The Sun. — London, England, 1847-02-09 00:00:00

THE SUN THE FRENCH CHAMBERS. CHAMBER OF DEPUTIES, FEB. 4. The President took the Chair at two o'clock. The order of the day was the adjourned discussion on the Address. The President observed, that as paragraphs 3,4, 5,6, had been disposed of, paragraph 2 , which had been reserve d, would now come under discussion. M. Thiers ascended the tribune arnlidestchmaamrkho. ns generalto attention, and spoke as follows . : t —t must have perceived the s er or dei pay attention to my extreme repugnance wh a i c c t h i l s ha i ve . on—though not because I for some days past exhi bited to interfere in this discussion —though can find in the subject which occupies us any cause for em pit be possible for us, the barrassment. Member e Opposition, who are not the authors of the present Alll i tnt to be embarrassed in expressing our senti ments? That situation, as you are aware, is this—that France, by the deplorable event of Cracow, is separated from the conti nen t a l powers, and by the Spanish marriages is em broiledwith England ; so that the isolation which a few years back we recommended to her as a momentary policy— as a dignified means of re-entering the European concert, and which the Government then rejected as altogether objec tionable, is new forcedly the policy of France.—( Hear, hear.) Nor is that all ; at home a bad harvest, which is the fault of no one, coinciding with a financial position, which is the fault of some one, has rendered the internal situation of the country as disastrous as the fureign one. All this the Opposition certainly has not caused, and therefore could not feel embarrassment in alluding to it in presence of the persons whose duty it was to act. The object of my hesitation was therefore different—it was an apprehension of aggravating by my words the inconveniences of the situ ation. But in a representative government it is impossible to pass over in silence events so important as those which now occupy our attention. I come forward, therefore, to speak, not that I pretend to succeed the Hon. Minister of Foreign Affiirs—long since I have given up all ideas of that kind—not because I imagine that I can express myself better than has been already done by gentlemen noted for their talents and reasoning powers, but because I have my own views to expose and defend. It is my custom to think aloud—to speak freely; and since these events have occurred I have not concealed my opinion —it has been published. If, therefore, at the grand moment of discussion I were to hesi tate, I should expose myself to the charge of weakness. I have beheld in what was going on a most lamentable con fusion of ideas, and I cannot disguise from the Chamber of Deputies my sentiments on the subject.—(Hear, hear.) It is now 17 years since I have taken part in public affairs, and if during that period I have learned in some degree the art of stating matters difficult to be exposed I shall employ it to-day while infusing into my language all the reserve that is deeirable. If you do me the honour to listen to me patiently to the end, I shall testify to you my gratitude both by the moderation and, pardon me fur adding, the utility of my words. I now proceed to ex amine the whole situation, characterised principally by the two facts of the Spanish marriages and the incorporation of Cracow. As to the former, my opinion is that the union of Queen Isabella with the Infante Dun Francisco de Anis is good; but that the marriage of the Duke de Montpensier with the Infanta Donna Luisa was attended in several re spects with grave inconveniences—that it was premature— and that it will complicate the situation. It will be said, and lan prepared for the assertion, that this opinion serves the pretensions of a foreign Government. I bring to this place the most perfect impartiality, and I have always thought that the interests of Spain were closely united to ours; and it was with that idea that I was one of the authors of the I treaty of quadruple alliance. That treaty had two objects— the first, to prevent a counter-revolution in Spain ; the second, to establish good relations with England on a ques tion of a most difficult character, and at the same time most likely to create differences between the two countries. The first object was but imperfectly attained—Spain was only partially saved from a counter-revolution. In the second we were more fortunate, as the two nations entered on a struggle for influence in Spain, France patronising the Moderado party, and England the Progressiat. That was an unfortu nate policy ; fur, in adopting it, France and England ex posed themselves to protect only the intrigants of both parties. It was on the marriage question, in particular, that this struggle of influence was certain to manifest itself. Permit me to state to you the object pursued severally with respect to this matter, by France. by Spain, and by England. France laid down the principle that the choice of the Queen could only fall on one of the descendants of the House of Bourbon. I will not repeat what has been said on that point; I will only make one observation, and that le, that formerly such an exigency might have been understood ; but since one part of the house of Bourbon is engaged in the principles of the revolution, the other in those of the counter revolution, how is it possible to lay down so absolute a prin ciple ? I can understand that I shall be asked—" What would you hare said if the pretensions of the Prince of Saxe-Coburg had triumphed ?' I should, it is true, have blamed you. But permit ma to ask what you yourselves would have said, if, conquered by events, you had not been able to prevent the Prince of Coburg from obtaining the hand of Queen Isabella ? Would you not have said—" The Prince of Coburg is closely allied to the Royal g(FamilY of France; the Prince of C o b urg adopts the principles of the revolution; the head o f t h e house of C constitutional throne at th e very frontier of Francehoccupies ?" vote have done well to exc l u d e the Prince of Coburg;oot France desired a prince of the house of Bourbon , g again d. And what did Spain desire. Spain in this cars as e sented by Queen Christina, by th e sovereign who hadlo)rn7s governed the country, and who, moreover, is the mogur of the Queen, and, as such, had rights worthy of respect. What then did Queen Christina desi re ? Sh e, above all, wan opposed to her nephews. This I declared last year, but the assertion was treated as erroneous ; the documents have since shown that I was right. She had first thought of ob taining for the Queen the hand of the Duke de Illontpensier. When it was preyed to her by French and European reasons that such a union was impossible, she turned towards the Prince of Coburg, and demanded him from everbody in the warmest manner. It was only when Queen Christina, the real head of the Moderado party in Spain, had learned, to use Lard Cowley's expression, that a union with a p r i nce of Coburg would fling you into consternation, that she gave up the idea. In order to obtain that prince, two consents —that of the house of Coburg, and that of France —were necessary. The house of Coburg saw in such an alliance fresh ties uniting it with the two countries with AS lila it was connected; it saw in it the completion of its great ness. Nevertheless, not to give offence to either of the two nations, it refused ; or, what amounts to the same thing, made its consent dependent on that of France. As td England, she would assuredly have desired that a prince of the house of Coburg might be placed on the throne of Spain. But, considering the unheard-of vivacity with which France repulsed the candidateship if the Prince of Coburg, Queen Christina understood that, if France and Spain became embroiled, the advantages of the marriage of the Queen with the Prince of Coburg were not to be placed in comparison with the dangers which it might produce to the tranquillity of Europe. She, therefore, renounced the idea, and sought another union for her daughter. It was then that she entered on the policy which I blame, and turned her attention to a Prince who had placed himself at the head of the Progressist party. Don Enrique was, however, soon abandoned. You did not consider him a very dan gerous candidate, since you did not think of opposing him. But I agree with you that above all things it was important to remove the Prince of Coburg. This, then, was what was desired by the three Powers—France wished a Bourbon ; Spain, represented by Queen Christina, for a Coburg ; and England the same, but she afterwards gave up that desire, and to indemnify herself demanded Don Enrique. The Minister of Foreign Affairs has said that a kind of under standing was come to at Eu on the subject of the Spanish marriages. I shall not discuss the object of that arrange ment, but I shall state on what points it bears, According to it, France renounced the hand of the Queen for the Duke de Montpensier, and declared furthermore that she should not put forward any pretensions for the hand of the Infanta, except in the event of the Queen giving heirs to the Crown. As the price of these concessions, the French Cabinet de manded that England should not support the marriage of Queen Isabella with the Prince of Coburg, The llon. Minister pretends that he observed those engagements faithfully as long as those agreed to by England remained inviolate. Well, then, I have read all the documents, and I sincerely declare that they absolutely contradict the double allegation of the lion. Minister. They appear to me to prove that the conduct both of the Whigs and Tories was absolutely the same with regard to the Spanish marriages, and that if there were any difference it was that the Whigs showed them selves more opposed than the Tories to the marriage of the Queen to the I'rince of C o b urg. —(M urmurs.) I shall not read the documents to the Chamber, but shall merely give a brief analysis of them. If anything I say is contested as being inexact or incomplete, I can reply by reading the part in question. In the first place, in the dispatches of Lord Aber deen to Lord Cowley, was there anything in contradiction to this—that the question of the Spanish marriages is a purely Spanish ose, with which no one had any right to in terfere? and Lord Cowley never went beyond the assurance that a candidate of the house of Bourbon would meet with no opposition on the part of England. You see that the Tories confined themselves to simple inaction. On a commu nication from the Spanish Cabinet, the Tories replied that that Government was free to choose the candidate which ap peared to it the most suitable, and that if it selected one not belonging to the house of Bourbon, it might, in order to maintain the independence of its choice, reckun on the warm sympathies of England. Lord Aberdeen and the Tories ap pear to me in this instance to have departed from that in difference attributed to them by the Minister of Foreign Affairs. The Whigs afterwards came into power. I shall, at a later period, explain myself more at length on what is im properly called the English. alliance, but for the moment I shall confine myself to the Spanish question. The Whigs succeeded to power; they were still beneath the weight of the reminiscences of 1840 ; they were full of regrets; they felt that they had not followed a sound line of policy, and that that fault had nearly prevented their return to power. In the state of the world, at that time, it was a fortunate , circumstance that the Whigs came into power in that frame of mind. For my own part, I think it would have been easy for the French Government to have come to an understanding with the Whigs, if the former had not been influenced by a feeling of distrust. What w as the conduct o f t he 11, lug Go vernment? It declared in its turn to Spain that she was perfectly free to act; and only addressed to her some repre sentations on certain unwise and violent measures of its Go vernment, which every one blamed. It is tru e t hat the I , rnc e of Coburg is pointed out in the dispatch of the 19th of July i in the list of can didates. But this was not doing more than what had been done by Lord Aberdeen when he assured Spain of the warm sympathies of England in the event of her choice falling on a prince not of the house of Bourbon. I admit that the dispatch of the 19th .July was in some me asure equivocal - but immediately after a discussion arose betwee n the