for an increase of territorial acquisitions | abroad, and that was one reason why he was not very anxious to retain our distant conquests. Neither would the same expence be sufficient now for the support of an equally extended military establishment, but he wished the amount of the force kept up to be the same, or that a distinct reason should be given for every deviation from the former peace establishment. He conjured noble lords to let no exultation of triumph, no intoxication of success, no enthusiasm excited by feelings, which it would be base indeed not to participate and not to cherish, to draw them aside from the important consideration, that in economy and low establishments the true prosperity and security of this country

consist.

The Earl of Liverpool said it would not be necessary for him to detain their lordships long. He should only trouble them with a few words on the general principle and stipulations of the Treaty, which he hoped would explain some of the criticisms -so he might call them, rather than the objections of the noble baron. In the negociation it was necessary to adopt one of two principles :-either a general Congress must be resorted to, or a Treaty must be formed between the allies on the one hand, and France on the other. Great and unavoidable delay must occur from the adoption of the former method, on account of the complexity of the various interests to be settled. The settling the boundaries and claims of France was the principal and immediate object. This, however, it was necessary to do while the allied armies remained in France, and while the impression of the victories which had been obtained was fresh in the minds of the French themselves. Neither was it proper that the forces of the allies should remain long in France. This object, therefore, had been attended to in the first instance; and the adjusting of the other interests had been referred to the general Congress.

What he should next advert to, was the principle on which the allies had conducted themselves in the negociation, which was, that no peace with France could be secure or lasting, which did not maintain the honour and independence of that country inviolate. In becoming the negociator of a peace, he always wished to consider himself as the arbiter of the different interests at stake, and as forming his decision on a fair and and comprehen(VOL. XXVIII. )

sive view of the circumstances and claims of all the parties. He believed that there was no treaty to be found which would stand the test of these principles better than the one which had been just concluded. Connected with that Treaty was the restoration of the ancient dynasty of the Bourbons, and it was no less necessary to the security of this country than due to every just and honourable feeling, to restore that dynasty to a respectable and commanding situation among the powers of Europe. After the calamitous events of the last twenty-two years, after the changes that had taken place, after the overturning of so many monarchies, he thought there was no other solid basis to propose than the returning to the ancient state of France, antecedent to the war of 1792. Sixteen months ago, what noble lord would not have rejoiced at the most distant prospect of obtaining such a basis, of which even the hope had at that time been relinquished? This basis in the present Treaty, if not rigidly, strictly, or literally, had been in all the material points substantially adhered to. France, with some few exceptions, had been reduced to her ancient limits. With the conquests which she had made, with the military spirit which she had imbibed, with the intoxication of so long a career of victory, it was not to be wondered at that France had required and obtained something beyond her ancient territory. The conces sions which had been made to her were,

1. Avignon and other districts, which were, as the French termed it, enclavés, in their own territory. 2. Some addition in the Netherlands, for the purpose of con. necting their line of fortresses together. 3. The fortress of Landau in Germany. As this was a military position, the best military authorities had been consulted before it was given up, but no danger was thought to arise from its surrender. On the side of Savoy, the greatest acquisitions had been made by France. The whole of the addition which had been made to her population amounted to between 6 and 700,000 inhabitants; and if we considered the loss of population which France had suffered in the late conflict, there was, in this accession of numerical force, no cause of alarm. No fortresses out of the ancient limits of France, or which did not formerly belong to her, had been conceded by the Treaty. All the fortresses in the low countries were withdrawn from the power of France. With (2 B)

these exceptions, France had been restored to what she was in 1792.

In the progress of the war it had fortunately happened that we had conquered all the colonial possessions of France. These it seemed neither just nor prudent to retain, but to throw them into the scale of the general arrangements about to be made. To preserve our authority in Europe, it was necessary not to proceed on a principle of colonial monopoly, which would diminish instead of increasing our power, and prevent our successful interference in the system of continental politics. Or even if it were in our power, it would not be for the interest of this country, to shut France completely out of her colonial and commercial advantages. It was exactly in proportion as she was colonial and commercial that we had a power over her by attacking her colonies and wounding her commerce. The principle of a restitution on which we had proceeded was the following: 1. We had retained the French factories. 2. We kept the Mauritius-this would be an important acquisition to France, if she possessed an empire in India, but was otherwise of no value to her. 3. The island of Malta was retained as the key to the Mediterranean. 4. We recovered the island of Tobago where there was not a single proprietor who was not English. This island had been conceded to France at the peace of 1783.

