The Sun.
London, England, 1832-07-17 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

ROUSE OF LORDS, JULY 16.
MOFFAT'S DIVORCE BILL.
The second reading of this Bill having been move 3,
The LORD CHANCELLOR—There were only two
cases in which a woman had obtained a divorce, and that
was in cases where the husband had committed the adul.
tery with the wife's sister, and the incest was the main
ground for passing the Bills. But here there was no
incest, but the simple adultery, accompanied by desertion ;
and if the woman should he enabled to get a divorce, then
any husband might, by being guilty of these offences, gel
himself divorced whenever he pleased. This was a case of
great hardship as far as Mrs. Moffat was concerned ; but
if Parliament should adopt this new precedent, it would
open the widest door to collusion.
Lord WYNFORD opposed the Bill.
The Earl of ELDON—There was no evidence what-
ever of any collusion in this case.
The House then divided on the question that the Bill be
read a second time.
Contents
Non Contents 16
Majority against the Bill —8
Adjourned.

Mr. G. ROBINSON seconded the motion. He ex-
pressed his disapprobation of the conduct of Government
in making this question a party question, by threatening
to resign if they found themselves in a minority. He
thought it was exceedingly insulting to that House, to be
told not to decide upon the terms of the treaty, but to con-
sider the question as affecting the fate of the Ministry.—
(Hear, hear.) He looked upon the division of last Thurs-
day, not as a division upon the merits of the case, but as
a division upon a party question. He denied that the
statement made on that occasion by an Non. and Learned
Gentleman, that England was the party mainly interested
in the annexation of Belgium to Holland, was correct.
England was not the party mainly interested in that an-
nexation, though she had unfortunately to bear the brunt
of the war, and still seemed doomed to suffer from every
change of affairs on the continent. A great deal had been
said about the necessity of observing good faith towards
foreign powers ; but, let him ask, was no good faith due
to the people of this country ? Were the impoverished peo-
ple of England to be called upon, first to pay for the an-
nexation of Belgium to Holland, and then for its separa-
tion?—(Hear, bear.) The letter of the treaty did not
warrant the payment which Ministers had thought proper
to make to Russia ; and he was ignorant of any circum -
stances that did. Upon looking to the debates that took
place when this convention was laid before Parliament,
he found that the Noble Earl now at the head of the Go-
vernment doubted its policy, and condemned the conduct
of the then Ministry for proposing to pay money to a
Power whose object was aggrandizement, and whose poli •
tical views were hostile to this country. Yet when the
Government were released from the obligation of the treaty,
be found, then, the very same parties that originally
objected to it, hastily binding themselves down by a
new convention in 1832, to continue the payments
to Russia. He contended, that the terms of the treaty
plainly showed that it contemplated a separation of Bel-
gium and Holland, as well by internal commotion as by
foreign invasion ; and be reminded the House, that Lord
Castlereagh, during the debates to which he had just now
referred, stated, that the payment of money would be
suspended by this country, if by any circumstances Bel-
gium should be separated from Holland.—(Hear, hear.)
Lord Liverpool also admitted that it was not a claim of
strict justice on the part of Russia, but an appeal to the
liberality of this country. He therefore thought, that
after the separation of the two countries, the British Go-
vernment was not bound to continue the payment to
Russia; and Ministers, if they refused to grant the papers
now asked for, were calling upon the House to vote away
the public money on no other ground but confidence in
the Government. To this he must decidedly object. He
did not believe that Ministers had been actuated by any
unworthy or corrupt motives—they had wade a mistake ;
but why, when convicted of error, do they turn round on
their friends, and tell them, that unless they voted in a
particular way, the Administration would resign ? 'Why
not at once candidly admit that they intended to bribe
Russia to consent to the separation of Belgium and Hol-
land, and that they had made a mistake? In his opinion
the Ministers had nothing to thank Russia for. He be-
lieved that Power was to blame for the very unsettled
state of the Belgian question, by having induced Holland
to withhold her consent to the arrangements agreed upon
by the five Powers. He would therefore recommend Mi-
nisters, at least, to postpone the payment of any further
money until Holland signified her assent to the new ar-
rangement; and until Russia gave up those reservations
respecting the Belgian question, which, in his opinion,
were tantamount to a refusal to recognize the new order of
things.—(Hear, hear.) He, for one, should certainly
object to advance any more money to Russia, until he was
convinced that honour and good faith required this country
to continue the payments she had hitherto made on ac-
count of the Russian loan.---(Hear, hear.)
Mr. G. KNIGHT contended that it would be most
unprincipled conduct on the part of this country, if, after
persuading Russia to consent to the arrangement for the
separation of Belgium from Holland, we were to pocket
the money which was justly due to Russia. Even in an
economical point of view, it was politic to continue the
payment to Russia, for a general war, in which this country
must have been involved, would in all probability have re-
sulted from our withholding the payments. The Hon.
Member for Thetford was, no doubt, an honourable man,
but he with respect to this question put policy and 1110.
rality entirely out of the question, and therefore lie did
not think the Hon. Member's opinion was worth attend-
ing to. He was the friend of retrenchment and economy,
but he would never sanction a proceeding, which would
degrade England in the eyes of the world. The English
people would disdain to effect a saving of expenditure at
the expense of the national honour. By fulfilling our
contract with Russia, we could with greater justice de-
mand that she should adhere to the terms of the treaties
into which she had entered with respect to Poland.

