his satisfaction at hearing that the investigation was goit , forward, which he was sure would be at tended with great public benefit. It appeared, notwithstanding the argument of the Noble Lord, that the public was a loser in a definite degree, but to what extent was not yet known. Judging from the papers in his hand, and the ac counts he had received, the inference seemed to be that double price was charged, and in some instances, more than that upon the articles pro vided by the Alderman. The negligence of the officer could not be pleaded in excuse for the commission of fraud, and it was incumbent on the Government to punish abuses, especially when they were connected with power. The people, who ivere sufficiently exposed to severe proceedings in the Department of. the Excise, should be taught to feel that in this land we had but one law for the rich, and the poor. He would not disguise his satisfaction at the statement of the Noble Lord, nor refuse" his thanks to his Noble Friend, to whom the country was obliged for .having brought the subject forward, and so duced the explanation. Lord SIDMOUTII explained. The Earl of LIMEIiICK thought that the Case was one of great suspicion, especially when he was told that the person who committed the fraud derived no benefit from it, and that the Alderman was ignorant of what was done. He could not but think that the charges were ex cessive, yet as an inquiry was going on, he would vote for the previous question upon that ground alone. The Earl of ROSSLYN concurred in thinking it most extraordinary that Fox should have com mitted the fraud without reapingg - any advantage, and that Mr. Bradley King, who reaped the ad vantage; should know nothing about it. The negligence of the public officers was also highly reprehensible,'and that the public had sustained a loss could scarcely be denied by any one who read the papers. The Earl of HARROWBY said that the inquiry was now going on which would prove whether the public had been a loser or not. The Earl of DARNLEY, after a brief reply, de clared that he would not press his motion. Lord SIDMOUTII referred their Lordships to the 59th page of the printed papers, and said that the letter of. Mr. Woodmason, which it contained, justified a suspicion that Fox had entered into a conspiracy with some other person to ruin Mr. Bradley King.—Theprevious question wus then carried.—Ad journed. HOUSE OF COMMONS. AA four o'clock not more than thirteen Mem bers being present, the Speaker adjourned the House. On Monday morning the remains of the Coun tess of MExaoßoucu were removed for inter ment from Piccadilly in a hearse, followed by several mourning carriages, family carriages, also those of-the. relations of the deceased, and all the principal Nobility ; exceeding one hun dred carriages. THE BISHOP OF WINCHESTER. We regret that we had not an opportunity yesterday to insert the subjoined letter, as it con , tains a full vindication of this venerable Prelate from the charges brought against him by, t Mr. ROBERT ADAIR I!! The Bishop has fully jtisti fied all that he has said in his life of our late il lustrious and unrivalled Statesman', WILLIAM PITT, respecting a transaction Which will be an eternal brand upon the memory of Mr. Fox, a transaction, which Mr. BURKE not only consider ed and described - as little short of 11101 Treason, but positively proved to be so by irrefragable arguments founded on undeniable facts. Mr. ADAIR, therefore, in attempting to clear Mr. Fox of the heavy charge brought againSt hiin by Mr. BunKE, has only confirmed the truth of that charge, and implicated .himself in a measure which .it is impossible to defend or. to pal liate. For our own part, well remembering all that was said of the transaction at the time when it happened, ,our only doubts 'arose from the difficulty of supposing, that a man of Mr. Fox's deep knowledge of mankind and long po litical experience, whatever his principles or his objects might be, should have ;chosen such an agent, as from all that we haVe