brought up the report of the committee on the Bill to amend an Act passed in the last session of parliament, intituled, "An Act to provide for the better execution of the laws in Ireland, by appointing superintending magistrates and additional constables in counties, in certain cases." On the motion, that the Bill be read a third time to-morrow,

said, he did not rise with a view of opposing the motion; he merely wished to say a few words on the subject of the Bill. The opinion which he had formed after much inquiry was, that there never was laid before the House a statement less supported by facts in many instances, than that of the right hon. the secretary for Ireland last session, when he introduced the present Bill to the House. He was far from entertaining an idea that the right hon. gentleman had wilfully misrepresented the state of Ireland to the House; but he believed that he had given credit to the misrepresentations of others, without sufficiently inquiring into the truth or falsehood of their statements. The right hon. gentleman had represented a general state of insubordination to exist in Ireland, a general insecurity, and a general disposition to combine for unlawful purposes. At the time this statement was made, he had heard it with no small degree of surprise, as he was in the habit of receiving letters from Ireland, and in none of them was there the least mention of any disturbances. He was still more surprised to hear one of the members for Queen's County (sir H. Parnell) deliver himself very much in the same manner with the right hon. gentleman. He was the more astonished, as he had many acquaintances in Queen's County, and he had not received the slightest information from any one of them on the subject. After he returned to Ireland, he made numerous inquiries, the result of which was, that there never was a period when there was less cause for the introduction of such a measure than that selected by the right hon. gentleman opposite. He was ready to admit, that partial instances of violations of the law had arisen—in fact, they were always occurring: true, partial combinations might have manifested themselves; but, he would again repeat, that there never was a greater exaggeration than the general statement upon which those Bills were founded—that the whole country was in a state of insubordination. He had lately spent three months in Ireland, and he hardly recollected, for some time, that country in a quieter state. This pacific change the right hon. gentleman had attributed to his Bill; quite overlooking, however, a simple fact—that his Bill could not have removed that which never had existence; and more particularly that the mere local operation of one Bill upon a solitary occasion, could imply an approbation of another and a more severe one, which it was never deemed expedient to carry into effect at all. In the year 1806, a greater insubordination prevailed in Ireland than certainly occurred at any later period. Outrages were then pretty generally existing in three or four different counties: a lawless body, called the Threshers, then ravaged those districts. The Irish government of that day were importuned by different persons to have recourse to violent and unconstitutional rigour, and at once, by measures of that description, to put an end and to punish (as it was said) this disobedience of the people. The then government refused so to shape their conduct; they appealed to the existing law, and they found it sufficient; they deferred, as they ought to have done, the ultima ratio, and the effect of their example showed the wisdom of their decision. The right hon. gentleman should therefore have more fully inquired into the state of the country, before he called upon parliament for such an extension of power as those Bills conferred. The publicity of the insubordination which formed the ground-work of those Bills, had in itself an ulterior and perhaps a more injurious operation; it went to promulgate, in this country, an opinion which went to strike at the root of the benefit held out to Ireland at the Union. The right hon. gentleman had not, he was sure, stated what he did not himself believe to exist; but he ought to have inquired more strictly into the state of Ireland before he attached credit to these misrepresentations. There was nothing so injurious to Ireland, as to have it believed in Great Britain that a disposition to disturbance existed in that country. At the time of the Union, it was held out as one of the advantages which would result from that measure, that the overflowing capital of England would find its way to Ireland, and give life to the industry of that country. He did not know what might have been the case had Ireland always been in a state of complete tranquillity; but he knew well that little or no English capital had been invested in Ireland since the Union; and he was certain that this would never take place while Ireland was supposed, by the capitalists of England, to be in such a state as to render any capital placed there insecure. The right hon. gentleman had been deceived by representations from Ireland. Many would, no doubt, be made to him from the meanest motives, from motives of interest, by hoping to carry objects of their own by such representations. He spoke with the more confidence on this subject, because he had seen a great deal of this in 1806. The right hon. gentleman, no doubt, would think he had done a great deal of good; he certainly would not condemn the motives by which he seemed to be actuated; and in one instance the right hon. gentleman deserved his commendation. He had done the greatest service, when he refused to allow local persons to officiate under his Bill; for that class of persons who were anxious for such appointment, was but too numerous in Ireland.—Here Mr. Ponsonby ad- mitted, that the Preservation of the Peace Bill had, in one sense, been beneficial in its operation, because it departed from the principle of its formation; it did not confer profit upon those who expected that would have been its result; on the contrary, it shewed in its operation, that patronage was not followed by government in the exercise of this Bill, and that a proper feeling interposed, to prevent so injurious an operation. He could easily believe that many efforts were made to induce the government of Ireland to call the Insurrection Act from the statute-book. Such attempts were unremitting in the year 1806: they were then peremptorily refused; and he from his official situation well knew, that motives widely different from an anxiety for the public welfare, had called forth those applications. He would here assure the House, that nothing could be more impolitic than to impress upon the lower orders of the Irish people, the opinion that nothing but the strong hand of the law could arrest the influence of their conduct. It was important for the House to consider the injurious effect which would follow the enforcement of such measures in a country like Ireland. This would be nothing less, in public opinion, than consigning a Catholic population to the control of an Orange faction. That was in itself an important consideration.—Mr. Ponsonby concluded an able speech by stating, that he meant not to oppose the present Bill, but to show the impolicy of resorting for partial and local excesses to extraneous measures; when, if the magistrates did their duty, the public peace could, in the ordinary way, be preserved, without ulterior measures. It was also most essential, that the fine which accompanied the Bill should be wholly limited to the district under its operation.

said, that although he was desirous of troubling the House as little as possible, yet he felt himself called upon to make some observation upon what had fallen from the right hon. gentleman. The House would perceive, that he rose upon this occasion under considerable disadvantage, when it was recollected that the right hon. gentleman had taken this opportunity of replying to a speech which he had made nearly four months ago. The right hon. gentleman, however, seemed to have forgotten the substance of that statement, upon which he had selected this occasion to comment. He had ac- cused him (Mr. Peel) of having, last session, made an exaggerated representation of the disturbances which existed in Ireland—of having been, in the first instance, deceived himself, and of having afterwards been the means of deceiving the House respecting the real state of that country. The right hon. gentleman had charged him with having said, that Ireland was in almost a general state of insurrection. To that assertion he must give the most distinct denial; in fact, the nature of the statement he had made last session, was the very reverse of that imputed to him by the right hon. gentleman; he had distinctly disclaimed the intention of throwing any general imputation upon the population of Ireland; the measure he introduced was not one of general operation, and was only calculated to be applied to any particular district, which might happen to be in a state of disturbance. Such was the nature of the Bill which he proposed; and the very ground of his argument was, that it was not necessary to prove general insubordination, but that, if he could show that there were two or three parts of Ireland in such a state that the law could not be enforced for the protection of the innocent, or the punishment of the guilty, he had done enough to justify the introduction of the Bill, in order to be applied to the disturbed parts. He had endeavoured to guard himself against the imputation which the right hon. gentleman had thrown upon him, namely, that of suffering himself to be deceived by false or exaggerated representations, and of afterwards deceiving the House. He recollected that he told the House that he had received numerous accounts of outrages committed in different parts of Ireland, but that he was willing to make allowance for the possibility of exaggerated statements from gentlemen who lived in the country, and who remembered and dreaded a repetition of the dreadful scenes of 1798. He had, therefore, almost entirely confined himself to the production of documents, the authenticity of which could not be questioned, some of which he would recal to the recollection of the right hon. gentleman; but the House must be aware of the disadvantages he must labour under, in going now into a detail which it was impossible for him to have anticipated.

