opinion upon it. With respect to his no-have treated for peace but with the indible friend (lord Grenville), who had ex- vidual with whom we actually did treat— pressed his pleasure at the restoration of Louis 18? Had our original declaration the Bourbons, it was natural that, holding stated that we were perfectly indifferent the opinions which he had held on the as to the occupier of the French throne, French revolution, he should feel the we could have done nothing but that satisfaction which he had described. On which we did; for Louis the 18th was the the contrary, it was natural that those who, in only individual possessed of legitimate auspite of the experience of five and twenty thority; and to have attempted to treat years, still admired that revolution, should with any one else would have shown a feel regret at an event so fatal to the sys- most partial and unjustifiable spirit. The tem in which it had proceeded. Those noble baron seemed altogether to have who were averse to the revolution, and forgotten another part of the engagement considered the atrocities which followed into which this country had entered with it as its natural consequences; who deemed the allied powers. We formed the althose atrocities the particular verifications liance on the principle of dethroning Buoof the prophecies which had been deli- naparté, and not of dismembering France. vered by a man whose wisdom was equalled On the contrary, it was distinctly deonly by his eloquence, must experience clared by the allied powers, that the disthe greatest pleasure at the overthrow of memberment of France was not their obthe offspring of that revolution, and at the ject. It was true, that the allies were not re-establishment of the Bourbons, in the bound to the king of France on this subperson of Louis the 18th. But whatever ject; but they were bound to each other. might be the difference of opinion on How, then, could this country, after havthis subject, it was unconnected with the ing induced the powers of the continent charge which had been made by the noble to form an alliance on this principle, turn baron, and supported by the noble marquis, short round after the victory of Waterloo, against his Majesty's government of hav- and altogether forgetting the principle of ing in the part which they had taken in the confederacy, proceed to that dismemthe restoration of the Bourbons, acted berment which we had declared it was not in direct contradiction to their own decla- our object to effect? Besides, putting out ration. It was imputed to his majesty's of the question the fact that we had engovernment, that in their declaration they gaged not to dismember France, it was stated that they would not interfere with evident that no diminution of her territory the settlement of the government of would have been advisable, except we had France, and that, provided Buonaparté gone such lengths as to alter the relation were dethroned, they should be perfectly in which she stood to the rest of Europe. satisfied. It was no such thing. The de- Had any other government indeed been claration of his majesty's government was, established but that of Louis the 18th, that the overthrow of Buonaparte was an the securities which we had obtained indispensable condition of peace, but they might not have been considered sufficient, did not bind themselves to consider the The noble baron had objected to the restoration of Louis the 18th as the sine means used by this country at the p present quâ non of peace; although they declared, moment to maintain the Bourbon family that, in conjunction with their allies, they on the throne of France. He seemed to would do all they could to effect that re-think that peace having been made, it was storation. In this case how were we inconsistent? When Buonaparte was defeated, with whom ought we to have treated? With the provisional government? It acknowledged the authority of Buonaparté, and to treat with it, therefore, would have been contrary to our declaration. With the son of Buonaparté ? That would have been contrary to our declaration. With the legislative body? That emanated from Buonaparté, and to treat with it therefore would also have been contrary to our declaration. With whom could we, with any consistency, unnecessary for us to exert ourselves for that purpose. But if it were admitted, which it must be, that our present securities against the ambition of France would be insufficient, were any other individual at the head of the French government but Louis the 18th, it seemed naturally to follow, that it was most essential to our interests to maintain his authority. "But," said the noble baron, "I can prove that Louis the 18th holds his crown against the wishes of the French people." Let their lordships reflect on the present state of France. The whole of the French army had been disbanded at the request and solicitation of the allies: who would not sign the treaty of peace until they were so disbanded, and who previously went the length of declaring, that unless they were voluntarily disbanded by the French government, they (the allies) would break the convention and disperse them by force of arms. Having been the means of their being disbanded, the question was, whether we were to leave the king of France exposed, without any protection, to all the dangers of which we had been the cause? Was it because the French army was disbanded that the very next day they would not, but for the presence of superior strength, have had the means of assembling again in force? Was the king of France to be left defenceless amidst a body of troops irritated by his treatment of them? Or was it to be held as a proof that the people of France were inimical to the king, that a disbanded army was dissatisfied