The Sun.
London, England, 1844-01-25 00:00:00

II all MEI?SMITH.

Yesterday Mr. Samuel Smith, the late proprietor of the
King's Arms Tavern, at Fulham, applied to Mr. Paynter, the
sitting Alagistrate, for his advice and assistance under the fol-
lowing circumstances :
_ .

Mr:. Smith said he had no doubt it would be fresh in the re-
collection of the Magistrate that, about a fortnight ago, a per-
son named Samuel Millett, who is now a prisoner in Newgate,
was committed from that Court for trial on a charge of having
been guilty of adultery with his (Mr. Smith's) wife, and after-
wards eloped with her to the city of Dublin, carrying off with
them property belonging to him (applicant), consisting of goods
and money, to the value of nearly 2001. When the prisoner
was apprehended at Dublin with his (complainant's) wife, pre-
vious to his being brought to London, Mrs. Smith (com-
plainant's wife) it had been ascertained, had handed over 701. in
Bank of England notes to a female named Swan, for the pur-
pose of their being delivered over to a person named Greaves,
the sister of the tprisoner Alillett, which was done, but on Mrs.
Greaves being subsequently applied to for the restoration of the
notes, she denied all knowledge of them, and subsequently said
she had burned them.

Mr Smith then handed in a letter he had just received from
Superintendent James O'Connor, of the Dublin police, which
stated that he had caused Mrs. Swan to be examined on oath
before the sitting Magistrate at Henry-street police-office, as
to her knowledge of the notes, when she denied all knowledge
of the transaction; but on her being confronted with Mrs.
Greases, the latter acknowledged that she had received the
notes from Mrs. Swan, but declared she had burned them for
the purpose of preventing any inquiry into the matter. He
(applicant), under the above circumstances, applied for a war-
rant for the apprehension of Mrs. Swan and Mrs. Greaves on
a charge of felony, in order that they might be brought to this
country for examination.
Mr. PAYNTER said he did not see how he had the power to
interfere, as, if any offence had been committed, it had been
in Ireland, and not in this country, where only he had jurisdic-
tion. He thought Mr. Smith's best plan would be to go over
as speedily as possible to Dublin, and there give the parties in
question into custody, when the case could be fully gone into,
the offence, if any, having been committed in that country.
He did not see that Mr. Smith would obtain any benefit by
the parties being brought to Lond,)n to answer the charge,
when it would be necessary to fetch evidence over from Dublin
to prove the case, while, if it was heard in Dublin, Mr. Smith
would be the only witness required from England.

The applicant thanked the Magistrate for his advice, and
expressed his intention of following it by immediately proceed-
ing to Dublin.

FRANCE.

CHAMBER OF DEPUTIES.—SITTING 07 JAN. 22.
The President took the chair at a quarter past one, but no
business was transacted until two.
All the public tribunals were crowded.
M. Cremieux laid on the table the following amendment in
the last paragraph of the address : —After the words—" Yes,
Sire, your family is truly national; between France and you
the alliance is indissoluble, your oath and ours have cemented
that union ;" this amendment proposes to substitute the follow-
ing, for the expressions employed by the committee:--" That
work of national greatness and sovereignty—our revolution of
July—disdains impotent manifestations. In Fleeing your
dynasty on this constitutional throne, it placed your rights
on the imperishable guarantee •f the independence and the
wealth of the French people. By punishing tke violation
of sworn faith, it consecrates for ever in France the sanctity
of oaths:" - 4