Two of the representations which he had read, were from the grand juries of the King's County, and of the county of Westmeath. It could not be supposed that the gentlemen, who composed those grand juries, were liable to the imputation thrown out by the right hon. gentleman, viz. that of being influenced by private and interested motives. He stated, that an application had before been made from Westmeath, praying for the introduction of the Insurrection Act, with which application the government of Ireland had declined to comply. It was again brought forward, signed by 36 magistrates of the county. One of the resolutions of the meeting held upon that occasion contained, he recollected, the following remarkable expression, that the well-disposed inhabitants of the county prayed to be favoured 'with the merciful operation of the Insurrection Act.' He remembered reading to the House an oath which had been taken by numbers of deluded persons, (for taking which, seven persons had been actually convicted); by which they swore to assist Buonaparté to plant the tree of liberty in the centre of Ireland, and to put an end to all tithes and taxes. He stated, at the same time, that the objects of these persons were as absurd as they were wicked; that they were not countenanced by any one person of rank, talents, or character, in the country; and that even the most deluded of the unfortunate persons themselves could not hope for success in their plans. But he added, that the delusion might be attended with fatal consequences, in the narrow circle in which it operated. He referred to the representations made by the magistrates, one of which he had read to the House; it was put into his hands by one of the members for the Queen's County (sir H. Parnell), who assured him that it was not exaggerated. He had also supported his statement by a reference to the records of the courts of justice. He had cited a case of a most dreadful combination to murder an unfortunate man, merely because he had given evidence against an offender at a former assizes. No less than eighteen persons were selected from different parishes to commit this murder, and six of them were afterwards executed for that crime. He must, therefore, beg to ask the right hon. gentleman, whether he would still persist in saying that he (Mr. Peel) had been deceived himself, and had deceived the House by exaggerated statements? There was one document which he did not read to the House, for it was not then in existence, but which he would now read; it was the application of the magistrates, upon which the Police Act had been applied to the barony of Middlethird. Mr. Peel then read the Memorial, praying that the barony might be proclaimed in consequence of the numerous murders committed in it.

The right hon. gentleman had said, that magistrates, wishing for an increase of power, or being desirous of compensating for their own want of exertion in the discharge of their duties, or perhaps wanting to make some provision for themselves or their families, might make these exaggerated representations to answer their own purposes; but the right hon. gentleman would recollect, that the persons who had made these applications for the introduction of the Police Act, were to pay the expense of putting it in force; and he thought he might fairly set off their pecuniary interest against any wish which they might have to relieve themselves from active exertions, if even he could suppose the existence of such a wish. The right hon. gentleman, he thought, must admit, that the barony of Middlethird was in a situation in which this law ought to be applied to it, when those who were to defray the expense of putting it in force solicited for its introduction. He might also refer, in justification of the measure which the right hon. gentleman now arraigned, to the support which it met with from almost every Irish member who was present when the Bill was introduced. The member for Dublin said a few words upon the subject, but declared, that in consequence of the statement which he (Mr. Peel) had made, he would not oppose the Bill; all the other Irish members who spoke upon the subject, gave it their cordial support; and among that number was the right hon. gentleman himself. Surely, then, if he wanted any further justification of the measure in question, that justification was to be found in the general concurrence which it met with from the members for Ireland.

The right hon. gentleman had compared the present times with those of 1806; he had stated, that the Threshers then committed outrages in many parts of Ireland; that applications were made to the government to have recourse to strong measures; but the government of that day refused to comply with those applications, and that the Threshers were put down by the ordinary exertion of the laws. He had always understood, however, that so convinced was that government, in which the right hon. gentleman held so high an office, of the necessity of having recourse to stronger measures, that when they quitted the administration, they left behind them that very Insurrection Act of which the right hon. gentleman now complained, and which was to have been brought forward by Mr. Elliot, then chief secretary to the lord lieutenant. He did not state the fact from his own knowledge, but he knew that it was stated in debate, that when the duke of Wellington succeeded to the office of chief secretary, he found the Bill for introducing the Insurrection Act drawn up, ready to be presented to parliament, by his predecessor, Mr. Elliot. It was stated on that occasion, that there was good ground for the introduction of that Bill, because the member for Dublin had said, there was a French party in Ireland. He thanked the right hon. gentleman for the credit which he had given to the government of Ireland, of not having applied this law to the purposes of patronage. He agreed in the opinion, that there could not be a more flagitious abuse of the power entrusted to the government of Ireland, than for them to have applied this law to promote their own influence or to extend their patronage. He should think that he deserved to be visited with the severest punishment, if he suffered himself to be made a party in any such transaction. He also concurred in another opinion expressed by the right hon. gentleman, that it was not expedient to select the persons who were to put this law in forced, from the district to which it was to be applied.

The right hon. gentleman was correct in supposing that many applications had been made to the government of Ireland to put this law in force, but they had been refused, because it was felt that the strongest proof must be given, before the government ought to consent to the applications of so strong a measure; the most indisputable evidence ought to be given, that the lives and property of the innocent inhabitants were in danger, and that the ordinary powers of the law were insufficient to protect them. He could not, however, by any means agree with one of the reasons urged by the right hon. gentleman against putting this law in force, viz. that it would give up a Catholic population to the power of an Orange magistracy. It was to him a subject of deep regret, to hear that the right hon. gentleman, by such an expression, countenanced one of the most wicked and inflammatory statements, with respect to the Insurrection Act, and its abuse by magistrates, that had ever been made. Surely the right hon. gentleman must remember, that the law provided that a king's counsel should be sent from Dublin to assist at the trial of any persons accused under this Act, and that if any difference of opinion prevailed between the magistrates and the king's counsel, the sentence should not be carried into execution, until all the facts were laid before the Irish government. He trusted that the House would be of opinion, that this provision afforded a sufficient guard against the indulgence of these religious prejudices of which the right hon. gentleman was so much afraid, but the possible operation of which, in the manner mentioned, he never could admit.