Mr. HUME wished to explain the grounds on shish
he had acted against Ministers on this question, and then
voted with them, and also the reasons of the vote which
he intened to give upon the present occasion. The Hon.
Member for Worcester had truly stated that the payment
of the money to Russia was an act of liberality. He (Mr. H. )
thought that this act of liberality was extended to Russia
in order to induce her to act in conformity with the spirit
of the arrangements which were made in 1815. If the
payment was wrong, the Hon. Gentlemen around hint
who succeeded the Government of the Earl of Liverpool
and-Lord Castlereagh, were quite as much to blame as the
present Ministers fur continuing it. Although the Hon.
Gentleman near him had submitted several motions on the
subject, not one of them had gone to the extent of saying
that the payment should be refused. They always left
themselves a loophole to creep out at ; anti he had no doubt
that if they should come into power again, they would
continue to pay the money.—(A laugh.) The motion.
the other night was merely a rnaricouvre to turn ,ius
the Whigs, in order that the Tories might get in.—
(Hear, hear, and laughter.) Upon that occasion lie
came down to the House with a firm determination to vote
against Ministers, but when he found by whom he was
surrounded—(Great laughter)....ho was extremely unte;:at
ling to become a party to a proceeding which he so ci-Aucir,
disliked as drivinglitlinistet s from office. He had '4O, heat,
tation in saying that he changed his opin'on.„ and vote 4
with the Whigs against the Tories, althouo; he believed
the Whigs to be wrong —(Great cheering from the Oppo-
sition.) He was determined not to assist in turning out
Ministers until they had completed the great measure of
Reform.—(Cheers from the Opposition.) That was the
plain fact. A great deal remained to be done yet, and be
wanted to see a new election take place. He should be
sorry to see the Tories again in power, and the country
placed in a similar situation to that in which it stood when
the present Ministers accepted office.—(Hear, bear.) Under
these circumstances, he felt himself warranted in voting
for Ministers against his own judgment. The object of
the lion. Member for Thetford was merely to effect a
change from Whigs to Tories, and not to save the public
tnoney.—(Hear, hear.) He had made a candid avowal of
his sentiments, and admitted that he had consented "Lo
little evil in order to obtain a great advantav:. This,
however, did not pledge hint to support th-, policy which
Ministers had pursued. On the contrary, he protested
against it.—(A laugh.) The present motion, like the
former one, was intended as a mere trial of strength
between the two parties, and be would support Minis-
ters, however unwillingly, Would the Hon. Member
for Thetford be as candid as he was, and declare,
upon his honour, that he thought the money ought not to
be paid to Russia? For his part, he was determined to
support Ministers, right or wrong.—(Great laughter and
cheering
thoughtf r from
ethe
general Opposition.) pp o
interestsition.)
toi ffgi
h et
thweou lead
countryld
to doco no
‘s,
ve
u u ecriaaouvsb e
he
better promoted by Ministers remaining in office than by
change of Government, which sight
that it was impossible to foresee.—(Hear.)
Mr. J. CAMPBELL thought that the icrigelpies which
the Hon. Member for Middlesex had expounded were cal.,
culated to induce a laxity of coudge: that would be by no
means desirable. If he (Mr. Campbell) bad thought that
Ministers had acted in violation of an Act of Parliament,
he would have voted against them ; but he was of opinion
that they had done no more than the law entitled them to
do. For his part he required no further information to
enable him to form an opinion on the case than the facts
which were notorious and admitted by the papers upon
the table of the House. He contended that there had
been no failure of consideration on the part of Russia,
who received the money now for what she had done and
was doing. The conduct of Russia towards Poland had
nothing whatever to do with the question. It certainly
would have afforded him great pleasure, if the treaty of
1815 bad contained an article, stipulating that the money
should not continue to be paid to Russia if she assailed
the independence of Poland ; but unfortunately that was
bound to fulfil the conditions of
theot treaty asaes, itan stood.
.

