The Sun. — London, England, 1832-01-27 00:00:00

trAe been done in thee had been done in Sodom, it would have re ',N* ined until this day. ~ .B ut I say - imto you it shall be snore tolerable for 'lyre and Sid o ti at the day of judgment than for you." e then read further : " And all these blessings shall come on thee, and overtake thee, if thou shalt hearken unto the voice of the Lord thy God. " Blessed shalt thou be in the city, and blessed shalt thou be in the field. " Blessed shall be the fruit of thy body, and the fruit of thy ground, and the fruit of thy cattle, the increase of thy trine, and the flocks of thy sheep. " Blessed shall be thy basket and thy store. " Blessed shalt thou be when thou comest in, and blessed shalt thou be when thou goest out. " The Lord shall cause thine enemies that rise up against thee to be smitten before thy face ; they shall conic out against thee one way, and flee before thee seven ways. " The Lord shall command the blessing upon thee in thy More-houses, and in all that thou settest thine hand unto : and he shall bless thee in the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee. . "The Lord shall establish thee an holy people with himself, as he bath sworn unto thee, if thou shalt keep the command ments of the Lord thy God, and walk in his ways. " And all people of the earth shall see that thou art called by the name of the Lord, and they shall be afraid of thee. " And the Lord shall make thee plenteous in goods, in the fruit of thy body, and in the fruit of thy cattle, and in the fruit of thy ground in the land which the Lord sware unto thy fathers to give thee. " The Lord shall open unto thee his good treasures, the I leaven to give the rain unto thy land in his season, and to bless all the work of thine hand : and thou shalt lend unto many nations, and thou shalt not borrow. " And the Lord shall make thee the head and not the tail, and thou shalt be above only, and thou shalt not be beneath ; if that thou hearken unto the commandments of the Lord thy God which I command thee this day to observe and to do them. " And thou shalt not go aside from any of the words which I command thee this day, to the right hand or to the left, to go after other Gods to serve them." Great and glorious had been the conduct of England, when the Admiral wrote home that " it had pleased the Almighty to bless his Majesty's arms." He then read the converse— " But it shall come to pass, if thou wilt not hearken unto the voice of the Lord thy bed, to observe to do all his command ments and his statutes which I command thee this day, that all these curses shall come upon thee and overtake thee : " Cursed shalt thou be in the city, and cursed shalt thou be in the field_ " Cursed shall be thy basket and thy store. Cursed shall be the fruit of thy body and the fruit of thy land, the Increase of thy kine, and the flocks of thy sheep. " Cursed shalt thou be when thou contest in, and cursed shalt thou be when thou goest out. " The Lord shall send upon thee cursing, vexation, and rebuke in all that thou settest thy hand unto for to do, until thou be de stroyed, and until thou perish quickly ; because of the wicked ness of thy doings, whereby thou hast forsaken me. The Lord shall snake the pestilence cleave unto thee, until he have consumed thee from off the land whither thou goest to possess it. " The Lord shall smite thee with a consumption, and with a lever, and with an inflammation, and with an extreme burning, and with the sword, and with blasting, and with mildew; and they shall pursue thee until thou perish. " And the Heaven that is over thy head shall be brass, and the earth that is under thee shall be iron. " The Lord shall make the rain of thy land powder and dust ; from Heaven shall it come down upon thee, until,thou be destroyed. " The Lord shall cause thee to be smitten before thine ene rnieg ; thou shalt go out one way against them, and flee seven ways before them ; and shalt be removed into all the kingdoms o the earth. " And thy carcase shall be meat unto all the fowls of the air, and unto the beasts of the earth, and no man shall fray them away. " The Lord shall smite thee with the botch of Egypt, and with the emerods, and with the scab, and with the itch, whereof thou canst not be healed. The Lord shall smite thee with madnesss, and blindness, and astonishment of heart. " And thou shalt grope at noon-day as the blind gropeth in darkness, and thou shalt not prosper in thy ways, and thou shalt be only oppressed and spoiled evermore, and no man shall save thee." That pestilence is now in the land, and we ought to hasten to address the throne to proclaim a fast and holy day in the land. We have here the truth. We have departed from our God, and God has departed from us. And un less this nation come on their knees, destruction is on us. Ent if we return to God's ways we may effect forgiveness and blessedness. England is not the country of peace, glory, and strength, that it wa., and we ought to repent and return from our evil ways. Although we deserve the punishment of our sins, yet, if we repent, God's mercy is abundant, and we may yet be saved. I speak on authority not to be denied. The Word of God has ex. pressed it,—even when a curse against a nation has been given : " If that nation against whom I have pronounced turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil I thought to tiounto them." Innumerable were the instances of God's mercy—as when the Prophet went against Ahab, but he humbled himself, and God withdrew the judtnent. There was the same fact in the case of Jonah in Nineveh— " Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown." If these applied to Heathens, how much more will God's mercy be shown to a nation of Christians? The Hon. Member then read the proceeding. respecting Nineveh : "So the people of Nineveh believed God and proclaimed a fast, awl put on sackcloth, from the greatest of them even to the least of them. " For word came unto the King of Nineveh, and he arose from his throne, and he laid his robe from him, and covered him with sackcloth, and sat in ashes. 44 And he caused it to be proclaimed and published through Nineveh (by the Decree of the King and his Nobles), saying, Let neither man nor beast, herd nor flock, taste anything; let them not feed nor drink water. But let man and beast be covered with sackcloth, and cry mightily unto God; yea, let them turn every one from his evil way, and from the violence that is in their hands. Who can tell if God will turn and repent, and turn away from his fierce anger, and we perish not. And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way, and God repented him of the evil that he had said he would do unto them, and he did it not." So will it be with England, if we faithfully, humbly, and sincerely repent. I trust I shall be able to set before the nation the truth of its weakness—first, the increase of crime shows the absence of religion and piety ; secondly, the oppression of the poor was beyond his conception. He was lost in astonishment. The fact was so great that he could not account for it. The first lived in luxury and plenty; the labourer in a state of actual starvation, and a degree of distress that would harrow up your very souls. He could not point out the causes, but the fact was glar ing. He appealed to Mr. Sadler to point out the suffer. ings of the children of the poor. The heathens made their children pass through the fire to their god, Moloch—we make our children pass through misery for our gain. The destruction of Bristol is a sample of God's wrath when abroad in the land. Passing that and the pestilence, the state of the poor is enough to induce this House to address the Crown to order a fast. It must not be supposed that he was a fool to call on this House, which he did, as a body, only in love and truth. You sit here (said the Hon. Member) infidels—you do not con•ult your Maker. This House meets here, and talks on public affairs as if there was no God. Let every man answer for himself. You have no more consideration than if you acknowledged no God. You are all infidels. Look at the public Press, the march of intellect, the spirit of the day is sheer ido latry. You forget God, and think of doing every thing by capital, by machinery, by laws, &c.; but you are acting on a wrong principle. All those acts of ungodliness had been practised by other nations. For example, the French left out that " the King ruled by the grace of God ;" also that blasphemy in England, " that all power was from the people"—sheer blasphemy, as all power is from God, and the duty of man is to submit and to obey ! " Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers, for there is no power but of God ; the powers that be are ordained of God. " 'Whosever, therefore, resisteth the power, resisteth the ordi nance of God ; and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. " For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil ; wilt thou then not be afraid of the power ? