The Sun. — London, England, 1832-08-03 00:00:00

*, ... \\ r / "`- 6. " \ k - ..' alstituaur eyes entirely ' ' ' - T- to tire facts that led to that step ; , (FA . ": , -- anfLitis:maquestionable that there welt. many appearances r ( (\ wein picot challengers of f o 0 king Austriaat thesew er were not resolutions, success ful—the chivalry of Prussia were crushed in a single day. But when the armies of Germany were put down, then its people arose—then they began to commune and combine together—a real Confederation was formed—then its plans were laid—their opportunities were watched—the occa sion came. Here, at all events, is the result of the two systems. It is seen what the armies of Germany did, and what the people. The one was swept down in a single battle—the other was victorious in a hundred conflicts. If England wish Germany to be strong—and it is the strength of Germany that makes the peace of Europe,— is it not the wisdom of the House to address the Sove reign according to the terms of his motion?—will it not be the wisdom of the Sovereign to listen to its counsel when it petitions him to exercise his influence with the Germanic Diet and Princes of Germany, in disposing them not to forfeit more pledges England joined them in giving—not to rely upon the brute force of their armies against the still moral force, stronger in these days of pub lic opinion—not to separate themselves from their people through any vain confidence in their present power,— from the people who clung to them, and sup ported and re-established their Thrones in the day of their past distress—(Hear, hear)—not to lay their country again open to the force which any new re volution in France might pour into it. Surely there is no one who can dissent from the principle, from the policy, and from the prudence of such an adtlress. Go vernment are anxious to avert war. Who is not so ? And what is the war which they dread ? The war which Mr. Canning predicted—the war of hostile principles, now drawn up in array against each other. How shall we avert that war? Not by showing them, without an effort, to be brought into collision—not by allowing the armies drawn up on one side to be brought into conflict with the Constitutions opposed to them on the other. On the one hand, it is said that the Pi ussian army is reinforc ing itself on the Rhine from Silesia—the Austrian army marching from Italy in the same direction. On the other the people in the minor States are already holding meet ings to consult on what was to be done. The representa tive Chamber of Cassel is about to protest against the re solutions; the Hanoverian Chambers are to make serious remonstrances ; the Deputies of Brunswick cannot con cur in the protocol ; the smaller States are to be over run with Austrian and Prussian soldiers, but the smaller States contain 12,000,000 of men. France, too, is augmenting her forces. Is not this a seri ous state of things? Is it not plain that, if such a state of things are urged, ruin must inevitably ensue? Is not war certain if things proceed as they are? There have been pusillanimity and protocols enough. Let the Government now see whether a bold and manly conduct may not be able to avert that war. It is not by cowering and truckling to an influence to which a nation is known to feel opposed that war is prevented. Never was there so absurd an idea, or one so fatal to the nation which adopts it. If the Sovereigns of Germany are reallyjust in their intentions, or net too strong to despise advice, then they will listen peaceably to remonstrances. — Their present attempt is part of a universal plan which England is called upon, at every hazard, to resist, without losing a week, a day, a moment. France feels her own situation ; she also pretends to feel for the calamity of other nations ; but what does she say ? When Poland might have been preserved, M. Thiers said, in the French Chamber, that England had refused to unite with France for that purpose. Now, again, the official organ of the French Chamber declares that it cannot protest against the Acts of the Diet, for England refuses to join in such protestation. This is the language of France, who, if she were joined frankly and boldly by England now, might still be able to interpose in right of the treaties it sanc tioned, and the constitutional liberty it is yet suffered to enjoy.--( Here the Hon. Gentleman quoted a speech of Lord Brougham, and then went on.) This is the language of a Noble and Learned Lord, who, with a spirit of eloquence which amounts to prophecy, foresaw the state into which England is now fallen. From such a state it may yet rise, by the display of that holiness and firmness which he counselled, and which Mr. Canning subsequently adopted, and which is the only course England can now adopt. It was in the free forests of Germany that the infant genius of our liberty was nursed. It was from the free altars of Germany that the light of our purer religion first arose. It was from the minor States of Germany that our con stitutional Monarchs came, He appealed to a'l those re collections and sympathies—and not only to those recollec tions and sympathies, but also to all those feelings which self interest, policy, and prudence could suggest, in support of the motion which be was then about to read to the House—" That an address be presented to his Majesty, requesting him to exercise his influence with the Germa nic Diet, in opposition to the course pursued by them, contrary to the liberty and independence of the German people. "—(Ch eers. ) Mr. I-lUME seconded the motion. Lord PALMERSTON—I must, in the first instance, bear my testimony to the ability with which the Hon. Member for Coventry has performed his task, and to the luminous and perspicuous manner in which he has laid before the House the results of his historical researches into this question. It was not, however, necessary for the Hon. Gentleman to make any apology to the House for bringing under its consideration a subject which has excited so deep and universal an interest in every country in Europe. If the Hon. Gentleman thinks that events are pending which threaten the independence of the German States, it is to me no matter of surprise, that as a Member of the British House of Commons, he should take an opportunity of drawing the attention of the Par liament to the subject ; for I, for one, am prepared to admit that the independence of Constitutional States, whether they are powerful like France or the United States, or of less relative political importance, such as the minor States of Germany, never can be a matter of in difference to the British Parliament, or, I should hope, to the British public.—(Hear, hear.) These States I consider to be the natural allies of this country; and whoever may be in office conducting the affairs of Great Britain, I aria persuaded that no English Ministry will be perfot ming its duty if it is inattentive to the interests of the Germanic States. But it is one thing to admit the importance of the question and the deep interest which this country ought to take in it, and another to argue that the Government should adopt any particular course of proceeding which an Honourable Member may ad s ise--(Hear, hear)—and I must confess that I am not pre pared to accede to the proposal with which the Hon. Gen leurt,•irt has concluded his address, because I do not think cbs state of affairs in Europe and the complexion assumed by the transactions to which this motion refers are such as to call, at present, for those steps which the Hon. Gen ifewean recommends. I entirely take the Hon. Gentlman's view of the object for which the German Confederacy was formed by the Treaty of Vienna : the main and prin eipal object for which that Confederacy was established, was not only the internal and external safety of the states which compose it, but also the maintenance of their indivi dual independence.