The Sun.
London, England, 1832-08-03 00:00:00

GREECE.

Lord PALMERSTON laid on the table a convention
relative to the sovereignty of Greece.
Lord DUDLEY STUART brought up the report of
the Committee on the silk trade, which was ordered to
lie on the t thle and he printed.
Sir H. PARNELL brought up the report of the
Committee on the state of Ireland.

The Audit of Account (Ireland) Bill, and the Army
Half-pry Bill, were read a third time and passed.
The Report of the Committee on the Exchequer Bills
Bill, the Glass Duties' Bill, Sugar Duties' Bill, and the
Excise Duties' Bill (Scotland), were then brought up, and
ordered to be engrossed, and read a third time to-morrow.

ANSWER TO THE ADDRESS.
Mr. BERNAL brought up the report of the Committee
on his Majesty's answer to the Address relative to the
provision for the Speaker.
The resolution of the Committee was agreed to.
PRESENT STATE OF GERMANY.
Mr. H. L. BULWER, after adverting to his having
been in Germany, and to the deep interest which he felt
in that country, would just slightly touch on a few points
of history, which will elucidate the subject. Every one
knew that not only was the Constitution of the German
empire of a liberal and representative description, but that
a free form of Government, according to the genius of
that time, existed in most of the independent Federative
States. After the battles of Austerlitz and Jena, these
and the German empire itself were overthrown. The
golden bull of Charles IV. was torn to pieces—the mitt ed
Sovereigns—the immediate Princes—the little Republics,
which, under the name of free cities, offered an image of
the liberty- of ancient Germany, were swept away. The
confederation of the Rhine was formed on a system which
has, unfortunately, still continued in practice, that of de-
spoiling the weak to increase the power of the strong.
In consequence a sullen indignation prevailed ; and
at the very moment when the Princes of Germany
were waiting in the anti-chambers of Bonaparte, at
Dresden, the people of Germany were forming plans and
entering into societies, for the purpose of throwing off
his yoke. These societies and plans were secretly en-
couraged and protected by those persons high in situation,
who hoped, eventually, to profit by them. The defeat of
Napoleon in Russia gave an opportunity for throwing off
the mask.—(Hear, hear.) All must know the proclamation
from the Emperor of Russia and the King of Prussia,
with which the German campaign commenced. They
appealed to the ancient CQlntittltielgwtO the aucica liber-

ties of Germany, which they promised should be revived
and extended. The people of the north of Germany
answered that appeal en masse, with an enthusiasm it was
impossible to resist ; anti that country, which, when it
depended on an army, had been conquered in a single day,
now, that the national energies of its people were aroused,
became invincible. The battle of Leipsic decided its fate.
In confirmation of what had been promised then, and in
consideration of what had taken place, the treaty of Paris,
to which Great Britain, of course, was one of the parties,
in its sixth article declared, that the States of Germany
should be independent and united in a federative bond. At
the Congress of Vienna the second of those articles, pro-
posed by Prince Metternich, as the basis for a Confedera-
tion, " that the object of this Confederation is the gua-
rantee of the internal independence, and the external se-
curity of the different States, as well as that of the rights
of each class of the nation"—ainsi que celle de ckaque
classe de la nation. Disputes arose in the course of pro-
ceedings, more particularly on the part of Bavaria and
Wirtemburg; and the King of Wirtemburg, at that time
strongly attached to arbitrary power, objected to these
very words, "Les droits de chaque classe de la nation."
It was in oppositio❑ to the course pursued by Bavaria
and Wirtemburg on this occasion, that the Plenipoten-
tiary of Hanover gave in a very important note, to which
he begged most particularly to call the attention of the
House.--(Hear, hear.) Its substance was to this effect :
" That hie Royal Highness the Prince Regent of Great
Britain could not admit that the changes which bad
taken place in Germany since the Revolution, had given
to the Kings of Bavaria and Wirtemburg any right to
absolute sovereignty over their subjects—nor that the
overthrow of the German Empire had for its legal con-
sequence the overthrow of the peculiar constitution of
the different States—that a representative system ex-
isted of right from time immemorial in the German
Empire—that the act of the Confederation of the Rhine
itself, that concentration of despotism, did not accord to
Sovereigns a despotic power—and that as to the title
of Sovereign itself, it was in no wise expressive of des-
potic power, inasmuch as that the King of Great Bri-
tain was as much a Sovereign as any Prince in Europe ;
and that the liberties of his people, so far from menacing
his throne, were the best guarantee for its stability." This
was the language of the Hon. Member in 1815, who
finished by demanding " that the ancient rights of the
German people should be maintained ;" and that " even
in case that Austria, Russia, and Bavaria should desire,
either on the ground of circumstances or past treaties, to be
exempt from their maintenance, that still it should be
proclaimed as law—that in all those countries where no
assemblies of States had existed, but of which the Princes
were willing to submit to such measures as were necessary
for the good of Germany—that the consent of the States
should be necessary to all taxes, their concurrence to the
making of all new laws—that they should participate in
the inspection of the manner in which the taxes should be
applied, in the event of any malversation, of which they
were authorised to demand the punishment of the public
functionaries." To this note Austria, Prussia, and Bavaria
agreed.—(Hear, hear.) Now here is evidence of the
strongest and most important description—lst, The note
of Prince M., declaring that the object of the Confedera-
tion was to secure les droits de cliaque classe de la nation.
Next, the statement of the Hon. Member, to which Aus-
tria, Prussia, and Bavaria adhered, which declares what
those rights were—which demands Assemblies of States,
and (what is of the utmost consequence) defines their
duties—the first and principal of which is the grant and
application of supplies. At length the Act of the confede-
ration was agreed to. The 2d article declared—" That
its object was to maintain the internal and external
security of Germany, the independence and inviola-
bility of the Confederated States." Article 13 declared—
" That there should he Assemblies of States in all the
countries of the Confederation." The note of Hanover
had already stated what their duties should be. Art. 18,
which is now become of so much importance, begins by
stating " That the Princes and free cities of Germany are
agreed to assure to their subjects of the Confederated
States the following rights." After mentioning various
things that the Diet would do, in the grant of particul it
rights and privileges, it goes on to say "that the Diet will
occupy itself, at its first re-union, with a uniform law re-
specting the liberty of the Press, and the measures to be
adopted for guaranteeing authors and editors against the
piracy or contrefaction of their works." In regard to this
article there are two things to observe—first, that from its
preamble, which states that the following rights are about
to be assured to the people of the Confederated States, it
is clear that the uniform laws respecting the liberty of the
Press was to assure the right of the liberty of the Press ;
secondly, that the latter passage relating to authors and their
works, being inserted in consequence of the prayer of the
principal booksellers in Germany, who set forth as the
ground of their petition " That no State has a right to
permit its subjects to do an injury to the subjects of a fo-
reign State." It was evidently inserted as a boon and
grace to the people of Germany, and a recognition of that
separation and independence in respect to literary
publications, which the prayer of the booksellers set
forth. The return of Bonaparte from Elba left the la-
bours of the Congress imperfect and unfinished. He had
little to say in favour of those labours, even in the Act of
Confederation itself. They commenced by an assump-
tion of authority on the part of five Powers to regulate
the affairs of the whole of Germany. They destroyed by
the act of their own immediate authority the power of
many independent Princes and free States—they erected
a system with all the faults of the old empire, want of con-
solidation and concentration, without the advantages
which the veneration due to antiquity inspires. Yet no-
body can read that Act of Confederation, knowing the
circumstances by which it was produced—the proceed-
ings which attended its progress—without knowing that
its intention and declaration was to give to all the people
of Germany their ancient liberties—to keep each State in-
dependent of each other in internal regulations; to establish
in every kingdom Assemblies, or States, which should
have the power of imposing the taxes, and regulating their
employment ; and to confer, by a uniform law, the liberty
of the Press. Most of the Sovereigns shortly afterwards
gave new Constitutions, or rtstored, with extension, the
ancient States. But, what is remarkable, Austria and
Prussia, which had been the loudest in claiming the liber-
ties of the people, became as conspicuous for evading them.
This, of course, produced great dissatisfaction and excite-
ment ; the unfortunate consequence of which were the
murders committed by Logney and Sand, which gave an un-
happy pretext for the Congress at Carlsbad. Did the
Sovereigns take that opportunity to satisfy their subjects
by the fulfilment of their promises ? Did they then pub-
lish that law in favour of the liberty of the Press, which
was to have been promulgated immediately?—(Hear,
hear.) They did not attempt to put down discontent, but
the expression of it. They established a severe censorship
on all periodical publications; they assumed the power of
suppressing all books, and they formed a Central Committee
of Police throughout the German empire. The second
Congress at Vienna immediately followed, which produced
the final Act—an heterogeneous composition—the inten-
tion of which was to annul the spirit, and yet to keep as
strictly as possible to the letter of the first Act of Federa-
tion. Not one of its articles in favour of the people have
ever been enforced ; all those against the people have been
always ostentatiously brought forward, and are now mar-
shalled forth anew in the protocol to which he begged to
call the attention of the House. From this it is learnt
that the Diet are affended with the journals and pam-
phlets which inundate the country with the abuse of
speaking in the Charobers of the States. They invoke
the Article eighteen, which said, " that a uniform
law in favour of the Press should be immediate),
granted ;" and say, that until all the Governments
shall concur in establishing a uniform law respecting
the liberty of the Press, the Act of Carlsbad, which
indefinitely put down the liberty of the Press, shall be in
force.—(Hear, hear.) If, after this, the Diet shall be
enabled to maintain itself against the attacks of 'he Press
or of the Chambers, well and good. " But, if not, Austria
and Prussia will, at the invitation of one or all of the Con-
federate States, emplcy every means at their disposal for
the maintenance and execution of the Federal Constitu-
tion, its important objects," &c. Was there ever a more
complete profanation of terms ? The objects set forth in the
Federal Act were, to preserve the inviolability and indepen-
dence of the several States, not to make them the slaves of
Prussia and Vienna. The objects set forth in the Federal
Act were to give Constitutions, not to annihilate them—tn
assure the liberty of the Press, not to take it away ! In the
protocol which follows, the final Act of Vienna is made
responsible. So confused and jumbling a piece of diplomatic
machinery never yet came from the Cabinet of Vienna. To
understand it is impossible, for each Act contradicts the
other. But the article first cited is unfortunate. It declares
" that the Sovereign cannot be bound to admit the co- ope-