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same. "For he is the Minister of God to thee for good ; but if thou do that which is evil, be afraid : for he beareth not the sword in vain : for he is the Minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon hint that doeth evil." See what is going on in France and England. It is blasphemy to attribute power to the people. He defied the Noble Lord to point out a :word in the Bible that power was from the people; that slavish bowing to public opinion that robbed the Noble Lord of all his honesty and manhood. In the Councils of the nation there were slaves to that blasphemy—but power was only from God. He was aware he was speaking loud and with warmth, but not with violence ; be was sincere, and was urging these truths in his usual way, when he was under an influence. The motion belonged to each Member individually, as every man had bee❑ bap tised into the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and could not disobey the precepts and laws of their God. They might disregard the laws—father and brother, but would they refuse the precepts of God ? " I was taken up," said the lion. Member, " on-the death of my father, by the nation, which abundantly pro vided for me and mine ; and it is in gratitude for that kindness that I call on that House to address the Crown to issue a Proclamation for a fast. It has been done be fore by Parliament, and I do not admit the objection that This place is not a fit and proper place. Are we not chosen to meet and advise what, as Christians, we ought to advise for the good of the nation ? Are we to leave all religion at the door of the House, and listen to the wiles of Satan? No. I stated it last year, and I will repeat the character of infi delity that pervade the public mind. At that time there was the blasphemous proposition to admit the Jew into this House. If our Saviour was raised, and is now in Heaven, at the head of his Church, are we to admit a Jew to our Councils ? The Edinburgh Review, the fifth sign of the infidelity of the tittles, defended that. Man is a fool in his heart, and sayeth those things. It was en ormous that this body of Christians should say we are not inclined to consider of God's greatness and mercy ; if so ungodly as to entertain the question, what a state was the nation in ? The bent of the bun= mind is now to set aside Kings and Priests, and to set up the people as the Sovereigns ; and I would call on the nation to humiliate themselves, and to avert such evils. Let the Kings and Priests be expelled, and all such mummery be averted, un less you will listen to my voice for a fast and humiliation. If) ou agree, I will request the House of Lords also to sup plicate for a fast, and we all then be bound up together in one solemn act. He would not withdraw his motion as he did last year; be would not give way, but would divide the House. He would force the House of Co►u mons to declare whether they would bend their knee to their God. If they would not, the nation should know their refusal. He would have the whole nation, the Lords, and Commons, to join iu the act of humilia tion. The Ministers had done it—the House of Com mons had put it aside. But by that anointed name by which he acted, he would appeal to them, and it must be done. Moving the previous question would ❑ot do ; the House must reject the motion. If they did all Europe would see (said the Hon. Member) that ye re ject your God's authority. You cannot escape this charge. By the name and blood of that Saviour, I implore you to support this motion. But he bad been told formerly, that in this blasphemous and unhallowed atmosphere he ought not to have used that name. But it is in that blessed name—the name of that living God and S iviour, who now sees you, and is amongst you—that I alone appeal and act. Christian men should love to see him call on the name of him in whose name you were baptised. Cast not off the reverence due to that name; beware of that infidelity that is creeping on you on both sides of the House, and de priving you of your manhood ; for the safety of your own souls I call on you to honour that name. I have done my duty to avert the evils that are coming on Christendom, preceded by the pestilence. Beware of the wrath that went forth on the plain against Sodom and Gomorrah— and those are a type of the judgment that is fast coining upon Christendom. My cry is that God's mercy may be on us if we humble ourselves. Let all the people praise and sing for joy, and the desolating force of God shall pass by. The Hon. Member concluded by moving, that an humble address be presented to the King, to order a day for a ge neral fast and humiliation. After some pause, the motion was seconded by Mr. WEYLAND, of Hedon. Lord ALTHORP stated that discussion on such a topic was highly inexpedient. That he disclaimed being tinc tured with infidelity ; but he was of opinion that such dis cussions did not tend to the honour of religion. The mo tion was neither desirable nor necessary. He gave Mr. Perceval credit for good intentions. Ha meant no disre spect to him by not following him in his argument, and should move the previous question ; by which he intended that the House should express its opinion, that questions like the present ought not to be taken up. It was the in tention of Government to appoint a day of fasting. Mr. HUNT could not avoid reading two or three verses from the Bible. The Honourable Mover had talked of Sodom and of Biiitol, and had called us infidels, idolaters, and what not. He then read a passage from Isaiah, " Is it such a fast that I have chosen, a day for man to afflict his soul ? Is it to bow down his head as a bulrush, and to spread sackcloth and ashes under him ? Wilt thou call this a fast, and an acceptable day to the Lord ? " Is not this the fast that I have chosen, to loose the bands of wickedness, to undo the heavy burdens, and let the oppressed go free, and that ye break every yoke ? " Is it not to deal the bread to the hungry, and that thou bring the poor that are cast out to thy house ? When thou seest the naked that thou cover him, and that thou hide not thyself from thine own flesh." _ _ _ And added that this was not a real fast, but the real fast was one that would feed the hungry and clothe the naked. Mr. GOULBURN understood the Noble Lord to say, that the object would be accomplished without going to the vote. If the Noble Lord did not make such a promise, he hoped the motion would be pressed. Sir THOS. BARING would vote for the motion, if a fast day were not to be appointed. Lord ALTHORP—It is the intention of the Govern ment to appoint a fast day. Mr. BRISCOE heard - the declaration of the Noble Lord with pleasure, and it was to him an additional reason for affording his support to the present Government. Mr. GORDON (Dundalk) said it was a question highly fitting to occupy the time of the House of Com mons ; and that the House of Commons in former times wls often occupied with such discussions. Mr. PERCEVAL, in answer to the Member for Pres ton, observed that a fast of hypocrisy was in no way ac ceptable to Him that itidgeth the human heart. But which of the two was more likely to observe the fast of mercy? he who set aside, as unnecessary, all signs of public con trition—or