The nature and extent of the evil should have been made known to the house, that it might in its wisdom apply the proper remedy. The most correct manner of pro⚫ceeding was to refer the documents to a select or secret committee.

Lord Castlereagh saw no necessity for such a proceeding, as the disturbances were so notorious as to be admitted on all sides.

Sir Hen. Parnell said, it would have been more agreeable to him if the state of Ireland had been discussed in a committee before the present measure was introduced, since it might now be thought that the house had acted precipitately, upon the spur of the occasion. It appeared to him necessary that the magistrates should be armed with additional authority, but he was not friendly to a system which punished without the intervention of a jury.

Mr. Fitzgerald observed, that it was most unfortunate that the trial by jury in those parts of Ireland which were disturbed could not be acted upon beneficially, because information could not be obtained against those who violated the laws.

Some other Irish members spoke in approbation of the proposed measure, and leave was given to bring in the bill.

On the motion for its second reading, July 13th, Mr. Horner rose to oppose the bill. He said, it was an unconstitutional measure, brought forward towards the close of the session, when most of the members for Ireland were absent, and not called for by any sudden emergency or new occurrence. He was convinced that it would tend rather to exasperate the people, and exaggerate the evils com

plained of, than to remedy them, and could not consent, without much stronger grounds, to violate the trial by jury, and suspend the ordinary operation of the laws.

Mr. Peel, in reply, defended the bill, as being a copy of that which passed in 1807, and could not be thought less necessary in the present circumstances of the country. He entered into various particulars for its vindication, and said, that the argument from experience was altogether in its favour, since the very passing of the act in 1807 had rendered it unnecessary to carry it into execution.

Sir S. Romilly said, that the precedent of the act of 1807 had no weight with him, since he had thought then, as he now did, that no such bill ought be passed till a committee had been appointed to enquire into its necessity. As a reason for the former act, it had been declared that a French party then existed in Ireland, but at present we were at peace with France.

Some other members took the same ground of the propriety of previous enquiry; and Mr. J. P. Grant contended that the state of Ireland imperiously called upon parliament for a thorough investigation, since its diseases lay deeper, and required a radical remedy. On the other hand, the bill was supported as a measure of immediate necessity; and at the conclusion of the debate it was read a second time.

The house being in a committee on the bill on July 14th, Sir H. Parnell rose, and made a speech, the principal object of which was to eensure the omission of the right hon. mover in not noticing the disturbances existing in the province of Ulster,

and

and which he attributed to the association of Orange-men, and the continual provocations given by them to the Catholics. He further spoke against the unconstitutional harshness of the measure of enabling the magistrates to transport all persons found out of their houses from sun-set to sun-rise, without a trial by jury: and he proposed as an amendment of the bill, leaving out the words in clause 7th," without any grand jury, and without any bill found, and without the verdict of any petit jury."

Mr. Peel spoke in vindication of the Orange societies; and Sir H. Parnell made a reply. A division then taking place on his amendment, it was rejected by 66 votes against 6.

The third reading of the bill being moved on July 20th, a debate ensued which it is unnecessary to specify, as it was only a recapitulation of former arguments; it may however be mentioned that several members expressed themselves strongly concerning the absolute necessity of a full and general consideration of the state of Ireland. An amendment proposed by Mr. J. P. Grant of limiting the operation of the bill to one year instead of three being rejected without a division, the bill was read and passed.

In the House of Lords, the second reading of this bill being or dered for July 27th, it was introduced by Lord Sidmouth in a speech explaining its nature, and the necessity for it. It was strongly opposed by Lord Carysfort, and objected to by Lords Holland and Stanhope; but was read the second tine, and committed. On the following day, the house being

in committee on the bill, Lord Stanhope renewed his objections, and moved as an amendment, that it should expire at the end of the next session of parliament. The amendment was rejected, and the bill passed the committee; and immediately after, it received the royal assent.

In the same session, a bill was introduced by Mr. Peel for rendering more easy and effectual the redress of assaults in Ireland. Its object was stated to be, to induce persons who had suffered violent assaults to appeal to the law for relief and protection, by enabling them to procure it more immediately, and without expense. No opposition was made to the bill in either house, and it passed into a law at the same time with the for

mer.

There is perhaps no instance in modern English history of the termination of a long war, by a treaty which was so generally approved, as that which in the present year restored peace with France. The long protraction and excessive burdens of that war had rendered every one, capable of feeling for the general interests of his country, impatient to see its close; and if this impatience was most lively in the breasts of those who had, in all its stages, used their efforts to bring it to a conclusion; they, on the other hand, who were attached to the administration by which it was actually concluded, could not fail to regard the work as a subject of applause. Hence, when the topic was introduced in both houses of parliament, it gave rise to conver[M 2]

satio

sations rather than debates; some account of which, however, may justly be expected in the history of the year, as being, of itself, a matter well worthy of record.

On July 28th, Lord Lonsdale rose in the House of Lords, to move an address to the Prince Regent, thanking him for the communication of the treaty of peace with France, and assuring his Royal Highness of the approbation with which the treaty was regarded by their lordships, as safe and honourable to all. His lordship then lightly touched upon the principal circumstances of the treaty, and concluded with moving the address. He was seconded by Lord de Dunstanville in a similar recapitulation.