He had now, he believed, adverted to all the topics introduced into the right hon. gentleman's speech: he wished, if he could with regularity, to say a few words upon what had passed in another place upon this subject, and upon the speech of a noble lord of the other House of Parliament. [The Speaker said, it was irregular to advert to what had passed in any other place.] Mr. Peel said, he should bow to that authority, and not attempt to evade the order of the House. He should merely say, that he had prepared a clause in compliance with the suggestion of a right hon. baronet, who wished to give government the power of narrowing the operation of this law strictly to the offending spot, in order that the innocent might not suffer for the guilty. This clause was to enable government to proclaim every part or parts of a county in a state of disturbance. He concluded with thanking the House for its indulgence, and regretting that he had been compelled to trouble it so long.

said, he had always opposed the passing of the Insurrection Act, because he thought it was a most unconstitutional measure, and one that ought never to be countenanced in that House, but in cases of the most urgent and evident necessity. To his own knowledge, the powers, he might say, the very extraordinary powers, given by that Act to the magistrates, had in many instances been perverted to gratify personal resentments and private views, merely from a cancerous feeling, arising from a differ- ence of religious principles. He thought therefore that the Act ought to be annually submitted to the consideration of parliament, in order for them to say whether it should be continued or be suffered to expire. As to the Peace Preservation Bill, he believed it had produced salutary and beneficial effects. He would always speak his mind, and declare candidly what he had perceived to be the effect of any law, though he might have opposed it in its origin and progress as an unconstitutional measure. He therefore repeated, that he believed it had produced salutary effects, even extraneous to the barony of Middle-third. He had been well informed, that there were many other districts adjoining, where a similar disposition to tumultuary proceedings had evinced itself, which had, in consequence of this Act, been suppressed, without any of the parties so predisposed for illegal propensities having committed themselves. On that account he should give no further opposition to the present Bill.

said, he had originally thought this Act, when introduced by the right hon. gentleman, a most unconstitutional one; and of the principle of it, he still entertained the same opinion: but from what he had lately heard, and particularly what had fallen from his right hon. friend who spoke last, he was inclined to believe it had been attended with salutary effects; and it gave him the highest satisfaction to find, that the Irish government had carefully abstained from acting on the very extraordinary powers with which the Act had invested them. On this account he did not feel inclined to give any opposition to the progress of the present Bill.

said a few words respecting his reason for originally opposing it, which had been done away by the operation of the Act, and the commendable forbearance of the Irish.

The Bill was ordered to be read a third time to-morrow.

rose, and said, that he wished to avail himself of this last opportunity of bringing under the consideration of the House some topics to which he had two or three times before adverted, and upon some of which he had since obtained additional information. Before he pro- ceeded to the main subject, he begged leave to call the attention of his Majesty's ministers to the property tax. It was understood that the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer meant next week to propose an adjournment (and to carry that proposition by a vote, if any opposition were given, as most assuredly would be the case) until the end of January, or the beginning of February. The consequence would be, that a very short period would be allowed for the consideration of that most important measure the property tax, of which a continuation, either wholly or in part, was to be suggested by ministers This appeared to him a most extraordinary proceeding—it was treating the House and the country with great disrespect: their opinions were not to be asked, but ministers were to submit their proposition, with the utmost confidence of its being immediately and implicitly submitted to; parliament being allowed to exercise no judgment or discretion upon a tax, for the termination of which its faith was solemnly pledged to the nation. [Hear, hear!] So assured of success did government esteem themselves that notices had been given of assessments to be made to April 1816; the law expiring upon the 5th of April 1815. It remained to be seen upon what authority such demands had been made; it ought to be known that at present no regard need be paid to such information, as the law, unless revived, would die a natural death at the time stated. The question to be considered upon this point was, whether, between the beginning of February and the period for renewing the Property Tax Act, if indeed a renewal were to be allowed, sufficient time was allowed for the discussion of, and deliberation upon this very important subject.

Before the House resolved itself into a committee for the grant of any further sums of the public money, he wished once more to advert to the engagements with foreign powers, entered into under the express sanction of our plenipotentiaries, of which ministers either were, or affected to be ignorant: if they were actually ignorant, their colleagues abroad had been guilty of a gross neglect of their duty, in not transmitting those engagements; or, if they were not ignorant, and kept parliament in the dark upon such momentous points, the government here was chargeable with an offence still more unjustifiable. From what he had stated, and proved on a former evening, it appeared that the House, in consequence of want of information, had actually voted an enormous sum of money, in direct opposition to a solemn treaty. He was happy to have it now in his power to supply some further information upon the subject of the subsidy given to Sicily, to enable her to carry on war against Naples, at the very moment when we had entered into one of the most solemn engagements with the king of Naples, to preserve to him the undisturbed possession of his dominions; thus placing ourselves in this singular situation, that we were supplying money to one power to destroy another, which other we had bound ourselves by every means in our power to uphold. In the previous discussion upon this question, he had read to the House a copy of lord William Bentinck's letter, and he now begged to call the attention of the House to certain very remarkable circumstances that took place at Chatillon. A pacification was there proposed on the part of Napoleon, who was still at the head of the French empire, by which several arrangements for the kingdom of Italy were suggested, and among others, Buonaparté was to decide the fate of the Papal dominions, and of the kingdom of Naples. To this proposition the allied powers answered, that in the affairs of Italy, France could not be allowed to interfere, as it had been already determined by treaty that the Neapolitan dominions were to be guaranteed to their present sovereign: the express stipulation was, that the four allied sovereigns had consented to guarantee his dominions to Joachim, on the conditions stated in the treaty entered into between the emperor of Austria and the king of Naples. This treaty received the sanction of all the plenipotentiaries, and, of course, of the minister from this country. Besides this confirmation, Mr. Whitbread said, he was in possession of some other circumstances of not less importance. It was known that at Leghorn a proclamation had been published by the Anglo-Sicilian forces, in which it was declared that the army of Ferdinand had landed for the purpose of conquering the ancient dominions of that sovereign. Of course this instrument had occasioned some inquiry, and a letter was sent to lord William Bentinck, written, as was asserted by lord Castlereagh, upon the appearance of the proclamation alluded to, in order to remove the unfavourable impression it was likely to produce. It commenced by expressing his astonishment and regret at the intelligence which had been transmitted to him, which must doubtless meet with the high disapprobation of the court of Naples; it requested that lord William Bentinck would communicate to the king of Naples what measures had been taken by the British government, and ask whether his Majesty was satisfied with the indemnity that had been offered to him: if reliance were placed upon the terms of the proclamation, of course the king of Naples would be compelled to think of employing his own means, being dependent upon himself alone; that England had made such engagements with the king of Naples as rendered a strict adherence to the terms necessary; and that although she had not entered into a solemn treaty, it had been omitted only from motives of delicacy to king Ferdinand of Sicily; but that if the king of Sicily should deem it more advisable to thwart the views of the British government by making an attack upon the dominions of the king of Naples, in such a case the king of Sicily must act upon his own account, and England, having granted an indemnity, would feel herself called upon to give protection to the king of Naples, against any act of indiscretion that the king of Sicily might determine to commit. [Hear, hear!] The House would bear in mind that the letter was written by Lord Castlereagh, and that it spoke the language of the Prince Regent, and of the British government. In what situation, then, were we placed? Joachim of Naples, a distinguished, general, had deserted the cause of Buonaparté before all sense of honour was extinct in England, and long before the strength and resources of his former master were exhausted: such, at that time, was the power of Naples, that it was deemed politic by the mightier sovereigns to guarantee his security and independence, on condition that he would abandon the cause for which he had taken up arms; but, now the power of Buonaparté was extinguished, the power of Murat was to be extinguished also. Mr. Whitbread said, he remembered, in the early part of the Revolution, when general Dumourier first came over to the allies, the event was announced in the most pompous manner; be was extolled by prince Cobourg as one of the greatest characters of the day, nothing could exceed his generosity and magnanimity; but, next day, when it was found that his army had not deserted with him, the contrast was striking; he was decried and vilified as the most infamous of mankind, with whom it was unfit that any communication should be held. Mr. Fox had well said upon the occasion, that it seemed that general Dumourier, with his power, had also lost his character and virtue. Such seemed to be the case with the king of Naples; but it would ill become the House of Commons to vote a sum of money, the object of which was to forfeit the honour of the country; and were it now possible, it would be well if the resolution could be withdrawn. Having obtained this information, he thought it right to disclose it to ministers, that, if they were in ignorance, they might avail themselves of it: those who had kept them in the dark, ought hereafter to be called to a severe account.

