Buonaparte's stipulation to withdraw his armies from Spain, undertook to give his assistance in expelling the English troops from the Spanish territory. Ferdinand was set at liberty, and returning to his own country, withdrew to Valencia, keeping from him all good men and patriots. He refused to sign the constitution framed by authorities legally constituted; and without doing any thing to revoke the treaty of Valency, employed himself in projects to get rid of the Cortes and the Regency. Troops in British pay, and commanded by a British officer in the Spanish service, were sent against the Cortes, and that body, with the Regency, were obliged to surrender their authority, while lists were put into the hands of the sovereign of those who had taken the most active part for their country. It was unnecessary to enter into details of the succeeding measures of the King of Spain, all directed against the policy and interests of Great Britain; or of the cruel punishments inflicted on those who had contended for his crown; since it was well known that twentyseven members of the Cortes, and two of the Regency, had become victims to the animosity of Ferdinand. After dwelling some time longer on these topics, and alluding to the British interference in the internal affairs of France, the hon. member concluded with moving "That an humble address be presented to his Royal Highness the Prince Regent, entreating his Royal Highness to take into his gracious consideration the sufferings of the members of the late Spanish Regency

and Cortes, and representing that the alliance at present subsisting between his Royal Highness and his Catholic Majesty affords the most favourable opportunity for interposing the good offices of Great Britain in their behalf with the weight that belongs to her, and to the sentiments of this House, and of the people."

Lord Castlereagh rose, and after expressing his surprise at the extraordinary and novel nature of the motion which had just been read, he said, he regarded the policy now proposed to the House as extremely unwise, and calculated to do much mischief, without a chance of producing any substantial benefit to the persons whose cause it professed to espouse. He then remarked upon the tendency of the hon. gentleman's speech to excite jealousy and animosity, and to involve the two countries in mutual hostility; and was next led in the train of argument, to make observations on the proper kind of interference which might be exerted with respect to foreign countries. Digressing to facts relative to France at different periods, he took occasion to censure the manner in which individuals of this country had thought proper to interpose in the late religious differences of that country, affirming that the charges brought against the French sovereign and government as encouraging persecution were entirely groundless, and had been received with displeasure by both parties.

Coming to the direct point, his Lordship complained that the hon. gentleman had proceeded to allegations against the govern

ment

ment for neglect of attempting to appease the violences in Spain, without enquiring into their truth. His Majesty's ministers had never ceased to attend to the interest and fate of the individuals whom the motion concerned; and he might claim belief when he declared, upon his honour, that he was convinced that our government had rather gone beyond, than fallen short of its duty, in its zeal to serve the body of men alluded to. At the same time he must disclaim all the necessity which the hon. gentleman wished to impose upon it so to act. It was a mistake to suppose that the Cortes had been guided by us, and that we were bound to rescue its members because all that they had done was by our direction. The party called Liberales was undoubtedly an Anti-French party, but in no other sense a British party, and the term employed by the hon. gentleman of English Cortes was entirely inapplicable. Of this a better proof could not be given than their refusal to admit Lord Wellington into Cadiz, when he was desirous of obtain ing a point within the Spanish territory previously to entrenching his army behind the lines of Torres Vedras. Lord C. then procecded to a kind of comment on the principles and conduct of the Cortes, and a defence of the part taken by the court of Spain. He said, the Cortes thought they could best effect their purpose by entirely overturning the ancient system of the kingdom, and especially by merging the whole class of nobility and clergy in the third estate, after the example of the French jacobins, whence

most of the calamities of the country had arisen. This was principally owing to the party called Liberales, who declared that they would not admit Ferdinand's right to the throne, unless he should put his seal to the principles which they laid down, and among the rest, that of the sovereignty of the people. Their extremes naturally produced a violent reaction, and the swing taken in the direction of Jacobinism had now taken as violent a direction towards despotism. When the constitution of the Cortes had been destroyed by Ferdinand, there was not a murmur in Spain; in fact, the people were more attached to some of those particulars in their ancient constitution which we thought defects, than the people of this country were to the most perfect part of our free constitution. He then charged the Cortes with having shewn a determined disposition in many of the members to withdraw from the Duke of Wellington the command of the national troops, which had been conferred upon him by a solemn act of the state, so that he retained it by the majority only of six votes; and the minority were all Liberales. Many of their acts had been of the most cruel kind, such as their prosecutions and punishments of the generals Palafox and Abisbal, and their proceedings against the Bishop of Orense; so that, were their authority to be restored, he feared that Spain would not be purged from all enormities. When, however, a minister of the crown stated to parliament that the British government had interfered, and that the four great [C 2]

powers

powers of Europe had instructed their ministers at the court of Spain to interfere, to as great extent as was consistent with propriety, in behalf of the unfortunate individuals, were the House now to lend itself to such a purpose as that intended by the hon. gentleman, it would only prevent a chance of success.

Such was the substance of a speech, curious as displaying the feelings of the ministry with respect to the present political state of Spain; to which may be added, as matter of observation, some remarks from that side reprobating the language which was here so freely employed in degradation and abuse of King Ferdinand. The hon. mover in his reply was ready to admit that he was taken by surprise by the noble lord's declaration of the government's interference in favour of the persons in question; but as no effects had appeared, he might be excused in supposing that nothing had been done. The conclusion of the debate was a division, in which the Ayes were 42; Noes 123: Majority against the motion

$1.

On the 19th of February the Earl of Liverpool moved the House of Lords on the subject of an address upon the treaties with foreign powers which had been laid before parliament. The character of the debate on this occasion being essentially a political discussion relative to the merits of measures already brought into effect, a very concise summary of the arguments employed is all that our report of parliamentary transactions can require.

