The Sun.
London, England, 1830-06-12 00:00:00

hat, as the Noble Duke bad got the letter, he, of
course, understood what was meant by it. With
respect to the other point, Prince Leopold must
have come to the Noble Duke, as the King's Minis-
ter, and have put the paper-into his hand, and must,
no doubt, have asked him who was the proper per-
son to advise with on the subject. He must say
that he did not think the question he had put de-
served the marked and sharp mode adopted in gii?7
ing the answer. He had at first understool they
were to have the papers; but now it seemed only
some were to be granted; and he believed that, in
fact, the Noble Earl would have given the papers,
if he had not been arrested in it by the Noble Duke.
Viscount GODERICH said, if any blame was
intended to be cast on those who bad been the ori-
ginators of these diplomatic relations, he, for his part,
should be most ready that all the papers connected
with the transactions in which he had had a share
should be produced. A doubt had appeared to be
thrown on the accuracy of the Protocol of the 12th
of July, and in his opinion the papers ought to be
produced, in order to elucidate that doubt.
The Earl of ABERDEEN observed, that the
Noble Marquis appeared to think that there was
some doubt as to the accuracy of that Protocol, but
the instructions given by Austria and Prussia to
their agents showed that no doubt could be fairly
entertained on the subject. By those instructions
they were called on to co-operate with the other
Ministers in forwarding the objects of the Treaty of
London ; and when their conduct, which had fully
satisfied the Russian agent, and those instructions
were coupled together, lie thought enough would be
shown to prove that the Protocol was quite correct.
As its accuracy was thus established, he did not see
the shadow of a reason for producing the papers that
the Noble Marquis called for.
Lord HOLLAND thought there was no question
upon the accuracy of the mere Protocol itself, which
stated, that such an assurance of co-operation had
been given by the Governments of Austria and
Prussia, but there was some doubt as to the sin-
cerity of that assurance; and what he understood
the Noble Marquis was, the means of procuring in-
! formation from the English Ambassadors at those
Courts as to whether that assurance had been acted

up to or not. The Noble Earl had indeed, stated,
that Russia had been satisfied—and perhaps she had
reason to be satisfied with the conduct of Prussia,
but it was doubtful whether the same feeling existed
with regard to Austria—for the Austrian Internuncio
had required time, and had sent home for further in-
structions. Without wishing to speak of the Austrian
Cabinet more severely than of any other Cabinet of the
same kind, he might say of it, as of all the Cabinets
of despotic Princes that had ever existed, that in
case of necessity it would make no scruple of making
an assurance that it would give its assistance in for-
warding the objects of a treaty. The question,
therefore, now was, whether, as Austria had re-
fused to join in the treaty, but had afterwards given
its assurance to co-operate in its object, this Go-
vernment had received information that such as-
surance was sincere, and that these two Powers,
Austria and Prussia, really did mean to act in the
spirit of the treaty of July. He would not say
whether that question was grounded on a well-
founded doubt, but it seemed to him that such was
the question. He would not say that the words of
the Protocol were strongly calculated to convey a
doubt of the sincerity of those who used them, but
that doubt did exist, and it was the object of the
Noble Marquis's motion to get such papers as would
confirm or destroy it.
The Duke of WELLINGTON—My Lords, it
really seems to me that the Noble Lord who spoke
last, and the Noble Marquis who made the motion,
differ very much from each other as to the object
they have in view. The Noble Marquis says that
he wants to show that this Government had no
ground for saying that the Austrian Government
had given their assurance to co-operate with the
Allies in forwarding the objects of the Treaty of
London, and he is desirous of knowing what was
the opinion of the Austrian and Prusian Govern-
ments at the moment. But the Noble Baron tells
us that he believes the Austrian and Prussian Go-
vernment did give this assurance, but that they
never were in earnest, and he puts the case with re-
gard to them hypothetically, and be says that he
wants papers to show what the real opinions of
these two Governments were upon the subject of
these transactions. What ground has the Noble
Marquis made for your Lordships to grant his mo-
tion ? He states that the Protocol contains a doubt-
ful expression, which makes him doubt whether the
Austrian Government was sincere. If the papers
now on the table are sufficient to show that the sin-
cerity of that Government may properly be doubted,
the Noble Lord ought to be satisfied with these
papers. But the Noble Marquis says, " No, Austria
has always said that she would co-operate, but I
want to know what our Ambassadors thought of her
promises." 1 must say, my Lords, that if the ob-
ject of this motion is to show that the Austrian
Government has attempted to deceive us, or to
charge us with having actually been deceived by
Austria, that may be a proper ground for the pro-
duction of these papers; but to come and ask for
papers as the means of grounding a charge that we
have attempted to deceive the Parliament, is a little
more than Parliament has been in the habit of de-
manding. The truth of the matter is, that when
the Noble Marquis comes and asks for papers, he
ought to show a ground for our producing them.
It is not our duty to show that the production of
these papers would be inconvenient. The Noble
Marquis has failed in showing that ground, for we
show that in conformity with the assurance given
in that Protocol was the conduct of the Austrian
agent at Constantinople. But then the Noble Lord
says, " No, that is not a ground for refusing the
papers, for though the assurance was given, the
thing was not done." I sav, my Lords, it was
done. On both grounds, therefore, I think the
Noble Marquis and the Noble Lord have failed in
' showing that these papers ought to be produced.
Lord HOLLAND—My Lords, the Noble Duke
asserts that the object of the Noble Marquis and of
myself are distinct and different. It may possibly
be so, but we have, at least, one object in common,
arid that is to ascertain a fact. The Noble Duke
seems to have satisfied himself that he has knocked
the arguments of the Noble Marquis and myself on
the head by his mode of knocking them together.
If he will allow me, I think I can return the obliga-
tion quite as completely, and knock his arguments
and those of the Noble Earl on the head, by knock-
ing them together.—(A laugh.)—The Noble Duke
says, that there is no Parliamentary ground for
granting these papers. The Noble Earl said on out:
occasion recently, that we should hare these papers
to our hearts' content.—(Hear, hear.)—Now, the
heart of the Noble Marquis is not so easily con-
tented, and he says that lie has an appetite for
more.—(Hear, and a laugh.)—But the Noble Duke
says that a fair Parliamentary ground has not been
made out. Is it not, my Lords, a fair Parliamen-
tary ground to say, " let me see how these assurances
are commented On by our own Ambassadors?" At
present, my Lords, we are but imperfectly supplied
with information on this question. We ask you to
get us more.
The Marquis of LONDONDERRY said that
the Noble Lord who had just spoken so well under-
stood his object, and had so clearly explained it,
that he should add nothing on the point. He would
maintain, from till that now appeared, that Austria
did not approve of the objects of the Treaty and
on the Noble Earl to contradict that as-
sheertciaolnledif
he
[Auld; but to contradict it not by
words, but by the production of the papers.
The Earl of WI ia CHILSEA should- support the
motion.
The Earl of ABERDEEN wished-to state the
facts relating to that expression of " giving papers
to their hearts' content." The question on which
he had used the expression referred to was on the
subject of Prince Leopold. On that subject he had
said that he would furnish them with papers to their
hearts' content ; and he was most anxious to do so,
for lie felt no other wish than that that affair should
be probed to the bottom. As to other subjects, he

