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

LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, JULY 13, 183:2.

2. Freemen admitted in right of

As regards the latter, a distinction is made be-
t.veen cases where the right is derived from or
through a freeman admitted in respect of servitude,
or in respect of any other right. In the former
c ise, the right may be derived from a freeman ad-
mitted at any time present or future. In the latter,
the person from whom the right is derived muse
have been a freeman, or entitled to be admitted as
such, before the Ist of March, 1831.

The effect of this enactment, therefore, will be to
secure for life the right of voting, where such right
before existed, to freemen in general, if admitted on
or before the 31st of March, 1831 ;—to secure in
perpetuity the right of voting to all freemen admit-
ted in respect of servitude, whether already admit-
ted or at any future time to be admitted ;—to secure
the right of voting, where such right was before
annexed to freedom in respect of birth, to the de-
scendants of freemen in general, if such freemen
were admitted, or entitled to be admitted, before
the Ist of March, 1831; to the descendants of
freemen admitted in respect of servitude, in per-
petuity..

The right thus reserved to the burgesses and free-
men is, however, made to depend on the following
conditions :
The voter mint be registered.
In order to be registered his qualification must,
on the last day of July iu the year of such registra-
tion, be absolute and complete; so that if such day
were the day of election, and this Act had not been

passed, he would then be qualified to vote :
He must have resided in the place for which he
votes, or within seven miles thereof, six calendar
months next previous to the 31st July in the year
of registration.

4. The Right of Voting by reason of Inhabitancy.
—There remains one other class of electors—those
having a right to vote by reason of inhabitancy.
The right of such voters is reserved to those per-
sons who were actually in possession of the fran-
chise at the time of the passing of this Act. But
the right thus reserved is strictly confined to the
person of the voter, and is to continue only so long
as he shall remain qualified to vote according to the
usage of the place for which he votes. The quali-
fication, therefore, once ceasing, the right is for
ever gone.

The exercise of the right hereby reserved is to
depend on the following conditions:—
The voter must be registered, and if omitted from
the register for two' successive years, loses the right
of voting :altogether, unless such omission have
taken place in consequence of his having received
parochiatrelief, or on account of absence on service
with thermy or navy.
In order to be registered, the voter must, on the
last day of July in any year, be qualified in such
manner, that if that day were the day of election,
he would then be entitled to vote.
He must have resided six calendar months in the
place for which he votes, or within seven statute
miles thereof.

As to the residence, see ante, sec. 27, n.
Of the Nature of the Franchise.—The right of
voting by reason of inhabitancy varies according to
the usage of various places in which it exists.
Electors by reason of inhabitancy are pot wailers—
inhabitant householders—inhabitants paying scot and
lot—inhabitants generally.
Potwallcrs.—A pot wailer is a person who fur-
nishes his own diet. The right of such a voter may
be restricted to housekeepers, Honiton, 3 Luders,
159; or it may extend to lodgers as well as house-
keepers ; Taunton, 1, Doug. 370.
Householders.—•ln order to be qualified as a
householder, it is necessary that the voter should
have the control of the outer door. 2 Peck. 244.
Inhabitants paying Scot and Lot.—To be quali-
fied by reason of such inhabitancy, it is necessary,
first, that the voter be assessed to the poor- rate;
secondly, that he shall have paid the rate. Where
there is no existing poor-rate at the time, assess-
ment to the church-rate will suffice. Garb. and D.
134. It will be immaterial that the rate has been
made by officers illegally appointed, 1 Doug. 129 ;
or that the rate itself is informal, or invalid, if it
has not been appealed against, 1 Peck. 394.
Inhabitants generally.—The right of voting by
reason of inhabitancy, independently of any super-
added qualification, is extremely limited. The ex-
istence of such a right at all has been questioned,
but it has been recognized in the cases of Preston
and Tregony. The latter• place is now disfranchised.
5. Of the Duties of Overseers in respect of Li,ls
rf Voters for Cities and Boroughs.—The duties of
overseers for any parish or township, either wholly
or in part in any city or borough, or any place shar-
ing in the election of any city or borough, are as
follows :

They are to make out on or before the 31st of
July in each year an alphabetical list, according to
form 1, schedule 1, of all persons entitled to vote
for the city or borough in which their parish or
township is situate, in respect of the occupation of
any premises of the yearly value of 101. as provided
in sect. 27.

To make another alphabetical list, according to
form 2, schedule 1, of all other persons, except
freemen, entitled to vote for the city or borough in
which their parish or township is situate, in virtue of
any right whatsoever other than that arising from
the occupation of any premises of the yearly value of
10/. To write in such lists the christian and sur-
names of every person at full length, together with
the nature of his qualification.
And where any person is entitled to vote in
respect of property, the overseers are to insert in
their list the name of the street, lane, &c. in which
such property is situated.
And where any person is entitled to vote other•
wise than in respect of property, the overseers are
to specify the street or lane, or some other descrip-
tion of such voter's abode.

The overseers are to sign both these lists; to have
a sufficient number of copies of them printed, and to
fix them on or near all the church or chapel doors
in the parish or township in some public conspicu-
ous place, on the two Sundays next after such lists
shall have been made.

They are to keep true copies of such lists, to be
inspected by any person without payment of fee, at
all reasonable hours during the two first weeks after
such lists shall have been made.
Any place, extra-parochial, or having no over-
seers, situate within any city or borough, or within
any place sharing in the electioti of any city or bo-
rough, is, for the purpose of making out the list of
voters, to be considered within the adjoining parish
or township, wholly or in part within such city or
borough, or within such place sharing in the elec-
tion for such city or borough.
And if such place adjoin two or more parishes or
townships wholly or in part within the city or bo-
rough, such place shall be considered to belong to
the least populous of those parishes or townships,
according to the last census taken of them.
The overseers, therefore, of every such adjoin-
ing parish or township, are to do in respect of such
places all acts which by this statute they are called
upon to do in respect of their own parishes or town-
ships.

The notice to be given by the overseers to voters
for counties, and the notice of such claims required
to be sent by the overseers, are neither of them re-
quired by that part of the Act which refers to the
registration of voters for cities and boroughs.
But any voter omitted in the overseers' list, and
claiming to have his name inserted as entitled un-
der this Act, on the 31st of July last preceding, is

,o give on before the 25th of August in each year,
i notice in writing (according to form 4, ached. 1.)
to the overseers of the parish or township in respect
of which he claims to vote.
Any person whose name is on the list may object
to the name of any person as not entitled to vote.
Such objection must be in writing (according to
form 5, sched. 1.), and sent to the overseers on or
before the 25th of August in each year.
Overseers are to make out a list (according to
form 6, sched. 1) of persons so claiming to vote,
tnd a list (according to form 7, sched. 1.) of per-
sons so objected to.
They are to fix these lists on the doors of all
churches and chapels, and if there be no churches
or chapels, in some public and conspicuous place, on
the two Sundays next preceding the 15th of Sep-
tember in each year.
They are to keep a copy of such lists, to be in-
'pected without fee by any person, and to provide
copies for sale on paymeut of one shilling each.
They are to attend at the first court of the bar-
rister appointed to revise the list of voters, and
to produce their list before him, and a copy of the
list of persons claiming and objected to, and to an-
swer upon oath any questions put to them by such
barrister on matters connected therewith.

The duty of registering freemen in cities and bo-
roughs is imposed on the town clerk, or if there be
no town clerk, or he be dead, or incapable of act-
ing, on the person executing duties similar to those
of the town clerk, or there be no such person, by the
chief civil officer of the place.
The officer is to make a list of such freemen (ac-
cording to form 3, in schtd. 1.) on or before the 31st
July in every year, to fix a copy of such list on the
door of the town-hall, or in some conspicuous situa-
tion two Sundays next after such list shall have been
made, and to keep a copy, to be perused, without
fee, at all reasonable hours during the first two weeks
after the making of such lists.
Any freeman omitted in the list, and claiming to
be inserted, is to give notice in writing to the town
clerk (according to form 4, in ached. I,) on or be-
fore 25th August in every year.
Any person inserted in the list of freemen
may object to any other person as not enti-
tled, by giving a notice in writing (according
to form 3, in ached, 1.); and the town clerk is to
make a list of all persons so claiming (according to
form 8, in ached. 1.), and another of the persons so
objected to (according to the form 9 in the ached.
I); and shall fix copies of such lists on the door
of the town-hall, or other conspicuous public place,
two Sundays next before 15th September in each
year.