English and French Cabinets. France spokl knotty of the engagements ls a atEu ; iordp almerston replied candidate ; but if gof them ; E ng l an d h as no par ti cu l ar Don Enrique." vz wish to know our opinion, we prefer wish for Don Enrique, Unite of France was—" If you " f adispat c h es d ated 29th iitne With us at M adrid to promote Lid candidateship. and the 3d, Itith. and July, with these words---" I told NI A ugust, and these all begin contents of the dispatches Jarnac ;" so that the could he no secret to us. All of trlessed to Mr. Bulwer We accept a Prince of the house of Bou r don atc hes said— that Prince to be Dun letirirre," On thelly and we desire Palmerston wrote to Mr. Oilwer, "W e eho o o f i August Lord Queen to choose the Prince of Saxe-Coburg, jiesire the should be agreeable to Spain, and should not embroil choice F ranc e ; but in the present state of things Don F.nri " with preferable candidate." On the 22d of August, Lord 111:1misera ston addressed a dispatch to Mr. Bulwer, which was commu nicated to M. Guizot by Lord Normanby on the 25th. Its the ei • was that " England adheredto can heateship substance there were three • I' 'rice of the house of Bourbon; Princes of a ri e Montemolin, whom it wa s im of that hoese—the Cou nt d possible to choose, as lie did not recognise the rights of the Queen Don Francisco de ASSiS, whom England could not ; whorn she recommended." recommend ; and Don `Enrique, lie cou What was the reply of M. Guizot? That " gave an exclusive ld pre not - adhere to the condition which ference to one of the two brothers, butt that he had no ob hi ) jection to make to the candidates 1_ of Don Enrique; that he willingly agreed to the policy of England, on condition that the two brothers might be equally put forward." Such are the terms on which matters stood on the 28th of August. t saw • read the What has since taken place? I shall no at this dis patches and consult the official facts. At Ma drid , Coburg would period, is was known that the Duke of Saxe- not give one of his children out of regard to France, and that England desired Don Enrique, chief of the Progressists. It was in this situation of things that M. Bresson came on the scene. It has been said in England that he has acted most shamefully, and in France that he has done marvels. Gen tlemen, I know Count de Bresson, and I can say that he is incapable of doing unworthy things; but he had no need on this occasion to achieve wonders. Me addressed himself to M. Isturitz, one of the leaders of the Moderado party, and showed him that France and England were agreed to favour the candidateship of the chief of the Progressists. Queen ' Christina was aware both of the refusal of the Prince of Co burg and of the agreement of the two countries to make the Queen marry one of her cousins. Her resolution was taken. In the night of August 28th a Council was called, and it was decided to marry the young Queen with Don Francisco, chief of the hloderado party. This first result was excellent for us. We had thrown out the Prince of Saxe-Coburg, and Don Enrique, chief of the Progressists. So far all was well ; for though I blame the policy which identifies itself with one of the parties that divide a foreign country, I believe that when such a policy is once entered on it must be followed up until the triumph of the party is assured. Up to this point, there fore, all was is our favour, but there the success ought to have stopped. I am, above all, a partizan of the policy of my country, but I have no need to remind you that we should remain within certain limits. There remained to effect the second marriage, that of the Infanta Donna Luisa with the Duke de Alontpensier. The Moderados desired it in order to exclude 1)on Enrique, chief of the Progressists, from the second rank, as they had excluded him from the first. In this desire we coincided. We all desire, as sincere partizans of the dynasty, whatever may contribute to the happiness and distinction of the Royal Family.—(llear.) The Infanta Donna Luisa joins to qualities that every one knows, the most illustrious birth. You were, then, right to desire this marriage. We should have desired it ourselves; but on the condition that it involved nothing contrary to the policy of France ; but in the circumstances in which you concluded it, it did not possess that character. It has been said that the simultaneousness of the two marriages was an essential condition of the first. I have searched everywhere for the proof of this condition, and I have not been able to find it ; but I have found direct proofs of the contrary.—(Hear.) If Queen Christina, in presenting to you the two marriages at the same time, had said (excuse the frivolity of the ex pression), " You must either take it or leave it," I should have understood that we ought perhaps to have ceded. But nothing of the kind took place. Everything attests that the two marriages were determined on the condition that they should be celebrated at the same time, if possible, or, to use the expression of the contract, autant que faire se pourrtit. The official facts completely deny the :contrary pretension. It was in the night of the 28th of August that the first mar riage was settled, and in the morning of the 29th it was offi cially announced in the Madrid Gazette in these words:— " I, Isabella 11., announce to Spain, that I have chosen for my husband my cousin, the Prince Don Francisco d'Assis, and I convoke the Cortes for September 14." Thus, on the morning of the 29th of August the first marriage was a fait accompli. It was your duty to use all your efforts to cause the second marriage to be postponed. It is said that the Cortes could have annulled the first marriage. But what were the Cortes at that time? Out of 180 members there were 100 Moderados, and was it to be expected that that majority would have declared against the marriage which placed their chief on the throne? As to the Profi - ' ressists, they were 20, and it was natural that they should refrain from pressing the conclusion of a marriage which excluded ' their chief from the second rank, as from the first. It is said—" But if there was nothing to fear from the Cortes, out-of-door movements and insurrections were to be dreaded." It is forgotten, then, that what excited the reclamations of the press, and the excesses that had to be suppressed by arbitrary means, was the person selected for the second marriage. _ _ M. de Lavergne rose, and said a few words which we found it impossible to catch, from the uproar caused by M. Thiers being interrupted. M. Thiers—You do wrong to interrupt me ; this cause has no need of such help as yours; it is defended by the Minister of Foreign Affairs.—( Laughter.) The first marriage, then, was definitively settled by the proclamation of the Queen of ' Spain, dated 29th August. The second marriage was to be concluded so far as was possible. Those were the expressions of the Hon. Minister in the Chamber of Peers. What was the situation ? The French Ministry was in presence of the English Cabinet and the engagements of Eu. The Hon. Minister pretends that he felt himself at liberty by the attempts of the Whigs in favour of the Prince of Coburg. But if that were the case be ought to have said to them— "We are free." But the common action was accepted up to August 28. On September 1 the Hon. Minister re ceived a visit from the English Ambassador, and on that gentleman inquiring it the marriages were to be celebrated at the same time, he was told by M. Guisot—" No, not at the same time."—(Laughter.) Ile, in fact, left in the Am bassador's mind a firm conviction on the subject. The Hon. Minister declares that the order to celebrate the two marriages at the same time was only dispatched on September the 11th. I may remark, en passent, that this is a proof that you were still free to act on September 2d, on which (ley the English Ambassador communicated to you a dispatch. At last came September 4th, and the DE nieter, who on the previous evening was in accord with the English Cabinet, gives the order to celebrate the marriages at the same time. You were, you say, conquered by circum stances. Well, on the sth f September you should have sent for the Ambassador, and told him the truth ; but, in stead of that, time is allowed to run on, and the press of Europe is permitted to learn the facts, and comment on them; and then, when on the 25th the English Ambassador comes to remonstrate, the Hon. Minister replies, " It is too late." The Minister and the Ambassador then separate to remain in the relations with which the Chamber is acquainted. Permit me, gentlemen. a simple reminiscence. In 1840, when I sus tained a policy that for my part I found too bold, but which I believed good for the honour of the country, a vic tim was required to expiate the backward step that was made in the path in which I was engaged with others. Then it was said—not, it is true, in this tribune, but is another— that I had deceived England. Ala! gentlemen, I have no desire to recriminate, and I will Rot do so; but I can say that assuredly 1 did nothing like what has been done in this affair. of the Soamish marriages.—(Sensation.) In my convictions the Government did well in bringing about a first and second displeasure for England—in foiling her iu any desire she might have had ter the Prince of Coburg, and in her pre• ference of Dun Enrique ; but as to the third, which consisted in celebrating the two marriages immediately, it ceded to a movement of inconsiderate haste. I rejoice at the joss; of the Royal Family when not contrary to the interests of the country; but in this case the duty of the Ministers clearly was to arrest the accomplishment of that measure. I firmly believe, that in effecting the two marriages together the Government has done a thing either null or dangerous; anti when I shall have proved that to you, I s hall examine if it l has not done wrong to compromise our relations with Eng land, and if the moment was well chosen to compromise them. (Here the sitting was suspended for some minutes, after which the Hon. Gentleman resumed his speech as fol lows):—I shall now examine in a threefold point of view our relations on this question with Spain, with England, and with the Continent. As to Spain, your policy is either null or dangerous. You continually talk of the policy of Louis XIV. Permit me to say a few words on that point. What, to my thinking, our history clearly shows, is, that it is the first interest of France to maintain herself constantly in such relations with Spain as to prevent the latter from being our enemy. You know that if whilst we fight on the Rhine we have Spain as an enemy, we are as an army taken between two fires. We had an example of that in 1814, when Napoleon fought in Champagne with a handful of men, but when the armies of Marshals Soult and Suchet were fighting in the south. If the troops of these generals had been united to his, the face of things would probably have been changed. We must then have a friend in Spain : and, in consequence, our policy towards her must be a friendly one. That is the first point. The second is this: When the Spanish character is examined, there may be remarked in it a great aversion to foreign influence. That feeling i, derived from the geographical position of Spain and from her his torical traditions. The Spaniards have always been subjected to foreign dynasties—those of Germany and France. If we wish to find a political friend in Spain, we must not pretend to exercise any influence over the Spanish Government. The Spaniards, though tractable towards their rulers, are un governable with regard to foreigners. There must not be permitted to exist at Madrid a policy necessarily inimical to us; but beyond that no influence must be attempted in Spain. The worst meane, therefore, of exercising any influence in Spain is by marriages. The political results of the policy of Louis XI V.. towards Spain were compromised by his having founded them on his relationship, and it was precisely that re lationship, uniting as it did the two crowns, which after the death of that monarch threw Spain into the German alliance. It was not until a later period that that Power, enlightened by its true interests, attached itself more closely to us. It again estranged itself to once more and definitively attach itself to us in those latter days under the influence of the re volution. What ought to have been our conduct after the Revolution of July? I