The Sun.
London, England, 1832-03-17 00:00:00

PLURALITIES BILL.

Lord SUFFIELD stated that he had several im-
portant amendments to propose to this Bill, and he
wished to know whether it would be against the
rules of the House, that those amendments should be
printed and laid on the table, previous to their Lordships
going into Committee on the Bill?
Earl GREY stated that such practice was against all
precedeot.—the usual course being, when the House went
into Committee on the Bill, for Noble Lords who had
amendments to bring forward, then to propose them, and
to ask that the Committee ought to stand over till those
amendments were printed.

Lord ELDON concurred entirely with what had fallen
from the Noble Earl.

The calls for the Duke of Wellington resounded at this
time from all parts of the House. The Noble Duke rose,
but gave way to
Lord SUFFIELD, who wished to know whether
the Archbishop of Canterbury had any objection to the
Bill going into the Committee pro forma, for the purpose
of his moving the amendments, and then that it should
adjourn till they were printed ?
The Archbishop of CANTERBURY complained of the
Noble Baron having taken him by surprise, as he had not
heard one syllable of the Noble Lord's intention to
say a word upon this Bill till he came into the
House that evening. The Committee upon this Bill had
been delayed from time to time—the Session was now get-
ing on, but at the same time there was no desire on his
part to refuse any reasonable request.
The Bishop of LONDON could not consent to be
party to the Noble Baron's proposition. All that he could
consent to was the postponement of the Committee, pro-
vided the amendments of the Noble Baron were worthy of
consideration.

Lord SUFFIELD then stated that he would give notice,
that on Monday next he should move for leave to bring in
a Bill, the object of which would be precisely the same
which the present Bill professed to have in ♦iew.
REMEDY AGAINST THE HUNDRED BILL.
The Duke of RICHMOND moved the second reading
of the Remedy against the Hundred Bill.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH thought it expedient that the
Bill should extend the Remedy to cases of destruction of
thrashing machines, which at present it did not do.
There was no reason why agricultural machinery should
not be protected as well as manufacturing machinery. He
supposed that the leaving thrashing machines out of Sir
Robert Peel's Bill on the subject was a mere oversight.
The Duke of RICHMOND said, that this was merely
a Consolidation Bill, and that whether it was by an over-
sight or not that thrashing machines were left out of the
former Bill, it was not intended at present to make any
alteration.

Lord MELBOURNE was of opinion that it was not by
oversight that thrashing machines were left out of the
former Bill, but that it was done advisedly, and it was net
intended at present to make any alteration in that respect.
The Earl of WICKLOW thought, as the Noble Lord
and Noble Duke appeared to be at variance on the subject,
and to know nothing about the Bill, the second reading
ought to be postponed.
The Duke of RICHMOND knew a great deal about
the Bill, but did not think that any alteration ought to be
made at present.
The Marquis of LONDONDERRY thought it ex-
tremely hard that when the windows of his house were
demolished, be bad no remedy against the Hundred. He
submitted that the case of the demolition of windows by
mobs was one for which redress ought to be afforded to
the injured party against the Hundred.
The Duke of WELLINGTON observed, that this de-
molishing of windows was a case in which the middle
classes were particularly concerned. As for himself and
some others, if their windows were demolished, they could
afford to pay for replacing them. But then tradesmen
and shopkeepers were peculiarly liable to have their win-
dows demolished by mobs, and as the window-tax often
fell heavily on them, it was hard that when their win-
dows were demolished, they should be left without a
remedy. He thought that agricultural machines ought to
be protected.
Lord MELBOURNE still thought that the distinction
between thrashing-machines and ethers had been delibe-
rately and advisedly made. At present it was not intended
to make any alteration in the law, either in that or any
other respect. Tire objoct of the present Bill was merely
to consolidate other Acts. He doubted the expediency of

prudence of extending too much the remedy against the
hundred.
-

Lord ELLENBOROUGH persisted that the protection
ought to be extended to thrashing-machines, and gave no-
tice of proposing an amendment to that effect in the Com-

mittee.