with him? The noble baron had proceeded to argue, that in the existing chamber of deputies he did not conceive that the people of France were fairly represented. This was a similar argument to that which had been so frequently urged in this country. It was the common language and the consolation of the noble lords opposite, and those who thought with them in another place, that they were the only persons who spoke the sense of the people. The statement of his noble friend on this subject had been perverted. He had never said that a considerable number of members of the assembly had been added, for the purpose of creating a majority in favour of the present government of France. What his noble friend had stated was, that a tenth in number had been added, but that a greater number, to the amount of twothirds, had voted than were accustomed to do so under the former government.The noble earl concluded, by enforcing the fallacy of the observations which had been made on the charges attendant on our colonial possessions, contending, that in most cases those charges were directly defrayed, and that where they were not so, the indirect advantages which this country derived from the extension of her commerce and manufacturers amply compensated for the expense. Lord Holland, in explanation, disclaim ed the approbation of revolutionary principles, and the excesses committed in their naine. Earl Bathurst denied that he had made such an imputation. The Marquis of Buckingham rejoiced at the restoration of the Bourbons, because he felt that France and the rest of Europe had a better chance of tranquillity under their reign, than under that of Buonaparté. He must at the same time object to the system of retaining and exchanging fortresses, which we had adopted, as he thought it more likely to prolong than suppress jealousies that ought to be appeased. He would also enter his protest against the maintenance of a standing army in time of peace, and against that military system which was about to be cherished in this country. The Marquis of Ormond supported the address. The House divided: Against it ......... 40 ....104 .......... Majority -64 The original address was then agreed to, and their lordships adjourned at half past two o'clock. PROTEST OF LORD HOLLAND AGAINST THE ADDRESS IN APPRobation of the TREATIES.] The following protest was entered on the journals by lord Holland: "Dissentient, "Because the treaties and engagements contain a direct guaranty of the present government of France against the people of that country; and in my judgment imply a general and perpetual guaranty of all European governments against the governed. I hold such a design to be unlawful, I believe it to be impracticable; and, recollecting the principles on which the Revolution of 1688 and the succession of the House of Hanover were founded, I cannot give the sanction of my vote to a system which, if it had prevailed in those times, might have deprived this kingdom of all the benefits that have resulted from a national government and a free constitution. (Signed) "VASSAL HOLLAND." HOUSE OF COMMONS. Monday, February 19. CLERK OF THE PLEAS IN IRELAND.] Mr. Brougham wished to know whether there was any truth in the report, that the son of the chief baron of the court of exchequer in Ireland, had already been sworn into the office of chief clerk of that | fied. Under these circumstances, it was court, by his father? Mr. Peel had no objection to state, that he had reason to believe that the chief baron had so sworn in his son. Mr. Brougham could not avoid expressing his feelings with which he thought every person must be impressed-on being apprized of this fact. The House, he thought, must feel the propriety of taking some step to mark their sense of this extraordinary proceeding on the part of the chief baron-of a common law judge. necessary that every part of the peace establishment should be scrupulously examined. With a view to this object, the hon. gentleman moved, for "An account of all offices, civil and military, under the influence of the Crown, in the island of Malta, the Ionian Islands, the Isle of France, the islands of St. Lucia, Tobago, &c. and the emoluments connected with the same; also for an account of all places, the appointment to which was vested otherwise than in the Crown, together with the salaries thereof."-Agreed to. Mr. Peel said, there could be no doubt that the House had a right to regulate the office, in any manner they might think proper. With respect to the delay that had taken place in proposing any measure, it was occasioned by a wish to ascertain what the legal fees of the office were. Before this was fully known, it was not possible to bring forward any plan for re-newal of the property tax. gulating the situation. PROPERTY TAX.] Mr. Baring requested to know, whether there was any truth in the report circulated in the course of the morning, that it was the intention of the chancellor of the exchequer to withdraw his measure respecting the re Mr. Brougham said, that no man could feel more strongly than he did, the necessity of delay for the purpose mentioned by the right hon. gentleman. He merely rose to express his astonishment at the very extraordinary conduct of the chief baron-at the extreme readiness which he displayed to fill up this office, before any regulation of it had taken place, and absolutely swearing in his son, without any previous notice whatever. The Chancellor of the Exchequer stated, that this was the first time the report had reached his ears, and that it was totally without foundation, Mr. Brougham moved, "That there be laid before this House, an account of the number of persons in the city of London assessed to the income tax, and the number of surcharges and