called forth by the presence of the king. On his return in 1814, he had been greeted with one general expression of joy, but the demonstrations of satisfaction were still greater in the last year, and he had on no occasion seen enthusiastic kindness more generally elicited from a people in honour of their sovereign than on that. The conduct of the allies with respect to Louis had been perfectly consistent. There was, however, necessarily a difference between the course which they had to pursue, when he was obliged to fly his kingdom, and that which was prescribed to them when he was enabled to resume the administration of the government of France. The relations between the allied powers and him of course changed, when, instead of being compelled to reside out of his dominions, he was again established in the exercise of his functions. The difference to which he alluded, arose from the course which the sovereigns had in the first instance thought the interests of their own subjects, as well as those of Europe, generally made it their duty to pursue. They had not thought it right on entering on the new war, to make the restoration of Louis a sine quâ non of peace. But though they had not, in the first instance, felt themselves called upon to declare that they would prosecute the war till he was re-seated on his throne, when he was in a situation to resume his authority, it was not for them to oppose his doing so, and by thus virtually displacing him, risk again disturbing the peace of Europe.

The precedents which he (lord Castlereagh) had brought forward last night, had been objected to by the hon. and learned gentleman (Mr. Horner), on the ground that the circumstances connected with them were not exactly similar to those under which the present treaty had been concluded. That there were differences which ingenuity might detect, he did not deny, but this did not make against the comparison which he had thought might fairly be made. He should be glad to know what two precedents in the history of the world could be found in every respect precisely the same. Though he admitted that some variations might be pointed out in the circumstances, the principle in both instances was identical, and this was enough for his purpose, and nothing had pleased him so much as to find, from the statement of the hon. and learned❘ gentleman, that the whigs of the present

day bore so strong a semblance to the whigs of former times. The sentiments of the gentlemen opposite had been, perhaps, more distinctly expressed on the question, how far one country might be justified in taking upon itself to interfere with the internal affairs of another, than they would have been, had he not laid before them the precedents in question, and therefore he did not feel at all disposed to regret that he had been induced to bring them forward. What precedent could be more distinctly in point than that which proved that in former times, to establish the authority of the king of this country on a secure basis, it was necessary to guard against his being left merely dependent on the support which might be afforded to him by the people of these realms? It had been thought no disparagement to British liberty on that oceasion to enter into a treaty with the States General, in which it was stipulated, that, should it become necessary, a certain number of infantry and cavalry should be sent over to England, to support the king against the people, if ever they should be so infatuated as to resist the exercise of his lawful authority. Now he would ask if the present government of France was not as lawful and as legitimate as that could be in whose support this treaty had been concluded? Was it not more reasonable that Louis should desire assistance from the interference of a foreign state, than it was that an English monarch should be thus supported who had not that revolutionary spirit to contend with, which at present unfortunately threatened the authority of the king of France. The justice of the interference of one country in the internal affairs of another, was thus established as far as it could be established by precedent, when it was proved, that even under whig administration a treaty had been concluded, by which a British monarch was made dependant on a foreign state for support against the attempts of his own subjects.

He now wished to offer a few words on the subject of the imputations which had been cast on the present national assemblies of France. It was said that a design had been formed for restoring the national domains to those to whom they formerly belonged. He should much lament the adoption of a measure which would tend so greatly to disturb the tranquillity of France. If the national assemblies should be so unfortunate as to retrace the steps

of the revolutionary legislators of that country, by disturbing the present proprietors in their possessions, he would agree with the hon. and learned gentleman, that acting thus they would prove themselves the bitterest enemies, not only of their own sovereign, but of the general tranquillity of Europe. Such a measure he was confident would be in direct opposition to the feelings of the great mass of the French people, and whatever had been said of the manner in which the members of those assemblies were elected, he be lieved they brought with them a considerable share of the popular feeling into their deliberations. The influence of the government in France had not that effect on the elections, which it had been supposed they had by many persons in this country. He had never heard that the members returned under their influence exceeded a tenth of the whole number, and he had often heard it maintained, that they did not amount to a twentieth. The members of the present chamber were three times as numerous as they were under the late system, and they had a much greater number of constituents, not fewer than 50,000 persons having voted on the elections. These persons were distinguished as those who paid most to the revenue of the country; they were therefore likely to be among the most enlightened portion of the French people. By the elective franchise being placed in such hands, a very tolerable representation of the country was obtained. From the manner in which this assembly had been brought together, and from the feelings by which it appeared to be animated, a strong, if not a conclusive proof might be drawn, of the decidedly favourable impression which had been made on the minds of the French generally, with respect to the character of the king. This was so clearly demonstrated by various circumstances, that he thought the only feeling which existed in France against Louis 18th, was that of the military interest; he meant those who looked for advancement to the creation of an army, to promotion, and to the rewards of exertion in war.