The noble mover, after a pre

liminary view of the state of things which terminated in the victory of Waterloo, and its consequences, remarked, that there having been no specific engagement with the King of France, upon his being restored by the arms of the allies, they were bound, by their duty to their own subjects, to accompany that restoration with such conditions as would afford sufficient security for the peace of Europe. The arrangement adopted for this purpose was founded on three principles: 1. the military occupation of part of France by the allied troops for a limited nunber of years: 2. the pecuniary compensation which the allies were entitled to exact from the French government: 3. a territorial arrangement. Of the particulars under these three heads his lordship then gave a general view, with the reasons for each, accompanied by arguments to justify that interference in the internal affairs of France which they implied. He then took into consideration another arrangement to which the papers on the table related, that respecting the Ionian islands; and said that it was in compliance with the general views of the allies and of Europe, that the British government had taken these islands under its protection. He concluded with moving an address to the Prince Regent, the tenor of which was expressing an entire satisfaction with the policy adopted by his Royal Highness and his allies in the recent peace, and approbation of the principles of justice and moderation displayed in the councils of his Royal Highness, with an assurance of the support of the House

in giving effect to the engagements entered into.

Lord Grenville expressed his entire concurrence with the noble earl on many points connected with the treaties before the House, but said, that there were others on which his difference of opinion had remained unaltered. On our right, in concurrence with our allies, to interfere in the affairs of France for the purpose of securing the repose of Europe, he spoke in the most determined manner; following up his argument with a comprehensive view of the reasons which should have urged the allies materially to abridge the territory of France upon the conclusion of the peace. The security against French power ought to have been sought in depriving her of those territories on her northern frontier, which had been gained by the unjust aggressions of Louis XIV. As things now stood, the king of the Netherlands was left in so unprotected a state, that his very capital could be taken by a French army in a few days. In answer to the objection, that to exact such cessions would inflict an injury that would never be forgotten by the French people, his lordship argued, that quartering foreign troops in the heart of their country for five years, to be maintained at their expence, was a condition equally humiliating, and at the same time more burthensome. This policy led him to the consideration of the great evil now prevailing in Europe of keeping up vast standing armies, which deprived the people of the benefits to be expected from the restoration of peace, in

which evil we were now involving ourselves to a dangerous and ruinous degree. The conclusion of his speech was a motion for an amendment to the proposed address, in which, at considerable length, a strong sense of disapprobation was expressed at the vast military establishment with which it was intended that this country should be burthened.

The original address was supported by the Earl of Harrowby, who argued against the policy of demanding from France the cession of all French Flanders, which the army of the Netherlands would be in no capacity of occupying.

Several other speakers joined in the debate, which was at length terminated by a division, in which the amendment was rejected by 104 votes against 40. The original address was then agreed to, Lord Holland entering his protest of disapproval.

The same subject was taken up in the House of Commons on Feb. 19th; when the order of the day being read, Lord Castlereagh rose, and after a long political narrative, moved an address to the Prince Regent in approbation of the treaties, of exactly the same import with that moved in the House of Lords. It was met by a similar motion for an amendment, introduced by Lord Milton; and the sequel was a debate continued to the second day. In the speeches, all the eloquence and ingenuity of the House in political discussion was employed, and the final result was a

rejection of the amendment, and adoption of the address, by a not less decisive majority than that

in the other House, the numbers being 240 to 77.

The public opposition to the continuance of the property-tax, already mentioned as having commenced in the metropolis, spread with so much rapidity through the nation, that the delivering of petitions against it to the House of Commons, and the consequent debates and discussions, occupied a large share of the attention of the House during some successive weeks. The topic was resumed on Feb. 22d, by a numerously-signed petition from the inhabitants of Clerkenwell, presented by Mr. Brougham. On this occasion, Mr. Baring expressed his hope, that as petitions were preparing on the subject in every part of the island, the ministers would not hurry on the vote of a large peace establishment.

On Feb. 26th, a great number of petitions were presented, some of them by members who declared, that their own opinions did not agree with those of their constituents. The Chancellor of the Exchequer took this opportunity of giving notice, that he meant to propose this tax in the committee of ways and means on the 28th, and hoped that those members who had notices of motions on the book would give way to him. Mr. Baring thereupon strongly censured the indecency of such precipitation, and declared, that he would oppose the measure in every stage, and keep it before the House as long as he was able.

On the next discussion of the subject, Sir F. Burdett, in an energetic speech against the continuance of the tax, introduced

that opinion respecting the subserviency of the House of Commons to the ministers, which he never hesitated to express in the face of the House. He said, "The right hon. gentleman (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had told them that they had all laboured under a mistake, when they supposed that the propertytax was not to be renewed after the termination of the war. He, for one, was never mistaken on the subject; for he never did believe that ministers intended to let the tax die away. He was quite convinced, that the majorities which supported the right hon. gentleman would not abandon him in consequence of any expression of the public voice. He despaired of making the majority of that house, constituted as at present it was, feel for the distresses of the country: but he hoped that the sentiments of the people would be so expressed as to compel ministers, and through them, their adherents, to abandon the measure." After the hon. baronet had finished his speech, Lord Milton rose, and, declaring that he agreed in many of the sentiments of the last speaker, said, that there was one point in it, which, as he conceived, called for observation. This was, that the hon. baronet had expressed a hope, that such a clamour and tumult would be made, as should prevent the Chancellor of the Exchequer from renewing the tax. He himself was persuaded, that if he abandoned it, he would do so, not from fear of clamour out of doors, but for fear of losing a majority of that house. Sir Francis B. appealed to the recollection