he who, consenting to such public acts, ac knowledged the impropriety of ungodliness when going through the fast of humiliation ? He would not state what he felt, if he did not say that the tardy consent at length given to the appointment of a day for a General Fast showed him with what reluctance the Government at length assented. He thought that this was done more for the sake of getting rid of the question than for any better motive. He believed this from the delay. He saw no reason for delay. The danger of delay was imminent. He still suspected that they never meant to do it. He would not withdraw the motion, but would take the sense of the House upon it, though he did not intend to press it to a division. RUSSIAN DUTCH LOAN. Immediately after our re-admission to the gallery, Mr. lIERRIES rose to make his promised motion on the subject of the Russian Dutch loan. The first point in the case was the application of the public money, not only without the authority of Parliament, but, in his judgment, directly contrary to the directions of Parlia ment. At the close of the period when that House was last assembled, the attention of his Right Hon, Friend the Member for Tamworth having been called to the fact, that certain public funds had been applied without the authority of Parliament, explanations had taken place across the table, the result of which, by the admission of facts, tended to diminish the tirne which it would other wise be necessary for him to occupy. The House were aware that he was now about to propose a declaration of their opinion on this question—that an . engagement having been entered into by this country to pay a foreign loan in another country, with certain conditions annexed ; and those conditions having been notoriously fulfilled and dis charged, payment, nevertheless, continued to be male ; although, in the opinion of all persons conversant with subjects of that kind, such payment must be manifestly contrary to the stipulations of the engagement. There might have been doubts as to the fact of the fulfilment of the conditions; there might have been doubts as to the real independence of the 13,1gie provinces ; but that had been admitted by the other side of the House. It had been admitted that the separation between Belgium and Holland, which formed the condition of the engagement, had actually taken place. It had also been admitted that subsequently to that separation money had been paid by this country in satisfaction of the Russian loan in Hol land. The difference between the two sides of the House resolved itself into this—was it, or was it not, lawful for the Ministera of ti e Crown, after the separation, to make the payments in question? It was indispensable, in order to put the House in possession of the case, and to enable them to come to a judgment upon it, that he should enter into several minute details, to which he prayed attention, notwithstanding their dullness. The origin of the trans action was an engagement to pay a debt due to Russia I,y Holland, not in the discharge of any debt or any en gagement from England to Russia, but in discharge of an engagement from England to Holland. He would call the attention of the House to the first convention—in which there was much that had no relation to this subject—and direct their attention to that part of it on which the whole of this transaction was founded, and from which every obligation of this country proceeded. To the con vention of the 17th August, 1814, there was an addi tional article, in which it was stipulated, " that, to provide for the defence and incorporation of the Belgic Provinces with Holland, Sze., there should be a sum paid to Sweden of 1,000,0001. ; a sum of two millions ad vanced to Holland for fortifications ; and thirdly, a condition that this country should bear, equally with Holland, such further charges as might be agreed upon between the high contracting parties and their allies, towards the final and satisfactory settlement of the Low Countries in union with Holland, and under the dominion of the House of Orange, not ex ceeding, in the whole, the sum of three millions, to be defrayed by Great Britain. The expression in the French was more strong--it was to the effect ; " conjointly, and in equal shares with Holland." This was an indefinite en gagement to pay such sums in conjunction with Holland, in order to secure the incorporation of the Belgic provinces with that country. This indefinite engageni-nt was ren dered a specific engagement in the subsequent treaty of the 19th of May, 1815. In that treaty his Majesty the King of the Netherlands declares " that he is resolved to pro ceed immediately to execute, with his Imperial Majesty, a convention to the following effect, to which his Britannic Majesty agrees to be a party, in pursuance of engagements taken by his said Majesty with the King of the Nether lands in a convention signed at London on the 13th of August, 1814." This treaty had also relation to certain colonies which were to he ceded to this country. But it was clear from the beginning to the end of all our obliga tions that we stipulated for the interest of the King of Holland, and in conjunction with him, for the purpose of sustaining the incorporation of the Belgic provinces with the Netherlands. All that he had to state was founded on these treaties, and on the Act of Parliament framed in con sequence of them. He referred to them in order to show to what definite point it was brought at last. There was not a part of the treaties in question that was not carefully worded. It was invariably stated that equal payments were to be made by England and Holland. In truth, any other proposition would have been most wild and monstrous. Acting, however, as he thought, illegally, the Government of this country continued to pay our part, while our partners ceased to pay their part. The stipulation was to pay ;n eornmes, and only in common, with Holland. In o~ der to be consistent with the original transaction, and to mark the character of that transaction in the strongest manner, a clause had been introduced into the second treaty, highly befitting the state of things. That clause declared, " That it is hereby understood arid agreed be tween the high contracting parties, that the said pay ments on the part of their Majesties the King of the Netherlands and the King of Great Britain shall cease and should the possession and sovereignty (which God forbid) of the Belgic provinces at any time pass or be severed from the dominions of his Majesty the King of the Netherlands, previous to the complete liquidation of the same." That was a correct stipulation ; that was con ! • sistent with the principles of the bond. If that stipula tion had not existed, it might still have been well argued that the payments were not to be continued should a sepa ration of the Belgic provinces take place ; but by this stipulation such payments were absolutely prohibited in the event of a separation. It made assurance doubly sure. It not only stated the limits, but it forbade their infraction. What were the facts ? That on the one side, that of Holland, the payments had ceased, and determined ; that on the other side, that of England (a different view having been taken of the case), they had been continued ; in spite of the prohibition contained in the last treaty, and in spite of the co-partner feeling that she was entirely relieved from further contribu tion. When the attention of the House was first drawn to this case, and when the Noble Lord conceded the facts which he (Mr. Herries) had mentioned, they ap peared to him (Mr. Herties) so manifest a contradiction of the Lew and of the Act of Parliament, that he really an. ticipatcd that before the next meeting of Parliament any motion on the subject would be rendered unnecessary, by a st itement on the part of his Majesty's Government of mounds for their conduct different from those of which the House were already in possession. He did not expect that it would have fallen to his lot, or to that of anyother Hon. Member, to make such a motion as the present. He certainly thought that some explanation must be made upon the subject. By their silence and inaction, however, his Majesty's Ministers had impressed his mind with a conviction that they viewed the treaty in a manner, which in his opinion was so contrary, he would not say merely to low, but to common sense—a treaty too drawn up in a much plainer manner than that in which treaties were usual'y composed--that lie could not have conceived it possible.