The following amendment on the same paragraph was pre-
viously presented by M. de Lasteyrie :—ln place of the
words—" The public conscience brands with reprobation guilty
manifestations," to substitute the words, " Public reason has
done justice to rash projects and vain demonstrations."
The order of the day was the adjourned discussion on the ad-
dress (fourth paragraph, referring to the foreign policy of the
Government).
M. Thiers ascended the tribune. He commenced by saying
that some of his remarks on the address in the bureau had net
been properly interpreted, and he should therefore then explain
what he really meant. This he could do while discussing the
part et the address at present under discussion. He should
commence by inquiring what results had been obtained by the
Ministry to be an equivalent for the sacrifices they had made,
and in doing so he should carefully avoid everything likely to
produce a personal discussion between the Minister of Foreign
Affairs and himself. What had particularly produced the alli-
ance between England and France was a certain sympathy of
principles that urged them to unite, though frequently torn by
opposite interests. He instanced the cases of Belgium, which
both France and England were unwilling to allow to return
to Holland. Poland, which England and France both
agreed should be held as a nation whose existence was
guaranteed by treaties. He also referred to their opinions
on Italy, as connected with Austria, and their support
of the revolution in Portugal and Spain, as proof of the
same influence drawing the two nations together. From 1830
to 1836 the good feeling between the two countries had gra-
dually increased, but from the latter period it had begun to
decline. He then referred to the state of the alliance between
the two countries in 1836, particularly with respect to the
Spanish revolution, and (lodated that that country had been
abandoned by France, and her affairs had been laid hold of by
England. From that period he dated the commencement of
the coolness, which had gradually increased until 1840, the
French cabinet having from 15.36 to that year received check
upon cheek, until he had himself arrived at office. The Hon.
Member then drew a sketch of the steps his cabinet had taken
to repair the errors of his predecessors, and bring back the
alliance between France and England to a more healthy con-
dition. He declared that, notwithstanding M. Guizot's pre-
sent great desire to adhere to the English alliance, he
had declared when he (M. Thiers) held office, that such
an alliance was most dangerous, for if England and
France joined together, the rest of Europe—Austria,
Prussia, and Russia—would be against them. He denied,
altogether, that this alliance presented the same guarantees of
peace at the present time, as when the two nations were allied
before 1836. Previously to that period there appeared to be
no doubt in Europe that the two kingdoms were really well
united, but since then it had been evident that they could fall
out about matters when important or the contrary. Peace, it
was true, was certain to be preserved, not because of the al-
liance, but independently of it Europe was tired of war, and had
become prudent in consequence. Russia, which might be feared
more than other Powers, could do nothing to break the peace,
on account of Poland. He, therefore, inferred that the eilliance
of the two kingdoms was not necessary to preserve peace, as M.
Guizot had declared. He allowed that the alliance was useful
to a certain point, but what he wanted to impresson the Cham-
ber was, that it was of far less efficacy now than before 1836, an(
that it was not of that importance insisted en by the Ca-
binet. He doubted if a grave question, such as that of
Italy, or Switzerland, or Constantinople, should arise, that the
alliance would be found of any material advantage. For his
part, too, he must declare that he looked on the Whigs as far
better to have to deal with than the Tories in grave matters.
The latter were very agreeable for mere personal intercourse,
but he should prefer the Whigs in any really important
questions that might present themselves, as they had far more
real sympathy with France.—( Hear, hear.) The Honourable
Gentleman then referred to Spain, and declared that the
declaration of the Government, that France and England
had ovine to an understanding relative to Queen
Isabella's marriage appeared to him but indifferently
borne out; for the agreement amounted to nothing
further than this, that certain princes of the reigning family in
France were to be excluded from pretending to the young
Queen's hand; thereby yielding all that England required,
and getting nothing in return. As to the commercial interests of
France with Spain, as long as the Government of the latter
country should allow English produce to enter, as if a treaty
had been passed between Spain and England, the alliance of
England and France would remain firm and constant; for
England had all she could possibly demand or hope for. Was
this state of things to be changed? He should not like to de-
clare that their " cordial understanding " would still continue
to exist. As to the East, the influence of France had been
formerly exclusive amongst the Christian populations; yet
now, by their alliance with England, they had lost that influ-
ence in part, the very first principle of the union of the two
countries being to act together, and of course, each having the
right to exercise the same share of influence. They, there-
fore lost, rather than anything else, by this course, as far as
the East was concerned. lie then referred to Greece, and
maintained that the intimate union with England did not exist
on this point, inasmuch as England had urged on the
people to revolution, whereas the French Cabinet had heard
of the event first in Paris, according to the acknowledgment
of the Minister of Foreign Affairs. He declared that the
Cabinet had gone against the feeling of the country in their

