was not answered; but to shew that the questions which he (Mr. W.) and his political friends had put, during the absence of the noble lord, were not for the purpose of attacking a defenceless administration, but in the hope that those papers would be contradicted, which, if true, proved that a system of spoliation and rapine was carried on, which would leave the seeds of war in every state; that the great Powers had grossly neglected their duty, and put themselves on a level with the man whom they had wisely and magnanimously combined to overthrow; or if the papers in question were admitted to raise their voices in that House, and unite their protests against the concurrence of this country in the measures to which these publications referred.

merely as the representative of our Government, and he should repeat them to show that they were not brought merely to take advantage of his absence. It had been said, that pending no negociation had so many questions been put as during the progress of the Congress of Vienna, In answer to this he should observe, that during the negociations at Chatillon and those at Paris, no inquiry had been made on that side of the House: he and others had remained satisfied till the noble lord had returned-they would have remained satisfied also during the Congress at Vienna, if nothing had transpired of the negociations there, or if only vague rumours, discredited by the manner in which they were stated, had found their way into the public prints. But when official documents, at variance with good faith and against plighted treaties, had been published with the appearance of authority, it was impossible that they should shut their eyes; and when they saw that, without waiting for the termination of the Congress, armies took possession of independent states, and proceeded to make partitions, it was impossible that they should shut their ears to the general cry of bitter lamentation, disappointment, and despair throughout Europe; and it became their duty to call on the ministers present at the time, to know whether the reports spread, as to the conduct of the allied powers, were well founded. The noble lord had probably heard how his right hon. colleagues had been harassed during his absence; and they might have complained of the utter ignorance in which they were left by him, which disabled them from cutting a better figure: but he did not know whether they had informed the noble lord of the threats they had thrown out, that when the noble lord returned, all the political opponents of the Administration should have reason to remember and regret the attacks they had made. One very active member of the Administration (Mr. Wellesley Pole) had also promised, that if they would wait till the noble lord returned, they should have, singulatim et literatim, every thing which had passed respecting Saxony, Genoa, and Poland; but soon after, he had begged that all that he had said might go for nothing. It was not his wish that the noble lord should be bound by the declaration of his colleague, or that the right hon. gentleman should resign his seat in the Cabinet, because his pledge

The noble lord had said, that there had been propagated gross calumnies against this country and the allied Powers. He would now have an opportunity of shewing that the honour of the allies had not been implicated, that there had been no breach of faith, in those acts which now appeared injurious both to their honour and their good faith. He hoped if he stumbled, in the course of his statement, on any paper having no foundation in truth, the noble lord would give some indication of that circumstance, that he might not unnecessarily take up the time of the House. The noble lord would not deny, in the first place, the declarations of the allies in their advance upon France, in which they professed themselves the saviours of Europe, and the defenders of independent states; and promised that a general paci fication should shew that they had not forgot in prosperity the lesson which they had learned in adversity, especially the Declaration at Frankfort in December 1813, the Manifesto on the rupture of the negociation at Chatillon, and the proclamations of the various generals. Never did any men occupy a position so grand as the allied Sovereigns at Montmartre before Paris! they shewed a moderation in victory which obtained the praise of all men; and had They there died, they would have died at the very pinnacle of human glory. What had their subsequent conduct proved, but that they had forgotten all the lessons which should have made so deep an impression on them, and that they wished to tread in the steps of the conqueror whom they had destroyed, and, unless the papers which he should

charge against any man in his absence, which he was not ready to repeat and justify in his presence. The steps which the noble lord had been pursuing at Vienna, were not such as in his judgment became the character of the country he represented, and therefore he animadverted upon the information which he had received upon the subject. With whom, too, was the noble lord pursuing this inconsistent course, in forcing people to abandon their ancient governments, and to submit to foreign powers, after those people had struggled with us to shake off the tyranny of Buonaparté, upon the promise of liberty and improved condition? Why, in concert with Sovereigns who had not long before been leagued with that gigantic power to extend and consolidate his dominion-in concert with one Sovereign in particular, who, so late as the 12th of March, 1812, concluded a treaty with Buonaparte which treaty was signed by that very prince (Schwartzenberg) who afterwards led a triumphant army into Paris? But yet in that treaty Austria agreed to every thing required by Buonaparté that could be deemed hostile to this country, pledging itself also to assist in that invasion of Russia which led to the overthrow of the giant, upon the condition that Austria was to have certain indemnities, which, strange as it might appear, were the very same as those the noble lord, with the other members of the Congress, were now conceding to that power. During the prevalence of that enthusiasm which pervaded Europe upon the defeat of Buonaparté-which was particularly manifested in this country in the presence of Alexander and Frederick, when the ears of these sovereigns must have been stunned with the repetition of their praises -when every Englishman would fain forget that the objects of his praise had ever coalesced with the emperor of France against this country-when the most splendid civic feast was prepared to testify the national opinion of the great merit of those sovereigns-who could have dreamed that such a reverse should have taken place that the world should have so soon to witness such an extraordinary dereliction of all those great principles which gave rise to such panegyric? But the profession of these principles turned out to be a mere fallacy; and if any thing could serve again to set up the giant, it would be the adoption by Congress of the same practices which originally created