—(Hear, hear.) It, therefore, cannot be denied that any thing that threatens to destroy or vio late that independence would be inconsistent with the principles on which the Confederacy was established, and so far be a departure from the treaty of Vienna, to which all the crest Powers of Europe were contracting parties. But what is the state of these transactions as far as they have gone? lam not standing here to express my ap probation of those resolutions of the Diet upon which the Hon. Gentleman Las founded his motion -. perhaps a Mi nister of tore country is not called on to pronounce a judg ment one way or the other on the acts of independent Governments, who must be considered prima facie tire w e st competent judgeeof what is suited to their wants and existioct situation. Whether these resolutions, therefore, do or do not outstep the necessity of the case, I am, per haps, as one of the Ministry, not called on to say; but, in my own private opinion, I cannot help entertaining an ap prehension, that the Governments who have entered into these resolutions have overstrained the dangers against which they were endeavouring to guard, and not framed, with the greatest possible degree of discretion, that mea sure which they proposed to apply as a remedy to the danger. But all that was proposed at present is, that a certain number of independent Sovereigns, united in a con• federary which is sanctioned by all the great Powers of Europe, have unanimously adopted some resolutions at present applicable only to their own states, and not in volving any point with respect to their foreign relations with other independent Sovereigns. It, therefore, appears to me, that other states cannot found any just ground for interference with these Governments on the resolutions which they themselves have voluntarily adopted. In star relations with foreign States, we can only consider the acts of tee Governments of those States, because, looking ex ternally at the States themselves, it is by the acts of their Governments alone that foreign Governments are ab!e to judge of their intentions. The Honourable Gen tleman seems to apprehend that these resolutions, if car ried into effect to their fullest extent, may in the first place create differences between the Sovereigns and their subjects, and subsequently give rise to serious misunder- Difcol:stattdings among the Members of the Confederacy them ust not k - 1..... „'...,1, - .) , = , ip.:P6..r . u,lan of a dispo d sitio h n . to h disturb ld tlie . m:sureof d the le, • . .. -_ , .' , - , - e z., cie- i . t C' tirtt m r. i (n i g a, r v o in . g . t s i, ,, i , s, which be would L: s, y not ,a justify :f itl y that alluding t t*??/.\-;7:2:,,tir ar d icularly to the meeting that took place at Ham -4u03...„0 ~ ud the symptoms of excitement there exhibited,- 1 -.; .. ' Hear, hear.) I will not deny that if thew resolutions are acted on to their full extent, steps may be taken that I will so trench on individual rights, and will cause such se rious differences among the Germanic holy and the indi vidual members of the Confederacy, as may render it im possible to hope that the peace of Europe can be preserved, and that if the peace of Europe should he broken on such grounds as the , e, it would, perhaps, give rise to a war, not merely between the States of Germany, but a war of opi nion, which would spread its influence beyond the country whence it had its source ; in which case this country would not only be entitled, but called on, to take such steps as circumstances might require to preserve Europe against so extensive a warfare. But when the Hon. Gentleman calls on the House to address his Majesty to use his influ ence with the Germanic Confederacy, I ought perhaps in the first place to ask, in what capacity he wishes his Ma jesty to interfere—(Hear, hear)—whether he wishes him to interfere as King of Hanover or as King of England? Because if it is as King of Hanover, I should think the lion. Gentleman will himself, on reflection, see that the British House of Commons had no claim to make such a request. But if the Hon. Gentleman proposes this address to the King as Sovereign of Great Britain, and as a party to the treaty of Vienna, which established and secured the inde pendence of these States of Germany, I should then say, the ground on which I resist the motion is the ground of discretion.—(Hear, hear.) Not that I deny that the King of England has a right to express his opinion upon this matter (for I agree with the Hon. Gentleman that such a right undoubtedly exists), but because I think no thing has vet occurred which calls for such interposition on the part of this House, and because I can assure the Hon. Gentleman the Government is not inattentive to those important events to which be has drawn our atten tion. I can also assure him, that even without such an address as that which he has proposed, the advisers of his Majesty will deem it their duty to keep their attention fixed on those circumstances which are now taking place on the continent of Europe, never, I trust, undervaluing the deep importance of those circumstances with reference to this country ; because, let persons recommend as much as they will the propriety of England withdraw ing itself from all political connection with the rest of the world, my opinion is, that as long as our commerce is of importance to us—as long as Continental armies are in existence—as long as it is possible that a Power in one quarter may become dangerous to a Power in another— so long must England look with interest on the transac tions of the Continent, and so long is it proper for this country, in the maintenance of its own independence, not to shut its eyes to any thing that threatens the indepen dence of Germany. But, Sir, I cannot bring myself to believe that the alarm of the Hon. Gentleman is really well founded ; I cannot believe that any one administering the affairs of a great country can take so erroneous a view of its own interest, or of the interests of society, as to wish to deprive those independent States of those consti tutional rights, which are such a blessing to themselves, and such a benefit to their neighbours. I cannot believe that such a wish exists where there is a power to carry that wish into effect ; or even if such a wish does exist, I cannot believe that those who have the desire deem it possible fur thtm, in the present state of the world, to ' carry that wish into execution. Under these circum • stances I feel it to be my duty to give a negative to the motion of the Hon. Gentleman. Mr. COURTENAY agreed for the most part in the principle which the Noble Lord had laid down in his answer to the Hon. Gentleman. But he (Mr. Courtenay) wished to call the attention of the House to a more general view of the state of Europe than had been entered into by the lion. Member for Coventry. In the first place, with re spect to Ancona, be desired an explanation, for the pur pose of showing that the French had been justified, as well as the Austrians, in their interference. The present Go• vernment came into power pledged to three principles, and he had the less hesitation in affirming that, as he had lately seen a declaration by a Member of his Majesty's Go vernment, the Noble Lord the Member for Devonshire, to the same effect ;—the Government came into power pledged to the three great principles of Reform, Retrench ment, and the preservation of peace. It was curious to see these three principles thus placed in juxta.