There was still another subject, upon which he wished to put a question, even though he scarcely hoped to obtain an answer; for, it it were not injurious to the public service, the reply might be detrimental to private convenience. Lord Castlereagh had now been absent some months, and nothing had been done at the Congress. The question he wished to put, whether, up to the 25th of the last month, any thing had been determined at Vienna, more than had been arranged on the same day of the preceding month? Was the general pacification of Europe one step nearer then, than at the time of the departure of the British plenipotentiary? If no progress had yet been made, there might be good ground to hope that the proclamation of prince Repnin regarding Saxony was not genuine, and that the fate of Poland was not yet decided. In the catalogue of mighty works to accomplish, there was none of greater magnitude than the question, whether that unhappy country was to be formed into an independent kingdom? Certain it was, that at some period or other it would be independent; yd it would then take signal vengeance upon those who had been the authors of its calamities, if satisfaction were not voluntarily made. From sources of information not official, and liable to contradiction, it was stated that the emperor Alexander had added an additional grace to his character, by supporting the claims of Poland to independence; and from the same source it was asserted, singular as it might appear, that his antago- nist in this project was the ambassador of Great Britain. [Hear, hear!] He trusted as fervently that the latter part of the intelligence was unfounded, as that the first part of the relation was established in truth. If the emperor Alexander, besides the splendid triumphs he had gained, had added this fresh glory to his character, in what a disadvantageous contrast must the noble lord appear, who was resisting this plan of liberty and happiness! With regard to the subject of the honourable engagement with Naples, if ministers were in possession of the intelligence which he had supplied, and had in the teeth of it required the vote for a subsidy to the king of Sicily, he would arraign them at the bar of their country. Mr. Whitbread concluded by pleading the urgency of the case, as a justification for the present as well as former applications for information relative to the existing state of public affairs. [Hear, hear!]

of the Exchequer complained of the manner in which these topics were urged, two, three, and four times over, without being regularly brought before them; and begged once for all to say, that on most of them his opinion was, that at present no information ought to be given to the House. On the subjects now under discussion at Vienna, he could not and ought not to open his lips; and with respect to one point that might be regarded as detached from them—that relating to the engagements entered into by this country with the present reigning family of Naples, he need only to refer to the hon. gentleman's own statement to show (assuming it to be correct), that nothing had been done on the part of England to which the most scrupulous delicacy could object. Supposing we had bound ourselves to make peace with Naples under its present sovereign, and supposing we continued to fulfil our previous engagements with Sicily, the two countries, Sicily and Naples, being at war (these facts he should neither admit nor deny), was there in this state of affairs any thing done on our part that was not justifiable, that had not a precedent? That two countries might be at war, and a third, at peace with both the belligerents, assist one of them to a certain degree, without being considered to give the other cause of war, was that which had frequently been seen, though the hon. gentleman had spoken of it as if it had been that which no man had ever heard of before. At the commencement of the late war, Spain beings connecter with France by a treaty of alliance, we had acknowledged her to have a right to furnish France with supplies in money, and even with men, so she did not exceed the amount and number which she was bound by treaty to furnish. It had been notified to Spain, that this would not be regarded as an act of hostility, but that if she went beyond this, her conduct would be regarded as tantamount to a declaration of war. The Spanish fleet had been put under the command of a French officer, and the whole resources of the kingdom of Spain seemed about to be added to the means of Buonaparté, before war was declared by this country. In 1812, Austria had furnished Buonaparté with a force of thirty thousand men to act against Russia; but this had not been viewed by the latter power as a just ground of war, Austria having been bound by a treaty of alliance to supply the force which she then brought forward, and not having exceeded the quota she had engaged to furnish. England, by a treaty long ago concluded and notified to parliament, stands bound to succour Sicily. We fulfil this engagement by giving part, and only a part, of that subsidy which she formerly received. If we did no more than this in opposition to the interests of Naples, the government of Murat could have no reason to complain. This statement he thought would be satisfactory, even if the information of the hon. gentleman were admitted to be correct: it must be clear, that government in this instance had done nothing wrong. But he could not refrain from observing, that it was found very inconvenient to have these subjects so repeatedly brought forward in this way. At present, his Majesty's ministers could not with propriety enter upon that explanation which they could wish to give; but when the proper time arrived, he doubted not it would be in their power to offer a triumphant justification. On the subject of the adjournment, he had to offer a few words. The state of the public business was such, that he thought they might shortly separate. The adjournment might be moved some day in the next week, in case the bills should then have been passed by the House of Lords; the period at which they should again assemble was open to consideration. It was the wish of ministers that they should meet sufficiently early to give due consideration to those great questions which must be brought forward early in the session. With respect to the property-tax, he had to observe, that the notices recently issued by the commissioners would have been at once explained to the hon. gentleman, if he had turned to the Act. The right hon. gentleman then read the words of the Act, and stated, that from the year 1806 it had been judged expedient, in order to avoid the trouble and inconvenience of making a new assessment every year, to assess the property-tax for two years from time to time; but the assessment would not be acted upon, though the amount of the charge were made out for a year beyond the period at which the Act was expected to expire. This stated, the notices recently sent round, he hoped, would create no alarm.