could on!), furnish papers according to his sense of
duty.
The Duke of-RICHMOND might perhaps have
thought that -we should never have interfered in this
Greek question; or that, for two or three years,
we should have confined ourselves to negociations.
PerhaPS; too, he might think that Russia might
make use of our interference, in order to take steps
towards greatly_ aggrandizing. her own power in
Eorope. It was because doubts like these might be
entertained, that he thought it was imperative on
the Government to grant the papers required.
The Marquis of SALISBURY differed from the
Noble Dnke who had just spoken. The papers
now on the table appeared to him to give a com-
plete history of what had occurred. Those now
moved for were antecedent to those on the table.
The Marquis of CLANRICARDE should sup-
port the motion, because he thought the papers
would show that Austria was unfavourable to the
objects of the Treaty of London.
Lord CALTHORPE said, there was one point
which he wished to press upon the Noble Earl at
the head of his Majesty's Foreign Affairs. He was
anxious to know if he refused these papers upon the
grounds that they would be inconvenient and detri-
mental to the public service ?
The Earl of ABERDEEN had no hesitation in
stating most explicitly, that it would be very incon-
venient and detrimental to the public service.
The House was then cleared for a division, but
their Lordships did not proceed to a vote. We un-
derstood that Ministers were anxious to press the
matter to a division, but that it was strongly opposed
by the Duke of RICHAIOND. On our re-admission
into the Gallery, we found
Lord DURHAM on his legs, speaking amidst
cries of " Question !" He declared that he would
not be prevented by any prior occurrence from ex-
pressing his opinions. He complained of the course
pursued by the Noble Earl, in reserving his declara-
tion respecting the inconvenience and injury of pro.
clueing these papers up to the last moment. The
effect produced on the Noble Duke (Richmond)
and himself was, that he could not properly
vote for the motion, and consequently that it
would not be right for the Noble Marquis to
press it. Such was their impression, and he
certainly was astonished at the conduct which
had been pursued. In the anxiety of the Noble
Lords opposite to secure what they considered
a triumph, a scene had been exhibited as little
befitting the sober dignity of that House as had ever
taken place in any British Parliament. It was a
miserable triumph indeed when, after an hour's dis-
cussion, a Minister came forward, and upon his
responsibility as, such, declared, that it would be de-
trimental to the public service to produce these
papers, while he, nevertheless, actually wished to
force the Noble Marquis to-a division, for the pur-
pose of showing his small minority. For himself,
he thought the triumph as little befitting the dignity
of that House as any well could be.
Lord ABERDEEN was no party to devising any
triumph, nor had any been sought. The eonclusion
of the motion was, in his opinion, very proper.
Lord LONDONDERRY remarked that the
Noble Earl disclaimed the wish for any triumph,
and he certainly had none. He certainly would not
have pressed the motion if he thought it would
have been detrimental to the public service.
The motion was then negatived without a division.
The Insolvent Debtors' Bill was, on the motion
of the LORD CHANCELLOR, read a second time, and
ordered to be committed on Tuesday next. His
Lordship promised to make some amendments in
the Committee.
The house then adjourned at twenty minutes after
Seven o'clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS—(LAST NIGHT.)
Mr. CALLAGHAN presented a petition from the
exporting merchants of Cork against the Graziers'
Steam Navigation Bill.—To be printed.
Mr. JEPH SON moved fora return of the stamps
issued to Newspapers in England, Wales, and Scot-
land, excepting London, from 1825 to 1829.

