declared that act of humanity could not be conceded. He declared that Lords Cathcart, Clancarty, and Stewart, as well as the Duke of Wellington, merited impeachment for having subscribed the declaration of the Congress against Buonaparte, which he pronounced inconsistent with the law of nations, and hostile to every principle of social order. He adverted to the state of Saxony, of Italy, of Genoa and, without opposing the address in whole, proposed as an amendment," that the Prince Regent should be implored to secure to the country the blessings of peace, so long as it could be maintained consistently with the honour of the country and the faith due to our allies."-The amendment was rejected by a majority of two hundred and twenty to thirty

seven votes.

The gentlemen of the opposition, notwithstanding what had been said by Lord Castlereagh in vindication of the conduct of government, were determined not to lose the advantage given them by the escape April 20. of Buonaparte, as affording grounds of criminating the ministers. The Hon. Mr Abercrombie brought forward a motion for enquiring into the precautions taken by ministers to prevent Buonaparte's departure from Elba. "The treaty of Fontainbleau," according to the learned and honourable member, "had neither proceeded from mistaken magnanimity on the part of the allies, nor was it the fruit of absolute necessity. Though the allied sovereigns possessed strength sufficient in the long-run to overpower Buonaparte, yet his resources were not yet exhausted, and they deemed it wiser to induce him to an early surrender by the grant of favourable terms, than to encounter the risk and the evils of a protracted contest. But the admitted fact that Buonaparte, at the lowest ebb of his

fortunes, possessed strength sufficient to extort such advantageous terms, ought to have begot a reasonable suspicion that he would adhere to it no longer than served his convenience. The spirit of the treaty comprehended not merely the point of abdication, but inferred that he should take no steps to resume the power which he had resigned." The speaker therefore contended, that there arose out of the treaty a right to watch Buonaparte with the most scrupulous jealousy. On the other hand, he insisted that the points of the treaty conceived in his favour should have been fully and faithfully executed, and no pretext should have been afforded to Buonaparte for infringing it on his side. The court of France ought to have been ashamed to resort to the technical objection, that his pension was not due until the year elapsed, an objection, by the way, which we cannot consider as wellfounded. Buonaparte's pension was of the nature of an alimentary allowance, and each term's payment ought to have been made in advance, since otherwise the person to whom such allowance is assigned might have difficulty in subsisting until the term of payment arrived. Mr Abercrombie saw no authority by which Buonaparte ought to have been deprived of the society of his wife and child. There had also been a non-performance of the stipulation which conferred on Maria Louisa and her son the duchies of Parma, Placentia, and Guastalla. He proceeded to mention a report, that a scheme had been in agitation at the Congress for removing Buonaparte from Elba, and placing him on Saint Helena or Saint Lucie. He concluded by stating, that he wholly disregarded the trash published by a person named Playfair, who pretended to have communicated to government Buonaparte's plan of es

cape, and even his cypher of correspondence, but believed, nevertheless, that government had received intelligence from various quarters, which ought to have excited their utmost vigilance."

The same line of reasoning was pursued and enforced by Mr Elliot, Mr Ponsonby, and Sir James Macintosh. The latter, in a very eloquent speech, gave a striking picture of the dangers incurred by Buonaparte's escape, and frankly admitted, that it instantly renewed the hostile relation betwixt that person and the sovereigns with whom he concluded the treaty of Fontainbleau. "Was it in the power," he said, "of eloquence to magnify the evil? Wars which had raged for 25 years throughout Europe; which had spread blood and desolation from Cadiz to Moscow, and from Naples to Copenhagen; which had wasted the means of human enjoyment, and destroyed the instruments of social improvement; which threatened to diffuse among the European nations the dissolute and ferocious habits of a predatory soldiery; at length, by one of those vicissitudes which bid defiance to the foresight of man, had been brought to a close, upon the whole happy beyond all reasonable expectation, with no violent shock to national independence, with some tolerable compromise between the opinions of the age and the reverence due to ancient institutions; with no too signal or mortifying triumph over the legitimate interests or avowable feelings of any numerous body of men, and above all, without those retaliations against nations or parties which beget new convulsions often as horrible as those which they close, and perpetuate revenge and hatred and blood from age to age. Europe seemed to breathe after her sufferings. In the midst of this fair prospect and of these conso

We had now to commence a new career of peril, at least as formidable as that from which we had fondly hoped that we had been for ever delivered.