conduct respecting the right of search ; and when forced by
the w ill of the country, expressed by the Chamber, to promise
to enter into new negotiations on that question, the Minister
had reserved. to himself the choice of time for so doing ; yet,
after the lapse of a year, all that he could bring before the
Chamber in proof of his having kept his promise, was the
simple statement that the English Ministry had been per-
suaded to reconsider the matter. He doubted much that after
another 3ear the affair would be further advanced than it was
at present. The Hon. Gentleman then concluded with a bril-
liant peroration, in which he warned the Chamber of the
danger of placing too much confidence in the alliance between
England and France, and called on the Ministry to act towards
England with the greatest reserve. (The Hon. Gentleman was
loudly cheered at the conclusion of his speech, and the sitting
was suspended for a quarter of an hour. )
M. Gtfzot rose to reply. He rejoiced that he had not to
enter on any question of recrimination, but simply to speak of
matters important to the nation. He might follow the example
of the Hon. Gentleman who had just spoken of the state of
things in 1844, and refer to the condition of the country in
1840, when that Hon. Gentleman was in office ; but he should
refrain from doing so. As that Hon. Gentleman had blamed
what the present Cabinet had dine, why did he not produce his
own plan and lay it before the Chamber? The reason was that
he (M. Thiers) would have done the very same as the Cabinet,
but in a different manner. It was not, in fact, a question of
principle, properly so called, but one of tact, of manner, of
acing, of aavoir faire. So at least he (M. Guistat) under
stood the Honourable Gentleman's way of thinking. M.
Thiers did not at present appear to belong to any decided
opinion. He was at one time on the side of the Conservatives
on some questions, and again he sided with the Opposition. He
seemed to desire to float'betw een both, and erect a new system
of his own. But such uncertainty was most dangerous: it was
necessary to have decided views, for that was the only mode of
acting properly on any grave question or system of
policy. What the Government had arrived at was to exa-
mine, discuss, and prove the questions that might come be-
fore them from the force of circumstances; and when it had
seen what course was best, to adopt it. This he called a na-
tional policy, and this he thought the Hon. Gentleman was not
=lined to adopt or follow—yielding, as he did, to first irn-
wessions. The accusation against the Cabinet appeared to
*amount to this, that without cause, or sufficient reason, it had
re-established the English alliance, such as it had existed in
1836. But the Hon. Gentleman seemed to forget that this
alliance was established for purposes of common interest, and
specially named and decided on by both Cabinets. Neither
party could take advantage of the other; they were both treating
of matters known to both, and often notorious 'to the whole
world. He had never denied that his policy tended to this al-
liance, and he could not see why, when the intercourse that
took place was loyal, correct, and friendly, it ought to be given
up or modified. For, looking at the points of their policy which
the Honourable Gentleman had discussed, if he referred to
Spain—
A Voice—The right of search.

M. Guizot—Thai' he should refer to to-morrow in its pro-
per place. At present the discussion was on M. Billault's
amendment. The Honourable Gentlemen then alluded to
Spain, and enlarged on the explanations which he had given
in Saturday's sitting. He then briefly referred to the insult
at Jerusalem, and spoke of the reparation given to an Austrian
vessel in 1841 (alluded to in a former sitting). With regard
to the Servian question, which the Hon. Member (M. Thiers)
wished to magnify into great importance, two questions arose.
It was, first, a question between the Porte and Russia as to the
right of intervention claimed by the latter. This was a good
opportunity to bring back the affairs of the Porte into the
general policy of Europe. In order, however, to accomplish
this, the concurrence of the other Powers interested was ne-
cessary, and particularly that of Austria. Before, therefore,
taking any steps in the matter, we thought it necessary to as-
sure ourselves of the intentions of that Power, and we found
that she waa willing to let the matt& be settled between the
Porte and Russia. England would not interfere, and we bad
no interest to take upon ourselves alone the solution of the
question. With regard to the second phase of the question, we
advised the Porte to withdraw from Servia the Prince who had
caused the first difficulty, and to send away the two Ministers
who had co-operated with him. The Prince has been re-
elected by the national will, but the two Ministers have been '
removed ; we have, therefore, prevented a conflict between
the Porte and Russia—a conflict which would hive prevented
the Porte from gaining at least the moiety of what she has
obtained ; and I dare to say that these results have been of
equally great importance for public European rights. These
are the counsels we gave. If the Four Powers would have
interfered, I have no doubt the affair might have been settled
better for Europe, for the Porte, and for Servia, but we
could not act alone, and our course was confined to giving
useful counsels. I now ask, Gentlemen, what are become of
the reproaches of the Hon. M. Thiers ? In Servia the Powers
did not think the results to be obtained important enough to
require their concert. In Greece it was different, and the
accord has been maintained. In no place has there been any
alliance to cramp our liberty—our liberty is engaged to no-
thing; you are free, perfectly free, in your relations with
England as with all other nations. Coming in more frequent
contact with England, animated by the same sentiments, di-
rected by the same principles of government, we have profited
by those natural sympathies; we have renewed them without
making any sacrifice, and without any of those bonds which
were recently alluded to. We have been just now told that if
it was necessary to again handle the sword, there would be none
but feeble hands to wield it.