-position. Ministers had certainly the merit of professing Reform directly in opposition to the former Government. That was entirely their own work ; and be the results of Reform what they might—be they the happiness or misery' of the country, the present Ministers had alone produced them. He admitted that they had endeavoured to carry the principle of Retrenchment into effect, but they had not found that retrenchment quite so practicable as they had supposed. He contended, however, that the Ministers had no right to say, that in their desire to preserve peace They differed in any respect from their predecessors in office. He had, in fact, heard Lord Grey assert, that he entirely approved of the policy pursued by the Noble Duke, and of all that had been done relative to the re volt in Belgium prior to his acceptance of office. Ad verting to the present state of our affairs, he must ex press a hope that we should adhere to a strict neutrality in the affairs of Portugal. He had heard, indeed, that the instructions sent to our ships were such as the circum stances of the case warranted, and that we were not to interfere unless Spain interfered between the contending parties. He wished, however, to be informed whether our ships had not given more countenance to Don Pedro's squa dron than was consistent with strict neutrality ? He asked whether or not one of our ships had not been present at the landing of Don Pedro ; and if so, whether that were not a breach of neutrality ? If a prize were made by their joint exertions it would be a joint capture, and our ships would claim a share of the prize-money. Would not that be a breach of neutrality ? He would like also to ask if an officer had not gone from Lord Wil liam Russell to Dun Pedro's head-quarters ? He did not affirm that it was so, but having heard it he asked that question. He could show, by various documents, that in Lord Castlereagh's time the policy of this country had been that of non-into Kerence. The Right Hon. Gentle man referred to some State paper, the joint production of Mr. Canning and Lord Castlereagh, issued in 1820, which stated that such was the duty of all Stares, but ad mitting that if any country was in such a state of misery and disturbance as to affect another country, it might then interfere. He wished to know whether the Papal States were in such a condition of misery and disturbance affect. ing the honour of England as to warrant us in interfering with that country ? He admitted that the condition of that country was very bad, but lie wanted to know if it were so bad as to warrant interference? In January, 1821, by Lord Castlereagh, after he and Mr. Canning had separated, the same principles were espoused and set forth on occasion of the Austrian troops occupying Naples. It was then again admitted, that if the condition of one country endangered the tranquillity of another, that other might interfere. With respect to the recent con duct cf Austria as to the Papal dominions, Austria, as well as Prussia, bad concurred in recommending to the Papal Government the improvements proposed in the internal Governments of its States, which at lest showed that Austria was not so much in love with despotism as was supposed, and that she only interfered as a means of self-preservation. He was unwilling to advert to the debate of a former evening on the Russian Dutch Loan, but he must be allowed to make one obser vation. The Right Hon. Secretary for Ireland, at the close of his speech, had put it to the Gentlemen on that (the Opposition) side of the House, if they would have refused to pay the loan. He must say that he believed that he should have finally concurred in making the pay ment. But under what circumstances was the proposition brought before Parliament ? Sufficient information to enable the Parliament to judge of this question was unfor tunately denied, and as long as that was denied, he was justified in every vote he had given in the minority. If he had possessed information, if he had been a Member of his Majesty's Government, he believed that he should have concurred in advising the payment. He remembered the original debate on the subject, and believed that the loan was made to Russia as a boon for her services and her suf ferings. With respect to the present condition of Belgium, he must deprecate the guarantee of her neutrality which this country had given, as not likely to preserve that neutrality, while it might plunge this country in war at a time when she least desired it. That guarantee could not induce other Powers to respect that neutrality if they had motives for violating it, and it was not likely to strengthen the motives they would naturally have to respect and observe that neu trality. He must assert that our whole policy in this respect did not meet his approbation. By promoting the s e ve p r n a r ni a t e i n o t n l i a a e .d t w n e o e t n Belgium satisfied and Flo t haepolicy ad 01, t t e h d e in present l s 1 t Go - and 1815. His feeling upon the subject of our policy towards Holland and Belgium was very strong, and it was not strengthened by his hostility to the present Ministry, which he had not the affectation to disclaim. He hoped the Noble Lord would be able to give such answers to his questions as would satisfy the House and the country, that the Govern ment had pursued that pacific policy to which it was pledged ; and that it had not interfered with other States, unless where the honour of England was concerned. The Right lion. Gentleman concluded by moving fur a variety of papers, illustrating the policy pursued by his Majesty's Government towards Portugal and Holland. Colonel EVANS then proceeded to say, that in his opi nion the French Government was perfectly warranted in sending troops into Ancona; and he hoped they would not be withdrawn till the troops of Austria retired from the dominions of the Pope, nor without coming to such a per_ feet understanding as would tie sufficient to ensure the peace of Europe. The Right Hon. Gentleman, after leaving Ancona, went to Portugal, and objected that a British frigate was present at the disembarkation of Don Pedro. Why, the same objection might be made to a fleet being in the Tagus ; but the fact was, that they were there, in both instances, for the protection of British sub jects and property, during the transactions which were taking place. He also objected to the fact of an officer or supposed officer at Lisbon being sent to Don Pedro ; but, in his opinion, any person acquainted with the Laws of Nations would say that the great fault of this country was, that it carried its prudence so far as to forbear to recognise Donna Maria, and that army which now holds a large part of Portugal. Even if the rights of the brothers were but equal, there could be no sound reason why we should have a diplomatic agent at the Court of Don Miguel and not at that of Don Pedro. He had, however, risen principally on account of some observations which had been made in one of the Journals of the day. A despatch had appeared a few days ago from an English gentleman of the name of Hodges, in the service of Don Pedro, and who had acted in the most gallant manner. Objections had been made to officers of other countries serving on these occasions; but he must say that he thought those gentlemen of Eng land or France who took part in that expedition did them selves great honour, and materially promoted the best in terests of their country, There were some who doubtless thought otherwise, and it was quite competent to them, or to any Journal, to express its opinion of the impro priety of such conduct, if they thought it improper. But there were Journals here whicli appeared to be in the interest of Don Miguel, which were not satisfied with ex pressing