The Sun. — London, England, 1832-07-13 00:00:00

i~ the treaty, which alone was important to the decision ' While they had read every other part of it ; no part t'ey bad read having the smallest bearing upon the true point at issue. He begged to ask whether, under the new re l'r.fried system of Government, it was part of the duty of 'ltuisters to guard the public purse? Some of the pre aent servants of the Crown were to be candidates for districts of the Tower—an ominous vicinity, where People were sometimes called upon to mount higher t han Ministers might like to ascend.—(Cheers and laughter.) What would they say to any demarvi Why they had neglected their du t y as guardians of the public purse, and why they ha-I been parties to ex- Puision from Parliament 6,f the unfortunate Boroughmon get's, who would fain have saved so much of the public tn:aney at a time when it could ill be spared ? Ministers 'night contend that this guardianship of the public purse Was an old-fashioned doctrine, not fit for these reformed and enlightened days, but would they succeed in per suading the people that they were right in the course t hey hid pursued? With a view to approaching electio ns , Ministers had made many popular harangues ; they had scattered the largess of language, and then sweet • tne,t s abroad ; and he (Sir Charles Wetherell) would scatter his.—(Cheers.) The Secretary for Ireland was on the point of starting for Lancashire—the Noble Lord (Althorp) was thought certain of winning in his county ----the Secretary at War was stare of coining in again for Westminster—and the two law officers of the Crown fur Nottingham and Marylebone; so that it was not won derful that they should endeavour to stand as weil possible with their cons•ituents. They would, however, find it very awkward to iedly to the question, why they had been guilty of such a gross derelictio❑ of du•y, that even an unreformed and rotten House of Corn . mons had complained of the unnecessary and illegal payment of the public money. The Hon. and Learned Member contended, that all the Ministers 'who had ever held office since the Revolution—all th e T t ,;y Ministers—even Mr. Pitt, stiff-backed though he wits—had come down to the House when they had trespassed on the law, and demanded a Bill of Indemnity. In this case, the reasons for following the same course were very strong, for the motives of the Ministers, he admitted, were very gcod ; and indemnity would, therefore, have been granti'd them, and they ought to have applied for it. lie approved of the note written by Earl Grey, in which he said he could not answer that Parliament would sanc tion the payment of any instalments ; but that note was a condemnation of the arguments and conduct of the Gen tlemen opposite. He declared that he had never known a more flagrant breach of the statutes than had been com mitted in this case by Ministers, and he had never voted with a greater conviction of the correctness of his vote, than he give in his support to the motion of his Right Hon. Friend. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL would request the in dulgence of the House but for a short time, as he thought that all that could be said on the subject had been already *aid by his Hon. and Learned Friends.—(Hear, hear.) — If that was an admission of which some Gentlemen op- Po'iite could take advantage; and if any of them claimed so. much superiority of understanding , as to fi nd fault with the arguments of his Honourable and L arned Frie n d s , he could but envy them the very g o o d °Pinion they entertained of themselve , .—(Cheers.) A great part of his Hon. and Learned Friend's speech bad referred to his conduct as Attorney-General, and that part of his speech which had been most cheered and was looked "Pun as most triumphant, was an attack upon him founded upon a complete ignorance of facts, as he for merly stated. He did not much wonder at this, in this crapulous debate, for it was an old debate got up again, in attempt to revive the enthusiasm of yesterday, to recast the censure of January 26th. His Learned Friend sup- Posed that he had given his opinion alter the second treaty was signed—that was a mistake—the opinion lie was re quired to give was upon the treaty of 1813. That treaty and the documents connected with it were laid before him. .Ile wa s no t as k e d anyt hi ng a b out t h at t rea ty w hi c h was In the pocket, or, as his Hon. and Learned Friend said, in iocui o ; for his op i n i on was asked i n June, 18 31 . Wh at hadinduced him to form that opinion he had before stated, and that opinion he had b e f ore , h e h ope d , scccess f u ll y de fended. His Learned Friend had thrown out insinuations of his opinion being formed because it was agreeable to the political views of the Government. If his Honour able and Learned Friend thought the Attorney-General was to crouch to the Government, he would declare, if it was meant to insinuate that he did so, he would repel the insinuation with disdain. He would tell his Hon. and Learned Friend that he had done nothing which was unwor thy of his professional and personal character. At the Bayne time he thought it was the duty of the Attorney- General to be on fair and liberal terms with the Govern ment, or not to be connected with it ; aot like the At- torney-General of 1829, who had continued to serve a Government which he declared was subverting the Con stitution of the country.—(Hear, hear.) The views 0 1 the Government were not laid before him, but the treaty was, and according to the large and liberal spirit in which treaties ought to be construed that were to regulate the Peace of the world, his opinion had been given. In No. vetnber following another treaty was signed, and he had no doubt th it his Noble Friend would explain the al. t e,red cuinstanceslunder which it was necessary to nego. hate that new treaty. He remembered that it was said on the other side, that they should not go out of the four corners of the treaty to interpret it; hut that was not th e spirit in which it ought to be construed. He was sure that Vattel laid down such large and liberal rules for con struing such treaties, that he was almost sorry to hear the allusion made to Jurists by his Hon. and Learned Friend; and Vattel stated that such treaties were not to be O,tnstrued in the interest of the party making and interpreting it ; not by the letter, but by the spirit, taking into consideration the circumstances and views of the parties at the time. He had followed that course, and en deavoured to form his opinion fairly at the time, without any reference whatever to party or political views. It was something to support his opinion —though that opi nion was spoken of as if it rested on no good ground— that it coincided with the opinion of the King's Advocate, Sir Herbert Jenner. It was a question, too, not for equity or common lawyers, but for publicists. Sir Herbert Taylor took the lead in giving his opinion, and that showed that his opinion was not so absurd as some Hon. Gentle men seemed to suppose. He again repeated that the opi nion was given before the convention was signed. When Lord Grenville raised some doubts on the subject, looking to the Act of Parliament, he submitted two questions to the Treasury,—Whether the payment of the money was according to the treaty, or according to the Act of Par liament? In their judgment it was according to the treaty ; and if the treaty was clear, so was the Act of Parliament. We answered yes; and as the treaty war ranted the payment, so did the Act of Parliament. This was a clear corollary. The treaty passed in November was not produced. If it had been, it would not have altered their opinion as to the duty of this country to pay the instalment then due, and to that alone was their attention called. 