—(Hear, hear.) It must be admitted either that there was no virtue in the words that the payments should cease when the Belgic Provinces were separated and de tached from Holland, or that the payments might be con tinued, consistently with those words. It might have been supposed that there were some doubts as to the reading of the treaty, and also to its origin. But they had it from the authority of the Lords of the Treasury, to whose department the execution of the treaty was, of course, peculiarly confided, for with such a case the King had no thing to do, no use could be made of the King's name in this question.—( Hear, hear.) When Parliament gave directions for the payment of money, those who received such directions were only Ministerial. Those directions ' must also be strictly construed. If an Act of Parliament were considered not sufficiently extensive, no Lord of the Treasury could presume to enlarge it. Parliament must be resorted to for that purpose. But the Treasury had justly interpreted the Act to which he had been alluding. When he (Mr. Herries) called for an account of the money which bad been advanced to Holland under the first treaty, a return had been made perfectly correct in its character. In ISIS, the Treasury had been called upon by the Finance committee for an account not only of the sums advanced on the loan, but for a statement of the con ditions of the loan itself. The return of that motion was mode, and it concluded with a statement " that the pay ments upon the said loan were to cease and determine should the Belgic provinces be separated from Holland."— (Hear, hear.) It now appeared, however, that notwith standing this distinctly recorded understanding by the de partment, whose duty it was to carry the treaty into effect, of the nature of its conditions ; notwithstanding what was recorded in the treaty ; notwithstanding the distinct statement in the Act of Parliament founded on the treaty—that the payments in question should be made by the Lords of the Treasury as they became due, as long as it was specified in the convention that they should continue; notwithstanding this strict qualifica tion and limit of that which, to all common understand ings, must have been perfectly intelligible, even without qualification and limit ; notwithstanding the fact, that the Power associated with this country in these payments (in truth the principal Power), understanding well the terms of its engagement, had refused to make further payments : we had continued during the last three terms of payment to make them.—(Hear, hear.) At the three last terms of payment the Dutch had refused their contribution. It not being necessary for his argument to state technically, the period of the separation of the Belgian provinces from Holland, he had worded his resolution generally. The Hon. Gentleman hare recapi!ulated his arguments, and maintained that on the face of these transactions there was not at present an iota of claim upon this country for fur ther payments. He had shown that this was not a debt from this country to Russia, but only a debt in concur rence with Holland. Yet the conduct pursued would go to show that it was a debt from this country to Russia; not with the concurrence of Holland, but alone. Really, after all that he could conjecture with respect to the nature of the defence which Ministers might set up, he was unable to arrive at any decent objec tion which could be made to the validity of his state ments, or ally decent answer which could be made to the argument founded upon them. If tl:e whole case had not been before Parliament, it was the duty of hie Majesty's Government to have come down and stated that fact. Such not having been done, it was natural to suppose that Parliament was already in possession of the whole case, and lie trusted they would put upon it the only construction to which it was open. He had heard—but he really could not believe his Majesty's Government would have recourse to such a defence—it was intended to declare that inasmuch as by our conductwe had given, if not encouragement, at least permission, to the Belgians to assert their independence, and to leeparate themselves from Holland, we were not entitled to benefit by the conditions of the bond, but must continue to make the paytnents from which those conditions would other wise have relieved us. He could not, however, conceive it possible such a defence would be made. Was it in the power of a Government to act in direct contradiction to Parliament, and to give authority to its acts independent of that with which Parliament had invested them ? If so, then he was sure the House might at once abandon their character of being the guardians of the public purse. He came, therefore, to the conclusion, almost an absur dity, and one which lie approached with wonder, that he and his Majesty's Ministers read the Act of Parliament differently—that the words of that Act did not bear the slate import in the mind of the Noble Lord and the Hon. Gentlemen opposite, as they (lid in the mind of those who sat on his (Mr. Ilerries's) side of the House. If the words of the Act were loose, he might think this was an easy solution of the difficulty ; but they were so precise, so specific, so cautious, that he was at a loss to conceive how any correct understanding could feel the slightest doubt as to their tendency. They were clear in the treaty ; they were clear in the Act of Parliament. This was a question of peculiar importance at a time when the income of the country was in so low a state that it was inadequate to meet the expenditure. At the same time he was far from saying that they ought not to do every tilin g that was consistent with good faith. But here all the facts, which he hoped he had stated distinctly, proved that the national faith was in no way implicated. The ques. tion appeared to him to be one of such immense import ance, that he had carefully avoided all topics which related to differences of opinion on political subjects. He had abstained from treatiog it as a party question. Ile had resisted the opportunity which the subject afforded him of reof the rigid d ind p i r n i g ne t i h p o i s e e s whose whi con cht d h u e c y t lie formerlyimpugned, l,rofessedin all cases of a similar nature. He had done so, because he and thought tenp t e h r e ; qu ti e l s a t t io i n t sehhoouull:11 be t e d d i e s t e e u r s a s i e i d aed different with tone in a re ference to the authority of Parliament, and to the privi lege which the Constitution had conferred upon it us the disposal of the public money. At the same time it was solely impossible not to forget that the gentlemen on the other side, in their jealous controul of the public expen diture, ha I long been in the habit of charging the gen tlemen on his side of the House with great laxity on that point. He (lid not wish to rerive the discussions to which he alluded ; but he did wish to impress the House with the feeling that their decision on the pre sent occasion might be referred to at a future time, as a test of the proper disposal of the public money. In con clusion, he contended that all persons who wished to effect a saving to the country, and all those who desired to con tinue the salutary controul of the Parliament over the public expenditure, bhuuld support his motion. The Right Hon. Gentleman then moved three resolutions to the following effect :—" First, That, by the 25th of George 111. for carrying into effect the convention between his Britannic Majesty, the King of the Netherlands, and toe Emperor of the Russias, power was given to the Com missioners of the Treasury to give such sums as were re quired for interest and principal i n cer t a i n proportion. of the Russian loan in Holland, discharged in pursuance of the convention made by this Government from time to time, and at such times as they became payable, and so —ong as they are payable, conformably to the tenour of his lajesty's engagements, as specified in the convention.