And the town clerk is to keep a copy of such lists
for perusal at all reasonable hours without a fee, for
ten days before the 15th September in each year, and
is to provide copies for sale on payment of one
shilling each.
The town clerk is to attend the first court of the
revising barrister, to produce like list of freemen,
and copies of the lists of all persons claiming and
objected to, and is to answer upon oath any question
put to him by the barrister respecting matters con-
nected therewith.

CHOLERA MORBUS, OFFICIAL REPORT

CENTRAL BOARD OF HEALTH.
COUNCIL OFFICE, WHITEHALL.—(THIS DAY.)
DAILY REPORT of CHOLERA CASES.
COUNTRY.
Remaining at last Report, 1065—New Cases,27o—Deaths, 94
Recovered, 155—Remaining, 1086. Total Cases since the corn-
menoement, 17,578—Deaths, 6,548.

THE MARKETS.-(THIS DAY.)

MARKET.
and Sheep was limited; of
. The trade was dull at the

SMITHFIEL
This day's supply of fat Bea
Lambs and Calves moderately gc
following prices :
PRICKS PLR. STONI OF SLES. TO SINK THI OFFAL&
A. d. to s. d. E. d. to s. d.
Inferior Beasts '2 0 2 2 Large Lambs 0 0 0 0
Second quality ditto 2 6 3 0 Prime small ditto... 3 6 5 4
Prime larga Oxen... 3 4 3 8 Large coarse Calves 3 2 3 4
Prime Scots, &c..... 3 6 4 0 Prime small ditto... 4 2 4 4
Inferior 5heep....... 2 0 2 4 Large Hogs ...... 3 8 310
Second quality ditto '2 6 210 Small Porkers 4 4 410
Coarse-woolled ditto 3 6 310 Suckling Calves 12s to 30s. each.
S9uthdownWethers 4 2 4 4 Quarter old Pigs 12s to 18s. each.

SUPPLY, ♦S PER CL
Beasts. 'Sheep and Lamb.
4U6 10,720

STATEMENT.
Calves. Pigs.
I 416 l4O

NEWGATE AND LEADENHALL MARKETS
At per stone, by the Cereal's.
s. d. tos. d. s. d. tog. d.
0 0 2 0 Mutton, inferior 2 4 2 8
2 2 2 4 --- middling 210 3 2
2 8 3 0 - prime 3 6' 4 0
3 0 3 6 Pork, large 3 0 4 2
......., :. 3 0 4 4 small 3 6 410
."..anno ........... 3s. 4d. to ss. 2d.

Beet, inferior . .....
--- middling
---- prime large
-- prime small
Veal..,

CITY MAKKETS.—(TWO O'CLOCK.)
NAVY CONTRACTS.-Yesterday the Commissioners of
the Navy took contracts for Rum, Sugar, and other ar-
ticles for the use of the Navy. The quantity of Rum
required by Government was 100,000 gallons, and much
competition was evinced by the trade to obtain the con-
tract. The terms of the contract were different to those
usually adhered to, viz., the payment being made by the
Commissioners in cash, without any discount. After
the tenders put in had been opened, the contract
was concluded with, it is understood, two houses, at a
price equal to Is. 6id. and Is. 6id. per gallon. This,
considering the state of the market, and the terms, is
considered an advantageous bargain for the sellers. The
last Government contract for Rum I,y the Navy Board was
for 100,000 gallons, at the low price of Is. 4 d. per gal-
lon. The contracts for Sugar, &c., were taken yesterday
on favourable terms.

TEA DECLARATION.—The East India Company have
issued their declaration for the September sale, and
amounts to 8,400,000 lbs. Of Boheas there is not less than
2,000,000 lbs. ; of Congous,Campoi, &c. 5,000,000145. ;
of Twankay and Hyson Skin 1,100,000 lbs., and of Hy-
so❑ 300,000 lbs. The quantity declared is the same as
last sale. Boheas are lower other sorts firm.
TILE WOOL TRADE.—The public sales of Wool, which
have been going on since Tuesday, have been well attended,
and, including the sale of this day, above 2,400 bales
were offered. PriCes are maintaina. The attendance
from the cloth districts was not great.

COUNTRY CORN MARKEL'S DURING THE WEEK.

Wheat. Barley. I Oats. Beans.
Per Quarter. s. to s. s. s. 8. to s. s. to s.
Blandford 61 35 -- 22
Brigg—. -- 52 63 36 40 11) 22 31 35
63 20 18 33
Chard 56 62 28 34 18 22 34 38
Huntingdon........ 58 67 28 32 If) 23 30 33
Long Sutton...—. 56 64 17 22 32 35
Louth 50 55 27 32 17 20 32 34
56 61 28 32 22 28 34 35
Newark 55 65 33 43 17 20 32 40
Nottingham 60 66 31 42 2'2 26 36 42
Peterborough 50 64 32 33 20 24 33 38
Plymouth 60 66 34) 34 21 23
Pontefract.--_. 67 43 27 43
Sleafonl 65 70 36 38 22 28 41 43
Uppingham 58 65 32 40 20 24 34) 40
54 57 32 35 14 18 32 35

Wheat, 01d....,,,,,
-- Foreign
Oats, Poland
Small or Fee
Foreign
Barley, Norf. & St
Beans ,
Pease, White..„„.

RILL MARKET—JuIy 10.
—s. 58s. 60s. New —s. 60s. 05i.
....... —s. 50s. 545. ln bond... —s. —s. —s.
—s. 20s. 225. Old —s. —a. 245.
—s. 18s. 20s
—s. 16s. lßs —s —s. —s.
—6, 335. 3tis. Linc. & Wold —s. 36s 38s.
...... 30s. 325. 345. Foreign —s. 325. 345.
...... —s. 38s. Vs. Grey
...... --s. --s. —s. Foreign —s. 30s. 16s.
......none.

Tares
Rapeseed, iii born.

LEWES MARKET.—JuIy 10.
White Wheat (per quarter)—,......., £3 4 0 to £3 8 0
Red ditto— -._ ... 3 2 0 3 3 0
Barley—.,—.. _.............,........., 1 4 0 1 10 0
Oats, New ---.—.....—.....,..........w. 1 1 0 1 2 0
Pease ......•*••••••••••••••••••••wwwwww,•••••• 1 15 0 1 14 0
00 Cake. New...w.f....v....v.. 12 0 0 per thousand.

(PRICE 7D.)

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, JULY 12.

The SPEAKER took his seat at Four o'clock, but in
consequence of Mr. ROBINSON having give❑ notice that,
prior to proceeding with his motion regarding the Russo-
Dutch Loan, he would move a call of the House, the gal-
lery was not opened at the usual hour. During the titre
grangers were excluded, several petitions were presented,
but we could not learn upon what subjects.
Mr. ROBINSON then moved that the House be calltd
over.
Sir C. FORBES seconded the motion.

Lord ALTHORP, Mr. J. S3IITII, and others, opposed
he motion, which, from the very full attendance of Mtm-
hers, they conceived to be unnecessary.
The House then divided, when there appeared :
For the Motion
Against it 146
Majority against the Motion
The gallery was then (at nearly hall-past five o'clock)
opened. •
Mr. EASTHOPE said, in deference to what he believed
were the wishes of the House, he would consent to
postpone his motion for certain Bank returns if the
Noble Lord (Althorp) would promise him some early
day on which he could make a statement of facts that had
reference to his motion.

Lord ALTHORP suggested Thursday, the 26th inst.
Mr. EASTHOPE postponed his motion until that
day.
Mr. PORTMAN moved for copies of all official com-
munications between the authorities of Guernsey and his
Majesty's Government, relative to the detention of John
Capes on that island.—Ordered.
Mr. WYSE postponed his motion relative to an
inquiry into the Diocesan and similar public foundation
schools in Ireland until the 19th inst.
RUSSO-DUTCH LOAN.

