The Sun.
London, England, 1836-04-21 00:00:00

Last evening Mr. P. Stewart brought forward his am-
tion, " That a humble address be presented to his Majesty,
praying that he will be graciously pleased to order a diplo-
matic agent to be forthwith sent to the free and independent
State of Cracow ; and that his Majesty will also be gra-
ciously pleased to take such steps as to his Majesty may
seem best adapted to protect and extend the commercial
interests of Great Britain in Turkey and the Euxice."
The Hon. Member, in submitting this motion to the consi-
deration of the House, entered into a very elaborate state-
ment of his opinions upon the foreign re nations of this
country, contending that the recent military o,acupation of
Cracow, and the policy pursued by the Cabinet of St. Pe-
tersburg, greatly prejudicial to our commercial interests in
the East, formed a sufficient ground for inducing the .Mouse
to adopt his proposition. It is a question of consider 'able
importance how far it may be prudent for the Legislatkare
of a country to interfere with those duties which mar
Constitution wisely assigns to the care of its Executive..
If the power of declaring war and of making peace be prero-
gatives with which it is dangerous to meddle, those relations,
upon which issues of so mueh moment depend, ahould .be
treated with as much delicacy and forbearance as
is consistent with the maintenance of our national interest
and honour. The House of Commons should be well as-
sured that either of these were in danger of being compr;a-
wised, before they gave their sanction to a motion whose'
only result might be to produce the very effect which it was
intended to prevent. By affirming the proposition of the
Hon. Member for Lancaster, the House would have con-
veyed an indirect censure upon the line of foreign policy
pursued by our Government, and by compelling the adop-
tion of a different course, very possibly have disturbed those
peaceful relations, tie preservation of which is of so much
importance to the interests of this great empire. That the
insurrection' of Plltind afforded no sufficient justification for
the ruin of lief &institution, is a question upon which Mr.
Stewart hardly needed -to have gone into such length of
detail. It was a question upon which no one differed from
him in opinion—upon which the feeling of Lord PalmerstOir
was as strong as his own. Still less, after the very ample
discussion which took place upon the motion of Sir
Stratford Canning, was it necessary for the Honourable
Member to labour with so much assiduity to prove that
the occupation of Cracow was a violation of an express
article of the Treaty of Vienna. We do not quarrel with
the tone, on the contrary it deserves our highest commen-
dation, in which the Hon. Member brought the subject
under the consideration of the House ; nor would we wish
to interdict Hon. Members from giving expression to their
iadignant feelings on witnessing such flagrant violations of
treaties as have taken place in the case of unhappy Poland.
It may be true, indeed, as was remarked by Sir Edward
Codrington, that hard words are thrown away on the Em-
peror Nicholas himself ; but it is also true, that in our
times the most arbitrary despot cannot with safety long
continue to despise public opinion, that the speeches of the
Members of the British Legislature have often materially
contributed to excite throughout Europe feelings which the
proudest Monarchs have been constrained to respect.
While, therefore, we are of opinion that Ministers are en-
titled ;o claim the exclusive direction of our relations with
fpreign States, subject to their responsibility to Parliament,
and that the latter ought to be very cautious bow far they
diminish that responsibility by any encroachment on the
functions of the Executive, we are far from wishing to limit
the free expression of opinion by individual Members on all
those great international questions in which it is of so much
importance to the nations that they should come to a com-
mon understanding. Still there are limits which ought not
o be exceeded in public discussion ; and where it is for the
interest of the nation that the tranquillity of Europe should
not be interrupted, and there are well-founded hopes of our
being able to preserve peace, the language of abuse and vi-
tuperation, by defeating that object, may be not a little mis-
chievous. Does the Hon. Member for Lancaster, for in-
stance, suppose that a diplomatic agent sent from the Court
of St. James's to Cracow, will be invested with increased
powers of utility, if heralded by an angry discussion in
the British House of Commons ? But, it may be replied,
the motion was brought forward in ignorance of the inten-
tion of our Government to send any agent to Cracow.
This is precisely the point at which we are dis-
posed to question the prudence of raising such a
discussion as that of last night. It was very obvious that
the duty of our .Government,vyas to send a consular agent
to Cracow, and resting upon the character to which their
foreign policy entitles them, we do'nt think it is assuming too
much to suppose that this duty would have been faithfully
discharged. The agent that is appointed by the policy of
our Government should not appear to have been forced on
it by an angry discussion in the House of Commons. Upon
Cie second part of the motion of the Hon. Member, we
have but few observations to offer. We quite agree with
Mr. Stewart that the reasoner who thinks, or who pretends
to think, that Turkey is of no commercial importance to
this country, deserves not the trouble of refutation. If
any serious doubt could have been entertained on the sub-
ject, it must have been removed by the statement which
the Hon. Member brought forward last evening. It was,
however, well observed by Lord Palmerston, that Mr.
Stewart did not seem to be aware of the inferences
to be drawn from his own Statements ; for while he
satisfactorily proved that our trade with Turkey had
S 3 greatly increased within the last four years, ho
was urging the very strongest argument that could
be adduced against those who contend that the com-
mercial prosperity of England is withering under tho
influence of Russian ascendancy in the East. True it is
that British interests flourish, not with the co-operation,
but despite of the opposition, of the Cabinet of St. Peters-
burg. But we are called upon, merely because the spirit
of that Cabinet is hostile to the commercial greatness of
England, to deviate from that policy under which it is ad-
mitted our trade is still increasing, by the operations of
which the stealthy aggressions of that very Power have
been arrested, and to adopt, without necessity, a course that
may involve Europe in a general war? All that England
can desire may be, we are persuaded will be, accomplished
by the agency of the liberal, straightforward, firm, although
peaceful spirit that has reigned over her councils during the
Administration of Lord Melbourne. The dangerous hold
which Russia may still have upon the dominion of the Porte
will be effectually loosened, and Turkey preserved in its
integrity. But should the accomplishment of this indis-
pensable object require the hostile interposition of Eng-
land, we have ample security that both our own interests
and the independence of the Ottoman empire will be effeatu-
ally protected.—Morning Chronicle.

EXCHEQUER COURT.

BORTHWICK, M.P. V. CORBOULD.

Mr. MILE moved for arule to show cause why the ver-
dict in this case should not be set aside, and a new trial had,
upon the ground that the Learned. Judge who presided at
the trial had deprived the defendant of the benefit of some
important evidence in justification ; and that, bithe admis-
sion of cerlain facts on the part o 1 the plaintiff's counsel,
other very material evidence had been shut out, as the de-
fendant's counsel were not permitted to call witnesses to
prove those facts ; whereby the advantage which their state-
ments would have given to the defendant, was wholly lost

to him.
The circumstances of the case arc sufficiently well known
to obviate the necessity of recapitulating them. ,The action
was brought by Mr. Borthwick, who is Member of Parlia-
ment for Evesham, to recover damages from the defendant,
who is proprietor of the Bath Guardian, for a libel ort
him which was printed in that Journal. The cause was tried
before Mr. Baron Bolland, at the last Bristol Assizes,
and a verdict was returned for the plaintiff of 100/.
Mr. Elul, in support of his demand for a new trial, read
the libel as it originally appeared, and observed, that for the
purposes of the action, the most offensive construction ha&
been put upon the inuendos therein contained. The Learned
Counsel next proceeded to comment upon the manner in
which some not very material evidence was shut out by the
admissions of the plaintiff's counsel, and he made soae allu-
sions to the allegation contained in the libel respecting Mr.
Borthwick's theatrical attempt.—Rule refused.

COMMON PLEAS.-WEDNESDAY