the Allies would enter into a union to make Buonaparté give this, they assuredly would get it. Peace, therefore, we could have, if we wished it. He thanked his hon. friend for making his motion, and thought him entitled to the country's thanks. The noble lord had dealt very unfairly by the House, by drawing it in to give the unconscious pledge it had given; and in the event of war, he was not sure that disturbances would not arise in the country. He entreated the House to consider that this might, perhaps, be their very last opportunity of expressing their opinions on this great question, and of averting the calamities with which this country was threatened.

Mr. Robinson thought that Buonaparté, by his breach of the Treaty of Fontainbleau, bad given a clear unqualified right to this country to go to war with him. Much had been said about the change that the reverses had wrought in Buonaparté's disposition. But how did he prove this change on his first entrance into France? On the 12th of March he issued a decree from Lyons, proscribing a certain number of individuals over whom he had no right whatever. This showed no great change from his wonted ferocity-no great spirit of mildness, of mercy, of forgiveness. He had abdicated the throne, and before he had even reseated himself on it, he proscribed persons not at all subject to him. It was said he was surrounded by persons favourable to liberty. But he believed that those who had once been the strongest advocates for liberty, had been amongst his basest and most fawning sycophants. He did not attach much value to the support they now gave, as he was satisfied they would be again ready to change, if circumstances changed. It had been asked, why we should not now be content with the Peace of Paris? This Peace of Paris had only been concluded on the understanding that Buonaparté had for ever abdicated his pretensions to the throne of France. He admitted that in our present situation we had only a choice of evils; but he maintained, that by far the less evil was to avail ourselves of the existing confederation, of the concentrated force of united Europe, in order to endeavour to destroy that power which threatened the tranquillity of the world. Our means for doing this were ample, and our situation much better than that in which we were even at the successful termination of the late war. It was true, (VOL. XXX.)

as stated by the hon. gentleman, we could not calculate with certainty on a fortunate result. But if it were once admitted, that when pressed by a tremendous danger we ought to remain inactive, lest our exertions should be fruitless, there was an end to every virtuous and vigorous effort. If we had been terrified by the uncertainty of the result, we should not have defended Portugal, supported the cause of the Spaniards, or assisted in the successful campaign of last year. It was true that many coalitions had failed: but all had not failed, as was proved in the last year. The present coalition had at least as much chance of success now as it had then. Between forty and fifty fortresses, then garrisoned by French troops, were now in the possession of the Allies. This circumstance would give the Allies a very con-` siderable advantage now, which then they did not possess. Upon the whole, he saw no reason whatever for despairing of

success.

Mr. Philips supported the motion. He deprecated the want of precaution on our part to prevent the return of Buonaparté to France, and censured the general policy of ministers.-[This speech was interrupted by loud cries of Question, question!']

Mr. Wellesley Pole, having succeeded with difficulty in obtaining a hearing, said, that he had only one appeal to make to the hon. gentleman who made the motion, and one declaration to communicate to him, which he hoped, would give as much satisfaction to the hon. gen. tleman as to every man else. In the animadversions on the Declaration of the 13th of March, repeated that night, he had stated it as sanctioning the murder and assassination of Buonaparté, and he had lamented that the name of Wellington should have been disgraced by signing such a paper. He (Mr. P.) happened to be with the duke of Wellington when the report of the hon. gentleman's speech reached him; and never was a man so shocked as he then was, that one of his countrymen-one who had either known, seen, or heard of him-should have sup posed that he signed a paper bearing such a construction, or that he could possibly give it such a construction. His only understanding was, that Buonaparté had forfeited all his political rights. At the time, it was not known whether it was Buonaparte's intention to endeavour to regain the throne of France, or whether (3 S)

he had put himself at the head of a banditti to disturb any other country; and he never thought that any man, much less a British senator, could have suspected that he would have signed a paper with such a meaning. They conceived that he had forfeited his political rights, and that he was a rebel and a traitor; but they never intended to sanction his assassination.

Mr. Quin had yet heard nothing to persuade him that the people had any share in the return of Buonaparté; he had found an active army and a passive people. If we did not go to war, we should have an armed peace, and France would then have all the advantage. Buonaparté could not be believed to be actuated by a sincere desire for peace. He was an enemy to this country from envy of our free constitution, and our commercial greatness. The struggle might be arduous, and the event hazardous, yet he deprecated the idea of our abandonment of the policy of our Allies.

Mr. R. Gordon supported the motion. Mr. J. Smyth spoke in favour of the Address, and contended that the war would be a war of aggression against France, and could not be justified on any rational grounds.