'When it was said that the opinion was inconsistent with the fact that a new treaty had been concluded, he 'thought the lapse of time and circumstances might account for the new treaty.— Might not Russia feel some uneasiness, after the discussion in Parliament, as to the future payments, and might not that create a necessity for the new convention ? His Hon. and Learned Friend said, the conduct of the Minister was condemned by that treaty. But what said the treaty? The Hon. and Learned Gentleman read part of the first article of the convention as above quoted, and contended that between that and the conduct of the Government there was no inconsistency whatever. There was, he ad mitted, a difference between the letter and the spirit, and when that was the case, which wits to prevail? He con sidered that they ought to give effect to the spirit of the treaty. It was certainly not to be borne that the country which had made the treaty, and for the advantage of which it was made, should interpret it against another party, when a treaty was made between two Govern ments. The Government in whose favour it was made, relying on the Government who was bound hy it, woulit not of course suppose that the Government bouud by it would take advantage of any circumstances of its own creation to relieve itself of the obligation. He protested against the idea of interpreting the treaty in any pettifog ging spirit, with a view of gaining popularity by flattering the passions of those who looked only to a short-sighted eco nomy. lie said it was one complete agreement, that was to he acted upon in the spirit, and not according to the letter. Where was it proved that the advice given in June was incorrect? There were many reasons why new stipula tions became necessary. His Hon. and Learned Friend had censured his Hon. and Learned Friend, the Member for Ilchester, for not quoting the whole of the additional article. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman then read the two sections of the additional article as follows :—" In order to prevent any doubts that might hereafter arise with respect to the meaning and operation of the fifth ar ticle of the convention this day signed, it is understood and agreed betweem the three high contracting parties that, in the event of a part of the Belgic provinces being at any time hereafter severed from the dominions of his Belgic Majesty, a propoitionate reduction only of the charge agreed to be borne by their Majesties the King of the Ne therlands and the King of Great Britain, to be calculated according to the population of the districts so severed, shall thereupon take p'ace; the residue of the respective payments continuing to be regularly defrayed, as provided for in the said convention. It is further understood and agreed, that the invasion or temporary occupation of the said provinces by an enemy shall not be considered as deter mining any part of the said payments, unless continued be yond the period of a year ; in which case it shall be compe tent fur their said Majesties the King of the Netherlands and the King of Greut Britain to suspend their respective pay ments, subject to account with the Government of his ' _ . . . Imperial Majesty, upon the expulsion or evacuation of the said provinces by the enemy, for the whole or such pro portion of the said arrears as may correspond with the state of possession in which his Majesty the King of the Nether lands may at such period find himself established." The Hon. and Learned Gentleman then contended, that these stipulations, looking to any enemy, and not to separatioi from an internal cause, h r. )t provided for that. It was, howevt.r, clear that the severance contemplated was a se- verance by an enemy. (The Hon. and Learned Gentlemai was reminded by Sir B. Peel, we believe, that the word• in the original were, pissed away from the dominion o . . Holland.) He contended that Only made the severanet more general, showing that in this, as in all human affairs. foresight had not contemplated all the changes which might occur. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman then contended th It the whole debate was intended with a view to the election, for a constituency and hustings had been men tioned, for the first time by the Hon. Member for Thet ford, without sneers and contempt. It was all intended to make an impression on the hustint.,,. He would ask, however, for what purpose was the debate got up ? Would the Right Honourable Mem ber refuse to pay the money? Aye or No? Wert they prepared to say that the money ought not to be paid ? He believed that they could not say they would.—lle repeated his assertion, that it was to the treaty they were to look—to the treaty construed in a li beral and enlarged spirit, according to its spirit rather than according to its "letter.—(Hear, hear, from the Opposi tion.) If the other side were of opinion that they should not look to the treaty, he hoped they would say so.— The Hon. Member fur Worcester (Mr. Davies) had put the question as he understood it boldly and manfully. That Hon. Member had manfully declared, that he I Inked - on it as one of practical economy, and if he (the Attorney- General) could so consider it, there was no man in the House who would be more ready to vote for the resolu tions. He looked, however, on the question, as now in troduced, to be neither more nor less than an attempt to censure the law officers of the Crown.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. F. POLLOCK, ob. , erved, that the Judges were unanimous on the subject; and that, if to decide accord ing to law was pettifogging, he trusted they would con tinue pettifogging to the end of time.—(Hear, hear.) The question, as he understood it, was simply this : Were the Government justified in making the payment o f January, 1832 ? In order to understand that, he would call their attention a little to dates. On the 10th of November, 1830, Belgium was, clei facto, separated from Holland, because the States-General on that day declared themselves independent. In June, 1831, an opinion was titled fot from the law officers of the Crown ; and they declared that there could not be a doubt as to the liability of this country to continue the paytnentsiiythe — terms of the treaty. If this was the opinion of the law officere, and if there were no misgivings, from whence, then came the doubts that led to the negotiations for the subsequent treaty of the 16th November? If that Convention was of importance enough to be thought necessary fu; making perfect the former treats', surely it was also of im portance enough to be communicated to the House. The Hun. Member for Ilehester (Dr. Lushington) deal; largely on those topics which were always calculated to fl raw cheers from the House.