Mr. PIGOTT maintai❑ed tint the treaty of .815 did
❑ot bind Russia to follow the same course of policy ai
Britain chose to adopt. Neither did he conceive that
payment of the debt wne now calltd for by the provitioal

of the compact. The Hon. Member then cited the terms
of the treaty aa confirmatory of both his positions.
Mr. W. L. WELLESLEY believed that it was as
imperative in this country to pay the money now to
Russia, as it was at the time when Belgium and Holland
were united. He did not think that this most important
question should be dealt with as a party question, and in
supporting the views of his Majesty's Ministers, he cer-
tainly did not regard it in such a light.—(Hear, hear.)
The Hon. Member deprecated the use of the language of
invective towards the Emperor of Russia on the subject of
Poland. His Imperial Majesty was greatly under the
guidance of his Council, and was as incapable of the atro-
cities that had been attributed to him as any gentleman in
that House. He had exercised (he would not say wisely)
the right of conquest in Poland, and Belgium bad also
exercised the same right, but with propriety.
Lord .ELIOT thought that the House and the country
had a right to demand from Ministers the fullest informa-
tion on the question under consideration. He did not feel
called upon to say whether England was or was not hound
to make the payment to Russia, but he could nut conceive
how any embarrassment could arise from the production of
the documents moved for by the Hon. Member for Thetford.
It Ministers refused to accede to their being produced, he
should most cordially support the amendment.
Mr. GISBORNE said, as it hal been admitted that the
(lire interpretation of the convention warranted the pay-
ment to Russia, it must follow, that the act of Parliament
which was affirmatory of the convention, authorised the
same course of procedure. Although no admirer of the
politics of Russia, he was of opinion that the conduct of
that Power throughout the whole of the business before
them, hal been altogether equitable. With respect to
Holland. she had lost the benefit of our trusteeship on the
treaty, by her misgovernment of Belgium. We had re-
ceived from Holland a quid pro quo, in the shape of ceded
colonies, for undertaking to pay Russia, and he did not see
how we could depart from our obligation, without re-
fusing to pay a just debt. He should, therefore, support
the motion of the Noble Lord without asking for further
infarmation.
Mr PREAD had entered the house without expecting
to hear any novel remarks on the subject under discussion,
but 4 e had heard one speech, the manner and sentiments
of which were to him new indeed. He alluded to the
speech of the Hon. Member for Middlesex, who, believ-
ing the Whigs to be wrong, had nevertheless voted with
them, and believing the Tories to be right, had voted
against them.—(Opposition cheers.) Here was a ques-
tion involving millions of the public money to be de-
cided by the H.in. Member; and he had voted, not be-
cause he thought this way or that way, but because his
Majesty's Ministers had threatened to resign in case the
sense of the House were declared against them.—Opposi-
tion cheers.) The Hon. Member had spoken truth, and
hail voted a lie—(hear, hear), and he (Mr. Praed) could
not anticipate that on a future (lay men less known, and
representing places less important, would, in following
the example of the Hon. Member, be actuated by his pu-
rity of purpose. Those who did not take so strong a
view as he did of the question, ought to support the
motion of his Honour Ode Friend, the Member for Thet-
ford, because these Umbers who had spoken in favour
of Ministers referred to representations which were not
yet in the possession of the House. If such a question
as this was carried by Ministers in a reforming House of
Commons, the people would he convinced of the neces-
sity of reform ; in a retrenching House of Commons, they
would see what its views of retrenchm. nt were ; and in
a popular House of Commons, the people would cry
shame —(Hear.)
Mr. R. VERNON SMITH was glad to see the Hon.
Member for St. Germein's (Mr. Praed) in the House,
after the solemn leave be had taken of it the other night,
returning, too, merely to discuss a dry subject like this.
The Hon. Member had said' he had heard nothing new
upon this topic, and undoubtedly he had said nothing new.
He had animadverted upon what had fallen from the Hon.
Member for Middlesex ; and though certainly that Hon.
Member had stated the principle upon which he acted
broadly, yet it was not more broad than that the Hon.
Member for St. Gertnain's acted upon ; for he said that
he would not change his opinion. He agreed that there
was very little novelty in the question now; it bad been
frilly discussed in January. The objects of thoe who re-
vived it now were two—one was to turn out the present
Ministers, the other to make a splash on the hustings.—
(Hear, hear.) He doubted whether it would have any
effect upon the hustings ; for there had been no expression
of public feeling about this loan—no petitions laid upon
the table. He could not think that Hon. Members would
sacrifice their conscience to the hustings for mere political
existence,
" Et propter vitam vivendi perdere causas."

