be graciously pleased to give directions | that there be laid before this House, copies of all correspondence which may have passed between his Majesty's principal Secretary of State for the Home Department, John Reeves, esq. of the Alienoffice, and his excellency the Portuguese minister resident at the court London, touching Don Anselmo Correia, a Portuguese, some time since sent out of this kingdom under the provisions of the Alien Act, then in force, together with copies of all letters or remonstrances addressed by the said Don Anselmo Correia to the Secretary of State or the Alien-office, and the answers thereto, if any, together with the date of his departure from this country." Mr. Addington contended, that the hon. member had not made out any primâ facie case whatever, to induce the House to agree to his motion. With respect to the sending Correia out of the country, he appeared to know little more than that such a circumstance had taken place, and he was quite incorrect in his statement of the grounds which occasioned that proceeding. Mr. Whitbread.-What were the grounds? Mr. Addington-They were sufficient to authorize the Secretary of State to act as he had done. Sir J. Newport.-Does the right hon. gentleman mean to say, that because the Secretary of State thought there were sufficient grounds to justify this proceeding, there was, therefore, no necessity for the House being acquainted with them? Mr. Addington.-It is evident that the Secretary of State acted on the presumption, that something improper had been done by Correia; and, in such a case, I am sure the House will not consent to interfere. government, he was not sent out of this country on that account. Sir Samuel Romilly thought, that as abuse had been imputed, there was a distinction between this and the other cases under the Alien Act. The powers given by the Act were so extensive, that they required some interference of the House. In the case of De Berenger papers had been seized, for which there was no authority either in the Alien Act, or the common law. The motion was then negatived without a division. CONGRESS AT VIENNA.] Mr. Ponsonby wished to know, from the noble lord opposite, who, he understood, intended to move, to-morrow, that the House should adjourn till Monday se'nnight, whether the papers relative to the Congress at Vienna, which he intimated his intention of laying before the House, would be ready for the use of members before the recess; and whether it was his intention to lay before the House the instructions given to lord William Bentinck? Lord Castlereagh said, he had learned, on inquiry, that the papers would not be ready so soon: they should, however, be laid on the table as early as possible. With respect to the instructions given to lord W. Bentinck, they would be produced; and, if the information thus afforded, was not sufficient, gentlemen were at liberty to call for any other documents they pleased. Mr. Ponsonby said, it was then impossible that he could fix a precise day for a motion which he intended to bring forward respecting those papers. He should, therefore, give notice generally, that after the recess he should bring forward a motion on that subject. Mr. Goulburn said, the hon. gentleman bad made a charge, founded on information he had received; the truth of that information was denied; and, he conceived, the denial on the one side would be considered as fully equivalent to the assertion on the other. If it were necessary for the House to examine all the cases of aliens who had been sent out of the country, then certainly this instance ought to be investigated along with the rest; but he saw nothing in the case now brought before them which called for any marked distinction. He certainly would not go into the particulars of the transaction; but he would state, that, though Correiaclared that the proceedings of the Conhad written a libel against the Portuguese gress had not yet terminated, and the state Mr. Whitbread said, a declaration had been published, in the newspapers of that day, purporting to be a Declaration of the Congress, by which the proceedings of that body were stated to have terminated. He wished to know whether that paper was authentic, and whether the ministers and sovereigns assembled were now proceeding to their respective homes to govern under the principles there determined on. Lord Castlereagh said, that the present was a specimen of the extent to which the hon. member's system of questions was carried. He (lord C.) had recently de in which they then were, and now the armed force surreptitiously; since the Lord Castlereagh argued, that it was Mr. Whitbread wished to understand whether or no the declaration was authentic? Lord Castlereagh said, if the hon. member wished to know whether it had emanated from the Congress at Vienna-it certainly had not. MOTION RESPECting the Order OF THE BATH.] Sir Charles Monck, in rising to submit to the House his promised motion relative to the late extension of the Order of the Bath, regretted that a subject of so serious and important a nature, had not been taken up by some more learned and experienced member than himself. Fully impressed, however, with the necessity of calling the attention of the House to the late modification of the Order of the Bath, he had determined, as no other gentleman seemed inclined to notice it, rather to bring it forward himself, under every risk, than to run the chance of its not being at all submitted to their consideration. In the first place, he wished to guard against any misapprehension to which his observations, either with reference to the prerogatives of the Crown, or to the rewards that ought to be conferred on military and naval officers, might give rise. For the prerogatives of the Crown he entertained the highest veneration; and no man was Jess disposed than he was, to envy those generous persons who had so gallantly fought the battles of their country, the rewards which were so justly bestowed on them. The hon. baronet then entered into a history of the Order of the Bath, from its origin, in the reign of Henry the 4th, down to the time of George 1, when it was restored, and made a completely military order a measure of which he expressed his disapprobation. At that period, as appeared from Clarke's History of Knighthood,' the knights companions