Min of the States except in the exercise of rights espe-
cially determined." From this it follows, that he is ob-
liged to admit that co-operation where it is especially
determined. But in many States the co-operation of the
Chambers in granting and applying the taxes, is especially
determined. What is said about this ? Why, that the
Chambers are not to attempt to refuse the taxes. Then,
after declaring that in all cases where one or more States
shall invite them, Prussia and Austria are reedy to march,
this document goes on to say__" But if the Government
is hindered from applying to the Confederation for assist-
ance by circumstances, the Conference is then bound,
though not applied to, to interfere ;" so that whenever a
German Sovereign does not apply to have a parcel of Croats
quartered upon him, it will be said he is prevented by cir-
cumstances. One is surprised after this, to read that
" the Diet wish to facilitate in the several States, the
maintenance of the Constitutional relations between the
Government and their Assemblies." But what is called
, in Austria facilitating Constitutional relations ? Why, that
a Committee should be appointed by the Diet, to watch
over and report all proposals and resolutions in the Cham-
bers of the several States of what takes place ; from which
it is seen that expression of opinion in debates is not to be
allowed ; this is the amicable way that Austria has of
facilitating Constitutional relations. The conclusion
which the Diet comes to, however, is to be praised--
it renders their peace perfect, and settles at once all
doubts that could arise in Honourable Gentlemen's
minds as to the nature and intention of this perform-
ance. It is—" That the Diet alone is to he understood
capable of understanding its own enactments." This was
very original and very essential.—( Hear, hear.) Another
manifesto has been published since this, which he would
not go over; the House, doubtless, was well acquainted
with it. It prohibited all associations—all public fetes—
all political writings—all liberal professors. It engaged
mutual military assistance, and ends by suppressing the
newspaper of a neutral State, and passing sentence upon
its editor without any trial or judgment. So, then, it
appeared that the Sovereigns of Austria and Prussia are
willing to give Germany just so much constitutional
liberty as will not allow its writers to write—its profes-
sors to teach—its Chambers to vote taxes and to make
speeches, or to propose resolutions—while every State
shall be so inviolate, so independent, that with or with-
out the invitation of its Sovereign, a deputation of Aus-
trian or Prussian hussars may be sent to keep it in order.
—(Hear, hear.) This is how matters are. There are two
considerations now before the House. First, whether it
approves of the proceedings of the German Diet ? Second,
whether it is policy to interfere respecting them ?
Although he had referred to the two acts of Vienna, the
last of which he considered a violation of the first,
partly as Great Britain is connected with those acts
—partly to show that Austria and Prussia have not
even preserved a shameful consistency on this subject,
he by no means intended to rest the liberties of the
German people on these two documents. They depend
on the promises made to them by their Sovereigns as
the reward of their exertions, and on the freedom they
enjoyed under their ancient customs and Constitutions. In
regard to the promises they received, their proof is the
Manifestoes of their Sovereigas in 1812 and 1813, and
also in those opinions which they then industriously pro-
mulgated by the pamphleteer and from the pulpit. The
very Gentleman by whom the present Protocol is said to
be drawn up, made one of the most spirited appeals at
that time to the feel.ngs of liberty alive in every German
heart :—" The King of Prussia called on the North of
Germany, in the name, and for the cause of independence,
liberty and knowledge." Who could have believed that
by independence was meant the intermeddling interference
of other States—by liberty, the establishment of police
committees—by knowledge, the suppression of and the
severest censorship of the Press? As to the ancient
liberties of Germany, it must be remembered that its
Governments continued a free form of Constitution accord-
ing to the time; but that that very liberty of oipinon, if it
ever existed anywhere, has existed for centuries in Ger-
many, in which it is now attempted to put it down. Every
one knows that in the 16th century religion was the po-
litics of the period. States and individuals were judged—
alliances were formed—wars were carried en—everything,
in short, depended on religious tenets at that time, as
much as they do on political ones at the present day.
The Princes of Germany were not always afraid of the
spirit of criticism and inquiry among their subjects, as
the good Emperor of Austria, who by the bye begged
the professors at Laybach not to teach his subjects tots
much. We know the humane and enlarged notions of
Joseph of Austria. Every one is acquainted with the
anecdote of Frederick, the great Frederick of Prussia.
What did he do when he found a placard on the wall
abusing the acts of his Government? Why be ordered
it to be placed a little lower, in order that the people
might read it.—(Cheers.) And what was the case in
Hanover ? Every gentleman acquainted with the modern
political works of Germany will know of the Stciatson-
:tiger of Mr. Schlizer. Mr. Schliizer was a Professor
at Gottingen, and the Professors of Gottingen had
the privilege of publishing their opinions without comment
or censure. He published then this magazine or newspaper.
M. Schull, a gentleman well known in the literary wet ld
of Germany, and the particular friend of M. Ancellin,
the present Minister for Foreign Affairs in Prussia, has
given this description of the tendency of his writings, and
the manner in which they were dealt with. "He gig,
nalized," says Mr. Schull, " every species of abuse, what.
ever it be, with which he was made acquainted in any part
of Germany. He brought before the tribunal of public
opini n all those whom he deemed worthy of animadver-
sion, more particularly those little Princes awl their little
Ministers, with narrow-minded views, whom he considered
as the scourge of monarchy and humanity. When he had
denounced an abuse to the public, lie never let it alone
until justice had been done, and that abuse remedied. The
Court of Hanover, to whom complaints were frequently
made, refused to restrain this liberty, which made part of
the privileges of the University." Those were the happy
days for Hanover, when, if any demand was made to the
Sovereign to exercise an illegal and arbitrary power over his
subjects, it was not met and welcomed as a proof of the
dear friendship or the paternal care of the Imperial power
who made it.—(Hear, hear.) When, then, he asked
whether the House approved of the conduct that had been
pursued by the Diet, he had laid before it no common
case. The Holy Alliance has not now occupied itself with a
subject like that before it at the Congresses of Laybach
and Verene. Here is not a case :in which a people have
hastily, perchance prematurely, claimed a liberty they
never before enjoyed—here is not a case in which no.
promises bad been made, and no right thertdas
existed for expectation or disappointment—hero is not
a case in which the Sovereigns had done every thin
for the maintenance of their thrones, and their &tab,
jests nothing—here is not a case in which England
and Europe muse feel gratitude to the spirited Princes wbe.
rushed from the alliances of Bonaparte, treated his offers' of
friendship and family connection with disdain; nor is this
the case of a people who followed the example of their
Sovereigns in submitting to a foreign yoke. It is not in
Italy, in Portugal, in Spain, that liberty is now to be
crushed—it is in Germany, the fatherland of liberty—in
Germany, to which the most magnificent promises were
made—in Germany, to the people of which its Piincts
owe their thrones, Europe its peace, and England its glory,
But such being the sentiments of the House as to the pro-
ceedings of the German Diet, is it policy to interfere with
them?—(Hear, hear.) But he could not consider Eng-
land in the light of a State which has not interfered. Is
is placed, by peculiar circumstances, in such a situation
that if she does not interfere by some expression of het•
opinion—at all events in favour of the German people—
she must be thought to have taken the part of the German
Sovereigns. It is known that one of the misfortunes
with which the otherwise happy event of the accession of
the present family to the British throne was attended, was
that by which George I. remained Elector, as the present King
now is King of Hanover. It may be very well to say Ilea
Hanover and England are two separate kingdoms that
the one has nothing to do with the other. This may be
the case theoretically, but it never has been—it cannot be,
so practically. The policy pursued by the King of Hano-
ver must, without strong proofs to the contrary, he con-
sidered as the probable policy of the King of England.
All that moral influence, resulting from the suppo-
sition that the individual at the head of this Government
is favourable to the oppression of the Diet, is now in full
operation against the resistance of the people. This con-
sideration, if this consideration was the only one, would
call upon the House for some expression, at all events, of
its opinion. He could not consent to England being a
mere cipher, a nullity, in the political combinations of Eu-
rope. But if ti ers is any thing which more immediately
affects the interests of England than another, it is the fate,
of Germany. Unite that country under a good Gossteser
ment, it is at once a check upon the aggrandizement of
France and the ambition of Russia. Leave it as it is, it
a tool in the hands of one or a prey to the other. The
ancient empire was a grave and august body—alwaye
agitated, and never acting; it tumbled to pieces at the
first shock. But why did it do so? Because it had no
united national feeling ; because it did not contain one na-
tion, but two armies. This is the system which failed—
this is the system which, since the Treaty of Vienna,
Prussia and Austria have been labouring to re-establish.
Is it possible to imagine that the events of the revolu-
tionary war would not have furnished a better lesson !
Was it the troops of Austria—was it the troops of Prussia,
which roiled back the tide of French invasion ? The ea.