. .
Mr. G. BANKES thought that the question bad not
been too much, or even enough, argued. It was one of
great importance as a precedent ; for it was laid down,
for the first time, that in a matter of doubt, admitted to
be so by their own law officers, Ministers might put this
interpretation upon the question.
Mr. SFIEIL said, that in determining what England
owed to Russia, the House should consider what England
owed to herself.—(Hear, hear.) She should beware of
adopting any construction which sacrificed the spirit to the
letter, and, as Lord Coke said, " eat away the essence of
the text." The treaty of 1814 was absolute and uncon-
ditional ; England bound herself to pay so much money
to Holland. She received four colonies of Holland as a
consWeretion. She has the estate—has any event arisen
by which she is released from the payment of the purchase
money? The treaty of 1815 was founded on the treaty
of 1814. Holland transfers her absolute demand on us ta
Russia, and 14y the sth article a contineeney is attached,
in the event of which the p iyment is to cease. That con-
tingency has arisen—but how? that is the question.
Through England's own interposition.—(Hear, hear.)
What are the facts ? Brussels follows the example of Paris
—Holland invades Belgium—the armies of France march
—the flames cf a general war are about to burst out—
England interposes—the union of Holland and Belgium
might involve her in irretrievable disaster. She takes a
new li'rigclom in lieu of the former junctions ; she plants
on a new throne a Prnee,—an Englishman by adop-
tion, linked with her own royalty by the nearest ties,
and who must be faithful to England if he be true
to himself.—(Hear, hear, hear.) Under these circum-
stances, is England relieved from a debt for which she
has the consideration ?....,(Hear.) Let common honesty
and common sense answer the question. There is no
eloubt that there exists in England an indisposition to pay
Russia ; but Russia has not lost her claim to our money,
by fooling earned a title to our detestation. We are not
to try the responsibility of one party by the delinquenei;,s
of another to rely on Poland's sufferings in order to make
.iseney of them, were indeed a thrifty retribution.—
`Three! NV!? 51 a time when we might have interfered—
;when au Admiral in the Baltic might have interceded
ewith more eloquence than a Minister at St. Peteraburgh ;
hot the irrevocable decision has passed by ; and now, are
we—now that Poland has perished for ever, and of her
glorious people nothing but their glory remains—are we
now to avail ourselves of all her incalculable misery—her
anguish, her tears, her desolation, to indulge in a lucra-
tive sympathy, and a profitable commiseration, to make
an entry of her wrongs in our fiscal ledger, to convert
them into an item of sordid calculation, and balance the
account with Poland's best and noblest blood ?—(Cheers )
Five millions is a large sum—it is a vast heap of gold ;
but the character of England is above all pi ice ; better to
lose every thing except our honour, than win the world
without it.—(Hear, hear.)
Sir C. FORBES said that, as far as lie had made up
his mmol on the subject, his opinion was, that England
was bound io honour to make good the payments to Rus-
sia which she had :_euaranteed by the treaty of 1815 ; but
in order to affard the douse an opportunity of corning to a
correct judgment on the euhject, he thought that all the
information in the possession of Government on the treaty
should be laid before the House ; he should, therefore,
vote for the amendment of the Hon. Member for Thet.
ford.
Lord MORPETH said, that frequent allusions having
been made to the elections, he must say tha', with every
regard for economy, he should first look to the question of
goad faith ; anti if the national faith were involved, as he
contended it was, the question of economy had nothing to
do with the case before the House. Even in point of eco-
nomy, however, he thought that the better course
would be to make good our engagements with Russia;
for, in the end, it would be no economy to let
Europe reconquer Belgium for Holland, and Rus-
sia had, as was already stated, intimated her dis-
position to join in such an attempt. If Government
had refused to make good this payment to Russia, the
Hon. Members opposite would, he hail no doubt, be the
first to upbraid them for it ; for lie was sure that, if they
were in power, they would not refuse to act on the treaty.
if, on the showing of some Hon. Gentlemen opposite, our
debt to Russia had ceased to be a bond debt, it became
doubly a debt of honour, which, he thought, nations, as
well as individuals, were bound to discharge. If he
should have to explain his vote on this occasion to his
constituents, he should meet them with perfect confidence;
and he was sure that they would cheerfully join him in
defending that part of his Noble Friend's policy, that he
had paid the country's honourable debts, and kept her at
peace. —( Hear, hear.)
Colonel PANE supported the amendment, from a con-
viction that the money ought not to he paid. The object
41 united
of the treaty of 1815 was, that Belgium and H 0114"