A Voice—M. Tkicrs said no such thing.
The Minister for Foreign Affairs—l certainly think I heard
the expression, and must say that there is no one who has
not the right to be offended at such language.—(Approba-
tion.) Let the Hon. Gentleman be certain that on the day
that it shall be necessary to have recourse to the sword every
hand will be prompt to grasp it.—( Renewed approbation.) But
thank God, there is no probability of such a necessity ; peace
reigns, and without any sacrifice of the interests of France.
Old animosities and old quarrels have fallen away. We see
before us only intentions, dispositions, and actions just, mea-
sured, and friendly. Seek where you please a symptom for
ill-will, yen will not find one—you will light on difficulties—
opposing interests, undoubtedly, but only for this reason, that it
is impossible that such should not be the case between two
great nations, so often brought into contact. But the good in-
telligence of nations does not come into existence and increase
of itself ; it must be attended to ; sentiments of justice and
kindness need nut be concealed, nor is it necessary for any one's
dignity to appear in ill-temper when no motive fsr being so
presents itself.—( Hear, hear.) Gentlemen, be certain that
the policy of the last three years has not lowered France in
the rank it occupied in the balance of power in Eurepe ;
but, on the contrary, has given it additional consideration.—
( Hear, hear.) It has been said, that the respective Am-
bassadors of France and Russia have been recalled.—(Laughter
on the Left.) This is inexact. It is necessary on such a
question to state events exactly ; the two Ambassadors have
obtained leave of absence.—(Renewed laughter on the Left.)
I speak here of a delicate matter, and only because I am freed
to it ; because if I left the matter unnoticed, I might be sup-
posed to acquiesce in the statement alluded to. I repeat, then,
that the French Ambassador at St. Petersburgh was on leave
of absence at Paris. Two or three months after his arrival
in Paris the Russian Ambassador returned to St. Petersburgh.
Disagreeable reports arose in consequence, and as we consi-
dered that in this there was something not in accordance
with the dignity of our relations, we thought it our duty so
to act as to testify what we felt. In consequence, the Am-
bassador of France did not return to St. Petersburgh. After.
wards a desire arose that the two Ambassadors should simul-
taneously return to their posts; but we thought that this double
return should not take place unless in a mariner to satisfy the
dignity of the country. I can assure the Chamber that at no
period has the dignity of France been more rigorously observed
with respect to Russia. Regular relations continue to exist,
but we wish the diplomatic intercourse to be equally honour-
able on both sides. This I have always insisted on since my
accession to power. I have the conviction that what I have
just said will be comprehended by every one, and not thrown
aw ay.—( Loud marks of approbation. )
Al. de Salvandi said, that as his name had been alluded to
in the course of the debate, he might be expected to make
some remarks in allusion to himself ; but as he considered the
subject of too great importance to allow personal matters to
be mixed up with it, he should defer the expression of his
sentiments on the foreign policy of the Government to another
opportunity, and should now move the adjournment to tie
next day.
A Voice—No, no • it is only half-past five o'clock.
M. Dupin said, that though the two Cabinets and the two
sovereigns were on excellent terms, distrust still existed be-
tween the twe nations. They were told that the national sen-
timent had need to be directed and influenced. Ile was not
so distrustful with respect to it, and he was, on the contrary,
contented to be influenced by it. He must tel: the Minister
that he did not altegether agree with the Cabinet on the right
of seareh. It was not merely a question of getting their right
to ne,.,s otiate recbgilised, but to get the treaty put en end to al-
together, for it offended the nation. He thought the Ministry
ought to exert themselves on this point; for if this cause of
difficulty were removed, would not the position of the two
nations be better, the great cause of distrust being put down ?
If the negotiations led to nothing, ought the Cabinet not to
regret having mode advances to a Government which, on its
side, did nothing in return? If paragraph 4 was so understood
as that it implied a reserve, meaning an intelligence not by
any means resembling an intimate alliance, be should vote for
it ; but if it meant to say that they approved of everything
said in the speech from the Crown, he should vote for M. Bil-
lault's amendment.