Lord ALTHORP was anxious to draw the attention of
the House to a treaty which bad been laid on the table,
and it appeared to him that he should best consult the con-
venience of Members by making a statement to the
House prior to moving that the House resolve itself into a
Committee upon the subject—first of the grounds
which induced his Majesty's Government to think
they were bound to enter into this treaty, and se-
condly, the grounds on which he hoped the House would
think Government were justified in making it. The
House was aware that in 1815 a treaty was made between
the Netherlands, Russia, and England, that the King of the
Netherlands and the King of Great Britain should take on
themselves the payment of a certain portion of a loan due
to Russia. It was not at the present time ne
cessary for him to enter into the question whether
the original agreement was right or strong ; it was
sufficient for the House to consider whether that treaty
was binding on England in equity and in honour. It was
not necessary for him to read the treaty, for there was no
dispute about the words of it, but it was to the effect that
Great Britain and the Netherlands should continue to pay
the interest of the loan at 5 per cent., with a sinking
fund of 1 per cent. until the whole of the loan was extin-
guished ; but that in case of the separation of Belgium
from Holland, then the obligation on Great Britain
and the Netherlands should cease. (Hear, hear.)
The question then was as to the letter of the treaty. The
separation had certainly taken place, and the question
was, whether that separation was such a one as was
contemplated by the treaty, and whether, in consequence
of that separation this country was absolved in honour,
equity, and justice, from the performance of the treaty.
It appeared to him (Lord Althorp) that the separation
contemplated by, the treaty was a separation by
the interference of foreign force. That supposition
was confirmed by the words of the Secret Article
laid on the table. Nov, what was the state with
respect to the separation ? The object was to induce
Russia not to be a party to any such separation,
and to make it her interest to resist that separation which
had taken place with the concurrence of this country and
Russia, who had agreed to the separation in consequence
of the wishes of this country. Could it then be said, if a
party engaged to make a payment on a certain condi-
tion, and that condition, through the instrumentality of
the parties making the payment, is broken, it was con-
sistent with honour and justice for the party at whose
suggestion it was not fulfilled, to turn round on the party
so fulfilling, and say they should hold them to the strict
letter of the contract, on which they were to stand ?
Such a proceeding was contrary to every principle of ho-
nesty and honour. It would be most disgraceful to the
parties to it, and he (Lord A.) could not see how it was
possible for Hon. Members to take a different view of the
subject. This being the view he took of the case, he
thought that in equity and justice, his Majesty continued
to be hound to make the payment to Russia. But the cir-
cumstances had changed technically, and although his Ma-
jesty was bound in honour and equity to make the payment,
it was necessary to make an alteration in the literal word-
ing of the treaty, in order to meet those different cir-
cumstances. But that alteration did not make any va-
riation iu the equity of the case, or in the substance of
the engagement. Such wasthe view with which the treaty-
was entered into. That treaty bore date immediately
after the treaty was signed in London, which treaty
recognized the separation between Belgium and
Holland. He need not tell the House, that no treaty
came into operation until the period of its ratification,
untilN ovemthbeert'reathtye'
tarneda t
yt h‘evrde:Ur signed,e al hiotuegoh.
lodn
nott h ebei6 ratifiedt h of
on which it depended was also ratified and enforced. The
separation, therefore, could not be considered complete.
Russia d:d not acknowledge the separation until she had
ratified the treaty between the Five Great Powers, and it was
not till that treaty was ratified, she could be considered as
having acquiesced in the separation. The ratifications
were not exchanged until June, and as soon as that event
took place, Government hid the treaty on the table,
and in consequence of that it was that he now cam,
to the House, in order to ask it to enable
Government to perform its engagements. He was aware
that from the observations made on a former night, it
might be said that at the time the discussion took place on
this question, the separation between Belgium and
Holland had not been at all acknowledged, and it
was for that very reason that he had entered into
the statements he bad done, and had stated that it was
not complete until the other powers had ratified. That
took place not long after the debate to which he had al-
luded. What weight the arguments of the Right Hon.
Gent. who bad given notice of a motion for to-night, might
have, he would not pretend to say. He had stated all the cir-
cumstances, and must confess, that he felt great difficulty
in being aware on what grounds any gentleman wishing to
to support the national faith—(Cheers)—could object to
enable Government to act on the treaty. He did not
apprehend that any Gentleman would stand up and say
that according to the literal words of the treaty, this
country was not bound to make the payment, and there-
fore ought not to do it. Neither did he suppose it would
be said that in order to get rid of our engagement, the
national honour was to be sacrificed.—(Cheers.) It was
difficult for him to argue the question. No doubt the
Hon. and Learned Gentleman might take a more legal
view of the subject than he could, but he must
say, if he looked at it in a statesmanlike point
of view, or as a subject affecting the honour of the
-country, he did not think that he or any other
Member would argue that the country would not
be guilty of a great breach of faith to Russia, if it
did not make the payment,—(Hear, hear,)—the
steps which Russia had taken on the subject, being
in accordance with the wish of this country. Such were
the grounds on which he hoped the House would agree to
the motion, and authorize Government to perform the con-
tract into which they had advised his Majesty to enter.
A Right Hon. Gentleman opposite had given notice
of a renewal of a motion which he had formerly made.—
He (LordA. ) believed the best way to act with regard to that
notice would be not to enter into the discussion of it,
until the Right Hon. Gentleman bad made his state-
ment.—(Hear.) He would therefore not go into th--
question whether the treaty was to be considered
as agreed to, or whether the Government was
at all justified in making the payments which
they did on Christmas last. Those two cases storm
on very different grounds, and on that account he
was most anxious at the present time, fur the
I honour of the country and Government, that the House
should authorize them to fulfil the conditions of that
treaty.—( Hear.) lie felt more anxious on that subjec'
than he did with respect to the vote of censure the Right
lion. Gentleman had given notice of. Because though
that might be the means of destroying the Government
eself, the refusal of the House to agree to thi
provisions of the Treaty would not only destroy the

ivernrnent, A be emost7injtfrtfus tot,'
',lour and the national integritj JO' ttla;4 0,-
hit the Speaker do leave Alin-iPiair,t'‘lfild
ri
rouse resolve itself into a Com be-on;the Ilan
o. would not enter farther into e4tieation ally
oard wh-it the Right Hon. Gent ehain-had•
l
Mr. HERRIES would follow the example
he Noble Lord, in the distinction which he had drawn
.r.ween the two parts of the subject. He quite conceived
with the Noble Lord that it was proper to keep
those two views of the subject entirely distinct. He
would, therefore, address himself at once to that part of
he question which in his judgment appeared to stand first
it order. Before he would proceed to lay before the
'louse these reasons which he intended to offer to them,
n orderto make them concur with him in adopting tbosi
resolutions which he intended to submit as an
mendment to the motion of the Noble Lord,
he must express his astonishment that in the speech made
iv that Noble Lord, he had entirely omitted
hose reasons upon the subject to which that House
vas entitled. In his (Mr. IL's) opinion, it was the
luty of the Noble Lord opposite to have come
.Orward and to have given to the House
•pontaneously those authorities and accounts which the
"hole country must feel it was his duty to do.
()fear, hear, bear.) He considered it most singular
tod unprecedented for the Noble Lord to come down to
that House with a motion of such great importance without
✓iving those explanations to which they were entitled, of
:hose discrepancies which appeared in the conduct of Go,
vernment on that occa•ion. They had dismissed that
inestion before with great solemnity ; they had then
.liscussed it without those documents now before them,
Nhich documents now showed to them that tile decision
they had come to was an erroneous one.--( Hear, hear.)
ft had struck every individual who had seen the
documents with the greatest surprise that the Noble
Len' had thought it proper to pa's so lightly over
the subject, without once even touching upon those
discrepancies which were so glaring. The course Le was