*,

...

\\

r/"`-6."\k- ..' alstituaur eyes entirely ' '
' - T- to tire facts that led to that step ;
, (FA. ": , -- anfLitis:maquestionable that there welt. many appearances
r
( (\ wein
picot challengers of fo 0
king Austriaat thesew er were not
resolutions,
success-
ful—the chivalry of Prussia were crushed in a single day.
But when the armies of Germany were put down, then its
people arose—then they began to commune and combine
together—a real Confederation was formed—then its plans
were laid—their opportunities were watched—the occa-
sion came. Here, at all events, is the result of the two
systems. It is seen what the armies of Germany did, and
what the people. The one was swept down in a single
battle—the other was victorious in a hundred conflicts.
If England wish Germany to be strong—and it is the
strength of Germany that makes the peace of Europe,—
is it not the wisdom of the House to address the Sove-
reign according to the terms of his motion?—will it not
be the wisdom of the Sovereign to listen to its counsel
when it petitions him to exercise his influence with the
Germanic Diet and Princes of Germany, in disposing
them not to forfeit more pledges England joined them in
giving—not to rely upon the brute force of their armies
against the still moral force, stronger in these days of pub-
lic opinion—not to separate themselves from their people
through any vain confidence in their present power,—
from the people who clung to them, and sup-
ported and re-established their Thrones in the
day of their past distress—(Hear, hear)—not to lay
their country again open to the force which any new re-
volution in France might pour into it. Surely there is
no one who can dissent from the principle, from the
policy, and from the prudence of such an adtlress. Go-
vernment are anxious to avert war. Who is not so ?
And what is the war which they dread ? The war which
Mr. Canning predicted—the war of hostile principles,
now drawn up in array against each other. How shall
we avert that war? Not by showing them, without an
effort, to be brought into collision—not by allowing the
armies drawn up on one side to be brought into conflict
with the Constitutions opposed to them on the other. On
the one hand, it is said that the Pi ussian army is reinforc-
ing itself on the Rhine from Silesia—the Austrian army
marching from Italy in the same direction. On the other
the people in the minor States are already holding meet-
ings to consult on what was to be done. The representa-
tive Chamber of Cassel is about to protest against the re-
solutions; the Hanoverian Chambers are to make serious
remonstrances ; the Deputies of Brunswick cannot con-
cur in the protocol ; the smaller States are to be over-
run with Austrian and Prussian soldiers, but the
smaller States contain 12,000,000 of men. France,
too, is augmenting her forces. Is not this a seri-
ous state of things? Is it not plain that, if such
a state of things are urged, ruin must inevitably
ensue? Is not war certain if things proceed as
they are? There have been pusillanimity and protocols
enough. Let the Government now see whether a bold
and manly conduct may not be able to avert that war. It
is not by cowering and truckling to an influence to which
a nation is known to feel opposed that war is prevented.
Never was there so absurd an idea, or one so fatal to the
nation which adopts it. If the Sovereigns of Germany
are reallyjust in their intentions, or net too strong to despise
advice, then they will listen peaceably to remonstrances.—
Their present attempt is part of a universal plan which
England is called upon, at every hazard, to resist, without
losing a week, a day, a moment. France feels her own
situation ; she also pretends to feel for the calamity of
other nations ; but what does she say ? When Poland
might have been preserved, M. Thiers said, in the French
Chamber, that England had refused to unite with France
for that purpose. Now, again, the official organ of the
French Chamber declares that it cannot protest against
the Acts of the Diet, for England refuses to join in such
protestation. This is the language of France, who, if she
were joined frankly and boldly by England now, might
still be able to interpose in right of the treaties it sanc-
tioned, and the constitutional liberty it is yet suffered to
enjoy.--( Here the Hon. Gentleman quoted a speech of Lord
Brougham, and then went on.) This is the language of
a Noble and Learned Lord, who, with a spirit of eloquence
which amounts to prophecy, foresaw the state into which
England is now fallen. From such a state it may yet rise,
by the display of that holiness and firmness which he
counselled, and which Mr. Canning subsequently adopted,
and which is the only course England can now adopt. It
was in the free forests of Germany that the infant genius of
our liberty was nursed. It was from the free altars of
Germany that the light of our purer religion first arose.
It was from the minor States of Germany that our con-
stitutional Monarchs came, He appealed to a'l those re-
collections and sympathies—and not only to those recollec-
tions and sympathies, but also to all those feelings which
self interest, policy, and prudence could suggest, in support
of the motion which be was then about to read to the
House—" That an address be presented to his Majesty,
requesting him to exercise his influence with the Germa-
nic Diet, in opposition to the course pursued by them,
contrary to the liberty and independence of the German
people. "—(Ch eers. )
Mr. I-lUME seconded the motion.
Lord PALMERSTON—I must, in the first instance,
bear my testimony to the ability with which the Hon.
Member for Coventry has performed his task, and to the
luminous and perspicuous manner in which he has laid
before the House the results of his historical researches
into this question. It was not, however, necessary for
the Hon. Gentleman to make any apology to the House
for bringing under its consideration a subject which has
excited so deep and universal an interest in every country
in Europe. If the Hon. Gentleman thinks that events
are pending which threaten the independence of the
German States, it is to me no matter of surprise, that as
a Member of the British House of Commons, he should
take an opportunity of drawing the attention of the Par-
liament to the subject ; for I, for one, am prepared to
admit that the independence of Constitutional States,
whether they are powerful like France or the United
States, or of less relative political importance, such as the
minor States of Germany, never can be a matter of in-
difference to the British Parliament, or, I should hope,
to the British public.—(Hear, hear.) These States I
consider to be the natural allies of this country; and
whoever may be in office conducting the affairs of Great
Britain, I aria persuaded that no English Ministry will be
perfot ming its duty if it is inattentive to the interests of
the Germanic States. But it is one thing to admit the
importance of the question and the deep interest which
this country ought to take in it, and another to argue
that the Government should adopt any particular course
of proceeding which an Honourable Member may ad-
s ise--(Hear, hear)—and I must confess that I am not pre-
pared to accede to the proposal with which the Hon. Gen-
leurt,•irt has concluded his address, because I do not think
cbs state of affairs in Europe and the complexion assumed
by the transactions to which this motion refers are such
as to call, at present, for those steps which the Hon. Gen-
ifewean recommends. I entirely take the Hon. Gentlman's
view of the object for which the German Confederacy
was formed by the Treaty of Vienna : the main and prin-
eipal object for which that Confederacy was established,
was not only the internal and external safety of the states
which compose it, but also the maintenance of their indivi-
dual independence.—(Hear, hear.) It, therefore, cannot
be denied that any thing that threatens to destroy or vio-
late that independence would be inconsistent with the
principles on which the Confederacy was established, and
so far be a departure from the treaty of Vienna, to which
all the crest Powers of Europe were contracting parties.
But what is the state of these transactions as far as they
have gone? lam not standing here to express my ap-
probation of those resolutions of the Diet upon which the
Hon. Gentleman Las founded his motion -. perhaps a Mi-
nister of tore country is not called on to pronounce a judg-
ment one way or the other on the acts of independent
Governments, who must be considered prima facie tire
west competent judgeeof what is suited to their wants and
existioct situation. Whether these resolutions, therefore,
do or do not outstep the necessity of the case, I am, per-
haps, as one of the Ministry, not called on to say; but, in
my own private opinion, I cannot help entertaining an ap-
prehension, that the Governments who have entered into
these resolutions have overstrained the dangers against
which they were endeavouring to guard, and not framed,
with the greatest possible degree of discretion, that mea-
sure which they proposed to apply as a remedy to the
danger. But all that was proposed at present is, that a
certain number of independent Sovereigns, united in a con•
federary which is sanctioned by all the great Powers of
Europe, have unanimously adopted some resolutions at
present applicable only to their own states, and not in-
volving any point with respect to their foreign relations
with other independent Sovereigns. It, therefore, appears
to me, that other states cannot found any just ground for
interference with these Governments on the resolutions
which they themselves have voluntarily adopted. In star
relations with foreign States, we can only consider the acts
of tee Governments of those States, because, looking ex-
ternally at the States themselves, it is by the acts of their
Governments alone that foreign Governments are
ab!e to judge of their intentions. The Honourable Gen-
tleman seems to apprehend that these resolutions, if car-
ried into effect to their fullest extent, may in the first
place create differences between the Sovereigns and their
subjects, and subsequently give rise to serious misunder-
Difcol:stattdings among the Members of the Confederacy them-
ust not
k -1.....„'...,1,-.),=, ip.:P6..r.u,lan of a dispodsitiohn. toh disturbld tlie.m:sureof
dthe
le, • . ..-_,.',-,-ez., cie- i.
tC'tirttmr.
i(niga,rvoin.g.
tsi,,,i,s, which
be would L:
s, y not,a justify :fitly that
alluding t-
t*??/.\-;7:2:,,tir ardicularly to the meeting that took place at Ham-
-4u03...„0
~ ud the symptoms of excitement there exhibited,-
1

-.; .. '