—(Hear, hear.) He had talked a great deal of the national faith and the national loan ; but he (Mr. Pollock) contended that the national faith and loan had nothing to do with the question now before the House ; and it was only by mixing them up with that question that the advocates of the Government found a kind of apology for the course that had been pursued.— (Hear, heir.) On the 26th of January, after the pay ment, and after the Auditor of the Exchequer had expressed doubts of its propriety, a debate took place in that House, and he would now take leave to ask the Noble Lord (Althorp) why it was that no men tion was made during that debate of the convention then i❑ progress? If one word had been uttered re specting that convention, the motion would not have been pressed by any Member of that House. But what was the answer of the Noble Lord at that time ? Why, the Noble Lord said he had no doubt at all with respect to the pro. piety of the payment—(Hear, hear)--and that the other side had not proved their case.—(Hear, hear.) This was th e answer then ; hut whether the opponents of the Go vernmsnt had or had not proved their case, it was the duty of the Government to have informed the House that a treaty was pending.—(Hear.) The Government, how ever, took any defence that offered, trusting, no doubt, that something would turn up in the mean time which might save them from the reckoning which the House had a right to demand from them.—(Hear, hear.) He did not mean to say they acted from a bad intention ; but there was an indifference to consequenees, to the opinions of Parliament, and to the responsibility of their situation, which was highly objectionable.—(Hear.) He would ask them, if they found it necessary to have a new convention to fufil the treaty, why it was they acted under the old one ; and if the old one was good, and required no amend ment, why it was they required a new one.—(Hear.) These were the questions ably put by the Right Hon. Gen tleman (Mr. Herries), and to them no answer had been given. The Noble Lord had doubted at one moment, and not doubted at another—paid at one time, and ab. stained from paying at another ; and why, he would ask, did the Noble Lord now require an act of Parliament, except that he had made payments after these doubts ex isted ? No man prized the national faith more highly than he did ; but still he thought the conduct of Ministers on such occasions as this required a vigilant eye ; and he would ask why it was that, having avowedly committed a great error, they did not require an Act of Indemnity, ' which would at once mark the departure from pro piety, and the necessity of compensating for it, rather than demand an Act of Parliament to confirm the error they had committed ? That would have been the course anticipated from the candour of the Noble Lord.—(Hear, hear.) For his (ilr. Potluck's) part, careless of sensure, he should vote fur the resolutions, because he considered them to be moved in support of that course which was most consistent with the princip!es of the Constitution and the practice of Parliament.—(Hear.) Lord ALTHORP, in reply to the questions of the Hon. Member, observed that he was asked why it was the Government had not applied for a Bill of Indemnity rather than an Act of Parliament ? His answer was that they had not come down to ask Parliament for indemnity, because they were net confident that they had committed any breach of the law in the course they pursued. I t was asked why they had made the payment of last De cember, and asked authority for payment now. His answer was, that the treaty which ratified the separation of Holland and Belgium had not then received the sanction of the five Powers who were parties to their union.— (Hear, hear.) Strong criticisms had been made on his opening speech. He had been criticised by the Right Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Herries) for not answering the arguments that Right Hon. Gentleman intended to use; and an Hon. and Gallant Gentleman (Colonel Davies,) had complained of his saying that a vote of censure un Ministers on this occasion must be followed by their re signation. In the first pllce, he did not know how he could answer arguments he had not heard ; and in the second, he believed if he had said that a vote of censure on Ministers with respect to a treaty could be followed by anything but resignation, he should have stated that which would be inconsistent with the practice of office and the privileges of Parliament. The Hon. and Learned Gen tleman who spoke last (Mr. Pollock) had treated the question too much like a lawyer, and confined himself too closely to the letter without looking at the spirit of the treaty. That Hon. Member had asked why the Govern ment did not mention the convention which was in pro press during the last debate? His answer was, that the convention was then an instrument which had no force, and could not be urged as an argument in the questions which were then under consideration. With respect to the treaty itself, there had never been any opinion but one —that this country was, under the circumstances, bound to continue the payments. Sir E. SUGDEN contended, that the real question was, if there had been a breach of the law, and if a reso lution condemnatory of that breach of the law should be passed, and maintained that nobody had as yet properly addressed himself to the question; the Hon Member for Caln e's speech would have been quite as applicable to any other treaty during the last century as to that to which he professed to direct his arguments. The Noble Lord too, had spoken a great deal about the spirit of the treaty : but construing a treaty, however liberally you might, it was ridiculous to urge that you were to throw aside the obvious construction of the words. The Noble Lord had insisted that the only separation contemplated was by in vasion. The only danger apprehended was from France ; but nothing of this appeared upon the convention ; and, moreover, it was plain that the purpose of the contracting parties was to prevent severance, however it might ar rive. The great object was to secure to Holland its un divided union with the Belgic provinces. The House bad not suffi,iently considered this, nor had they remem bered that the convention was made for the benefit of Hol land. If, then, they talked of national faith, Govern- moot should not exercise it exclusively towards Russia to the injury of Holland. He asked them to put the treaty of 1815, and the convention of 1532, in juxta-position, and he would defy any reasonable man to come to the con elusion that the latter did truly construe the meaning of the former. The construction, it would seem, of the convention was, that the money should be paid by Graat Britain, whether the severance took place or not. The Noble Lord had talked of a breach of national faith; but in his (Sir E Sugden's) opinion, the present Ministers stood convicted of as gross a breach of national faith as any he had ever heard of. Lord PALNIERSTON rose amidst nearly unanimous cries of " Adjourn ! " He trusted that, after the debate •hat had taken place, the House would be content to decide the question by their vote that evening. The Hon. Gen tlemen on the other side had been asked whether this country was bound to make the payment in question? That question was simple enough, and yet not one of them had chosen to answer it ; from which he inferred that their answer must be that the payment ought to be made. But nut only did they refuse to answer this question, but actually wished to divide the House on a subject on which the House had already given its judgment. The Noble Lord then went through a detailed history of the loan from its commencement, and contended, that under all the cir cumstances, Great Britain was absolutely bound to con tinue these payments to Russia. With respect to the se paration that had taken place, that, in his opinion, did not come within the meaning of the original treaty, which in its spirit was intended to have reference to such a separa tion as should be effected by foreign force of arms. Lord Castlereagh, in originally proposing the question to the House, observed that the payment would only continue as long as Belgium was separated from France.