were only thirty-six, though they had been afterwards greatly increased. The House, he conceived, ought to look with great jealousy at the recent extension, which only opened the way for a still greater enlargement. By the Charter of the Order each knight was bound to main-nestly directed; and towards the close of tain a certain number of efficient men; his life, a very extensive arrangement was and, by this means, a power was placed contemplated, to hold out to the country in the hands of the Crown to raise an those officers who had signalized them selves. A good guard against the too great extension of the Order was, that if those honours were too profusely granted, they would lose their value. But on the other hand, if they were too few, his Majesty would not have the means of reward. ing services. Every precaution had been adopted to guard against any abuse of the Order. Every state of Europe had some Order particularly devoted to the military. Every person knew how eagerly in Austria the Order of Maria Theresa, and in Russia the Order of St. George, were desired by the armies of those countries. He saw nothing in the manner in which the Crown had exercised its prerogative on the present occasion, to invite Parliament to consider it as an abuse. As the other orders of the day were disposed of, he should conclude with moving, that the House do now adjourn. Mr. Gordon contended, that in time of peace it was the duty of the Legislature of this country to repress rather than to encourage any attempt to give too great a military character to this country. They had at present an instance in a neighbouring country of a military despotism trampling on the wishes of the people of that country. He complained of the attempt to separate the citizen from the soldier; and objected to the measure as an imitation of foreign manners, of foreign frippery and frivolity. It was only such a constitution of mind as had contrived the late exhibitions in the Parks, that could imagine this piece of frivolity. Mr. W. Bathurst defended the extension of the Order as the only fit mode of honouring men who must otherwise have been unrewarded, and whose only object in life, and consolation in death, was honour. It was this which had made the late ruler of France so popular with his army. If other nations had found out that soldiers were pleased with these honours, why should we refuse to avail ourselves of such a mode of rewarding an army merely on that account? He should certainly oppose the motion. Mr. Wynn said, that this country was differently circumstanced from those foreign states, where military orders had been found beneficial. Wherever a nation was a military nation, there ought to be military orders; but England was not a military nation. In Russia, maids of honour ranked as major-generals, and the chancellor himself was a field-marshal. Buonaparté had been alluded tɔ, as ren dering himself popular to the army, by the creation of military orders; but how deplorable were the consequences of his so doing likely to be! This measure, he said, might ultimately be attended with most dangerous consequences to our liberties. It was the first attempt to establish exclusive military honours. He complained of the inequality with which they had been distributed between the two services. Out of 180 knights, only 49 belonged to the navy. He instanced captain Phillimore as a person who ought not to have been overlooked on such an occasion. Mr. Bragge Bathurst said, that there should have been some better ground shown for objecting to the measure than the circumstance that foreign nations had orders of a like nature. The order was a reward for past services, and a stimulus to future. Buonaparté had created a vast military power in a great measure by means of orders of a like nature. Would it not be necessary to meet and counteract him by means similar to his own? Mr. Whitbread said, that these new honours had dissatisfied every body and pleased nobody; they had disgusted those who before belonged to the Order of the Bath, and those who had since entered were ashamed to shew their honours. The measure had revived the jealousy between the two services. Government had been more than just to the army, and done less than justice to the navy. He participated in the feeling of jealousy at the attempt to make this a military country. Was the duke of Wellington bred at a military college? or lord Lynedoch, or sir John Moore? There was not one who had received medals who would not rather continue to wear them, than be adorned with this distinction, which had been diluted almost to nothing. Before the French Revolution, the Cross of St. Louis, being at every button-hole, was not worth 2s. 6d.; and in Portugal the same distinction was worn by upper servants. When we talked of the splendid services of our army, we ought not to forget those men who had swept the seas to make room for that army. The navy was now congenial to the constitution of this country. The army were contented with their medals, and discontented with their badges, and rather ashamed of them. Mr. Goulburn observed, that it was not the fact that the army had been honoured more than the navy; the distribution to HOUSE OF COMMONS. Thursday, March 23. the two services had been made with strict reference to their respective numerical strengths; and on this principle the army had only twenty knights more than the navy. Mr. Ponsonby wished to know how this modification of the old Order of the Bath had been created. Was it in virtue of a notification in the Gazette? In looking at the history of the country; he could see that no change had been effected in that Order, except through the instrumentality of the Great Seal. Then he wished to ascertain in what manner the pleasure of the Crown bad in the present, instance been executed. Was the duke of Wellington's opinion, he would ask, taken in the selection of the officers for this distinction-Were navy authorities consulted for their quota? He thought not; for if they had, the omissions which had occurred would never have taken place. The whole formation and arrangement was, he believed, the work of ministers themselves. (Hear.) In his opinion, for some time past there existed a marked partiality to the military service, in preference to the navy. (No, no.) In his opinion there