-- The second provided, that this payment was to cease and determine, should the possession of Belgium pass from or he severed from the sovereignty of the King of the Netherlands previous to the complete liquidation of the debt.—The third declared that the payment of any portion of this Russian loan in Holland after the possession of Belgium should have passed or been severed from the so vereignty of the King of the Netherlands, was contrary to the provisions of the 55th of Geo. 111., c. 113, and un warranted by any authority of Parliament." Lord ALTHORP admitted that the subjct was well worthy the best consideration of the House, and allowed that the Right Hon. Gentleman had argued the question very fairly—that was to sty in the main body of his speech —but he thought that in the conclusion he had in troduced some topics which ought not to be taken into the consideration of the House.—(Hear, hear.) The Right Hon. Gentleman had appealed to those who wished to save the public money to support him with their vote ; but the question was one which ought not to be regarded with any reference to public economy. If the public faith was pledged, there was, he was convinced, no gentleman in this House who would allow a consideration of economy to interfere with the due execution of other engagements entered into by the Crown and approved by both Houses of Parliament.—(Cheers.) Therefore he hoped that in considering the question, the saving of the public money would be entirely set aside. He trusted, in a word, that gentlemen would not deem themselves justified in voting for the Right Hon. Gentleman's motion, because there would be thereby a saying of the public money. He ad mitted that if the Government were not justified by the treaty and the Act of Parliament which embodied in it pay ing the money, they could not be justified at all.. (Hear.) But be contended that if by the treaty of the Crown was bound to make this payment, the Act which embodied the treaty undoubtedly must justify the payment; because the Act was passed to enable the Crown to fulfill its engagements by the treaty. But the Right Hon. Gentleman argued that the treaty did not compel the pay ment of the money. He would say, that if he had been satisfied on this point, as he would have been glad to have been, he should have acted upon it. And he did hope, that upon a full examination of the spirit and principle of the treaty he should have been so satisfied. But when he did consider that treaty, which imposed upon the Crown a share of the loan or else involved a breach of faith, he felt upon consideration that no idea of escaping from it ought to be entertained by the Government. It was no longer time to consider whether the engagements entered into in 1815 were prudent or otherwise, or whether it was or was not proper to conclude them—they had only to look to the treaty as it bound the country. In considering the treaty, they were tolook to the spirit and object which was in view. And he contended that it was perfectly clear the provision against disseverance clearly contemplated external violence and not internal commotion. The Right Han. Gentleman said the object of the treaty was to secure the union between Holland and Belgium by paying part of the loan to Russia —that it was made for the benefit of Russia; and the in tention was to snake it the interest of Russia to prevent the severance of Belgium from Holland. In short, that England was bound to pay a share of the loan in order to induce Russia to use her influence to give protection to the union of the two countries. Now, for himself, he thought that it would be dishonourable, after being parties to a breach of the condition—namely, the union between the two countries—to take advantage of this our own act to escape from our pecuniary engagements. Such conduct would be eminently dishonourable in a private person, and lie could not consider it otherwise in a nation. He felt that upon this occasion he was the responsible Minister, and he would now clearly state the course he had pursued, and he trusted that it would be fully established that his in tention was to act according to the law, as he believed he had done. He took the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown--(Laughter)—as to whether Government was compelled to make this payment.—(Hear, hear, and laughter.) He did not understand those cries of " Hear." He repeated he took the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown upon the subject, and it coincided with his own. And being convinced the country was compelled to pay the money, he gave directions to the Exchequer, is suing the Treasury order with all the due formalities, and the Exchequer authorized payment. It was fair to add, that the auditor (Lord Grenville) had written to the Treasury to say he felt some doubts on that subject, but he (Lord Althorp) stated to him the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown, when he (Lord G.) desired to know if his doubts were well founded, and on receiving this opinion he perfectly concurred in the pay ment. He admitted that upon ordinary occasions the Auditor of the Exchequer felt himself bound to obey the Treasury orders, but upon this occasion all forms were oh.. served, and everything was referred to the judgment o f the Auditor. If, then, Ministers had done wrong, they were responsible for it to the House and to the country. He did not wish to shrink from his share of the responsi bility. He had stated fairly and fully the course which the Treasury pursued. With respect to the Right Hon. Gentleman's two first resolutions, he would meet them by moving the previous question. To the third, which implied a direct censure on the Government, lie would propose a direct negative. Mr. POLLOCK, alter complimenting the Noble Lord upon his manliness in taking upon himself the responsibi lity of the payment, proceeded to contend, that the treaty referred simply to a separation between Holland and Bel gium, and made no sort of allusion whatsoever to the spe cies of the separation or the causes of that separation, against which they wished to provide. If the King of the Netherlands was not bound to pay, whyshould this country pay ?--(Loud cheers.) The Noble Lord said, the only cause of separation contemplated by the treaty was external force—where did he find that gloss or comment?— (Cheers.) If the objection of the disseverment was good for Holland, it was good for us ; and was there a man in the House who would dare to say it was not good for the King of Holland ?—(Loud cheers.) But then, said the Noble Lord, would they take advantage of their own act in promoting the separation to escape their pecuniary engage ment? But the tact was, the disseverance had taken place before. In November the Belgian Chamber declared Bel gium independent. Holland had also agreed to the sepa ration, when the Prince of Orange published a manifesto declaring Belgium free, and offering himself as its head ; but they declared it was already free, and therefore this coun try was no party to the severance. Again, if this country was a party of the severance, equally so was the Emperor of Russia.—(Cheers.) And if so, what right had he to demand this payment?—(Cheers.) He would ask too, what would be the consequence if England had not inter fered at all (as it did only to prevent the flames of war be ing kindled in a corner of Europe)? Surely they would not have been bound at all, unless, indeed, they were to accept the construction of the Noble Lord as to foreign vio lence, and take for granted that the meaning of the treaty was something which it did not express—(Cheers)—and was not to be found within it.