ever heard of thf , person in question, we should never have con ceived that his intellectual powers would 'have pointed him out to such a man as Mr. Fox, as fit to be employed on so very critical, hazardous, and dangerous a mission ; at the,same time, it is pro per for us to .add, that. never having _been ac quainted with the person in question, and only judging from, .the_ report of others, we are wholly unable.to estimate his mental capacity• and at tainments, except from his literary productions, which ar,e . certainly by no means calculated to remove the doubts which we originally enter tained on the subject. To ROBERT ADAIR, Esa. " Great George-street, June 2, 1821. " Sin—l have to lament that many circumstances have con curred to prevent my sending you an earlier answer to the let ter, which I had the honour of receiving from you on the 23d of last month. - - I now beg leave to inform you, that the ex tract, page 445, &c. of the second volume of my Memoirs of ' the Life of Mr. Pitt, was taken from an edition of Mr. Burke's `Works, printed by Rivington 1815, which, as far as• the paper in question is concerned, is acopy of the edition publish ed by Dr. Lawrence, one of Mr. Burke's executors. The paper, originally written in 1793, was_ certainly not designed for publication ; it was meant to be entirely and strictly con fidential.' but on that account it was not less likely to. be true. I request your . attention to a passage in a letter. .from Mr. Burke 'to Dr. Lawrence, dateda Bath ; February 14th, 1797, soon after he had learned that this paper had. crept surreptitiously into the world I beg you and thy friends to be cautious hew you, let it be understood that I disclaim any thing but the mere act and intention of publication. I do not retract any one of the sentiments contained in that memorial, which was and is my justification, addressed to.the friends for whose use alone I intended it. lead I designed it for the phblic, I should have been more exact and full. It was written in a tone of indigna tion, in consequence of the resolutions of the Whig Club, which were directly pointed against myself and others, and occasioned our secession from that Club, which is the last act of my life that I shall repent. Many temperaments and explanations there would 'have been, if I had ever had a notion that it would meet the public eye.' Dr. Lawrence proceeds to tell us, ,that Mr. Burke finding, upon his return from Bath, that -he had not kept a fair-Copy of the paper, corrected.one of the pam phlets with his own hand ; and he adds, from this, which was found preserved with his other papers, his friends after wards thought it their duty to give an authentic edition.' chus it appears that the copy from which I have quoted was cor rected by MrAlurke himself, several years.after the paper was written,. when he had full time to inquire into the truth of his statement, and after the publication of your letter in '‘ The Morning Chronicle.' I feel myself, therefore, justified in in ferring that Mr. Burke persevered in considering his statement true and accurate, after mature deliberation, and after seeing what you had said upon the subject. And his executors thought this acknowledged production of Mr. Burke, full of matter likely to interest the future historian,' worthy of a place among his valuable works. " I cannot think, that it makes any substantial difference, whether the idea of your journey to . Petersburgh originated with yourself or-Mr. Fox. You acknowledge that you went with the consent of Mr. Fox ; and you will not deny that, be sides other correspondence, you wrote to him in cypher, which is a proof of Mr. Burke's assertion, that you went ' with his (Mr. Fox's) cypher.' Yon also admit that you obtained a knowledge of events as they were passing' at Petersburgh, and that you discussed, " with openness and freedom, both the causes and the consequences of the'Measures then in agitation ;' which open and free discussion must have related to the -politi cal situation of the