should form a barrier against France, but now that these
countries were separated, Ministers asked the House to
consent to the payment of 5,000,0001., on the ground of
that very separation which it was the object of the treaty
to prevent.
Lord ALTHORP said, that as to the real question be-
fore the House, whether the Government was justified in
making the payment, he must repeat, that in the spirit of
the treaty of 1816, the money was due. The House had
already twice decided that question, and he could not see
how any Hon. Member who had voted in the majority of
Thursday, could now vote for the amendment of his Hon.
Friend the Member for Thetford. A part of the argument
of his Hon. Friend who moved the amendment went upon
a misconception of what he (Lord Altborp) said on a
former occasion. What he had said on that occasion was,
that at the first glance at the treaty he was inclined to
think that this country was absolved from the obligation it
had undertaken, hut on considering the subject more atten-
tively, he had come to the conclusion that the money
was due, and that we were bound to pay it. The
House had already come to the same conclusion, and he did
not see that any information that could be laid before it
would make the matter more plain ; he must, therefore,
resist the amendment of his Hon. Friend. We were
parties to the separation of Belgium from Holland, and
we could not, in justice or equity, turn round and say,
We are absolved from our engagement by a contingency
which we ourselves have helped to bring about. " He
could not consider the amendment of his Hon. Friend, the
Member for Thetford, in any other light than as a new
version of the motion of the Right Hon. Member for
Harwich. That motion bad been brought forward with
gr eat skill, as had also been the amendment of his Hon.
Friend on the present occasion, hut he was sure that the
latter would not be more successful than the former. He
hoped the House would come to the real question,
whether it would agree that the money should be paid ;
and he was sure that the gentlemen who voted the other
night would not object to the money being paid. It they
did, he hoped they would disembarrass the question, and
avow it at once. If he did not consider the country bound
by the treaty of 1815, he would not have consented to the
convention to pay it ; hut, considering that it was only
following up the spirit of the former treaty, he thought he
should be guilty of a dereliction of duty if he did not
consent to it.
Mr. GOULBURN expressed his surprise that the de-
bate should have been suffered to proceed to such a length
before any of the Ministers took a part in it, and still more
at the refusal of the Noble Lord (Alrhorp) to consent to
the amendment, for the production of furt'ier information
on the important subject before them; the more so, as the
Noble Lord had stated no ground for the refusal. The
Noble Lord seemed to think that because he had tied up
24:3 Gentlemen by the vote of Thursday, he was therefore
justified in refusing the informati n now sought for ; as if
the two motions were the same; but the former motion
implied a censure on his Majesty's Government, from
which the present was free, as it sought only
for additional information ; but in the view
which the Noble Lord took of the question, he
seemed to think that this also implied a censure.—
( Heir.) If the question involved the national faith, he
(Mr. Goulburn) would be the last to oppose the pay-
ment ; but let it be shown that the national faith was in-
volved, let all the information which could consistently be
given be laid before the House, and if he were then shown
that the nation it faith was really involved, then he was
sure there would be no objection to make the payment,
whatever might be its amount. They ought not, he con-
tended, to consent to the payment of any sum from the
public, on the mere statement of a Minister, without any
further information of the grounds on which it was to be
paid. He was the more anxious for the production of the
papers called for, because he recollected that on a former
occasion some of the advocates for the payment appealed to
the documents, which they said were quite conclusive on
the subject. Was it wise, he would ask, to refuse this
reasonable request, 'dying on the strength of a majority
which Ministers knew they could command ?
Mr. R. GRANT said that Hon. Members opposite
must know well this motion could have but one result :
yet it was also well known that the object of a motion
might be gained, whether that motion was carried or not.
The subject was already discussed twice ; and now, for
the third time, Hon. Members simply asked for informa-
tion on a subject on which they had already shown them-
sAves willing to pronounce a censure, in the absence of that
very information for which they now asked. The Right
Hon. Gentleman then entered into a review of the circum-
stances of the treaty, and contended, that the honour of
the country was involved in the payment of the money to
Russia. Upon these grounds he argued that, in common
sense and common reason, they were bound to fulfil the
terms of the treaty.

