The Sun. — 1844-05-22 (London, England)

FRENCH INTERFERENCE AT TUNIS. Lord BEAUMONT then rose, pursuant to notice, to move for copies of the correspondence which had taken place between her Majesty's Government and the British Consul at Tunis, on the subject of a trial of a Maltese subject for the crime of murder. His object in submitting this motion to their Lordships was to show that a most unwarrantable interference had been shown by the French at Tunis, and to show that by that interference the treaty which had been entered into between the Sublime Porte, this country, and the Dey of Tunis, had been violated. If such interference as that which had been shown by the French in this case was to be tolerated by this country, he felt that our trade along the Barbary coast would soon be at an end. He thought that this was a case which the Foreign-office ought to take up; and it was in the hope of producing this effect that he had brought forward this motion. Who were the persons who claimed in this manner the protection of the British flag—were they respectable British merchants ? Very few of them. Were they the descendants of British residents ? Very few of them. They were the very dross of the people—persons who perhaps had, on one or two occasions, acted as interpreters; or who had obtained their protection, and who made use of it to commit with impunity robberies and murders of the most atrocious character? He trusted the Noble Earl would devise some means of putting an end to such a disgraceful state of things. He was sorry to see from the Maltese papers that the inhabitants of Malta had taken up the cause of the guilty man, and had presented an address to the French Consul, praising him for his interference, and blaming Sir Thomas Reade for abandoning the murderer to justice. He could understand how the Maltese might have a fellow-feeling for a countryman, but they ought to have been actuated by a feeling of horror and disgust for the murderer. The Noble Lord concluded by moving that an humble address be presented to her Majesty for extracts from the correspondence between the Foreign office and Sir Thomas Reade, Consul at Tunis, respecting the trial of the Maltese Xulbet, and the interference of the French Consul-General Monsieur de Lagan. Lord ABERDEEN said that the difficulties connected with the jurisdiction of the Levant were very great indeed, and no man knew them better than the Noble Lord opposite. He (Lord Aberdeen) had himself introduced a Bill which had become the law of the land, and which he thought would apply a remedy which would remove those difficulties. He had no objection to lay the correspondence which the Noble Lord moved for on the table of the House. The case to which those papers referred was that of a cold-blooded murder, executed in broad day ; and the course which had been pursued by her Majesty's Government in this matter was consistent with existing treaties, and was under the sanction of the highest legal authority. With respect to the conduct of certain functionaries at Tunis in this proceeding, it did not in the slightest degree affect the decision and the conduct of the Government ; but he did not think it a proper subject of discussion in that House. It was more suited for the interference of Government, by whom due notice had been taken of the conduct to which the Noble Lord had referred ; but although the Government had no wish to protect crimes committed by British subjects, they were by no means indifferent to the rights of the Christians in the East ' • and he wished to take that opportunity of stating to their Lordships that Government had lately succeeded with the Porte in preventing the revival of an obsolete practice by. which Christians who had embraced Mohammedanism and returned to Christianity were Lord her ships, referred put to death. The papers connected with that transaction having been moved for in the House of Cm Majesty's and should the command,othbe er prepared ri d them whichono mthe otthna the Noble he now, by theireNoofble hrda opapers sredto immediately, and also laid on the table of the House. Lord WHARNCLIFFE inquired of Lord Campbell whether he thought it probable that his Noble and Learned Friend (Lord Cottenham) would postpone the Abolition of Imprisonment for Debts Bill? Lord CAMPBELL said he had no authority for saying that his Noble and Learned Friend would postpone it ; he thought it highly probable that he would not accede to any such proposal. Their Lordships then adjourned.  HOUSE OF COMMONS, May 21. The SPEAKER took the Chair at the usual hour.