Lord MELBOURNE still thought the remedy against
the hundred did not generally operate as a protection to
property, but as a fine for the loss upon those who had no
opportunity to protect the property.
The Bill was read a second time.
BELGIUM.

The Duke of WELLINGTON then rose to bring
forward his promised motion relative to the affairs
of Belgium. The House would recollect that when
he gave notice of his intention so to do, he bad stated
that his object was to bring before the consideration of
their Lordships a speech delivered by M. Perier. If
that speech to which he referred had merely ap-
peared in the newspapers of the day, he should
not have thought it necessary to call the attention of
their Lordships to it ; but as that speech had been
circulated by authority, and as it contained a review
of a vast number of transactions, and also took, what he
certainly considfred, a very erroneous view of them,
tranaatetions wkh veliialtirtrajesty's Governinini were
concerned, he thought it was his duty, for the sake of
his Majesty's honour, and for the honour of the coun-
try that he should bring the subject forward, in
order to request of their Lordships to look into the
documents, in order to see whether his Majesty's Govern-
ment did or did not concur in the statements that bad gone
forth. For that purpose he should begin with drawing the
attention of their Lordships to the particular passages in
M. Perier's speech, which he wished particularly to notice,
namely, those with reference to the foreign policy of France.
He would begin by calling their Lordships' attention to
some passages of the speech on which he meant to com-
ment ; and the first was as follows :

" The Revolution of Belgium broke out at the close of Sep-
tember, 1830: but such was, at that moment, the general
conviction of all persons as to the advantages of maintaining
peace, and consequently the respect due to treaties, that no
one at first thought of seizing that revolution as an advanced
position against the European system, nor of making use of it
as an arm, menacing alike peace and the treaties on which it
is based.

Perhaps the French Government could then discover
some embarrassment. But the rapid march of events, and
the sympathies suddenly awakened in favour of Belgium, the
considerations of neighbourhood, and the interests of frontiers,
decided the Government of the King to support the Belgian
Revolution, always by laying aside previously all ideas of am-
bition, and consequently avoiding all grounds of collision with
the other Powers. This was the means of rendering this
protection efficacious to Belgium ; it was an opportunity of
explaining fairly to Europe the true spirit of the Revolution
of July in its exterior relations. France of July was about to
establish her diplomacy; upon this first step depended the
nature of her relations with the other Governments and
people; in this was comprehended her futurity of peace or war.
Well, then, gentlemen, the conduct of Government at that
epoch, in affording a pacific, but efficacious support to the Bel-
gians, was approved of by the country, salutary for Belgium,
and decisive for the system of peace. Let us not lose sight of
this point of departure, since the policy of Government has
had a continual reference to it, and because it could not at
the present moment be consistently reproached for its fidelity

to principles which had been unanimously recognised. Such
was the well-understood interest of the Revolution of July, in
its material as well as its moral relations—for if a war party
had existed at that time, which, regardless of the horror of a
revolution, whose moderation was its force, should have called
for invasion and conquest, what could it have required, what
would it have been able to accomplish in the then military
situation of France after the dissolution of the Royal Guard,
the dismissal of the Swiss, the division of our force in Algiers
and in Greece, and, lastly, the desertion organised by the
spirit of party, and the employment of extraordinary troops in
the west and south P The most declared advocates of war
would then have been compelled to acknowledge (all other
considerations out of the question) that the state of the army
rendered this line of conduct absolutely necessary, even though
a more enlightened policy had not pointed out the prudence
of it. But as it was, the Government did not _hesitate to-del-
dare that It would regard as an act of hostility against itself
the entry of foreign troops into Belgium.
The promptitude of this declaration, and the firmness with
which the established principle was defended, have been, I
affirm with ut hesitation, the salvation of Belgium, and the
foundation of her independence."