M. De St. Marc Girardin, the reporter, remarked that the
paragraph only referred to Greece and Spain, and the Com-
mittee thought they were suite justified in going so far.
M. Billault observed, that he did not think " cordial under-
standing" existed on those two points, and therefore he had
brought forward his amendment.
The Minister for Foreign Affairs—l coincide in the opinion
of the Hon. M. Dupin, that everything should be perfectly
clear for the Chamber and for the country. For more than
three years the present Cabinet has laboured to maintain the
peace which had been compromised, to re-establish the friendly
relations of France with Europe, and to re-establish a good
understanding between France and England ; for more than
three years the Cabinet has pursued these objects. It has just
told you in the speech from the throne, not only that all diffi-
culties have disappeared, but that good reciprocal feeling, cor-
dial understanding, subsists between the two Governments,
and it tells you so on two special questions. The Cabinet does
not suppress other difficulties—neither the right of search nor
others. When the Cabinet entered into the negotiation it did
BO frankly, sincerely, and with the desire to succeed in it. The
first condition of success is t• keep up the good understanding
that exists between the two countries, without which the nego-
tiations could not even be continued. It is at this moment
that you seek to remove this good understanding, and to weaken
the chances of success. Listen to what your committee says.
(The Hon. Minister here read the fourth paragraph of the ad-
dress, and continued) :—What is it you propose by your
amendment? There is nothing in the expressions made use of
by the committee which is not perfectly in tonfoi mity with the
interests and dignity of the Chamber. If you suppress the
expression, " We are happy to learn"—if you refuse to say
that you are happy to learn this good understanding—know,
Gentlemen, that the labour of the Cabinet will be destroyed,
and cannot be recovered.—(Agitation.)
M. Dupin said that the Minister of Foreign Affairs, in say-
ing that be agreed with him, imputed to him an opinion that
was not his. He admitted that a good understanding between
the Governments was the first condition of success; but as to
them, as to the people (noise and interruption), their senti-
ments should not yet be anticipated, nor that cordiality ex-
pressed which they did not yet feel. There were suspicions
justified by the past. The Government might express its senti-
ments without reserve, but the committee, expressing the idea
of the Chamber, should not go too far. Tney had been told
that the cordial understanding was specially on the affsirs of
Spain and Greece, but in the speech from the throne that dis-
tinction had not been made.

The President then read the amendment proposed by M.
Billault, which was put to the rote and rejected.
The Chamber then adjourned at a quarter to 6 o'clock.
TUESDAY.

At 2 o'clock M. Sauzet, the Precident, took the chair.

The Chairman resumed shortly afterwards the discussion on
the 4th paragraph of the address, to which ➢I. David proposed
the following amendment