With respect to the scope of the hon. and learned gentleman's argument, which represented the force to be kept up in France as dangerous to our internal situation at home, he should offer a few words. He apprehended the House would be disposed to agree with him, that if we did not keep in existence the means of

repelling any new effort that might be made on the part of France, it was possible our neglect in this instance might cause that country, and indeed Europe, to be again deluged with blood. The hon. and learned gentleman, however, seemed against precaution altogether; he would not suffer money to be taken from France he would not keep up a military force there-and he doubted if he could bring himself to touch the frontiers. He therefore seemed to desire that we should go back to the peace of 1814; and in this he had separated himself from all his political friends.

He should now notice what had fallen from the right hon. gentleman who had spoken last. That right hon. gentleman, turning aside from the dangers which menaced our interests in other countries, had particularly dwelt on the jeopardy in which our liberty at home would be placed by the maintenance of that army which had served us so well abroad. The noble lord said, he did not see the danger himself, and he did not believe the country would easily be brought to recognise it. He could easily conceive the right hon. gentleman might feel it to be his duty to advocate the wise principles acted upon by our ancestors, but that he himself could seriously believe our liberties would be endangered by the circumstance of an English army being kept up in France for a specific service, and for a limited time, he could hardly think possible. It was a romance too extravagant for imagination. He (lord Castlereagh) admitted it would have been possible for our contingent of the force to be maintained in France to have been composed of foreign troops; but he knew not why any feelings of irritation should be excited by an English force being preferred for this duty. He had every reason to believe that the feelings of the French people were most favourable to this arrangement; that they would rather British troops should come in contact with them than those of any other nation. The arrangement would not be expensive to this country, and he did not hesitate to state it to be most decidedly his opinion, that we could not do better than to guard against too hastily. breaking down that force which it had cost the country such stupendous efforts to build up, before we were certain we could go on securely without it. If a pre cautionary system was thought necessary to secure the peace of Europe, he could

see no reason why those admirable soldiers, | who had deserved so well of their country, should not be kept together (if this could be done without expense to England) for its support. Those who had conquered at Waterloo he had thought might well be maintained in France, at her expense, till the state of the world should be such that we might safely ground our arms, till the danger of re-action was gone by, and the peace of Europe was securely established.

Sir Charles Monck did not wish to take

He

any unfair advantage of the noble lord, by
rising after he had made his reply.
should not have done this had he not
deavoured but in vain to speak before.
He wished, as the conduct of the Whigs
of former times had been brought under
the consideration of the House, to submit
to them a comparative statement of the
course which had been pursued by former
Tories. [The hon. member was here inter-
rupted by cries of question, and the impa-
tience of the House to divide became ex-
treme.] He had wished, he said, to state
what in former times had been the conduct
of the Tories, conceiving this to be the last
opportunity he should have of doing so,
on the present question; but having been
informed that his object might be affected
when the report of the address was taken
into consideration, he was far from wishing,
at that late hour, to trespass longer on the
patience of the House.

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

Majority against the
Amendment............

77

240

163

and

The original address was then put,

agreed to.

Russell, lord John

Russell, R. G. Ramsden, J. C. Ridley, sir M. W.

Romilly, sir S.

Rowley, sir Wm. Sebright, sir J.

Scudamore, R. P.

Smyth, John H.
Smith, Wm.
Tavistock, marquis
Tierney, rt. hon. G.
Townshend, lord J.
Waldegrave,hon.capt.
Walpole, hon. gen.
Western, C.
Wilkins, W.
Wynn, sir W. W.
Wynn, C.

TELLERS.

Milton, viscount Horner, F.

The House adjourned at four o'clock on Wednesday morning.

HOUSE OF LORDS.

Thursday, February 22.

