return to barbarism (as it may well be called) may be traced to the detention by the French government of all British subjects who, at the commencement of the war, were found within its reach, and whom our government refused to regard in the light of prisoners lawfully captured. During the progress of hostilities, a much greater number of French prisoners were made, than of British; but on the other hand, a large balance of prisoners taken from our peninsular allies remained in the possession of France. This circumstance occasioned a further difficulty in the negotiation respecting a cartel; for whilst the French proposed that for every three French prisoners there should be exchanged one English and two Spanish and Portuguese, our court insisted that all the English should be first exchanged against an equal number of French, and that the exchange between the remaining French, and the Spanish and Portuguese, should then commence. It was justly thought that the liberation of our own countrymen should be the first object, and that an ulterior consideration of our captured allies was as much as could be reasonably expected. The French government however, adhered to its own principles, and the negotiation, which had been set on foot in 1810, was consequently broken off, to the cruel disappointment of the persons interested.

Mr. Brand, on June 13th, brought this matter before the House of Commons. He began with observing, that although the failure of the negotiations for the exchange of prisoners between this

country and France was publicly known, yet the cause of it had not been explained. He had hoped that in the early part of the session some communication on the subject would have been made by the ministers. As far as he had been informed, the proposals made by them had been perfectly fair and equitable. He then stated them as above mentioned; and he proceeded to refute some of the calumnies advanced by the French respecting the treatment of their prisoners in this country, and the unhealthiness of our prisons. After some further observations, he concluded by moving, "That an humble address be presented to the Prince Regent, praying that he would be pleased to lay before the House copies or extracts of such communications as took place in 1810, with the govern ment of France, relating to an exchange of prisoners."

Mr. Yorke seconded the motion, and said he was happy that the subject had been brought before the House by the honourable gentleman. The only reason why the matter had not been brought forward by ministers was, that the negotiation having failed, there was no occasion for them to submit any measure on the subject to the approbation of the House. When the papers came before them it would be seen to which side the charge of unfairness was applicable, and he was sure that the character of this government would not suffer on the comparison. With respect to the case of the persons who were detained in France on the breaking out of the war (to which the honourable gentleman had alluded) it was the intention of government that all the military

and naval prisoners should be first exchanged; but as there would remain a great surplus of French prisoners, it seemed a dictate of humanity to relieve those unfortunate detenues by continuing the cartel for them, since it was in vain to think of urging upon the present French government the rules by which the practice of modern warfare had been regulated. Mr. Yorke believed that at this time there were about fifty thousand French prisoners in this country, and not more than ten thousand British prisoners in France; that the Spanish prisoners there might be as many as the French here; and that there were about 12,000 Portuguese besides.

The address was then agreed to without opposition.

On June the 24th, a conversation (for there was no debate) took place in the House of Lords on a topic rather general than political. It related to the doctrine of private assassination, and was introduced in the following man

ner :

Earl Grey rose to call the attention of their lordships, and of his Majesty's ministers, to an article which had appeared in a French newspaper, published in London, and which had been put into his hands; in which the horrible doctrine of assassination was preached up and recommended in the most direct terms. The article he alluded to purported to be an extract from some English publication; and sorry was he to suppose that there was any Englishman who had a heart to conceive, or a hand to write, such a sentence as that which he referred to. As this paper might have some circulation upon the continent, and might

perhaps excite the idea that such infamous doctrines might receive countenance in this country, he felt it necessary that his Majesty's government should have an opportunity of expressing their abhorrence of such sentiments; for were they to circulate in such a shape on the continent, without being expressly disclaimed by their lordships and by the government, they might produce effects most injurious to the character, and disastrous to the interests of the country. The article in question purported to be an extract from a work which recommended an Anti-Corsican Association. Here the noble earl read an extract from it, the substance of which was," that however reprehensible might be the general principle of cutting off your enemy by private means, yet it was possible to prove, by solid reasons, and from weighty example, that in certain cases assassination was justifiable. When a man had been guilty of the most atrocious acts both of individual and national injustice-when he had, in fact, declared himself bound by no law, and utterly beyond its reach -and such was the situation of Buonaparté-before what tribunal could he be brought, and how was vengeance to be inflicted upon him?" The paper then went on, said the noble lord, to enumerate various acts of atrocity ascribed to the ruler of France, such as the murder of the Duc D'Enghien, of Pichegru, of Capt. Wright, of Palm, and others, treating the subject in such a way that no one could understand it but as a direct incitement to assassination. In this view he was most anxious that their lordships and

his majesty's government should solemnly and publicly enter their protest against any such doctrines, that it might go abroad to the world, and counteract any false impressions that such doctrines might produce. He was sorry if it should be found that, under all the circumstances, the law did not admit of the publisher of such doctrines being punished in the most exemplary manner.