declare loudly that our part is pointed out to us by a common revolution. There was be tween France and Spain an evident community of interests; each of the two nations has its Pretender; the Duke de Bordeaux in one, and the Count de Montemolin in the other. In the midst, also, of the desperate struggle between the Moderados and the Progressists, when the treaty of the 15th of July was signed and war was spoken of, the most violent of the Spanish journals changed their language in the most apparent manner. When France was seen to be in danger, and coalesced Europe threatened the French revolu tion, in all parts of Spain public opinion espoused the cause of France. It was not only in Spain that this took place; it was also in Belgium. The public mind in those countries comprehended that a common revolution created common interest, and imposed common duties. Such was the way in which France ought to exercise her influence over other nations. I do not wish to recriminate, but I may say that when Spain demanded your real support you refused it ; you would not do anything whatever to prevent counter-revolution. What, then, do you hope for from the Spanish marriages ? It is not to-day, for the first time that I say the positio n o f a French Prince in Spain is a difficult one, and I will give you a proof of it. Queen Christina is not French ; and yet go o into Spain, and from Bayonne to Cadiz you will be told that the greatest difficulty experienced by her is that she is regarded as the agent of French policy. What, therefore, would the Duke de Montpensier do in Spain? his supe riority even would be an obstacle; he would often be a living impediment for his brother-in law and for the Queen. You thought, like me, since you recalled the Duke, and de clared that you had only given France an additional Prin cess. You have, therefore, done an act which is, politically speaking, null. But you will perhaps say, why then attack it? It is because von have not only done an act which is null, but because it is dangerous. Let us suppose, then, that the Queen of Spain has no children—and God grant she i n ll o y t -o a u dni no it t m e rn ( e l e s d a u n g o li t t erre)m—a remark h m a a v 3 e ' h created' av e s° ha h t er d e ifli t c h ' a d t ti l es d w o of Utrecht—(Sen sation)—but it is not the lees true that , in the hypothesis any of the objectionArawn from:the treaty of the Queen having no children you have created great cause of embarrassment and compromised peace. You have, there fore, done a thing which is both null and dangerous, and what price have You paid for it? You have paid the price of the English alliance, for which you have made so many sacrifices. Therefore, in admitting that you might have renounced that alliance, was the moment, I may ask, well chosen ?—(Move ment.) I have always been a partizan of the English alliance, and I have given proofs of it. My enemies have taken advantage of this feeling to render me unpopular; let me, therefore, be allowed to avail myself of their at tacks to repert that such has always been my predilection. before the 1 ( i , ether, e o r t , ,ta i, i t t r , t to 1 do not seek p velarity, I respect the opinions of my coun try as I respect my King ; I • • I d frankly,portifin of their esteem, would not sel. It has been f bothinicliNnvieltbeefxopreretslsie i o r i n y e as opinion o from the nation and from the King any purchase that-, that will be my recompense ; but I who for many yearsrseCiingerlY us with not n Englishgalliance!" To tha esteem by giving an injurious coun said—" It becomes you truly, it to embroil France and Englanit, having set sufficient value on the for you, who have done eve might reply—" It i s very well alliance, and have cousenteP thing to preserve the English hold it so cheaply :" I am, to so many sacrifices, to now English alliance, because it is us r c yat t , an advoc a t e f or the in the world, because it i s the best o the progress ofliberty dependence of states, and that is our guarantee for the in the Opposition.—(Approbation on the Left.) cause of Switzerland threatened in her liberty by three hen y ou s ee I you not feel that your own frontiers are threaten Powers, do threatened LONDON, TUESDAY MORNING, FEBRUARY 9, 1847. newed approbation.) When you see the last remnants of Poland perish, do you not feel that the liberty and inde pendence of other states are seriously endangered? Place yourself, therefore, at the head of nations who are jealous of their liberty and independence. Ido not advise a policy of propagandism. The revolution was propagandist. It had been provoked by that coalition of Pilnitz, which attacked not only the liberty but the grandeur of France; and the great victories and the mad conquests of the empire were the reply to these provocations. We, in these latter days, have not had the right given us to be either propagandists or con querors ; there has been no congress of Pilnitz against uI ; let us, therefore, be neither the one nor the other. To make ourselve propagandists—to excite people against their go vernments, would be to attack their liberty, to disturb the peace in the midst of which they prosper and improve in knowledge; far be it from us, therefore, to become propa gandists. As to conquests, were I to be offered for France the monarchy of the world, I would not accept it. Let there be no conquests either, but enlightened protection for liberty, and a resolute defence of the independence of states—that is the policy best suited to France; and, if the better to express my ideas I might be permitted to borrow an image or an expression from the arts, I would represent France holding in one hand a chart, on which should be written "the rights of humanity ;" and the other hand on the hilt of her sword, on the blade of which should be written the names of Zurich, Austerlitz, and Friedland.—("Hear, hear ;" varied movement.) Can we hold out the hand of fellowship to those who oppress Italy—who threaten the Swiss confederation—who destroy Poland? To make war on them would be senseless; let us keep up good relations with them, but without being on an intimate footing. Your alliance would be given the lie to by every pulsation of your heart—by every groan uttered by Italy and by Poland. Where, then, lies the true alliance for France but in a country possessing the same feelings? It is only to be found in a nation whose heart beats in unison with yours—in England. It is true there is an old spirit of rivals between France and England ; there are serious difficulties no doubt in the way ; but I firmly believe that it would be possible to unite the two countries without sacrifices on our part. I know there is now a boast of the power of France to combat the whole world. Yes, she has done so, and might do so again ; but to remain in a systematic isolation is, I maintain, a bad policy. I blame the present Cabinet for putting forward an exclusive sympathy for the Tories, for a party which , has in their Parliament abandoned Cracow. Let there be no preference shown for either Whigs or Tories, although more hope might be entertained from one than from the other. It has been said that I forget that the Whigs outraged France in 1840, but I reply that it is you who have forgotten it. Is it not you who anxiously hastened to re-enter the European concert with the Whigs in 1840 ? and yet you now oppose my sympathy for them. I re proach the Government for not having foreseen the danger of Cracow. You, the Ministers, saw nothing because you had been told that Cracow had nothing to fear. You believed, in fact, what you were told.—(Laughter.) But when the Whigs told you that they did not desire a Coburg marriage for England, you did not relieve them; and yet, I repeat, you believed what the three Powers said when they told you that they entertained no designs against Cracow. say, more, you defended them from the tribune ! When the ma.sacres of Galicia were spoken of, you cried, " They are revolutionists who do those things !" See, then, if you did right in ceding to certain pre-occupations? The lion. Deputy here entered into an explanation of the state of Eu rope, and, referring to Rome, rendered justice to the efforts of the l'ope to reform the Roman States. Lately (he con tinued), the people cried from behind the Pope, " Courage, Holy Father ! Courage !" and I also cry in the name of France, which is calumniated at Rome, " Courage, holy Father ! Courage! " But suppose that France and England, notwithstanding the difference of their policy, had united and cried also to the Pope the same exclamation, do you believe that it would not have been a great benefit for humanity in Switzerland and in Germany? Do you believe that France would not have been greater when united to England ? And Poland —what would she not have gained if you had not by the second marriage severed the union of France and England? The event of Cracow has no doubt made a painful impression on you. If the Tories had been still in power, be assured that you would have seen the three Powers uniting with them. But he who represents the Whigs is, permit me to use the expression, odious—(lnterruption)—disagreeable, if von will, to the three Continental Cabinets. Why did you not profit by that circumstance to unite your protest to that of England against the incorporations of Cracow ? As to ourselves, I hope we shall know how to fulfil our duties, and I wish with all my heart. that the Queen of Spain may have heirs, and that the work you have concluded in making the Spanish marriages may become merely null—for that I be lieve to be the happiest thing I can wish to my country.— (Applause, which lasted for a considerable time.) The Minister of Foreign Affairs—ln consequence of the lateness of the hour, and of the necessity of following the Hon. Deputy through all the details of his speech, I must pray the Chamber to adjourn the debate until to-morrow.— (Cries from all points, " Yes, yes.") The Chamber accordingly rose at Five o'clock. FEBRUARY 5. The President took the Chair at two o'clock. The order of the day was the adjourned discussion on the Address (the reserved paragraph relating to the continuance of peace). All the tribunes were crowded. The Minister of Foreign Affairs— Gentlemen, I owe to M. Thiers an act of justice, and a grateful acknowledg ment ; he clearly defined and brought before you the only questions that could remain doubtful and obscure, and which are now the only subject of debate ; he also treated these questions with moderation, for whilst he filly expressed his sentiments, he did so in such a manner as to compromise as little as possible the great national interests at stake. I shall imitate the Hon. Gentleman in going straight to the exa mination of the points attacked, and those alone.—(Hear, hear.")' I shall also empl o y i n my d e f ence t h e same frank ness and moderation as have been displayed in the attack. Even with such conditions the discussion remains grave and difficult ; but it at least may be useful to the country and the Government, for both have an equal interest that light be everywhere diffused, without any destructive conflagration being the consequence.—(Hear, hear.) M. Thiers did not attack completely and unreservedly the double marriage, and the policy which led to them. He fully approved of that of the Queen with Don Francisco, to the exclusion of the other candidates ; he did not even disapprove at bottom of the marriage of the Duke de Montpensier wits the Infanta, but he considered that it had been concluded precipitately and inopportunely. In his opinion the Government did wrong to urge the matter on so actively, and was wanting in a fair and respectful mode of proceeding and consideration towards a friendly Government, the result being a dangerous position for France with respect to England arid Europe. There was no necessity, therefore, according to M. Thiess, to conclude the second marriage immediately; and there was a want of fairness in the manner of doing so. I shall examine this double accusation, and I shall reproach myself strongly if I descend from this tribune without having proved to you that there was a strong necessity for our conduct, and that such conduct was marked by honourable dealing.