Sir C. WETI4ERELL supported the amendment of
the Hon. Member for Thetford. lie denied that the
amendment of that Hon. Member implied a vote of cen-
sure against Ministers. His Majesty's Ministers declared
that they, on the examination of certain documents, had
come to the conclusion that this money ought to be paid.
He wanted to see those documents.—(Hear, hear.) And
this he would say, that, before he voted one shilling of
the public money, he would insist on that House having
laid before it the whole of the evidence on which Minis-
ters stated that they had formed their opinion.—(Hear.)
It struck him as a most extraordinary thing, to find the
Hon. Member for Middlesex, whom they bad often heard
complaining of an expenditure of 6s. Bd., arguing, on
this occasion, in support of the improper expenditure of a
large sum of money. He contended that, through the
whole of this business, Ministers were acting a delusive
part, and it was the duty of that House to call for and
examine those papers, which, it appeared, had hitherto
been specially confined to the investigation of the law
officers of the Crown.

Lord PALAIERSTON wished, in the first instance, to
set those gentlemen right who had addressed the House on
the other side, and who had spoken of the 5,000,000/. of
public money which were to be paid, in consequence of
this arrangement, to Russia. He begged to remind them
of the fact, which he supposed they must have forgotten
through mistake, that it was only 1,800,0001. which the
public would have to pay in this way. The Noble Lord
then proceeded to contend, that, on the face of the docu- '
ments which the House had already in its possession, there
appeared abundantly suffi ient grounds to establish the
existence of the obligation on the part of this country to
discharge the payment of that sum, and in proof of the
correctness of his interpretation of the treaty of 1515,
he referred to the speeches delivered in Parliament by
Lords Liverpool and Castlereagh shortly after the con-
clusion of that treaty. Complaints had been made, he
said, that they had paid Russia, in the first instance, for
supporting the union of Belgium with Holland, and
that they were now called upon to pay her for sup-
porting the separation of Belgium from Holland.—
He begged to observe, that the same principle had
governed their conduct in both cases—namely, the policy
and propriety of establishing, in the instance of Belgium, a
barrier calculated to maintain the balance of power, and
to preserve the peace of Europe. Setting aside the in-
justice of attempting to crush by force of arms that ex-
pression of national feeling which had led to the separation
of Belgium from Holland, he would put it to the Gentle-
men opposite, who, no doubt, were prepared to snake a
:treat display upon the hustings of the regard which they
had in this case shown to an economy of the public money,
whether the financial condition of the country would be
snore benefited, and its general interests better promoted,
by the adoption of such a line of conduct—a line of con-
duct which their arguments and reasoning would recom-
mend—than by the adoption of that course of policy which
his Majesty's Ministers had felt it their duty to pursue.—
(Hear, hear.) The truth was, that had his Majesty's
Ministers not continued the payment of this money, the
Gentlemen on the other side of the House would have at
once roundly accused them of a gross breach of faith, and
the Hon. Member for Thetford would, no doula4, under
such circumstances, have come forward to tell them that
these payments were as justly due as the dividends on the
three per Cents.—(A laugh, and cries of " Hear, hear.)
Never was there seen grosser inconsistency, never seen so
much of the mere workings of faction, as on the present
occasion: Hon. Members opposite first come down in Ja-
nuary, and call upon the House to pronounce a positive
vote of censure upon 31inistets. • It was vain to tell
them that the House was not in sufficient possession of the
subject to come to so emphatic a decision; •Hon. Members
had no misgivings, and_a vote they would have. Well,
they were defeated. :Iti•July, however, as if nothing had
occurred, they come down, and, without having received.
a whit more information, call upon ,he House to agzin
pronounce an emphatic vote of censure upon Ministers.
They are again defeated, and now, as a last resort of fac-
tious opposition, c.ll fur
.the information which they on
the two I:rmer occasions effected to deride. On the pre-
sent motion, the House would decide as it thought fit.—
'this he wouhLtake it upon him to affirm, that it the very'
personswiao.now endeavoured to raise the outcry against
Minisyyr.s on this loan transaction should succeed to office,
they would do the very same thing ; otherwise there would
he an end to our national faith, to national justice, and the
honour of England.—(Cheers.)
Sir R. PEEL said, it was very easy for the Noble Lord
to taunt the supporters of the present motion with being
actuated by factious motives, but not so easy to prove his
assertion. Those supporters did not propose to themselves
the ejecting of ministers by means of a vote of censure,
other wise they might have rung the changes on the econo-

