presented a petition from 1,600 merchants, bankers, and traders of the city of London, praying for some alterations in the Insolvent Debtors' act. He said, he presented this petition with pleasure, not merely as chief magistrate, and chairman of the meeting at the Mansion-house, but also as a member of parliament, being perfectly convinced that this act, originating in benevolent and pure motives, had given rise to more fraud and robbery than it was possible for him to describe. This feeling was, he said, now universal, and all parts of the country were as desirous as the metropolis to procure some change in its provisions. It was unnecessary for him to go at length into a subject so much discussed, but he would beg to suggest these alterations in particular; that the first step in taking the benefit of this act should be an act of bankruptcy, thus leaving the creditor the option of availing himself of that mode of proceeding; that the consent of a part, at least, of the creditors should be necessary to the discharge of the debtor; and that the detaining creditor should no longer be at liberty, at his own pleasure, to relieve the insolvent. As this act was only a measure of experiment, which had been found to fail, he sincerely hoped that it would be speedily and effectually amended.

testified to the great respectability of the petitioners, and declared his cordial concurrence in the prayer of the petition.

expressed similar opinions. All that the petitioners required was, not severity, but justice.

also supported the prayer of the petition.

presented a petition, which he observed was most respectably signed, being subscribed by many of the principal inhabi- tants of the parish of Mary-le-bone, against the coal duties, particularly as they affected coals carried coastwise. He did consider that these duties were a tax which ministers ought immediately to repeal; perhaps, before all others, in as much as it was one which was singularly oppressive on the poorer, classes of the people.

said, he had great pleasure in supporting the prayer of the petition. Nothing could show the mischievous tendency of these duties more than the fact, that one-third at least of all the coal dug from the mines in Durham and Cumberland was wasted and lost, because it was of a quality that would not bear the duties in question, although it would perfectly answer the purposes of the poorer sort, if the tax was removed.

complained, that besides the government duties, the duty payable on coals in the ports of Ireland rendered it an extremely dear commodity to the people of that country.

sir John Newport, alderman C. Smith, Mr. Frankland Lewis, and Mr. Thomas Wilson, severally supported the prayer of the petition, and expatiated on the severity of this tax.

defended the continuance of these duties for a longer period, on the ground, that many capitals having been invested by individuals in coal-property, in different parts of the country, under such a system of duties, too sudden a repeal of the tax would be the occasion of very materially injuring those who were at present very extensively interested in coal-property.

next presented a similar petition from the vestry and directors of the poor of the parish of St. Pancras. The hon. baronet observed, that he could imagine no duties of a more impolitic nature than these upon coals; seeing that they had a direct tendency to discourage a trade which was the best nursery of lour gallant seamen.

moved for leave to bring in a bill "to amend the Laws regarding the maintenance and employment of the Poor." Leave was given, and the bill was brought in, and read a first time; and ordered to be read a second time on the 28th of April.

moved for an account, 1. "Of the number of ships, with the amount of their tonnage, which have entered inwards, and cleared outwards, at the several ports of Great Britain, from and to the East Indies, for three years, ending the 5th January, 1823:—2. Of all goods exported from Great Britain to the East Indies and China, for three years, ending the 5th January, 1823, distinguishing each year; specifying the value of the principal articles, and also distinguishing India from China, so far as the same can be ascertained:—3. Of the value of all articles, being of the growth or manufacture of the United Kingdom, exported by the East India Company, from the year 1820–21, inclusive, to the latest period to which the same can be made up; distinguishing such as were exported as merchandize for sale, from those that were exported as stores; and distinguishing each year:—4. Of all goods, the produce of the East Indies and China, imported into, and exported from, Great Britain, for three years, ending the 5th January, 1823, distinguishing each year; specifying the quantities of the principal articles, and the aggregate value thereof; and also distinguishing the produce of India from China, so far as the same can be ascertained:—5. Of the amount of duties (of customs) received upon goods imported from the East Indies, for three years, ending the 5th January, 1823; distinguishing each year, and the principal articles:—6. Of all goods, of the produce of the East Indies and China, imported into Great Britain during each of the last three years; specifying the quantity and value of the principal articles imported, and stating the imports by the East India Company, distinct and separate from the free trade:—7. Of all goods exported from Great Britain to the East Indies and China, during each of the last three years; specifying the quantity and declared value of the principal articles exported, and stating the exports by the East India Company, distinct and separate from the free trade."—Ordered.

said, he thought the House had some right to complain of the manner in which all questions relating to Ireland were treated. Whenever an Irish subject was started, it was a signal to commence an attack upon those who were designated Orangemen. He was in hopes, from the tone adopted by his hon. friend, the member for Limerick, in the beginning of his speech, that he would have avoided this dangerous and unnecessary topic, but in the conclusion his moderation failed him. According to his view, the magistrates, the yeomanry, and the police were all Orangemen; nay, the first symptoms of the Orange spirit which had showed itself in the south, he traced to the importation of the police in that district. Now, as a proof how soundly these aspersions were made, and with what little justice, he would take the liberty of correcting the error into which his hon. friend had fallen; and he was sure his hon. friend would excuse him, because it was only seldom that he gave any proofs of incorrectness. His hon. friend had stated, that the south of Ireland was entirely free from the spirit of Orangeism until it had been introduced by the police.—If his hon. friend had ever visited Bandon, in the county of Cork, he would have found an inscription on its gates which savoured strongly of those principles, which are denominated Orange principles in Ireland:—

"Turk, Infidel, or Atheist

May enter here—but not a Papist."