Hear, hear.) I will not deny that if thew resolutions

are acted on to their full extent, steps may be taken that I
will so trench on individual rights, and will cause such se-
rious differences among the Germanic holy and the indi-
vidual members of the Confederacy, as may render it im-
possible to hope that the peace of Europe can be preserved,
and that if the peace of Europe should he broken on such
grounds as the,e, it would, perhaps, give rise to a war, not
merely between the States of Germany, but a war of opi-
nion, which would spread its influence beyond the country
whence it had its source ; in which case this country
would not only be entitled, but called on, to take such steps
as circumstances might require to preserve Europe against
so extensive a warfare. But when the Hon. Gentleman
calls on the House to address his Majesty to use his influ-
ence with the Germanic Confederacy, I ought perhaps in
the first place to ask, in what capacity he wishes his Ma-
jesty to interfere—(Hear, hear)—whether he wishes him
to interfere as King of Hanover or as King of England?
Because if it is as King of Hanover, I should think the lion.
Gentleman will himself, on reflection, see that the British
House of Commons had no claim to make such a request.
But if the Hon. Gentleman proposes this address to the
King as Sovereign of Great Britain, and as a party to the
treaty of Vienna, which established and secured the inde-
pendence of these States of Germany, I should then say,
the ground on which I resist the motion is the ground of
discretion.—(Hear, hear.) Not that I deny that the
King of England has a right to express his opinion upon
this matter (for I agree with the Hon. Gentleman that
such a right undoubtedly exists), but because I think no-
thing has vet occurred which calls for such interposition
on the part of this House, and because I can assure the
Hon. Gentleman the Government is not inattentive to
those important events to which be has drawn our atten-
tion. I can also assure him, that even without such an
address as that which he has proposed, the advisers of his
Majesty will deem it their duty to keep their attention
fixed on those circumstances which are now taking place
on the continent of Europe, never, I trust, undervaluing
the deep importance of those circumstances with reference
to this country ; because, let persons recommend as
much as they will the propriety of England withdraw-
ing itself from all political connection with the rest of
the world, my opinion is, that as long as our commerce is
of importance to us—as long as Continental armies are in
existence—as long as it is possible that a Power in one
quarter may become dangerous to a Power in another—
so long must England look with interest on the transac-
tions of the Continent, and so long is it proper for this
country, in the maintenance of its own independence, not
to shut its eyes to any thing that threatens the indepen-
dence of Germany. But, Sir, I cannot bring myself to
believe that the alarm of the Hon. Gentleman is really
well founded ; I cannot believe that any one administering
the affairs of a great country can take so erroneous a view
of its own interest, or of the interests of society, as to
wish to deprive those independent States of those consti-
tutional rights, which are such a blessing to themselves,
and such a benefit to their neighbours. I cannot believe
that such a wish exists where there is a power to carry
that wish into effect ; or even if such a wish does exist, I
cannot believe that those who have the desire deem it
possible fur thtm, in the present state of the world, to
' carry that wish into execution. Under these circum •
stances I feel it to be my duty to give a negative to the
motion of the Hon. Gentleman.

Mr. COURTENAY agreed for the most part in the
principle which the Noble Lord had laid down in his answer
to the Hon. Gentleman. But he (Mr. Courtenay) wished
to call the attention of the House to a more general view
of the state of Europe than had been entered into by the
lion. Member for Coventry. In the first place, with re-
spect to Ancona, be desired an explanation, for the pur-
pose of showing that the French had been justified, as well
as the Austrians, in their interference. The present Go•
vernment came into power pledged to three principles, and
he had the less hesitation in affirming that, as he had
lately seen a declaration by a Member of his Majesty's Go-
vernment, the Noble Lord the Member for Devonshire, to
the same effect ;—the Government came into power
pledged to the three great principles of Reform, Retrench-
ment, and the preservation of peace. It was curious to
see these three principles thus placed in juxta.-position.
Ministers had certainly the merit of professing Reform
directly in opposition to the former Government. That was
entirely their own work ; and be the results of Reform
what they might—be they the happiness or misery' of the
country, the present Ministers had alone produced them.
He admitted that they had endeavoured to carry the
principle of Retrenchment into effect, but they had not
found that retrenchment quite so practicable as they had
supposed. He contended, however, that the Ministers
had no right to say, that in their desire to preserve peace
They differed in any respect from their predecessors in
office. He had, in fact, heard Lord Grey assert, that he
entirely approved of the policy pursued by the Noble
Duke, and of all that had been done relative to the re-
volt in Belgium prior to his acceptance of office. Ad-
verting to the present state of our affairs, he must ex-
press a hope that we should adhere to a strict neutrality in
the affairs of Portugal. He had heard, indeed, that the
instructions sent to our ships were such as the circum-
stances of the case warranted, and that we were not to
interfere unless Spain interfered between the contending
parties. He wished, however, to be informed whether our
ships had not given more countenance to Don Pedro's squa-
dron than was consistent with strict neutrality ? He asked
whether or not one of our ships had not been present
at the landing of Don Pedro ; and if so, whether that
were not a breach of neutrality ? If a prize were
made by their joint exertions it would be a joint capture,
and our ships would claim a share of the prize-money.
Would not that be a breach of neutrality ? He would
like also to ask if an officer had not gone from Lord Wil-
liam Russell to Dun Pedro's head-quarters ? He did not
affirm that it was so, but having heard it he asked that
question. He could show, by various documents, that in
Lord Castlereagh's time the policy of this country had
been that of non-into Kerence. The Right Hon. Gentle-
man referred to some State paper, the joint production of
Mr. Canning and Lord Castlereagh, issued in 1820,
which stated that such was the duty of all Stares, but ad-
mitting that if any country was in such a state of misery
and disturbance as to affect another country, it might then
interfere. He wished to know whether the Papal States
were in such a condition of misery and disturbance affect.
ing the honour of England as to warrant us in interfering
with that country ? He admitted that the condition of
that country was very bad, but lie wanted to know if it
were so bad as to warrant interference? In January,
1821, by Lord Castlereagh, after he and Mr. Canning
had separated, the same principles were espoused and set
forth on occasion of the Austrian troops occupying Naples.
It was then again admitted, that if the condition of
one country endangered the tranquillity of another, that
other might interfere. With respect to the recent con-
duct cf Austria as to the Papal dominions, Austria, as
well as Prussia, bad concurred in recommending to
the Papal Government the improvements proposed in
the internal Governments of its States, which at lest
showed that Austria was not so much in love with
despotism as was supposed, and that she only interfered
as a means of self-preservation. He was unwilling to
advert to the debate of a former evening on the Russian
Dutch Loan, but he must be allowed to make one obser-
vation. The Right Hon. Secretary for Ireland, at the
close of his speech, had put it to the Gentlemen on that
(the Opposition) side of the House, if they would have
refused to pay the loan. He must say that he believed
that he should have finally concurred in making the pay-
ment. But under what circumstances was the proposition
brought before Parliament ? Sufficient information to
enable the Parliament to judge of this question was unfor-
tunately denied, and as long as that was denied, he was
justified in every vote he had given in the minority. If he
had possessed information, if he had been a Member of his
Majesty's Government, he believed that he should have
concurred in advising the payment. He remembered the
original debate on the subject, and believed that the loan
was made to Russia as a boon for her services and her suf-
ferings. With respect to the present condition of Belgium,
he must deprecate the guarantee of her neutrality which this
country had given, as not likely to preserve that neutrality,
while it might plunge this country in war at a time when
she least desired it. That guarantee could not induce other
Powers to respect that neutrality if they had motives for
violating it, and it was not likely to strengthen the motives
they would naturally have to respect and observe that neu-
trality. He must assert that our whole policy in this
respect did not meet his approbation. By promoting the
s evepr
na rnia teinotn liaae.dt wneoetn Belgium
satisfied and Flo
t haepolicy
ad 01,
tteh
de
in presentl s 1 t Go -
and
1815. His feeling upon the subject of our policy towards
Holland and Belgium was very strong, and it was not
strengthened by his hostility to the present Ministry, which
he had not the affectation to disclaim. He hoped the Noble
Lord would be able to give such answers to his questions as
would satisfy the House and the country, that the Govern-
ment had pursued that pacific policy to which it was pledged ;
and that it had not interfered with other States, unless
where the honour of England was concerned. The Right
lion. Gentleman concluded by moving fur a variety of
papers, illustrating the policy pursued by his Majesty's
Government towards Portugal and Holland.
Colonel EVANS then proceeded to say, that in his opi-
nion the French Government was perfectly warranted in
sending troops into Ancona; and he hoped they would not
be withdrawn till the troops of Austria retired from the
dominions of the Pope, nor without coming to such a per_
feet understanding as would tie sufficient to ensure the