The Marquis of Wellesley observed, that he could truly say, in point of fact, that the paper in question was never seen by him till it was communicated to him by the noble lord opposite. He fully coincided with that noble lord in thinking that such doctrines could not be too strongly reprobated, and that the atrocity of the sentiments could only be equalled by their absurdity. A doctrine more horrid in all respects he could not conceive, and he disavowed it, not only as a minister of the crown, but as a man of common sense: This writer had said, that the ruler of France had placed himself above all law; but he (Lord Wellesley) trusted that there still remained a tribunal before which he might be compelled to answer even in this world. The nations of Europe might still call him to account, not by the poniard or the stiletto, but by calling forth all their energies, and punishing him in the field for all those acts of perfidious aggression, by which his name would ever be rendered odious. In that point, he doubt ed not, the noble earl would concur with his majesty's government. It was lamentable that such a production should have issued from a British press, and

he was sorry it had escaped his attention, though for only a few days. He would only add, that there was no way in which government could take an opportunity of reprobating such doctrine that they would not adopt, and if possible bring the author of it to condign punishment.

Earl Grey, in expressing his concurrence in the sentiment of uniting in fair hostility against the inveterate enemy of his country, observed, however, that he would not be supposed to give his assent to all the specific charges made against him in the article in question. The Marquis of Wellesley, in return, declared that he was far from approving of a system of personal abuse against the ruler of France. It was a course neither wise nor manly, nor becoming a great nation to pursue. There was quite enough in the public conduct of that man to justify the most energetic public resistance, without descending to personal abuse.

The Duke of Norfolk suggested the propriety of laying the paper on the table; and thought it ought to be burnt by the common hangman. Lord Wellesley objected that these measures would be giving it greater consequence and circulation; and repeated his general agreement with the opinions of the noble earl; and thus the conversation terminated.

The same subject was taken up on July the 1st, in the House of Commons, by Mr. Whitbread, who dwelt at large on the horrid nature and effects of the doctrine of assassination, and the danger of disseminating such doctrines, which might be directed against any potentates whose measures

were obnoxious to another country; and he invited the ministers in that House to a disavowal of them. The Chancellor of the Exchequer declared, that if such a disavowal was thought necessary, he should most readily make it, though it did not strike him that it was requisite to impress upon the House the conviction that under no possible circumstances could such doctrines be justified. He then made some observations on the idea started by the preceding speaker, that the individual against whom they had been di

rected might be an instrument in the hands of Providence to work its purposes; and suggested that if he were raised up to accomplish any great end by the mischiefs he was to do, we might also be chosen instruments of good by our resistance to those mischiefs. He did not, however, impute to the honourable gentleman the least doubt of the propriety of continuing to resist the injustice of the enemy; and he concluded with declaring the most decided and unqualified disavowal of the horrible doctrines alluded to.

TOTWITHSTANDING the confident assertions of ministers and their friends that no depreciation had taken place in bank-notes, the fact of a diminution of their relative value to bullion became at length so glaring that it could no longer be denied, and its effects excited a general alarm. The trade of purchasing guineas for notes at a rate greatly beyond the nominal value of the latter was openly carried on, to an extent which threatened the abstraction of all the gold coin in the kingdom; and the difference of a money and a paper price was beginning to take place in commodities. In some parts of Ireland gold had been demanded by landlords from their tenants, instead of bank-notes; and the fact of a similar demand made by a nobleman in England, became a matter of general conversation. The evils which in so many countries had arisen from a depreciated

paper currency seemed to be impending over the British empire, and no remedy was as yet suggested by persons in power. In this emergency, Earl Stanhope, a person who, perhaps more than any other individual of his rank, has habitually acted according to his own ideas, and has formed plans for the public, independent of party considera

tions, took up the subject, and on June 27th presented to the House of Lords a bill of which he had given previous notice. After some introductory observations, relative to the importance and the urgency of the matter, he said, that what he meant to propose was, to make it illegal for any body to give more money for guineas, half-guineas, &c. than the value they lawfully bear; and to make it also illegal to take Bank of England notes at a value less than they purported to be equal to. He disavowed all private or personal views in the plan he had formed, and concluded with moving the reading of his bill.

4

The Earl of Liverpool, whilst he did justice to the intentions of the noble mover, was not willing to admit the necessity of his bill, as he thought that the example of the nobleman alluded to, as demanding gold from his tenants, was not likely to be imitated. Although, therefore, he would not oppose the bill in its present stage, he should move for its postponement at the second reading.

The Earl of Lauderdale disapproved of the grounds on which the noble Secretary of State objected to the bill, and showed that the landholder might reasonably