1

his greatness. That Congress had adopted such practices he felt himself justified in asserting; and therefore he had to arraign the conduct of the noble lord and the Allies for having disregarded the lesson which the fate of Buonaparté presented"Discite justitiam moniti, et non temnere divos." But example seemed to have no influence whatever upon this unholy Congress, while promises and professions were totally abandoned. The hope of the re-establishment of Poland as an independent kingdom of the restoration of Finland to Sweden

and of Norway to Denmark, which hope many were encouraged to indulge, from the benevolence and liberality at one time professed, had proved quite delusive. Upon the liberality of the emperor Alexander most men, indeed, were induced to calculate, as that sovereign was repre sented as peculiarly anxious for the reestablishment of Poland. In the gratification of this anxiety it was said that this sovereign experienced some embarrassment from other members of the Congress, including the noble lord. But the order of the day, issued by the Grand Duke Constantine at Warsaw, betrayed the existence of that embarrassment, while it marked the emperor's resolution to withstand every opposition to his will. For in that order the duke distinctly adverted to the probability that the Polish troops would have to fight for the independence of their country; and it was also stated as a further proof of the emperor Alexander's intention to cut the gordian knot, if he could not contrive to untie it, that that sovereign had told one of the principal ministers at Congress (perhaps the noble lord) that he had 500,000 men ready to maintain his views in Poland. What had been, or what was likely to be the result of this monarch's determination, that House and the world was yet to learn.

The hon. member next adverted to the proclamation of Prince Repnin at Dresden. Having described the proclamation alluded to, in which the occupation of Saxony was transferred to a Prussian army, he observed that the noble lord was stated to have put his name to a paper sanctioning the object of that proclamation. The answer of ministers to the questions put to them upon this point, was in the recollection of the House. It was asserted that the occupation of Saxony by the Prussians must have been only provisional-that the actual transfer of that territory to Prussia was a thing quite impossible, and the more

were met with an arbitrary order,-" Let these two officers be committed to a dungeon." He earnestly hoped this statement was untrue; for such a punishment for the expression of loyal feelings, espe cially upon general Le Cocq and his colleague, who were entitled to the most liberal reward for gallant services, every honest man must contemplate with horror,

so, as Congress was not opened at the time the proclamation of Prince Repnin was issued. But it now remained for the noble lord to explain upon that point. It was for him to say, whether he had not acquiesced in the transfer of Saxony to Prussia, and also whether in a few days after he had subscribed to that transfer the noble lord did not, in consequence of instructions from home, present a note protesting on the part of England, against that transfer; namely, whether the noble lord did not first consent and afterwards retract upon this transaction, in which he conceived the allies to have most grossly violated their own declaration of the principles which they professed to have in view? But if those allies had made no declaration whatever, he would maintain that they had no moral right to act as they had proposed with regard to Saxony; that the purpose which they had betrayed in this proceeding was truly scandalous, It was indeed extremely shocking to see this Congress measuring the claims of potentates by the number of human souls which each commanded, without any reference to justice or right. But if monarchs would not attend to the march of the human mind, as the emperor Alexander said at Paris-if these monarchs would not keep pace with the improved judgment of their subjects—a day of severe retribution was but too likely to come. Upon what ground he would ask could those monarchs attempt to justify the harsh conduct which they adopted towards Saxony? Was Saxony, of which they themselves had been so long the comrades, alone to suffer for co-operating with Buonaparté? Was the sovereign to be dragged from his subjects, and the subjects dragged from their sovereign, in consequence of that co-operation which neither he nor they had the power to avoid? After complimenting the manly protest of the king of Saxony against the transfer of his dominions, the hon. member forcibly animadverted upon the tyrannical measures taken to prevent the Saxon people from express. ing that attachment to their sovereign, and consequent abhorrence of subjugation to Prussia, which they notoriously felt. As an instance of these measures, he referred to the case of two general officers of the Saxon army who had eminently distinguished theniselves against the common enemy; yet who, when they ventured to send a remonstrance to Vienna against the deposition of their sovereign, (VOL. XXX.)

The hon. member took notice of the change which had taken place in the couduct of the noble lord within a few days in that House. When he (Mr. W.), and those who acted with him, took occasion, with all the humility of unofficial men, to put some questions as to the Treaty of Chaumont, they were told that if they moved for a copy of that Treaty it would not be granted; but yet in a short time afterwards, not only that Treaty, but several other treaties, for which they never asked, were presented by the noble lord. Among others, indeed, the treaty with Ferdinand the seventh was laid before the House, which, when asked for some time ago, was refused by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with that smile which always so gracefully became that right hon. gen. tleman. As to the Treaty of Chaumont, that was concluded in the contemplation of peace with Buonaparté, at a time when the Allies were sick and saints, but now being well; no longer saints were they. With respect to Italy, the hon. member observed, that by the Treaty of Paris, Austria was to be restored her ancient possessions in that country, while the other parts were to return to the go. vernments they possessed previous to the dominion of Buonaparte. But what was the fact? why, that Venice was taken possession of on the part of Austria perma nently-and surely this was not in conformity with that treaty. For Venice was not an ancient possession of Austria. It had only come under its dominion by the transfer of Buonaparte at that treaty of Luneville, which Mr. Fox, in his admirable speech upon the subject in 1800, had so justly characterized. In that speech, to which might well be applied the compli❤ ment of the poet to the celebrated orator of antiquity, "divina philippica famæ." Mr. Fox deprecated the idea of allowing the spoliation of France to constitute the right of Austria. How, then, could the latter be now entitled to claim Venice as an ancient possession under the Treaty of Paris? But the conduct of Austria through dut Italy was marked by a degree of (T)