vernment of England referred him to the

congress at VIENNA; and thus he was shuffled off by the English government, until all the bargain should be made, and all the subsidies provided for making a general attack upon him. He had met with no opposition in France; on the contrary, the Bourbons had fled out of France, and gone to GHENT, the moment they heard that he was landed. He still clung to his stupid title of Emperor, and talked of his august spouse, and his august family; but still the people of France received him with open arms, and rejoiced most sincerely at the decamping of the Bourbons. In this state of things it was that the language of which I am about to give a specimen, was made use of in the two Houses of parliament :

The Earl of LIVERPOOL said, that we were compelled again to have recourse to arms, and to renew the contest against that power, and that system, which had been the parent of such tremendous calamities :........that the state of things in France afforded no security for peace without the most imminent danger to other nations :......that, with such a government as that of France, animated with such a spirit, and acting upon such principles, it was impossible to expect with safety to remain in a state of peace :......that he himself was desirous that France should have a limited government, founded on principles of a nature similar to those which prevailed in THIS COUNTRY. He knew that it had been a matter of speculation how far a free constitution could be maintained in France, together with that large military force, which, on account of her extensive frontier, numerous fortresses, and from other causes, it might be necessary for that count.y to keep up even in time of peace. It had been contended by some, that so large a military establishment was incompatible

with a limited government; but whether that opinion was well or ill founded, this at least was clear, that under such circumstances, it was impossible that a free constitution could exist where the head of the government was a military chief, who owed his situation to the sword, and whose title arose from, and was founded on the sword. There was no individual under whose sway it was so totally impossible that any thing like a limited government could exist, as that individual whose title depended on the sword, whose fame, whose power, and a!l that rendered him distinguished, arose from, and was connected with war and conquest. At the period of the invasion of France, the general impression in that country was, that under him there was no hope of a permanent limited government; and the common opinion was, that so desirable an ob ject would be best secured under the sway of the old family. There was, in the very circumstance of the government being in the hands of the old and legitimate family, which formed the best security for the permanence and support of a limited system. If the restoration of the old family, therefore, would be beneficial to the whole of the rest of Europe, it would be in the highest degree favourable to France. Then could any one so completely shut his eyes to all that happened during the last fourteen or fifteen years, as to believe that this country or Europe could with safety enjoy a state of repose, while the PLAN and SYSTEM of government remained as it was at present?........that in the whole of Europe there was mly one sentiment, and the sovereigns had the means and the will to resist a system, the existence of which must be destructive of all hopes of secure and permanent tranquillity.........That the Allies wished not to see France abandoned to the ravages of war, her provinces or her resources curtailed, but only such a government existing in that country as would afford security to the rest of Europe. In this view he thought it would be generally admitted, that the restoration of Louis XVIII. to his throne was an object dear to the heart, not only from feelings of SYMPATHY, but from a principle of general expediency....... That the argument, then, was this: in the first place, you clearly had a just cause of war against THAT SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT IN FRANCE, which experience had decidedly proved to be incompatible with the peace and independence

of the nations of Europe: next, you had, at present, means of opposing that system which you could not reasonably hope to possess at a future time; and the question was, whether, under these circumstances, it was not incumbent upon you to take advantage of this state of things, and oppose so PERNICIOUS A SYSTEM, whilst the amplest means of resistance were in your power.........That we had a right to say, that France shall not have a government which threatens the repose of other nations...... that we ought not to refuse to join in crushing one of the greatest evils that ever existed.

Lord GRENVILLE said, was it nothing now to be desired to sanction a system under which Europe had so long groaned, with such an army and such a chief at its head? If his disposi tion was said to have undergone some change, his situation again was now changed; and as the army was formerly upheld by spoliation and plunder, so now, for the same objects, he was recalled by his former instruments, who alone could maintain him in his regained power. As to new constitutions, he was firmly of opinion, that a good constitution could only be formed by the adaptation of remedies from time to time, under the circumstances which required them. That seemed the only means of accomplishing that difficult work. The only instance of exception mentioned was that of America: but that did not apply. The founders of that constitution acted with great wisdom. It was framed so as to produce as little change as possible in the existing laws and manners under the altered* form of government, which, though a republic, was constructed as nearly as the difference would admit, on the monarchical form of our OWN CONSTITUTION.