He merely mentioned this circumstance to prove, that even gentlemen of his hon. friend's accuracy were not very scrupulous in their assertions when an attack was to be made on that devoted and calumniated body of men.—But if he was not disposed to agree with the member for Limerick, he was still less disposed to agree with the member for Aberdeen. He could not help expressing his indignation at the manner in which he came down to the House, night after night, and made the most sweeping declarations against every institution of the country. He trusted the House would pardon him for giving vent to his feelings; but, having the honour of commanding a corps of yeomanry—having the honour of coming from that part Ireland, which, of late, had been exposed to so much misrepresentation—he could not sit still, and permit the hon. gentleman to assert, that the yeomanry were more ready to foment disturbance than to quell it, that they were willing at any time to turn their arms against the government, without calling upon the House to mark their indignation against such unmerited attacks. The hon. gentleman might think himself justified in such a course; but, he would ask the House, what degree of conciliation, what prospect of abating party feuds, there could be, when a member gravely and deliberately accuses a whole body of men, and persons of the highest Tank and respectability in the country, of encouraging treason and sedition. Will men with spirit and feeling submit to such accusations in silence? Where were his proofs? Not personal knowledge—not experience, not practice, not observation; but drawn from the most polluted sources—from either anonymous correspondents, or mischievous detractors. His hon. friend, the member for Limerick, himself an Irishman, would not have had recourse to such a mode of argument; but the hon. member—a stranger, a foreigner—neither acquainted with the habits or history of the country—without inquiry, and without hesitation, makes his unfounded statement. He called upon the House for protection, not for himself, but for his injured and calumniated countrymen. In order to indulge his rancour against the Orangemen, the hon. member had travelled widely out of his track, and had forgotten the subject more immediately before the House. He (Mr. Dawson) should, however, take the liberty of recalling the attention of the House to the question properly under discussion. With respect to the policy of continuing the yeomanry in Ireland, he thought no man who looked back to the distinguished sevices of that gallant body of men; no man who looked forward to the events which the present state of society in Ireland is likely to produce, would object to the continuance of such a constitutional force—a force upon which the same reliance might be placed in times of future danger, as had always distinguished its exertions when danger had actually appeared. From the first enrollment of the yeomanry, in the year 1796, down to the present period, the loyalty—the same desire to support the constitution, whether assailed by foreign or domestic foes—the same readiness to sacrifice their domestic comforts, to appear in arms at the call of government, had always distinguished the yeomanry of Ireland; and he could see nothing in the present state of Ireland to justify the government in depriving themselves of the support of this force. For the last four or five years a daring opposition to the laws—a secret system of intimidation, had manifested itself throughout Ireland; in 1820 it broke out into actual rebellion in the west; no sooner was that quelled than it burst out with increased atrocity in the south. The king's troops were Insufficient, and the country gentlemen most gladly availed themselves of the services of the yeomanry, wherever they could be found. Instead of complaining that they were too numerous, the complaint was, that they were too few. In his opinion, the yeomanry was necessary to the salvation of the country; it had contributed, and always would contribute, to cheer and support the loyal and well-affected—to dishearten and to alarm the turbulent and disaffected; its strength had been well administered by the government; and notwithstanding the calumnies of the hon. gentleman, and the misrepresentations of the public press, its power had never been abused by the members of the yeomanry themselves, and it has found no detractors; it has found no enemies, except in those who feared the beneficial influence of its example, and who saw the annihilation of their own rebellious hopes, in the loyalty and purity of its principles: it has received, over and over again, the thanks of the parliament of Ireland—it has received the thanks of the parliament of the United empire: its conduct, in the most perilous times, has been praised by the lords-lieutenant, in their speeches to both houses of parliament in Ireland; and their services have been acknowledged and honoured by the notice of his majesty himself, as will appear by a reference to the lords' Journals in Ireland, in 1799. But, as a convincing proof of the estimation in which this force was held during the period of the rebellion, he would take the liberty of reading an extract from the report of the secret committee, appointed by the Irish Commons to examine into the disturbances of 1798—and be it recollected, that this secret committee had the best means of knowing both the causes of the rebellion, and the means which checked it, by having the evidence before them of some of the most notorious persons who figured at that time, such as Arthur O'Connor, M'Nevin, Sheares, and others—the extract attributed the salvation of the country to the yeomanry. Up to this period, he never heard a word of opposition to the renewal of the act, which has taken place, on various occasions, within the last five or six years. He thought the House was unanimous in its approbation of the constitution of that force; and it was with sorrow that he heard the report of the debate which had taken place, on the introduction of the bill. He never regretted the indisposition, which prevented him from attending his duty in the House, so much as on that night; and he gladly availed himself of this opportunity of expressing his sentiments upon the yeomanry in general, and particularly upon what fell from his hon. friend, the member for Limerick.—He thought he de, parted from his usual good sense and discretion, in allowing himself to make a comparison in the number of yeomanry corps in the north and south of Ireland, creating thereby an impression, that the greater number in the north was owing to the preponderance of Protestant, or, what latterly has become most improperly synonymous in Ireland, of Orange feeling. He thought it would have been wiser to have abstained, at the present moment, from any insinuation, which savoured more of party than of argument, which can have no other effect than to throw out an additional bone of contention between the two parties, and which, by a comparison addressed to the passions, and not to the judgment of the country, will remove still farther and farther the hope of that conciliation, which he so strongly advocates, and against which, by a singular felicity, he has been ingenious enough to throw out this new stumbling block. He regretted also the intention, expressed by his hon. friend, of proposing a clause to prevent the yeomanry from joining in what he calls orange processions, and playing party tunes—with respect to the last assertion, his usual accuracy has failed him—if it had not, he would have seen that there is no occasion for any such clause—for he would venture to assert, that, for a considerable time, the yeomanry, as a body, never have joined in any such processions, or played any party tunes. There is an annual order issued by government to prevent such practices, and if any corps had disobeyed this order, he was confident, on proof of such disobedience, that it would have been disbanded instantly. Such reports may appear in the newspapers, which are so fond of considering the yeo- marry for their own party purposes, but they have no foundation in fact; he had himself sat upon trials, wherein, in the collusion of parties, the yeomanry had no more to say to the quarrel than the clergy or the army; but because one of the parties, whether the aggressor or the aggressed, happened to be a yeoman, he had seen the trials magnified in the hostile newspapers, into regular conflicts between the Orangemen and Catholics—he did not fear contradiction in asserting, that the yeomanry, as a body, had not infringed this order, and that his noble friend was greatly misinformed. Now, with respect to the insinuation which the hon. member for Limerick had thrown out, of an undue degree of preference being shown to the north in the establishment of yeomanry corps, the answer is very obvious. It is true, that out of 328 corps in Ireland, 208 are to be found in the province of Ulster: his hon. friend is aware, that, in the years 1795 and 1796, there existed a formidable coalition between the Presbyterians and the Roman Catholics, which broke out afterwards into the rebellion of 1798. The dangers of this rebellion were so great, that the government thought the military force in Ireland, at that time, much too small, and, according to the preamble of the Yeomanry act, "that further measures were become necessary for the defence of the kingdom, and for the preservation and security of the lives and properties of his majesty's subjects." It was therefore proposed to the loyal and well-affected of all religious persuasions, to enrol themselves into military corps; and, in order to avoid the embarrassments which had arisen under the old volunteer system, in which the men chose their own officers, the new yeomanry were to act under officers commissioned by his majesty. This was the origin of the yeomanry establishment—it was formed without any view to religious distinctions. There was but one qualification necessary, namely, loyalty and attachment to the constitution of the country, and a desire to subdue those who wished to overturn it. But if his hon. friend had consulted the publications of that day, he must have found how very soon the spirit of party manifested itself in this as it universally does in every case in Ireland. The Presbyterians soon detached themselves from the rebellion, when they discovered the real designs of their colleagues and allies, the Roman Catholics—when they found that instead of establishing a republic, their favourite system, they were instrumental in forwarding the designs of the Roman Catholics for the overthrow of all government, and the extirpation of the Protestant religion. They soon detached themselves from the rebellion, and many enrolled themselves in the different yeomanry corps established within their districts. But the Roman Catholics adopted a different course of proceeding—they not only opposed themselves to the establishment in its very commencement, by discouraging all persons of their persuasion from enrolling themselves in the yeomanry, but when parish meetings were summoned by the churchwardens and magistrates, for carrying the provisions of the act into execution, the Catholics attended the vestry-rooms in multitudes, and attempted to stop all the proceedings by clamour and vociferation. Finding their efforts unavailing to crush the establishment, they waited upon Mr. Pelham, then chief secretary, and proposed to enrol themselves into a corps of their own sect exclusively. Mr. Pelham most properly declined their proposal, and recommended them to join their Protestant fellow-subjects in defence of their country without distinction of religion. But this recommendation was far from their intentions; and finding the enrollment going on with great success, and the ranks of the yeomanry filled daily with persons of the greatest character and property in the country, the Catholic leaders broke out into open condemnations of the establishment, entered into resolutions at public meetings against it, published them in their own newspapers, and loaded the government with every species of abuse, for having formed this useful body of men in defence of the country, and calumniated the yeomanry themselves in the grossest manner, by the application of party and factious epithets. The consequence was, that the spirit of the Catholic leaders in Dublin spread throughout the whole country, with a few exceptions; and as the Catholics declined entering into the corps, it naturally happened that, in those parts of the country where the Protestants prevailed in number, as in the province of Ulster, the corps were also most numerous, and where the Catholics preponderated, as in the south and west, the number of the corps de- clined. This was the arrangement into which the establishment naturally fell at its institution, and it has continued so, with very little variation, up to the present time. Now, with respect to the effect which has been produced on the peace of the country by this establishment, he would take six counties in the north, which have the greatest number of yeomanry corps in them, and he would take six counties in the west of Ireland, which have the smallest number, and let the House mark the result. Down has 32 corps, Antrim 29, Tyrone 25, Fermanagh 23, Cavan 21, Donegal 19; are any symptoms of disturbance to be found in any of those counties? Donegal may be afflicted with illicit distillation, and may be the scene of conflicts between gaugers and illicit distillers, but there is nothing dangerous, nothing political in, these conflicts; they are not disputes between the yeomanry and the peasantry, but between the peasantry and the revenue officers; all those counties are quiet; peaceable, and, as far as the circumstances of the times will admit of, prosperous. Now, look at the other parts of Ireland—Cork, the largest county, has 8 corps, Kilkenny has 3, Limerick 3, Tipperary 7, Waterford 1, Westmeath 4, Galway O. Let the House mark the contrast, in every one of those counties, Waterford excepted—the Insurrection act is in force. Such is the disposition of the people, that the most rigorous means are necessary to keep them even in apparent subordination. They neither fear God nor respect man; and if there is a temporary calm at present, it is owing to the force employed to maintain order, and not to any returning love of good habits. Look at the present condition of the north of Ireland, where this much calumniated yeomanry force is said to produce such disorders; where it is said to be the promoter of mischief; the origin of outrage, violence, and irritation; the bane and curse of the country; the parent of rapine, murder, and spoliation. And look to the general condition of the south, where, the inhabitants ought to be happy, because the yeomanry force is comparatively small. In the north, the people are industrious and contented; and having property of their own, they abstain from attacking that of others. In the south, the people are neither industrious nor contented; and, having nothing of their own, they attack life and property with the most indiscriminate cruelty. In the north, the people have arms, which they use only in defence of, their king and country; in the south, the people will risk any danger to get possession of arms, which are destined to be used against the constitution and the state. There is no part of his majesty's dominions where the power of the law is more recognized; where there is more ardent attachment to the constitution; where there is more tranquillity, order, and regularity, or more safety in confiding the possession of arms to the peasantry, than in the north. There is no part of his majesty's dominions where there is more contempt for the laws, more hatred to the established order of things, more danger from the possession of arms than in the south; and though he could not hope to convince the hon. member for Limerick that he might trust himself with perfect safety to the yeomanry of the north, yet he did not despair of securing his acquiescence in this respect, that if the government, according to his principles of justice, was to establish an equal number of yeomanry in Cork, Tipperary, and Limerick, as exist at present in Down, Antrim, and Tyrone, that the nocturnal visits of captain Rock's men for, the possession of their arms, would make a residence in those counties even less desirable than it is at present. He did not wish to be understood to condemn the establishment of yeomanry in those counties, if arms could with safety be trusted to any class of the population, and if those persons would take care to prevent them from falling into dangerous hands. Let corps be formed for the protection of the county, and no matter whether they are composed of Catholics or Protestants; but he objected to the sweeping equalization of force, by which the Protestants of the north were to be disarmed, for the sake of gratifying the prejudices of the member for Aberdeen, and of giving their arms to others, who either cannot keep them, or may by possibility abuse them. Such were his opinions of the yeomanry, and he trusted, if any warm expression had escaped from him in their defence, that the House would consider the member for Aberdeen as responsible for the warmth of the discussion, and not him, who only stood up, in defence of himself and his constituents.