two countries, and to Mr. Fox's conduct and sentiments, which were in direct opposition to those of the King's Ministers. You decline naming or designating the persons with whom You communicated ; but they must have been the Empress's Ministers, or persona in their confidence. It appears to tne, therefore, highly.prabable, that these com munications produced the effect ascribed to them by - Mr. Pitt and Mr. Burke; and your concession seem to amount to an admission of the material parts of their charge against Mr. Fox. " 1 do not think it necessary to give any other answer to your questions relative to the objects you frustrated, but by referring you to Mr. Pitt's speeches, of which I have given an abstract. When Mr. Pitt talked of parliamentary inquiry., it was impos-, sible for Mr. Fox to do less than declare his readiness to meet it ; but-this I cannot admit as any proof that the charge was groundless. To establish, by regular proof, the truth of a transaction alleged to have taken place between a private indi vidual and the Sovereign, and the Ministers of a for and distant country—a transaction in which both parties would un 'questionably withhold all information—must obviously .be extremely difficult, if not 4bsolutely impossible ; and yet circumstances might leave no doubt in the minds of impartial - persons of the reality of the transaction, or of the effects it pro duced. . . " You mention that the Empress Catherine's known prefer ence for English -connexion gave you an advantage for learning the real situation of affairs at the Court of St. Petersburgh, and of discovering its ,future intentions.' I mush own thatel . should have thought that a person avowedly of the party acting in opposition ti'Ythe English Government would not have been very likely to meet with a favourable and confidential reception from the Empress - if she had been really desirous of a friendly connection with that Government. The truth is that the Em press saw in Mr. Pitt a great obstacle to her ambitious projects, 'and therefore sheaved a predilection in favour of Mr. Fox and his friends. - " You seem to think, that it was my duty to have made such inquiries concerning you as should have led to the knowledge of your publishing a letter in The Morning Chronicle,' in the year 1797. I really do not conceive that I was under any obli gation to make that inquiry e nor do I understand how it could have been instituted. I was bringing no new charge against you ; but was merely transcribing a few pages frcm a work of a well-known author which had been origmally published more than twenty, years, to which Mr. Fox had made no reply what ever; and which you had only noticed in a letter in a ne*s paper, which I had either never seen or totally forgotten. In that letter, a copy of which you have had the goodness means' me, you mentioned some idea of replying, but never did reply, although you afterwards discovered, that what you called a pretended letter' was really written by Mr: Burke. I apply no epithet in my work to the transaction ; and my short com ment' upon it relates only to Mr. Fox.' I do not even mention your name, except in the quotation. In your letter in The Morning Chronicle' you affirm that the charge is false;' but you do not explain the nature of the charge, or point out in what respect it is false. In your letter to me you acknowledge, that you did go to Petersburg,h fon a political purpose, with NI r. Fox's tonsent ; that you• had political communications with certain persons there; that you freely delivered your political opinions, which were those of Mr. Fox, and that from thence you corresponded with Mr. Fox. " Dr. Parrofter quoting part of the passage quoted by me, says, I am not enough acquainted with the circumstances of this transaction, either to justify or condemn the whole of it.' This explicit acknowledgment makes it unnecessary for me to add a word concerning Dr. Parr's observations, unless you will allow me to express my surprise, that after hisdeclaration, that he was not sufficiently acquainted with the transaction to decide whether it ought to be justified or condemned, yost should repre sent him as having confuted Mr. Burke's reasoning in a way that admits of no answer as having 4 completely dissected M r. The following are the contents of the Ham burgh Mail which we received this day " HAMBURGII, JUNE 14.