—(Cheers.) He wondered where the Noble Lord made it out : and even if he could conclusively make it out, still the Noble Lord should have come down to the House to state the true circumstances which had arisen, and for which the treaty had not pro vided. Even supposing that the spirit of the treaty was contrary to the letter—taking for granted that " quod voluit non dixit," he should have demanded the sanction of the House for interpreting it according to this spirit, which was not expressed in any one word of the treaty. Mr. HORNE objected to considering the Act of Par liament otherwise than as connected with the treaty, or to any reference to the law of the land. The only law to be NLct colonies,o, ota : . rso a d v Lo e rfi av 'e tbtne d hrytgipttoi was the law of nations, or, in other words, public faith. %;:vooellfpl t T eelretrest h oai on e lt dy4hs ß i..eod i fegErslTl ed he:1:131:n:end: that eiwr G naeocata e fost n inLii t (nlolooeilrpfnti Lord Castlereagh olansisnsdciail possession should (eun,te c ri l(leodioyeanrdgbtaaehetinrol con sidereded andi p e d e r r all Iler b. i i , .. nnai e caer s elwt e A,liye e nit o pe(ri l se o ea u xmivtt i yhe e .r s ‘ile , a. excepting raand E s o se n ( l i y u i t b h o e . CapeA And d of Good considering Hope, t politically advantageous to retain these, England consented of a to grant a payment of money to Holland as a compensa ahsTsiosltoatuitile,d)dselteltt t t ar t ek li ew i n s e% s rve h i o tch t e d r :l tia,ei b n e tsru t e h ap e teyr s .z u m b , j iß e i c e : that supplementary treaty, England engaged to leave three millions of money at the absolute disposal of Holland, and no qualification was made as to the mode of payment. The obligation of payment was enforced, but the mode of pay ment was not stated. But in the treaty of 1815, it was ori gintended that Holland and Russia should be the parties ; for what said the preamble-- His Majesty the King of the Netherlands being desirous, upon the final re-union of the Belgic provinces with Holland, to render the Allied P ow ers who were parties to the treaty con cluded at Chaumont on the Ist of March, 1814, a suitable return for the heavy expence incurred by them in delivering the said territories from the power of the enemy; and the said Powers ' l aving, in consideration of arrangements made with each other, mutually agreed to waive their several pretensions under this head in favour of his Majesty the Emperor of All the Russias ; his said Majesty the King of the Netherlands has thereupon re solved to proceed immediately to execute with his Imperial Ma jesty a Convention to the following effect, to which his Britannic Majesty agrees to be a party in pursuance of engage ments taken by his said Majesty with the King of the Nether lands, in a Convention signed at London on the 13th day of August, 1814." The great Powers, it appeared, considered they had a de mand upon Holland for the sacrifices made by them dur ing the war; but Russia, through the house of Hope, was at the time indebted to Holland in the snot of fifty millions of florins. So strong was the obligation imposed on the contracting parties by this treaty, that even war was not to put an end to that obligation or suspend it. War, he repeated, which was the highest prerogative of sovereign power, was not to put an end to the treaty. They were bound to look at the interest of the three parties, and the treaty was so drawn, that even war between two of them was not to put an end to the obligation. The parties themselves then were most anxious to preserve the treaty. All parties deprecated the dissolution of the united Govern. ments. The argument was, that in respect to good faith, to the structure of treaties, to the meaning of the parties, the pecuniary obligation could not be put an end to. The words " God forbid " showed how much the parties had the matter at heart. It was said that the treaty was con firmed by an Act of Parliament, but what had the Em peror of Russia to do with our Acts of Parliament? He might refer us to an Ukase, or the King of Holland might refer us to an Act of the States-General, but neither of them would think an Act of Parliament binding. Another principle that had influenced his judgment was, that a party could not take advantage of an act of his own to throw off a pecuniary obligation. Now what had Eng land done? Had she not interfered ? She had assisted r family e t y o t a ,a c t c o on t tlis f h ae th t, e t s b e a p t ar n a a ti s o a n ia . miglthwa t s fooli interfere—that relations and various oth e r circumstances might induce her foolish to shut liut their to interfere and prevent the separation ; and what had prevented her interf erence b u t the interference of this country? England had been accessary to the separation, and it was not in good faith to say that a separation which had been in a manner caused by herself, should have been taken advantage of by her to avoid a pecuniary payment. In his deliberate opinion, he saw no reason whatever to exonerate this country from the obligations of the treaty, and he had heard no argument, and he knew of none, which could be urged, to justify the withholding of the payments.—(Cheers.) Mr. BARING and Sir EDWARD SUGDEN rose together, but the call of the House was for the latter, who went on to say that the finances of the country were in such a state at present as to make this an important ques tion, and he hoped to obtain a patient hearing. The mere sum in question was of considerable importance in the present state of the finances of this country.—(Hear, hear.) Formerly, indeed, we threw away millions and tens of millions—(Cheers from both sides of the,House)— as if we were spendthrifts, to whom money was of less value than to other nations; but now the time was come when it was the duty of that House, and if it were not its disposition, the House would be forced, by the country, to pay the utmost attention to public economy. He agreed with the Noble Lord, whether the sum were five millions or fifty millions, if the honour and credit of the country were involved in it, if it were necessary to make the payment, undoubtedly it ought to be made, though it were infinitely more inconvenient than the payment was likely to be. He should give up the question if the country was under the engagement to pay; but that was the question which was open to discussion.— With great deference to the Learned Gentleman, he must say, that it added very little to the distinct, plain, and honest statement, which, with his usual candour, the Noble Lord had made on the ques tion. He would make no apology for following his Majesty's Solicitor-General, as he did not think this a law question. It was a question that every man, who understood plain English, could decide; and he should think it a question not to be referred to the King's Bench, but rather to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. But as the Government had rested its decision ' on the arguments of the Learned Gentleman, he should consider a few of them. The question before the House was, the engagement not being denied, divided into two parts. First, were we bound to countenance the payment? If we were not legally and strictly bound, were we not bound by equity and honour in the same manner as an honest man was bound to pay the debts he contracted ? The second question was, whether the Ministers had authority under the law to make the payment? and if they ha,' not authority, and the payment were due in equity, whether they should not have come down to Parliament to ask for authority ? These were two distinct questions, whether the Government had authority, and whether the obligation had ceased ? If he saw in the representations which had been made any equitable claims on the part of Russia, be should be wrong to say that those claims ought not to be paid; but Russia must be told, before they could be paid, that the Government must have the sanction of an Act of Parliament. The Hon. and Learned Solicitor General said that the Russian Govern ment knew of Ukases, but that it knew nothing of Acts of Parliament.—(Cheers.) But in that very treaty the King of the Netherlands prothised to pay ; while the King of Great Britain does not promise to pay--he only promises to propose the ►natter to Parliament.