—(Hear, hear,) In order to judge of that necessity, it is necessary to have a precise idea of the very different situations in which we were placed in June last, when Lord Aberdeen was in power, and in July, when Lord Palmerston had suc ceeded him. From that comparison arose the solution of the question which I am now examining. Lord Aberdeen on this subject employed language somewhat different from ours. In principle he professed the greatest possible respect for the independence of Spain and of the young Queen. When any allusion was made to this prin ciple, he appeared to accede to it in the fullest sense. But on this point I said to him, " You imagine you do not in any way attack that principle in declaring that a French Prince would be seen with displeasure by England as the Queen's husband. If you think that in this you do not in any way attack the independence of Spain and of the Queen, what more could we do in acting in the same way with respect to some other candidate?" Lord Aberdeen did not completely admit this parity in the two situations. But in practice and fact there was a complete concert and accord between us. We also proclaimed the same respect, but we added to it the declaration that we could not consent that the Queen should marry any other prince than a descendant of the house of Bourbon. This was in 1843, before the interview at Eu, our way of thinking, as will appear from the following dispatch which I wrote to M. de Chabot. (The Hon. Mi nister here read the document.) The English Government fully agreed to our views, as is apparent from the dispatches of Lord Aberdeen to Lord Cowley. The two Governments consequently were to act together without employing the slightest coercion, but merely by counsel and influence to get the Queen to select a descendant of Philip V. This agree ment necessarily set aside the Prince of Coburg. This is a fact which is proved by a direct act of Lord Aberdeen. When the English Minister at Madrid joined in the steps taken with the reigning Duke to demand the Prince of Co burg as a husband for the Queen of Spain, what did Lord Aberdeen do? He disavowed that Minister's acts. I have no right in this Chamber to make use of the letter which Lord Aberdeen wrote on this subject to the British Minister. I shall not do so but with his consent, although I have it in my portfolio. It contains the declaration that the English Minister had acted beyond his instructions, and it at the same time forbids similar conduct for the future. These, then, I must repeat, were the two points on which the con cert was established—to recommend the descendants of Philip V., and to remove any other candidate foreign to them. What has been brought forward in opposition to facts so clear and so positive ? A letter to the Duke de Sotomayor of the 22d of June. I may remark, in the first place, that the letter in question is not au instruction given to an English agent, who acts is a particular sense—it is simply a reply to a question put by a Spanish Minister. What did Lord Aber deen declare in that letter? He maintained completely the independence of the Queen of Spain, and reminded the Spanish agent that Spain had good and powerful reasons to seek for a husband amongst the descendants of Philip V.; he points out one candidate as preferable to the rest, he also being of the house of Bourbon, and added that, if France wished to constrain the choice of Spain, the latter country might reckon on the sympathies of England. What was there in this contrary to the two points on which the con cert was established ? Positively nothing. I establish, then, that our situation with Lord Aberdeen was as I have stated ; and I may add that there never was any mention made between Lord Aberdeen and myself of the Treaty of Utrecht ; never was there a word spoken of any right ; never did Lord Aberdeen make any objection to the mar riage of the Duke de Montpensier with the Infanta.— (Hear, hear.) Such was the situation in the month of June; let us now take the month of July. Let me here be per mitted to throw aside all idea of comparison between the Whigs and the Tories with respect to the policy that France ought to follow relative to England. These distinctions have lost their value in the present day. All parties in that country are equally devoted to her interests; all are equally animated by a friendly feeling towards France. To con vince yourselves of this you have only to glance over the debates of Parliament, and examine the speeches of all the a e n n c i l in from t i o t A h i e r. Tori Roebuck—allee to the Radicals employ r t —c e h h l e f a ire t s of i a o ms m n ie fL a l po t a i n d dr g t g y u G e a i o e g n d o e rl , ge i' England e l l g x e p n r e e e s s b e t t h w c e esna France uce desire an f d o r t f n r gi la dn d. fl ( l i c l u e l a t r' times hea r.) the N them o most rteri important l ep i aonr friendsa a n no t tnhol members rmtbhear.st France.ionf I have heard more tl lo i V a r n hdio o g n si c vif e o.e t rrg h e e et under a 'Whig Cabinet. lam certain that that , regret was Franceart}' and express g h l e t ! li r d regret is3 t 6 h a a t n t d h e lB o 4 r o o — d b i dissensions i o o n u s t theW betweenhi me not to remember that during five years policythe of sincere, to bu p t o y sN e e t r w o e f must ord n p o a t lm d e is rs re to g n a , rd it fa m c , t a s. B impossibleon the r return a L c o c r i d ise si ci b i e u rd E ee n n g , la p n a d rt ( i ) c f u f l e a e r b ly len h e i ss, s p an of the con nivance. I have even in my portfolio extracts and I speeches that were delivered during that France, could quote them to you if necessary. I interval, o c f e, w think I should as o o l f ic. condescension, towards have been negligent if I had not remembered not to feel distrust (I will not use offensive words), re serve, to see if the policy of England would be changed. It was my duty to be reserved, and I was so. So muched to omordtsr b e u f t ac ts , the general facts. Particular ones soon occur r I will reduce those facts to two , occurred fof com mand still greater reser\ e. thedis r p e a p t i ; ing h of J to ul m y y l9 le , tt a e n r d . the silence s t o ha lo t n a g is m pa a t i e n h taine before con tain? ln it the Prince of Coburg is named, and why was he mentioned if he had no chance of success? The dispatch contains the declaration that England had no objections to make to any of the candidates named; but not a word is said of France —nor a suggestion to Spain on the policy to be L pursued towards us. There is, then, thia difference between the letter of Lord Aberdeen to the Duke de Sotomayor, and Lord Palmerston's dispatch of July 19; that in the latter there is the Prince of Coburg the more, and a mention of France the less.—(Hear, hear.) That, then, is the differ ence between the two situations, the two policies. It is now said, Lord Palmerston ceased to support the Prince of Coburg, and admitted that the candidateship of Don Enrique was preferable. Let us see the value of this double fact. On the 20th of duly we proposed to England to concert with us to support the candidateship of the princes, the sons of Don Francisco de Paulo, and on the 28th of August only we received a reply. I shall now point out what was don* in jot interval. (The Hon. Member here read the dispatches orthe Count de Jarnac of the 21st and 24th of July, and the 13th of August, and continued.)-1 ask the Chamber whether these dispatches are reassuring on the subject of the can didateship of the Prince of Coburg. In fact, it was on the 28th of August only that England spoke of Don Enriqne, and of him alone to the exclusion of every other. I ask whether this was not rather late? But I take as an hypothesis, for a moment, the exclusive candidateship of Don Enrique. It was evident that the Prince had little chance of being favourably received at Madrid by the Queen, by the Queen-Mother, or by the Government. We should, therefore, have been very imprudent had we reduced our wishes to that sole candidate. Are you aware that if Don Enrique had triumphed it was a revolution? A change of policy in Spain must have ensued. The agent of England Lad several times written to his Go vernment that it was his conviction that Don Enrique might become the husband of the Queen by a revolution; that he might enter the palace of the Queen as a conqueror, though not as a pretender to her hand. The entry of Don Enrique into the palace as a conqueror implied the destruction of our policy of Madrid. We could not accept such a combination. —(Approbation from the Centre.) I now return to the Prince of Coburg. I admit that the influence of England in no way pushed him on ; I admit that she left the question to the choice of Spain alone. I am here compelled to repeat what I have many times said, both in the Chambers and in my dispatches—the Spanish Government has always wished for one or other of these two marriages, either the French or the English one. She wished, after that event should have taken place, to have the support either of France or of England. The Spanish Government, menaced by revolu tion, was anxious to conclude the marriage. It would no longer postpone the solution of that great question ; the Queen-Mother, the Queen, and the Government—all were anxious to have it completed. The Spanish Government absolutely wishing to terminate the question, what took place? A proposition was made to us by the Court of Madria ; and at the time the case for us was pressing, for there danger threatened. On the 9th of August the Spanish Government proposed to us to marry the Queen to Don Francisco de Assis, on condition that the other marriage, that of the Infanta to the Duke de Montpensier, should be also agreed to. In this state of the question we should have been blind and culpable —we should have failed in our relations with Spain, to have refused that proposition ; for had we done so, we should have thrown Spain under the influence of Eng land. I was right, then, in saying at the commencement, that there was for us a necessity, which arose from the difference of our situation with respect to Lord Aberdeen and Lord Pal merston. I consider this to lee established in irrefragable evidence.— (Approbation from the Centre.) I now arrive at the question of honourable dealing. For my part I have never ac cused the intentions or good faith of any one, but in discuss ing them have always assumed that they were only errors and faults of conduct. I have always respected and observed this rule in every situation; the liberty and dignity of diplomatic relations and of Parliamentary discussions depead on it. Whatever, therefore, may be the conduct observed towards me, or by whom, I shall always follow this course. I protest, first of all, against the introduction of a name which hen been improperly employed at London in this discussion. Not more abroad than at home, not more between two con stitutional Governments than in each individually, ought that name to mixed up in political discussions. To in troduce it, to make use of it, is conduct deserving of the strongest censure.—(Hear, hear.) I shall, as I do at pre sent, always protest against such a violation of constitutional rules, from whatever quarter it may proceed.—(Movement.) I now enter into the question of good faith, and what is called procides • and in doing so, I feel the necessity of lay ing textually before the Chamber the documents and the language of the Government. I speak not of documents concocted after the event has taken place, and for the pun poses of defence, but of documents that passed during the conduct of the affair. The Chamber will see that everywhere, at London, at Paris, and in Spain, our proceedings have been upright and honourable, such as they ought to be between Governments that respect each other.