on the bringing up of the resolutions for addresses for Monuments to the memory of earl St. Vincent and lord Duncan, took occasion to complain of the extortions which continued to be practised at Westminster-abbey. He knew an individual, from the country, who had lately carried his family to view the monuments in that building, and had been charged in no less a sum than 8s. for admission. Such a practice was disgraceful to the country, and had, over and over again, been reprobated in that House. It was absurd to say that government had no power to interfere in the matter. Surely the king, who was at the head of the church, might interfere; and if his majesty had not full power to command, it was hardly probable that a recommendation from such a quarter would be neglected. The House was told of the impossibility of universal admission; but he saw no such impossibility. He could not understand why any class of the community should be excluded from viewing the works for which they had contributed to pay. At all events, if it was necessary to name some admission fee, to prevent the intrusion of idle individuals, the demand for entrance at St. Paul's was confined to a few pence, and why should not the charge at Westminster-abbey be placed upon the, same footing?

said, that the petition which he held in his hand, and which he was proud and happy to have the honour of presenting to the House, came from a certain number of the electors whom he had the happiness of representing. He was instructed to say, that this petition would have been submitted for signatures for a longer period, and would in that case, no doubt, have received the unanimous approbation of all the electors of Southwark, had there been time to allow of calling a meeting of those individuals before the Easter recess. It was, however, considered by the petitioners, and in his opinion very advisedly, that to wait for the convening of such a meeting would be inexpedient. They had therefore determined to present their petition before the recess; that the feeling of the country might be fully known upon it, and that public attention might be awakened to the proposition to which the hon. member for Bramber had recently called the attention of the House and the country; namely the abolition of slavery through- out the British dominions. The cause of humanity was deeply indebted to the hon. member for Bramber, who, he trusted, would yet have the happiness to witness the consummation of the labours of his life in general emancipation, and to receive the grateful thanks of those for whose benefit he had so unremittingly exerted himself. He felt some pain and humiliation when he adverted to the subject of slavery and the sufferings of slaves, residing within our own dominions. It was impossible for any man of common humanity not to feel distressed and disgusted, when he found that in our West Indian colonies there were about one million of human beings, who every morning as the sun rose, were awakened by the echoing lash of the whip, and knew but too well that they were to be treated, for the remainder of the day, like cattle, or even in a worse way than cattle, at the caprice or the discretion of a tyrannical overseer. It was stated in the petition; that a very respectable individual, who had been a missionary to one of the islands, declared, that he had never seen a black who did not bear on his flesh, the marks of the severe infliction of the whip [Hear, hear! from Mr. Bright]. The hon. gentleman cried hear, hear! but he would read the paragraph in the petition. [This the hon. member did, and it was to the same effect as the statement which he had just made.] Was it to be endured, that, in these enlightened times, nearly a million of our fellow-creatures, without any consideration of feeling or humanity, should continue to be treated as if they were mere material objects? That the wife should be separated from the husband, the mother from the child, and sold for the payment of the debts of the profligate and unthinking master? Such was the degraded condition in which the slaves were placed in our colonies, that any crime or atrocity on the part of a white man would go unpunished, if committed in the presence of blacks only, whose evidence was not receivable in a court of justice. There were many other circumstances of similar oppression; but it was not his wish, or that of the petitioners, to exaggerate the facts of the case. All that they wished was, to call the attention of parliament to the indispensable necessity of interference. The petitioners, actuated by the spirit of justice, did not ask for the immediate emancipation of the slaves. All that they required was, that such measures might be adopted as should insure that emancipation at as early a period as was compatible with the safety and security of all who were connected with the question. It was indispensably necessary to adopt some measures, were it only in counteraction of the hostility that had been manifested by the colonial authorities against all emancipation whatever. It was not his, nor the petitioners' wish, to aggravate any of the evils attendant on this system; but he might be allowed to state, that in 1802 an act was passed in Barbadoes, to increase the fines for manumission from 50l. to 200l. each. In Bermuda, an act had been passed to prohibit emancipation entirely; and to prevent people of colour from being seised of estates; and he was sorry to add, that these acts had received the sanction of the king in council. The hon. and gallant member went on to contrast our conduct in regard to slaves with that of the new republic of Colombia; one of the first acts of which was, to declare every black infant, born of slave parents, manumitted after he should have attained eighteen years of age; and in the meanwhile to declare them no longer slaves, but to continue them as apprentices under their masters, providing, moreover, for them a fund, from which, after their manumission, they might be vided with the means of seeking future support. This was an institution worthy of a nation that had achieved its freedom. How much nobler an object of the expenditure of public money was the provision of such a fund, than the attempt to support a race of foreign princes, who were tottering and falling beneath their follies, their vices, and their crimes. When hon. gentlemen remembered the government of St. Domingo, exercising all the rights of civilized power and policy, could they suppose that our black population in the West Indies would remain long in ignorance of their own degraded condition; or remain passive under what they had a right to consider as their wrongs? He asked those gentlemen who had possessions in the West Indies therefore—and many of them sat in that House—whether it would not be more advantageous even for themselves to come forward and support the proposition of the hon. member for Bramber, in order to prevent our islands from becoming a scene of carnage and desolation? Would they not other- wise be responsible for all the evils which might accrue? He trusted that the people of England would on this occasion discharge the duty which they owed to their own character, and that they would come forward and express their loud and unanimous opinion on the subject. He trusted that our government would not imitate the governments composing the holy alliance, under whose sanction slaves were openly sold as at Constantinople. Until we abolished slavery, foreigners would never believe that we had been sincere in the abolition of the slave trade. They had always thought that we wished to abolish the slave trade, because our own islands were sufficiently stocked with slaves; and of the error of that opinion, nothing but emancipation would convince them.