disapprobation, but resorting to calumnies and re crimination, which were highly improper. With respect to that officer (Mr. Hodges), there was a passage in one of those Journals of that morning which threw out insinua tions not to be justified. He knew that gentleman, and he knew him to be a man of a most amiable, honourable, and gallant conduct. He could, therefore, wish that Journals would confine themselves to opinions of conduct, and not descend to calumnies in other respects. It ap peared to him that the Member for Coventry had fully made out his case. The question appeared to be, whether the Princes, or the representatives of the Princes of Germany, at the Diet of Frankfurt, had not violated the rights of those States, to the preservation and maintenance of which England was a guaranteeing Power ? and whether it was not necessary, from honour, and for the peace and interests of Europe, that those rights should be maintained. The Noble Lord had not brought forward any argument to rebut the state ment, neither did it appear that he was desirous of doing so. The Noble Lord admitted the right to interfere, but he doubted the discretion. He did not state whether he doubted the discretion of interfering or of allowing that vote to pass; be hoped it was the latter ; for, from the communication he had with foreigners tolerably well versed in those matters, he believed that the Noble Lord and his colleagues, though they did not think it prudent to state so much to the House, bad interfered in a manner which did them infinite credit. He considered that the circumstance of the interference of the Representative of the King of Hanover formed a still stronger ground for the continued interference of his Majesty's Government. Mr. HUME had heard with great satisfaction some parts of the speech of the Noble Lord, but he much regretted that the Noble Lord had not directed his attention more to the principal parts of the speech of his Hon. Friend who had brought forward the motion. The question ap peared to him to be, whether the privileges in dispute were privileges recogni-ed by the Convention which was sanctioned by this country ; and if so, whether those pri vileges had been violated, or were in danger of being so? If anything were important to the people of Great Bri tain, it was that the military despots of Europe should not be suffered to crush the freedom of the Press.—(Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord admitted that great alarm pre vailed, because we in England staid committed to non-in terference in affairs of other countries. But he must con fess, that after long observation and attention given to the proceedings of other countries, he found those proceedings to be inconsistent with that principle.—(Hear, hear.) — When the despotic States found, or fancied, it to be their interest to interfere, no matter what might be their object, they generally found sufficient excuse.— He had often stated it to be his wish that England should withdraw from that meddling interference in the affairs of the Continent in which she had been apt to in dulge. It had been the cause of infinite mischief, and had led us into the most ruinous expenses. During the last thirty years we had been made the dupes of the faithless promises of the Continental Powers, and all our blood and treasure had been lavished without deriving the slightest advantages for our own country. He believed that our interference with the affairs of Belgium would not be pro ductive of the good that was expected. But if the Govern ment thought fit to interfere with Belgium, the Papal States, and Ancona, he thought the question under consi deration one which warranted the utmost stretch of such a principle. There was one very embarrassing circum stance connected with this question. He found, and the people at large found, great difficulty in distinguishing be tween the King of Hanover and the King of England. The people of England were ashamed of what the King of Hanover had done.—(Hear, hear, hear.) Many people could scarcely believe that on the 10th of May the King of Hanover had given his sanction to a mea sure calculated to destroy the liberties of Europe...-. a measure, the object of which was to put down the Press, and the introduction of an overwhelming foreign military force, for the purpose of overawing the minor States, and depriving them of those privileges which were sanctioned by the treaty of Vienna. It therefore became his 111,j-sty's Ministers to express their disapprobation of this conduct. The Noble Lord did express his dissent from this decree of the Diet, yet not in that forcible man ner which, as Minister for Foreign Affairs, he ought to have done, for if we, in this country, were to remain pas. sive in relation to the present proceedings in Germany, we should cast doubt and suspicion upon our motives, and it would prove a want of that interest in the welfare of Germany, the freedom of Europe, and the liberties of man kind, which this country ought ever to exhibit. When all publications were put down, and the independent States of Germany were not allowed to speak their senti ments, surely it was time for this country to speak out; and when all this was to be done by military power, and by military power was to be maintained, he would beg to ask the Noble Lord on what foundation the peace of Europe rested? The Ministers ought to make immediate representations to the foreign Powers, that the Cabinet of the King of England could not consent to such measures as were adopted by the representative of the King of Ha nover. He had always regretted our connexion with Ha nover, and he had hoped that as the liberties of England became more extended, we should in some measure have shaken off the yoke of that objectionable policy which had so long been forced upon us in consequence of our con nexion with that country ; but it seemed as though we were to be dragged at the chariot wheels of Hanover as a party to a foul conspiracy against the liberties of Europe. Every person was scandalized ; for how could the people believe that the King of England was sincere in main taining the freedom and the privileges of Englishmen, when they found him attempting to put down freedom in Germany—to put down freedom not only in his own kingdom of Hanover, but giving his sanction to the de struction of the freedom of all the minor states of that empire. What security was there that France and her revolution would not be attacked, on whom, let it be ob served, the peace of Europe depended ? How could it be shown that there was no reasonable ground for apprehend ing these measures to he merely preliminary to an attack upon France, and to an attempt to submit the whole Con tinent of Europe to a military despotism ? He thought, therefore, it became that House to express its abhorrence of such proceedings, and to use all its influence with his Majesty's Government to prevail on them (and they had interfered in cases of much less importance) to interfere justly ust l y thet whthem to pause Gre in their Great Powers cianreser. such a Itmanner had ben a ob served, that those despotic d ecrees m i ght pro d uce res ults very diff e rent from tho se an ti c i pate d b y their f ramers; and to cause lie did hope there would be resolution enough amongst the brave Germans to resist their oppressors, and that by ex tensive union they would find their resources equal to the frustration of the present most atrocious attempt. Could any man read the article of the treaty of Vienna by which the freedom of the Press was secured, and reconcile to that article the conduct of the Governments under the Pro tocol ? He had been informed that proceedings had been commenced by the putting