peace of Europe. The Right Hon. Gentleman, after
leaving Ancona, went to Portugal, and objected that a
British frigate was present at the disembarkation of Don
Pedro. Why, the same objection might be made to a fleet
being in the Tagus ; but the fact was, that they were
there, in both instances, for the protection of British sub-
jects and property, during the transactions which were
taking place. He also objected to the fact of an officer or
supposed officer at Lisbon being sent to Don Pedro ; but,
in his opinion, any person acquainted with the Laws of
Nations would say that the great fault of this country was,
that it carried its prudence so far as to forbear to recognise
Donna Maria, and that army which now holds a large part
of Portugal. Even if the rights of the brothers were but
equal, there could be no sound reason why we should have
a diplomatic agent at the Court of Don Miguel and not at
that of Don Pedro. He had, however, risen principally
on account of some observations which had been made in
one of the Journals of the day. A despatch had appeared
a few days ago from an English gentleman of the name of
Hodges, in the service of Don Pedro, and who had acted
in the most gallant manner. Objections had been made
to officers of other countries serving on these occasions;
but he must say that he thought those gentlemen of Eng-
land or France who took part in that expedition did them-
selves great honour, and materially promoted the best in-
terests of their country, There were some who doubtless
thought otherwise, and it was quite competent to them,
or to any Journal, to express its opinion of the impro-
priety of such conduct, if they thought it improper.
But there were Journals here whicli appeared to be in the
interest of Don Miguel, which were not satisfied with ex-
pressing disapprobation, but resorting to calumnies and re-
crimination, which were highly improper. With respect
to that officer (Mr. Hodges), there was a passage in one of
those Journals of that morning which threw out insinua-
tions not to be justified. He knew that gentleman, and
he knew him to be a man of a most amiable, honourable,
and gallant conduct. He could, therefore, wish that
Journals would confine themselves to opinions of conduct,
and not descend to calumnies in other respects. It ap-
peared to him that the Member for Coventry had fully
made out his case. The question appeared to be,
whether the Princes, or the representatives of the Princes
of Germany, at the Diet of Frankfurt, had not violated
the rights of those States, to the preservation and
maintenance of which England was a guaranteeing
Power ? and whether it was not necessary, from
honour, and for the peace and interests of Europe,
that those rights should be maintained. The Noble Lord
had not brought forward any argument to rebut the state-
ment, neither did it appear that he was desirous of doing
so. The Noble Lord admitted the right to interfere, but
he doubted the discretion. He did not state whether he
doubted the discretion of interfering or of allowing that
vote to pass; be hoped it was the latter ; for, from the
communication he had with foreigners tolerably well versed
in those matters, he believed that the Noble Lord and his
colleagues, though they did not think it prudent to state so
much to the House, bad interfered in a manner which did
them infinite credit. He considered that the circumstance
of the interference of the Representative of the King of
Hanover formed a still stronger ground for the continued
interference of his Majesty's Government.
Mr. HUME had heard with great satisfaction some parts
of the speech of the Noble Lord, but he much regretted
that the Noble Lord had not directed his attention more
to the principal parts of the speech of his Hon. Friend
who had brought forward the motion. The question ap-
peared to him to be, whether the privileges in dispute
were privileges recogni-ed by the Convention which was
sanctioned by this country ; and if so, whether those pri-
vileges had been violated, or were in danger of being so?
If anything were important to the people of Great Bri-
tain, it was that the military despots of Europe should
not be suffered to crush the freedom of the Press.—(Hear,
hear.) The Noble Lord admitted that great alarm pre-
vailed, because we in England staid committed to non-in-
terference in affairs of other countries. But he must con-
fess, that after long observation and attention given to the
proceedings of other countries, he found those proceedings
to be inconsistent with that principle.—(Hear, hear.)—
When the despotic States found, or fancied, it to be their
interest to interfere, no matter what might be their
object, they generally found sufficient excuse.—
He had often stated it to be his wish that England
should withdraw from that meddling interference in the
affairs of the Continent in which she had been apt to in-
dulge. It had been the cause of infinite mischief, and had
led us into the most ruinous expenses. During the last
thirty years we had been made the dupes of the faithless
promises of the Continental Powers, and all our blood and
treasure had been lavished without deriving the slightest
advantages for our own country. He believed that our
interference with the affairs of Belgium would not be pro-
ductive of the good that was expected. But if the Govern-
ment thought fit to interfere with Belgium, the Papal
States, and Ancona, he thought the question under consi-
deration one which warranted the utmost stretch of such
a principle. There was one very embarrassing circum-
stance connected with this question. He found, and the
people at large found, great difficulty in distinguishing be-
tween the King of Hanover and the King of England.
The people of England were ashamed of what the King of
Hanover had done.—(Hear, hear, hear.) Many people
could scarcely believe that on the 10th of May the
King of Hanover had given his sanction to a mea-
sure calculated to destroy the liberties of Europe...-.
a measure, the object of which was to put down the
Press, and the introduction of an overwhelming foreign
military force, for the purpose of overawing the minor
States, and depriving them of those privileges which were
sanctioned by the treaty of Vienna. It therefore became
his 111,j-sty's Ministers to express their disapprobation of
this conduct. The Noble Lord did express his dissent
from this decree of the Diet, yet not in that forcible man-
ner which, as Minister for Foreign Affairs, he ought to
have done, for if we, in this country, were to remain pas.
sive in relation to the present proceedings in Germany,
we should cast doubt and suspicion upon our motives, and
it would prove a want of that interest in the welfare of
Germany, the freedom of Europe, and the liberties of man-
kind, which this country ought ever to exhibit. When
all publications were put down, and the independent
States of Germany were not allowed to speak their senti-
ments, surely it was time for this country to speak out;
and when all this was to be done by military power, and
by military power was to be maintained, he would beg to
ask the Noble Lord on what foundation the peace of
Europe rested? The Ministers ought to make immediate
representations to the foreign Powers, that the Cabinet of
the King of England could not consent to such measures
as were adopted by the representative of the King of Ha-
nover. He had always regretted our connexion with Ha-
nover, and he had hoped that as the liberties of England
became more extended, we should in some measure have
shaken off the yoke of that objectionable policy which had
so long been forced upon us in consequence of our con-
nexion with that country ; but it seemed as though we
were to be dragged at the chariot wheels of Hanover as
a party to a foul conspiracy against the liberties of Europe.
Every person was scandalized ; for how could the people
believe that the King of England was sincere in main-
taining the freedom and the privileges of Englishmen,
when they found him attempting to put down freedom in
Germany—to put down freedom not only in his own
kingdom of Hanover, but giving his sanction to the de-
struction of the freedom of all the minor states of that
empire. What security was there that France and her
revolution would not be attacked, on whom, let it be ob-
served, the peace of Europe depended ? How could it be
shown that there was no reasonable ground for apprehend-
ing these measures to he merely preliminary to an attack
upon France, and to an attempt to submit the whole Con-
tinent of Europe to a military despotism ? He thought,
therefore, it became that House to express its abhorrence
of such proceedings, and to use all its influence with his
Majesty's Government to prevail on them (and they had
interfered in cases of much less importance) to interfere
justly ust l y
thetwhthem
to pauseGre in their
Great
Powers
cianreser.
such
a Itmanner
had ben a
ob-
served, that those despotic decrees might produce results
very different from those anticipated by their framers; and
to
cause
lie did hope there would be resolution enough amongst the
brave Germans to resist their oppressors, and that by ex-
tensive union they would find their resources equal to the
frustration of the present most atrocious attempt. Could
any man read the article of the treaty of Vienna by which
the freedom of the Press was secured, and reconcile to that
article the conduct of the Governments under the Pro-
tocol ? He had been informed that proceedings had been
commenced by the putting down some excellent publica-
tions, which certainly ought not to have drawn down upon
them the vengeance of the despots. He knew it was un-
necessary for him to state that Earl Grey and his associates
had nothing to do with the proceedings of the King of
Hanover; but it would be found difficult in the opinion of
the people to separate the conduct of the King of Hanover
from the conduct of the King of England. He wished,
therefore, the Noble Lord had been more explicit in de-
claring the opinions, not of the King of Hanover, but of
the King of England, anal to adopt such measures as were
calculated to rouse a people to overcome that oppression
which threatened them. The Noble Lord ought to do
this, more particularly at a time when England was con-
gratulating herself on the glorious privileges which she had
recently attained ; for when the people of England saw
Poland sacrificed almost without a word of remonstrance—
when they saw this succeeded by a new attempt to extend
time sphere of tyranny, and to reduce under the dominion
of despotism a country so worthy of freedom as ()en.