assessments, distinguishing those for the year ending the 5th of April 1815, and those for the three quarters ending the 5th of January 1816, the number of appeals, and the number of such appeals as have been successful.". the object of the learned gentleman. ACCOUNTS OF OFFICES IN THE COLONIES.] Mr. Lambton said, it would be in The Chancellor of the Exchequer thought the recollection of the House, that a right it an objection, that the motion did not hon. friend of his (Mr. Tierney) had on a distinguish the different shapes of the former night impressed on the House the property tax. Most of the appeals for necessity of economy in every department, 1815 were not yet decided, and therefore without which it would be impossible for could not be returned. Those up to the the country to proceed. Some doubts 5th of April last, however, might be prowere then expressed, whether his Ma-duced, but perhaps they would not answer jesty's ministers attended sufficiently to this principle, and the consequence was, that an hon. gentleman opposite expressed great indignation at the suspicion which was thus thrown out. He was of opinion, that this suspicion was justly founded. The House and the country must bear in mind the expressions relative to economy, which were contained in the speech from the throne. Ministers, with the word "economy" in their mouths, but with extravagance in their hearts, had placed a falsehood in the speech of the Prince Regent. They had put a pledge of economy in his royal highness's mouth, which they afterwards deliberately falsi Mr. Brougham was aware that those difficulties existed, and had framed his motion accordingly. He only wished to know how many appeals had been successful or had failed. Those that were not yet decided would of course not be returned. He had so couched his motion as to render compliance with its request easy. He had not confined it to persons subject to the property tax for commercial income, but to all descriptions of revenue. The Chancellor of the Exchequer observed, that he had applied it to the income tax solely, while he seemed to wish to embrace the property tax. Mr. Brougham said, that he meant the union of those two taxes. He had chosen the name as more descriptive of the whole, as it was, in fact, a tax upon income, and not a property tax. The motion was then agreed to. ADDRESS UPON THE TREATIES WITH FOREIGN POWERS.] The order of the day being read, Lord Castlereagh rose, and observed, that if the information contained in the treaties which his royal highness the Prince Regent had ordered to be laid before that House was of a less complicated and extensive nature, and if the peace which had attracted the attention of parliament and the world had been less bound up and mixed with other treaties and negociations, it would have been his wish on that, as on other occasions, to leave to some other member of the House the task of moving an address to the throne upon the subject of them. He thought, however, that he should best consult the course of his public duty, and the course which would be most acceptable to the House, if, under the peculiar state of those multifarious transactions, he took upon himself the task of submitting the question, in such a way as would be best calculated to bring it under the view of parliament. There were certainly many points of view in which those transactions might be considered; and he apprehended it would be equally unsatisfactory to any individual, or to parliament generally, to offer any opinion upon them, without receiving from some responsible member of the government, a statement of those various arguments and grounds upon which the ministers of this country had advised his royal highness to adopt that line of policy which had been pursued. That was the exclusive principle which induced him, on the present occasion, to open the discussion upon the treaties before the House; and he trusted that he should receive their indulgence in the prosecution of his task. It certainly was his anxious wish to occupy as small a portion of their time as might be compatible with a full and distinct elucidation of the complicated subjects which they had to consider; but he was sure he should very ill consult the discharge of his duty to that House, and to the country, if he were to sacrifice it to their convenience, by abstaining from that ample and complete survey of the whole matter, which alone could en(VOL. XXXII.) able parliament to pronounce a satisfactory and conclusive opinion. He should, therefore, endeavour to place the question before them, with those bearings, and with those explanations, which would be best calculated to accomplish that object; and he hoped, if he should omit any material point, he would be permitted to correct such error during the discussion, and to enter into such further explanations as might be necessary in support of what he had to bring forward. Having thus stated those general principles, his next wish was, at the outset to narrow as much as possible the scope and tendency of the particular vote which he should call upon the House that night to adopt. An hon. and learned gentleman had asked on a former night, in what view it was intended by his Majesty's ministers to take the sense of parliament upon those negociations and treaties, and he then stated what were the intentions, of ministers. Conformably to those intentions, he should include in the scope of the vote that night, not only the course of arrange-. ments which took place at the Congress of Vienna, but also the whole course of measures which led to the commencement, the prosecution, and the conclusion of the war, as well as the subsequent negociations of Paris. Though, however, the treaty of congress would thus be included in