rimy pursuing was not a mere frivolous opening up of the
question. They had now before their view' matter in
much more information on the subject than they formerly
had. It was entirely upon constitutional grounds, and for
'lie character of that House, that he felt it his duty to
bring forward the resolutions he intended to move, and not
from any party motives. On Jan. 26th, this question was
discussed in that House. The qua stion was as to the
legality of the payments made by GOVCCIIIII,nt on account
of the Russo Dutch Loan. On that ocaasion 219 members
of the House were against the decision which was then
come te. The first document that he would bring
to the notice of the House, was a treaty between
England and Holland of the 13th of August, 1814,
It related to a final settlement of accounts between the
countries. It was to declare that certain colonies—the
Cape, Demerara, Surinam—should pass under the domi-
nion of Great Britain, and it secured the incorperation
of Belgium with Holland, to effect the which Great Bri-
tain consented to three several pecuniary sacrifices.—let.
The payment of one million for Demerara. 2d. Puri
imssu, with Holland, to advance two millions on either
side for the fortification of the Netherlands. 2d. To en-
ter into a specific engagement to secure the incorporation
sf Holland and Belgium under the Government of the King
of Holland ; and, for the purpose of securing this, to bear
equally with Holland such further charges as were agreed
dpon towards the final and satisfactory arrangement under
he King of Holland, not exceeding three millions. It
:vas, therefore, an agreement for the payment of certain
ums for a specific object. The next treaty was between
Holland and Russia, originally as principals in the trans-
ictions, and Great Britain. And Holland, in executing
,his treaty, called on England, by virtue of former agree-
ment, to become a party with Holland in executing this
rents, and so joining in the payment to Russia of the
•urna due from Holland in consideration of the engagements
.trade by Holland with Russia. Thus, to repay a debt
contracted for a specific purpose, Holland transferred her
Wit from England to Russia. The House, therefore, un-
less they considered this specific purpose and this contract,
could nut have a clear view of the engagements entered
nto with Russia. And in this engagement, not content
to limit the purposes to which the money might be applied
they had gone so far as to declare the uses to which it
aright not be applied. And this they made more distinct
,y two additional articles, called the secret articles, al-
though all reason for secrecy had ceased. The Noble Lord re-
tied upon them as justifying his view of the case; and this he
roes by taking an interpretation of them in which the tertian
could never bear him out. The first article provided, that in
the event of the Belgian provinces passing from the do-
minion of the King of Holland, the charge on Great
Britain should cease; and the second it was that supposed
the occupation of an enemy for a time, and provided that
after his departure the old arrangements should take effect.
_[llene the Hon. Gentleman read extracts from the
articles in question.l Now, certainly, he thought the
Noble Lord called for too much when he asked the House
o interpret these articles contrary to their distinct and ob•
vious meaning. In proof of this lie would quote a canon
from the " Law of Nations," which adverted to such in-
terpretations as the Noble Lord would fain affix to such
simple passages. Vattel, in speaking of the interpreta-
ions of treaties, commenced with this great and funda-
mental maxim : —The first general maxim of interpre-
tation is, that it is not permitted to interpret what had
no need of interpretation. When an act is conceived
in clear and precise terms—when the sense is mani-
fest and leads to nothing absurd, there can be no
reason to refuse the sense which this treaty naturally
presents. To go elsewhere in search of conjectures, in
artier to restrain or extinguish it, is to endeavour to
elude it. If this dangerous method be once ad-
mitted, there will be no Act which it will not
render useless. Let the brightest light shine on all the
parts of a piece, let it be expressed in terms the most
clear and determinate: all this shall be of no use, if it be
allowed to search for foreign reasons in order to maintain
what cannot be formed in the sense it naturally presents."
The Hon. Gentleman then quoted a passage from Grotius
to the same effect, and proceeded to say that the treaty
under consideration was so distinctly and plainly worded
—its intent so clear—that it was idle for the Treasury or
the Government to attempt to give it a new interpretation.
They never could dispute that the separation between
Belgium and Holland had taken place. They had referred
the question to the Law Officers of the Crown, and they
said the separation was complete; but that neverthless the
Government was justified in executing the treaty as if the
tre it had not taken place. It is unnecessary (continued
the Right Hon. Gentleman) that I should remind the
House that the Minirters, throughout the late debate on
tnis subject, maintained their position on this distinct ad-
mission—that the separation between the two countries
had taken place. It is true that there was one tendency
to a difference of opinion on that occasion ; but it seemed
only to be thrown out as a sort of makeweight, and was
accompanied with a distinct statement, that it was not
thereby intended to dissent from the general proposition
which I have just mentioned. The order in which the
occurrences took place, upon which I found the motion I
am about to make, is this:—ln July, 1831, the Law
Officers of the Crown were called on to state their first
"pinion, whether, the separation between Belgium and
Holland being completed, the Treasury was armed
with power to issue a sum of money on account of
:he Russian Dutch Loan? And the law officers gave
it as their opinion, that the Treasury did possess such
power. We have, however, recently learned, by a docu-
ment which has been laid on the table of the House, that
for months after the expression of that opinion, and when
the period for another payment was not far distant, a new
convention was signed between Great Britain and Russia.
I beg particularly to call the attention of the House to the
preamble of that convention. It states—" Their Majes-
ties the King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Ireland, and the Emperor of all the Russias, considering
that the events which have occurred in the United King.
dom of the Netherlands since 1830 have rendered it ne-
cessary that the Courts of Great Britain and Russia should
examine the stipulations of their convention of the 19th
of May, 1815, as well as of the additional article annexed
thereto;—Considering that such examination has led the
two high contracting parties to the conclusion, that com-
plete agreement does not exist between the letter and the
pint of that convention, when regarded in connexion
.with the circumstances which have attended the separa-
tion that has taken place between the two principal divi-
sions of the United Kingdom of the Netherlands." Tee
document then proceeds to recitesthe object of the conven-
. _

tion ; but I shall avoid that part of the subject now,
because on that rests the chief merit of the convention ;
ind I mean boldly and at once to assert, that the document
does not contain a true averment of that merit,—(Cheers.)
file first article of the convention then goes on to state,
"In virtue of the consideration above specified, his Bri-
tannic Majesty engages to recommend to his Parliament to
nable him to undertake to continue, on his part, the
~yments stipulated in the convention of the 19th May,
accordin4 to the mode and until the completion of
sum fixed for Great Britain in the said convention."
l'he Noble Lord, in his speeds this evening, laid so.He em-
,,hasis on the argument, that the convention was nothing
:ill it was ratified by both parties. Though nut so learth.ii
i i these things as the Noble Lord, I ATI iwite aware that
tie stipulations of a convention are nut effective till (lie
nvention is ratified ; but I also know that the truths on
,vllich a treaty in its preamble affects to set out ottBht to