mical element of the motion, but the vindiating the ho-
of Parliament, which had been outraged by those
ministers applying money for which there was no legisla-
tive sanction. The Hon. Member for Middlesex now
votes for Ministers ; in January he voted against them.
Was this consistent with that straightforward political
course on which the Hon Member was so fond of plum-
ing himself on the Middlesex hustings ?—(Hear, hear.)
What if the nominee of a schedule A borough had acted
so ? Would they ever hear the end of it ? The
Right Honourable Baronet then, at some length, con-
tended that it was the duty of Ministers to have furnished,
of their own accord, the information now soughtof them. If,
indeed, they told them that they possessed such information,
but felt it inexpedient, relative to the public service, to
produce it at the moment, he should have acknowledged
the force of the plea, and riot questioned the policy of
continuing the payments under the loan. As it was, he
would err on the right side, and vote for the maintenance
of the national faith by continuing the payments—(Hear,
hear)—lest the national faith should be pledged, as
described by the Noble Lord. He was the more in-
clined to adopt this course, when he recollected that we
had received from Holland, Demerara, the Cape, and Es-
sequibo, fur which it was but just to make due compensa-
tion. The House ought not to be required to decide upon
the present question while negotiations were yet pending,
and at a time when it was exceedingly doubtful whether
Russia would succeed in inducing Holland to accede to the
separation without an appeal to arms. He wished to
make a single remark on the supposed conduct of Russia
toward, the Poles. It had been asserted, that several
hundred Polish children had been torn from their parents
and sent to Siberia ; but he understood the simple fact to
be, that a number of children, being found destitute and
unprotected after the surrender of Warsaw, were sent to
schools on the frontiers of Poland, by direction of the Em-
peror of Russia.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL denied that his Learned
Friend and himself had at any time formed an opinion ad-
verse to the claim of Russia. The only question was,
whether the treaty was binding on the country; and that
question had been twice decided in the affirmative. The
amendment was intended to cast a censure on the Govern-
ment, under pretence of calling for further information.
He objected to re-opening an obligation long since in-
curred, and recently confirmed by two distinct votes of the
House.

Sir R. VYVYAN addressed the House, amidst loud
cries of " Question." He contended the document moved
for by the Hon. Member for Thetford ought, in common
fairness, to be produced by Ministers.
Mr. KEARSLEY next spoke, but was almost in.
audible in consequence of the incessant cries of " Ques-
tion." He hoped the House would bear with him fur a
short time. He did not often trespass on the indulgence
of the Hot.se, and when he did he was generully fortunate
enough to obtain a most cheeful audience.—(Laughter.)
His speeches were " like angels' visits—few and far be-
tween."—(Great laughter.) It was only a few nights ago
that the Hon. Member for Middlesex calumniated the Em-
peror of Russia by calling him " a monster," and he was
therefore very much surprised to see that night the Noble
Lord, the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, bandying com-
pliments with the lion. Member, and pitching it right
and left.—(Continued laughter.) While on his legs, he
would take the liberty of addressing a few words to the
Noble Lord the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Did not
that Noble Lord know that he was bringing down the
Divine wrath on this country by the desecration of the
Sabbath ? He would inform the Noble Lord that
" Example strikes where precept fails,
" And sermons are less read than tales."
—(Great laughter.) He knew that he possessed but a
weak voice, but if he had a strong one, he would not fail
to ring into his Gracious Monarch's ears, that his illus-
trious father would have blushed to have countenanced men
who had not a blush in them--(Shouts of laughter, fol-
lowed by loud cries of " Question.")
The gallery was then cleared of strangers, and the House
divided. The numbers were—

For Mr. Baring's amendment 155
Against it l9l
Majority in favour of Ministers -36

In answer to a question from Sir R. PEEL,

Lord AL'l HOliP stated, that it was his intention to
postpone the Coriimittee until Friday next, and he hoped
no objection would be made to receive the report on the
Saturday following.
Colonel SIBTHORP gave notice, that he would to-
morrow move for certain returns relative to the cholera in
the city of London, Southwark, and Westminster.
The other orders of the day were then disposed of, and
the House adjourned at Half-past Three o'clock.