many—would they not begin to consider these transactions
as part of a systematic attack upon the liberties of all the
free European States ? Where, indeed, was this to stop ?
No man could tell ; and unless the Government took every
measure to express their strong disapprobation of this
gross infraction of the treaty, they would be shrinking
from their duty. The Noble Lord said he could not
agree to the address; he could not conceive what objec-
tion could be taken to it. Such objection was contrary
to the general tenor of the Noble Lord's speech ; if there
existed matter of discretion not stated, that was no reason
why such discretion should not still be increased. Such
an address would, in point of fact, materially strengthen
the hands of his Majesty's Government, and give additional
weight to their remonstrances. In conclusion, he begged
leave to congratulate the Hon Member for Totnes on the
candid avowal made by him, that if Ministers had been
beaten on the question of the Russian Dutch Loan, and the
Tories had come into power, they would have felt
themselves under the same obligation to pay the money.
He did not know what his friends the Tories would say
to him, but it completely proved that he took a right
view of the question. Every post brought papers from
the country in which Hume and extravagance were placed
in conjunction : but he could see as far into a millstone as
another, and he felt that he was acting for the advantage
of the country in refusing to be made the tool of so ob-
noxious a stratagem.—(Hear.)
Mr. WYSE said, that Tory England had been con-
stantly interfering in the affairs of the Continent, and of
opposing continental liberty, and he did not see why
liberal England should not interfere to protect it. He
thought this one of the strongest cases to justify an inter-
ference. He then proceeded to argue, that the protocol of
Frankfort violated not only the indefeasible rights of man,
but those rights as sanctioned and guaranteed by the
treaty of Vienna. The question was, whether despotism
or liberty should prevail in the civilized world? That was
no subject for indifference, and though there was danger
in war, yet he thought war was not the only danger to be
feared. The triumph of despotism was yet more dangerous.
The peculiar situation of Germany made the preservation
of its independenee of the greatest importance to
every free State in Europe. It formed a barrier between
the barbarous power of Russia on the North and the
free States of the South ; whilst from its literature, its
knowledge, and its civilization, it became a moral as well
as a physical barrier—a guarantee for, and a guard of, the
liberties of the Southern States of Europe. On this
ground alone she ought to be properly and energetically
supported. If we surrendered her up—if we did not in-
terfere, he meant morally, for the moral power of England
was great even with the despots—unless we expressed our
sense of what was going forward, Russia would trample on
Germany, and advance her legions to the frontiers of
France. Nor did he see how France could resist Russia,
combined, as she would be, with the Powers of Austria
and Prussia. In his opinion, these hostile demonstrations
to France called for serious consideration. He thought
that the people of this country should not have their name
bandied about among the nations of the earth as the great
possessors of free institutions, and the great protectors of
those who aspired to possess them, while, at the same time,
they s, it their face against the efforts of freemen throughout
the Continent. The name of England had been stained in
Italy, and stained in the North. They were taunted with
the course they had pursued towards Portugal—taunted
with the course they had pursued towards Belgium—and,
last, though not least, they were taunted with their con-
duct towards Poland, now, unhappily, almost era.,,ed from
the list of States, and deprived of her nationality, and even
of her language. These were some of the consequences
of that policy, which, he thought, called loudly for a
change more consistent with the character of the country
and the wishes of its people.—(Hear.)
Lord PALMERSTON, in rising to resist the amended
motion, thought he should best discharge his duty if he
first spoke to the distinction taken in the course of the de-
bate by the Hon. Member for Middlesex, on the subject
of the conduct pursued by Hanover and England. The
truth was, that both the King of Hanover and the King
of England acted through constitutional advisers ; and the
advisers of the King of England were as little answerable
for the conduct of the King of Hanover, as the advisers of
Hanover could be supposed to be answerable for the con-
duct of those of England. He (Palmerston) should, how-
ever, ill discharge his duty if he failed on such an occa-
sion to inform the House that the King of Hanover was
as much attached to constitutional doctrines, and as
anxious to carry them into beneficial effect, as the King of
England had lately so fully proved himself to be ; and al-
though the King of Hanover was advised to give the
assent to the Decree of the Diet, he subsequently made a
communication to his States, which had for its direct
object to enlarge and confirm the privileges of his subjects.
—(Hear, hear.) The King of Hanover, therefore, con-
tinues still to act in the same manner as the King
of England acts here ; and as a proof of it, that very
communication was now under the consideration of the
States.—(Hear.) Adverting to the topics touched on by
the Member for Totnes, he admitted that the Government
came into office with three distinct pledges—Reform, Re-
trenchment, and Peace; but they gave no pledge, that
he could recollect, on the subject of non-interference. In-
deed, from the nature of things they could not give such a
pledge. Interference, it should be recollected, was of two
kinds—interference by force of arms, and interference by
friendly advice and counsel. Now the principle of the
non-interference of the G wernment was to avoid appeals
to arms; but they at no time admitted that they would not
interfere by counsel and advice. On that principle they
commenced, and to that they had adhered. With respect
to the course adopted in the misunderstanding between the
Pope and the Legations, the interference of this country
had taken place at the express request of Austria and
France, who were from their position more deeply interestd
in the question at issue; but an interference by force of
arms constituted no part of the plan of this country, or of
any party; and he was happy to say that their joint efforts
had been eminently successful in securing the maintenance
of peace. The Right Hon. Gentleman had observed that
the Government, not content with their own ReforM Bil',
were striving to form Constitutions for all the rest of Europe;
but he could assure the Right Hon. Gentleman, that the
document of May 1, applied to the Legations, was signed
at the request of Austin is and Prussia. With respect to
Belgium, he believed it was admitted on all hands to be
most desirable that that country should not hereafter be-
come the theatre of European wars ; and it was, therefore,
a future
ti eblilrjse:eshmevc7d taiear:nuonohh
respect
gel
sh
ta)eilyetaicteFt
mhrtaoabdnepereboforewert congratulation
sPortugal
trnas
ooencsduat
hrsl
pieapadadat t
observed,yl
fromgtttolii ae
trhaß tanihtgee
Right
tubfGalaoritrra:aninatit
PtDEGe
e.
on
pp
protecting
presenting
and aatsstihs
assisting,
nlga,n
andditisoo of
near
re
the forces csecse
scene
of action, that if prizes had been taken, she would have
been entitled to her share. Now the real fact was, that
strict orders had been given to the Naval Commander on
the coast of Portugal to avoid all interference with either
party, unless the troops of Spain attempted to enter Portu-
gal. There was, however, a large portion of British pro-
perty which required protection, and an unarmed vessel had
been sent within the bar of Oporto at the desire of the
merchants. He ought to mention here, perhaps, that
an officer had been sent by Lord William Russell to the
head-quarters of Don Pedro, for the purpose of apprising
him of the neutrality which it was intended to preserve,
and of the terms on which it was to be maintained ; but
that officer had orders not to stay there a moment longer
than necessary, but to proceed at once to the Spanish
frontier, in order to watch and report on the movements
of the Spanish troops. He was happy to state, however,
that the greatest cordiality prevailed between the Govern-
ment of England and Spain on this subject, and that the
officer remained there with the perfect concurrence of the
Spanish Government. He did not reelect any other
topic to which it was necessary for him to advert. The
present Government was as ready and as willing to give
information on all questions of policy as any of its prede-
cessors had been ; but it should be recollected, that there
were some points, particularly when connected with nego-
tiations still pending, that could not be fully laid open
without great prejudice to the public service.
After a few words in reply from Mr. CIJURTENAY and
g3tntiiiil,l,,eaeearl..l,,Egia,ioetii,:araebtdnupehyana‘ Pet'mld::retpG.ekinaEsanLetoip,:ini
vell:niteslrla:Esieunenbfgßs,
amendment
tSyvetrh,ineTseli
eOgi
‘ut
aiiiiNtnnriei
the
ei
ssgsd
ibtitatieesaicorrdtost:e,fpju:sebi
re,el
subjects,
stLneiT.ct haditotisiftintetel
elarme,ena.
other
tofil
rands
objectionpo portion
r toiofnt
ot
the
disputes
with
respecti
to the in
ctt ealomisienuwaslßiagasTnffEaaa itlNriisolAvosytf
to
oeh ott eee
original
mt
ifio States,cvi
ratification
ooa
otronh
of the
utht
ea nartlraniers-
og af t
Germany.
v reo.df;
pheiestreoaftytio'ef
dthaetl\elslsth of November, 1831, as they were given by the
Allied Powers of France, Prussia, Austria, and Russia.—
Ordered.

IRISH CHURCH.
Mr. SHELL, feeling it would be highly improper, in
the present state of the House, and at that advanced
period of the session, to bring forward any motion on the
subject of the Established Church of Ireland, begged ;eave
to withdraw his notice to that effect. The question was
one which could be much better discussed in the new Par-
liament ; but he felt bound to say, as the opinion of many
of those around him, and with whom he acted, that it
was his object not to touch in the slightest degree Ihe

stability of the Protestant Church, but merely to place it
on a more permanent foundation.
Motion withdrawn accordingly.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR'S SALARY.
Lord ALTHORP rose for the purpose of making the
motion of which he bad given notice, respecting the salary
and retiring pension of the Lord Chancellor. With re-
gard to the pension, however, although sinecure places
were to be abolished, from which former Lord Chancel-
lors had derived great emolument, his Noble and Learned
Friend had declared that he would not agree to any in-
crease of that pension, and even that he would give to any
proposition for such an increase his decided opposition,
until Parliament had considered the subject, and had dis-
posed of those places, as appeared to them to be fitting.
His (Lord Althorp's) present propotition was, that the
salary of the Lord Chancellor, as Lord Chancellor, should
be 10,0001. charged on the Suitor's Fund. The Commit-
tee to whom the subject had been referred, had recom-
mended that his Noble and Learned Friend's salary, as
Lord Chancellor and Speaker of the House of Lords, should
be 14,0001. The average annual amount of the emolu-
ments enjoyed by the Lord Chancellor, as Speaker of the
House of Lords, was 4,0001. His proposition, therefore,
strictly accorded with the recommendation of the Commit-
tee. From all the inquiries which he had made on the sub-
ject, it appeared, that although for the last few years the
salary and emoluments of the Lord Chancellor and
Speaker of the House of Lords had not much exceeded
14,5001., yet that sum was much below what had been
the general produce of those offices. The proposition,
therefore, of 14,000/. was a considerable reduction. Let
this salary of a Judge, who was removable at pleasure, be '
compared with the salary of the Lord Chief Justice of the
Court of King's Bench, who held his office for life, and
who, although his salary was nominally but 10,000/., had
a sinecure place in his gift, which yielded him an addi-
tional 3,0001. ; and he (Lord Althorp) did not think that
his proposition would be considered extravagant or im-
proper. His Noble and Learned Friend had lately been
attacked, and most unjustly attacked. Having stated that it
was his full intention to abolish places of considerable emo-
lument belonging to his office, the reward which his Noble
and Learned Friend had received was, to be attacked as if,
on the contrary, he had intended to reserve those places.
How inconsistent was the conduct, thus unjustly imputed
to his Noble and Learned Friend, with the conduct
which his Noble and Learned Friend had actually pur-
sued with reference to the Bankruptcy Bill. In that
case his Noble and Learned Friend had sacrificed 6,000/.
a year, leaving it entirely to Parliament to make
whatever arrangement it might think proper on the
subject ; although no arrangement had yet been made.—
After such a sacrifice it certainly was not too much to claim
for his Noble and Learned Friend the admission that he did
not act from corrupt motives.—(Hear, hear.) It being
distinctly understood in the House, when this subject
came under discussion before last Christmas, that his
Noble and Learned Friend should not suffer from the
abandonment of salary which he had made in the case of
the Bankruptcy Bill, he (Lord Althorp) should now pro-
pose, and was persuaded that the House would perfectly
agree with him in the propriety of the proposition, that
the salary abort to ba settled by the House should bear
date from the time at which the Bankruptcy Bill came
into operation.—(Hear.) The only objection which he
could at all anticipate from his motion was, to the fund
upon which it was proposed to charge this salary. Upon
deliberate consideration, it had been determined to make it
chargeable on the accumulations of the Suitors' Fund;
introducing a provision i❑ the Bill to guard against any
injury to the claims of the suitors. The Noble Lord
concluded by moving for leave to bring in a Bill to make
provision for salaries to the Lord High Chancellor of Eng-
land, and to the Vice-Chancellor of England, in lieu of
fees heretofore payable to the former.
Mr. HUME thought that the proposition of the Noble
Lord deserved the most serious attention of the House,
and especially with reference to the principle on which
it was made. With respect to the recent appointment
which had been made by the Lord Chancellor, he (Mr.
Hume) had on a former occasion expressed himself per-
fectly satisfied from the manner in which the Noble
and Learned Lord had expressed himself in the Com-
mittee, that it was quite impossible that that appoint-
ment could be anything but temporary. He also highly
approved of the Noble and Learned Lord's having a
fixed salary, instead of being paid by fees. He had him-
self, nine years ago, proposed a similar alteration, but in
vain. He entirely concurred, therefore, with the Noble
Lord in the principle of paying the Lord Chancellor by
a fixed salary. But he differed from the Noble Lord as
to the amount of that salary. He had objected in the
Committee to the proposed amount. In his opinion all
the salaries of the great officers in the country were too
great, and were such as the finances of the country
could not bear. When he considered what the suns of
twelve thousand pounds was, he could not help thinking
that no public servant, whether Judge or other officer,
should have more. As to the 10,000/. paid to the Lord
Chief Justice of the Court of King's Bench, it was
granted on taking certain places out of his gift, and he
(Mr. Hume) never understood that it was to be con-
tinued. Nor could he see the propriety of granting more
than a pension of 1,000/. In the burdened state of the
country, it would be very hard to have to pay pensions
to three Lord Chancellors at once. He was decidedly of
opinion that no retiring pension should be more than
4,000/ , and no salary more than 12,0001. He had a
great objection to the fund on which it was proposed to
charge the Lord Chancellor's salary. The accumulation
of that fund arose from the delay of justice—from abuses
in the Court of Chancery, which it was the Lord Chan-
cellor's duty to correct. Like the unclaimed dividends,
the unclaimed money of the suitors in the Court of Chan-
cery ought to be paid into the Treasury, and the salary
and other expenses of the Court ought to be an especial
vote of that House, founded on an estimate. The Suitors'
Fund was already made chargeable with the salaries of
the Masters in Chancery, and with other improper pay-
ments.