"~_

lie unchangeable.—(Cheers.) I for one am quite ready
to believe that truth is eternal ; and if the British Go.
vernment declare that such and such facts have tal:en
place, no appeal to the non-ratification of Russia can alter
those facts.—(Hear, hear.) Beside., let me here obset ye,
that when this treaty went to Russia to be ratified, it was
ratified ; and, therefore, it would hardly now do to rely
on the previous non-ratification.—(Hear, hear.) We are
now at stage the second of the proceedings : it is now
solemnly recorded, that on the 16th of November, IS,;
the great contracting Powers came to the conclusion that
a separation had taken place between Holland and Bel-
gium, and that an agreement did not exist between the let-
ter and the spirit of the former Convention. But there
are some other facts to which I must call the attention of
the house. In the latter end of December, in order to
perfect it by the beginning of January, the Commissioners
of the Treasury directed another payment to he mailer
their declaration of the letter and spirit of the treaty bring
different, nen cbstante. And here, let me observe, a row
feature presents itself in the transaction, of the greatest
importance. The Lords of the Treasury felt themselves
etiolated to make this payment, no doubt, on the opinien giecn
by the Law Officers attic Crown, although the Ministers
themselves hod expressed an exactly contrary opinion in the
convention which I have just read to the House. But
another process was necessary besides the mere direction of
the Lords of the Treasury. It was necessary to draw on
the Exchequer for the money to he disbursed. On this
the principal officer of the Exchequer (Lord Grenville)—
than whom, I will venture to say, none knows better how
to discharge his duty, or is more deeply conversant with
the law on the subject—tells the Treasury, I cannot pay
this money, the Act of Parliament making the treaty sub-
ject to a condition. That condition his occurred—it
is notorious to all the world. It was announced in the
speech from the Throne that there was an independent
Sovereign of Belgium, and that consequently di it country
Lad passed from under the dominion of Holland ; for
which reason this money cannot be pay able. The way in
which the Auditor of the Exchequer was at length pre-
vailed on pay this money, is a matter of no little conse-
quence in our consideration of the question. He submit-
ted that he could not pay the money, unless others in a
higher situation than himself would take tile responsi-
bility, and likewise obtain the opinion of the law officers
of the Crown. It appears from what has subsequemly
taken place in this House, that the Ministers, under this
difficulty, once more applied to the law officers of the
Crown, and on the 24th of January obtained their opi-
nion, on the admission that the separation between the
two countries had taken pl ice ; that opinion was, that
under the law as it then stood, the Auditor of the
Exchequer was authorized (and if authorized, of
courae bound) to pay the money required. The
Auditor in consequence wrote a letter, which in
my opinion was highly becoming of his character and
station, in which lie submitted himself under those circum-
stances to the direction of the Lords of the Treasury;
but at the same time OA c ire to make it understood,
that the payment was not in accordance with his own
opinion.—( Hear, hear.) On this occurs the question—
is it possible that the law officers of the Crown, who n
giving this last opinion, could have sern this new conven-
tion, and read its preamble, which I have already stated to
the House?—(Hear, bear.) I do not hesitate at once to
ask the Hon. and Learned Gentleman whether, in giving
this opinion, he was aware that his Majesty's Ministers
had solemnly declared that an agreement 'lid not exist
between the letter and the spirit of the former convention ?
—(Hear, hear.) There is also another part of the ques-
tion which has been kept entirely in the dark. I should
like to know whether the negotiators on the part of Rus-
sia were put in possession of the other part of the story.--
(Hear, hear.) I should like to know whether, when they
agreed that the Government should submit this question
to the reconsideration of the Parliament, they were aware
that the Ministers were already in possession of the high-
est legal authorities that such reconsideration was altoge
they unnecessary..(Cheers.) I am sure that if the Ilus•
slap. negotiators had been aware of this, they would at once
have said—" No ; by those legal opinions you are bound
to pay us; and therefore we will not consent to any Parli-
amentary proceeding on the subject."—(Cheers.) But I
proceed with the further facts of the case. Two days
after this occurrence followed the debate of this House.
In the whole course of that debate, the Governmerr,
took one broad, plain, standard course of argument. They
admitted the whole of the facts. They at once said,
" The reparation has taken place; but we nevertheless con-
. tend that we were right in issuing the money ;" and the prig -
eipal ground relied on tar this argument was the expressed
opinion of the law officers of the Crown. But the House
cannot help recollecting, that in the whole of that discus-
:shin not one word was said about a new Convention
(hear)—there was not a syllable of a hint of such a thing.
(Cheers.) It has, however, been talked of abundantly since ;
but then we have been carefully reminded that at such and
such a time it was not ratified.—(Hear.) It was not, how-
ever, until after that debate that we were told that a
new convention would be necessary : if Ministers wished
to deal ingenuously with the House, why did they not tell
us so at once ?—(Cheers.) And if they had told us so,
does any man doubt that the House would have called for
a suspension of the proceedings until the new convention
was laid on the table ? It has, I know, been argued that the
separation, though completed by an act of Great Britain,
was not completed by an act of Russia ; and that, there-
fore, though we were bound to the separation, Russia was
n ,t. But surely this argument places the Ministers in a state
of no little inconaistency. They had before urged that
the convention was founded on this doctrine—that the
Emperor of Russia was bound, by the spirit of this en-
eaaement, to follow the policy and wishes of the King of
Great Britain ; and where, therefore, would they lead us
by this other doctrine ? On the one hand, they say that
the Emperor of Russia is bound to accede to the separa-
tion ; and on the other, they tell us, that because he has
not acceded to the separation, he is entitled to the payment
of this money.—(hear, hear.) I do trust, however, that
the House will never consent to put the payment of public
money on such a frivolous and unsound pretence.—
(Cheers.) If this argument is to do as a justification, we
may as well in future have no argument at all; for I
really think that this is worse than none. If I may use a
vulgar phrase, it is something like " Heads, I win ;
you lose !" It was, however, shortly after this that the
truth began to ooze out. The Noble Lord, in anew. r to
a question from the Hon. Member for Worcester, stated
to the House that a now convention, in point of form,
would he required. In point of form I—l beg the House
no mark—that was the phrase of the Noble Lord.—
(Cheers.) In answer to the statement, my Hon. and
Learned Friend who now sits near me rose for the pur-
pose of pointing out the inconsistency of the Government,
and observed—" Then you will want a new Act of Par-
liament: you have been doing that which is illegal, and
you will want an Act of Indemnity!"—" On, no!" said
the Noble Lord ; and he seemed quite suprised at my Bon.
and Learned Friend venturing to make such a supposi-
tion. And when further pressed on the subject, the Noble
Lord remarked—" I said nothing about the necessity
of an Act of Parliament. I only said that the ac-
tual separation of Belgium from Holland had so altered
the relative position of the contracting parties that a new
Convention, in point of form, was necessary." Here, I
then, again the Noble Lord led the House to believe that
an Act of Parliament would lie unnecessary—and at the
very time, too, when he bad a treaty signed for three
months, in his pocket, which bound him to come to Par-
liament for an Act, and which recognised the fact that the
King of Great Britain could not proceed without so cool-
ing to Parliament.—(Cheers.) After this intimation had
been again conveyed to us, that HO Act of Parliament
would be necessary, the subject remained in abeyance from
the beginning of February till the beginning of June ;
then, at length, the secret was fully divulged to the House.
Then, at length, we were told a new Convention was
in progress; and this important fact was added—that till
the convention was laid before the House, and Parliament
had sanctioned it, the further payments on accaunt of the
Russian Dutch Loan would be suspended. In the pro-
priety of that suspension I most entirely concur ; but as by
the Ministers did not pursue the same course in January
is a matter which they still have to explain to the House.
--(Hear, hear.) They still have to show why the prin-
ciple which applies to the payments in July, did not also
apply to the payment in January.—(Hear, hear.) It is
fitting that I should state that we have other documents
connected with this subject lying on the table ot the House.
The agents for the Russian Loan called on the Govern-
ment in May last to make good the payment due from them
in regular course on the Ist of July. To this the proper
officer replied, " I am commanded by the Lords of the
Treasury to acquaint you, that a new convention tea burn
entered into with the Emperor of Russia consequent 03
the change in the circumstances of the case relative to the
payment on the part of Great Britain of her portion of the
loan. Should the Parliament consider that this COLVt:U..
lion ought to be acted on, and its ratification duly arrive
from Russia, the payment will be made as usual ; but till
the sanction of the Parliament has been obtained, the
Government has no authority to make the payment."—
( Hear, hear.) In the terms of this letter I quite agree;
but what I wish to do is to contrast this very proper lette-
with their former acquiescence, to pry--(hear)—nay
not only with their acquiescence, but with the actual
compulsion on the Auditor of the Exchequer to make lion
nay.—(Cheery.) Let us recollect, also, that this Conven
t on noas actually two months old when the fulnaimtory

