understood the right honourable the Chancellor of the Exchequer had yesterday referred to certain dispatches which were not published, respecting the atrocities committed by the Americans. He wished to know if those atrocities were not committed two years ago, and if sir George Prevost, having taken a certain measure of retaliation, had not declared his future conduct should be regulated by the course pursued by the Americans. Had any intermediate correspondence taken place after this, prior to the burning of Washington? The contradiction which he had pointed out on the preceding night between the orders said to have been received by sir Alexander Cochrane from sir George Prevost, and the proclamation issued by sir George himself, ought to be explained. While on his legs, he wished to ask another question respecting the two persons whom he had mentioned as having been given up to the Spanish government from Gibraltar. He wished to know if any steps had been taken to gain information on this subject? The names of the parties were Corea and Puigblanc. The officer concerned was named Smith.

stated the atrocities committed by the Americans, which had been particularly referred to, to have occurred on the 6th October, 1813, and not in 1812. The papers of which he had spoken, were not official documents, but they were entitled to full credit. Sir George Prevost, for some of the outrages committed in Canada, had retaliated on the American frontier, and declared his future conduct should depend on that of the enemy. The subsequent barbarities of the Americans had since rendered severe measures necessary. With respect to the question as to the alleged treatment of two persons at Gibraltar, he had only to say, an inquiry would immediately be made.

asked if there was any clue by which ministers could explain the contradictory proceedings of sir George Prevost himself, and sir Alex. Cochrane, who stated that he was acting under the express orders of sir George Prevost?

No answer was returned.

expressed his surprise, that no communication had yet been made to the House on the subject of the convention, by which this country agreed to support a certain number of British troops on the continent. By this time, he had hoped that the noble lord, the secretary for foreign affairs, would have been able to transmit to his government some information on the subject of that agreement. But he understood, not withstanding the declaration of the noble lord, during the last session of parliament, that this convention was not yet ratified. What he therefore complained of was, that, prior to the ratification, the House should have been called upon to make good expenses which were to be incurred under an unfinished instrument. If, as he understood, the convention was not ratified, there was no ground on which they had a right to maintain a force abroad. They were last night told, that it was necessary, for the safety of the continent, to keep a great force on foot; they were informed by a right hon. gentleman (Mr. Bathurst) that, unless such a force were provided, the treaty of Paris would be nothing better than waste paper. This was a subject of the utmost importance; yet, without the shadow of information, they, who were acting for their constituents, were called upon to vote the requisite supply, merely on the ground, without any reason being adduced to support it, that it was necessary to keep up a force on the continent. When he last night stated his conviction, that it was unconstitutional to keep up an army abroad without the concurrence of that House, he was told that he was mistaken. He would, however, maintain, that to send troops out of the country, without making any communication to parliament, was unconstitutional and illegal: and he called on the right hon. the Speaker to state whether any precedent existed, in which the British troops were employed abroad, without a communication from the crown being made to the House on the subject, by one of his Majesty's ministers? He would contend that there was no such precedent. Formerly an Englishman would look with jealousy, and justly so, if such a measure were attempted. Who could possibly calculate the expense? The minister estimated it at 40,000l.; but it might be much greater—it might rise to 60 or to 100,000l.; it was a matter of uncertainty; the Speech from the throne went no farther than to say, that we must provide the necessary supply.—There was another point, too, which it was material to consider. Those British troops, those Englishmen, were under the command of a foreign officer, an independent sovereign prince, who could not be amenable to the laws of this country for any misconduct of which he might be guilty. It was far from his intention to insinuate the slightest disrespect towards his serene highness the hereditary prince of Orange; he had the highest opinion of that exalted personage, both as to his military and private character and, in his campaigns under lord Wellington, he had conciliated the esteem of the whole army. But this case, he contended, was unprecedented in the history of this country, and demanded the most serious attention of parliament. He was aware it might be replied that prince Ferdinand commanded British troops in Germany; but there was a British commander under him, and he commanded them in no other way than as he was the commander in chief of the whole allied forces. The prince of Orange would not be answerable to our laws, supposing a case wherein he might misconduct himself. If any proof were wanting of this, he would refer to the recent proceedings of the duke de Guiche, who was an officer holding a commission in the British army. When, however, by the restoration of the Bourbons, he recovered his property and honours, and was required to attend his duty in this country upon a court-martial, what was his conduct? He replied, that he had quitted the service, and it was not convenient for him to attend. Suppose the prince of Orange, then, were to act in such a manner as should justly call upon that House to stigmatize his conduct, and he were required to come over to this country, and answer such charges as, might be preferred against him, how could they enforce his attendance? It would be impossible to do it; and yet, under such circumstances, the lives of British soldiers were placed under his control. Again he disclaimed all intention of insinuating that any such misconduct could occur; but it seemed to him a most important topic for parliament to consider, and therefore he should move, "That an humble Address be presented to his royal highness the Prince Regent, requesting that he will be graciously pleased to direct that there be laid before this House a copy or copies of any arrangements entered into by his Royal Highness with any foreign powers, for the support of British or foreign troops on the continent of Europe."

