he would not pretend to arrogate to himself the right of demanding from every member in that house an answer to any question that he might think proper to ppose to him. If the hon. gent. did so arrogate, he would say, that to him exclusively he would deny that courtesy. The hon. and learned doctor (Laurence) had taken very angry notice of the manner in which the dictatorial tone of the hon. mover had been reprehended. For himself, he could not say that the tone of the hon. mover had been much higher tonight than he usually chose to pitch it; and he hoped it would not make greater impression on the house than it usually had made. With respect to the arguments of the hon. and learned doctor on the question before the house, he had himself anticipated the answer to them, by admitting that, prima facie, strong ground must be laid for the production of a private letter, and if any names which it contained ought in discretion to be suppressed, they should be so suppressed. How did this apply to the present case, in which the name was identically the matter of consequence? If the learned doctor discredited the statements of his noble friend, let him say so. Such a proceeding, though not very civil, would at least be intelligible; but it was most extraordinary, by way of putting his noble friend's truth to the test, to move for the production of a letter, the only part of which by which his veracity could be ascertained, must be suppressed!-The right hon. secretary proceeded to state on what grounds he supported the other part of the amendment proposed by his noble friend. Since the speech of his noble friend on a former night, an attempt had been revived to prejudice in the minds of the public that administration in the year 1805, which had endeavoured to establish a continental coalition against France. He would not now enter fully on this subject, not conceiving that it was comprised in the hon. gent.'s notice, although he should always be prepared to meet any attack on the merits of the great individual, now no more, who had so principal a share in that transaction. It had been thought by the hon. gentlemen opposite, that in the speech of his noble friend they had found something derogating from the policy of that confederacy; on the ground that the administration of that day were content to sacrifice to its accomplishment a question in which the country had ever felt deeply

interested. and in which it must now feel more deeply interested than ever--the maritime rights of England. The reverse of this was the fact. If the hon. gent. had attended accurately to his noble friend, he must have been convinced, that the form of the declaration was of itself a proof, that it was not a matter of concession. Had it been so, it would have made part of the price of that concession: it would have made part of the treaty. What was it, that at that time, under the appellation of the law of nations,' attracted the attention of Europe? So far was this term from applying to our maritime right, that it never happened that in any public document the maritime code was meant or mentioned. What were the cases to which that expression referred? The recent seizure of the duke D'Enghien on neutral territory, and dragging him to slaughter; the recent seizure of a British minister (sir T. Rumbold), on neutral territory, and carrying him prisoner to France. Did the hon. gent. see nothing in this seizure of a British minister, and this murder of a French prince, but that which must attract the attention of the continent to the maritime code of Great Britain? On that maritime code, a separate provision had been proposed, in an article to which his noble friend on the part of G. Britain had refused to be a party. By the first of the papers which would be produced, in consequence of the motion before the house, being a dispatch dated the 7th of April, it would be found, that his noble friend had declared, that no consideration whatever, not even the certainty of a total rupture with the confederating powers, would induce him to consent to the proposition/ made by the Russian minister, to submit the maritime code of G. Britain to a congress of the great powers of Europe; and that he was fully authorised to declare, that the British government would never consent to such a reference or interference. Was this the language, were these the symptoms, of concession? Unquestionably, after the rejection of the article proposed, after the signature of the treaty, his noble friend had received and transmitted home the Declaration alluded to; but he had it not in his discretion to refuse to do this; and he accompanied the reception of the Decla ration with a strong expression of his regret, that his imperial majesty had thought it necessary to make it, and with a firm repetition of what he knew to be the sentiments of his court on the subject. Did

his noble friend forfeit the favour of his sovereign by this conduct? Were his majesty's ministers lukewarm on the occasion? On the contrary, as would appear by the papers when produced, on the reception of the treaty, lord Mulgrave wrote to his noble friend, expressing his majesty's approbation of his proceedings, and declared his majesty's determination not to submit his rights of maritime war to any mediation whatever. This was during Mr. Pitt's administration. Nor was this determination concealed from the foreign ministers; for the copy of a letter of the same date from lord Mulgrave to the Russian ambassador would be produced, in which his lordship expressed similar sentiments; declared that no statesman would ever be found in this country, who would venture to unsettle that on which the power and prosperity of the country rested; and stated, that his noble friend had discharged a decided duty in the rejection of the proposition that had been made to him. Where was here the sacrifice of honour and of rights? Whatever the hon. gent. might think of other parts of his noble friend's character, they must know his candour too well to suppose that his observations on a former evening were intended for the purpose of producing, not an exculpation, but a panegyric on the conduct by which he evinced, that he was determined not to compromise that which was the solid foundation of the power of this country. He congratulated the house and the public, that such a determination had been evinced. He trusted that similar principles to those which pervaded this negotiation, would pervade any other negotiation in any other hands. He trusted that the great example which the administration of that day had set, by refusing to purchase an object, however desirable and important, by the sacrifice of that which was not the peculiar strength of Britain alone, but which was the source and support of the general strength, by which that object appeared to be attainable,―he trusted that that example would be followed to the end of time. He trusted that what we had not given to acquire a great good, we should never give even to avert a great evil. He trusted that what we had refused to grant to the request of friendship, would never be extorted from us by the menaces of hostility.

Mr. Whitbread, adverting to the personal imputations that had been cast upon him

in the course of the debate, observed, that if there was any thing dictatorial in his manner, he was sure that such manner could less become any man in that house than himself, who had so few pretensic to assume it. As a member of parliament however, he did not arrogate great privi leges, and he never would allow those privi leges to be derogated from by those, who in the most dictatorial manner charged him with being, dictatorial; and who in the most arrogant manner accused him of arrogance. To the right hon. secretary who had treated him with so much freedom, he would say, that the vices of his manner were levity and misrepresentation. The first was manifested in the mode in which that right hon. gent, jeered his hon. and learned friend near him (Dr. Laurence), one ounce of whose sterling worth he would not exchange for all the gilt gingerbread on the other side of the house. Of the second vice of his manner, misrepresentation, he had given a striking instance, by introducing a debate on papers, before the papers were laid on the table, and by pronouncing a panegyric on the noble lord, before the house was in possession of the means of ascertaining whether that panegyric was well or ill-founded. As to the inutility of presenting the letter with the names suppressed, would be advantageous to have it even in that shape. The mere declaration of the noble lord was fugitive, and could not be made the ground of any subsequent par liamentary proceeding. He could not see the necessity under which the right hon. secretary would labour of resigning, were his motion agreed to. That dreadful calamity to the country surely need not take place; but, dreadful as it would be, he owned he would rather see the right hon. gent. quit office in that manner, than that he should be turned out by the dark junto which lurked about the throne. He repeated his former assertions as to the unfair manner in which Mr. Garlike and lord Hutchinson had been treated, and after some other observations, concluded by calling upon the house to take this oppor tunity of asserting their rights to have formally before them, that which was used in debate for the purpose of influencing their judgment.

A division then took place, when the numbers were: For the amendment, 114; For the original motion, 50. Majority, 64.