—The postscript of a commercial letter from Vienna says—' Official news has been received that the Turks entered Bucharest on the 28th of May, that they be haved well, and that Ypsilanti had with diffi culty escaped.'—(Borsen Halle List, June 14.) " HAMBURGII, JUNE 14.—We have received the following intelligence : CC BY EXPRESS. " A courier, dispatched from Bucharest on the 28th May, has brought the news of the evacua tion of the capital of Wallachia by the rebels, and of the peaceable entrance of the van-guard of the Turkish army. Kiaya Mahomed, Pacha of Silistria, Commander of this corps of about 12,000 men, had advanced on the 26th as far as Odileschti, and on the 27th to Tratsinesi, five leagues from Bucharest, and on the following day to the environs of the city itself, without the smallest resistance being attempted by the troops of the various parties. Theodore, Hadschi, Pia don, and Binbaschi, with their adherents, on re-' ceiving certain information of- the approach of the Turkish troops, precipitately evacuated on the 27th both the convent of Crotoeseno and the city of Bucharest, the inhabitants of which feared a general pillage. For several days the public peace had been preserved solely by measures concerted by M. Udritzky, the Austrian Agent, with the Boyars and the Turkish Commanders, and by the Austrian subjects at Bucharest, who were called upon to form a guard. On the 28th a detachment of 200 Turks entered the city, who observed the strictest discipline, and sh e wed a moderation which did them honour, so that they are considered by the inhabitants as their deliverers from the dangers and pillage with which they have been lately threatened. " Theodore, with his adherents, has retreated by way of Pitescht towards Carte d'Argisch, and took on his way alt the post and other horses. —The greatest disorder prevails among his corps, and it is to be foreseen that, if they should by overtaken by the Turkish troops the yen 'country, they will hardly venture a battle... „. "-. " - Ypsilanti detached - on the 2N . of May' the greater part of his Greeks, stated at 2000 men, under the command of - Cantacuzeno, a,gainit the Turkish troops, who have been advancing since the taking- of Galacz in Moldavia. He had re mained himself, with only 600 men, at Tergowist, against which the corps of Hadschi Ahmed Pacha was already on the march, to join that of Jusstif, Pacha of Ibrailow, who was likewise marching towards the same place, to drive away this leader of the Insurgents. " Unbridled anarchy prevails in Moldavia; the lietarists, who have abandoned Jassy, rove about the country, which they lay waste and pillage like banditti. The Turkish divisions of the corps of the Seraskier Jussuf, Pacha of. Ibrai. low, are advancing in different directions towards Jassy, and where they appear order arid tran quillity return, as they pursue only the Iletarists, protect the country people, and pay for every • thing in ready money. " CONSTANTINOPLE, MAY 14.—The following circumstances have• excited an extraordinary sen- ation here : " On the 29th April the Greek merchant; Emanuel Danesi,• was arrested, because he re fused to pay a' bill of exchange for 309,000 pias tres drawn upon him, to the order of Prince Cca limac:hi, now HoSpodar of Wallachia, because the drawer, the banker'Sakellario, at Bucharest, had informed him that no funds had been assign ed. The AuStrian Internuncio teok his- part, because Saliellario is an Austrian, and Danesi alSo defended himself with an intrepidity unusual with a Greek. He was released. He yielded, however, to the entreaties of his gamily, and con cealed himself ; but the Reis Effendi sending for him, the Russian