"Some insinuations had been thrown out of differences of opinion on his side of the House, respecting the evils of this escape. He utterly denied them. All agreed in lamenting the occurrence which rendered the renewal of war so probable, not to say certain. All his friends with whose opinions he was acquainted, were of opinion, that, in the theory of public law, the assumption of power by Napoleon had given to the allies a just cause of war against France. It was perfectly obvious that the abdication of Napoleon, and his perpetual renunciation of the supreme authority, was a condition, and the most important condition, on which the allies had granted peace to France. The convention of Fontainbleau, and the treaty of Paris, were equally parts of the great compact which re-established friendship between France and Europe. In consideration of the safer and more inoffensive state of France when separated from her terrible leader, confederated Europe had granted moderate and favourable terms of peace. As soon as France had violated this important condition by again submitting to the authority of Napoleon, the allies were doubtless released from their part of the compact, and reentered into their belligerent rights.

"By the dissolution of the treaty of Paris, war was in right renewed. It depended upon the prudence of

the allies whether they should exercise their belligerent right, or seek security in negociation. Although it had been pleaded for Lord Castle reagh that he was not present when the treaty of Fontainbleau was concluded, Lords Aberdeen and Cathcart were in Paris at the time. Why were they (demanded Sir James) unprovided with instructions in such an emergency? or was this designed to exalt the noble secretary at the expence of his colleagues? He professed he could see no honourable explanation of it. He ridiculed the idea of not subjecting Buonaparte to a system of vigilance. The most serious question undoubtedly remained! Napoleon was an independent prince. It would be an insult to his dignity to watch his movements. It would be a violation of his independence to restrain them. They who had starved Norway into subjection-they who sanctioned the annihilation of Poland, and the subjugation of Venice-they whose hands were scarcely withdrawn from the instrument which transferred Genoa to a hated master-were suddenly seized with the most profound reverence for the independent sovereign of Elba, and shrunk with horror from the idea of saving the peace of Europe by preventing the departure of Napoleon Buonaparte from Porto Ferrajo! He must believe, that if the danger had been discussed at the Congress of Vienna, and if any paradoxical minister had made any scruples about the independence of Elba, his scruples would have been received with a general laugh. Count Nesselrode could quote the precedent of Stanislaus at Moscow. Prince Talleyrand would have been ready with that of Ferdinand at Valençay. The Congress would scarcely have avowed that all their respect for independence was monopolized by Napoleon. Buonaparte (he contended) was no fur

ther a sovereign than the treaty of Fontainbleau made him one; and that agreement (in its spirit) subjected him to every precaution which was manifestly necessary to security. It had been urged (he said) that he, and those on his side of the House, were only wise after the event, and as little foresaw that event as the ministers. Was it not, however, by their confidence in ministers that they were held to have forfeited their right of accusation? A robbery had been committed; the watchmen were asleep. The poor householders naturally complained of the negligence of their watchmen. The watchmen rather impudently answered, that the householders were asleep as well as they. The reply was final and fatal. The householders slept in perfect security, because they trusted in their watchmen being awake."

Lord Castlereagh, Mr Frederick Douglas, Mr Charles Grant, and others, defended the conduct of ministers. It was again stated, that Lord Castlereagh was separated from the armies when they marched on Paris; that the events which followed were too unexpected to admit of Lord Aberdeen and Lord Cathcart being authorised to act; and although it was not spoken about, there is little doubt that the British minister hardly anticipated that the other powers would have felt themselves at liberty to precipitate a treaty before his arrival, "Nothing," said Mr Grant, in a speech marked with equal eloquence and truth, "but a difference upon some essential principle, could have justified him in interposing to annul the engagements already contracted with Buonaparte. As to minor points, he might feel objections; and such it appears he did feel and express. But even if his objections had been much stronger than we have reason to believe they were, would it not have

been a matter of extreme delicacy, upon his single opinion, to arrest the pacification? What would Europe, what would this country have felt, if, in that moment of exultation, the British minister had alone prevented the consummation so ardently desired; if he had taken upon himself, and on his nation, the odium of severity and vindictive resentment?" This, he urged, would have been at once shocking to the feelings of this country, then turned to moderation and lenity in an unwonted degree, and incurring the risk of driving to desperation an able general at the head of a veteran army of 40,000 men, who might yet have found resources of the most formidable description. He vindicated ministers from having placed their sole reliance on the precarious faith of Buonaparte. "Undoubtedly," continued the member, "if we relied mainly upon the good faith of that person, it was an unwarrantable and an unjustifiable reliance. But this was not the case: Our chief reliance was placed on the faith of the French people; -on the faith of the marshals and the army. Sir, I am not ashamed to confess that we have been deceived: In this confession there is no discredit; for who could have anticipated a perjury, a faithlessness so gross and detestable as that which has recently excited the astonishment and horror of Europe? Never, in the records of the world, was perjury so practised on system, and on so wide a scale. I defy any man, however versed in the annals of infamy, however familiar with examples of profligacy, to have calculated on such baseness and crime. I do not speak of the people of France, because I believe them to be completely passive. But is it not even now difficult to believe that such treachery, such cowardly meanness of feeling, should be found in a protession which, of all others, is peculiarly