The noble earl then proceeded to state that there were many points in which he agreed with the observations of the noble baron, particularly as to the importance of Holland and the Netherlands to this country; but on that and other points, there was, he conceived a perfect good understanding between the different powers, and he hoped there were no material difficulties that would not be overcome at the ensuing Congress. To that Congress he was convinced England would come with greater weight than if peace had not been already concluded. The other interests implicated in the Treaty would be adjusted, with a view to the state of things before the war. He was convinced that Europe had never enjoyed so much happiness as from the time of the English Revolution in 1688, to the French Revolution in 1789. It was his object, therefore, to bring things back as much as possible, to the state they were in at that period; but this object, however desirable, could not be completely obtained, after the

changes and convulsions of every kind which had taken place.

There was one observation more which he could not help making on that part of the Address, which declared that we had arrived at the great objects of the war. What were those objects? We had entered into the war in 1793, to defend our ally, the government of Holland, from the invasion of the French. That ally had been restored to independence, and the lawful family, the House of Orange, to the throne. During the whole course of the contest, the balance of power in Europe, though, in our despair, the term had been almost forgotten, was the wishedfor end of all our efforts. But now the exorbitant power of France had been reduced within reasonable, if not within her ancient limits. Other powers had penetrated into the heart of France, had made peace in her capital, and had thus recovered their equality in strength and rank, and public opinion. At one time the Peninsula presented the only consoling prospect to our hopes; but now no wish, no object had been left unaccomplished. Malta had been, at one time, stated to be the cause of the war. This hardly required refutation. Again it was said, that the object of himself, and of his former colleagues, was the restoration of the Bourbons. This was also false; though he was convinced that we could have had a satisfactory peace with no other government in that country. At the the conclusion of other wars we had sometimes abandoned our allies, and consulted only our own separate interests. This had been the case in 1763. The present peace wa was made in conjunction with our allies, with their full approbation, and with their entire gratitude for the services we had rendered to the common cause. Never was there a moment in which the character of Great Britain stood so high as at present. This was not a visionary and ideal source of exultation: for character was strength.

On the motion for the Address being then put, it was carried nem. con.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Tuesday, June 28.

PETITION FROM THE SOCIETY OF FRIENDS, CALLED QUAKERS, RESPECTING THE SLAVE TRADE.] Thirty-seven petitions were presented from various places, praying for a revision of that Article of the Treaty of

the paving and lighting of the streets, lanes, and passages, within the said parishes. 2. A like account from the commissioners for paving and lighting certain parts of the city of Westminster, distinguishing in each account the amount of the sums disbursed for paving, together with the amount of the sums disbursed for lighting."-Ordered.

FEES OF COURTS OF JUSTICE.] Sir Jolm Newport rose to make the motion of which he had given notice, relative to the increase of fees in the different courts of justice. He said, it was both the right and duty of the House to enquire into the state of the courts of justice, and into the conduct of the officers connected with them. Should that controul get into disuse the suitor would not have that protection which he was intended to have by the constitution. From the earliest times such a right had been exercised-from the restoration down to the revolution, and at various periods subsequently to that era, the last of which was in 1798; since which time there had been no supervision by that House, though called for by the union of the two countries. Bred himself to the profession of the law, he early felt a high respect for the profession; and was far from imputing any improper motive to the high officers who presided in the courts of justice. He should scarcely have thought it necessary to make this declaration, but for some expressions that had been used on a former occasion. It was one of the standing orders of the House, that such a committee should be appointed to exercise supervision, and it was his intention to place such a resolution upon the Journals. After the restoration, lord Hale had made an enquiry into the state of the courts of justice, and proposed many reforms, which had not been carried into effect; for example, that no office should be discharged by deputy, and that there should be no sale of offices connected with the administration of justice. He quoted lord Hale as a great authority, and he had said that fees were taxes laid on the subject, and should be applied to a common fund. The right hon. baronet then went into an enlarged detail of the steps that had been taken by parliament at different times on this subject, and stated that a commission had been appointed in 1799, though no proceedings had taken place in consequence of it. He should now move, "That it appears to

this House fit and proper, that an enquiry should be made into the state of the Courts of Justice, and the offices connected therewith, as to the duties, salaries, fees, and emoluments, of the several officers, clerks and ministers of justice, similar to the enquiries instituted in the years 1664, 1693, 1732, 1757, and 1798, more especially as the union of parliaments of Great Britain and Ireland has taken place subsequent to the latest enquiry by this House, and that in Ireland, the latest examination by either House of Parliament was in the year 1733." The right hon. baronet also intimated his intention of following this motion by a motion to address his royal highness the Prince Regent, praying that he would be graciously pleased to cause to be laid before the House the reports that had been made by all the commissions which had passed under the Great Seal for examining into the Fees of the said Offices, &c.