Mr. HUNT concurred with the Hon. Member for
Middlesex, that a salary of 12,0001. paid in gold (which
was equivalent to 15,0001. in paper) was quite sufficient
for any public officer; and that 4,0001. paid in gold
(which was equivalent to 5,0001. in paper) was retiring
pension enough for any body. He was sorry that he could
not give his Majesty's Government credit for showing any
disposition towards retrenchment. The Noble Lord said,
that in bringing in the Bankruptcy Bill the Lord Chan-
cellor had given up 6,000/. a year. But it should be re-
collected that he had also relinquished the duties for which
that sum had been the payment. And then what pa-
tronage he had obtained and could distribute among his
friends ! Ile did not attribute to the Lord Chancellor
that he was selfi,,h, or that he did what other men would
not do ; hut he regretted that Government, having the
power of retrenchment in their hands, had not exercised it.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL observed, that it was
true that in relinquishing the fees of the jurisdiction in
bankruptcy, his Noble and Learned Friend had also relin-
quished the duties of the office; but still there was not the
least portion of his time unemployed ; and no man could
do more. His Noble and Learned Friend had relinquished
7,0001. or 8,0001. a-year, without making the slightest
bargain or provision. It was true that he had obtained
the appointment of four Judges and six Commissioners,
but was that to be compared to the appointment of
seventy Commissioners—offices distributed among per-
sons of family and interest—which he had relin-
quished ? The patronage arising from the appoint-
ment of the four Judges and six Commissioners was
infinitely less than the patronage arising from the appoint-
ment of seventy Commissioners ; although the former did
the business infinitely better than the latter. The Hon.
Member for Preston, when he charged his Ma-
jesty's present Government with not having evinced
any spirit of retrenchment, seemed to forget that they had
reduced 2,100,0001. of the public expenditure. The
fund on whirls it was proposed to charge the Lord Chan-
cellor's salary, consisted of large accumulations in the
hands of the Accountant-General. No suitor could possi-
bly lose any thing by the arrangement. His Noble Friend
near him had fallen into one little mistake. The Chief
Justice of the Court of King's Bench had no such sine-
cure now in his gift, as his Noble Friend supposed. For-
had
this means, to one Lord Chief Justice the chance of bmeeernly
felt
tiereto wasionneexpoetfneenntoia•mndous value,un
unjust
tto buletaviet,by
be-
coming enormously rich, while his successor was stripped
salary
of
headt
ch
the Lord Chief Justice of the Court of King's Bench now
had, therefore,
Leewnasrdubfustritlulistedse.rviTceisie;oannlyd apifixceesd
Nvhi
had in his gift, were those of Marshal and Associate.
When it was considered that his Noble and Learned
Friend the present Lord Chancellor had left a business at
the bar much larger than the average of that which was
relinquished by Lord Chancellors, he thought it would
appear to the House that the proposed salary was exceed-
ingly moderate.
Lord W. BENTINCK did not believe that the people
of this country wished to see the salaries attached to high
and official offices reduced. What they wanted was to see
useless places and sinecures abolished. He would sup-
port the proposition for giving
the Lord Chancellor a sa-
lary of 14,000/.
In answer to a question from Mr. H. GURNEY,
The ATTORNEY- GENERAL stated that what was
called the dead fund, being the accumulated interest already
realized, was that on which it was proposed to charge the

salary; leaving the principle and interest of the Suitor]
Fund untouched for the suitor.
Mr. MILKS agreed with the Hon. Member for Mid,
.
dlesex, that the salary ought to be charged upon the CS"
solidated Fund, rather than upon the Suitors' Fund.
Mr. SHEIL said that he had no objection to the l'!;
rangements proposed with respect to the present lAn
Chancellor. He had made great sacrifices; but he (A3,r'
Sheil) wished to know from the Noble Lord opposite (t°
Chancellor of the Exchequer) whether these arrangemeo,
were to extend to future Lord Chancellors. He object'
strongly to having any payment made from the Suitor
Fund.

Lord ALTHORP said the payment was only from
interest of the Suitors' Fund; and contended that, con'
tiering the sacrifices made by the Lord Chancellor hint,'
and his successors, 14,0001. a year was by no means t°
great a salary. It was true that a Judge for the Lott'
Courts might be selected from gentlemen practising at tt
bar, who would not sacrifice large emoluments, but tY
never could be obtained with respect to a Lord Chancel!'
who would be necessarily selected from the first rank
the profession. In reply to the Hon. Gentleman, he b'
to state that the arrangements were not to be limited
the present Lord Chancellor.
Colonel SIBTHORPE remarked that the Ministry ler
very fond of talking of economy, but they had not to!'
done much in that way.
Leave was then given to bring in the Bill.
BRIBERY BILL.
Lord J. RUSSELL postponed the motion of which
had given notice for that day until to.morrow.

Afr. SHELL asked if the Noble Lord intended to pr
ceed with the Jury Bill this Session ?
Lord ALTHORP replied that it was his intention•
TITHES.
On the motion of Mr. STANLEY, the House Wfi
into Committee on this Bill.

Mr. STANLEY moved an amendment, the object
which was to exempt tenants-at•will from liability to Ce
position for Tithe, until Nov. 1833.
Mr. SHEIL observed, that the effect of the Bill Was

cast the odium, the unpopularity, and toil of collecting
tithes upon the landlords, and thus to relieve the clero
their expense ; it was, in fact, a transfer of all duties'
tithe proctor, from the clergyman to the landlord.

was not only objectionable in itself, but completely 0,!,.
P'
riance with the declared sentiments of the Right
Gentleman opposite. He confessed it did appear to b
most extraordinary that a measure of that nature sl3°,lf
be pressed forward at such a period of the session. t
Right Hon. Gentleman himself admitted that 11;9
could not come into operation till 1833 ; then whY
wait for the decision of a Reformed Parliament? '
Mr. STANLEY avowed that it was his intentiorig,
transfer the burden of collecting the tithes from the

man to the landlord, and he never had any other del
nor ever meant anything to the contrary. His object
to render the tithes part and parcel of the landlord's ft
and to save all parties an infinite amount of trouble',
was acknowledged that the abolition of tithes in 3 di
form, would at once increase the landlord's rent to ad;
tent equal to the amount of tithes abolished, and ace°
ingly the tenant could derive no advantage from the nb°
Mr. WALKER said, that the efi,ct of the Bill ;
be to remove the odium from the clergyman, and tbr°
on the landlord. In that opinion he fully agreed witb,
Hon. and Learned Member for Louth. He did not ti
that the landlord ought to be placed in that situation.
his opinion the Bill gave the clergy more than they
reasonably expect, and it destroyed the vested rights d
landlord. This was most objectionable.
Air. CALLAGHAN was convinced that the sentill;
expressed by the Hon. Member for Wexford were tho'

tertained by the majority of the landed gentry of IrelA
Mr. HUNT thought that if by this Bill Landol')
were obliged to pay tithes in all cases whatever, and
not at liberty, like English landowners, to exempt P.
their lands from tithes, by laying them down as past),
was one of the greatest acts of injustice he had ever
to be inflicted by an Act of Parliament.
The amendment was agreed to.
While the discussion about the clause respecting the
pointrnent of a Receiver was going on,
Mr. HUNT said he rose to order. He was tir'i
these Irish tithes, and wanted to go home to bed
laugh.) He had gone to the door, but he found it P,
He was locked in. He was no longer a free oge°
(Loud laughter, in the midst of which the door was or,,
. _ _ _

and the Honourable Member was informed be

liberty. We believe that the Honourable Member'
his bow and departed.)
Mr. MOORE O'FERRAL said he protested,
strongly against this Bill. He complained that o°o,
tivcs were misrepresented out of doors--that the 0,,f,
ance of 'Members within was very thin, and that Pi
who were present, and who were voting away th,ee
petty of Irish Gentlemen, did not understand t''l,l
they were supporting. He declared that nothingto
power he could not resist should make him submit
Bill.