said, he felt himself impelled, by a strong sense of duty, to notice the gross exaggerations which the petition contained; such, for instance, as that there was not a negro on whom the marks of the lash were not visible. He was perfectly confident, that if the allegations of the petition were strictly examined, they would be found to contain a much larger portion of falsehood than of truth. As to the character of the individual to whose authority the petitioners referred, he knew nothing respecting it. But it appeared that that person had been sent out as a missionary to his estate by a benevolent planter, who had proved the humanity of his disposition by reducing the labour which used to be performed by his slaves one-fourth. After having been so sent out, what did that person do? He was three years, and he complained that he had been allowed to preach to the negroes only eleven times a year; but preaching was not the way to ameliorate the condition of the slaves. His duty was to have visited them; to have seen to their wants; to have relieved their necessities. The individual in question, however, had too much spiritual pride to do any thing but preach; and yet it was on the authority of such a man that the petitioners called on the House to believe the allegations of their petition. The hon. member for Southwark had referred to the conduct of the republic of Colombia as an example to be followed by England with regard to the slaves in the West Indies. Now the conduct of the Colombian republic could furnish no precedent for this country. The number of slaves in Colom- bia was only 60,000, whilst the free population amounted to 2,500,000. Was that the proportion in the West Indies? In other respects, too, no comparison could be instituted between the Spanish colonies and our own. He was no friend to Catholicism, but it was an undeniable fact, that in those colonies in which the Catholic religion was established, the Catholic priests devoted their time to the slaves, they were their comforters, and the mediators between them and their masters. They educated them, they baptised them, they warded them. What analogy was there between the two cases? could any man argue from those who were attended to, to those who were neglected? He deprecated all clamour and overcharged statement on this most important subject. Such were the representations with respect to the laws at Barbadoes, regarding emancipation. Those laws were intended not to obstruct emancipation, but to provide a fund for the support of slaves after emancipation. The hon. gentleman concluded by declaring, that the gradual progress of civilization in the West Indies would do more towards ameliorating the condition of the black population, than could be effected by the enactment of positive laws.

said, he did not rise to take any part in the discussion; but rather to induce hon. gentlemen to postpone any further observations until the proper time should arrive. It was a subject so important, that he had no hesitation m saying, that great practical results must, in some way or other, proceed from the consideration of it. But of this he was sure, that such incidental and premature discussions as the present must materially diminish the chance of obtaining a result of a beneficial or effective character. It was unnecessary for him, who, during the whole of his parliamentary life, from its beginning until the triumph of his hon. friend, the member for Bramber, had taken a humble part in the cause of the abolition of the slave trade, to say, that it was not possible he could entertain any feeling which would induce him to oppose himself to a fair consideration of the question of emancipation. But he was sure that his hon. friend himself would agree with him, and that the House would have his hon. friend's example in support of the proposition that it was not by inflaming the passions, that the cause of humanity could be essentially served, or that they could hope to arrive at a fair and useful conclusion upon this great subject. The time would soon arrive when it would be taken into full and serious consideration; and they must not flatter themselves that they could look at it in any other way than as surrounded by difficulties of no ordinary description; affecting as it did the rights, the property, and the feelings of so many thousand human beings. He was anxious, therefore, to submit to hon. gentlemen the expediency, not of abstaining from presenting petitions expressive of the sense of the people upon this important question, but of abstaining from enlarging on the various topics connected with it, of abstaining from the statement of facts, which, whether exaggerated or not, must be unnecessary; as there could be no doubt that there was abundantly sufficient in the state of the society to which those petitions and statements referred, to demand the serious attention of parliament, without any additional motive being presented to their minds.

said, he was very much inclined to follow the advice of the right hon. gentleman, though the personal attack of an hon. member, in a sort of parable, was very little calculated to put an end to discussion. Though he did not personally know the individual alluded to, he could, from what he had heard of him, give a direct contradiction to the imputation of the hon. member.

explained, that he was not personally acquainted with the individual referred to.

said, that two years ago, he had given notice of a motion on the emancipation of slaves in the Cape of Good Hope, which he had given up on a promise from his majesty's government; but, as nothing had since been done, he had thought fit to call the attention of his majesty's ministers to the subject.