said, that be was now able to acquaint the House that this convention, though signed, as stated by his noble friend towards the conclusion of last session, had never been ratified on the part of the allies. That would create no surprise, when it was considered that all the ministers of the great allied powers had been employed during the summer in journies and negociations. For that, and other reasons with which they were not acquainted, the ratification had not taken place; and therefore being an incomplete instrument, it had not yet been presented to parliament. Such being the state of it, he should feel it his duty to move the previous question upon the present motion. The convention itself arose out of the treaty of Chaumont, which had for its object to unite the forces of the allies, in order to subdue the overwhelming power of Buonaparté. When that object ceased, from the restoration of the Bourbons, much still remained to be done in determining the future condition of the territories which were wrested from the dominion of France; and it was agreed that each of the contracting parties should, notwithstanding, keep on foot a proportion of that quota of force which had been stipulated in the treaty of Chaumont. The troops in question were sent as part of our contribution towards carrying on the war, and they would have been equally sent there had no treaty existed. The treaty of Chaumont had been sanctioned by the House; and the employment of the troops in the Low Countries was only a part of the engagements entered into by that treaty. Independently, however, of any treaty, he apprehended there was no place to which they could have been sent, more interesting or more important than Holland and the Netherlands. The defence and protection of those countries had always been considered by every statesman as of the greatest moment, and he believed that if he had had to apply, as probably he might have, to parliament, for the support of a body of troops in the Netherlands, independent of any treaty, he should meet their approbation. When the convention was ratified, it would of course be communicated to the House; or if it should happen that the allied powers, in consequence of any arrangements that might be made at the Congress, should think it unnecessary now to ratify that convention, then also some explanation would naturally be given to parliament. With regard to the illustrious individual who commanded them, he perfectly agreed with what had fallen from the hon. gentleman, as to the little probability of any misconduct on his part; but supposing such a case possible, he was certainly amenable to the laws of this country, as a British officer, and liable to lose his rank and emoluments.

said, that the last argument of the right hon. gentleman, with which he seemed to console himself, reminded him of the consolation which was held out to that House some years ago, when the Austrian loan was negociated. It was then said, that if the emperor of Germany should fail in his engagements (and he did fail, for we were still bearing the burthen of that loan) he might be sued in his own courts for recovery. He had never heard, however, that either the Solicitor or Attorney General had gone over to learn the German language; and he believed the emperor had consequently never been sued. Just so they were now told, that if the prince of Orange should misconduct himself, he might be deprived of his honours and profit as a British officer, and be brought to this country to answer such misconduct. But how was he to be brought? He apprehended they must send an armed force thither, and after all, perhaps they would not catch him. It was really absurd and childish to talk of bringing a sovereign and independent prince to an account in this country, for any misconduct which he might commit. He, for one, most thoroughly disclaimed any thought of such misconduct; but they were to look to possible circumstances. In adverting to the other parts of the right hon. gentleman's speech, it appeared that they whose infirmity he had pitied on the preceding evening, were now as much to be pitied for their ignorance. The ministers of the crown in that House, came down to ask money upon the faith of a treaty on which they had been acting, though they did not know whether it had or had not been ratified. The sort of excuse he had set up, ought not to be received by the House. Lord Castlereagh had been long enough in Vienna to have had the convention ratified. The Congress met on the 22d of September, and couriers were constantly passing to and fro. If there was a period when the ratification might have been easily effected, it was the present, when the ministers of all the monarchs of Europe were concentrated in a point. A right hon. gentleman (Mr. Bathurst) had last night told them, that if an army were not kept up in Belgium, they might as well have a piece of waste paper as the treaty of Paris. By the same principle, what were all other treaties, but pieces of waste paper? The right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer had argued, that government were acting under the treaty of Chaumont, which was intended to check the power of Buonaparté, if peace were concluded with him. But, when he was deposed, or abdicated the throne, the treaty of Chaumont, he would contend, became a nullity. If the right hon. gentleman argued, that it was as necessary to keep up an armed force now, as when the treaty of Chaumont was signed, then it was evident that nothing had been gained by the exertions of the allies, since all the parties were obliged to continue with arms in their hands to prevent the aggrandizement of France. When, he should be glad to know, would this state of things subside? When would the British troops be withdrawn? When would Holland be able to stand alone? Was the restored house of Bourbon to be considered as an enemy equally formidable with the fallen dynasty of Buonaparté? It appeared that considerable forces had been recently sent to Belgium; perhaps for wise and useful purposes, but these purposes ought to be explained. Let not the parliament of England dispense with its old established forms, but insist that the decorum due to it should be observed. He could not conclude without observing, that the armies of the different allied powers were extending themselves throughout different territories, from which it might hereafter be impossible to dislodge them. They seemed to be imitating the conduct of Buonaparté, who, at the peace of Amiens, between the signing of the preliminaries and the definitive treaty, annexed to France the several Italian states. So Austria and Prussia were now possessing themselves of different portions of territory, which they might not hereafter be disposed to surrender.