the vote, it would not prevent parliament from entering upon a separate and exclusive consideration of that great, measure. He had no wish to abridge' or, narrow the discussions upon that subject. Certainly, if this country and Europe. had never had the misfortune of being involved in the war excited last year by the usurpation of Buonaparté, he should not have conceived himself called upon, according to his conception of his duty, to submit any motion to parliament respecting the negociations at Vienna. Whatever degree of merit or demerit attached to the proceedings of that congress in the opinion of others, he, for his own part, should always be disposed to consider them as wise and salutary measures, taken in pursuance of the treaty concluded at Paris in May, 1814. In the general course of parliamentary practice, it never, he believed, occurred, that government having submitted to parliament a preliminary arrangement, and parliament having pronounced a favourable decision, they afterwards took the sense of parliament again upon any definitive (2X) engagements which grew out of those preliminary ones. As an instance, he would remind the House of what took place at the peace of Amiens in 1801. The preliminary treaty was submitted to parliament, and approved of; and lord Cornwallis negociated the definitive treaty upon its basis. The then chancellor of the exchequer, now lord Sidmouth, laid that definitive treaty upon the table of the House, but observed, that as it was only the conclusion of those stipulations recognised in the preliminary one, to which the concurrence of parliament had been already expressed, he did not mean to take the sense of the House upon it. Afterwards, indeed, Mr. Windham, for reasons which he stated brought that definitive treaty under the consideration of the House, in reference to some particular provisions contained in it. He only meant, by citing that example, to show that it was not the customary practice to call the attention of parliament to any definitive arrangements, concluded merely in execution of preliminary ones, already sanctioned by its approbation. He, therefore, wished to have it distinctly understood, that the proceedings of the congress at Vienna were only a definitive arrangement of the treaty of peace concluded at Paris in May, 1814. The House would permit him to observe, that in not taking its sense as to the measures adopted by the congress, he did not wish to embarrass its independence, or to consider any honourable member as pledged to give to the treaty of Vienna any countenance or approbation beyond what it might be supposed to deserve as completing the arrangements comprehended in the treaty of May, 1814. The House would recollect, that the same technical distinction was observed upon the renewal of the war in March, 1815. When they were called upon to support that war, it was not understood that by so doing they supported any of the principles developed in the congress, or that by voting for the address which was carried to the foot of the throne on that occasion, they necessarily stood bound to approve of the treaty of congress. That subject was still left open to be examined, in any way parliament might think fit. In like manner, though the House would be called upon to express an opinion upon the general scope of the negociations, which terminated with those concluded at Paris last + year, it would not be expected that, by so doing, they should be bound to approve of all that was done at Vienna. But, in a complicated and extensive question like the present, it was necessary to start from some great and distinguished point, and none was so obvious and so natural as the Congress at Vienna, which might be considered as an arrangement in which all the powers of Europe had unanimously concurred, and as one upon which the present system of European affairs was established. He was sure the House would feel upon this, as upon all great transactions, the necessity of fixing upon some acknowledged basis as the ground-work of general proceedings. In former times it was usual, when concluding any particular treaty, to recite the provisions of former treaties, such as that of Westphalia, Utrecht, Aix-la-Chapelle, or the treaty of Paris in 1763. The congress at Vienna was now the great point of diplomatic reference; and he wished, in the largest sense of the word, to leave the House perfectly free in their judgment upon that measure. It could not, however, be expected, that any other basis should have been adopted for the negociations at Paris last year, than that of the congress; for even those who might not wholly approve of all that was done at that congress, would scarcely desire that we should have re-negociated at Paris, all that was settled at Vienna. Having made these preliminary observations, he should next wish to direct the attention of the House, before entering upon the general consideration of the whole subject, to that course of policy which had guided the councils of the Prince Regent both with regard to the military and pecuniary transactions of the preceding year. He meant in a diplomatic sense alone, for he was quite satisfied, that no difference of opinion, existed as to the military glory resulting from the confederacy, or the eminent success which attended all its operations. He conceived that his Majesty's government owed to the House some explanation of the system of policy upon which it had acted. From the very nature of the war, and the character of the enemy with whom they had to contend, the contest was one of that description in which all restricted efforts would have been equally unwise, whether with respect to a sound policy or to economy. Many honourable gentlemen had formed an erroneous opinion of that con |