rose to object to the motion. He considered the period of adjournment proposed by the right hon. gentleman too long, and he would attempt to curtail it, by moving, as an amendment, that the House should adjourn only to Monday se'nnight. He thought the peculiar circumstances of the session, the peculiar circumstances in which the House had been placed, and the peculiar situation in which Europe at present stood, all authorized him to suggest to the House, that the protracted adjournment which had been moved was not only unusual but unwise. He was, he must acknowledge, surprised that, after the suspense in which parliament and the country had been so long kept, with respect to the conduct of the English government in regard to the differences between the French government and Spain, and after the forbearance which parliament had exercised towards ministers—a forbearance which, he might say, was unparalleled in the annals of parliament—the right hon. secretary for foreign affairs should have declared last night, that it was not his intention to put the House in possession of the papers which were to explain what had been the policy of the government until the 14th of next month. If the papers were not to be presented to the House before the 14th of April, it might be calculated that at least three weeks from that time must elapse before any discussion could take place upon them. It would have been a more proper arrangement to have placed the papers in the hands of parliament before the recess; but that not having been done, he thought the House was particularly called upon to oppose the adjournment which had been moved. But, although he objected to the length of the adjournment which had been proposed, he wished it to be understood, that he should not have remained silent even if a shorter period had been fixed upon; because he considered a motion for adjournment a fair parliamentary opportunity of adverting to any subject which was connected with the policy of ministers. He begged, therefore, to remind the House, that ministers had brought forward no measure connected with the reduction of taxation which had not originated from that side of the House on which he sat. Ministers had recanted their errors, and adopted the opinions of their adversaries. It must be in the recollection of the House, that the very policy which the government now seemed determined to adopt with respect to the Orange clubs of Ireland, had over and over again, been recommended by the opponents of ministers. But, in returning to the question of our foreign rela- tions, he might premise, that in his opinion, the relative situation of France and Spain was in a great measure the result of the conduct pursued by ministers with regard to the holy alliance, from which the mischief originally sprung. The difficulties with which this country, as well as Spain, had to contend, were the legacy which had been left by the noble marquis who was lately at the head of his majesty's government; for if the British cabinet had pursued a different line of policy, one of two things would have happened—either England would have been more free to act, or, what would have been more fortunate, the conduct of the holy alliance would have been so different, that there would have existed no necessity for our interference. Since the right hon. gentleman opposite had accepted the office of secretary of state for foreign affairs, he had received many high compliments on the ground of the liberality of his sentiments and of his altered opinions. He (lord A. H.) had never joined in the praises which had been bestowed upon the right hon. gentleman. He could not give the right hon. gentleman credit for liberality of sentiment, until he saw a change in the conduct of his majesty's government, or an open avowal of an alteration of opinion. It would have been well if other gentlemen had been as prudent. Upon a recent occasion, when his hon. friend, the member for Westminster, had said something complimentary to the right hon. secretary, the right hon. gentleman had disclaimed the compliment, and had told the House, that his conduct had been guided by a document which he had found in his office, and which he (lord A. H.) supposed to be the celebrated circular of lord Londonderry. The House ought also to bear in mind, that when the case of Naples was referred to at the beginning of the session, the right hon. secretary had stood up and defended the invasion of that country. What had been the consequence? The French government had over and over again attempted to justify the invasion of Spain upon the precedent of the invasion of Naples. In no one instance since the fall of Buonaparté had the government of this country shown by its acts that it disapproved of the conduct of the holy alliance. It was in vain to answer him by a reference to the circular to which he had just alluded, whilst France was able to quote our conduct with respect to Naples, Genoa, and Sicily, as a justification of her own views against Spain. The holy alliance, without reference to the principles which it promulgated, was per se a public nuisance. It was impossible that a confederacy of kings could assemble in Europe to dictate laws to nations without exciting, not only the indignation of every free country; but also sowing the seeds of civil war in the very countries with which they interfered, in order, as they pretended, to establish tranquillity. He wished to know in what situation England stood with respect to the holy alliance. Was she a member of that alliance? In what character did she appear at the Congress of Verona, if not as a member of the alliance? Did not her representative participate in the discussions which were carried on there, and was he not bound by a majority of votes? He hoped to receive an answer to these questions. The right hon. secretary had stated to the House the treaties by which the foreign policy of this country was to be regulated. Now, he would beg the House to consider the situation in which this country stood with respect to Spain and France, and to declare whether, if the effect of the treaties was what had been stated by the right hon. gentleman, we might not he called upon to act on both sides. If Spain were to proclaim either a regency, or young Napoleon in France—and such a measure was by no means impossible; indeed, it appeared to him not to be au unnatural mode of conducting hostilities, considering that France had already adopted it towards Spain—what, in such a case, would be the condition of England? Would she not be bound to protect France against the insurrectionary designs of Spain? Again, it was a well-known fact, that Portugal had so far made common cause with Spain, as to give orders to her minister to leave Paris, as soon as the French troops entered the Spanish territories. Now, supposing that Portugal and Spain were both of them placed in a state of war with France, and that Portugal were invaded by a division of the French army, were we not engaged by existing treaties to protect Portugal against such an invasion; and, according to the construction which the right hon., gentleman had voluntarily put upon them, to interfere actively in her behalf? In what an anomalous situation, then, would the country be placed, supposing these two events, neither of which were improbable, should actually take place? On the one hand, we should have to defend Portugal from France, and on the other, to defend France from the insurrectionary movements which the very agents of Portugal might be endeavouring to excite in that country. We should have to act on both sides at once, and to fulfil engagements with both of the contending parties. In putting the questions which he had done to the right hon. gentleman, he had carefully abstained from anticipating any part of the discussion which was likely to take place at a future period on the negociations at Verona. He only wished to know in what situation this country stood, with regard to the powers who constituted that alliance, which, by a strange confusion and misapplication of terms, was denominated "holy?" Were we, or were we not parties to it? If we were, he thought that we ought immediately to subtract ourselves from it; and the ground on which he thought so was, that continuing in it could be productive of no good, must expose us frequently to the risk of war, and must always render us liable to the hatred and indignation of Europe. As long as that conspiracy of kings against the freedom of the world existed, so long would it be impossible for us to pursue such a line of policy as would be conducive to our own interests, and conciliatory of the feelings and good wishes of Europe. In these observations he wished not to be considered as giving any opinion as to the propriety of our taking a part in the war which was shortly about to commence: indeed, he had not at present information that would justify him in giving such an opinion; and even if he had, he should not now come forward to give it. This, however, he must say, that if he had been a declared advocate for our taking a part in the war, he would not have held his tongue till the present occasion—he would not have let the time pass by, when a single word from this country could have put a stop to the invasion of Spain. It was his opinion, that if ministers had publicly declared that they could not sanction—that they would not endure—the principles which the powers of the holy alliance had promulgated from Verona, Spain would never have been threatened with invasion. He had formed his opinion upon this circumstance, that, for the last two months, the government of France had been anxiously seeking for grounds on which it could recede from the contest it had provoked, if not with honour, at least without disgrace. He now called upon the right hon. gentleman to give him a distinct and specific answer to the questions he had put. If the right hon. gentleman had come to the resolution of changing the policy of this country towards Europe, and especially towards the holy alliance, let him seize the opportunity that was now afforded him, to come manfully forward and declare it. The right hon. gentleman must be aware, that any degree of praise which he might have received in that House, and any degree of popularity which be had gained out of it, had been founded on the hope, that his conduct would form a contrast to that of his noble predecessor; not that it would be in concert and conformity with it. He must hear from the right hon. gentleman a declaration of the policy he intended to pursue, before he could join in the encomium on his liberal principles. He was himself afraid that the support which ministers had given to the projects. of the holy alliance for so many years past, and especially in the recent invasion of Naples, had disqualified them from opposing those projects at present. Sure at least he was, that it would require six months of the most determined hostility to this confederation of despots to convince the nations of Europe, that the British cabinet was at last convinced of the necessity of opposing the impolitic, wicked, and detestable designs which they entertained against the liberty of mankind and the general independence of nations. The noble lord then concluded by moving, as an amendment, "That this House do adjourn till Monday se'nnight."