the profession of loyalty and chival rous attachment-whose idol is honour? This example has a tendency to shake our confidence in the most ordinary principles of human action; and to rivet in our minds a conviction, that, for the future, soci-ty must be bound together by other ties than those of justice, of faith, and of mutual confidence. I trust, however, that, in spite of this atrocious excep"tion, we may yet rely on the acknowledged principles that regulate the intercourse of nations. I trust we are not yet driven to the necessity of building national security and happiness on the miserable foundation of mutual distrust, suspicion, and hatred."

The impossibility of watching Buonaparte otherwise than by imprisoning him, was also insisted upon. For even supposing the island of Elba to be surrounded by our cruizers, still, though this might have prevented any general embarkation, or the attendance of his guards, no degree of vigilance could have impeded his escape individually; and from the whole history of his undertaking, it was plain that the assistance of his few hundred soldiers was not necessary, or even essential, to the execution of his plan; and, after all, the sea was not left so totally unguarded, but what his expedition had been nearly defeated by a British sloop of war.

On the subject of the alleged infractions of the treaty, the reply was complete. I. It was not the fault of the British ministers that Buonaparte's pension had not been regularly paid, as they were in no shape bound to guarantee it; while, notwiths anding, they had used their warm interference with the French government on Buonaparte's behalf, so soon as they heard of this subject of complaint. II. As to the empress and her son being forcibly detained from Buonaparte, the

fact was, that Maria Louisa had refused to accompany him. III. The clause which proposed to invest Maria Louisa with the Duchies of Parma, Placentia, and Guastalla, or an equivalent in their stead, was conceived in her favour, not in that of Buonaparte; and any arrangement concerning that stipulation respected her interest alone, seeing that the states were to be conferred on her in full sovereignty. IV. Lord Castlereagh positively denied that there had been any plan agitated at the Congress for removing Buonaparte from Elba, and expressed his belief that the only circumstance on which he had founded such an opinion, was an unauthorised and groundless paragraph in a news. paper. V. It was denied that information had reached ministers, in an authentic shape, that Buonaparte nourished any deliberate plan of escape; and therefore, had any additional precaution appeared practicable, they still could not be aware that there was any serious occasion for adopting it. The real and only security looked to as a guarantee for the protection of Europe against Buonaparte's future schemes of ambition, had been the general sentiment of the French ple so lately and so unanimously expressed in favour of the legitimate monarch. And, upon the whole, the House were reminded, that the pretended infractions of treaty were a plea which Buonaparte had not set up for himself, till he had taken the hint from the discussions to which his late expedition had given rise in the House of Commons. He had, in the first instance, taken a course more dignified, at least better suited to his character, and put his proceeding on the broad ground, that having withdrawn from France for a temporary purpose, he now returned to claim his indubitable right to the throne of that country.

peo

The motion of Mr Abercrombie being put to the vote, was lost by a majority of eighty-four. The debate had a wholesome effect on the public mind, which had been disturbed by many vague rumours and suspicions, now probed to the bottom, and their falsehood completely exposed.

What had hitherto past was but a skirmishing of the political parties. The main question of peace or war remained yet to be debated. Mr Whitbread endeavoured to bring it forward by a motion for an address, praying his Royal April 28. Highness the Prince Regent, that he would be pleased to take measures for averting the calamities of a war, on the ground of the executive power of France being vested in any particular person. The honourable member founded chiefly upon the improvidence and injustice of engaging in war with France, merely because Buonaparte was at the head of the government; and he denied the right of the Prince Regent to interfere with the internal administration of France. He censured, in the warmest terms, the declaration of the allies against the person of Buonaparte, and declared the name of Wellington was sullied by being appended to that manifesto. It was replied to Mr Whitbread, and his supporters, that had those counsels been listened to, with which they had from time to time supplied the House, Buonaparte would at this moment have been, not merely on the throne of France, but master of the destinies of Europe. Lord Castlereagh urged, that not Buonaparte alone, but the French nation, were bound by the treaty of Fontainbleau, which they had so shamelessly broken. Since France had become a party to the gross fraud practised by Buonaparte in violating this contract, that nation must be prepared for the consequence of such conduct;