Idecree was issued to the Authies of the Exchequer—and
although it !nay be said that, thoueli signed, it was not
ratified, neither was it citified in this other instance;
that, as far as that goe=, the facts of the case are pre-
cisely the same.—([Tear, hear.) In the course of this-
debate we must never lose sight of the fact, that it is the
conduct of the Ministers in January last that is really
on-
der our consideration ; and I therefore entreat the House
to read these documents, and then decide whether the
doctrine they have now propounded is not a complete
condemnation of what they did in January last.—
(Cheers.) I do not know by what subtlety of argument
these facts can be stated differently. I most sincere!y b
lieve that I have laid them before the House in a plain and
straight-forward manner; and I do not see how the Go-
vernment is to avoid the conclusion to which every un-
prejudiced mind must come. With these facts before
us, and with this new evidence proceeding from the
Government itself, I call on the House to reconsider
that judgment which it formerly gave in the abseece
of these facts, though at that very moment they
were all in the pockets of the Ministers. The effect
of the resolution which I slisll take the liberty of put-
ting in your hand, Sir, is to repeat in substance what I as-
serted on the former occasion respecting the facts which
render the first convention null and void, and in addition
thereto to refer the House to that knowledge of facts
which have since been revealed to Parliament, arid once
more to call the 'Lease to pronounce its judgment on the
payment that was nettle in TIMM y last. I can assure the
House, that I should not again have core forward on this
subject but for the deep sense which I have of the obliga-
tion which rests on nie of obtaining the solemn judgment
o f the House on the facts of the case, as they now appear
to the public.—( Hear, hear.) It is this sense of obliga-
tion which makes me ask the Parliament whether we are
entirely to sink this which I can call by no other name
than a flagrant transgression of duty on the part of the
Government ? It is this sense of obligation which in ekes
me-ask the house whether they think that our honour, as
the'guardians of the public purse—that our character as
regards the due execution of the interests of the nation,
are of less importance than the question of any issue of
money, whatever may be its amount. If, inde;(l, they
do think so, all I can say is, that I feel bound by my duty
—humbly, hut most decidedly—to differ entirely from
them.—(Hear.) If there are asy grounds to justify the
conduct of the Government in this infraction of the law,
I shall be glad to hear them ; if policy has required
them to abstain from suspending the payment of this
interest, let them make out that case of policy, and ask for
an indemnity for what they have done; but if the indem-
nity be warranted upon a consideration of all the par-
ticulars of this transaction, I must confess that it seems
to me that such an indemnity is wanted. I feel confident
that those who voted with me on the former occasion,
which I beg leave to observe was not a division of a p arty,
—(Hear, hear)—so many Hon. Members quite indepen-
dent of any party joining with me in the division, I say
, that I f-el confident that those who voted with me on that
occasion, must, a fortiori, vote with me now, strength-
ened as the circumstances have been by what h is since
come to our knowledge. The resolution which I shall
move, is an amendment on that proposed by the Noble
Lord, and is to the following effect :—" That it appears
to this House that the payment made by the Commission-
ers of the Treasury on account of the interest due by
Russia on the loan made by Holland in January last,
when the obligation and authority to make .ens such pay-
ment, had, according to the terms of the convention of
1815, and the Act of Parliament founded thereon, closed
and determined ; and also when a new convention, not
then communicated to this House, had been entered into
recognizing the necessity of recurring to Parliament for the
power of continuing such payment under the circumstan-
ces attending the separation that had taken it out of the
case of the convention, was an application of money not
warranted by law."
Dr. LUSHINGTON—Though I have listened to the
Right Hon. Gentleman with great attention, I have ex-
perienced no small degree of astonishment at the length
at which he has found himself able to address the House.
on a question that has been before so completely exhausted.
—('Hear, and a laugh.) In doing so, he has exhibited no
little industry in the digest he has made of arguments
previously delivered—a digest, which only the interest he
takes in the subject, and the ability which he pc,ssesse-,
would have enabled him to frame. But I am of opinon
that this question has been once before substantially d:-
eided, anti that if the circumstances which have occurred
since ceuld have been the subject of our previous delibera-
tion, those circumstances would rather confirm the opinion
we formerly expressed, than produce any alteration in
our recorded sentiments.—(Hear, bear ) I think the
question resolves itself into two points. The first is,
whether or not, according to the faith of treaties which
Great Britain has entered into with Russia, we are hound •
to pay the sums stipulated in the treaty of 1815, and
whether we are compelled to do so according to the
true construction of that treaty ? or, on the other hand,
whether such a change has taken place in the relations of
the Great Powers of Europe, such an alteration in the state
of nations as being contemplated by the parties, was,
according to the true intent and purpose of those parties,
such a change that the payment should cease when those
occurrences took place? That is an important question;
but there is another which chiefly occupied the at-
tention of the Right Hon. Gentleman, namely—whether
according to the letter of the treaty, and the Act of Par-
liament founded thereon, the Government could make this
payment without acting contrary to law ? I am prepared
to contend, that according to the true construction of that
treaty, the payment was fully warranted. Previously,
however, to going into the argument, I beg to take the
opportunity of stating that I have no disposition whatever
to : construe a treaty more favourably for Russia than the
strictest rules of construction would warrant. I am no
admirer of the policy of that nation. On the contrary,
when I look to the course of her policy since 1815, and to
the conduct she has pursued, and the violation of treaties
of which she has been guilty, especially with regard to
Poland, I entertain anything but a feeling of favour to-
wards her, and if there were any power in Europe which
I would hold to the letter of the law, Russia should he that
power. But whatever I think of the policy of Russia,
however I deprecate the tyranny with which she has exer-
cised the power that she possessed, I never will condescend
to gratify the detestation I feel of her political conduct, to
violate the treaties which Great Britain has nrade with
her, and thus to put a stain upon the honour of the
British name.—(Loud cheering.) Under any tempta- •
tion, however strong, under any provocation, however
great, if the Government of this country, either from dis-
like to the policy of their predecessors, or from indignation
at. the conduct of any European State, should ever, from
the honourable wish to lead that State into a better system
for the peace of Europe and the happiness of !man-
kind ; if ever, I say, even under then; circumstances, the
Government should be for a moment led to violate the
sacred faith of treaties, there is no man, be his foresight
what it may, who can tell the evils that may ensue, for
they are buried in the womb of time, and when you least
expect them will rise up to afflict you with their worst
persecution.—(Cheers.) You are sure to suffer the con-
sequences of your ill faith, and the powers of the world re-
membering your disregard of former obligations, will shun
entering into treaties with you; and whatever may be the
necessity that may oppress you, they will refuse to coalesce
with you for any purl °sea of common advantage.—
(Hear.) The treaty, the construction of which we are
now discussing, was entered into sonic years ago ; it is
not fur me to go now into the policy of that measure, to
canvass its wisdom, or to cast a stain on the memcry of
the Marquess of Londonderry. I will go further, and
say, that if with their view of the interests of England,
and the necessities of Europe, they entered into a contract,
whatever may he my opinion, Ic_oncsideearr, bear.)thattheA
faithiy
of Great Britain is pledged by it. —(Hear,
sentiments upon this subject must be very strong,—in
holding that such a contract is binding upon this Go-
vernment, when I recollect that at the time they expressed
the same sentiments with myself, as to the policy then
pursued. I know too ,Sir, that at this time they are inte-
rested in diminishing, as mulch as possible, the burdens of
the people ; they wish to do so—a wish which ought to
he the first consideration of all Ministers, both with re-
spect to their own feelings, and with regard to thteimir
epotpheye_
larity with the nation at large; but at the same
feel, and I have no doubt that after a full discussion of the
matter this House will agree with them, that this is an
obligation which Russi.a has a right to enforce, anti which
Great Britain is bound to fulfil. What are the circum-
stances under which this obligation was contracted ?
Russia had at that time rendered important services to this
country. At a period when the contest with Buonapare
was still doubtful, Russia had, at our desire, engaged in
it ; and we considered ourselves obliged to Russia for the
part she had then taken, and we undertook to pay a por-
tion of the interest of a debt she bad then contracted. IVe
made that interest part of the burden we then took upon
ourselves, in consideration of what Russia had previously
done ; for it was a mistake to say that we were to pay for
what Russia was about to do—it was for what she had
done ; we had received the consideration, and we under-
took to pay the interest of Russia's debt to Holland, as n.
compensation for past services. At the same time, we
imposed upon Russii the conditions for our own benefit, ,
which remain to be considered. I may refer to that '
treaty to show, that under the hands of the Ministers of
that day the obligations we owed to Russia were acknow-