STATE OF THE NATION.] The Duke of Bedford said, that in consequence of the rejection of the amendment of his noble friend (lord Grenville), and considering the immense peace establishment now in contemplation, the great pressure of taxation by which it was proposed to support that establishment, and the internal distress of the country, particularly of that part of the united kingdom called Ireland, he felt it his duty to call the attention of the House to the state of the nation, and therefore notice of a motion for that gave purpose for Thursday se'nnight. His moved that the lords be summoned grace for that day, which was ordered.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Thursday, February 22.

Mr. Gooch presented a petition from the land owners, farmers, and other occupiers of land in the county of Suffolk, complaining of the distresses under which they laboured. The hon. member said he could assure the House that the petition was signed, not as petitions were sometimes signed, by persons who would put their names to any thing, but by upwards of one thousand of the most respectable inhabitants of the county, who were absolutely weighed down by the pressure of the times [Hear, hear!]. They alleged in the petition, that it would be impossible (3 F)

for them to go on if some relief was not afforded. They could neither pay the taxes nor their landlords, and they pointed out the malt duty, and the agricultural horse duty, as to things from which relief might be given to them. Ordered to lie on the table.

The Grand Junction Water Works Bill was read a second time, and ordered to be referred to a committee.

A petition was presented from the town of Tiverton against the renewal of the property tax.

At the suggestion of the Speaker, the dropped orders of the preceding day were disposed of.

Mr. Baring inquired, if he was at liberty to bring on his motion respecting the transactions in Ceylon, without another notice?

The Speaker said, he apprehended that a dropped motion was gone, until revived by a fresh notice. The House, if it saw fit, might resolve upon letting it proceed, but no member was entitled, as a matter of right, to do so.

Lord Castlereagh observed, that if the object of the hon. member's motion was merely for information, which the government would willingly give, he should feel disposed to let it come on then, but if it was intended to raise a discussion upon the question, he should prefer another notice being given, and as a matter of personal convenience to himself, should request that it might not be to-morrow.

Mr. Baring then gave notice for Wednesday next.

PILLORY ABOLITION BILL.] Mr. M. A. Taylor rose, in pursuance of his notice, to move for leave to bring in a bill to abolish the punishment of the pillory.. After what had passed upon this subject, when it was brought before the House in the last session, on which occasion his proposition met with the unanimous concurrence of the House, he did not now think it necessary to say much. It would be recollected, that after the bill had passed all its stages in this House, it had gone up to the other House, where, in consequence of the indisposition of the noble lord on the woolsack, it remained till nearly the close of the session. There were those who then thought it desirable to postpone the question till the present session, and in obedience to their wishes, he now again had to present the subject to the notice of parliament. In the conversations which

he had heard upon the policy of this measure, he had met no person who was not friendly to the principle of the measure, although some might think it prudent, that the punishment of the pillory should not be abandoned in toto. Notwithstanding these opinions, however, it was his intention to bring in the bill in the same shape in which he had introduced it last year, and if it should undergo amendments, he should at least have the satisfaction of procuring some alteration in a practice so extremely objectionable in every point of view. The main ground upon which he rested his dislike to the punishment of the pillory was, that it was a punishment which could not be measured or dealt out by a court of justice, but was apportioned solely by the caprice of the multitude. For this reason it was, that he thought it ought no longer to remain upon the statute book. He would not now enter into the reasons why he should not even wish this punishment to extend to that abominable offence, which was so disgraceful to human nature, and to which it had recently been so often apportioned. He did think, that such exhibitions were productive of no moral good; but, on the contrary, tended to increase the vice it was meant to suppress. The inequality of the punishment in its application, however, was one argument, which he considered decisive, as to the propriety of its no longer being suffered to exist. This inequality was evident, from a baker for selling bread short of weight, being as much subject to the punishment, as a man who had placed the life of a fellow-creature in jeopardy, by calling God to witness a gross and diabol cal falsehood. Upon the whole, he thought the punishment ought to be abolished altogether; and therefore, begged leave to move, "That leave be given to bring in a bill for the abolition of the punishment of the pillory."

Sir Robert Heron said, he had a strong feeling respecting this bill, and doubted almost whether to venture on giving his opinion to the House, though his mind was made up on the subject. The improved and mild morality of the present times had been disadvantageous so far as it was too lenient to crimes, and had too much pity for former acquaintances and connexions. This sometimes paralyzed the arm of the law, and gave facilities for the escape of guilty persons. It sought to retain in society those who had disgraced it. He meant to offer an amendment to the bill,