in conjunction with his noble friend, declared, that he could by no means acquiesce in the propriety of so long an adjournment as the right hon. secretary had proposed, at the precise moment when a struggle of unexampled interest had commenced, which was lo decide whether the term "independence of nations" was any longer to be found in the vocabulary of mankind. For he thought he might say, that this struggle had commenced, seeing that a delicate prince had sallied forth, amid hail and snow, accompanied by a large retinue of led horses and soft carriages, to put himself at the head of 60,000 men, for the purpose of cutting the throats of his free and unoffending neighbours, or at least offending only, because they were free. He conceived, that when such a stride had been made towards the commencement of a war, of which no man could limit the extent, or foresee the duration—when it had been acknowledged, that in any four-and-twenty hours a complete change might be produced in the relations of the country with foreign powers—they ought not to be called upon to close their doors, and to retire home to their respective occupations. On what pretence, he would ask, was this adjournment extended to a longer period than had ever been known before? Was the reason of it to be found in the length or in the labour of the session? As for the length of the session, omitting the days in which a House had not been made, it did not exceed nine and twenty days at most: and, as for the labour, with the exception of two or three questions relating to the amelioration of the sister country, and two or three more relating to the new fiscal regulations, nothing had occurred which deserved the name. Large establishments had, indeed, been voted conditionally, almost without a discussion; and, what was more, with regard to the ways and means, the chancellor of the exchequer had stopped their mouths, by appropriating for ever to his sinking fund a sum of five millions, which, in his opinion, would have been better applied if it had gone to the remission of taxes; whilst he had contrived at the same time to silence the country gentlemen, who, before the session, had talked so loudly of what they would do on its commencement, by granting them some relaxation in certain matters which pressed rather hardly upon them. As far as granting money was concerned, the House had certainly done much; but it was absolutely ridicolous—and sure he was that no man would have the hardihood—to call such an employment by the nave of labour. The fact was, that the sound of something like liberal principles, from a quarter from which the House, for many years past, had not been much accustomed to hear them, had produced what his noble friend had happily called a paralyzing effect on the House. His noble friend, the member for Yorkshire, on first taking his seat in the House that session, had observed, that in consequence of the change in the language used by ministers, he scarcely knew the place in which he was. Those members, however, who had not been so much absent as the noble member for Yorkshire, knew well where they were, and had long been afraid that the flattering prospect by which he had been so much delighted, would not last. The halcyon days of confidence in misters, it now appeared, must shortly come to an end; and the right hon. secretary, therefore, proposed a longer adjournment than usual, either because he did not wish that the conclusion of them should be more abrupt than necessary, or because he wished to give the House a sort of school-boy treat. If he were actuated by the latter wish, and; looked upon the members of that House in the light of school-boys, why did he, not, along with their holidays, also give them their holiday task? If he had given them the papers which had passed at Verona, and the diplomatic correspondence which had since ensued, there might have been some pretence for this unusually long adjournment; for, unless his papers differed much from those of his noble predecessor, the time proposed would be scarcely sufficient to read and understand them. The course of the right hon. gentleman, however, was widely different: he said, "Go about; your business, retire to your homes, enjoy your holidays as much as you can; and when you meet again, I will give to the world the papers you require"—papers, for which, with all due deference to the right hon. gentleman, he did not believe that the world cared a single straw. The world was well aware, that the papers in question, however elegant and classical they might be in point of style, however superior to the verbose ambiguity of the right hon. gentleman's predecessor, and to the florid romance of the minister for foreign affairs in a neighbouring country, had effected nothing whatever for the public good. For those papers, he had presumed to say, that the world, comparatively speaking, cared not a flea-bite; but for England—England that had once been called the arbitress of nations—what must be the sensations of her sons, when they sat down to the perusal of documents, from which they must rise up, either deeply indignant or wofully humiliated? If the right hon. gentleman were to speak till doomsday, he would never be able to get out of this dilemma. Either the influence of England had been exerted, or it had not; and if it had been exerted in a manner worthy of the nation, it must have been exerted at Verona at the outset. If it had not been exerted, there was not a man in the country who would not join in calling for punishment on the head of the minister who had so far neglected his duty to England, to Europe, to the world. He would, however, suppose, that it had been exerted; and if it had, how did it happen, that when every man in this country was eager to check the unprincipled aggression which France was meditating upon Spain—when nineteen-twentieths of the French nation were earnestly deprecating the idea of allowing a miserable band of fanatics to plunge their infirm and aged sovereign into a war of unparalleled atrocity and oppression—when Prussia was openly deserting, Austria slowly abandoning, and the Corsican agent of Russia alone firmly abetting their iniquitous projects—how did it happen, he said, that, under such circumstances, England should have interfered with the conduct of France, and should have failed in the object of her interference? Her remonstrances had been scouted; her interposition had been rejected; and her boasted influence and authority positively laughed at. In such a situation, what must be the feelings of any Englishman who sat down to the perusal of the forthcoming documents? For his own part, he would confess, that he had no craving for these documents strong enough to induce him to call for their immediate production. He begged pardon: there was one case—a case, however, which he considered to be barely possible, though it was confidently stated to have already occurred—to the refutation of which the production of these papers was absolutely necessary. A calumny had gone forth to the world, that the English government, finding its influence nugatory with the powerful state, had employed it with the weaker; for the purpose of inducing it to consent to its own dishonour, by yielding the disputed points to presented bayonets. He wished that he could see any motion, however slight, in the right hon. gentleman to convince him that this was indeed a foul and atrocious calumny. He could hardly conceive it possible that, when the cannon of France was pointed to the Pyrenees—and the trumpet of invasion was sounding on the Spanish frontiers, the British government could advise submission to a nation preparing to bury itself amidst its blazing ruins, rather than surrender the liberty and independence which it had bravely acquired. That the government of a country which had purchased its liberty at the painful price of cashiering a king and the whole of his family—that the government of such a country should counsel dishonour to another, which, in imitation of its example, had also set limits to regal authority and despotic sway, was a circumstance which neither he nor any Englishman could willingly bring themselves to believe. However disgraceful such a counsel might be to the party which received it, it was still more so to the party which gave it; and he did trust that, though our power might have been impaired and our influence diminished—though we might have lost much of the moral and physical strength for which we had formerly been distinguished, we might still say, that our reputation was safe, that our character was untarnished, and that, whatever else we might have lost, we had still contrived not to lose our honour.—The hon. member then proceeded to observe, that, circumstanced as the House then was, in ignorance of the intentions not only of the French but of the British government; in the dark, too, on the actual state of things in Spain; he would not consume its time unnecessarily by offering any speculations upon the attitude which we ought to assume in case of a war breaking out which we had not been powerful enough to avert. Any man who looked at the enormous amount of our public debt, of which five-sixths was incurred in putting down the ambition of the Bourbons, and then in restoring them to the throne of which they had subsequently shown themselves unworthy—any man who looked to that stupendous memorial of the Tory governments which had ruled the country for the last sixty years, could not but pray that we might be spared as long as possible the necessity of again going to war. But a hundred cases came across the mind, any one of which would be sufficient to defeat so reasonable a prayer. He would specify one or two. He should be glad to know whether England would consent that the chief of the Bourbons—for so the king of France had been properly called on a recent occasion, by some of the fanatics and flatterers by whom he was surrounded—should maintain military possession of the kingdom of Spain; and if she would con- sent to such occupation on his part, for what period she would permit it to continue? Again, would she, with all her naval fame and commercial greatness, consent that the fleets of Russia and of France should blockade the ports of Spain, to the injury of her merchants, in order that they might more successfully achieve their own objects—objects that were so wicked and atrocious, that no Englishman even attempted to disguise the abhorrence he felt for them?—With regard to Portugal also, where the same persons who had been so busy in exciting rebellion and insurrection in Spain, were now plotting to divide from each other an united king and people—with regard to Portugal, our ancient and faithful ally—but these indeed were questions of difficulty, irrelevant perhaps to the present discussion, and he would therefore reject the observations which he had been going to offer to the House. Certain contingencies, however, had been spoken of for some time back, in which it might be possible that this country might be called upon to take up arms in conjunction with the members of the holy alliance; and others had likewise been mentioned, in which we might be called upon, if not to take up arms, at least to consult and to concert with them. He, for one, must confess, that a distinction was here made, of which he could hardly see the force; for he thought that these words "to concert and consult" were very nearly equivalent to taking up arms with them. Now, the first of these contingencies provided that, if the French government should call Buonaparté or any member of his family to the throne, the allied powers were to take up arms to dethrone him; and the second provided, that in case of any revolutionary movement taking place, unconnected with him or his family, then they should only concert and consult. Any man who read the treaties which contained these stipulations would see that they were all dependent on the natural existence of Napoleon Buonaparté. They were addressed against him personally, on the ground of the boundless ambition by which he was actuated, and the bad faith with which he observed even the most solemn treaties. Throughout the whole of them there was not a word of reference to any state of things that might arise after his death, nor any clause that affected any of his descendants. Not one single line could be found in the treaties of Chau- mont or of Vienna touching upon either of these two points. It was true that, in 1815, when an attempt was made to set young Napoleon upon the throne of France, the allies treating it, perhaps properly, as a mere juggle on the part of his father, and considering that, though the son might be the puppet, the father would still be the person who would pull the wires to make him move—it was true, that the allies did then, for the first time, introduce into the treaties the words "Napoleon or his descendants." But, did any man suppose that these words bound us either to guarantee the crown of France to the Bourbons for ever, or to join with the holy alliance to preclude any other individual from wearing it? He could have wished that the right hon. gentleman had incorporated this point into the speech which he had made on a former night. For his own part, looking at the declared objects for which all these treaties were entered into, he must say, that he considered all the conventional engagements which they mentioned to be abrogated by the subsequent conduct of the allied powers. Those objects, and he had taken the trouble of extracting the very words from the treaties themselves, were declared in the following terms, to which he begged leave to call the particular attention of the House. The first was—"putting an end to unjust and unprincipled invasions:" the next was—"enforcing due respect to the rights of independent states:" and the third and last was—"the preservation of the peace and happiness of all nations." These were the cases for which the treaties in question provided; for these objects, and for these objects only, had we bound ourselves; with these views, and with no others, had our bayonets placed the family of Bourbon a second time on the throne of France; and, lest the recollection of the restored princes should be treacherous, and the world knew but too well, that they were too much in the habit of forgetting what they ought to recollect, and recollecting what they ought to forget, he would take the liberty of reading an extract from a memorial which had been sent by lord Londonderry to the duke de Richelieu, from the ministers of the united cabinets. It was as follows:—"The lively interest which they take in the satisfaction of his most Christian majesty, as well as in the tranquillity and prosperity of his kingdom, makes them hope, that the fatal chances supposed in these engagements will never be realized. The allied cabinets find the first guarantee of this hope in the clear principles, magnanimous sentiments, and personal virtues, of his most Christian majesty. His majesty acknowledges with them, that, in a state torn during a quarter of a century by revolutionary convulsions, it is not by force alone that calm can be restored to the mind, confidence to the heart, and equilibrium to the different parts of the social body [laughter!]; but that wisdom should be united with vigour, and moderation with firmness, for producing these happy changes. Far from fearing that his most Christian majesty will ever lend an ear to imprudent or impassioned councils, tending to renew discontents and alarms—to excite hatred and divisions—the allied cabinets are entirely relieved from that anxiety by the wise as well as generous disposition which the king has evinced at every period of his reign, and especially at that of his return after the last criminal attempt. They know that his majesty will oppose, to all the enemies of the public good, and of the tranquillity of his kingdom, under whatever form they may present themselves, his adherence to the constitutional laws promulgated under his own auspices, his well-understood intention to be the father of all his subjects, to efface from remembrance the evils which they have suffered, and to preserve of times past, only the good which Providence has brought forth even from the bosom of public calamity. It is thus only that the views formed by the allied cabinets, for the preservation of the constitutional authority of his most Christian majesty, for the happiness of his country, and for the maintenance of the peace of the world, will be crowned with a complete success, and that France, established upon her ancient basis, will resume the eminent place to which she is called in the European system." If, then, the objects thus declared had been frustrated, not only frustrated, but contravened, not by Napoleon, not by his family, not by his adherents, but by his enemies—if they had contravened them, not only without the consent of England, but in the despite of England—if schemes the most iniquitous had developed themselves—if the hand that was now about to fire the torch that was to subject Europe to a new conflagration was the very hand of these conservators of the peace—then, as an Englishman, he asked, whether these compacts, these conventional engagements, framed with other views, and with different hopes and prospects, were not ipso facto annihilated? He should have been glad to have heard from the right hon. gentleman who had gone out of his way to tell the House that he had found the line of his conduct cut and dried, something that might have led to the indulgence of a hope, that he was resolved to consult nothing but the interests of liberty, and the honour of the country. Napoleon, indeed, was no more; but something worse than his spirit survived—something unmixed with a particle of greatness. But, whatever dynasty might be placed upon the throne of Spain, not one drop of their blood, not one shilling of their treasure, would the people of this country consent to expend either in putting down one family, or in setting up another. If, then, we could not afford to step forward in support of liberty, never again with our eyes open let us be found aiding and abetting the detestable cause of oppression. It should seem, that the noble earl at the head of his majesty's councils, and the right hon. secretary, had both no very defined views upon this subject; but, after pausing to feel their way and to learn the sentiments of country gentlemen, they had at last ventured to speak out the word "neutrality," avoiding all contingent questions, and the subjects upon which the minds of the people were made up. The right hon. gentleman must be prepared to tell the courts of Europe what was the universal feeling of the country, or to bear upon his own head all the indignation which the British public would inevitably heap upon it. A few words more with reference to Spain, and he would sit down. All that he was anxious that the House, circumstanced as it was, should recognize was this—that, whether we should or should not interfere—in what mode and upon what conditions—were questions to be decided by ourselves for ourselves—were questions solely of prudence and policy, totally independent of any matter of right. No man who had read that extraordinary manifesto, the speech of the king of France, could for a moment doubt that France had given Great Britain ample and abundant ground for war. In that document hostility was declared against all free institutions originating in any other source than that of the caprice and pleasure of the sovereign. In this there was no qualification, no exception of time or place; and the principle itself admitted none. Thus the Bill of Rights and the Act of Settlement were declared invalid; the Brunswick dynasty were declared usurpers; and the shores of this kingdom, according to this doctrine, might at any time be polluted by the foot of some Cossack questioner of the Revolution. That France had given us good cause of war, all felt and knew; but whether we thought fit to accept it, must depend merely upon our own views of our own interest, at any moment, as events were developed. Pledged neutrality, France could have none. She who had taken up arms in support of such a principle, as ridiculous as it was odious, could have no pledged neutrality. Pledged neutrality would be a compact; and into what compact could England enter with France, after such a declaration? If we thought it wisdom either to let France wear out her resources in this fanatic war—this dubious contest, as he hoped he might call it—until she was glad to cry out in language not to be misunderstood, "No more of this"—if we thought it prudent to avoid the collision and jealousy which might arise, and had arisen, between two great and neighbouring nations—if we thought that "War is a fury quickly conjured up, but hard indeed to lay,"—though, from his speech, such, it was clear, was not the opinion of the deluded monarch of France—if we abstained from the contest to which we were, in fact, invited, it was not neutrality. To be passive as long as our policy required it, was not to be neutral. These political considerations, if sincere and bonâfide, were, no doubt, well worthy of men of deep reflection. If, after expending fifteen hundred millions to secure tranquillity to Europe, we were reduced to the necessity of pausing to deliberate before we could again draw the sword in any cause, however just, why not manfully avow it? Such a declaration could never be discreditable nor disgraceful, unless it were disguised under false and unworthy pretences. The hearts and the prayers of the people of England were with the Spaniards: they never could be neutral when they saw, as they now saw, unmasked oppression striking at freedom: they, at least, would exclaim—"God prosper the righteous cause!" In heart and hope they could not stand indifferent spectators of a struggle so noble—so dignified: they could not coldly gaze upon the efforts of a brave, a generous nation, to keep the liberty it had conquered, against those who, profiting little by experience, would, sooner or later, rue the day when they commenced their guilty undertakings.