!edged, end that the stipulations they made were made in'
consequence of those obligations. What are the word, of
that treaty ? " His M .jesty the Ling of the Netherlands,
being desirous, upon the final re•union of the Belgic Pro-
vinces, to render to the Allied Powers who were parties
to the treaty concluded at Chaumont, on the Ist of March,
1811, a suitable return for the heavy expense incurred by
them in delivering the said territories from the power. of
the enemy." No man can doubt what was the meaning
of those words, " the power of the enemy," or who seas
the enemy alluded to. The whole treaty was framed
with regal d to France, which was then deemed the
enemy against whose encroachments it was proper to
guard. " And the said Powers having, in consideration
of arrangements made with each other, mutually agreed
to wave their several pretentious under this head in favour
of hie Majesty the Emperor of Ail the Hussies," the
King of the Netherlands proceeded to execute the con-
vention. Russia had before that time borrowed a sum of
money which she had raised in Holland, and by the sti-
pulations of this treaty, the consideration for which was
recognized in the m toner I have above stated, as it Was
agreed that one half of that stun ofensnney should be borne
by ti e kingdom of the Netherlands, and the other hal by
the King of Great Britain. The most important article
of that treaty is the sth, which is in the following words
" It is hereby uncle, stood and agreed, that the said pay-
ments on the part of their Majesties the King of the Ne-
therlands and the King of Britain as aforesaid, shall cease
and determine, should the possession and sovereignty of the
provinces at any time pass or be severed from the
dominh.ns of his Majesty the King of the Netherlands pre-
vious to the cotnplete liquidation of the same." In the first
place, I ask, what is the nature of that stipulation ? Is it
nut a stipulation in favour Russia? Was it not then
thought the most desirable object of the policy of Great
Britain to secure the intervention of Russia against the
sepatation of Holland, which, in the policy of that day,
was considered the great bulwark against the power of
France? It is a matter for consideration whether this
stipulation was for the advantage of Russia, or in compli-
ance with the policy oil which Great Britain then acted.
It was then considered a matter of impossibility that
Great Britain could ever consent to a separation of Bel-
gium from Holland. Circumstances have now changed ;
Great Britain has assisted in separating the two countries,
and that brings us to the second point. Can any man con-
tend that if I make a stipulation upon the existence and
the supposed continuance of a given set of circumstances,
and I myself afterwards assist in altering those circulate
stances, that I am no longer bound by that stipulation ?
Put the question in another way. If Great Britain had
excited the revolution in Belgium, would it nut have been
utter fey in us to say to Russia, " You have entered into
a condition for our benefit—we have prevented you from
fulfilling that condition, and we have thus freed ourselves
from performing the stipulations into which we entered
with you ?" It is true that this has not been done by
Great Britain;—then how did that revolution take
place ? By the resistance of the Belgians, proceeding Fact
sprite against the rule of Holland—by their resistance to
the power and the control of that kingdom —hy their
own energy and resolution; and by these alone have they
achieved their own independence. How, then, does the
obligation stand as between Russia and Great Britain ?
Under these circumstances, what is Great Britain to do ?
Is she to act upon her former policy, and to call upon
Russia to resist, by force, the separation of the two
countries? Is she to say to Russia, " You are bound,
by the terms of this treaty, to march an army for
the purpose of effecting the reduction of Belgium
under Holland, and I call upon you to do so? Or
has. she not already said, " I will not call on you to
fulfil the condition which was made on my behalf,
and in the furtherance of my then policy ; for my policy
is now changed, the circumstances of the world are
changed, the situation of Europe is different, and that
which I once believed was for the peace and happiness of
Europe, I now believe, if again put into operation, would
deluge the world with blood ; and it must be 'or the ad-
vantage of Europe that Belgium should remain an inde-
pendent power, notwithstanding the fear we once enter-
tained that she would, under such circumstances, become
the dependant of France. I beg you, therefore, to hold
your hand ; I am about to make a treaty guaranteeing the
s-paretion -if Belgium and Holland, and I trust that you
will become a contracting party in this treaty." Has not
Great Britain held this language to Russia, and has not
Russia acted on it? With what sense of honour then—
with what sense of the sacredness of obligations can it be
argued that it is consistent with the dignity of Great
Britain so refu=e the payment of this loan ? Can we tell
Russia that she has acquiesced in our wishes—that she
has consented to our earnest request—and that for that
acquiescence and that consent we shall mulct her in the
sum of 1,800,0001. ?—( Hear, hear.) Had we done
so, we should have incurred eternal disgrace, perpetual
dishonour, and I should have been prepared to hear
the Right Hon. Gentleman get up in his place with
arguments which no sophistry could evade, and with
a strength which truth would give him, to upbraid
the Ministers not only for not treading in the footsteps of
their predecessors, but for being poi ticians of so faithles
a cast that the most sacred obligations were by them
treated with contempt.--( Hear, hear.) The Right Hon.
Gentleman has quoted Vette! ; but I must take the libel ty
of telling him, that if he has read that great writer with
no better profit than he seems to have done on this occa-
sion, lie has read to very little purpose; for the first and
confine' rule which Vetted lays down for the construction
of treaties, is the intention of the parties who made them ;
and that where it is necessary to apply rules for the inter-
pretation of a treaty—as it is impossible that a treaty Ike
another contract may not require interpretation—that you
must look to the circumstances under wlrich it was made,
and the relationship which the different contracting par-
ties bore to each other at that period.—(Hear, hear.)
That is the true authority. If another rule of construe-
thin were adopted, the result would be, that, by the
adherence to the letter, the spirit of the engagement would
be violated ; and instead of relying on the fair, liberal,
land upright mode of construction tieing applied to a
treaty', all diplomatic men would be wasting their time
in attempting to provide for the future contingenciee—
an attempt which would baffle the ability of the most
foreseeing Statesman that ever lived. But says the
Right Hon. Gentleman, look at the additienal treaty
now on the table of the House, and you will find that the
true meaning of the former treaty was a separation (le
facto. I happen to hold that additional article in my
hand, and the perusal of it satisfies me that the true intent
and meaning of the parties was what I have stated. To
prevent any mistake or any misunderstanding, it is stipu-
lated on the part of Russia that no temporary occupation,
no invasion for a short period, should affect the payment
of the loan ; nothing but an entire conquest, and a pos-
session not likely to he defeated, should deprive Russia of
her right, That article speaks distinctly of " invasion by
an enemy," and it was supposed that there might be an
invasion by France, so suddenly effected, that Belgium
would fall before it was possible for any State in Europe
to come to her assistance. In that case, to provide
against the supposition that the payment of the loan
should cease, the article I have read was added. The
construction of all these articles I maintain to be that
which I have stated. Then we come to the Act of Par-
liament. I maintain that no construction has been put
on that Act of Parliament which is not fully warranted
by the words of the Act, and the terms of the treaty
on which it is founded ; and that the law officers of the
Crown were bound to advise Ministers that, under that
Act, the payment of the money ought to be continued.
But it is said here that there is a subsequent treaty.
and that the law officers of the Crown acted as if that
treaty was not under their consideration The Right
Hon. Gentleman has little conception of the manner in
which the law officers of the Crown have to perform their
duty When he makes such an observation. If any of these
law officers of the Crown had been asked for his con
etruction of the Act of Parliament, he would not tl his
duty if he allowed his opinion to be changed by anything
that the Government haul done since that Act was passed.
—(Hear, hear.) But I must inform the Right Hon.
Gentleman of a fact of which he seems to he ignorant,
namely, that the opinions of the law officers of the Crown
were not only those of the Attorney and Solicitor-
General, but of his 'Majesty's Advocate-General, who•e
ability to decide on such questions no one will doubt, and
of morose perfect independence all must be thoroughly con-
vinced. There is no consideration whatever of the parti-
cular policy of a Government on one side or the other
that could shake or in the least degree alter the opinien
which that Learned Gentleman would form ; and in
saying this, I beg it to be remembered that I t n
speaking of an individual whose political opinions
are certainly not :in favour of the existing Govern-
ment.—(Hear, hear.) It is then said that the Go-
vernment had repudiated the treaty of 1815 by that of
1831. What are the words of this latter treaty ? " Their
Majesties the King of the United Kingdom of Great Bri-
tain and Ireland, and the Emperor of all the Russias, con-
sidering that the events which have occurred in the
United Kingdom of the Netherlands, since 1830, have
rendered it necessary that the Courts of Great Britain and
Russia should examine the stipulations of their conventioi,
as swell as of the additional arti-
clesolering that such examination
ohfastahlneedneitllli:e(tihttahveolarehYtio 1815,gh;o
contractingcn parties to the couclusiolo
that complete agreement dues not exist between the letter
. and the spirit of that convention, when regarded in con,