Ambassador, whose banker he is, persuaded him to leaVe his retreat, and pledged his word for his life. On the 2d May Danesi, accompanied by zi Russian Dragoman, appeared at the Porte, but was immediately seized and thrown into prison. On the 3d, Baron Strogo nOff caused him to be claimed as the hanker of the Russian Embassy, but , the Reis Effendi an nounced very coolly, that Danesi was a subject of the Porte, and. Baron Strogonoff had no right to interfere in his. favour. Hereupon the Ambas sador ordered M. Von Daschkow, who is attached. to the Embassy, to. go in ceremony, accompanied by two tnterpreters y four Janissaries, and two servants in state liveries, and renew the demand. Lie was made to wait five hours, and then dis missed with the same answer as the preceding day. M. Vhn Daschkow, who had been ordered not to return without Danesi, sent one of his Jar nissaries to inform Baron Stregonoff of the answe he had received... The latter immediately came himself with a numerous suite, but received the same answer. At his de:Sire, he was conducted, contrary ,to established, custom, to the Grand Vizir, but still received the same answer. 110 now desired to know of what Danesl was ac cused. The Grand Vizir said, they had the most convincing - _ proofs that he was guilty of High Treason. ..Baron Strogonoff observed, that this accusation entirely changed the nature' of the affair; that Danesi Ueing his banker, and the medium .of his official correspondence with the Morea, it threw a doubt.on the uprightness of his own sentiments, - and was therefore an ins lit to the Imperial Ambassador. This the Grand Vizir would not allow ; on which Baron Stro gonoff loaded him with the harshest reproaches and the most serious threats.. Nothing would put the Turk out of his way: The Ambassador then asked the release of Danesi as a particular favour/ on 'which he would set a particular value, but he received the same refusal. Hereupon he presented a Memorial, addressed to the Sultan/ but the Grand Vizir refused to take it. Baron Strogonoff withdrew, Withoitt having succeede d in his application. " On the 4th M. Von . Fonton, the first Coun sellor of the Legation, repaired - to the Pcrte acid again demaiided•the release of Danesi, and this being refused, to desire that the memorial should be presented to the Sultan. The Reis Effend i refusing both, M. Fonton declared he had order' to :go. to the Mosque, ~to step before the Sult l on his way thither, and to present'the Mernor i; " to the Sultan. All the 'endeavours of the ftej, s Effendi to divert him from his intention,..whic" he said was contrary to all custom .and d e roge tory from the dignity of an Ambassador, WO .° fruitless.' " M. Von Fonton proceeded with his suite to the neighbourheod of the Mosque, where t, d l ' Sultan was at prayers. When he came out Ti; Von Fonton held up his paper and cried alouc l !„ 1 the Turkish language, ' Ilere is a Memorial fr° 'r the Ambassador - Extraordinary and 111iiii5t( Plenipotentiary of his Majesty the Emper or t y l e Russia to his Sublimity' Sultan Maltmoud Second.' ha at " He pronounced these words twice, Avit,"i i j exciting the attention of any body ; the "I'9t time, the Sultan cast a contemptuous look by him, caused the paper to be taken from hiw n rc an officer, and went on. On the same da Y 0 , e fusal, couched in very harsh terms, w as g iv t e - 10 It is, however, hoped that the tiled Russian Ambassador for Danesi, accom p anied mediation of 1 with such remarkable circumstances, will be at tended with a happy result. " On the 7th of this month, the itrssian nister (alleging the 7th and .14th a rticles o f the of Treaty of Rudschuk-Kaiti ov zie) complained The ill treatment Suffered b y the Greeks, of the insults offered to their religion, and of the; de-. struction.of their churches. id He demanded that no Turkish troops shou-, I enter the principalities of iVioliavia and Wil}' Burke's charge, torn to rags its flhnsy texture, and dispersed and anninilated all his fallacies.' _ _ " In answer to the question contained in your letter of the 29th of May, Idesire to inform yon, that your letter of the 23d is not noticed -in my second edition; very nearly the whole of which was indeed printed before the 23d. " I return the copy of your letter of Feb. 4797, and beg you l to accept,Jny thanks for sending it to me. - " I have the honour to be, Sir, ._ " Your faithful and obedient servant, • " G. WINTON." MAJORITY AND MINORITY FOR AND AGAINST THE ARREARS TO THE DUKE OF CLAREFCE.