Lord CASTLEREAGH observed, that in this case it is impossible to separate the government from the nation.

Mr. GRATTAN said, that the French government is a stateocracy that the French constitution was war, and that Buona parte was the man best calculated to support it :........that with Mr. Burke's authority, with Mr. Fox's practice, and with the opinions and conduct of others whom it would wear out a day to name, he was against a treaty founded on the chances of Buonaparte's giving liberty to France, at the certain hazard of the independence of Europe. If we had no right to dictate a government to France, we had a right to say to France,

"You shall not choose a government, the object of which is to raise all your strength against Europe." As to the government of Louis XVIII., which he would rather speak of as interrupted than subverted, it was mildness itself compared to that of Buonaparte. It was free under it to discuss all questions of church or ministry, or political or religious intolerance, and the science of government and philosophy, and intoleration advanced under it, and there was at least an amenity in France that rendered a great nation amiable. It was now proposed to subject that race of people to a pure oriental despotism. There was a sort of monstrous unreality in the revived system of government, that stated nothing as it is, and every thing as it was not. (Hear.) The whole state was corrupted. He would ask whether by treaty they would confirm in the heart of Europe a military domination founded on triumph over civil rights, and which had made the experiment of governing a great nation without any religion, and which aimed at governing Europe by means of breaking oaths and deposing Kings? (Hear.) If they would agree to confirm that system,-if they would degrade the honour of England,—if they would forget the value of morals, and despise the obligations of religion,—if they would astonish all our allies by such a confirmation, would not Europe exclaim against us, and say, "You have kindly assisted and "generously contributed to our deliverance; and do you at "the most urgent moment fall back? In vain have you so long opposed and borne up against the flying fortunes of the "world; in vain have you taken the eagles from the hands of "the invaders; in vain have you snatched invincibility from "the standards of the foe! Now, when all Europe is ready "to march, are you, who were in the front before, the fore"most to take the lead in desertion?"

"

Mr. C. WYNNE quoted a number of historical facts, to show that it had always been necessary to curb the ambition of FRANCE, and contrasted the approaching meeting in Paris, to accept the new constitution, under the influence of u military despotism, with the FREEDOM OF ELECTION IN ENGLAND, where all the troops were removed from the spot where it took place.

The Earl of LIVERPOOL said, indeed, what other alternative was left but war, or an armed peace, almost equivalent to war in point of expense, and leaving the country in a feverish

state of anxiety as to defence? Supposing a treaty with Buonaparte, could any man contemplate a peace establishment in the old sense of that phrase? The country could only have a feverish and disturbed repose. The system of armed defence was calamitous in itself, aud one of which the country had had no experience. He admitted that circumstances might exist in which an armed peace might be preferable to war; if, for instance, the powers of Europe had not been prepared, or were indisposed to the contest, in that case an armed peace would be preferable, though it would still be an ALTERNATIVE OF EXCESSIVE EVIL.

Lord BATHURST observed, that it was not possible for us to avoid war sooner or later; that, next year, Buonaparte's power would be more formidable than this year; that we went to war to secure ourselves against alarming danger.

Lord GRENVILLE said, that we were under the fatal necessity of going to war; that war was not only necessary but unavoidable; that there was no option left us, nor any long time for deliberation; that we were placed by an imperious necessity in a state to do what could not be avoided; that in this situation we were called on to adopt the means calculated to avert the greatest dangers. No words of which he was master; nothing that the page of history recorded, appeared adequate to impress on their Lordships' minds the situation in which we were now placed. If such means were required from any, to place in full view the dangers of removing the barriers against French ambition and aggression, and the necessity that must exist if they were not removed, he should despair.

What State it

Mr. GRATTAN said, that, as to the ability of opposing ag gression, he hoped none would live to see the time when England, together with the rest of Europe, would be obliged to truckle before France, and when these islands would seek an humble situation under the French Imperial Eagle. would be our situation if we abandoned our alliance? as you please, it must be first of all an armed peace. nister would venture to disarm the country in such a case. This armed peace would be followed by the evils of a corruption of manners, and a vastly increased expenditure; and that would be followed by a renewal of war. You might then have no alliance, certainly not so strong an alliance as you have; while

No Mi