nexion With the circumstances which have attended tbe
separation that h is taken place between the two principal
divisions of the United Kingdom of the Netherlands ; but
that, on referring to the object of the above•mentiancel
convention of the 19th of May, 1815, it appears that that
object was to afford to Great Britain a guarantee that Ros•
via would, on all questions concerning Belgium, identify
her policy with that which the Caurt of London had
deemed the best adapted for the maintenance of a just
balance of power Lin Europe ; and, on the other hand, to
secure to Russia the payment of a portion of her old
Dutch debt, in consideration of the general arr
ments of the Congress of Vienna, to which she had
given her adhesion—arrangements which remit'n in
full force." Does not this paper show that the
objects of Great Britain are the same, though
those objects are to be accomplished by different
means? I consider the treaty now laid upon the table
as in fact providing, by a different method, for the attain-
ment of the same end—namely, the preservation of the
peice of Europe—which it was formerly thought could
only he obtained by uniting Belgium and Holland as a
barrier to the power of France, and which it is now seen
is best to be accomplished by allowing one of these coun-
tries to be independent of the other. But then, says th••
Right lion. Gentleman—" You have not made the pay-
ment in June, as you made it in January, and that shows
that you do riot think yourselves hound to continue the
payment." The difference is occasioned by this circum-
stance :—A new treaty has since been ratified between
these two parties, and all future payments will beitnade un-
der that treaty, and must consequently lie made after the
sanction of the House. But than the Right Hon. Gen•
ticmen may say—why enter into such a treaty if you
thought yourselves justified under the tertns of the former ?
—( Hear, hear.) Why, for this reason ; that circumstances
have changed, arid that the Ministry, foreseeing they
might have to deal with the mind of a Statesman of such
extraordinary discrimination as that of the Right lion.
Gentleman, might think proper to prepare far such an
event ; and then to call on the House to give, by
their sanction to this treaty, their approval of the
construction of that which hail preceded it.—(Hear.)
The flight Honourable Gentleman says, that Minis-
ters were not authorized by the Act to make those pay-
ments; but if he will consult the Act again, he will find
that a true interpretation of its terms does justify them.—
(Hear, hear.) The people of England are too good a
people, too honourable and well-principled a people, to
desire that Government should relieve them from a pay-
ment which prior stipulations had unfortunately fixed
upon them, and from which they could only be relieved at
the expense of the dignity of the Crown and of the
na-
tional honour.—(Cheers.) The Right lion. Gentleman
opposite (Mr. Herries), in the course of his speech, endea-
voured to raise prejudice in the opinion of their consti-
tuents, at the next election, against those Members who
support the proposition of the Noble Lord (Althorp); and
he called upon Gentlemen around hint to resist that pro-
position, under the pretence of guarding the money of the
people.—(Hear, hear.) But, Sir, the people will see
through this flimsy, vain pretence.—(Hear, bear.) They
will look rather to the persevering exertions in which
the public lives of those gentlemen, and their friends
have been passed, to diminish economy, than to their
vain professions of a desire to diminish expense.—
(Loud cheers.) The Right Honourable Gentleman has
appealed to those Members, who, although generally
supporting the measures of his Majesty's Govern-
ment, voted against the payment of this loan, when the
question was last before the House; and he has called on
them to maintain their consistency by now voting upon
this amendment. But, Sir, those Hon. Members will, I
trust, consider the altered circumstances under Which the
question now cornea before us.—(Hear.) They will look
to the additional treaty since entered into, and to the
se-
cretew ahnadvetthaen
they will ffindth
tht
ey
ie that and
trai-
tors to their constituents if they voted with the Right
;alt)1! e
arc
e confirm
almost
the
views
Hon. Member for Harwich.—( Hear, hear.) I have now,
Sir, gone over, according to my feeble powers as an ad-
vocate—(Cheers)—the leading circumstances of this case,
by which I conceive Ministers to he justified in the course
which they have adopted; and I trust they have demon-
strated to every candid mind that they could be interpreted
so as to warrant the cessation of this payment, only by a
wilful misconstruction.—(Vehement cheering, and cries
of Order.) If Hon. Gentlemen will allow me to finish
my sentence without interruption, they will find that I
' am not out of order, and that I cast imputations upon no
one.-(Order, order.)
Mr. HERRIES would not have interrupted the Hon.
and Learned Gentleman, but that he hail, in the earlier
part of his speech, used very unparliamentary language in
reference to him.—(Bear.)
Dr. LUSHINGTON made some explanation which
did not reach the gallery. He was understood to say, that
he would give any reasonable satisfaction to any Hon.
Member who might suppose that he had intended to offend
him. He did not think that the language which lie had
used in reference to the arguments of the Right lion.
Gentleman was unparliamentary or offensive.—(Hear,
hear.) For his part, he only meant to say that the argu-
ments were sophistical and ingenious.—(A laugh.)
Mr. HERRIES—WiIfuI misconcaption.—(Hear.)
Dr. LUSHINGTGN would still say that, in his opi-
nion, nothing short of the words misconstruction and
perverted ingenuity could be applied to the arguments
upon which the opposition to the present motion was sup-
ported.—(Cheers.) He had a right to say that the
arguments of the Right lion. Member for Harwich were
the offspring of perverted ingenuity—(Cheers)--if he had
not a right to say so, then there was an
_end to freedom of
debate in that House.—(Hear, hear.) He would not
occupy the time of the House further—(Hear)--and
would only repeat, that the construction which Ministers
had put upon the treaty of 1815 was the only sound one.
—Vile Hon. and Learned Gentleman, at the conclusion
of his speech, was loudly cheered by both sides of the
Ileuse.]
Mr. A. BARING said, that the speech of the Hon.
and Learned Gentleman opposite (Dr. Lushington) was
undoubtedly ingenious, and abounded in pleasing declama-
tion; hut it left the question before the House just as it
was before. Nothing which had been done since January
last altered the position in which Ministers had placed
themselves, by continuing the payments to Russia after
the separation of Belgium from Holland. The case was
so strong—the violation of the law was so obvious—and,
in his opinion, so unquestionable—that he was surprised
that a man of the Noble Lord's (Lord Althorp's) charac
, ter for manliness and candour, did not come down at
once straightly and honestly, to ask for a Bill of Intlein-
nity.—(Cheers.) That was the course which, in his
judgment, would have become the Noble Lord's charac-
ter; and he was therefore surprised to see the Noble
Lord, instead of adopting such a course, come down and
say to his friends in that House, that if they did not sup-
port him in his proposition that night, he must go out of
, office --(Cheers.) The Noble Lord roust have felt himself
pushed hard for arguments, to convince his friends of thel
justice of his case, when he thought it necessary to ad-
dress them in that way.—(Hear, hear.) The lion. and
Learned Gentleman, who showed himself—not, as he said,
feeble advocate, but, in fact, a very z.alous and ingenious
advocate of the Ministers—did as all professional gentle-
man do in advocating a weak cause,—(A laugh)—and
suppressed all the facts which were adverse to his client'.
—(Hear, hear.)—But the Hon. and Learned Gentleman
did not lose the opportunity of addressing part of his speech
to the Tower Hamlets.—(Hear, and laughter.) For his
part, although an enemy to the system of exacting pledges
from Members of the House of Commons, yet, if he had
voted for the grant of money for those payments to Russia,
he would feel bound to give a satisfactory explanation of
his reasons to his constituents at the hustings.—(Hear,
hear.) The Hon. and Learned Gentleman (Dr. Lushing-
ton) had misrepresented the treaty. It contained no men-
tion of France. It arose out of circumstances in which
but the three Powers—England, Russia, and Holland—
were concerned. England was indebted to Holland, and
the latter was indebted to Russia. At the close of the
war the Government of England, wishing to retain the
Dutch colonies, the Cape of Good Hope, Essequibo, De-
merara, and Berbice, of which we had obtained possession
during the war, induced Holland to cede those colonies
to her, upon the payment of certain sums of money
which were afterwards to be determined by Commis-
sioners of the respective Governments. Now, Holland
being indebted to the Emperor of Russia fifty millions of
florins, which was the proportion of the expenses of the
war assessed upon the former State, as one of the lesser
cmh osnee yothat h
ewas o
idounei
etso; Itihoilsl attl
conditionh y thisb ce
ionugn tray,:
annexe,
that Powers, it was agreed that England should pay to Russi
the
pur
that the payments should cease if Belgium should be se-
parated from Holland. The reason of the condition was
obvious—it was only because Holland possessed the large
territory including the Dutch and Belgian provinces, that
she was subjected, by the assessment, to so heavy a tax;
and it would be unjust that when she ceased to possess the
means of paying the impost,
itea
rs h. u continue t i
wordsnue to
of
fe
ti, ex-
actedthe
front her.__(llear, h
treaty were simply, that " the p tyments shall cease and
determine, should the possession and sovereignty of the
Belgic provinces at any time pass away, or be severed from
the dominions of the King of the Netherlands, previous
to the complete liquidation of the same." If it were-I,
really the sole purpose of the contracting parties to guard !
against the aggression of France, the treaty would