thought he had never heard a more unsatisfactory explanation of any thing, than the right hon. gentleman who had just sat down, had given of the situation in which this country stood with respect to Sicily and Naples. He had said, "You may be at peace with two belligerents, and assist one of them in consequence of a treaty of alliance, offensive and defensive, to a certain extent, without giving offence to the other." He had quoted as instances of this, the conduct of England with respect to Spain, at the commencement of the late war, and that of Russia with respect to Austria, in 1812. The right hon. gentleman might have brought forwards a hundred other cases of a similar nature, but these would have been nothing to the point in question. For what was the real state of the case? Austria had concluded a treaty with Naples, in which she guaranteed the possession of that kingdom to Murat. Sicily was at war with him, and king Ferdinand declared that he would force Naples to submit to him. In pursuance of this resolution, he commenced hostilities against Joachim; and we furnished him with a subsidy, to enable him to dethrone the monarch, whose throne we had guaranteed. We thus agreed to support one king, and then paid another to dethrone him. He had said on a former evening, that if we were bound, under all circumstances, to subsidise Naples while at war, we might at last have to pay her for fighting against our allies; but he had not thought it possible we could carry our folly so far as to pay her for fighting against ourselves. This, however, acting on our present plan, we should do. Continuing to subsidise Sicily while at war, should Ferdinand appear on the point of accomplishing that which it was his avowed intention to effect, England, as the guarantee of the throne of Murat, would be bound to interpose by force, to restrain that hostility which her treasure supported. The right hon. gentleman had said, he would neither admit nor deny the facts which had been stated. After hearing this, he (Mr. Ponsonby) must as sume they were admitted; for the most cautious minister he had ever seen in that House, (he must own he had never known a minister more cautious than the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, more guarded against answering questions, more careful not to commit himself by giving informations)—he would repeat it, the most cautious minister he had ever seen in that House would not have heard such facts asserted without denying them, if it was in his power to do so. Nothing could be more absurd than to guarantee the throne of Naples to Murat, and then subsidise the king of Sicily to dethrone him; to give him half the subsidy he had formerly received; to put the king on half pay, that he might make war on the sovereign we had undertaken to support in his kingdom. This arrangement appeared to him to be the perfection of human absurdity. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had said, he had no doubt that when the proper time arrived, ministers would be able to offer a most triumphant justification of their conduct. He hoped they would be able to do this; he hoped they would, not from any great concern that he felt on their account, but because he considered the cause of England the cause of justice; it was her interest that all the powers of Europe should possess what they were rightfully entitled to; that things should return to the old system, and that that should be given up under which France had long plundered and outraged her weaker neighbours. Whenever the time came at which ministers would give the promised explanation, whenever the oracle should speak, he trusted it would be shown that the rights of every power had been attended to, and then they would be able to prove that they had secured the interests of this country. This established, they might boast a triumphant justification; but if they should not satisfy the House that this had been their object, he trusted they would meet with an ignominious condemnation.

said, that he considered that as praise which had been uttered as censure, namely, that the present ministers were most cautious not to make unnecessary disclosures. The situation of public affairs was not at all different, now that the political arrangements were making in Congress, at Vienna, from what they had been when the measures were taking for a pacification in the heart of France. The House, and the gentle men opposite him, had then most properly reposed confidence in his Majesty's ministers; and it was plain that no negociations could, with honour or advantage, be carried on, if they were subject to partial examinations in detail, by questions put across the table. It was on this general ground, and not from any peculiar circumstances, that answers were refused to questions which had been put. The circumstances in which the House were placed were well known: the noble lord employed in the negociation had been appointed with the approbation of every one, and especially of the gentlemen opposite him, both to negociate in France and to assist at the Congress. The time would come, when all things respecting which questions were at present improperly asked, would be explained; and it would then appear, that all due efforts had been made; and that if this country was not successful in all that it could have wished, it had succeeded to the extent of its just share of influence on the continental arrangements. In answer to what had been said respecting king Joachim of Naples, supposing all had happened that had been stated, the war which was carried on by Naples might as well be supposed to be for the purpose of dethroning the king of Sicily, as that carried on by the king of Sicily could be said to be for the purpose of dethroning him. There was nothing in the existing war between those two powers different from any ordinary war, which it was not contended would preclude any power at peace with one of the belligerents from paying subsidy, or even affording a contingent to the other. We had bound ourselves to protect one of the powers while at war; that the character of the war was changed was not a sufficient reason that we should withdraw that protection.

said, the right hon. gentleman had misunderstood him. His ob- ject had been to show, that the relations of this country with Sicily and Naples differed much from those cases which had been referred to as similar, seeing we had specially guaranteed a kingdom to Murat, and then subsidized the king of Sicily to enable him to take it away.

said, he had not misunderstood the right hon. gentleman; what he had said in answer to him was, that as the king of Naples was probably as well disposed to take Sicily as the king of Sicily was to conquer Naples, the war carried on between the two countries did not bear so distinct a character as he had seemed inclined to give it.

said, that there was sufficient ground for the House to withdraw that confidence in ministers, the continuance of which the right hon. gentleman claimed. There was sufficient reason to withdraw it, because their present conduct was directly opposite to the measures of the last year, because the declarations of moderation which attended the triumphant march of the allies in the last year, was most different from the acts of rapine and aggression of the club of confederated monarchs at Vienna who appeared to have met, not to watch over the interests of Europe, but as contemners of public faith and justice, as the spoliators of Saxony, and the oppressors of Norway. The government had been accessaries to the acts of injustice committed; and after these acts had been committed, it was too much that his Majesty's tongue-tied ministers should be sheltered under parliamentary confidence. He should require some reasons before he voted the supplies demanded, besides the assertion that the disposal was in able and responsible hands. As to their ability he had some doubts, and the responsibility seemed to rest on one right hon. head. The waste and prodigality which had been complained of, was not compensated by the scanty information afforded.

thought the House might well retract the confidence which had been granted to ministers, from the facts which were generally known. There was matter enough to arraign them, without waiting the issue of the negociation. He was not pleased to find fault with the administration; but in the conduct of the ministers with respect to Naples, in their thus abandoning the declarations which had been made to our old ally, when with him alone we had stemmed the tor- rent of French power; there was a sufficient ground for censure, and he would willingly concur in a vote of disapprobation on their conduct.