after pointing out a seeming contradiction between the treaty of Vienna and that of Aix-la-Chapelle, begged to ask the right hon. gentleman, whether the treaties into which this country had entered did, in effect, guarantee to the Bourbon family possession of the throne of France? He expressed his perfect conviction, that, among the papers soon to be laid upon the table, it would be found that the duke of Wellington had recalled to the recollection of the sovereigns at Verona, the protocol of the 5th of November, 1815, signed by the names of Metternich, Richelieu, Castlereagh, Wellington, Hardenberg, Bernsdorf, Nesselrode, and Capo d'lstria. It concluded by stating, that "in the case of this meeting having for their object affairs specially connected with the interests of the other states of Europe, they shall only take place in pursuance of a formal invitation, on the part of such of those states as the said affairs may concern." He begged to know whether Spain had been represented at the congress at Verona, and whether the invitation spoken of had been given to her? If not, the allies had been guilty of a violation of their own treaty. Whoever wished to come to the discussion of this subject three weeks hence, properly prepared, must refresh his memory by looking into the documents laid upon the table by the late marquis of Londonderry. He hoped to find in the papers to be submitted to the House a strong protest on the part of our ministers against all meddling at the congress with the affairs of Spain. He did not wish to prejudge them; but, from the weighty matters the House had to discuss, he was in favour of the shorter adjournment.