Sir Frederick Flood said, he wished for peace with France, but he did not wish for peace with an outlaw and a rebel; and in that character only could he regard the present Ruler of France. He considered that the most transcendent abilities had, in the late contest, been displayed, both in the cabinet and in the field, and was happy to recognize as his countrymen a Castlereagh and a Wellington. The present was a question of a - delicate nature; yet he could not help thinking the whole country ought to go heart and hand together in overturning the usurpation of Buonaparte.

Mr. Coke (of Norfolk,) supported the motion. He could not help thinking, that those who were abettors of the war with France, on the present occasion, were the enemies, and not the friends of their country.

Mr. Whitbread, in reply, said, that notwithstanding the explanation of the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Wellesley Pole), he confessed that he was still of opinion that it would have been far more to the credit of the duke of Wellington not to have signed the Declaration in question, even with the interpretation which had been

given to his relation, and by him communicated to the House. The character of the duke of Wellington was part of the property of this country. Who was not proud of the name? No person had ever shown himself more willing to pay the tribute of applause which was due to his great actions than himself; and when he had so expressed himself, he hardly thought that his sincerity could be called in question. But was it because the duke of Wellington had signed a Declaration, that it bore a different construction from what it would have done if he had not put his name to it? And if in the burry of business he did not consider the meaning of this Declaration with sufficient attention, was this not a subject of deep lamentation to this country? If, before this, any person had been asked, who would be the last man to sanction such doctrine-or if there was one man whom he would select from all mankind as the person who would be most inclined to give it his condemnation, he would have selected the duke of Wellington. would have conceived the duke of Wellington to feel in this way-save Buonaparté for me, that he may command an army against me-[Hear, hear!] After having vanquished in succession all his captains-all his fame, all his glory, all his future renown, were centered in the life of Buonaparté-[Hear, hear!] But he had signed the Declaration, and it had gone forth to the world. What did

He

existence' mean, but physical existence? He was glad of the explanation of the right hon. gentleman, because if his (Mr. Whitbread's) voice had reached the Duke, it might also go out to the world that the duke of Wellington declared that the principle of assassination was detested by him, and had never met with his approbation. With respect to the noble lord (Castlereagh), he had divided his speech into three parts: the first was a philippic against Buonaparté; the second was a philippic against him (Mr. Whitbread); and the third was a panegyric upon himself. With respect to the speech of an hon. gentleman (Mr. Wilberforce), he was surprized to hear such language from a person of his grave and pious character, who opened a book, he believed, more often than any of those who heard him, in which it is said, that when a sinner repents he may save his soul alive. He begged the hon. gentleman, however, the next time he read that passsage, to put in an inter

lineation-excepting Buonaparté.' That hon. gentleman, who for twenty years had been unable to succeed in his great project for the Abolition of the Slave Trade, had never once given praise to that great man, by whom it was accomplished. In the Report of the African Institution, though use was made of the decree of Buonaparté, by saying that it would force all Europe to follow the example, yet not the least praise was given to that decree. He would have been surprised at this, if he had not recollected that no praise was given to Mr. Fox, who abolished the traffic in this country. The noble lord who had his confidence, was one of the small minority of 16 who voted for the continuance of that odious traffic. It was asked, did he wish to depend on the regeneration of Buonaparté? He did not wish to depend on this, but he conceived that Buonaparte was in a situation to conciliate all the French in his favour, and that it would be necessary to exterminate the whole of them, before ministers could possibly succeed in their project. The honourable member proceeded, in a most able manner, to reply to the arguments of the noble lord, and other members who had spoken on that side of the question. He very eloquently vindicated the line of conduct he had pursued upon the question of peace from the earliest commencement of the war, and endeavoured to show in what way lord Castlereagh had been duped by prince Talleyrand, who had formerly been the minister of Buonaparté.-[Lord Castlereagh said, that he had not been the minister of Buonaparté for eight years.] Mr. Whitbread rejoined, that he supposed the noble lord meant to assert, that a penance of eight years atoned for all former offences; if so, what a lamentable misfortune it was for Buonaparté that he had not remained in Elba for that space -then he might have returned to France, have seated himself upon the throne, have shaken hands with the noble lord, nego. ciated with the noble lord, and above all have duped the noble lord, as successfully as he had been imposed upon by prince Talleyrand. The hon. gentleman concluded with saying, that he had brought the conduct of ministers before the House, and it remained with the House to deal with them as they deserved.

The House then divided:
For the motion.........
Against it............

72

273

Majority............... --201

Maddocks, W. A.

List of the Minority.