down some excellent publica tions, which certainly ought not to have drawn down upon them the vengeance of the despots. He knew it was un necessary for him to state that Earl Grey and his associates had nothing to do with the proceedings of the King of Hanover; but it would be found difficult in the opinion of the people to separate the conduct of the King of Hanover from the conduct of the King of England. He wished , therefore, the Noble Lord had been more explicit in de claring the opinions, not of the King of Hanover, but of the King of England, anal to adopt such measures as were calculated to rouse a people to overcom e that oppression which threatened them. The Noble Lord ought to do this, more particularly at a time when England was con gratulating herself on the glorious privileges which she had recently attained ; for when the people of England saw Poland sacrificed almost without a word of remonstrance — when they saw this succeeded by a new attempt to extend time sphere of tyranny, and to reduce under the dominion of despotism a country so worthy of freedom as ()en. many—would they not begin to consider these transactions as part of a systematic attack upon the liberties of all the free European States ? Where, indeed, was this to stop ? No man could tell ; and unless the Government took every measure to express their strong disapprobation of this gross infraction of the treaty, they would be shrinking from their duty. The Noble Lord said he could not agree to the address; he could not conceive what objec tion could be taken to it. Such objection was contrary to the general tenor of the Noble Lord's speech ; if there existed matter of discretion not stated, that was no reason why such discretion should not still be increased. Such an address would, in point of fact, materially strengthen the hands of his Majesty's Government, and give additional weight to their remonstrances. In conclusion, he begged leave to congratulate the Hon Member for Totnes on the candid avowal made by him, that if Ministers had been beaten on the question of the Russian Dutch Loan, and the Tories had come into power, they would have felt themselves under the same obligation to pay the money. He did not know what his friends the Tories would say to him, but it completely proved that he took a right view of the question. Every post brought papers from the country in which Hume and extravagance were placed in conjunction : but he could see as far into a millstone as another, and he felt that he was acting for the advantage of the country in refusing to be made the tool of so ob noxious a stratagem.—(Hear.) Mr. WYSE said, that Tory England had been con stantly interfering in the affairs of the Continent, and of opposing continental liberty, and he did not see why liberal England should not interfere to protect it. He thought this one of the strongest cases to justify an inter ference. He then proceeded to argue, that the protocol of Frankfort violated not only the indefeasible rights of man, but those rights as sanctioned and guaranteed by the treaty of Vienna. The question was, whether despotism or liberty should prevail in the civilized world? That was no subject for indifference, and though there was danger in war, yet he thought war was not the only danger to be feared. The triumph of despotism was yet more dangerous. The peculiar situation of Germany made the preservation of its independenee of the greatest importance to every free State in Europe. It formed a barrier between the barbarous power of Russia on the North and the free States of the South ; whilst from its literature, its knowledge, and its civilization, it became a moral as well as a physical barrier—a guarantee for, and a guard of, the liberties of the Southern States of Europe. On this ground alone she ought to be properly and energetically supported. If we surrendered her up—if we did not in terfere, he meant morally, for the moral power of England was great even with the despots—unless we expressed our sense of what was going forward, Russia would trample on Germany, and advance her legions to the frontiers of France. Nor did he see how France could resist Russia, combined, as she would be, with the Powers of Austria and Prussia. In his opinion, these hostile demonstrations to France called for serious consideration. He thought that the people of this country should not have their name bandied about among the nations of the earth as the great possessors of free institutions, and the great protectors of those who aspired to possess them, while, at the same time, they s, it their face against the efforts of freemen throughout the Continent. The name of England had been stained in Italy, and stained in the North. They were taunted with the course they had pursued towards Portugal—taunted with the course they had pursued towards Belgium—and, last, though not least, they were taunted with their con duct towards Poland, now, unhappily, almost era. ,, ed from the list of States, and deprived of her nationality, and even of her language. These were some of the consequences of that policy, which, he thought, called loudly for a change more consistent with the character of the country and the wishes of its people.—(Hear.) Lord PALMERSTON, in rising to resist the amended motion, thought he should best discharge his duty if he first spoke to the distinction taken in the course of the de bate by the Hon. Member for Middlesex, on the subject of the conduct pursued by Hanover and England. The truth was, that both the King of Hanover and the King of England acted through constitutional advisers ; and the advisers of the King of England were as little answerable for the conduct of the King of Hanover, as the advisers of Hanover could be supposed to be answerable for the con duct of those of England. He (Palmerston) should, how ever, ill discharge his duty if he failed on such an occa sion to inform the House that the King of Hanover was as much attached to constitutional doctrines, and as anxious to carry them into beneficial effect, as the King of England had lately so fully proved himself to be ; and al though the King of Hanover was advised to give the assent to the Decree of the Diet, he subsequently made a communication to his States, which had for its direct object to enlarge and confirm the privileges of his subjects. —(Hear, hear.) The King of Hanover, therefore, con tinues still to act in the same manner as the King of England acts here ; and as a proof of it, that very communication was now under the consideration of the States.—(Hear.) Adverting to the topics touched on by the Member for Totnes, he admitted that the Government came into office with three distinct pledges—Reform, Re trenchment, and Peace; but they gave no pledge, that he could recollect, on the subject of non-interference. In deed, from the nature of things they could not give such a pledge. Interference, it should be recollected, was of two kinds—interference by force of arms, and interference by friendly advice and counsel. Now the principle of the non-interference of the G wernment was to avoid appeals to arms; but they at no time admitted that they would not interfere by counsel and advice. On that principle they commenced, and to that they had adhered. With respect to the course adopted in the misunderstanding between the Pope and the Legations, the interference of this country had taken place at the express request of Austria and France, who were from their position more deeply interestd in the question at issue; but an interference by force of arms constituted no part of the plan of this country, or of any party; and he was happy to say that their joint efforts had been eminently successful in securing