Mr. LEADER also complained that the GOO'
appeared determined, at all events, to carry di°
which, he assured them, had created the greatest p°
excitement in Ireland.

Mr. RUTHVEN said he should take all the
possible of opposing the Bill, and should, therefore,
the House on the passing of the clause.
The Committee then divided, when there appearej
For the Clause 45
Against it
Majority
yof the Bill were agreed reeT
House remsuamineding clauses,
and the report was ordered to be re
to-morrow.
LORD CHANCELLOR'S SALARY BILL
Lord ALTHORP brought in a Bill for 0,
salary of the Lord Chancellor, which was ready
time, and ordered to be read a second time to 1114,
THE SPEAKER'S RETIRING PENSION Y
Mr. RICE brought in a Bill to fix the retiring
of the Speaker, which was read a first time, and
to be read a second time on Saturday next.
The House adjourned at Two o'clock.

LIST OF THE MINORITtitii
OF TWELVE, WHO VOTED LAST NIGHT "1.,n),!i
PETITION AGREED TO AT BALLYGRAMnsk
SEVENTEEN PARISHES, AGAINST THE ,01/
TITHE SYSTEM, SHOULD LIE ON THE vs
Bulwer, E. E. L. Leader, N. P. INVilks,
Callaghan, 1). O'Ferrall, R. M.
Evans, De Lacy Parnell, Sir H.
Hunt, H. Shell, R. L,
Jephson, C. D. O.

09'
TEL•q,
Bulwer, rl'epo
Hume, J°'-

FORGERY ON COUTTS'S BAOI,/,
ATTEMPT AT SELF-DESTRuCTI°

Yesterday afternoon, between four and five °:s'd
young man, apparently about 20 years of age, are"
very fashionable style, entered the Bank of Meesfg'oi
and Co., in the Strand, and presented to °"-ve
cashiers a cheque for 2001., purporting to 1154,0')
drawn by Mr.J.T. Paxton, a wine-merchant in crlti
payable at Messrs. Coutt's on presentation. The
on looking at the cheque, observed somethir4oo
writing that excited his suspicion, and he handea4ol,
Edmund Antrobus, one of the partners in the P..tee
his inspection. The young man who bad preseP4
cheque was asked to take a seat, and though he 00,
that the document was handed from one clerk to
for examination, he did not betray the least alarwms
had, as the sequel will show, predetermined, t 0
ro'
detection, to put a period to his existence, havinglj
himself with a phial containing poison. Sir 00J
Antrobus having examined the cheque, and obtit
Thomas, the Super:tnt
opinion of some of the clerks that it was a forger' be
round to the young man to ask him from whc°le
ssAttiraet
man was in the act of drinking the contents,..°4ie /;/
7 when he observed that tbf
d knocked the bottle out or '10(14
twined
hand,
d obEcuudtmmnueennat
swallowed. Medical assistance • d' telf 1'
was imme la (iv 0 (
dheenNtv whole epoofl cicc aonndt et:le
fe001.,01;
and the young man was given into the cust°,:a °de'
with
eint,n-shu station-house
surgeons,
ni Caottveenndte. ad
tridiee ny,ocuhnagrgme da
r. Jones, of the Strand, and Mr. Beumanr
the station..house, and with much difficulty it,t 1]„;
to swallow an antidote. They ascertained
ed
taken nearly an ounce of laudanum, and be heg4oller
more poison might be given him, as he wouldole,
than he taken to Newgate and exposed to sh%, 110?
frequent!), exclaimed, " Oh, my poor Inetil-oiei
dear sisters !" A very powerful emetic was 3,, atomo
to him, which soon ejected the poison from b' Or e
On his person were found letters and his addres' reol
which was engraved " Mr. John Levier], 1 :vas i°l
place, Walworth." It was ascertained that he cititt
employ of a Mr. Watts, a stock-broker in thecont/
that he was about to go abroad. From the
,er eooone of the letters, addressed jointly to his nOt"ttict!,
tees, it was clear that he contemplated self-ries obts,Po
case of his not been successful in his attemPt rd ir],tl
amount of the cheque. The letter was conchs
tee!,
of the utmost affection, and stated that on t"
it, "he should be no more." Mr. Thon3o
parents at Walworsh, last night, and ascertaineut eirttbe;)
were highly respectable, though not in affklesPistlieol.
stances. The young man was visited by bi fles"ljel
night, and the scene was very distressing. .60_,
sufficiently recovered from the effects of the poi
an easminatiors at Bow-street Office this Jai'

LONDON,
FRIDAY EVENING, AUGUST 3, 1832.

By the Bill which he brought in last night
into the House of Lords, for curtailing and con-
trolling his own patronage, Lord BROUGHAM
has effectually answered the sneers and the
taunts and the invectives of his enemies. Hi-
therto Chancellors have contented themselves
with talking of improvements in the Chancery
system Lord BROUGHAM dismisses talk for
action, and at once puts his shoulder to the
wheel. It is not his least praise, that he is,
without any exception, the most disinterested,
the most self-denying Chancellor that ever lent
splendour to the Woolsack. How astonished
the Tories must be to find so much public inte-
grity—such an utter disregard of all selfish and
pecuniary motives in such an office

The affairs of Germany were last night the
Subject of an animated discussion in the House
of Commons. Mr. E. BULWER brought for-
ward the question in a speech of singular ability,
in which he furnished a succinct analysis of the
rights of the Germans under the old Empire,
and commented, in a keen and searching spirit,
on the Federal Act agreed to at Vienna, which
had for its basis the perpetuation, within reason-
able limits, of the independence of the people.
Lord PALMERSTON replied, but in that see-
saw, neither-this-nor-that style, which implies
just as much or just as little as the hearer may
choose to accept. His Lordship was half an
advocate for the despots, with this drawback, that
he was also half an advocate against them. He
hinted that we had no right to interfere
with them, but then, be it remembered to his
honour, he pretty openly accused them of indis-
cretion. He observed, that we knew nothing of
Germany but through her Governments ; but
then he promised to keep a sharp look out on
them. In short, his Lordship balanced his opi-
nions, as grim old JOHNSON used to balance his
periods. He was all openness one clause, all
equivocation the next. Up one sentence,
down another. We defy the most expert lo-
gician to deduce any one positive inference from
his Lordship's speech. But, possibly, he meant
nothing ; if so, he has completely answered his
end. Mr. BULWER made out a strong case—
an unanswerable case. How does Lord PAL-
MERSTON reply ? By a shrug and a wink, and one
of those mysterious nods of the head, by which Lord
Burleigli, in the Critic, implies that he means
more than he says, and that extraordinary ideas
are fermenting in his official skull, of which the
vulgar byestanders can know nothing. We refer
our readers to the Chronicle's able analysis of
his Lordship's speech, which we cannot define
better, than by saying, that it is the best illustra-
tion we know of, of Earl MULGRAVE'S novel
of Yes and No."

It will be seen by our Law Report that the
Court of Review this day closed the whole of
its petition business. It will be noted also, that
the impression which has for some time existed,
of the intention of the Judges to adjourn for
several months, without leaving one of their num-
ber in town to deal with any pressing business
that may arise, is totally without foundation. It
is well known to all practitioners in bank-
ruptcy, that if the Judges were to sit
during the long vacation, there would not pro-
bably be a dozen petitions for them to dispose
of, even supposing that a bar could be formed to
argue them.

At this, the close of its first juridical year, it
affords us great satisfaction to say, that all antici-
pations of good formed from the establishment
of this Court by its great founder, appear likely
to be realized. Not only has the usual
bankruptcy business been disposed of with a de-
gree of care and deliberation which could not
before be bestowed upon it—not only have ar-
rears been cleared off, and causes of extreme length
and complexity, which have been pending for
years, adjudicated upon—but some two or three

score of petitions have been presented, which,

under the old system, would never have been
heard of. There may be some who will call
this an increase of litigation, and an evil ; but
the suitors know that justice was before virtu-
ally denied to them—that its dearness—that the
delay which unavoidably occurred before it was
hurriedly, and, consequently, unsatisfactorily,
meted out to them, rendered it more advisable to
put up with an injury, than inflict upon them-
selves a still greater injury in the attempt to
obtain redress. This is common place, but it
is common-place truth, and may well stand as an
answer to common-place falsehood.

The Dutch Papers received this day con-
tain several accounts of reviews, which possess
no public interest.
THE HAGUE, JULY 3l.—The Consul of France at
Rotterdam has announced to the merchants, that in
consequence of a resolution of his Excellency the Minister
for Foreign Affairs, dated the Hague, the 30h inst., the
quarantine for ships arriving in the Maese, from France,
is abolished.