said, that in point of substance, the thing stood now exactly as it did at the conclusion of last session. The mode of doing it might, indeed, be quarrelled with by the hon. gentleman opposite. It had been stated by the noble lord, that until the different arrangements with respect to the countries conquered from France were definitively settled, it was agreed by the allied powers, that each of them should keep up a certain proportion of military force. The other powers had done this. The case itself was new and unprecedented, and the proceedings required by it were necessarily the same. By this treaty of Paris, Europe had been left in a state such as it had never been before. Belgium was, unquestionably, the place of all others, the occupation of which by British troops ought to be unattended by any jealousy. He denied having last night characterized a treaty as 'waste' paper. What he had said was, that a treaty was only paper, unless effect were given to it by acting upon it. For instance, we had surrendered some islands to France. Were not the French to send a force to take possession of them? The French had agreed to withdraw from Belgium, but unless the fortified places of that country were occupied, of what avail would be the agreement? Or would the hon. gentleman wish the protection of that country to be left to Russia, or Austria, or Prussia, rather than to the nation so materially interested its its fate as Great Britain? Although he thought that this was the most proper employment of the forces which this country was pledged to keep up, yet he felt no jealousy of any of the nations. He did not consider that in this arrangement there was any more jealousy shewn towards France, than towards Austria, Russia, or Prussia. It was evident that Belgium, being ceded by France to the allies, must be garrisoned by the troops of some of the coalesced powers, and he thought that no troops could more properly be employed for that purpose than our own, It had been asked, how long was this to last? He could not exactly tell, as the effects of the treaty would not be completed until the congress at Vienna had finally settled the fate of all those countries which had been recovered from the dominion of France. As to the convention itself, it could not be laid before the House until it was ratified: he had no objection, however, to the substance of it being communicated to them. As to the objection of having the British army commanded by the hereditary prince of Orange, he could not distinguish the difference between the present case and that of prince Ferdinand commanding the British army in Germany.