—(Here the Hon. Minister read a long dispatch written by himself, in which he expressed surprise at the reproach made by Lord Palmers ton of a failure of procedes ; insisted on the facts which in timated, on the part of the English Government, not a policy of cordial understanding, but an isolated one ; and indicated that France might also have an isolated policy in Spain. ) Such (he continued) was our conduct at London, departing in no respect from the consideration and good faith which the Government of Great Britain had a right to expect from the French Cabinet. Let us now see what were our proceed ings at Madrid. The employment of violent means, of mO - coercion, of a consent wrung from the Queen in the mid t of an orgie, have been spoken of. A dispatch of Lord Pa s merston contains these odious accusations, and I repel thelm in the strongest manner. A s so on as M. de Bresson heard of them he was profoundly moved, and hastened to deny them. (M. Guizot here read letters from M. de Breeson, protesting strongly against such allegations; he stated that he passed the evening of the 28th of August at home, in his house at Madrid, and that it was only on the morning of the 29th that he received a note informing him that the mar riages were settled.) The Queen adopted, therefore (con tinued M. Guizot), her resolutions in full liberty. M. de Bresson said not a word, took not a step that could influence her determination ; never did he go out of the range of com monplace proceedings, and whenever he obtained an audi. ence of her Majesty the doors of the Cabinet were left open. There was then no moral coercion, no cunning tricks, no vio lence, but all was done freely. Let us now see the procedes at Paris. The Chamber will pardon me for entering into de. tails, but I desire to leave no doubt in the minds of my ad versaries. When I informed Lord Normanby that the mar riages were settled, he asked if they would both be concluded at lithe same time? I replied that they would not, and I was right in so replying; for, at the moment at which I spoke, ' not only was nothing as yet decided, but we were labour ing at Bladrid to prevent the simultaneousness of the two marriages. The Queen-Mother insisted strongly on that point, but we opposed it; and M. de Bresson wrote to me that he had had to contend a whole day against Queen Christina, and that it was with the greatest trouble that lie had succeeded in maintaining in the stipulations the words autant qee faire, se pourrait, which constituted our liberty of action. We ware then in the right in saying that the two marriages would not be simultaneous, for we laboured to prevent them, and M. de Bresson, in order to obtain that point, even went the length of ,threatening to annul all that had been done. At a later period, however, M. de 13resson wrote word that the Spanish Ministers manifested deep regret that the marriage of the Infanta had not been an nounced to be celebrated at the same time as that of the Queen. He recognised all the grav it y of the reasons that the Spanish Ministers put for ward, namel y , the im portance of prete i n t s s io t n h a uh a d n e d rs i , n i t t ri vi g ,as ues n ; ec a e n ss d ar as y by the susceptibility to hurry on the affair,or incur the risk of never being par donedility and dignity of the Spanish nation. The two marriages h ad been a g reed on ; if we a g ain g av e the closing() Opposition t io n lists was a g ainst preparing Duke d e Montpensier, we should have up to all the chanc es and all the uncertainties of the future the marriage of the failed in all we owed to the Spanish Government. We had decided on concluding the marriage of the Queen with Don Francisco de Assis; we could no longer resist allowing that of the Duke de Montpensier with the Infanta, which had reposed in as and deceiving the confidence Our Ambassa dorbled been the condition for the first, without breaking our faith marriage of the In f an t a ; we were pledged not only in policy, to agree to the simultaneousness of pointed out to us incontesta angers in delaying the honour, but also in the marriages ; of many o shoals ce to avoid ; the Spanish Cabinet might go out • . Our Ambassador more urgent, and we agreed to the mea every day became as right on the sure. Just as much as w Sep tember in saying that the marriages would not take place on the 4th ' we had still' at the same time, so was I right , of September, on of • t, but • ; I think I should did not inform Lord Normanby wanting in the most common prudence if, in pre have been deciding that they should be simultaneous. It is true that I opposition, I had • his weapons.— A itat . Palmerston time to prepare ( g ion.) 1 the second dispatch of the English Ambas sador,sence of a declared and active given Lord now arrive at September, and to the conversations I have a fewpreliminary remarks which I had with him. ambassador does me the honour to call to offer. When an .t. dated the 25th of me questions, is not to an interrogatory such a case bound to the truth, but t o l n i a t m l e s a u n b d m t i ot ask; I only reply so I am in suits the interest of my have (Applause the accounts of a conversa tionto make, is that I cannot his Government Ambassador to tic sent by a n _document. In order to simplify and unobjectionab e (Applause from the Centre ) Another observation that I have the question, I will say that the English Ambassador enter tainedthis point, fur he came to me on the 2d of September to communicate to me his dispatch of the Ist, amid to ask whe ther he had rendered an exact the same opinio n on ac count of our conversation. The Ambassador considered that after this proof. The Ambassador of irrefragability until ~ ias rig • ht in his opinion,and Iwill this to the prove that when it was shown to me a dispatch could not acquire a character of authenticity and Chamber, by remarking, which, on my sup plied. Gentlemen, in the documents I public, imposed part, I considered it proper to make withheld all which great reserve on myself. I carefully I pointed out an omission which the Ambassador had a character of personality or uncertainty. The Cham ber may have convinced itself of this by examining the documents which have been laid before it. In this dis cussion, also, I only read those which I consider as strictly necessary and incontestable. Ido not wish to reproach any one, but I must b e a ll owe d to say, that if the Engl i . .h Ambassador had done m e th e honour of showing me bis dispatch of September 25, as he did that of the 22d, I should have spoken otherwise, and perhaps better, than he has made me speak.—(Agitation and laughter.) On the 25th of Sep tember the state of affairs was completely c hanged; the British Amb assador brought me the protest of his Govern ment against the marriage of the Duke de Montpensier—a protest announcing that England would do everything in her power to prevent that mar ' at the same time from Spain,to me that, in fact, announcing nothing was neglected to accomplish that end. I saw a great effort made at home and abroad against the solution which we had agreed to. I saw and felt myself—and the expression that I am about to use is not intended to offend any one—l felt myself in the of an adversary. — (Sensation.) presence but what was true, but also tosaying anything that might injure my refrain from say question, that of good faith, cause. Here, then, is the second set at rest, and as completely cleared up at Madrid, at London, of neces sity. We have on, and at Paris, as the question ht to have done. throughout done nothing but whatxzig h This double question, then, the proof that it is resolved conclude y one of the • was impossible for us the demonstrationmarriages without the other, and by that good faith had beenscrupu lously respected, W e We took into serious consideration the engagement • into which hadentered, but we looked we also to the necessity which arose. A second question now remains, more important shall be brief upon than the first; but I upon it. I allude to the consequences that the solution given to the Spanish m • Spain, in England, in may produce on our situation in the gravity of the ' n Europe.— (Hear, hear.) Ido not deny situation • ion , on the contrary, I wish that the Chamber and the country situations create ntrY may perfectly understand it. Grave wise conduct, and wise conduct decides grave situations.—(Hear.) I repeat, then, that I will say no thing that can have the situation •so far from effect of lessening the gravity of the make the Chamber it, mor I could desire that my words should it must not be ealive to it. But, at the same time, it really is. M. ' representedthiers as graver or more complex than that we ought to maintain perfectly defined the situation nothing to ask, nothing n with respect to Spain. We have policy. If there be in ha to t desire from her, but a friendly to France, we desire nothing country a Government friendly we have made ourselves the else; it is not true to say that patrons Cham ber will see the proofs of that in of a party. The in 1843 and 1844. On the fall of dispatches which I wrote by the union of the Moderado the Regency of Espartero, Progressistas, I wrote to recommend to with a portion of the to Spain union and con ciliation, and condemned everything ranco - ar. (The Honourable Ministerin approaching to party he had written to that effect.) We had not the ma s t: ea that o f sayl rencoetihviendgdispatches id making ourselves the followers of a party, but it is true that we have been faithful to our friends. We would not hesi tate again to act iu the same. manner. What has been the consequence? That France and Spain have concluded a great act—have contracted new ties. I do not exaggerate the value of family unions; but when the interests of two countries are identical, the marriages of princes have a powerful effect in drawing closer their connexion. And in that lies the importance that I attach to these marriages. Do not believe the grave error which becomes day after day more credited, that relations between nations result only from material influences, and nothing of interest, when the truth is that personal sentiments play a grand part in than. Policy is founded on the sentiments, on the instincts, on the wants of the soul ; and this mechanical system Co which it is at present desired to reduce the life of societies is false, and to be deprecated.—(hear, hear.) 'We are evi dently in a better situation with respect to Spain than we were before the marriages. These marriages were contracted freely, and the elections that took place afterwards in Spain were also made in full liberty. At the present moment the Spanish Cabinet is undergoing a change. But does not that completely prove the independence of Spain—the free play of her instituticns? Yes; the elinistry which concluded the marriage gives up its place to another; but is that a re action against us? No ; for one of the principal members of the new Cabinet wafethe reporter on the marriages in the Cortes. There is no anti-French movement—there is free play of institutions—that is all, and our policy sustains no injury I Such is our position with respect to Spain. A word on England. Deceive not yourselves, the interests, the in • stincts, the causes of action which induced England and France to desire to live well together, in spite of so many circumstances incessantly arising in opposition to harmony, are so powerful that they will surmount passing dissensions. England believes that what has occurred is injurious to the liberty and the foreign policy of Spain. I trust to time to prove to England that there may be good relations between France and Spain, without dependence on the part of the latter country. England believes herself to be threatened in the Mediterranean. This is a serious error. When the treaty of Utrecht was concluded, the influence of England in the Mediterranean was not what it is at present. That treaty gave Gibraltar to England, but then she had rot yet Malta, on the other side. Fur the last hundred years the equili brium of the treaty of Utrecht has been always broken for the benefit of England and to our detriment. The posses sion of Algeria, and the good intelligence between France and Spain, are at the most but a compensation for what England has acquired. lam very far from regarding the Mediter ranean as a French lake. That is one of those unfortunate expressions calculated to cause difficulties between nations. The Mediterranean neither is nor can be a French lake; but it possesses too much importance for France for her not to watch with much solicitude on all the changes that may take place in that quarter. I repeat, that fur a hundred years all those changes have been to our detriment. The uneasiness of England is unjust and erroneous. Facts will, before long, demonstrate this, and will prove the justice of the conside rations which I submit to the Chamber. I begin to feel fatigued, and I shall in consequence be very brief in my remarks on Continental Europe. As to the three great Powers, their conduct and their attitude with regard to the question of Spain have given us no sign of complaint. They have not adhered to the policy of ,England, notwith standing that solicitations have been made to induce them to do so. Only—do not deceive yourselves—these solicita tions will be probably confirmed, and fresh efforts will be made. If the King's Government guards well the position it has taken—if it continues the policy of preserving European order without abandoning anything of the prin ciples in accordance with the revolution of July —do not fear that the great Powers will engage themselves against us. 