said, there was a great deal of truth in the observations which had been made by the hon. gentleman who had preceded him, that we had a right, even now, to expect some explanations; nor would any one who had attended to the proceedings of similar Congresses say, that if they were not finally settled within such a period, all explanation of the state of our foreign relations should be till then deferred; and if the present Congress was to last as long as those which had been held at Munster and elsewhere, and we were to give, in the mean time, large sums to foreign powers—a half million to this power for a fleet, and so much to another as a subsidy; it would be convenient to the foreign powers to receive these sums, and to the ministers to get them voted, without any statement. As to the pretence which had been made for giving no answers with regard to Poland and Saxony, it did not at all apply to the treaty with king Joachim. That was past; the question was not, whether such a thing was to take place, but, aye or no, whether it had already happened? Aye or no, whether we were not acting contrary to it? This was a subject, therefore, on which the House had a right to demand information, not only as it regarded the subsidy, but the honour and faith of the crown in its foreign relations, which should ever be dear to the House. In the course of the present evening, the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer had stated, that he did neither admit nor deny the existence of our engagements with king Joachim. A singular variation from his declaration on a former evening, when he had said that he was a stranger to it! An expression equivalent to a denial, when proceeding from a responsible minister of the crown in the House of Commons; for it could not be supposed that that minister would be ignorant of such engagements six or seven months after the time when they were said to have been concluded. The House, he hoped, would bear in mind the conduct of the minister of the crown with respect to these engagements—that he had first denied their existence, and that his second statement was, that he neither admitted nor denied them, It was too late at present to bring forward such an evasion; they had already voted the subsidy. It was said, that we had engaged to pay a subsidy to Sicily while she continued at war. Now, to put an extravagant supposition, but which the reasoning of the gentlemen opposite seemed to justify, if Sicily were to make war upon ourselves, were we to continue the subsidy to her? A treaty of subsidy, like any other engagement, was to be construed according to its spirit and meaning, taking into account the circumstances of the case, and the situation of the country. But two cases had been brought forward as parallel, the conduct of this country towards Spain after the breaking out of the late war with France, and the situation of Austria towards Russia in 1812. In both these cases, which were most properly lumped together, the question was, whether one power had given another a sufficient ground of war, by a pecuniary aid to its adversary in one case, and of a contingent in another. It was absurd to compare those cases with our present engagements towards Naples and Sicily. In both those cases the question was one of expediency merely. In the one, whether we should engage Spain in a contest out of which it was our interest to keep her as long as possible, although we perceived that the government of the Prince of Peace was merely a lieutenancy under Buonaparté; and in the other, Russia was most anxious to keep Austria neutral at any price, looking forward to that accession of her power, which ultimately took place. In neither of those cases was any engagement of honour in question—expediency was the only point to be considered. In the present instance, we had guaranteed to the king of Naples the territory of Naples, with an addition even of territory, which would explain his present movements on the shores of the Adriatic, in the march of Ancona and the duchy of Romagna. We had not pledged our honour to him on this subject gratuitously, but we had value received for our stipulation. We had not rushed into the arms of Joachim Napoleon, from any wish to secure those persons who had been raised on the ruins of the ancient dynasties, but because he had assisted us to overthrow the power which had raised him. We had received his co-operation in Italy, without which the movements of the allies, as well on the Rhine as in Italy, would have been embarrassed. Even at the time when lord Castlereagh gave instructions to lord William Bentinck to conclude the engagement with Joachim, the co-operation of that monarch was, he understood, necessary, to render the position of count Bellegarde, on the Mincio, secure. The state of our engagements with Joachim, was this:—In April last, a treaty was concluded between Austria, which was presented to lord Castlereagh, for his concurrence. That noble lord returned that treaty with alterations in his own handwriting, which secured an indemnity to the king of Sicily for Naples, which territory was left to king Joachim, provided king Joachim should withdraw his claims upon Sicily. The treaty, thus altered, was agreed to by Naples; and lord Castlereagh, at Dijon or Chatillon, signified his concurrence in it, and stated, that the only reason why he did not formally accede, arose from motives of delicacy to the king of Sicily; but that, on his faith and that of England, he pledged himself that that treaty should be acceded to, and a peace, if possible, negociated, pari passû, between the king of Sicily and Murat. The noble lord did not rest there, but instructed lord William Bentinck to give the same assurance in writing which he had given verbally; and in consequence of the strange proclamation at Leghorn, he wrote a dispatch to remove the posibility of doubt; to instruct lord William Bentinck to disavow that proclamation to the Neapolitan minister; to assure him again, that Great Britain would accede to the treaty with Austria; and that, if Ferdinand would not accept an indemnity for Naples, Great Britain would not only desert him, but would support Naples against him. And so strong was the feeling in Italy on this subject, that the queen of Naples, the sister of Buonaparté, made a declaration (which as coming from her was rather curious), that she would rather confide in a declaration of a British general, than a solemn treaty signed and sealed with any other power. Such was the statement, which had neither been admitted nor denied: and if it was true, he would put it to the House, whether it was not a violation of honour and good faith, to send money to Sicily, to enable her to recover that territory which we had guaranteed to another power?

said, he perfectly concurred in the opinion of the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Ponsonby) that the cause of honour and justice formed the true interest of England; and he flattered himself that, whenever the proper oppor- tunity arrived for the House to be put in possession of, and to examine into the whole conduct of his Majesty's ministers in these negotiations, it would be found that they had, in every instance, advocated the cause of truth and justice; that whenever they had the power they had succeeded in maintaining that cause; and that whenever they had failed, it was not for want of the exertions of our negotiators abroad, or of proper instructions from the government at home. When this subject was under discussion on a former night, he had stated his sentiments to the House; and, notwithstanding all he had heard to-night, he was not in the least shaken in the opinion which he had before expressed, viz. that the ministers of this country would be guilty of a gross dereliction of their duty if they were, in answer to the reiterated questions of the gentlemen on the other side, to give to the House and to the country imperfect information, and they could give no other. If, because gentlemen tried to throw ridicule upon them for not answering questions, which ought not, under the present circumstances, to be answered; or for not explaining that which ought not to be explained, they were induced to depart from that line of conduct which their duty presented to them, they would show themselves to be unfit for the situations they held, and unworthy of the confidence of the country. The hon. gentleman who spoke first, had, in his opinion, treated the noble lord, who was now absent, rather hardly: he had distinctly approved of his appointment, both on a former, and on the present occasion, to negotiate for the interests of this country abroad, and had expressed an opinion, in which the whole House concurred, that a more proper person could not have been selected But scarcely had the hon. gentleman finished his panegyric upon the noble lord, before he went into an attack upon the whole of the proceedings in which he was engaged, and had called upon ministers to give an explanation upon almost every point in negotiation upon subjects now in progress, not one of which was finally closed. The hon. gentleman had thought proper to state, what he was pleased to call the opinions of the emperor Alexander (upon what authority he knew not) respecting the independence of Poland; and had added, that the noble lord (Castlereagh) had opposed those opinions. It was impossible to use stronger language than that which the hon. gentleman had applied to this supposed conduct of the noble lord. Was it fair—was it just—was it candid, without a single document before the House, without even the knowledge that the Congress had met, thus to arraign the whole conduct of that noble lord, upon a subject about which he would venture to say that hon. gentleman did not know a single title? It was impossible to conceive any thing more unfair than thus to throw out censures, when there was no information before the House, and when the hon. gentleman knew that ministers were precluded by their duty from giving an answer. If he wanted any additional reason to confirm his opinion of the propriety of the conduct of ministers in refusing to answer these questions, the gentlemen on the other side had furnished him with it. In what a situation would the country be, if ministers were bound to answer, pending the negociation, questions which only tended to inflame and mislead the public mind. That was not, he dared say, the intention of those gentlemen; but that must be the inevitable result. The hon. gentleman had attacked the noble lord upon the subject of Saxony, taking it for granted, that the whole affair respecting that country was settled; founding his knowledge upon what he had seen in pamphlets and newspapers, without a single document before him or the House, and knowing that ministers could not now produce any, or reason upon, or even hint at, any of which they might be in possession. Gentlemen were very anxious to obtain information respecting Sicily. Upon the subject of a subsidy, the House undoubtedly had a right to demand information; but the principle upon which that subsidy was granted, had been fully and distinctly explained; and he must say, with all deference to the hon. and learned gentleman (Mr. Horner), for whose talents he entertained the highest respect, that his speech furnished the strongest reasons for not giving any further explanation respecting Sicily and Naples, until the arrangements were settled; aye, and until the noble lord was pressed to explain the whole transaction. That hon. and learned gentleman had taken rather a different view of the subject from some of his friends; for the tendency of his speech was to show how high the character of the British negotiator stood upon the continent. It was reported, that there were agents from the reigning king of Naples at present in this country. Whether any of the information upon which these questions were founded was derived from them, he did not know; it was sufficient for him, that the hon. and learned gentleman approved of the conduct of the noble lord as far as it had gone in that transaction, and that he must admit that it was not vet concluded. The hon. and learned gentleman had stated, that a treaty had been concluded between Austria and Naples, and that we had given our sanction to it; and the hon. and learned gentleman approved of that measure: and was there any thing in that conduct, supposing the hon. and learned gentleman's statement were correct, inconsistent with our keeping our faith to an old ally; and if we could not restore him to his former dominions in Naples, at least to obtain him an indemnity, and to secure him in Sicily? That a proper opportunity would arrive, and arrive soon, when all these points might be fully explained and investigated, he assured the gentlemen on the other side, he was quite as anxious as they could possibly be; but until that time arrived, he was convinced that ministers would betray their duty if they departed from the line of conduct they had adopted. Those gentlemen had at present a great advantage over ministers; they might come down to that House and propose questions derived from the agents of the reigning king of Naples, or from pamphlets, or from newspapers, or from any other source from which they could collect it. They had no responsibility, no duties attached to them (except as members of parliament, which he was willing to allow they ably and honestly performed); but no duties which prevented them from making any disclosure which would enable them to make a successful hit at their opponents, when they knew their opponents could not in duty answer them. He should not now trouble the House any longer; he trusted he had satisfied the gentlemen opposite to him; [Sir John Newport and other gentlemen called out, hear, hear!] he was sure he had satisfied the right hon. baronet, that nothing could be more injurious to the interests of the country, than to give the information required, while the negotiation was actually pending.