FRENCH PAPERS.

(From the Moniteur of Saturday, July 14.)

PARIS, JULY 3.—The Minister of Finance has
published the usual statement of the Revenue
for the first six months of the present year, compa-
ring it with the receipts of the same periods of
1830, 1831:
1830 (first half year) F.297,890,000
1831, ditto 253,813,000
1632, ditto 267,930,000
Thus, as compared with 1830, there is a de-
crease of 29,960,000 francs, of which a reduction
in the duty of spirituous I_•quors produced a diminu-
tion of 16,200,000 francs—leaving the real deficit
as compared with 1830, only 13,760,000 francs; for
the first six months of 1832, compared with 1831,
however, there is an improvement in the first quar-
ter of 9,070,000 francs; total increase 11,117,000
franc=.

(From the Quotidienne of Saturday.)
PARIS, JULY 13.—A letter from Metz has the
following paragraph
The pretended rebellion of the Rhenish pro-
vinces was only a pretext brought forward in order
to cover them with troops, and to penetrate to the
frontiers of France. We now learn that under the
new pretext of keeping off the cholera, the troops
are going to form a sanitary cordon along the whole
line. Orders are already given to refuse admission
to all the Frenchmen who may present themselves,
and to prevent all communication between the inha-
bitants of the two countries. Centinels placed at
the distance of only forty paces from each other
have their arms loaded, and allow nobody to pass.
These statements are in general circulation, and
make people apprehend that a collision is at hand.
What is afflicting is, that we are not in a condition
to repel an invasion. The country is destitute of
coin, most of the fortresses are not garrisoned, and
Metz, with its garri-on of 2,000 mouths, could not
hold out a two months' siege. To this point the
system of concession has brought France."
A letter in the Courrier de la Mousselle has the
following passage :-
1
" E— (RHENISH BAVARIA), JULY 5.--llow
can you remain so tranquil ? Is it possible that
you can still believe in peace? that you can shut
your eyes against evidence ? In truth your states-
men are great dupes, or great cowards, to suffer you
to be so confined within the iron circle of the Holy
Alliance. Tell them, then,that it is drawn closer and
closer every day. Tell them that nobody thinks
that all the troops which inundate us have no ob-
ject besides that of keeping down the spirit of li-
beralism, which manifests itself among us. Believe
me, the Powers of the North do not aim merely at
sunptessing insurrection in the Circle of the Rhine ;
they have other projects. Such is the general
opinion of those persons who have the best oppor-
tunities of forming a correct judgment.
" Your venal Journals and Press will in vain
deny facts ; it is certain that 10,000 Austrians
have crossed over to this side of the Rhine. You
will, perhaps, not be told that the garrison of May-
ence now amounts to 24,000 men, and that the
park of Raillery at Spires has just been augmented
by 48 pieces of cannon; but all this is certain."
(From the Constitutionnel of Saturday.)
FRIBLRG (BADEN),JULY s.—Our city and that of
Constance are threatened with an Austrian garrison,
taken by the Croats stationed at Bregenz. The
aPr rmi ny of
NliVardederei Whiallibecocmonecettoitrcatieulsdirrut
ht tohe llapleatt.si ate.
the Grand Duke to accede to these projects.
We learn that all these details are strictly correct,
and confirmed by a Hessian tle,erter, who lately got into
France by way of Sarreguernines.—Note of Cour. de la
Mous.

No' less than eleven deaths have taken place
in the neighbourhood of Westminster since Saturday by the
cho!efa morbus.

THE LADYE CHAPEL.—Active prepara-
tions have at length commenced for the restoration of this
celebrated relive. A workshop is erecting for the
masons, and a quantity of Portland stone provided for
their use ; and on the Middlesex side of London-bridge a
great many workmen are busily employed in prep ariug
for the rebuilding of fishmongers' Hall.