'You cannot reckon on their sympathy, but you may on their prudence, their intelligence, and on their well understood interests.—(Sensation.) They have proved this to you for the last sixteen years, and they will continue to prove it if you do not depart from the line of policy which is our own. A last word on the secondary Powers to whom M. Thiers alluded en passant yesterday, and who must be taken seriously into account. Will you allow me to say what has happened to them in this affair of the Spanish marriages? When the secondary Powers do not fear France has a revo lutionary and conquering Power, they are well disposed to wards her, and desire to see her strong. I venture to say that they have not now any apprehensions from her.— (Laughter on the left.) And I congratulate myself on it for the interest of my country ; for, be assured, that on the day when France shall no longer be regarded as a revolutionary and a conquering Power, her strength already so great will be considerably increased. The secondary Powers have seen in the aflair of the Spanish marriages a proof of the strength and of the independence ofour policy. They have all declared this opinion. Gentlemen, the affair of the Spanish marriages is the first grand thing that we have effected completely single-handed in Europe since 1830. (Sensation.) Impartial Europe has delivered her judgment to that effect. Be assured that this event has strengthened us in Spain and given us strength in Europe, particularly in the ideas of the secondary Powers, who witness with joy the success of our policy. Let us not, then, depart front the line of policy which I have traced out ; with Spain, good relations and common interests; with England, good con duct and sentiments of kindness; with the continental Powers, provided you persevere in the policy of Conserva tism.—(Loud interruption ou the left.) If it is necessary every instant to recommence the struggles which we have sustained in this Chamber; if it be again necessary to prove that the policy of order and Conservatism is not one of abase ment, but that it has increased and honoured the name of France in Europe—(Approbation in the centre, murmurs on the left)—discussion is no longer possible. W e must start from points already settled—results obtained by our discus sions here during the last seventeen years. No; this policy of order and of Conservatism has not humbled France, but it has elevated her, has doubled her influence, and has made her name respected in Europe. And, if that policy had not teen followed, we should not have been in a state to have resolved the question of the Spanish marriages; or, rather, the decision would have been against us.—(Loud marks of approbation, followed by great agitation.) The sitting was suspended for a quarter of an hour. M. Billault—The Minister for Foreign Affairs was right when he said that wise conduct arranges difficult situations; but he ought to have added that it foresees them also. The discussion yesterday showed the great gravity of the present situation; that of this day has not diminished that gravity, and we are on the eve of again seeing in Europe four Powers against us. During 17 years the great difficulty of our policy has been that eventuality, and we have already en countered it on more than one occasion. The task of a great Government is to triumph over difficulties, to seek new combinations which assure at the same time the liberty and the security of the country. But though we have had this difficult problem before us for more than seventeen years, I demand if a single step has been made towards its solution? Have the embarrassments of 1840 prevented a new cloud from arising in 1846 and 1847? The Government has never dared to grapple boldly with the difficulty; but successive palliatives have been employed, sometimes towards one Power, sometimes towards another. Such conduct is not worthy of a great people; it is perilous to a Government; and it is important to ascertain this day how the danger may be conjured away. For seventeen years the three found which them for seventeen in years hbusiness has sought nl a in Powers have entertained th e same sentiments towards you; good they have been the sam e i n t h e affair of Belgium, in the affairs of the east, a n d i n ot h er questions. Recently, too, you ta in in what they did, and in the m anner o f doing it. Thus a Govern ment,relations with all, has seen the treaties of 1815 torn to pieces before its eyes. During that period England has created for herself a marvellous position ; each day she profits by our difficulties with Europe, sad menaces us. The Minister for Foreign Affairs has told us that reiterated efforts would be made against us among the continental Powers. What is the reason, then, of this difficulty with respect to the con tinent and England ? Between the continent and ourselves there aro no reasons which prevent an alliance. Russia, for her interests, has more reason to dread England than France. With Austria also we have no commercial rivalry, Prussia, by her geographical position, and the spirit of her people, ap• proaches nearer and nearer to us every day; but she dreads the spirit of conquest, by which she supposes us animated. The northern Powers are well aware that the France of the present day does not possess the spirit of conquest felt by preceding generations, but it is necessary for them to guard those appearances with the nations which they govern. It is for us to protest against such a supposition, and to destroy these calumnies. At the commencement of this discussion I endeavoured to remove the accusation of perpetuating amongst us that spirit of conquest, and I was happy to hear the same ideas expressed both by M. Odillou Barrot and by M. Thiers.—(Murmurs.) When, after seventeen years, the Government has done everything to destroy the opinion that Franca is animated with the spirit of conquest, and the whole opposition here makes the same declaration, it is of importance that those words should re sound beyond the Rhine, and that it should be clearly understood that those who make the accusation calum niate France. As to the spirit of liberty, it depends on no one in this assembly to stop its development —it extends every day beyond our frontiers it works an effect throughout Germany which no power can arrest. This progress of the spirit of liberty is the law of the world, and far from being an obstacle it will soon be a bond between those people and ourselves. The Minister of Foreign Affairs has just told us that, by continuing our general policy—that moderation and spirit of Con servatism which the Government has constantly followed —all difficulties will disappear. For 17 years we have practised that moderate policy, and such has not been the result. (Murmurs and marks of approbation.) France, by her position, cannot abdicate the part which she has performed in Europe. Whenever you have made a special concession to the northern Powers you have not solved the • difficulty, you have only postponed it. The situation of affairs is ruled by a necessity which escapes your power ; 'out furtunately the evil carries with it its own remedy. What will best secure the future welfare of our country is to break the union of the three northern Powers in the point of view of the liberty of their people. For some time Germany has evinced strong consti tutional tendencies, and from the day when the Prussian nation shall have a constitutional Government, the alliance of the three Powers will be destroyed. I know that our part is not to combat, but to aid, support, and to en conrage. There is a remarkable movement now going on in the world; the smaller Powers display uneasiness at the attitude taken by the great ones. Look at what is passing in Sweden and en the banks of the Rhine. The English alliance was in a former sitting pointed out as affairs, and the remedy for the p resent state of affai it is to this remark that I would more particularly call the at tention of the Chamber. Were it a sincere and serious alliance with England, we should heartily applaud it; but the question is to know what price we should be re quired to pay for it. Do you imagine that the fall of any po litical personage from power would consolidate our relations with the British Government? Do you not rather believe that a good understanding with England must be re• pur chased at the price of fresh concessions? What it is im portant to our country and the Chamber to know is, by what conduct we may avoid the dangers which have been pointed out, and find a sure support in Europe. Is it by concessions in words or in deeds that we shall re-enter into the English alli ance ? I f the facts are as grave as they are represented, we mu s t d o somet hi ng if we want to effect ? our reconciliation. At wh a t p r i ce s h a ll we purchase it (Murmurs from the centre:) But that is not what ou most to excite our attention, for to re-enter the English alliance is not to resol ve th e gre at difficulty which separates us front continental Europe, but to adjourn t. Do, you believe that England will aid us to establish a g ood Nben, during under standing with th e C a bi ne ts of the North, v seventeen years, her interests being different to ours, she has turned towards them, and compelled uspurchase her to .the three Powers co operation, whil s t t o o btain something from she has promulgated a more intimate un ion with us? Is it liberality a position that likely she will abandon from pure has been said about enables her so to act? Agreat deal berality revo l u tion of 1830, but her eaten doing so was a simple England having recognised the lation to create distrust between rs w hi c h during the Restoration had been on such friendly France and the Northern Pow e i terms r as to lessen her ascendancy. The proof that such was the cause is that the recognition was made by a Tory Government. At alf ter period, in the English alliance, did England either i n Belgium, Spain, o he r oic times of file r i Portugal, sustain a liberal and generous policy when her material interests did not suffer from it? We cannot, then , again enter into the English alliance with out sacrifices. But is that alliance indispensable to us? M. Thiess and M. Guizat , who . have carried it out, have not be lieved that. (Here the lion. Deputy read extracts from the speeches of those statesmen to prove that assertion.) The attitude of England is such that you have nothing serious or stable to expect from it, and vet you will recommence a third time what you have alteac'ty proved twice. If that is what the alliance promises, why return to it? Why not maintain our independence with good relations? Do you believe that it will suffice to be friendly and circumspect to wards foreign Powers. You will not advance your affairs in that way. Seek not, then, an alliance with England; seek not alliances with the Northern Powers. But be certain that you cannot find any better auxiliaries than the generous ideas that ferment among nations. In that is strength, in that is the future! But you will he alone, you are told. Yes, if you call it being alone to have all gene rous sympathies with you! In conclusion, I will call to mind a fact. One day it was desired to place France apart, or rather, to treat her as if she no longer existed—it was the day of the treaty of Vienna. But, it. was thought that nothing could be stable without her, and she was called in. Do you believe that the Powers of Europe will dare refuse to the France so powertid by her strength of cohesion, and by the sympathies of nations, what they spontaneously offered to the France of the conquered empire? We fear it not. I will only add, that I have not endeavoured to arouse the passions of the Chamber; I have only sought to expose to it some useful ideas, and l believe I have done that. On the demand of M. Berryer the debate was adjourned to the next day. The Chamber rose at a quarter to six o'clock. LAW INTELLIGENCE. ROUSE OF LORDS, Feb. 8. The House of Lords sat to-day at ten o'clock, to hear ap peals and writs of error. The Peers present were the Lord Chancellor, Lord Brougham, Lord Templemore, and the Bishop of Ely. M'KESNA v. rArE. This case came before the Court upon a writ of error from the judgment of the Court of Exchequer Chamber in Ireland, affirming a decision pronounced in the Court of Exchequer there against the defendant. An action was brought by the plaintiff in the Court of Exchequer of Pleas in Ireland against the defendant under the following circumstances :—The plaintiff in error is a publican, carrying on business in Dubin, and is duly licensed under the 3d and 4th of William IV., and the 6th and 7th of the same King, to sell spirituous liquors by retail. to be drunk on the premises. Being desirous of taking out a license as a tea-dealer, be applied to the defendant, who is the officer of Excise for the Dublin district, to grant him a license, having. first duly complied with all the requisites of the statute. The defendant refused to grant the license, stating that the recent Act, 6th and 7th of William IV., in capacitated a publican from taking out such a license. The plaintiff being advised that he was not incapacitated, brought an action on the case against the defendant. The declaration in that action contained two counts. The first alleged that the plaintiff was a person duly licensed to carry on the trade and business of a retailer of spirits, to be consumed on the premises, and was desirous to trade in• and sell coffee, tea, cocoa-nuts, chocolate, and pepper, and for that purpose duly made entry of a certain room in a certain house in the Dublin Excise district. That the defendant was the collec tor of Excise for the Dublin district, and a person employed to grant Excise licenses within that district required to be taken out by persons carrying on any trade or business sub ject to the Excise laws. 