-JUNE 18. MAJORITY. Dodson, John Douglas, W. R. K. Dawson, J. M. Elliot, Hon.lir. Forrester, C. W. urrell, Sir C. Fife, Earl of Beckett, its. fin. J. Grant, A. C. Baillie, J. Grant, Rt.-Hn. C. Binning, Lord , Ward, Sir R. Blair, .J. Orenfell, Pascoe Bathurst,Rt.Ha.B. Gladstone, J. Bent, John Gossett, W. Brogden, J. Graham, Sir J. Blake, Sir F. Gordon, Hon. W. BuOiannan, John Hare, Hon. It . Burgh, Sir U. Holmes, W. Barre,Rt.ll n. Holford, J. P. Brownlow, C. Hill, Sir G. Brecknock, Lord Hotham, Lord Buriell, Walter • HuskiSsou,Rt.Hon. Browne, Rt. Ho. D. W. Lust, Hon. W. Irving, John CroSby, J. Mngsboioogli, Ld Clempts,lln. J.III. Leigh, J. 11. Calcreft, ,john 'Londonderr3r, Mar- Coffin, Sir I. qiitss of Cartwright, R. W. Lamb, Hon. W. Courtenay, T. P. •Lushington, S: R. Copley, Sir J. S. Lowther, Hon. H. Cockerell, SiiC. Lowther, J. H. Curteis, J. E. Long, Rt. lln.SirC. Clive, Hen. Morland, Sir I'. B. Cranborne, Visct. Martin; B. Cheere, E. M. Martin, Sir T. 8.. Calvert, John Macnaghton, E. A. Clerk, Sir G. Manners, Lord C. Don, Sir A. Marryatt; Jos. Dawkins, 11. MarjolibankS, SirJ. Davis, Hart Marjoribanks„'S. Drummond, Home Manning, W. Dawson, G. Nolap, M. DiVeft, T. TELLERS—H. GoulbUrn and Viscount Palmetston. Ashuist, W.-H. Astell, NVin. Alexander, J. Arbuihnot,Rt Hon. C. Ommanney, Sir P. Pole,Rt.HmW.W Phillimore, J. Prendergast, J. S. Peel, Rt. Hon. R. Pakenham, Hon. It, Peel; W. Pechell, Sir T. Pearse, John Phipps, Hon. Ed. Pitt, W. M. Rice, Hon. G. Robinson, RtHn.F, Roberts, G. J. Stuart, A. Smith, Robt. Seymour, H. Scott, Hon. J. Somerset, Lord G. TwisS, Horace Tulk, C. A. Trench, Hon. F. Taylor, Sir H. Ure, 111. Vansittart, Right Hon. N. - Wynn, C. W. Warrender, Sir G. Warre, J. A. Wilbrahain, B. Wildman, J. P. Wallace,Rt. Hn. T. 'Wood, Col. ' Walpole, Lord Wigram, W. Wodehouse, Hn. J. 'Wrottesley, H. 'Ward, Robt. Wilson, Sir R. Yorke, Sir J. Yarmouth, Earl of hiINORITY. Abeicromby, Hn.j. Folkestone, Lord Moore, Peter Baring, H. Forbes, C. . Maxwell, J. Becher, W. W. Fane, J. ' Noel, Sir G. Benyon, Benj. Fleming, J. Ord, W. Bury Viscount Gordon, Robt. , Palmer, C. F. BOughton, Sii C. 'Grattan, J'.' . Ricardo, David Benett, John Griffith, J. W. Robinson, Sir Geo. Butterworth, J. Guise, Sir W. Rumbold, C. Colbuine, N. R. Gurney, H. Rice, T. S. Curwen, J. C. , Gipps G. .. , .. Bickford, Wm. Creevey, T. Gaskell, Ben. Smith, G. Cooper, R. B. Harbord, Hon. E. Smith, Sainuel Cherry, G. H. Hobhouse, J. C. . Smith, Abel • Crawley, S. Honeywood, J. P. Smith, John Doveton, G. ' Hume, J. . , Smith, Wm. Davies, T. H. Haldimand, W. Sefton, Earl of Denison, W. J. James, W. Sykes, D. Denman, Thos. Keck, G. A. L. Sebright, Sir J. Dundas, T. - Leonard, T. B. Tavistock, Marq. of Drake, .W. T. Lockhart, J. G. Townshend,LordC. Dugdale, D. S. Lister, B. L. Webbe, Ed. Duncannon, Visct. Langston, J. H. Western, C. C. Ebrington, Visct. Macdonald, Jas. Wharton, J. Evans, William Martin, John Whitbread, S. C. . Elise, Hon. G. A. Milbank, M. Wood, Ald. Fergusson, SirR.C. Milton, Viscount -. Wells, John Fitzgerald, Lord Monek, J. B. Williams, W. • TELLERS—H. Bernal end H. G. Bennet. PRICE O: THIS DAY AT 1\ 3 per Cent. Red 7 6i il 3 per Cent. Cons. 3i per Cent B6A 4 per Cent 5 par Cent. Navy Ann shut HIGH WATER AT LONDO: Morning, 52 minutes after 5. ! r! s•PocKs VELVE O'CLOCK. Bank Long Ann....19i 1-16th Imp. 3 per Cents. 75 India Bonds 4ss. Excheq. Bills 1 dis. par COns. for Opening 77ggi , N BRIDGE TO-MORROW. I Evening, 15 minutes after 6. THE S UN. SQLLM QUIS DICE RE FALSUM AUDEAT? LONDON, WEDNESDAY, JUNE c.m, 1821.