—(Cheers,)' If the country were bound, it was not by an Ukase, but by Act of Parliament ; and the treaty of 1811 did not pretend that the obligations could be carried into effect without the authority of Parliament. Russia knew then th at something must be proposed to Parliament and sanc tioned by it. He complained that Ministers had lost them. selves, and should have applied to Parliament, and by not doing so, they acted more like the servants of a despotic So. ve.eign than the Minister of the King of England. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman said that the treaty referred to former treaties, by which we were to keep certain colonies. That was true, and it was provided, in conse quence of our retaining those colonies, that we should give one million to Sweden, two millions to Holland for the fortresses of the Netherlands, and a sum to be after wards regulated, which the lion. and Learned Gen tleman said was three millions : that he must deny. The sum was not to exceed three millions, but it was not intended to amount to so much, and if it were, how came the Emperor of Russia to content himself with less than that sum ? If Ministers had come down and said that the King of Holland had lost his Belgian pro vinces, as well as the Cape of Good Hope, and, come quently had received no reciprocal advantages for the lass of his colonies, and had, therefore, proposed to continue the payment, he would have understood that argument. But it was Holland which had lost her colonies. The King of Holland had loss his Belgic provinces, and the Ministers proposed to continue the payments, not to Hol land, but Russia. If it were a debt of money he should think nothing more sacred than such an obligation, but the words of the treaty were so precise and clear that it was impossible to misunderstand them. The treaty said that the payments " should cease and determine should the possession and sovereignty, which God forbid, of the Belgic provinces at any time pass or be severed from the dominions of his Majesty the King of the Netherlands." The only question was, had the separation taken place ? As a lawyer, he was surprised that the Hon. and Learned Gentleman should have given such an opinion. That the Noble Lord should say that circumstances had entered into the consideration, he was not sur prised; but that the law officers of the Crown should have given an opinion on politica and law did sur prise him. They might be sure that the question would be put by their constituents, and at the foot of the hustings—why should they vote five millions to the Emperor of Russia? and he was sure that if sonic other interpretation could not be put upon this treaty than that of the plain meaning of the English language, gentlemen would not be able to satisfy their constituents. They could only answer that his Majesty's Law Officers understood the English language differently from the vul gar, and they had decided that this treaty imposed the ob ligation to pay.—(Cheers.) Common sense would not, however, so interpret it. The Noble Lord had referred to circumstances, and if circumstances justified the payments that was a ground fur a new Act of Parliament; but he denied that circumstances did bind the country to make the payments. If it was a question of justice, to be settled by a reference only to Holland and Russia, he might look upon it in a different light ; but he denied that it was such a question. The words were explicit. " if the Bel gic provinces shall pass or be severed ?" Why, diplomacy could not use more binding words. If any other condition were meant, would it not be expressed ? lie was sure that the diplomatists knew language well enough to have expressed any other condition, if they had meant to im pose any other. But there was no other condition ex pressed or implied than that of the separation, on which the payments depended.—(Hear, hear, hear.) The flonourahe and Learned Gentleman had dwelt much on the circumstance, that even war was not to sus pend the payments. That no doubt, proved the great caution of the parties ; but the words " God forbid" were words commonly used, and implied nothing particular. He could not suppose that the possibility of the separation of the United Provinces, from other causes than war, had not been contemplated i❑ 1814 and 1815. When the two nations were united, they were known to be hostile. It was felt to be a haz irdous experiment, at which men trembled. It was not possible to suppose that the diplo matists only contemplated a separation by war or external force. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman laid it down that we had caused the separation ; but if we had done so, and not the Belgians, that was a still stronger ground d sho e uld quite efi od a sr n ub ) ire , me h rp t: telh l iai lf evti d :nal b before rfiso:trin:eoi stronger le a i ) ( i l ags , ytreio t ir s u,s ' e h ,nn y , if t .t h rii et. than this Koctuiiiiiiniedsge be payments.—(Cheers.) uf)dhili4Hituoi:ol distinctls y brought aid brought home to them, which he was sure it could not, that they had caused the separation by disturbance and agitation. That argument might do for Lincoln's Inn, but it would never do for Downing-street. It would be a great political crime, and would deserve i►npeachnment. If we had any interest on the Continent, we bad a strong in terest in the mouths of the Scheldt and the Tagus.— (Lund cheers.) In those parts we had a great national interest. If we had placed Belgium under the power of France, and that it was as dependent on the power o France as much as if it were under its Government, it was doing a great wrong. Ile admitted that the Belgic question was of serious difficulty, and that the result was riot satisfactory. But he was not going to argue that, or call on the Belgic question ; but lie was surprised to hear the Hon. and Learned Gentleman say that we had been parties to turning out the King of the Netherlands. If the Hon. and Learned Gentlema❑ would turn to the prior trsiaty, he would see the grounds on which the condition was entered into. He would see that Russia stated that it was bound to its creditors, which was a very good rea son for promising to pay ; but the Hon. and Learned Gentleman wanted to impose on us the same conditions ai Russia was subject to in relation to her creditors. Cer tainly, those creditors were not to suffer by any war ire which Russia should engage; and such a condition was made invariably when a State borrowed money. The question seemed to him so clear, that as respected himself —and he should be ashamed of himself, if on a question of that nature, he could suffer any political feelings to bias his judgment, though be had ❑o political feelings toward the Noble Lord opposite—but he must say, that neither good faith towards Russia, nor any other reason that he had heard, justified the payment. If the treaty was at in end the Government should renew it, and before continuing the payments it was urgent that it should have a new Act of Parliament. Unless some better reasons were given than he had yet heard, he should he of opinion that an Act was necessary. If the House did not insist on that, it would abandon all controul over the Government, and enable the Government of the pre .ent day to do what the Government of 1814 was not ,llowed to do without the consent of Parliament. He was surprised that the Hon. Gentlemen eq the other side, who had generally shown themselves so tender in preserving or that House the controul over the public money, and 'Oro insisted so much on responsibility, should have taken the view they had of the treaty. He hoped that gentle men would use their own understandings. As yet no ar guments bad been offered to justify the conduct of Mi nisters. With respect to the resolutions of the Right Hon. Gentleman, to them he made no objection. if any other mode less censurable for the Government could be adopted,—if any more satisfactory method could be found of settling the question, he should have no objection. But if the Government persisted in its course--if it would oot come to Parliament, there was no other way but to vote for the resolutions. Hon. Gentlemen should re member that if they had this year—if they now gave the sanction of Parliament to the payment, it would not be possible, without injustice, to withhold the payment next year. lion. Gentlemen ought also to remember that they would be called to account by their constituents in Octob,•r. He thought the House was bound to pass the resolutions, slid rote against the Government.