'That the plaintiff' being so licensed to retail spirits, and being entitled to receive such a license, applied to the defendant for a license to trade in coffee, &c. That he paid to the defendant the amount of duty legally im posed upon such license, and demanded from the defendant that he should grant hint such license ; but that the defendant disregarding his duty in that behalf, refused to grant the plaintiff the license he required. The second count was similar to the first, with the exception that it alleged a tender of the amount of duty instead of payment, and also stated that the plaintiff was a person duly licensed to carry on the trade of a retailer of spirits to be consumed on the premises, but not to sell spirits to any other retailer. To these declarations the defendant demurred generally, and , the plaintiffjoined in that demurrer. Th e case came on b e - I fore the Barons of Exchequer in Ireland, when the question raised between the plaintiff and defendant was, whether or not it was the duty of the defendant to grant to the plaintiff the licence he roquired, the de fendant contending, that by the true instructions of the statutes the same person could not hold a licence to deal in tea, coffee, &c., and a publican's license; and that, whichever was first obtained incapacitated the party frota obtaining the other. On the part of the plaintiff, on the other hand, it was argued, that a person licensed to deal in tea, coffee, &c., was not by the statute incapacitated from holding the licence of a publican, and that a publican was not incapacitated from obtaining a license to deal in tea, coffee, &c. ; and that, even if the defendant's view of the 3d section of the 6th and 7th of William IV. was correct, that the business of a publican and tea-dealer could not be carried on at the same time by the same person, such a fact could not authorise the refusal of the defendant to grant the license. Judgment was given for the defendant without any more formal argument, in order that the opinion of a Court of Error might be taken, and the matter brought to the House of Lords for its consideration and dual judgment. A writ of error was brought in the Exchequer Chamber in Ireland, and the decision was affirmed, and from that judgment the pre sent writ of error was brought. Mr. Napier, of the Irish bar, and Mr. Peacock were counsel for the plaintiff in error, and the Attorney-General and Mr. J. P.Wilde appeared for the defendant. Their Lordships, at the conclusion of the arguments, stated that they would give judgment on Thursday. LORD CHANCELLOR'S SITTINGS. It is generally understood to be the intention of the Lord Chancellor to sit in the House of Lords to hear appeals on Mondays, Tuesdays, and Thursdays, and in the Court of Chancery on Wednesdays, Fridays, and Saturdays. ROLLS' COURT, Feb. 8. His LORDSHIP was occupied all the morning in hearing motions, which were of no general interest. VICE-CHANCERY COURT, Feb. 8. (Before the VICE-CRANCELLOM. of ENGLAND.) his Honour the Vice-Chancellor of England sat in his Court in Lincoln's inn to-day and heard motions. ALLEN v. wir.LiAms NS EXEAT REGNO. Mr. C. HALL applied to-day in this case for a writ of ne Exeat Regi o against the defendant under the following cir cumstances. The bill was filed by the plaintiff; a lady, named Allen, against the defendant, for the recovery of a legacy of 90/. The plaintiff was also entitled to two other legacies of a similar amount bequeathed to her two sisters, who had since died. The defendant was the executor under the will, and the affidavit upon which the applica tion was made stated that, after giving credit to the ' defendant for the expenses he had been at, and the money received, he was indebted to the plaintiff in the amount of 18 it., and 301. for interest. The affidavit further stated that the defendant Williams had offered the plaintiff 88/. to com promise the suits, and that upon the plaintiff's refusing to accept that sum, in order to terrify her to do so, the defen dant had, with an oath, stated that he knew he would be defeated in the suit; that he had no ties in the country, and that he would resign his living, put on his hat, and take the first railway and go to Belgium ; that he would not go to America, where, by the international laws of the two countries, lie should be made amenable to the defendant, but that he would go to a country where the law could not reach him, and that he would never pay to any of the plaintiffs in this cause a single shilling of their demand, and that he repeatedly affirmed this with an oath. Under these circumstances the Learned Counsel trusted his Honour would grant him the ;Ne exeat Reg-no marked in the sum of 214/. His Honour immediately granted the writ marked with the required sum. SMITH V. LADBROOKK. The further arguments in this part-heard case occupied his Honour the rem iinder of the mornin- morning. (Before Vice-Chancellor Sir J. K. Bitusric This was a motion for a new trial, on the ground that the Lord Chief Justice, before whom the cause was tried, had rejected evidence on the part of the plaintiff which was essential, and which would have materially affected the ver dict of the jury. The facts were simply these :—The plaintiff was next of kin of a person named Elizabeth Allen, who died in 1840, and who it was contended was the daughter of John Hollin?, who was described as a substantial yeoman resident in Staffordshire or Worcestershire. By this relationship site would have been entitled to the property of a relative de ceased. Mrs. Allen was stated to have married a jeweller, which match being below her rank in lite led to a separa tion between her and her relatives, with whom all inter course from that period terminated. It was further stated that Mrs. Allen lost her husband 25 years before her death, during which time she was living in great indigence. The evidence in support of the plaintiff's case was the statement of the grandson of Mrs. Allen, who deposed that he bad seen his grandmother write, and that a document corrobora tive of the foregoing statement was in her handwriting, and the depositions of a person named Loyd as to certain obser vations confirmatory of the sante. The evidence rejected were two declarations, one written by the deceased Mrs. Allen, and another by her brother-in-law, as well as certain interrogatories to elucidate the pedigree of Mrs. Allen. The defendant denied the alleged relationship, and the jury found in his favour. The case came before the Court last term, when the argu ments were concluded. His Hosroaa delivered judgment to-day, and having gone through the short-hand writer's notes, the notes of the judge, the evidence pro and con., affidavits made subsequent to the trial, cum muftis aliis, decided that there should be a new trial on the second issue, on condition that the plaintiff should sue in right of Mrs. Shields, as sole administratrix of Mrs. Allen ; that Richard Hollins left Mrs. Allen clearly his sole next of kin, or one of his next of kin, and that she was entitled to a residue of his property. The costs were reserved. COURT OF EXCHEQUER. —Feb. 8. (Before the Loup CHIEF BARON.) BARKER V. BRADLEY. RAILWAY ADVERTISEMENTS.—This actiovnwsa7si. ,being a brought by plaintiff, an advertisin agent, to recoer balance of a lar ger s um for advertisements i n serted in the * various London papers on behalf of a company, Company," called " The Dutch Hanoverian Railway of its naot zealous supporters. which the de fendant was a director and one Mr. William Dickinson, the secretary, lleadndtoulpsorost'oe liability. the orders for the insertion of the advertisements, waca Upon examination this establish the defendant's w itness stated that all the directors, the defendant amongst the number, had subscribedsum a sum of 101. each for "contingent whichdisbursements,"was afterwards . returned on the d e p os its being paid the shareholders. Witness also stated, r u e n s d o l e u r t t e i e i n e s , th t o a t g o e n t e t h o e f t a n d e v d e r i -- r ectors, named Collins, a nd which appeared on the hd a tisements inserted through an agent, the board undertaking t o indemnify that gentleman. It was also sh own, t h at all the directors, except the defendant, subscribed large sums to the company to defray the expenses of tha work now in operation.it is Phis being the plaintiff's case, the L earne d C OUNSEL, on the part of the defendant, submitted to the Court that the plaintiff must be nonsuited upon the following grounds;— First, that Collins having undertaken to procure the insertion of the advertisements upon being indemnified by the board, that he. Collins, and not the defendant, was liable. The Loup CHIEF BARON, on this point, recalled the se cretary, who, in answer to his Lordship's question, stated that Collins failed to get the advertisements inserted, and to therefore the pla stiff , the secretary, ga ve t h e necessary instructions Upon this the Learned Counsel for the defendant still urged the nonsuit upon another ground, namely, that Dickinson had no authority to pledge the defendant's credit; further, that Bradley bad intended the sum of 101. to cover contingent disbursements, and declined to be-come liable for anything beyond that :ntn. The Learned Counsel further submitted that this was not the plaintiff's action, but that of the company suing their co- director, the de ' fendant ; that there was no evidence to go to the jury. The Lora) CHIEF BARON said he would reserve the points raised by the defendant's counsel, but that he was of opinion there was abundance of evidence to establish the defendant's liability, and be would put it to him, the defendant's counsel, whether he bad not better address the jury. Upon this some discussion took place between counsel upon both sides, and it was ultimately arranged that a verdict should be taken by the plaintiff for the amount claimed, with ! liberty fur defendant to move to enter a nonsuit if the Court shou!d be of opinion that the plaintiff ought to have been Lonsuited. Mr. Watson and Mr. W. Ogle appeared for plaintiff, ari Mr. Hoggins for defendant. (fittings at Prius, before the Loan CRIEF ,BARON Common Juries.) ALLEN C. SIIARPE. In this cause Sir F. Thesiger and Mr. Ogle appears.'d. fo r the plaintiff, Mr. Whitehurst and lan Pashley for th defendant. The action was brought to recover the value of certain goo d s , the property of the plaintiff, which 'had been sei2e4. by tile defendant, in his cvacity as collector of taxes. Tl.e question to be decided, which was one of some impor.