" May the noble couatry which gave its blood and treasures
to constitute a free nation between Europe and Asia not be
deceived in her hopes. May your high wisdoms, Sire, and
the negotiations of your Ministers, procure for Greece an ex-
tension of territory necessary for the stability of the throne and
independence of the nation."
He showed the injustice of having only constituted one por-
tion of the Greek nation into an independent, state, whilst an-
other was left to groan under the most cruel liondage. He had

heard during several days very eloquent appeals against English
alliance ; he appreciated its inconveniences, but he would ask
if any other could be sebstituted for it with the same advan-
tages, under existing circumstances. France and England,
both marching at the head of civilization, should not divide in
so noble a cause, but closely unite to complete their work and
conselilate the triumph of the cross and liberty.
M. Gqizot, in reply, said that he honoured the sentiments
which had inspired the amendment of M. David, but he
would oppose its adoption, because it could not be acted upon
without a violation of the treaty which bad constituted the
Greek monarchy, and a new dismemberment of the Ottoman
empire. The great point for Greece was to organise and con•
solidate herself ; to flatter her with an illusion that diverted
her from that care might compromise and be fatal to her
ex.stence.

M. L'Herbette fully concurred in the opinion of M. Guizot,
and that the paragraph of the address was sufficient, and M.
David's amendment useless.
After a desultory conversation,
The President read the sth and following paragraph of the
address

" This good intelligence will, without doubt, contribute to
the success of the negotiations which, while they guarantee
the repression of an infamous traffic, ought to tend to again
place our commerce under the exclusive surveillance of our own
flag."
M. Billault proposed the following amendment to the para-
graph :
" This good intelligence, Sire, can only le complete and
durable when negotiations, conducted with perseverance, and
still having for their obj. ct the depression of that infamous
traffic, shall have replaced the French navy under the exclusive
surveillance of the rational gag.''
He reminded the House of the initiative it had taken on the
question of the right of search, and contended that it should
not suffer its decision to be considered a dead letter at the
other side of the Channel; the more so as Sir R. Peel had de-
clared in Parliament, that certain modifications might be con-
sented to, but that the principle could admit of no conceskion.
Ile conceived that NI. Guirot was not animated with the same
paternal feeling with regard to the abrogation of the con-
ventions of 1831 and 1833 as the Chamber; what the latter
required was the suppression in an absolute manner of the
right of search, and not a mere modification of that right.
The treaty of 1831, besides, 'was not susceptible of any
modification, for its first article stipulated that the right of
search should he exercised, and tie other articles contained
mere regulations respecting the exercise of that right. N.
Guirot had said that he would never consent to the violation of
those treaties ; his apprehension that the good understanding
between the two Governments would be impaired by their
abrogation, was Rot well founded. M. Billault thought, on
the contrary, that it was more likely that the good understand..
ing would suffer from their non-abrogation. He did not mean
that France should brutally break off with Great Bri'ain ; the
negotiations should be conducted with the egarda which two
great nations owed to each other ; but it was the right of
France to insist on the abrogation. The sentiments of the
country and the Chamber were unanimous on that point.
M. Gasparin said that the Chamber bad decided lest year
that the French trade should be 'replaced under the ex;
elusive surveillance of the national flag. That question
was now settled, but it remained to be seen by what means
the repression of the slave trade could be continued. All
were agreed as to the end, but he apprehended, should the
Chamber adopt any grave resolution, without calculating
its bearing, and devising a plan for attaining the desired
object, that it might Place the Government in a most critical
position. M. Gasparin was afraid that the renunciation of
France 'to the exercise of the right of search would be the
signal of the renewal of that infamous traffic, which, he main-
tained, was still carried on to a frightful extent, notwithstgrid-
ing the vigilance of English and French cruisers in most of
the colonies.

Baron Mackau, the Minister of Marine, here interrupted
the fpcaker, and said that an exception should De made in favour
of the French colonies.

M. Gasparin admitted that the trade had ceased altogether
in those colonies since 1830.

M. Gasparin then resumed, and after showing. that tits right
Of visitation was, after all, the only efficacious mode of repres-
sion, and that its inconveniences had been greatly exaggerated,
concluded by recommending the abolition of slavery in the
French colonies.

Baron Mackau here rose, and said that he was as anxious for
the abolition of slavery as M. Gasparin, and that he would be
happy to have it in his power to present such a measure to the
Chamber ; but he could not help observing, that the reasons
adduced by U. Gasparin would be better if placed in the naoch
of the British ntgotiator in London, than in that of a French
deputy.
Messrs. L' Herbette, Bignon, and Dupin, afterwards addrt saed
the House, which was left sitting.