Every man who had read that passage, or indeed any
part of the speech of the French Minister, must be aware,
that although it might in some respects deserve the ap-
plause bestowed upon it by the Noble Earl on a former
night, yet that the intention of it was to encourage the
morbid desire now existing in France, and which had
always existed there during the last forty years, to ac-
complish aggrandisement by arms. What related to Ancona
in that speech sufficiently showed its design.—(Hear.) He
would also direct the notice of the Noble Earl to ani,ther
part of the speech of the French Minister, which adverted
So the intimate alliance and union between this country
and France, there called " a measure of efficaciousness."
He feared that it would be " a measure of efficaciousness"

in forwarding the views of France.—(Cheers.) He
heartily rejoiced at the cordial good understanding between
the two countries—he admitted it to be a measure of ne-
cessity, second only to the greater necessity of maintaining
the honour and interests of Great Britain. The Noble
Earl would find, however, that she could not be united to
France alone ; but that if the peace of Europe were to be
maintained, she must also be in union with the other great
Powers of Europe.—( Hear.) The affair of Ancona Was
a trifling warning of what might occur hereafter—of events
tending both to the dishonour and disadvantage of Great
Britain. When he spoke of the morbid desire of aggran-
disement in France, he begged it to be understoed that no
man was more sensible of the benefit of peace than he
was ; but while anxiously endeavouring to secure that be-
nefit, the utmost care ought to be taken that no sacrifice
were made on the part of this country either of character
or advantage.—(Hear, hear.) The transactions to which
the speech of the French Minister referred, commenced in
July, 1830. After the Revolution of Paris, the King of
the French, Louis Philip, was recognised as Sovereign, and
be was admitted a party to all treaties and alliances. That
very admission placed him under certain obligations, and
one of the most important of those was, the engage-
ment with the House of Orange. If, on the other
hand, the King of the French encouraged the revolu-
tion in Belgium, he broke a solemn treaty, not only
with his country, but with the King of the Nether-
lands. But the fact was directly otherwise. If the Noble
Earl would grant the papers, with a motion for which
he (the Duke of Wellington) should conclude, it would
appear, that from the moment at which the Revolution in
Belgium broke out, to the latest hour the last Government
was in office, the French Government never did promote
or encourage the revolution in Belgium. On three dif-
ferent occasions the French Minister had voluntarily de-
clared that measures had been taken by his Government
to prevent any assistance being given to the rebellious Bel-
gians, and no patty in France had even contemplated the
fitness of affording assistance. Up to the very last me-
r meta that he (the Duke of Wellington) was in office, the
French Government was anxious to a degree, in sonic
manner or other, to re-establish the House of Orange in
Belgium. Even in the January after tke dissolution of the
last Cabinet, a letter from the Prince of Orange showed
that an attempt had been made by the French Government
to maintain the authority of the House of Orange. He
(the Duke of Wellington) hoped, therefore, that the Mi-
nister who made the speech from which he had quoted
had done so without knowledge of the real facts and cir-
cumstances of the case. The British Ministry had kept
nothing concealed from France—they communicated all
intelligence regarding the designs of the House of Orange,
and of the intention of the King of the Netherlands to
apply for aid to the Allied Powers ; and they were fully

convinced of the sincerity of the French Cabinet, for the
Ambassador in London had expressed his fear that his
Court would not be able to maintain peace if there were
any armed interference by other nations in the affairs of
Belgium. Another circumstance evinced the feeling of
France throughout the transaction ; her Minister had ad-
mitted at once that Luxembourg stood on a different
fuoting, inasmuch as it was part of the German Confedera-
tion ; and while be objected to the 'ending of troops into
Belgium, he had not resisted the dispatch of an expedition
to Luxembourg should it be deemed necessary. It was
known that the restoration of the House of Orange by a
wintery force was impracticable, after the Dutch troops
had been driven front Brussels. With these facts before
it, he (the Duke of W.) thought that this was a case into
which Parlisment should inquire by the production of pa-
pers; and as a precedent for his motion, he begged to re-
fer the Noble Earl to a preeeeding of the same kind, in
which he (Earl Grey) had been concerned, when he had
procured the production of a document to set right the
conduct of this country in relation to a passage in the