—(Hear, hear.) From which it clearly appeared that the severance that was then contemplated was a severance not only by force of arms, but also on the side of France in particular. But what were the real circumstances of the separation ? They were entirely intrinsic and internal, arising in the United Kingdom of the Netherlands itself. When that separation took place, Great l3ritain had a right (he did not say that it ought to have employed that right) tore-establish • the union by force of arms ; but what course did the Allies pursue ? Holland applied to Great Britain, and the late Ministry declined interfering by force of arms ; Russia, on the contrary, expressed its willingness to march 60,000 men into Belgium to reestablish the power of Holland, if England would agree to such a step ; but this also Eng land declined. The fact therefore was, that England virtually signed and sealed the separation, and consequently with what right could she turn round on Russia, and say, " you shall suffer by the separation which we have accom plished?"—(Hear, hear.) The views of Russia had been changed since 1815, for at that time she was against the union of Belgium with Holland, but since then family alliances had taken place, other relations had been entered . . into, and now Russia was opposed to the separation of those two countries. Then they had been asked why the payments hail not been suspended in December last, and why the ❑ature of the convention then agreed to had not been laid before Parliament? His answer was, that by honour and good faith they were bound not then to suspend those payments, nor until after the treaty of separation was ratifie , i. By the terms of the treaty, the payments were not to be suspended till a year after the separation, even if that separation had been effected by force of arms ; and, surely, the separation effected by internal re &stance could not be more effective to do away with the pro visions of the treaty. The treaty had not been ratified till lately. They bad brought it down to the House at as early a period as possible, and had taken the usual means to bring it under the consideration of the House. The Government were bound in law to continue the payments up to the last month ; and the House would not consult its dignity if to that extent it did not hold the conduct of the Ministers justifiable. It had been objected to his Noble Friend that he had yesterday said the country should 'ake an imposing attitude. The observation was correct, looking at the circumstances by which she was surrounded. She should take an imposing attitude ; but he trusted the time would never come when she took an attitude of im position.—(Hear.) If that House refused its consent to what had been done—if it set at nought the stipulations of solemn treaties, he believed that the character of the country would suffer such damage that be should despair of her being able ever after to enter into intimate con nexion with the Continent, or to obtain the confidence which it was always most necessary a nation should possess among the other nations of the earth. Sir R. PEEL said that toe Noble Lord, like all who had preceded him on the same side of the question, had most studiously confounded two questions that were per fectly distinct from each other—the question of good faith and the question of law. They relied so much on the former, because they felt that on the latter they were hopelessly weak. If the information now possessed by the House was, as some seemed to think it, insufficient to enable them to decide this question with propriety, why had not other documents been furnished—and why had the Government forced the House into the position of being compelled to adopt or repudiate what they had done ? As to the existence, however, of other docu. ments, he must declare, that as far as he knew anything of the matter, there were no others relating to the nego ciations of 1815 than what had already been produced. The Noble Lord had told them that if this question were decided against the Government, they could not continue. He threatened them with a resignation if that vote was against them. In the present state of England, of Ireland, and of Europe, of trade and of finance, it was not sur• prising that the Noble Lord should make such a declara tion.—(Hear, hear.) The proper question for the House to consider was, whether the issue of money made in January, in payment of this interest, was war ranted by law; and on that question, and in order to pre vent the conduct of the Government on this occasion from being drawn into a precedent, he should put his vote on the journals, although it might be attended with the consequence of the Noble Lord's resignation. Suppose this matter was, as it had been contended to be, a casus omissus in the treaty, still that did not justify the cm:Kille d the Government, who ought to have applied to Parlia ment to supply that omitted case, and who were not war ranted by law in acting without the authority of Parlian ment. The course they had pursued would have been correct if the treaty had been one that depended upon the Crown for its construction and maintenance; but it did not—it was a treaty that could only be performed, inas much as it was for the payment of money, by the sanc tion of Parliament, and therefore the conduct pursued by the Government was unjustifiable. If the Noble Lord Lord meant to contend that the subsidy was granted to Russia, so long as her policy with regard to Holland and Belgium concurred with the policy of England, how did the Noble Lord account for the circumstance that, accord ing to the treaty, England was bound to pay the subsidy, even though the high contracting parties were at war ? Did that prove that the subsidy was made in consideration of Russia's pursuing the same policy towards Belgium as England? In his opinion, the House ought not to address the Crown declaring the issue contrary to law ; he did not now call on the House to pass a vote of censure ; but it was clearly a mistake, and therefore they ought to bring in an Act of Indemnity.