explained, that he had not asserted that he knew such and such conferences had passed between lord Cas- tlereagh and the emperor of Russia, but that he had been so informed. As to the agents of Murat in this country, be begged to say, that he knew nothing of them; but supposed that such agents might be here, since agents of all the great powers had been at Murat's head-quartets, among others, lord William Bentinck.^* The right hon. gentleman (Mr. W. Pole), whose versatile talents had been exerted in every department, political, financial, naval, and military, had at last subsided into a situation, in which, as there was a great lack of official duties, he had taken on him to direct the cabinet into which he had been admitted, and to issue his oracular declarations in a style similar to that in which he conveyed so authoritatively the will of the Irish government,—'Ego et Rex meus,'—'I and the lord lieutenant.' The right hon. gentleman who was so well known for this vehement declamation and exaggerated assumption of consequence, had dictated to the ministers under his tutelage and auspices, a line of proceeding against which the House should manifest its most marked displeasure. The practice of answering questions had been discontinued. Not the slightest ground had been stated for demanding the money of their constituents, which they were imperatively called on to vote. For the Sicilian subsidy, the reasons which had been stated were such as he had never before heard adduced; and as to the other estimates, it would be a dereliction of all principle to vote the money first and enter into the reasons afterwards.

^* The pamphlet circulated on the continent, and alluded to by Mr. Whitbread, in the course of the discussions relative to the engagements entered into by this country with Joachim, king of Naples, consists of two parts; the one initialed, "Observations for un Ecrit, intitulé, 'Les Bourbons de Naples;'" the other, "Reflexions d'un Napolitain." The following is the passage which relates to the convention with England:—

"RELATIONS of King Joachim with England.

"England, of all the coalesced powers, is that whom the most sacred engagements bind to the cause of king Joachim, precisely because between the two powers there have been fewer formal stipulations; the most important resolutions having been taken between them, solely under the guarantee of good faith and honour.

"It is, in effect, upon the word of the English ministers, that king Joachim detached himself from the alliance of France to join the coalition; upon their word that he commenced and pursued the war; upon their word that he gave up his conquests: it might almost be said, that he rendered them at one moment, the arbiters of his power, the depositaries of his crown. The history of politics, unquestionably, does not present any example of so noble a homage paid to the character of a great nation, and of so honourable a testimony of confidence in the probity of its ministers.

"From his accession to the throne, the king of Naples felt how important an alliance with England was to the interests of his kingdom; and when he was invited to join the coalition, he declared in the most formal terms to Austria, that he never could resolve to carry his arms out of his own states, nor take an active part in the war against France, unless he had a treaty of peace and alliance with England.

"The views of the king on this point were perfectly conformable to those of Austria and the whole coalition. A treaty

between England and Naples rendered disposable against the common enemy, not only the whole force of king Joachim, but all the force which the English had in Sicily. When Austria, therefore, sent a plenipotentiary to Naples, she declared through him that England acceded to the proposed treaty of alliance, and that lord Aberdeen was provided with full powers for that purpose. This declaration was confirmed by the exhibition of a letter from the English minister, by which lord Bentinck was enjoined to conclude with the kingdom of Naples a convention which put an end to hostilities between the two states. This convention took place: it was not a simple armistice, it was the establishment of the most perfect state of peace. All the relations of commerce were authorized, and every favour guaranteed to them. It was declared that all the ports should be open to the flags of the two nations, which implied the positive acknowledgment of the Neapolitan flag; in short, the convention was so well considered by the contracting parties, as being to have the effect of a treaty of alliance, though it had not the form, that they immediately set about forming the plan of a campaign, in which the Austrian, English, and Neapolitan troops were to act simultaneously."

"The king opened the campaign—he had arrived at Bologna, where he was to receive the ratification of the treaty with Austria, when, by a courier from Basle, he learned that modifications in the treaty were proposed.

"His surprise at first was extreme, and must have been so, since the treaty had been stipulated on the terms previously approved of by the Austrian government; but he soon recognized in the proposition made to him, a new proof of the interest attached by the Austrian cabinet to the rendering the accession of England more certain and more solemn.

"In effect, it is not the Austrian ministry who have conceived the idea of the proposed modifications; it is the ministry of England; and the king was assured that if they were admitted, the treaty might be regarded as common with Great Britain. The modifications made no alteration in the substance of the stipulations

previously signed. The most important of them related to the compensation which might be due to the king of Sicily for the loss of the kingdom of Naples. The propositions made on this subject delighted the heart of the king—they were to him a new proof of the noble integrity of the British government: he accepted them; he sent his thanks to lord Castleregh for them, and caused him to be told, that upon the word of a British minister he was going to act with as much confidence as if he held in his hands the most authentic treaty.

"Notwithstanding this assurance, it appears that England did not think it right to leave the king without a formal guarantee. It is said, and we have reason to believe with perfect truth, that lord W. Bentinck, having repaired to the king's head-quarters at Bologna, about the end of March or the beginning of April, declared that the English government fully adhered to the concluded between the emperor of Austria and the king of Naples, and that it assented to all the advantages stipulated in favour of the king, under the same condition as that contracted with Austria, viz. the active and immediate co-operation of the Neapolitan army. It is even added, that this declaration, which perfectly accorded with what had been verbally said by lord Castlereagh, was confirmed by the communication of various dispatches from that minister, which had for object the accomplishment of the promises made to the king.

"However, the events of the war pressed; the king fought; English troops combated valiantly under his orders with the Neapolitan troops. Was not this the most decisive seal of a solemn alliance? Could there exist an alliance more sacred than that which resulted from dangers braved, from blood shed, from glory acquired, for a common cause, on the same fields of battle?

"After such words, after such writings, after such facts, the least uncertainty as to the dispositions of England respecting king Joachim, would be an injury to the English character. The more the king has given himself up to the confidence which this character inspired in him, the more he ought to reckon on the support

of a nation, and of a government, who know how to appreciate all that is great, sincere, and generous.

"England has derived many valuable advantages from her alliance with Naples, independently of those which are common to her with the rest of the coalesced powers; it was this state of alliance which permitted her to withdraw her troops from Sicily, to bring them upon the theatre of war in Italy, to employ them in conquering the state of Genoa, and afterwards to send them to fight in America.