had, and the public thought so. Nothing was more dangerous than this distinction. For the army he entertained the highest respect. He believed them the best in the world. (Hear, hear.) But he also felt that they could not be maintained in their station, except by the proper and firm support of the naval character. The right hon. gen. tleman concluded by adverting to the illiberal manner in which the new honours had been distributed between the two services. Mr. Wellesley Pole, in reply to the question of Mr. Ponsonby, as to the manner in which the measure had been produced, said, that the order had been regulated as usual, by patent, and therefore there had been no unjust exercise of the prerogative. The military officers had been selected from those whom lord Wellington had recommended for medals. The only regular way, on the part of the hon. gentleman opposite, would be, not to insinuate that any thing improper had been done; but to charge and make a motion. He justified the extent of the Order, on the ground that it was found, even in Mr. Pitt's time, that the rewards were not equal to the gratification of deserving claimants. The House then, without a division, agreed to lord Castlereagh's amendment, and adjourned. "That on the day last mentioned, lord Cochrane went between the hours of one and three to the clerk's room, in which members are usually sworn previously to taking the oaths at the table of the House; and ing informed it was necessary he should have the certificate of his return with him, sent for the same to the Crownoffice, and went into the House, where he sat down on the Privy Counsellors bench on the right hand of the Chair, at which time there was no member present, prayers not having been read: 66 That soon after lord Cochrane had sat down in the House, the Marshal of the King's-bench entered it with two or three. of his officers, and other assistants, and carried his lordship away to the prison from which he had escaped; notwithstanding a remonstrance from him, that they had no right to lay their hands upon him there: out of those events. The right hon. gentleman had had the second reading of the Assessed Taxes Bill postponed to Monday next, but he had not told the House whether he then meant to move its second reading, or whether he proposed to move a farther postponement; nor had the right hon. gentleman stated whether, as rumour represented, it was his intention to aban don this Bill altogether, and to resort again to the property tax. In such cir cumstances some explanation was ob "Having ascertained these facts, it became the duty of your committee to con-viously necessary; but having stated thus sider whether the Marshal of the King's much, he would abstain from saying more Bench, in the execution of what he con- than merely to express a wish that miceived to be his duty, has been guilty of nisters would spontaneously come forward a breach of the privilege of this House. at this interesting crisis, and make such a communication as was due to that House and to the country. "In deliberating on a matter of such high importance, your Committee have to regret that they could find nothing in the Journals of this House to guide them: the case is entirely of a novel nature; they can therefore only report it as their opinion, The Chancellor of the Exchequer apprehended that if the House should continue to sit for a short time, his noble friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs might be expected; but lest he should not appear in his place, before the House adjourned, he thought it proper to state, in order to prevent any misapprehensions, that it was intended very shortly to make a communication to that House, from the Prince Regent, of the steps which ministers were taking, and meant to take, at the present crisis, together with a statement of the motives which had determined their conduct. "That by a Return in the Crown-office of the 16th day of July, 1814, it appears that lord Cochrane was returned to serve as a citizen for the city of Westminster on the 16th day of July 1814. "That, under the particular circum stances given in evidence, it does not appear to your committee that the privileges of parliament have been violated, so as to call for the interposition of the House by any proceedings against the Marshal of the King's-bench." The Report was ordered to lie on the table. On the motion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the House then adjourned till Monday se'nnight, the 3rd of April. HOUSE OF COMMONS. Monday, April 3. CONGRESS AT VIENNA-DECLARATION OF THE ALLIES.] The House met pursuant to adjournment. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in moving the postponement of the Committee of Supply until Wednesday, took occasion to state, that on that day an important communication would be made to the House, upon the subject of existing circumstances. Mr. Whitbread said, he should be glad to know whether any other minister was expected in the House in the course of the evening, and whether the Secretary for Foreign Affairs was likely to attend? An expectation very naturally prevailed that some communication would be made to the House respecting certain extraordinary events, and the prospects, as far as ministers could ascertain, likely to arise (VOL. XXX.) Mr. Whitbread disclaimed any wish to hurry ministers, or to exact from them any premature communication, but he could not forbear to express his confident hope, that a certain declaration, purporting to emanate from the Congress at Vienna, was an infamous forgery, inasmuch as it went. to sanction the doctrine of assassination. He trusted, therefore, for the honour and character of this country, that some, of the names annexed to that paper were never authorized to sign any such document. While the noble Secretary for Foreign Affairs was at the Congress, he was understood to combine in himself all the powers of the executive government; but it was quite impossible to suppose that such powers were extended to lords Wellington, Clancarty, Cathcart, and Stewart, that they were authorized to put their names to such an infamous paper, or that they were invested with a power to declare war against any state. The Chancellor of the Exchequer maintained that the paper alluded to, did not in any point authorize such an interpretation (Z) |