the maintenance of peace. The Right Hon. Gentleman had observed that the Government, not content with their own ReforM Bil', were striving to form Constitutions for all the rest of Europe; but he could assure the Right Hon. Gentleman, that the document of May 1, applied to the Legations, was signed at the request of Austin is and Prussia. With respect to Belgium, he believed it was admitted on all hands to be most desirable that that country should not hereafter be come the theatre of European wars ; and it was, therefore, a future ti e b lilr j se: e shmev c 7d taiear:nuonohh respect g el sh ta) e ilyet a ic t eFt mhrtaoabdnepereboforewert congratulation sPortugal trnas ooencsdua t hrs l p i eap a dada t t observed,yl fromgtttolii a e t r h a ß tanihtgee Right tub f Gala o rit r ra:an i na ti t P t DEG e e. on pp protecting presenting and aatsstihs assisting, n l g a , n andditisoo of near re the forces csecse scene of action, that if prizes had been taken, she would have been entitled to her share. Now the real fact was, that strict orders had been given to the Naval Commander on the coast of Portugal to avoid all interference with either party, unless the troops of Spain attempted to enter Portu gal. There was, however, a large portion of British pro perty which required protection, and an unarmed vessel had been sent within the bar of Oporto at the desire of the merchants. He ought to mention here, perhaps, that an officer had been sent by Lord William Russell to the head-quarters of Don Pedro, for the purpose of apprising him of the neutrality which it was intended to preserve, and of the terms on which it was to be maintained ; but that officer had orders not to stay there a moment longer than necessary, but to proceed at once to the Spanish frontier, in order to watch and report on the movements of the Spanish troops. He was happy to state, however, that the greatest cordiality prevailed between the Govern ment of England and Spain on this subject, and that the officer remained there with the perfect concurrence of the Spanish Government. He did not reelect any other topic to which it was necessary for him to advert. The present Government was as ready and as willing to give information on all questions of policy as any of its prede cessors had been ; but it should be recollected, that there were some points, particularly when connected with nego tiations still pending, that could not be fully laid open without great prejudice to the public service. After a few words in reply from Mr. CIJURTENAY and g 3 tntiiiil, l ,,eaeea r l.. l,, E gia,i o etii, : a r aebt d n u pehyana ‘ P et ' mld ::r etpG . e k ina E san L eto i p, : ini vell:niteslrla:Esieunenbfgßs, amendment t S yvetrh,ine T seli e O gi ‘ut aiiiiNtnnriei the ei ssg s d ibtit a tieesa i corr d tost:e , fpju:sebi re,el subjects, stLn e iT.ct had itotisiftintetel elarme,ena. other tofil rands objectionpo portion r toiofnt ot the disputes with respect i to the in c t t e alom i s i e n uw a s l ßiag a sTn ff Eaa a itlNriisolAvosytf to oe h o tt eee original mt ifio States,cvi ratification oo a otronh of the u th t e a nartlraniers og a f t Germany. v r e o. d f ; p he ies tre o a f ty ti o 'e f d th a e tl\els lsth of November, 1831, as they were given by the Allied Powers of France, Prussia, Austria, and Russia.— Ordered. IRISH CHURCH. Mr. SHELL, feeling it would be highly improper, in the present state of the House, and at that advanced period of the session, to bring forward any motion on the subject of the Established Church of Ireland, begged ;eave to withdraw his notice to that effect. The question was one which could be much better discussed in the new Par liament ; but he felt bound to say, as the opinion of many of those around him, and with whom he acted, that it was his object not to touch in the slightest degree Ihe stability of the Protestant Church, but merely to place it on a more permanent foundation. Motion withdrawn accordingly. THE LORD CHANCELLOR'S SALARY. Lord ALTHORP rose for the purpose of making the motion of which he bad given notice, respecting the salary and retiring pension of the Lord Chancellor. With re gard to the pension, however, although sinecure places were to be abolished, from which former Lord Chancel lors had derived great emolument, his Noble and Learned Friend had declared that he would not agree to any in crease of that pension, and even that he would give to any proposition for such an increase his decided opposition, until Parliament had considered the subject, and had dis posed of those places, as appeared to them to be fitting. His (Lord Althorp's) present propotition was, that the salary of the Lord Chancellor, as Lord Chancellor, should be 10,0001. charged on the Suitor's Fund. The Commit tee to whom the subject had been referred, had recom mended that his Noble and Learned Friend's salary, as Lord Chancellor and Speaker of the House of Lords, should be 14,0001. The average annual amount of the emolu ments enjoyed by the Lord Chancellor, as Speaker of the House of Lords, was 4,0001. His proposition, therefore, strictly accorded with the recommendation of the Commit tee. From all the inquiries which he had made on the sub ject, it appeared, that although for the last few years the salary and emoluments of the Lord Chancellor and Speaker of the House of Lords had not much exceeded 14,5001., yet that sum was much below what had been the general produce of those offices. The proposition, therefore, of 14,000/. was a considerable reduction. Let this salary of a Judge, who was removable at pleasure, be ' compared with the salary of the Lord Chief Justice of the Court of King's Bench, who held his office for life, and who, although his salary was nominally but 10,000/., had a sinecure place in his gift, which yielded him an addi tional 3,0001. ; and he (Lord Althorp) did not think that his proposition would be considered extravagant or im proper. His Noble and Learned Friend had lately been attacked, and most unjustly attacked. Having stated that it was his full intention to abolish places of considerable emo lument belonging to his office, the reward which his Noble and Learned Friend had received was, to be attacked as if, on the contrary, he had intended to reserve those places. How inconsistent was the conduct, thus unjustly imputed to his Noble and Learned Friend, with the conduct which his Noble and Learned Friend had actually pur sued with reference to the Bankruptcy Bill. In that case his Noble and Learned Friend had sacrificed 6,000/. a year, leaving it entirely to Parliament to make whatever arrangement it might think proper on the subject ; although no arrangement had yet been made.— After such a sacrifice it certainly was not too much to claim for his Noble and Learned Friend the admission that he did not act from corrupt motives.—(Hear, hear.) It being distinctly understood in the House, when this subject came under discussion before last Christmas, that his Noble and Learned Friend should not suffer from the abandonment of salary which he had made in the case of the Bankruptcy Bill, he (Lord Althorp) should now pro pose, and was persuaded that the House would perfectly agree with him in the propriety of the proposition, that the salary abort to ba settled by the House should bear date from the time at which the Bankruptcy Bill came into operation.