---(Cheers.) Nor was that without precedeut ; for when Mes.rs. Boyd and Benfield made a contract which they were unable to fulfil, Mr. Pitt ad vanced them forty thousand pounds, on good security, and which shortly afterwards was duly paid. Yet, when the affair transpired on the Commission of Naval Inquiry in in 1801, Mr. Fox and Mr. Whitbread thought that a Bill of Indemnity ought to be passed, and Mr. Lascelles brought in a Bill to that effect. There was no question before the House which could by possibility involve any infraction of national faith. They were merely called upon by their vote to prevent the possible consequences of Mi nisters, who believed themselves guarded by triumphant majorities, undertaking to make such issues on their own authority, without previous reference to Parliament. Lord JOHN RUSSELL could not understand why, if a vote of censure were to be passed upon Ministers, the month of January should have been fixed upon. At this time the separation had not been recognised by Russia, but in the month of June the treaties had been ratified by that Power. He thought it strange that neither the Right Hon. Gentleman nor any one who had spoken on the other side of the House had thought proper to state his opinion whether he believed the nation bound in honour to make these payments.—(Hear, hear.) The Right Hon. Gentleman had, indeed, said, that if bound in honour we ought to pay them : but he had cautiously abstained from saying whether he thought that Ministers, in honour were bound to pay them or not.—(Cheers.) If, then, Ministers were bound in honour and good faith to continue these payment•, what just ground of complaint had the Hon. Gentleman against them ? They had no possible motive for taking up this part of the question, except for the sake of aiding in a peroration, and winding up their sentences with allusions to the expenditure of the public money.—(Hear.) If they considered that in honour and good faith they they were not bound to pay it, the mere objection existed to a payment in July, as in January ; but this was put as a question affecting the character of Ministers—the question of the public money was not con cerned at all. He must therefore say, that upon a due con sideration of the treaty of 1815, he thought the nation was; bound to make these payments to Russia, if it wished to preserve good faith and adhere to the treaty.—(Cheers, and loud cries of Question." Mr. CROKER said the Noble Lord complained of his Right Hon. Friend for not answering a question, which the Noble Lord in fairness was not entitled to put. His Hon. Friend had endeavoured to separate the two ques tions—the one was the lirbiliry of this country ; the se cond, the legality of the conduct of Ministers in taking upon themselves to renew the convention without the authority of Parliament; this was the question which the house had to decide when they came to the vote. His Noble Friend the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, when his Hon. Friend asked him if he would continue to subsidize Russia, even though she should go to war with this coun try, nodded assent. It was complained of that no indivi dual Member on that side of the House gave his opinion. Now lie would say, that if it was intended to propose so absurd a doctrine that we were bound to subsidize an enemy, though at war with him, he should ftel no hesita tion in voting against such a subsidy.—(Cheers.) His Noble Friend the Secretary for Foreign Affairs bad alleged the non completion of the arrangements as a reason for not bringing this convention before Parliament. Yet it was entered into the same day, or the day after, the treaty which had been alluded to in the King's Speech, as having been entered into between the Five Powers and the King of Belgium, and which his Majesty seas then represented as ordering to be laid before Parliament.—(Loud cheers.) Yet the convention now in question bad been entered into at that very time. Lord PALMERSTON said, that the treaty of 1815 contained a clause, providing that the payments on the part of the King of Great Britain should not he inter rupted in the event (which God forbid) of war breaking out betweim either of the three contracting parties.— (Cheers.) He now wished to ask the Hon. Gentleman, whether lie now gave his vote for so preposterous a thing —(Loud cheers)—as the subsidization of an enemy during war--(Repeated cheers)? Mr. CROKER Ali, but that was a case of bargain and sale for the annexation of Belgium to Holland—(Loud cries of " oh, oh !")—and the payment ought only to con tinue as long as the annexation—(Oh, oh !) Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the House proceeded to a division, when there appeared For the Amendment Against it 243 Majority for Ministers - 46 The House then went into Committee, pro forma, and the Chairman obtained leave to sit again on Monday. The House resumed. In anwser to a question from Colonel SIBTHOB,PE, Lord ALTHORP said, that the arrangements were in a state of great forwardness, and that next week a Trea sury minute would be issued for the distribution of the Decan Prize Money. The other Orders of the Day having been disposed of, the House adjourned at a Quarter to Five o'Clock. DOUSE OF LORDS, JULY 12. Lord KENYON presented a petition from the in habitants of Marylebone, praying for an extension of the time for registering. Lord PLUNKET presented a petition in favour of the Irish System of Education. The same Noble and Learned Lord presented a petition from (as we understood him) the Moderator of the Presbytery of Munster, which he said might he considered as representing the opinions of the principal Ptotestant Dissenters in the South of Ireland, Lord ORIEL presented a petition from a parish in Sligo, against the new system of Irish Education. Lord WHARNCL[FFE presented a petition from Westminster, and the inhabitants within the bills of mortality, in favour of the Birmingham and London Railway Bill. The Noble Lord brought up the Report of the Committee on the Railway Bill, which he begged to read to their Lordships• The Report stated tl:e Committee had examined the Bill, bad considered the petitions for it, had heard Counsel in support of it, and that it did not appear to the Committee that the peti- tioners had made out a sufficient case to entitle them to call upon Parliament to authori,e the carrying of the Railway through the lands through which it was proposed to take it; therefore, the Committee had not thought it right to proceed further. SCOTCH REFORM BILL. The Report of the Scotch Reform Bill being brought up, The LORD CHANCELLOR moved several amend ments, chiefly verbal, which were agreed to. The Earl of HADDINGTON, for the purpose of re cording his sentiments in their Lordships' Journals, moved several amendments which he had already proposed in effectually in Committee. The amendments were negatived without discussion. The Earl of HADDINGTON proposed several verbal amendments, with the view of having them recorded on the Journals. The Noble Eal also expressed a wish that the county Members for Scotland should have a sufficient qualification to entitle them to seats i❑ the House of Commons. The E al of ROSERERY objected to any such amend ments as likely to the nugatory. The amendments were then negatived without a division. The Duke of HAMILTON was anxious to exclude the Scotch Clergy from voting at elections, in order to se cure them from political or party conflicts. He wished them to be confined to the discharge of their religious duties. The LORD CHANCELLOR said, as the Bill had come up to this House without excluding them, it would now be invidious to do so. . yv The Report was then brought up and agreed to, and the third reading fixed (as we were informed by one of the officers of the House) tor to-morrow. APPELLATE