The Hon. Mr. Law said, he expected that the motion of the right honourable baronet would have been of a dif. ferent nature. He had been led to this expectation from the observations made when the subject was first introduced. Particular cases of an improper increase of fees were then stated, which were not supported by the returns laid upon the table. The court of King's-bench had been particularly alluded to, and it was said that a considerable increase had taken place in the fees paid to the clerk of the rules. The truth was, nothing of the kind had occurred, nor was it in the power of the court to authorise it. In the year 1787 there had been a dispute upon this subject, and it was then said that the fees paid to the clerk of the rules were increased; but upon enquiry it was found not to be the case. The same might be said of the clerk of Nisi Prius, who had been alluded to. He would not deny that parliament was in the habit of making enquiries upon this subject, but not until some ground for enquiry was made to appear. The tendency of the motion was, in his opinion, to cast a reflection upon the courts of law, and he must, therefore, oppose it.

Lord Castlereagh said, he had not been in the House when the grounds of the motion had been stated; but as far as he could collect of what had then taken place, the House could scarcely sanction so grave aproceeding, without some broader grounds

being laid before them than had been stated by the right hon. mover. The House was entitled to expect that either some particular abuse should have been stated, or that some general ground should have been established. The proposed commission could only go to trace out the original grounds of the fees of courts, and how far the existing practice of the courts agreed with the original principles. The practice was a presumption of the fairness of the mode in which the business had been done. In the present instance, no practical ground had been pointed out in any particular court; but only some general plan of reform appeared to be in contemplation. He should object to the motion, as he was not aware of any particular abuse, and no public benefit seemed likely to arise from it; nor was he prepared to agree that something was wrong, where nothing had been proved.

Mr. Ponsonby did not think that the mo tion tended to throw any imputation upon the courts of justice. Upon any former occasion, when an enquiry of this kind was gone into by the House, it was not considered to imply any reflection of this kind. The character of the officers in the different courts was best supported by answering to enquiries of this kind; a refusal to answer such enquiries would tend much more to fix an imputation of the kind alluded to. The officers of the different courts might, without the knowledge of the judges, act improperly with respect to fees. He had heard reports of this kind, and he believed not without some foundation. On the propriety of paying officers by fee or salary, he would not now give an opinion. In some cases, one mode might be preferable to ano

ther.

Mr. Bathurst protested against the practice of subjecting even unsuspected per sons to enquiry, in order that their characters, as it was said, might come more pure from the trial.

Mr. Stephen did not think the judges had been well treated: he had expected, after what had fallen from the right hon. baronet on a former occasion, that he was prepared with abuses in some quarters, and with pregnant suspicions in others; and even the judges had been glanced at. [Sir John Newport here denied that he ever insinuated such a charge against the judges.] The right hon. baronet had obtained all the various returns of fees which had been ordered, yet not one of

those returns had furnished him with a remark, much less with a charge, against any of the parties. He insisted, that a commission would imply suspicion, and thus diminish the high respect in which the judges ought to be held. It would also be a further unnecessary trespass on the time of the courts. Much needless trouble had been given already for instance, the accomptant-general had been ordered to give in an account of the dead fund, with the names of all the persons to whom it belonged. If that officer could have so done, he would have at once dispensed with the labours of all masters in chancery, whose business it was to examine and decide upon the rights of the claimants. The account, also, under such circumstances, must have embraced nearly half the population of the kingdom.

Mr: W. Smith said, that all the objection to the production of the return last alluded to by the learned gentleman, was, that the motion was not properly worded. This might have been easily remedied, and the object of the motion fulfilled by a slight change in the words. Such motions did not, in his opinion, throw any imputation upon the courts. When an enquiry was made into the enormous fees paid to the tellers of the Exchequer, was it supposed to throw any imputation upon them? They were in the receipt of 20,000l. a year. The fees were legal, but was that a reason why enquiry should not be made? The same might happen in other courts. The officers might receive from the increase of business, an amount of fees out of all proportion to the duties performed. Even with a view to ascertain the amount of fees, a revision of them, such as the motion required, might be of use. right hon. baronet had taken the best method of preventing any imputation upon particular courts, by moving for a return from all of them. He had heard, and he believed it would be proved, that in many courts there were received by the officers, what were called expedition fees, to the great inconvenience of the suitors. This demanded enquiry, and he must therefore think, that the motion was very far from being such as it was represented.

The

The Attorney General said, that if the present motion had been the first which was made on this subject, no class of men, he was sure, would more anxiously wish to have their conduct scrutinized and investigated, than the gentlemen who at present held the situations which had been parti