The Sun.
London, England, 1830-03-25 00:00:00

who had warned us of our danger was, in his opi-
nion, entitled to our best thanks, in the same way
as lie must be esteemed our friend who prevented
us from leaping over, while we had only a stop to
take before we fell into, the gulf of perdition.—
Without a speedy remedy, we must quickly expect
to see a paper-price and a money-price, and the evil
must continue to increase till bank notes became like
the assignals in France
but one possible remedy, and that was to diminish the
paper circulation Did the Right Hon.
Gentleman suppose that this evil would stop short
of the fixing a maximum of price ? He was satisfied
it would not. It might, indeed, seem to be equally
dangerous to return as to go over ; but there could
be no doubt that the path in which we now were
must lead to ruin. It must end in destruction ; he
did not say in the destruction of the people or the
country, for a brave and free people were immortal ;
but it must end in the ruin of the established
system."—One should think that after this language
the Hon. Baronet would be the very last man in
the world to blame Government for endeavouring to
return to a metallic circulation. The Hon. Baronet
then appealed to Ministers on behalf of the
landed gentlemen, as he now appeals in their
behalf. They were then ruined, he said, by the
paper—they are now ruined, lie says, by the gold.
" Was it (he said in 1811) for the landlord of
England to be made the scape-goat and the victim
to this destructive system, which could only be
propped up for a season, but could not be effectually
supported ?" In 1830, he says " Prosperity to the
landed interest was not compatible with low prices"—
that is, with gold. During a period of depreciation,
the landed interest must, as creditors, have the bene-
fit of gold. During a period of pure currency, the
landed interest must, as debtors, have the benefit of
a depreciated currency. The Scotch have a saying
that "a man may be very fond of the Kirk without

aye riding on its riggin' (ridge of the roof). We
are great admirers of the landed interest, though our
admiration stops a little on this side of idolatry ; but
really Sir Francis would deliver us all up bound neck
and heel to that class which constitutes, according
to him, the glory of England. It is but justice,
however, to Sir Francis to observe that he was a
correct expounder of flume; and Mr. Frankland
Lewis, in correcting him, was not. flume certainly
meant depreciation ; for if the standard be altered by
the fall in the value of metals, what is that but de-
preciation ? Hume was mistaken, no doubt ; but
that is another affair.—Morning Chronicle.

In the House of Lords on Tuesday night, the
Marquis of Clanricarde brought forward his motion
relative to the affair of" Terceira." His Lordship's
argument was, that if the Portuguese troops had
involved us in any breach of neutrality by their ap-
pearance in this country, or by their manner of leav-
ing our ports under false colours, that afforded us no
justification for following them across the sea, and
committing acts of oppression upon them on their
approach to a place in the possession of the Queen.
The Earl of Aberdeen opposed the motion, as casting
an undeserved censure upon the Government. His
Lordship world not discuss the question whether
the principle of neutrality originally laid down was
right or wrong ; but he claimed that, having been
adopted, it should be attended to, and not trifled
with for mere convenience or inclination. He ad-
mitted that an error—the only one—was his not
having insisted upon the instant dispersion of the
Portuguese troops on their arrival in this country.
He said that in their wretched condition, and with
the promise of a speedy departure, it was but art act
of humanity to suffer them to remain in the condi-
tion which was most convenient to them. Had they
not repeatedly been required to depart or disband,
Don Miguel, he said, would have had a right to com-
plain of a breach of neutrality. As to Terceira being a
territory in possession of the Queen, that, he said, was
a matter of doubt, as the parties there were very
nicely balanced. The troops having sailed without
arms did not alter the hostile character of the expe-
dition. He said that arms had, by a friend, been
transmitted to Terceira for them. They were also
warned, before they left our ports under false clear-
ances, that they would not be suffered to land at
Terceira. He also attempted to justify the conduct
of the Government on the precedent furnished by the
measures of 1826. When the Portuguese refugees
fled to Spain, that Government insisted on their
dispersion, and they never went into the interior of
the country. In the negociation now pending he
denied that England was at all a secondary party.
The Earl of Radnor complained that Lord Aber-
deen had said very little on the question before
their Lordships. If the Government had broken
through their neutrality, in suffering the troops
to remain embodied at Plymouth, that did not
justify them afterwards in pursuing them across the
sea. If the Brazilian Government had committed
any fraud, their troops ought not to be punished
for it. The case of 1826 afforded no parallel to the
present, for then the troops were deserters, had re-
turned in arms, and Spain was actually under a treaty
riot to receive such rebels. Lord Holland contended
that the attack on the expedition was a violation of the
law of nations, and said that, if England neglected to
espouse the cause of the young Queen against an
usurper, France would no doubt take advantage of that
circumstance, and obtain an ascendancy in Portugal.
He would remind his Majesty's Government that there
were now two great powers—Russia in the north
and east, and public opinion in the west—which had
been favourable to England a few years since, but
were now adverse to us. The Duke of Wellington
justified this Government in nearly the same strain
of argument as Lord Aberdeen. Don Pedro, he
said, possessed no portion of the territories of Portu-
gal since the separation of the two Crowns.—To
this last observation of the Duke, Lord Goderich
replied that he suspected that ire had other views
than were neutrality in the conduct of Government
in this affair when he spoke of the separation of the
two crowns.—The Lord Chancellor spoke at some
length in defence of the Government in this affair,
but he did not offer a single argument in addition to
those used by the other Ministers.—Lord Carnarvorr
said that the Ministers, through the whole debate,
blinked the real question, which was not whether we
had a right to expel those Portuguese emigrants,
but whether we had a right to pursue them to every
Part Dr the globe, because they refused to submit to
our monarcii, At the conclusion of the debate the
numbers were-31 ff.3r the motion, and 126 against
it. Ministers thus evade the question without having
cleared it up to the satisfaction of the public. The
debate en the state of the country was resumsd: in
the Commons, anditerminated as might be expected,
at half-past two o'clock, in favour of Ministers, the
numbers being 87 for the motion, and 265 against
it; but, from the lateness of the hour, we can only
refer,—to Mr. O'Connell's speech, who complained
of the distress of the middling claQses in Ireland, and
was answered by Lord L. Gower, who adduced
several returns to prove the increasing prosperity of
that country,—to that of Mr. Beaumont, who hoped
the ]louse would agree, because, if they did not,
the people would conclude, " not that Parliament
rduced inquiry, but that Parliament was the
controul of Government ;"—to that of General Gas-
coyne, who tvo4'l not adopt the metaphor of the
Doctors alluded to by a Honourable Member, but
should rather look upon a Con-4alttee as a Jury itn-
pagic4led to inquire " into the murder of the labour
of this conntryl"—and to the long speech of Sir F.
Btudett in favour of the motion, and the reply of
Mr. D. NV. Harvey, who was rather severe on the
aristocratic doctrines of the Honourable niggnel,
Morning Herald.

We agree with Lord Althorp in hoping, that
whatever rt-417 be the details which the Chancellor
of the Exchequer may find it necessary to introduce
ling) his beer bill, with a view cf equitably meeting
and reconciling conflicting interests,'" he will not be
tempted, undeF any circumstances, to alter his mind
as to opening the trade." Nor, we will add, as to
Aking away from those who Jave hitherto excer-
,cised it, the arbitrary and much-abused system of
ale-house
licensing. Whether as a matter of revenue
as well as of police, the taking out an Excise lieenSe