- tance to the keepers of " commission stables," w4s, whether 7 a party holding what are termed commission stables for the. , sale of horses, who was not a purchaser of them, but merely' received a commission on their sale, was liable for the pay- - ment of the horse dealer's license. The plaintiff was the proprietor of the commission stables in St. Martin's-lane, known as "Aldridge's," and where sales of horses were regularly made, and until the period of the sale arrived, the horses intended for sale were kept, but if not sold at the sale they were returned. The defendant, being a tax-collector, had charged tl .a plaintiff wit h the amount chargeable under the horse-dealer le 1 e made a claim for the sum of 27/1 10s., which r all being paid, defendant put in an execution and seized the go• 344 of the plaintiff in satisfaction thereof. The present action_ of replevin was therefore brought. The Court decided, after having heard the evidence ire the case, that an action in the form of replevin eculd not be maintained, and it was finally arranged that a vez, lict should be taken for defendant, iubjeot to the case being mar 7e Apetia 1 , for the purpose of coming on for argument before the Cc utt... COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH, Feb. S.. WILKINSON V. BE.ADEN. This was an action to recover 211. 7s. 6d. for work and labour. The defendant denied his liability beyond if The plaintiff is a manufacturing engineer, carvin l c on business in Crosby-place; the defendant, Captain Be: td en, was formerly an officer in the navy and was stated t d IA a gentleman of great mechanical skill. It appeared that the defendant had invented a plan, , by which a person sitting in a carriage might, by touchi: if,; spring, raise or lower the top of the 'vehicle, and that he rill" ployed the plaintiff to construct a practical model, with which, it seemed, he was satisfied. A great number of witnesses were examined. Those on one side :dated that the charge was a fair one, whilst t . /col on the other held that it was too high. The jury, however, found a verdict for the plaintif r lot 17/. CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURI.‘,.. OLD COURT. (Before the Enconnan.) James Manning, James Shanley, and George Smith, arias Houghton, were indicted for a burglary in the house o.F,' George Haynes,i in the parish of St. Pancras. Mr. Haynes said that he was the master of the pri se Tier Manning, and that the latter must have been cognizant That there was a considerable quantity of copper coin in the &bop on the night when the robbery was committed. W. Hayden, a butcher boy, deposed that about one o' el ock in the morning be saw the prisoners Smith and Sb as ley coming out of Mr. Hayne's shop-door with two bags . that appeared to be very heavy in their hands, and that aas (lost immediately after they had shut the door Smith's hat fell off and a quantity of halfpence rolled out of it. . He ida ad- . fled the prisoners. Police-constable 195 G stated that he took the prisot era into custody at a coffee-shop in Wortley-street, and that he found the sum of 21. 18s. 4 3 / 4 d., of which he took possessie.n. Former convictions wore proved against Sh. anler and Smith. The jury found all the prisoners Guilty, a nd ghanley and Smith were sentenced to ten years' transportation, and Man ning was sentenced to twelvemonths' impriso nment, wi th hard labour. George Simmons, a pork butcher, was ind icted for cutting and maiming Sarah Woods, with intent to do her grieyons bodily harm. It appeared by evidence of the prosecutrix that she went into the prisoner's shop to buy a saveloy ;that some difference arose between them, and that while she had hold o 1• the saveloy the prisoner struck at it with a cleaver a.ad cut of f the end of her finger. It was contended, on the part of Simmons, that this was quite an unintentional act, and the effect of accident.. The jury believed him, and he was Acquitted. This concluded the busineila of the Old Court; the jury were dismissed, and the sessions were adjou med till the Ist of March. .4 4 SURREY SESSIONS. TEE RICHMOND RAILWAY—RIGHT OF PAY n.--This W an appeal made by the Richmond Railway Corn party against a conviction of two justices of the peace for the county of . Surrey, for ob s t ruc ti ng a pa th way called "Wright's path, leading to Church path, Richmond, Surrey. The pariah authorities prosecuted and obtained the conviction, but no process was served until after the decision of this appeal. Mr. Bodkin and Mr. Taylor appeared for this respondents• and Mr. Locke and Mr. Corner for the appella ate. The CHAIRMAN, having heard the argnm eats on both sides, said that the parish had ac t e d s t r i ct l y il ega l, an d the Beach should, therefore, confirm the conviction_ of the magi's" trates, with costs. POLICE INTELLIGENTE. Mil RLBOROUGH-STREE'T. HAZZARD v. TAYLOR. —This case, which c.antained some points of interest, was heard last week, and Air. Bingham delivered the following judgment upon it this t norning In this case, Elizabeth Hazzard took out. a summons against Mehe Taylor, for detaining, as she alleged, with s o e u r t . just cause, the duplicate of a velvet gown awned by_e her. In answer to the complaint, Taylor assertt,d , tha_t,, u e ny . ceived the uplicate from Mrs. Hazzard, as securr,ty r 43 and ac ment of a bill of exchange for 101., dated April 11. cepted by the husband of the complainant, payable discounted after date. This bill, which he declared he bad for Mrs. Hazzard, was dishonoured when dire, and still re inained in his hands unpaid. Mrs. Hazzard admitted the transfer of the bill and its non-payment, but insisted that tithBreeniOn th although ehe had paid Taylor a considerable* sum by way of interest in advance on this and another bill of 121., she had never received a farthing from him in respect of the 10/. bill. She further declared that the duplicate she now sought to recover was not delivered to Taylor at, the same time as the 101. bill, but some weeks after wards, when she was seeking to raise a further sum of 50/. Hazzard called two witnesses, one cf whom had heard her upon two occasions, about three years ago, ask Taylor for the amount of a bill, when Taylor, instead of giving a direct answer, turned off the conversation to some other subject. The other witness said, that about the saran period he had made several applications for the amount of this bill at the request of Mrs. Hazzard, but had always been put off, and that afterwards, when he has applied for a number of Mrs. Hazzard's duplicates, Taylor said he bad lost them or left them in the country. The statement of these witnesses is not irreconcilable with the statement of Taylor. It may be that, suspecting the worthlessness of the bill of exchange, he refused to advance money on it till he received the duplicates in. question by way of security;, and the application for the money spoken of by the witnesses may have be en made after the delivery of the bill, and before the delivery of the duplicate, and the manner in which Mrs. Hazzard has delivered her testimony certainly ci,oes not en title her to a higher measure of credit than her opponent. There is, therefore, no evidence ou. which a court of justice could come to any safe conclusion as to the main fact in contest between these parties. But, independently of that fact, I think that Taylor is, under the circumstances, entitled to retain the duplicate upon a principle of law from which it would be dangerous to depart. Taylor produces a dishonoured bill of exchange, which, without further evidence on his part than the proof of handwriting, raises the presumption of a debt due from the party at whose hands he received it. This presumptive liability can only be discharged by a proof of payment, or a proof of fraud; and the proof of fraud ought to be clear and conclusive, as every one is presumed to be free from crime till the contrary is shown. It has already been pointed out that the proof by which it has been sought to establish fraud in the present case is not only not conclusive, but is even compatible with the defend ant's innocence. And the course:pursued by the complainant herself is scarcely reconcilable with the charge she now ad vauces. She is neither young nor inexperienced, nor deficient in abilities or energy to assert her rights and obtain justice when she is wronged. If the defendant had treated her in the way she now states she might have brought him before a police-court on a charge of fraud three years and a half ago. After neglecting . to take that course when the alleged injury was recent and the facts flesh in the memory of witnesses, and her re sorting to it after a lapse of time, which must place serious difficulties in the way of defence, rather leads to the infer ence that the charge could never have been established. The present summons is therefore dismissed. [A .DVERTISEMENT.] —TEAS AT WHOLESALE PRICES, No. 2, 13UCKLERSBURY, CHEAPRDE.—FamiIies whose consumption is large, and study economy, will derive considerable advantage at this establishment- One uni form price is affixed, by which the purchaser of a single p ., und can obtain it on the same terms as the trade. Black Tea 2B. Bd., f;s., 3s. 4d, 3s. 8d , 45., .4s. 4d., ss. Green 3s. 4d., 3s. Bd., 45., 4s. 4d., 53.. 63., 7s. Coffee. 9d., 10d., is., Is 2d., is. 4d., Is. 6d., is. Sd. One pound sent free to any part of town. Orders from the country forwarded the same day; and when the quantity is for 61b. weight (tea only), the carriage is paid to any girt of England.—MANaxr..x. and Co. wholesale tea d. aloes. 2, Bucklersbury, Cheapside . [ADVERTISEMENT.] - liEMARKABLE CURE tt OF .fa l tr att L er from - CEAS BY HOLLOWAY'S OINTMENT ANDILLS.—X , E , New Brunswick, dated Feb. 10, 1846 . To Pro fessor Iff pth owa n y.—Sir, A son of mine, sixteen years of age. Was affected with ulcers on his limbs and body for more than three years. from which c,mall pieces of bone had been removed front time to owe. I applied to several medical men in St. Jokes, but all to no purpose; I was then induced to try your ointment and pills, which made a complete cure. Several months have since elapsed, all 4 there Is not the slightest appearance or their return.—(Signed) JAMES WETMORE." These medicines are sold by all druggists, and at Pro fessor Holloway's establishment, 244, Strand, London. BIRTHS. On the 12th ult., the lady of Philip Henry Howard, Esq., 31.1"., of a daughter. On the 31st ult., at Margate, the wife of William Brooke, Esq., ef a daughter. On the 3d ink., at Pylewell House, Hants, the ',rife of Joseph Parker, Esq., of a da ug ht er. On the 3d inst., th e w if e of Mr. John Chambers, surgeon , Trafal gar-place East, Hackney-road, of a son. On the 3d inst., at Princess's. terrace, Regent's-park, Mrs. C. J. Shoubridge, of a daughter. On the 3d inet., at Appleby Hall, Leicestershire, the lady of George Moore, Esq„ of a son. On the 3 , yinst., the wife of G. Arthur Fripp, Esq., of a daughter. On the 4th inst., at Cambridge-street, liyde-park-square, the lady of A. 11. Boxam, Esq , of a son. • .VARRIED. On the 2Gth ult., at St. John's Church, Edinburgh, Captain Edward Wetherall, the Royal Regiment, to Katharine, relict of the late Davenport, Esq. DIED. On the 29th ult., at Hull, Hannah, the belayed wife of Mr. W. Wrightson, commercial traveller, and eldest daughter of the late John Dacg, Esq., surgeon, Bridlington. On the fith inst., at Strcatley House, Berkshire, Jane Mary, the only child of William Henry Stone, Esq., High Sheriff of the county. In the IGth year oilier age. On the 20th ult., at Temple House, Sligo, Jane Anne, wife of A. Perceval, Eeq. At Harland-place, Mrs. Frances Barnouln. aged 94. On the 3d Inst., Martha Matilda, eldest daughter of Major-General Slr Charles Paslcy, Norfolk-cr. scent, Hyde-;.ark. On the 3d inst., at Stoke Newington, Miss Christina Cecilia de Drusina. aged 72. On the 4th inst., at Newington-green, Mr. James Madgwick. On the tth list , at Abercrombie-terrace, Liverpool, Mary Haugh ton, relict ()like late John Reid, Esq., aged 37. On the 2d inst., the tee. 'James Thomas D.P., Rector Of Langham, Essex. an.! Prebendary of Salisbury Cathedral, aged al. On the 3d inst., at Islington, John De Hague, Esq., of the Stock- Exchange, aged 85. On the 4th inst., at Lewisham-hill, Elizabeth, third daughter of this late W. Allen, Esq. Londen: Printed and Published by AfTTRDO YOUNG, of No. 11 , . •ttrand. Print.r. Nr,. I , tr4nd, in Mr. Preoinct of tUe Savoy, in the County of Middlesex, Taciday. , autay 9, 1847. ,i 1 , 1 ?reel gnarl Chat] ~~-, ~m Th. Tav4 I'ebr It to cow, r e m m y. 11, 11 .11.., ft; fil ald ter a Pt L , P,ll , 11ek Ca/111 marl rale. the I With to tt 5, % vrta •eltt sift!, tre.