Abercrombie, hon. J.
Althorp, lord
Aubrey, sir John
Astell, William
Atherley, A.
Barnard, viscount
Bewick, C.
Birch, Joseph
Brand, hon. Thos.
Byng, George
Buller, James
Burdett, sir F.
Calvert, Charles
Cavendish, lord G.
Cavendish, Henry
Cavendish, Charles
Chaloner, R.
Coke, Thomas
Campbell, hon. J.
Dundas, Charles
Dundas, hon. L.
Duncannon, visc.
Fergusson, sir R.
Foley, hon. A.
Foley, col. T.
Gordon, R.
Grant, J. P.
Guise, sir William
Hanbury, W.
Horner, F.
Halsey, J.
Hornby, Edward
Howorth, II.
Latouche, R.
Lyttelton, hon. W.-
Leach, J.
Lemon, sir W.
Lubbock, J. W.
Langton, W. G.

Martin, J. Martin, H.

Monck, sir C. Moore, Peter

Mackintosh, sir J.

Montgomery, sir H.
Newport, sir J.

Osborne, lord F.

Pierse, H.

Philips, G.

Piggott, sir A.
Prittie, hon. F. A.
Plumer, W.

Ponsonby, rt. hon. G.
Pym, Francis
Paulet, hon. H. Vane
Ramsden, S. C.
Romilly, sir S.
Rowley, sir Wm.
Scudamore, R. P.

Smyth, J. H.
Smith, W,
Smith, J.

HOUSE OF LORDS.

Monday, May 1.

NAPLES.] Earl Grey said, their lordships would recollect, that a few days ago, previous to his giving notice of a motion on the subject of our existing relations with the Government of Naples, and on which their lordships stood summoned for to-morrow, he had put some questions to a noble earl. To these, his not receiving a satisfactory answer, was the cause of his having given notice of a motion. Previous to his bringing it on, however, he begged leave to ask that noble lord, whether he now deemed it consistent with his duty to give certain explanations on the subject; and, in that view, he would trouble him but on two points. First, Whether we were actually at war with Naples; and if so, whether, as was customary, any communication would be made to Parliament on the subject? And secondly, if we were not at war, whether any discussions were

now going forward, or likely to take place between us and that Government, from which it might be hoped that hostilities may be avoided?

The Earl of Liverpool, in answer to what fell from the noble earl, stated, that their lordships might be aware an armistice had been concluded between marshal Murat and the commander-in-chief of his Majesty's forces in that quarter. With reference to this, a notice had been given by the latter to marshal Murat, that if he should commit any hostile acts against his Majesty's ally, he should consider it as a breach of the armistice between the two countries. Whether any hostile steps had occurred between the British and the Neapolitan forces he could not say; but from what had taken place on the part of the latter, the armistice was considered to be at an end. With respect to the second point, whether there were any discussions going on between the two countries for the establishment of peace, he could not say there were any negociations going on at present that could render the notice of the noble lord nugatory.

Earl Grey replied, that he understood from the noble lord that hostilities were now actually revived between the two countries. But their lordships would recollect, that we had been, in effect, at peace with the Government of Naples for the last twelve months; and that, from the statement of the noble lord, the necessity followed of a regular declaration that a state of hostility was renewed. He thought, therefore, that a communication should be made to Parliament on the subject; and on which occasion, a discussion on the merits of the case would preferably ensue. He again asked if any such communication was intended?

The Earl of Liverpool said, he had not received any command to make such a communication.

Lord Grey then asked, was it probable that such a communication would be made? and (after a word or two from the noble earl across the table, in an under voice) proceeded to observe, that it ap peared very extraordinary to him, that no communication should be made to Parliament, in a case, where though no formal peace had been made, a state of hostility was avowedly entered into. He gave notice, that he would bring on his motion

to-morrow.

GAOL FEES ABOLITION BILL.] The

House being in a Committee on the Bill, Lord Ellenborough proposed the insertion of an amendment of some length, the principal object of which appeared to he to prevent any thing in the Act from operating to the prejudice of the sheriff, who otherwise, though an innocent person, may be affected injuriously.

The amendment was adopted.

The Marquis of Buckingham understood that the exception of the Fleet, King'sbench, and Marshalsea, and Palace-court prisons, from the operation of the Bill, arose from there being yet no other allowance for keeping up the establishment of these prisons than what arose from Gaol Fees. There was a report from a committee of the House of Commons on the subject, and he should move to-morrow for a copy of that Report.