Agreed to.
Mr. SADLER presented a petition from a place
in Armagh, against the increase of stamp duties in
Ireland. The same Hon. Member presented a pe-
tition from a parish in Westmeath, praying that pro-
vision might be made for the Irish poor.—Both to
be printed.
Lord STANLEY presented a petition from the
master calico-printers of Manchester, against the
Half-pay Apprentices' Bill.—To be printed.
Lord MANDEVILLE presented a petition from
the county of Huntingdon, against the malt tax.—

_
To be printed.
Mr. WILBRAHAM presented a petition from
an individual named William Brookes, against the
state of the Ecclesiastical Courts in the county of
Chester.—To lie on the table. _ . .

Sir M. S. STEWART presented petitions '
against the renewal of the charter of the East India
Company, from Greenock, and two other places in
Scotland.—To be printed.
Mr. W. SMITH presented petitions from a Con-
gregation of Protestant Dissenters assembling in St.
Thomas's-square, Hackney, against the punishment
of death in cases of forgery—from the deputies for
the protection of the civil rights of the three deno-
minations of Protestant Di,,,senters in London, and
within twelve miles of the metropolis, praying for the
abolition of West India slavery.—Both to be printed.

Mr. MARSHALL presented a petition from
Leeds against the Select Vestry Bill, which
After a few words from Mr. HOBROUSE, was
ordered to be printed.
Sir G. CLERK presented a petition from the
Noblemen, Justices of the Peace, and Freeholders of
the county of Mid-Lothian, against the Scotch Ad-
ministration of Justice Bill ; and
The LORD ADVOCATE presented a petition
in favour of it, which was not read.
Mr. PROTHEROE presented a petition from
the Colliers of Dean Forest, against the Coals' Duty
Bill.—To lie on the table.
The same HON. MEMBER moved for a return of
the Commissioners, Sub-Commissioners, and Clerks
employed in the revision and publication of Ancient
Records, from 1819 to the present time.—Agreed to.
Mr. RICE presented a county petition from Kil-
kr nny, against the increase of Stamp Duties; a simi-
lar one from the Chamber of Commerce, Limerick;
and a petition from an individual named Fitzgerald,
against the duty on Window Glass.—The first two
to be printed.
Mr. O'CONNELL presented a petition from the
parish of Fermoy, in the county of Cork, complain-
ing of the statute under which parish rates are levied
in Ireland. Petitions from three parishes in Clare
against the increased tax on newspapers, which the
petitioners said amounted to a revival of the old
law, which inflicted penalties upon any man who
followed the occupation of a schoolmaster. Also a
similar petition from a parish in Cork. A petition
from the debtors confined in the Four Courts, Mar-
shalsea, Dublin, complaining that Bankrupts could
not claim to be discharged as insolvent debtors
under less than three years' imprisonment. A pe-
tition from a parish in Kilkenny, against the tithe
system. One from the town of Tipperary, against the
increased tax upon newspapers.—All to he printed.
Lord CLEMENTS presented a petition from
Moyle against the increase of stamp duties in Ireland.
Mr. HUME presented a petition from Mr.
Green, of Whitechapel-road, relative to the repeal
of the law inflicting punishment on persons con-
victed of a second libel.
Mr. HUME said that a paper had been returned
to the House, showing, that in 1f629 there were no
less than 161 persecutions, falsely called prosecu-
tions, under the Pamphlet Stamp Act ; and that,
up to May in the preient year, there had been 4.8
and he should, therefore, now move for an account
of the law expellees, &c., incurred in those 161
prosecutions.
Mr. HUME moved for an account of the stamp
duties on Alumanacks during the last twenty years,
and on pamphlets during the last fifty years.
CONVICTS.
Mr. HUME moved for Returns showing the