said, he did not rise to enter into the various topics introduced upon the question of adjournment; indeed he doubted whether he should have risen at all, but for the question put to him by the hon. gentleman who spoke last, with reference to a conversation of a few nights ago upon the existing treaties to which this country was a party. The House would not expect that he should attempt to go through the speech of the hon. gentleman, or of the noble lord, the promoter of this disscussion; for they had both touched upon topics which, by a sort of common consent, were reserved for a future period. The question to which he wished to give a distinct answer was this—whether the treaties by which this country was bound, operated as a guarantee of the Bourbon family to the throne of France? The House would do him the justice to recollect, that in the way in which he was interrogated, the other night, he had no choice, but either not to answer at all, or to reply to a dry matter of fact. He had then answered correctly. There did exist a stipulation, by which, all who were parties to it, were bound to exclude the family of Buonaparté from the throne of France. There was also another stipulation, by which, in case of any revolutionary movements in France of another sort, the parties engaged to communicate together, but without any anticipation of the results. This stipulation was contained in the treaty of November, 1815; but it was, in fact, with certain additions, the repetition of a stipulation entered into on the 25th of March, 1815, previous to the short and decisive war, of which the treaty of November, 1815, was the conclusion. It was particularly directed against the designs of Napoleon Buonaparté and was as follows: "The high contracting parties above mentioned solemnly engage to unite the resources of their respective states for the purpose of maintaining entire the conditions of the treaty of peace concluded at Paris, May 30, 1814, as also the stipulations determined upon and signed at the congress of Vienna, with a view to complete the dispositions of that treaty, and preserve them against all infringement, and particularly against the designs of Napoleon Buonaparté. For this purpose they engage in the spirit of the declaration of the 13th of March last, to direct in common, and with one accord, should the case require it, all their efforts against him, and against those who shall already have joined his faction, or may hereafter join it, in order to force him to desist from his projects, and to render unable to disturb in future the tranquillity of Europe and the general peace, under the protection of which, the rights, the liberty, and independence of nations have been recently placed and secured." The treaty of alliance recited this stipulation, and was, in fact, a treaty to exclude Napoleon Buonaparté and his family from the throne of France. This was its provision:— "The high contracting parties having engaged in the war which is just terminated, for the purpose of maintaining inviolably the arrangements seated, at Paris last year, for the safety and interest of Europe, have judged it advisable to renew the said engagements, particularly those by which Napoleon Buonaparté and his family, in pursuance of the treaty of April 11, 1814, have been for ever excluded from supreme power in France, which exclusion the contracting powers bind themselves by the present act to maintain in full vigour, and, should it be necessary, with the whole of their forces."—"And as the same revolutionary principles which upheld the last criminal usurpation might again, under other forms, convulse France, and there by endanger the repose of other states; under; these circumstances, the high contracting parties, solemnly admitting it to be their duty to redouble their watchfulness for the tranquillity and interests of their people, engage, in case so unfortunate an event should again occur, to concert amongst themselves, and with his most christian majesty, the measures which they may judge necessary to be pursued for the safety of their respective states, and for the general tranquillity of Europe." But, in order to put the House in complete possession of the whole business, he would refer to a declaration made by the minister of this country in March, 1815. That declaration was as follows:— "The undersigned, on the exchange of the ratifications of the treaty of the 25th of March last, on the part of his court, is hereby commanded to declare, that the 8th article of the said treaty, wherein his most christian majesty is invited to accede under certain stipulations, is to be understood as binding the contracting parties, upon principles of mutual security, to a common effort against Napoleon Buonaparté, in pursuance of the 3rd Article, of the said treaty, but is not to be understood as binding his Britannic majesty to prosecute the war, with a view of imposing upon France any particular government. However solicitous the prince regent must be to see his most christian majesty restored to the throne, and however anxious he is to contribute, in conjunction with his allies, to so auspicious an event, he nevertheless deems himself called upon to make this declaration on the exchange of the ratifications, as well in consideration of what is due to his most christian majesty's interests in France, as in conformity to the principles upon which the British government has invariably regulated its conduct." It was to this declaration that he had referred on a former night. It was a negative, not a positive, obligation—it was to prevent the accession of Buonaparté, but it was not a positive obligation as to any other family. As to the rest of the discussion of that evening, he had heard nothing that called upon him for an answer. Ina state of the world, in which all first principles, it seemed, were liable to be called in question, he was not surprised at being asked "Why the House adjourned at Easter?" He did not know whether—not having deeply considered the subject—he was prepared to give any very profound reason for it. It had, however, been the usual custom, and he did not, indeed, recollect any instance to the contrary. Neither did he hope, with gentlemen unwilling to be convinced, to be able to assign any sufficient cause why the adjournment should be so long. One reason, perhaps, was, that it was for the same period last year: another might be, that the week in which parliament would otherwise meet would be a week of sessions, when gentlemen would be detained in the country. Perhaps, therefore, Thursday, the 10th of April, was as early a day as they could be expected to arrive. A third reason was, the sort of understanding that prevailed on the point; for no notice appeared on the books for an earlier day. No public business, therefore, would be impeded. As gentlemen had taken advantage of the present opportunity to state their general feelings upon the state of the country, and that was now all over, perhaps the adjournment might be passed saga motion of course. He trusted that neither the House, the noble lord, nor the hon. gentleman, would think that he treated them with disrespect; for, as soon as the House did again assemble, it would be his duty to obtrude upon them the various topics which had been urged that evening.