The Lord Chancellor stated, that he had received a great many clauses to be inserted with respect to the London gaols, which appeared very proper in themselves, but if they were introduced into that House, would endanger the loss of the Bill altogether, and prevent, for the time, the good which it was calculated to do. His lordship stated what had been proved at the bar on a former occasion, that the city of London expended no less a sum than 15,000. in providing comforts for their prisoners; and if the fees of their gaols were put an end to, they must increase their gaolers salaries, and could not afford so great a sum for their prisoners. The fees in all gaols being abolished, prisoners having a power of removing them. selves would crowd to the London gaols for the sake of the allowance, and this would be more particularly the case when the new gaol should be built. It would be desirable not to check the hand of charity, and yet it would be improper to risk the loss of the Bill: the best course appeared to be to make the clauses in question the subject of a separate Bill, which might be passed this session, and for these reasons he refrained from proposing them at present.

The Marquis of Lansdowne concurred with the noble and learned lord as to the best course of proceeding, but did not think that the abolition of the fees would tend much to crowd the London gaols. A removal could not be accomplished at a less expense than 6., and to those who could afford this, the fees could not be a great object.

The Bill passed through the Committees

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

Monday, May 1.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS BILL.] Mr. Serjeant Best moved the order of the day for the second reading of the Insolvent Debtors Bill. The learned serjeant noticed some alterations in the clauses of the Bill that he wished to propose in the Committee.

Mr. Horner said, that the Bill now be fore the House was any thing but the bill which the hon. and learned serjeant had described, when he obtained leave of the House to bring it in. He understood from the hon. and learned gentleman, since, however, that two of the most material clauses had been omitted. As it was material that the measure should come before the House in a perfect form, antecedent to their being called upon to deliver their opinion upon it, he thought in the present instance an unfair advantage would be gained by obtaining the consent to the second reading of a Bill, the essence of which was subsequently to be changed. With these feelings, as well as from an insuperable objection to the preamble, he should object to the motion. The measure proposed was very different from what the House expected, and instead of being of a softer, was of a severer nature than the last. He thought the best thing would be to withdraw the Bill, and ask leave to bring in another.

Mr. Serjeant Best objected to this course, as likely to give additional trouble to the House.

Mr. Abercrombie thought that the vital forms of the House would be evaded, by the manner in which it was attempted to pass this Bill through the second and most material stage. Under these circumstances, he thought the hon. and learned gentleman ought to withdraw the Bill altogether, and bring it in again, in a complete shape, so that the House might be able to consider it in its perfect bearings.

The Speaker said, that in all cases where the objects of a bill had not been properly explained to, or understood by the House, the introducer had the option of withdrawing it, in whatever stage it might be, and bringing in another, consonant with his own views, and in an intelligible shape.

Mr. Serjeant Best then agreed to withdraw the present Bill, and the order for the second reading was discharged. Leave was then given to bring in a Bill in a perfect form.

LONDON PETITION AGAINST a WAR WITH FRANCE THE PROPERTY-TAX, &c.] Sir William Curtis said, he had a petition to present from the Lord Mayor, Aldermen, and Livery of London, in Common-hall assembled, which might appear, in some respects, of an extraordinary nature. He was bound in duty to his constituents to present it, and it was couched in terms that might probably ensure its reception by the House. It was also his duty to say, that there was scarcely a sentiment contained in it in which he concurred. The meeting was, however, called in the constitutional and proper way. The petition was a kind of omnium, embracing a great variety of matter; one part of it related to the Property-tax. He moved for leave to present the petition.

The Speaker observed, that the hon. baronet having stated that the Petition was in part against a tax now pending, it could not, consistently with the forms of the House, be received.

Sir W. Curtis said, that he did not know whether it could be said that the Petition was exactly directed against the Property-tax.

The Speaker thought it advisable that the hon. baronet should read the part which he conceived might prove objec tionable.

Sir W. Curtis then read part of the prayer of the Petition, stating, that it was with feelings of indignation the petitioners had perceived his Majesty's ministers had proposed to revive an odious tax, and praying the House to stop the course of a weak, rash, and infatuated Administration in their mad career, and preserve the peace and prosperity of the nation.

The Speaker said, that it was now for the House to judge from what they had heard, whether the Petition was for the Property-tax or against it.

The question being put for bringing up the Petition,

The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, that he thought the House had heard enough to induce them to reject it.

Mr. Horner observed, that the rule of the House ought only to be applied prac tically to the case for which it was intended. Coming from so great and respectable a body-[A laugh on the Ministerial side of the House]-coming, he repeated, from a most numerous and respectable body, the Petition ought not to be rejected on a mere point of form, unless it came strictly and indisputably