JURISDICTION BILL. Upon the Order of the Day being read for the third reading of this Bill, The Marquess of WESTMEATH said that in his opi nion the Bill was altogether unnessary. The Court of Delegates was constituted by Commissions for particular cases, and it was only necessary to cease issuing those Commissions for the Court itself to cease. The Bill was, besides, in his opinion, a delusion, and would not effect the benefits promised from it. The LORD CHANCELLOR thought that a system of delegation which had existed since the middle of the six teenth century could not properly be abolished without an Act of Parliament. It would only give thirty or forty days' additional work to the Privy Council. Lord WYNFORD did not mean to oppose the Bill be fore the House. A worse consituted Court than the Court of Delegates did not exist. He had been a member of this Court, and was therefore competent to speak upon the subject. The Marquess of WESTMEATH was not satisfied of tho excellence of the Bill by anything he had heard from the Noble and Learned Lords. yebmr ua He anrny: rti,ltmawungodli would da i had h sb t ietbsvetatser e n e ot n ot drawn thcom e in ir a ito lo ( o )p se er a a n ti d on slo ti v l e l n F l postpone it and draw a new Bill. The LORD CHANCELLOR observed that the Bill had heen most carefully drawn, and to prevent suitors go ing to the expense of preparing for a Court which would not again be constituted, it was desirable that the Bill should be now passed. It was also necessary as a warn ing to the Privy Council to make preparations for the new jurisdiction. The Bill was then read a third time and passed. Adjourned. A WET REFORMER.—A stanch Reformer, in conversation with a friend (a respectable surveyor in town,) the subject being the wet meeting at the approach ing national jubilee, put the following question ;—Pray, Mr.—. if it were possible to make a punch bowl as large as the copula on the top of the Register-office, how many bottles of punch would it contsin ?-111 tell you that to-morrow, for I have its dimensions at home, was the reply, The following day the answer returned was as under The diameter of the cupola is 5O feet The rise of do. The contents in cubit feet 23,823 Imperial gallons Bottles, six to the gallon Being more than a bottle to each male in Scotland who is qualified to appreciate the merits of the Reform Bill, or who is a judge of whisky punch. The fractions are omitted._Edinburgh Advertiser. Aldgate parish eighteen per sons have died of cholera since Friday; of these, four were buried in the same grave, in Aldgate church-yard, on Monday evening, and a quantity of lime was thrown on each body to hasten the progress of decomposition. Two Irishwomen died, after a few hours' illness, in Cartwright square, a filthy and close neighbourhood, contiguous to RoseMary.lane, on Tuesday morning. Sunday afternoon a foreign sailor, named FREDERICKS, aged 30, was seized with cholera, while partaking of some refreshment at a public-house near the Thames Police-office ; he was instantly removed to the workhouse in a cradle, and within three hours was dead and buried. A respectable middle-aged woman, the wife of a tradesman in the same parish, died on Sunday morning, after a f-w hours' illness. Her case was decided by the medical gentlemen to be one of malignant blue cholera. A man and his wife with their two children were landed from a Scotch smack by a wa terman named BAILEY, at Hermitage Stairs, Wapping, on Monday afternoon, and took up their abode at a public house in St. George's in the East, a short distance from the stairs, where they partook of tea, which they had scarcely finished when the husband was attacked with cholera.: A medical gentleman promptly attended, but his patient expired during the night. The cholera has also recently made sad havoc amongst the watermen in the neighbourhood of Rotherhitbe, Bcc. COMMISSION OF LUNACY. (Continued from The Sun of yesterday.) MISS BAGSTER ' S CASE. Dr. Haslam, examined by the CHIEF COMMISSIONER —I have seen the young lady, Miss Bagster. Mrs. Bag sloe was present at :he whole interview. I would not see Mrs. Newton alone, as I thought it best I should see her in the company of others. I asked her if she had been religiously brought up. She said, " She had been a fre quenter of the church, and an observer of its forms;'' those are her express words. I asked her if she had 'earned music; she said she had, but had made hut little progress; she disliked it, though fond of music when played by others ; and then added, that she had been very negligent, and also negligent respecting arithmetic. On this subject, I merely asked her how many two and two made, and she readily replied four. I then said, " I understood, Madam, you are very rich ; how much .re you worth ?" She answered, " I cannot tell." I asked, Did you never see your grandfather'► will ? " She replied, " Never ; nor any other will." " Was it never shown or read to you ?" Answer, " Ne ver." I said, " Madam, do you purchase yourself those articles of dress or ornament you may require ?" She answered " No." I inquired, " Who does ?" and she said, " Mamma." I said, "Do you ❑ever go a shopping like other ladies, and buy any thing you may want ?" She said, " I never lay out any money." When I ques. tinned her about amusements, she said she was very fond of the theatres, and preferred comedy—that she had been .o Covent-garden, Drury-lane, and some of the minor theatres. She said she had never been at the Opera, and that she had not learned Itali n. I asked had she learned French. She answered, " A little at school." I then said " Quel age avec vans, Madame;" but received no reply ; and I said, " Tell me in English what I said in French ;" and she replied, " Sir, you asked me how old I was." We conversed about books, and she said she preferred novels. When I inquired what she had read last, she told me Eugene Aram. I said I had not read it, and she answered " he was executed for the murder of Daniel Clarke." I then said, " I shall pro bably make you another visit, if you will permit me." The answer was " I shall be happy to see you. You have asked me no improper questions." I then took my leave, and went with Mr•. Bagster into another room. Mrs. Bagster immediately shut the door, and said, " She is very suspicious. She varies a good deal— to- day she has been very collected." I then left, and my next visit was on the 23d of June. My first question was, " When your grandfather was Lord Mayor, were you put out of the way, or introduced to the com pany that visited him ?" She replied, " I was never put out of the way, but always introduced." I asked if she was at the feast at Guildhall on Lord Mayor's Day. Her answer was, " Yes, and I was introduced to Lord Wel ington." " Did you dance at the ball ?"—Answer, " Yes, with a gentleman who appeared to be an officer. I danced a great deal till I was quite tired." I then said, " Did Lord Wellington or your partner treat you as if you were a fool and an idiot ? She said, " No, they treated me with great respect." My next question was, " Madam, do you know the gentlemen who lately came and asked you a variety of questions." She replied " No, but I was told they were friends of Alderman Kelly." I then said, " Madam, you have been de ceived ; they are all of them doctors—mad-doctors, and I am one myself.