Lord Grenville said, that if he found any difficulty in cordially concurring in the address which had been moved, it arose from the article concerning the slave trade; but as he had already expressed in that house his sentiments on this point, he would not disturb the unanimity which he wished to appear in approbation of the treaty. He then took a general view of the political state in which Europe was left by it, and particularly rejoiced at the recognition by his Majesty's government of the principle of restoration, instead of that of partition which had led to so many evils. His lordship concluded with hoping that the military establishment would now be reduced to what it was before the comruencement of the war in 1791.

The Earl of Liverpool said, he should trouble their lordships only with a few words on the general principle and stipulations of the reaty. In the negociation it was

өг

necessary to adopt one of two principles; either a general congress must be resorted to, or a treaty must be made between the allies and France. As great delay must have arisen from the former plan, and the principal and immediate object was settling the boundaries and claims of France, which it was necessary to do while the allied armies remained in that country, the latter had been preferred, leaving the more complicated interests to be settled at a future congress. The next point to which he would advert was the principle by which the allies had been guided in the negociation, which was, that no peace with France could be secure lasting which did not leave the honour and independence of the country inviolate. With the conquests she had made, and the military spirit she had imbibed, it was not to be wondered at that she had required and obtained something beyond her ancient territory. His lordship then enumerated the cessions which had been made to France, and the acquisitions which we had retained, and gave the reasons for both. He lastly considered that part of the address which declared that we had attained the great objects of the war. What were those objects? In 1793 we had entered into the war to defend Holland from the invasion of the French. That ally was now restored to independence under the house of Orange. During the whole course of the war the balance of Europe was the wished-for end of our exertions: it was now secured by the reduction of the power of France within reasonable limits. The restoration of the Bourbons

On June 29th, Lord Lascelles moved in the House of Commons an address to the Prince Regent on the peace with France. The introductory speech was similar to that on the same occasion in the House of Lords; and the tenor of the address was to express satisfaction with the peace, as having fully accomplished the great objeets of the war; and by the restoration of so many legitimate authorities on the continent, afforded the best prospect of permanent tranquillity to Europe.

The motion was seconded by Mr. Gooch, who added to the sentiments of the former speaker, that "to the principles of Mr. Pitt the successful issue of the war was due."

Sir John Newport noticed the impropriety of introducing topics which could not but create dis

which, during the contest, bad been so often changed. With respect to the declaration in the address," that the treaty was considerate for the interests and the honour of all," he said, that the interests of our fisheries had certainly been neglected in the 13th article of the treaty, which resigned the most important parts of the coasts of Newfoundland, Labrador, and the river St. Lau rence.

Mr. Rose asserted that more concessions to France with respect to the fisheries had not been made by this treaty than by former treaties with that country; and he pronounced the hon. baronet's statements on this head to be altogether visionary.

Mr. Wilberforce spoke much in favour of the general spirit of the treaty, and particularly commended that article by which it was stipulated that no persons belonging to the ceded countries, or any others, should be molested for any opinions or conduct which they had adopted under a different government. He was the more anxious to refer to this stipulation on account of the affecting intelligence from Spain, where many of the noblest characters in the late government lay under a severe persecution; and he instanced Signor Arguelles, from whom he had some time before received a letter, mentioning his intention of moving in the Cortes the abolition of the slave trade. This led the hon. gentleman to allude to that article of the treaty on which he' had already expressed his opinion; and as he did not wish to disturb the unanimity of parliament, yet was desirous of preserving his own feelings from misconstruction, hẹ

would

would propose the following clause as an amendment to be inserted in the address: That, with reference to the first additional article, this house having, on the 21st instant, humbly conveyed its sentiments to his Royal Highness, we defer the expression of any farther opinion until the whole matter shall have been discussed and settled at the approaching congress, to which it is stipulated to be referred under the said article relying on the known justice and humanity of his Royal Highness, that no effort will be wanting on his part to give the fullest and speediest effect which the circumstances of the negociation may allow, to the wishes so repeatedly declared by us, for the total abolition of the slave trade."

Lord Castlereagh had no objection to the amendment, and it was ordered to stand as part of the motion, nem. con.

Mr. Baring said, that instead of being partial to the system of Mr. Pitt, he could not but consider the false policy pursued by this country in his time, as the sole cause of producing that military monster which the united efforts of the allied powers had at length succeeded in crushing. He gave credit to his Majesty's ministers for the wisdom which had directed their co-operation on the late occasions, and was ready to admit that the country had nothing to complain of in the commercial regulations of the treaty. He thought, however, we had been somewhat too liberal in what we had given up; and he made observations on some particular points of the treaty.

Mr. Stuart Wortley entirely concurred in the opinion that the

war had the same object from the beginning to the end; for the three distinct objects which had been assigned to different periods

were in fact one and the same.

Mr. J. P. Grant said, that he differed from the last speaker. We had not put down French principles by our opposition to them, but they had put themselves down by being incompatible with human nature. We had procured no indemnity for the past, though we had procured security for the future, which, indeed, was the only security that a wise government would look for. The overthrow of Buonaparte was not owing solely to this country or its allies, but was owing more to himself than to any resistance which had been made to him. The hon. gentleman then made some strictures on the treaty, particularly the support given to the claim of Sweden upon Norway, and the acquiescence in the slave trade.

Mr. Canning defended the conduct of ministers with respect to the last point, though he acknowledged that he did not believe that if the abolition had been insisted upon, it would have been a question of war or peace with France. He entered at some length upon other circumstances relative to the war and the treaty, and employed his well-known eloquence in high panegyric on the spirit with which the war had been carried on, and in exultation on the manner in which it had terminated.

After various observations from other members, Mr Whitbread rose, and began with some spirited remarks upon the speeches of the mover and seconder of the address,