—(Hear.) The only objection which he could at all anticipate from his motion was, to the fund upon which it was proposed to charge this salary. Upon deliberate consideration, it had been determined to make it chargeable on the accumulations of the Suitors' Fund; introducing a provision i❑ the Bill to guard against any injury to the claims of the suitors. The Noble Lord concluded by moving for leave to bring in a Bill to make provision for salaries to the Lord High Chancellor of Eng land, and to the Vice-Chancellor of England, in lieu of fees heretofore payable to the former. Mr. HUME thought that the proposition of the Noble Lord deserved the most serious attention of the House, and especially with reference to the principle on which it was made. With respect to the recent appointment which had been made by the Lord Chancellor, he (Mr. Hume) had on a former occasion expressed himself per fectly satisfied from the manner in which the Noble and Learned Lord had expressed himself in the Com mittee, that it was quite impossible that that appoint ment could be anything but temporary. He also highly approved of the Noble and Learned Lord's having a fixed salary, instead of being paid by fees. He had him self, nine years ago, proposed a similar alteration, but in vain. He entirely concurred, therefore, with the Noble Lord in the principle of paying the Lord Chancellor by a fixed salary. But he differed from the Noble Lord as to the amount of that salary. He had objected in the Committee to the proposed amount. In his opinion all the salaries of the great officers in the country were too great, and were such as the finances of the country could not bear. When he considered what the suns of twelve thousand pounds was, he could not help thinking that no public servant, whether Judge or other officer, should have more. As to the 10,000/. paid to the Lord Chief Justice of the Court of King's Bench, it was granted on taking certain places out of his gift, and he (Mr. Hume) never understood that it was to be con tinued. Nor could he see the propriety of granting more than a pension of 1,000/. In the burdened state of the country, it would be very hard to have to pay pensions to three Lord Chancellors at once. He was decidedly of opinion that no retiring pension should be more than 4,000/ , and no salary more than 12,0001. He had a great objection to the fund on which it was proposed to charge the Lord Chancellor's salary. The accumulation of that fund arose from the delay of justice—from abuses in the Court of Chancery, which it was the Lord Chan cellor's duty to correct. Like the unclaimed dividends, the unclaimed money of the suitors in the Court of Chan cery ought to be paid into the Treasury, and the salary and other expenses of the Court ought to be an especial vote of that House, founded on an estimate. The Suitors' Fund was already made chargeable with the salaries of the Masters in Chancery, and with other improper pay ments. Mr. HUNT concurred with the Hon. Member for Middlesex, that a salary of 12,0001. paid in gold (which was equivalent to 15,0001. in paper) was quite sufficient for any public officer; and that 4,0001. paid in gold (which was equivalent to 5,0001. in paper) was retiring pension enough for any body. He was sorry that he could not give his Majesty's Government credit for showing any disposition towards retrenchment. The Noble Lord said, that in bringing in the Bankruptcy Bill the Lord Chan cellor had given up 6,000/. a year. But it should be re collected that he had also relinquished the duties for which that sum had been the payment. And then what pa tronage he had obtained and could distribute among his friends ! Ile did not attribute to the Lord Chancellor that he was selfi,,h, or that he did what other men would not do ; hut he regretted that Government, having the power of retrenchment in their hands, had not exercised it. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL observed, that it was true that in relinquishing the fees of the jurisdiction in bankruptcy, his Noble and Learned Friend had also relin quished the duties of the office; but still there was not the least portion of his time unemployed ; and no man could do more. His Noble and Learned Friend had relinquished 7,0001. or 8,0001. a-year, without making the slightest bargain or provision. It was true that he had obtained the appointment of four Judges and six Commissioners, but was that to be compared to the appointment of seventy Commissioners—offices distributed among per sons of family and interest—which he had relin quished ? The patronage arising from the appoint ment of the four Judges and six Commissioners was infinitely less than the patronage arising from the appoint ment of seventy Commissioners ; although the former did the business infinitely better than the latter. The Hon. Member for Preston, when he charged his Ma jesty's present Government with not having evinced any spirit of retrenchment, seemed to forget that they had reduced 2,100,0001. of the public expenditure. The fund on whirls it was proposed to charge the Lord Chan cellor's salary, consisted of large accumulations in the hands of th e A ccountant-General. No su i tor could possi bly lose any thing by the arrangement. His Noble Friend near him had fallen into one little mistake. The Chief Justice of the Court of King's Bench had no such sine cure now in his gift, as his Noble Friend supposed. For had this means, to one Lord Chief Justice the chance of bmeeernly felt t iere to wasionneexpoetfneenntoia•mndous value,un unjust tto bu le t av i e t ,by be coming enormously rich, while his successor was stripped salary of he ad t ch the Lord Chief Just i c e of the Court of Kin g 's B ench now had, therefore, Leewn a s rd ub fu st r it l u lis ted se . rvi T ce i s ie ; o a n n ly d a pi fix ce e s d Nvhi had in his gift, were those of Marshal and Associate. When it was c onsidered that his Noble and Learned Friend the present Lord Chancellor had left a business at the bar much larger than the average of that which was relinqu i s h e d by Lord Chancellors, he thought it would appear to the House that the proposed salary was exceed ingly moderate. Lord W. BENTINCK did not believe that the people of this country wished to see the salaries attached to high and official offices reduced. What they wanted was to see useless places and sinecures abolished. He would sup port the proposition for giving the Lord Chancellor a sa lary of 14,00 0 /. In answer to a question from Mr. H. GURNEY, The ATTORNEY- GENERAL stated that what was called the dead fund, being the accumulated interest already realized, was that on which it was proposed to charge the salary; leaving the principle and interest of the Suitor ] Fund untouched for the suitor. Mr. MILKS agreed with the Hon. Member for Mi d, . dlesex, that the salary ought to be charged upon the CS" solidated Fund, rather than upon the Suitors' Fund. Mr. SHEIL said that he had no objection to the l'!; rangements proposed with respect to the present lAn Chancellor. He had made great sacrifices; but he (A 3 , r ' Sheil) wished to know from the N o bl e L or d o pp os ite (t° Chancellor of the Exchequer) wheth er th ese arran geme o , were to extend to future Lord Chancellors. He o bject' strongly to having any payment made from the Suitor Fund. Lord ALTHORP said the payment was only from interest of the Suitors' Fund; and contended that, con' tiering the sacrifices made by the Lord Chancellor hint , ' and his successors, 14,0001. a year was by no means t ° great a salary. It was true that a Judge for the Lott' Courts might be selected from gentlemen practising at tt bar, who would not sacrifice large emoluments, but tY never could be obtained with respect to a Lord Chancel!' who would be necessarily selected from the first rank the profession. In reply to the Hon. Gentleman, he b' to state that the arrangements were not to be limited the present Lord Chancellor. Colonel SIBTHORPE remarked that the Ministry le r very fond of talking of economy, but they had not to!' done much in that way. Leave was then given