—(A laugh.) She here became very much affected, wept, and said " I hope you do net think me a fool ; I have sense enough to know that I am not so clever as many other persons, but I am no fool, and I hope, Sir, you do not think me a fool." I said by no means. She then continued, and said—" 1 know that my grandpapa's fondne.s spoiled me; he told be would leave me a fortune, and I am sensible that I have neglected my learning." I said, " At our last meeting you inquired who I was, and I gave you my card,—permit me to return the compliment, and ask you who you are ? She answered, " Miss Bagster." " Then, Madam," said I, "you are a single lady ?" She replied, "Yes." I said, "Madam, do you mean to say that you were never married ?" She then looked at the nurse, and at last said, "I am not married." I then said. " When it was time to go to bed, did you sleep alone ?" She replied, " No." I then asked, " Now, Madam, having been virtuously and religiously tutored, would you go to bed with any man not your husband ?" She be• came dreadfully agitated, and my conversation was for some moments interrupted in consequence. I then asked, " Do you know the names of the officers who separated you from your husband?" She said, " Richmond was one." I asked, " Did you separate quietly from Mr. Newton ?" She said, "No, I struggled and resisted as long as I could." I then said, " Madam, do you wish to know the accrual situation in which you are placed ?" She said, " Yes." I then said, " Then in a few days you will be brought before a Jury of gentlemen who will meet by the direction of the Lord Chancellor, to inquire whe ther you are a fool and an idiot, and although of age, yet incapable of being married to any other person, or using the fortune left you by your grandfather, and deprived of the liberty exercised by a human being. When you an examined, that is, when °wee gentlemen of the jury ask you questions, you must not conceal the truth, and if any one has advised or instructed you to conceal the truth, you must not tell the jury a falsity knowing it to be such. Some of those doctors who have visited you as friends of Alderman Kelly, have stated you to be incompetent and a fool." She shed tears and took my band, and with great earnestness and in a plaintive tone said, " You knew my dear grandfather I hope, Sir, you will be my friend." She then said she felt very nervous, and requested, if I would not object, to have a glass of wine, which she took. The nurse was by the whole time, from the commence went to the conclusion. I saw her again on the 26th of June. I said, "Madam, I understand you are displeased with me for telling you the situation in which you are placed, and that you were very violent after I left you." She replied, " No, I was not violent, was I, nurse?" The nurse replied, " No, only agitated." I said, " Now, Madam, if you were going in a path where there was a viper's nest, and I cautioned you not to proceed in that direction, you might be alarmed and agitated at the information, but you could not be displeased." She replied, " Certainly not." I then said, " Having acquainted you with the proceedings in Chancery against you, and the consequences if you are found to be a❑ idiot, I hope on this explanation you are not of fended with me." She replied "On the contrary, Sir, I fell very much obliged to you." In answer to a question put by me, she said she had never been at a boarding school, nor ever been allowed to have money. Of her own accord she lamented her deficiencies in arithmetic, and her ignorance of the value of money. I asked, "Do you think you could now acquire it under proper tuition ?" She answered, " Yes, under proper tuition, and being allowed to have money and to keep accounts, I have no doubt I could learn like other persons; but my grandfather was so fond of me that he would not allow the teachers to snub me for neglecting my lessons." This is the last of my interviews. Mr. Commissioner WHITMAKSII—Are you then able to form a correct judgment upon the state of this lady's mind Witness—Perfectly. Mr. WHITMA !LSI-I-What, then, is you opinion ? Witness—She is not a lunatic, she is not a idiot, nor is she of unsound mind ? Mr. Commissioner WHITMARSH—How do you cha racterize her mind ? Witness—She is a person whose education has been grossly neglected. Mr. Commissioner WHITMARSII•••••NOW I beg to ask you, Dr. flaslam, in a legal sense, do you think this young lady is of sound or of unsound mind ? Witness—She is not of unsound mind. Cross-examined by Mr. Pou.ocx—ls she of sound mind ? Witness—l never saw a person of sound mind.— (Laughter.) Mr. Pouncx—Do you mean that as an answer to my question ? Witness—l presume, Sir, that the Deity is of sound mind, and he alone. Mr. PoLtocx—The Deity is of sound mind ! Is that your answer ? Witness—l presume the Deity alone to be of sound mind. Mr. POLLOCK—How came you to be of that opinion ? Where did you learn it? How long have you been a mad Doctor ? _ . . Witness—l learned it after forty years' reflection, and after frequent conversations with the best divines in the country. Mr. POLLOCK-I ask you, is that young lady of sound mind? Witness—Competently sound. Mr. PoLLocx—ls she able to take care of herself, or to manage her affairs ? Witness-1 do ❑ot know what affairs she has to man sgc. I am unacquainted with her affairs. Mr. POLLOCK-is she competent to act as the mistress of a family? Witness (after a short pause)—When she is properly' instructed, 1 presume she is. flaying never been allow , d the use of money, under such disabilities she cannot exe cute the trusts of a mistress of a family. Mr. Pot.Locx—Do I understand, that with the ex- iition of the defects in her education, you think else is , -inpetent to the ordinary affairs of life ? Witness—l do. Mr. POLLOCK—Do you think her present disabilities uld be removed by education ? Witness—l am persuaded of it. Mr. POLLOCK—How long would it take to render her fit? Witness—That would depend upon the person tutoring, a-ul the manner in which the tuition was exercised. Mr. POLLOCK —How often have you given evidence iofors Commissioners of Lunacy ? Witness—l cannot tell. Mr. POLLOCK—Have you no notion ? Witness—Notion is something that is known, and I do not know, and c innot tell.—(Laughter.) Mr. POLLOCK— Have you any idea? Witness—ldea is visible perception, and I do not recol ket it. Mr. POLLOCK—Have you no belief? Witness—l cannot say I have any belief of that which I do not recollect. The witness, on being pressed, said, that he thought he Lail been examined on about twenty commissions, but he could not swear positively to more. I did not tell Miss Bagster she might be taken to a roadhouse. I never men tioned a madhouse to her. I did not go there to puzzle her, though I could do that and puzzle many others be side.—(Laughter.) I think she is competent, judeing from her present acquirements, learned under such disad vantages, to learn much more. The disadvantages I speak of are,—first, the illness she suffered ; secondly, because her grandfather kept her from school ; thirdly, because he would not let her be " snubbed ;" and fourthly, and lastly, because she was not allowed the materials—money, which is the great source of arithmetic—to learn it. Mr. Por.Locx—When you went to visit Miss Bagster. did you make any attempt to teach her? Witness—No, Sir. lam not a schoolmaster. I did not go to teach, but to learn the state of her mind.