said, that although prince Ferdinand had had the military direction of the British troops, the punishment of them was entrusted, by special commission, to the marquis of Granby alone, So it was with the duke of York, when acting under the prince of Saxe Cobourg. Now, the prince of Orange had absolute and uncontroled power, not as regarded the military operations only, but as it regarded the punishment of the British troops; a situation in which British soldiers were never before placed. He trusted this evil would be removed by giving to some officers of the British army an authority similar to that formerly enjoyed by the marquis of Granby and the duke of York. With respect to his hon. friend's motion, he could see no difficulty in making a return to it. It was for copies of any engagement that had been entered into by his Majesty with foreign powers. Now the right hon. gentleman had acknowledged that such an engagement had been made, and that it had been ratified by this country. Why not produce it? It was important to do so, because the return would necessarily be accompanied by a statement of the reasons which had occasioned his Majesty to be the only one of the contracting parties by whom the treaty had been ratified. To him it appeared to be highly indecorous for ministers to talk of the employment of British troops under a foreign power, without having put parliament in possession of any document on the subject. It was highly injurious, he believed it was unprecedented, for parliament to recognize such an application of British troops without any previous communication from the crown. It was, besides, highly desirable to know the precise engagement stated in the convention. What was the number of troops to be furnished by Great Britain? Some said 40,000, others 50,000. By a third set it was rumoured that 75,000 men was the number to be furnished; with this condition, that if a fewer number were sent, the deficiency should be supplied in money, at the rate of 28l. a man. Would the House submit to be kept in ignorance of the facts? He allowed that Belgium was to us a most interesting country. But was it a sufficient answer to all inquiries to say, that our troops were employed there, without producing any details of the conditions of their service? He could not see why the treaty had not been ratified. It was curious to hear the right hon. gentleman say, that because all the secretaries of state of Europe had been assembled together, that a delay has arisen in the completion of this instrument! If their absence had occasioned confusion and blundering, that would have been perfectly intelligible; but as it was, he confessed his astonishment that the ratification had not taken place in half an hour. It was material to know if the money to be furnished by us was employed for the common interest, or for the particular objects of particular powers. Had the treaty been fully carried into effect? The right hon. gentleman said it had been acted upon. Yes, by us; but had it been acted upon by the other powers? If so, produce it, and let that fact be shown. What objection could there possibly be to let parliament have the substance of the treaty?

said, across the table, that he had stated in his speech his readiness to afford that which would be fully explanatory of the treaty in question.

was not aware that the right hon. gentleman had entered into any explanation on the subject. Had he said any thing of the number of men to be furnished by this country?

replied, that he had offered to the hon. mover, before he brought forward his motion, to produce the substance of the convention, and he had just repeated that offer on his legs.

said, that he had not understood it so; but that the declaration of the right hon. gentleman was quite sufficient. He would therefore sit down, to listen to the way in which the communication was to be made.

observed, that the way would be by laying before the House the substance of the convention in question.

Mr. Fremantle's motion was then withdrawn.

, before the report was brought up, wished to put some questions to the right hon. gentleman opposite, with respect to the disembodying the militia. It had always been understood, that upon the restoration of peace, the militia regiments were to be disembodied. He wished to know upon what grounds it was, that some regiments had been disembodied, while others were still kept up. This operated with peculiar severity upon some counties, while others were exempt from the hardship. It must be recollected, that the wives and children of militia-men were supported by county-rates, or by other rates, which fell equally on the county. It, therefore, now happened, that this pressure fell exclusively on some counties, and not upon others. It was also an amazing grievance to the men themselves, who had served through so long a war, and thought the moment arrived when they might rejoin their families, to find that they were still to be kept up, as if the war had still continued.

could not let this opportunity pass, of expressing his high admiration of the conduct of the officers and men of the regiment of militia which he had the honour to command, who, after twelve years service, being called again from their native country, marched with an alacrity which did them the greatest honour, to the discharge of another service. He hoped and trusted that ministers would take the earliest opportunity of convincing the militia, that it was not intended to keep them embodied a moment longer than was possible; for the continuance of some of the regiments in service had excited a strong sensation among them.

said, that with respect to the legal part of the noble lord's observations, it must be remembered, that though we were at peace with one power, we were not at peace with all; and that therefore, if the service of the country require it, government was fully justified in keeping embodied as many regiments of the militia as seemed necessary. If it were not necessary to keep the whole embodied, how were those counties, whose regiments were retained in service, injured by the her counties being relieved from the burthen? Adverting to what had fallen from the hon. colonel who had so distinguished himself in his command of a militia regiment, he readily acknowledged that nothing could be more creditable than the conduct of the regiment which that hon. gentleman commanded; and declared, that his Majesty's ministers were anxious to take the first opportunity of which their duty would permit them to avail themselves, to effect the reduction of the militia altogether.

observed, that the preambles of the Militia Bills ran, "Whereas it is expedient, as a defence against invasion." Now, really, he did not suppose there was any apprehension of our being invaded by America.

The Report of the Address was then brought up, and agreed to.

In answer to a question from Mr. Tierney, respecting the Army Extraordinaries, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, that he proposed to bring forward to-morrow the general account of the bills drawn on the treasury; but he apprised the right hon. gentleman that the account could only be very general, and that it was impossible, at this early period, to furnish the items or details.

apprehended, from what he had just heard, that there was no probability of knowing whether any mode could be adopted of furnishing a complete account of the military expenditures occasioned by the war on the continent, which might be taken as the winding-up of the business.

rejoined, that he thought this would be utterly impossible.