to bring in the Bill. BRIBERY BILL. Lord J. RUSSELL postponed the motion of which had given notice for that day until to.morrow. Afr. SHELL asked if the Noble Lord intended to p r ceed with the Jury Bill this Session ? Lord ALTHORP replied that it was his intention• TITHES. On the motion of Mr. STANLEY, the House Wfi into Committee on this Bill. Mr. STANLEY moved an amendment, the object which was to exempt tenants-at•will from liability to Ce position for Tithe, until Nov. 1833. Mr. SHEIL observed, that the effect of the Bill Was cast the odium, the unpopularity, and toil of collecting tithes upon the landlords, and thus to relieve the clero their expense ; it was, in fact, a transfer of all duties' tithe proctor, from the clergyman to the landlord. was not only objectionable in itself, but completely 0,!,. P' riance with the declared sentiments of the Right Gentleman opposite. He confessed it did app e ar to b most extraordinary that a measure of that n ature s l3° , l f be pressed forward at such a period of the session. t Right Hon. Gentleman himself admitted that 11; 9 could not come into operation till 1833 ; then whY wait for the decision of a Reformed Parliament? ' Mr. STANLEY avowed that it was his intentio ri g , transfer the burden of collecting the tithes from the man to the landlord, and he never had any other del nor ever meant anything to the contrary. Hi s o bject to render the tithes part and parcel of the landlord's f t and to save all parties an infinite amount of trouble', was acknowledged that the abolition of tithes in 3 di form, would at once increase the landlord's rent to ad; tent equal to the amount of tithes abolished, and ace° ingly the tenant could derive no advantage from the nb° Mr. WALKER said, that the efi,ct of the Bill ; be to remove the odium from the clergyman, a nd tbr° on the landlord. In that opinion he fully agreed wit b , Hon. and Learned Member for Louth. He did not ti that the landlord ought to be placed in that situation. his opinion the Bill gave the clergy more than they reasonably expect, and it destroyed the vested rights d landlord. This was most objectionable. Air. CALLAGHAN was convinced that the sentill; expressed by the Hon. Member for Wexford were tho' tertained by the majority of the landed gentry of IrelA Mr. HUNT thought that if by this Bill Lando l' ) were obliged to pay tithes in all cases whatever, and not at liberty, like English landowners, to exempt P. their lands from tithes, by laying them down as past), was one of the greatest acts of injustice he had ever to be inflicted by an Act of Parliament. The amendment was agreed to. While the discussion about the clause respecting the pointrnent of a Receiver was going on, Mr. HUNT said he rose to order. He was ti r ' i these Irish tithes, and wanted to go home to bed laugh.) He had gone to the door, but he found it P, He was locked in. He was no longer a free og e° (Loud laughter, in the midst of which the door was or,, . _ _ _ and the Honourable Member was informed be liberty. We believe that the Honourable Member' his bow and departed.) Mr. MOORE O'FERRAL said he protested, strongly against this Bill. He complained that o° o , tivcs were misrepresented out of doors--that the 0 ,, f , ance of 'Members within was very thi n , an d t h a t P i who were present, and who were voting away th, e e petty of Irish Gentlemen, did not und e rstand t'' l ,l they were supporting. He declared that nothingto power he could not resist should make him submit Bill. Mr. LEADER also complained that the GOO' appeared determined, at all events, to carry di° which, he assured them, had created the greatest p ° excitement in Ireland. Mr. RUTHVEN said he should take all the possible of opposing the Bill, and should, therefore , the House on the passing of the clause. The Committee then divided, when there appear ej For the Clause 45 Against it Majority y of the Bill were agreed reeT House remsuaminedin g clauses , and the report was or d ere d t o be r e to-morrow. LORD CHANCELLOR'S SALARY BILL Lord ALTHORP brought in a Bill for 0, salary of the Lord Chancellor, which was ready time, and ordered to be read a second time to 111 4, THE SPEAKER'S RETIRING PENSION Y Mr. RICE brought in a Bill to fix the retiring of the Speaker, which was read a first time, and to be read a second time on Saturday next. The House adjourned at Two o'clock. LIST OF THE MINORITt it ii OF TWELVE, WHO VOTED LAST NIGHT "1 . ,n),!i PETITION AGREED TO AT BALLYGRAMnsk SEVENTEEN PARISHES, AGAINST THE ,01/ TITHE SYSTEM, SHOULD LIE ON THE vs Bulwer, E. E. L. Leader, N. P. INVilks, Callaghan, 1). O'Ferrall, R. M. Evans, De Lacy Parnell, Sir H. Hunt, H. Shell, R. L, Jephson, C. D. O. 0 9 ' TEL•q, Bulwer, rl' e po Hume, J°'- FORGERY ON COUTTS'S BAOI, / , ATTEMPT AT SELF-DESTRuCTI° Yesterday afternoon, between four and five ° : s ' d young man, apparently ab ou t 20 y ears o f ag e, are" very fashionable style, entered th e B an k o f Mee sfg 'oi and Co., in the Strand, and pr esen t e d to °" - v e cashiers a cheque for 2001., purporting to 115 4 , 0 ' ) drawn by Mr.J.T. Paxton, a wine-mer c hant in c rl t i payable at Messrs. Coutt's on presentation. Th e on looking at the cheque, observed somethir4oo writing that excited his suspicion, and he handea 4 ol, Edmund Antrobus, one of the partners in the P..tee his inspection. The young man who bad pres eP 4 cheque was asked to take a seat, and though he 0 0 , that the document was handed from one clerk to for examination, he did not betray the least alarwms had, as the sequel will show, predetermined, t 0 ro' detection, to put a period to his existence, havinglj himself with a phial containing poison. Sir 0 0J Antrobus having examined the cheque, and obtit Thomas, the Super:tnt opinion of some of the clerks that it was a forger' be round to the young man to ask him from w hc°l e s s At t ir a e t man was in the act of drinking the contents,.. ° 4i e /;/ 7 when he observed that t b f d knocked the bottle out or ' 10 (14 twined hand, d o bE c u u dtm m nu e e n na t swallowed. Medical assistance • d' telf 1' was imme la (iv 0 ( d h e e n N t v whole epoofl cicc a o n n d t e t :l e f e 0 0 1.,01 ; and the young man was given into the cust ° ,:a ° de ' with e in t, n- s h u station-house surgeons, n i C a o tt v e e n n d t e . a d t r i d ie e n y , o c u h n a g rg m e d a r. Jones, of the Strand, and Mr. Beumanr the station..house, and with much difficulty it, t 1]„ ; to swallo w an ant id ote . Th e y ascertained ed taken nearly an ounce of laudanum, and be heg 4 ol l e r more poison might be given him, as he would ole , than he taken to Newgate and exposed to sh %, 1 10? frequent!), exclaimed, " Oh, my poor Ine ti l - oiei dear sisters !" A v e ry powerful emetic was 3 ,, atom o to him, which soon ejected the poison from b' O r e On his person were found letters and his addres' reol which was engraved " Mr. John Levier ], 1 : va s i ° l place, Walworth." It was ascertained that he cititt employ of a Mr. Watts, a stock-broker in t he co nt/ that he was about to go abroad. From the ,er eoo one of the letters, addressed jointly to his nOt"ttict!, tees, it was clear that he contemplated self-rie s o bts ,P o case of his not been successful in his attemP t rd ir], t l amount of the cheque. The letter was c onch s te e!, of the utmost affection, and stated that on t" it, "he should be no more." Mr. Thon3o parents at Walworsh, l a st night, and ascertaineut eirttbe;) were highly respectable, though not in aff kle s P i s tli e ol. stances. The young man was visited by bi fle s " l jel night, and the scene was very distressing. .60_, sufficiently r e covered from the effects of the p oi an easminatiors at Bow-street Office this Jai'