— (Loud laughter.) Mr. POLLOCK—But when she told you that she had for merly known the multiplication table pretty well, did you not ask her any questions about it? Witness—No, Sir. Mr. Pou.ocK—Why did you not, Sir? Witness—Because I did not go there to cross-examine Lee, but to examine her io chief.—(lmmense lanehter.) Mr. Por.Locx—l wish, Dr. Haslam, you would answer my questions directly, and then you may ramble as you like afterwards. Witness—l am not much inclined to ramble. I am pretty well fixed here as present.—(Continued laughter.) Re-examined by Mr. FOLLETT—I have written several books upon insanity, and upon the powers of the mind in the morbid state. Idiocy is well marked in the counts , nance of every idiot ;it speaks for itself. There is no such expression in the countenance of this young lady. A great symptom of idiocy is ignorance of the fact of its existence. Mr. COLTMAN-What was your object in making the statement you did to the young lady, with reference to this inquiry ? Witness—Supposing she was told that her examina 'ion before the jury was a mere matter of farce, and that deception was practised upon her, so that she might ap pear as lively and volatile as she plea , ed before the jury .; And supposing she might be so kidnapped before the solemn tribunal before which she had to appear, I felt it my duty as a man anti a citizen, and for the honour of the pro fession to which I belong, not to allow her to be brought into a situation which she did not understand. (A slight inclination in the auditory to applaud was manifested on the conclusion of this sentence, which was immediately suppressed.) Mr. Commissioner Winntwastr—You did not know that any deception had been practised. Witness—l did not know of any, but I supposed so, because she deceived me about her marriage by saying it was not a marriage, and I felt convinced she had been tu tored to say so, and that the remark did not emanate from her own mind. Mr. WHITMASII-Had you any object besides that you have stated ? Witness—None whatever. I made it in accordance with my own wish, and not with any view to get any statement from her. She, however, had mind enough to feel and comprehend her situation, and well to under stand it. In answer to further questions by Mr. Commissioner WHITMARSII, the witness said the term unsoundness of of mind, as understood in this country, was unknown in France, Italy, or Germany ; and though the Germans were the greatest writers on insanity, yet they were igno• rant of unsoundness of mind, independent of either lunacy or idiocy. Mr. Bowling was then recalled, and examined by the CHIEF COMMISSIONER, at the instance of some of the Jury ; but his evidence was of that delicate character, with reference to the statement to the witness by Miss Bagster of the transaction in the carriage, that it is im possible we could even allude to its outlines. Captain Kelly recalled and examined by the Curer COMMISSIONER -.4 am desired to ask you, Captain Kelly, whether previous to the communication made to you by this young lady, you put any question to her, as to what had passed between Mr Newton and herself. Witness (emphatically)—l most solemnly avow under the strongest obligation that man can be bound by, that I put no question to her directly or indirectly, and I as solemnly declare—that the communication quite as much surprised me as it did the Court when I narrated it. Mr. COLTMAN—Did you make any reply? Witness—None whatever. I felt so much astonished, that I almost lost the power of utterance. By a Juror—l beg to ask, (lid you attempt b stop the young lady in the communication she made to you ? Witness—J did not. Juror—Did you reprove her ? Witness—Not in the least. Juror—Now, Sir, I ask you whether you think it was consistent with your character as a gentleman, and the honour of an officer in the navy, not to have endeavoured to check her in making the communication, or to reprove her for it afterwards? Witness—l most certainly did not consider that was my province. I had nothing whatever to do with the young lady, and it is with great reluctance that I was brought before the Court on this occasion. The examination having concluded, Captain Kelly said, that he understood that some asperities had been used in the course of animadverting on his evidence. The CHIEF COMMUSIONER. said, that there did not appear any necessity for Captain Kelly to vindicate his character from any thing that had occurred in this trans- action. Captain Kelly then bowed to the Court and withdrew. Mr. Christopher Wilson was then called, and exa mined by the CHIEF COMMISSIONER—I accompanied Mr. Newton and Miss Bagater to Gretna-green. I tra velled on the rumble, at the back of the carriage, all the way. We stopped for breakfast at Doncaster, and Miss Bagster went up stairs there to adjust her dress ; the chambermaid accompanied her. We stayed at Doncaster twenty-five minutes, and then proceeded immediately to Springfield, and afterwards returned to Carlisle, from which place, on the following day, Mrs. Newton, or Miss Bagster, whichever I must call her, wrote a letter to her mother. She referred to me to know what she could say to pacify her mamma. I said a very few lines was neces sary, for the least said would be soonest mended. I then - ook a piece of paper, and sketched down, to the best of my recollection, a few words, begging forgiveness for the step she had taken. The letter (which was written in a good bold hand) was then put in and re rd, by the Under-Sheriff. It bore the Carlisle post mark, and was directed to " Mrs. Baxter, Warwick-square, Newgate-street, London," and ran as follows : "My dearest Marna,—l hardly know how to write to you after what has taken place, indeed lam so agitated at the thoughts of having so offended you, that I can scarcely hold a pen. Fray, pray, intercede with my guardians, and send me a letter addressed to the Post-office, Liverpool. Raymond has written to his mama entreating her forgiveness, which I again entreat you to grant your affectionate daughter, " April " ROSA." The witness proceeded.—On our arriving at Spring field, we drove to the post-house there. I got from be hind the carriage to see the person who was to perform the ceremony. After the certificate was signed the cere mony was gone into, and the party who married them, I think, first asked, " Are you both single?" and next, "Do you come here of your own free will and consent ?" She replied in the affirmative to both. The form was some thing like that of the church of England, and there was something about " love and cherish," but I cannot recol lect the exact words. By a Juror—Was there any violence used when :Hiss Bagater was taken away from you and Mr. Newton ? Witness—Yes; on entering the room the too police ,rfficere intercepted Mr. Newton and myself, and pushed us un one side. Miss Bagger did not cry out, but she looked. as if she was thunderstruck. I did not hear her say any rising. By the CHIEF Coaturssioxica—l remember our turn ing back at Altonbury-hill. We came back about .ight tr nine miles. When we arrived at Altonbury-hill, M . Newton got out of the carriage, aryl said, " Rosa s ems exceedingly unhappy at having left her mother ; I would • be the last Inas in the world that would take her sway