"We do not speak of the advantages which this alliance still promises to Great Britain; we do not mean to place the calculations of interest by the side of the laws of honour; it is honour which commands the English ministry to accomplish all their promises, and to fulfil all the expectations which were given to the king. Honour never speaks in vain to hearts truly English!"

remarked, that the answer to the questions which had been put, as well to what had been done, as to what was intended, had been most unsatisfactory.

The House then resolved itself into the committee.

moved, "That 15,000l. be granted to his Majesty, to enable his Majesty to grant relief to such of the suffering clergy and laity of France, Toulonese, and Corsican emigrants, St. Domingo sufferers, and Dutch naval officers, who may heretofore have received allowances from his Majesty, and who may not have been enabled to return to their own countries in the course of the present year; or who, from services performed, or losses sustained in the British service, may have special claims upon his Majesty's justice or liberality; and that the said sum be issued and paid without any fee or other deduction whatsoever."

expressed a wish that some explanation should be given to the House, how it happened that after the restoration of the Bourbon family to the throne of France, such a grant as that proposed should now be deemed necessary.

thought it rather astonishing, that when so many ancient governments had been re-established, such claims should still be made on British liberality, and the House be called upon to vote money for the relief of the subjects of other powers. If those claims were on our justice, the case would be different; but if they were merely on our liberality, he saw no reason why they should be acceded to.

said, he was disposed to give every explanation in his power. In the course of the last session he had mentioned to the House the arrangement that had been made with the foreign refugees. The Treasury had proposed to those who were mere eleemosynary pensioners, that they should receive an advance of their allowance to the close of the current year, with the liberty of returning to their country, and should give up all future claims on British support. To a few, who from circumstances of infirmity, extreme old age, or other disability, might find it impossible to leave this country immediately, it might be necessary to give some further temporary assistance; on which subject his Majesty's government was in communication with the government of France. To consider those who had taken military service in this country, or who, under the faith of the proclamation of our commander, had joined the British standard abroad, in the light of eleemosynary pensioners, would not have been consistent, not only with liberality, but with justice, It was, therefore, proposed to them, either to confirm their annual allowances, or to advance them sums proportionate to these, but on no occasion exceeding three years purchase, with which they might either return to their country, or settle in any other manner they pleased, so as in future to live independent of our assistance. The present vote embraced at once the allowances that were continued and the money paid in advance, as compensation for those that were given up. Out of the 15,000l. not less than 8 or 9,000l were for compensation-money to those who had accepted the arrangement proposed. The rest was for those persons whom the state of their affairs did not yet permit to return home, and to whom the country would not certainly refuse a temporary shelter. Our conduct throughout had certainly given an example of liberality to other nations. In a land governed by a legislative body, like this, it was an honourable fact, that no man of any party had ever arraigned the liberality displayed towards the refugees who sought our protection. All had paid due respect to misfortune; none had violated its secrecy. Now that our efforts had been crowned by success, and the House of Bourbon had been restored to the throne, from this time, whatever expense should be incurred on this head would be fully accounted for. He once more stated, that only part of the present vote should be continued for some time longer to those who had obtained their allowance for services performed, or to whom, in a few instances, as they were not able to go home, their pensions had been confirmed. In no cases, he trusted, the House would feel, was regularity of payment more essential than in this, as the individuals dependent on this assistance would be exposed to the greatest inconvenience if they did not receive their pension at the time appointed. The sum voted for this purpose last year amounted to 150,000l. It was, as yet, impossible to ascertain the total of that which would be wanted for the current year; but be hoped that the sum he now proposed would be sufficient for the greater part, as what had been paid as compensation-money would, of course, not recur again.

was glad to hear that the House would not be again applied to for that part of the allowances which had been exchanged for compensation-money. The explanation given on that head was satisfactory. He would now refer to a vote of the French legislature to repay all sums of money advanced to, and all debts incurred by the French monarch during his residence in this country, as being unworthy of the French nation not to repay such obligations, and to suffer their king, when mounting his throne, to remain a debtor to another power. He wished to know whether any communication had been made to ministers respecting that voluntary re-payment of the king of France's debts, as, whenever it should take place, the sum thus received would constitute the fund most proper to draw upon for the assistance of the persons who still wanted it.

said, he had no official knowledge on this subject; although he had seen, from the same sources as the right hon. gentleman, that something of the sort was intended by the legislature of France. Till, however, such a re-payment took place, and it could not be expected to be immediate, such a design on the part of France could hardly preclude the necessity of continuing the pensions to the different sufferers.

allowed, that he was not himself very sanguine as to this proposed re-payment.

stated, that some of the emigrants who remained were men of ancient families, who had lost their property abroad, and whose age and infirmities rendered them unable to go to foreign countries. He was sure if the House was aware of the nature of the claims which existed upon the country under this head, that they would not object to the vote proposed.

professed himself satisfied with the explanation of the right hon. gentleman. He was not so indelicate as to require a disclosure of the names of those emigrants who had been relieved by votes of this nature; but he thought that a list should be kept by government, in case it should ever be wanted. With regard to the question of his right hon. friend respecting the re-payment of this country by the royal family of France, it appeared that ministers were unable to make any answer. They had, confessedly, no information as to the proceedings of the French legislature, but from the public newspapers. The information of these gentlemen, indeed, seemed lamentably scanty, with respect to every subject on which they had been recently questioned.

observed, that whatever might be the information of his Majesty's ministers, it did not follow that they should answer questions likely to interfere with the public interest.

remarked, that ministers had lately received not only an accession of vivacity, but of prudence also; and it appeared that in future it was proposed to cloak their ignorance under the shelter of discretion.

said, that in some cases, at least, it was justifiable not to answer questions. 'We will not,' added the right hon. gentleman, 'answer questions, where we cannot do so without inconvenience to the public service.'

said, he should know how to distinguish between the 'will' and the 'can' of the right hon. gentleman.

The resolution was then agreed to.

was desirous of knowing when the right hon. gentleman proposed to lay before the House the papers relative to the Spaniards arrested at Gibraltar, and also whether any steps had yet been taken towards an inquiry into the conduct of sir James Duff?

replied, that he should present the papers alluded to, when next he should have the honour of appearing in the House. As to the alleged conduct of sir James Duff, he had not yet any information to furnish.

said, he did not ask him for information, but whether an inquiry had yet been instituted; and upon this point he hoped that no time would be lost.

expressed a hope that the account respecting the droits of Admiralty would be printed before the next meeting of parliament, and took occasion to ask from what fund the sum had been advanced to the king of France before his departure from this country, to defray the expenses of his journey?

apprehended, that the advance was made from the same source as that which supplied other public purposes.

observed, that this advance was considerable; and it was to be hoped that it would be repaid, as the French government made such a flourish about the discharge of the king's debts.

, inquired from what particular fund this advance was defrayed?

answered, from the vote of credit.

observed, that this advance was made eight weeks before the vote of credit was granted.

said, that gentlemen acquainted with public business must be aware, that an advance was often made from any fund that could afford it, to answer a particular public purpose, and that such advance was afterwards made good from the vote of credit.