—(Cheers.) Mr. S. RICE complained of the allusions made by the Hon. Member to the hustings. The Hon. Member said, chat the question ought to be decided only by justice; and w•hy then use arguments that appealed to the passions, and were calculated to rouse other feelings than a respect for justice. The Hon. Member had argued the question as a ,artisan, and with a view to entrap a few votes.—(No, no, and cheers.) He would, however, refer to the facts of the case as far as the Treasury were concerned. It was n the month of June that the attention of the Treasury was first called to the subject ; and before it made any payments, it had taken the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown, arid before actually paying the money, it had admitted the drafts on the Exchequer to the auditors, anti ',tained their signature. It was in October that the first doubts had arisen in the Exchequer as to the legality of the payments, and whether they ought to be made. A letter was subsequently addressed by the auditors of the Exchequer to the Treasury, requesting two things. The first was, that the Treasury should furnish the auditors with the opinions of the L►w Officers of the Crown ; and the second was, that the Treasury should give the audi tors special instructions for their guidance. The Trea sury did send to the auditors the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown. He might be asked what case had been submitted to the Law Officers of the Crown; for he knew that it was customary in that House to say, that their opinion would depend on the c ise submitted to them. Perhaps no better case could have been submitted to them than that drawn up by the auditors themselves. The day after the letter was re ceived, a case was submitted to the Law Officers of the Crown. The letter, he should observe, was dated Ja. nuary 11, and some delay was experienced in getting an opinion on the case, owing to the absence of the Law Offi aers of the Crown on the Special Comtnissio❑ at Bristol. It was not till the 24th of January that the opinion was given, and that opinion was immediately forwarded to Lord Grenville. With reference to the request for special instructions, the Treasury (we understood the Right Hon. Gentleman to say) did not interfere, or give any other than the ordinary instructions to the auditors. The first letter to which he had referred was dated January 3, and which he would read. The Right lion. Member accord ingly read the following lettera— . _ " Auditor's-office, Exchequer-office, Jan. 3, Ifo2. " My Lords,—Some doubts having occurred in this office re specting the legality of any issue which might henceforth be di rected by your Lordships to be made (ruin the Exchequer for any fresh payment of dividends on the Russian loan, by virtue of the Act 55 Geo. 111. c. 115. I think it my duty herewith to enclose a statement which has been there prepared of the grounds of those doubts, such as they have been laid before me, and 1 humbly request that your Lordships will be pleased to ob tain from the opinion of his Majesty's law servants whether, under the circumstances there stated, I shall legally be justified in executing, as far as depends upon me, any such direction ; :111(1 that your Lordships will also be pleased, in a case so highly important to the public faith and to the interests of the State, to give me such special directions as you may judge fit for my con duct in any part of this business, in which it shall really appear tint any legal direction rests with have the honour, &e. GRENYILLE." The Treasury minute which was made on the receipt o f this letter, was, he thought, immaterial. It merely expressed the steps which were taken in consequence. The Right Hon. Gentleman also, on being called on, quoted a -hart passage of the statement which accompanied the letter. It was material that the House should know that the case submitted to the Law Officers of the Crown was that sent by Lord Grenville. Surely that was plain dealing in the Treasury, and it was doing its duty openly both to the auditors and the public. The Government had ❑ot made out a case to get an opinion suitable to its own views—it had submitted the case to the Law Officers, which Lord Grenville had sent to the Treasury accompanied by the tr,-aty.—[An Hon. Member asked for the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown.] Did the Hon. and Learned Gentleman ask for that ? Sir CHARLES WETHERELL interrupted the Right Hon. Gentleman, and denied that he had asked for the opinion. Mr. SPRING RICE was glad to hear that, for he knew from the often-repeated opinions of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman that he should be supported by his , iuthority in refusing that opinion to the Hon. Member who asked for it. The House did not require to have the opinions of the Law Officers of the Crown, for his Hon. ,ind Learned Friends were there, the living witnesses to the opinion they had given to Government.—(Hear.) It was only on that morning that he had receieed the let ter from Lord Grenville, which he would then read to the House. The Right Hon. Gentleman reed the follow ing letter :... " Exchequer, Jan. 25, 15,12. " Sir,-1 have had the honour to receive your letter of yester day's date with its inclosure, and I request that you will lay be fore the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury my respectful thanks for the information which they have been pleased to supply to me on this important matter. " The statute, 55 Geo. 111., c. 115, is the document on which the question must turn, as far as relates to my conduct. That is the authority to which I am bound to conform myself. But I am fully satisfied that its true construction depends (as his Majesty's law servants have stated) on that of the treaty which it recites, and for the execution of which it was made. N'N'here, then, must that construction be determined ! The officers of the Exchr, quer cannot interpret the King's engagement with his Allies, Or pronounce how they are affected by subsequent events and nego ciations. We have here no knowledge of the facts, no cogni zance of the principles whicb govern such decisions. All that is officially known to me on the subject is, that the legal and political authorities to whom the consideration of these high matters properly belongs, have advised his Majesty to consider himself as still bound, in maintenance of the national good faith, to continue their payments ; and as far as my humble judgment extends, I trust 1 cannot err in determining, under these cir cumstances, to discharge my own more limited duty, in obeying, as before, their Lordships' orders in this behalf. (Signed) . 1 GRENVILLE. " Thomas Spring Rice." (The reading of this letter was frequently interrupted by the sheers of the Opposition.) There were papers whirls he could refer to that would prove that the Treasury had frequently interfered with the exercise of the duties of the Auditor, although the Auditor was hound, in the exercise •.f his duty, and the express words of the Act of Parlia ment. When Lord Grenville came at first to the consi deration of the question, he felt that be was bound to look purely at the law as he found it laid down in the Act of Parliament; but he afterwards saw the necessity and the propriety of looking at the Act in connection with the -pirit and meaning of that treaty with which it was con nected, and which it was intended to carry into effect. ft such proved to be the opinion of the impartial illembers of that House, and he had nu doubt it would be co, then !ie would say they were bound to vote with the Govern ,nent in opposition to the Right Hon. Gentleman's reso- 'titian. Mr. HUME hoped the House would bear with him for a few moments, while he attempted to justify to his cuu-