sion of Saxony, and that he was obliged to submit to necessity. I should be glad to know what the noble lord says upon this subject. Does the noble lord give any explanation respecting this order of prince Repnin? The right hon. gentleman says, he believes it to be a provisional occupation; but the contrary is evident, for the people are told that they are hereafter to consider themselves as under the dominion of Prussia. I should be glad to know what lord Castlereagh says upon it; and, on the threatened day of triumph, perhaps I may remind him of the expressions. The right hon. gentleman says, that hitherto, respecting Saxony, he spoke only upon hypothesis; and to day he says, that he really cannot believe that lord Castlereagh has been a party to the cession. I hope to God he has not; but unless on his return he can make out a good case, he ought to be ashamed of himself for remaining British minister at the Congress. [Hear, hear!] He must make out, that this is a provisional occupation, and nothing else. Now let us see what is this provisional occupation, even supposing he can prove that? It is enforced and maintained by troops, of which we pay one-fourth. Each party pays a proportionate sum for the maintenance of a body of 75,000 men; so that the whole allied force to be kept on foot, and applied to any purpose, is 300,000 men; and a portion of these troops is now keeping possession of Saxony for Prussia, whatever may be the determination of the Congress. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says, wait and see the result. So I would, and patiently, if the king of Prussia would withdraw his army from Saxony; but as matters now stand, the result will be, that the noble lord will return to England on that glorious day of triumph, and tell parliament that he could do nothing in the Congress, for he was obliged to yield to the forces of the king of Prussia.

Mr. Bathurst insisted, that ministers were not responsible for the acts of prince Repnin, if he chose to yield the possession of Saxony to Prussia: they had no control over foreign generals. In the first place, he said, that government had no official knowledge of the transfer of Saxony; and, in the next, that they had no information whether our minister had or had not consented to the ultimate possession of it by Prussia.

Mr. Whitbread. Then you know nothing about the matter?

Mr. Bathurst added, that these subjects were matters of future arrangement by the Congress; they were not yet decided, and therefore the British minister could be no party to the proceeding.

Mr. Ponsonby would willingly have supposed it impossible that the Russian monarch could be a party to such a transac tion; and to shew the different principles on which the allies commenced, he read the first article of the treaty of Chaumont, in which it was declared, "That the high contracting powers solemnly engage to apply all the means of their respective states to the vigorous prosecution of the war against France; and to employ them in perfect concert, in order to obtain for themselves, and for Europe, a general peace, under the protection of which the rights and liberties of all nations may be established and secured." How was it possible for ministers to deny that Saxony was for ever ceded to Prussia? Prince Repnin, in his Address, declares, that it is to be placed under "the powerful and paternal protection of Frederick William and his descendants." If so, it was a strange provisional occupation, which extended even to posterity. The instrument then spoke of the "fortitude of the king in adversity, and his magnanimity in prosperity." Where was his magnanimity in compelling the Saxons, by a military force, to submit to his authority? Where was his magnanimity in subjugating a country, to whose army at Leipsic the allies were indebted for their subsequent success, and in casting into a dungeon Thielman, the general who had commanded them?-His reward was imprisonment, and that of his army slavery! The right hon. gentleman had said, that the Congress had not yet met. What a miserable pretext! What a scandalous subterfuge! With all this accomplished, what was the British minister to do in the Congress; which, formed under pretence of giving protection to Europe, was to be employed only on schemes of subjugation, tyranny, and spoliation? The defence which ministers flattered themselves they had made, had only proved an additional reason for their condemnation; for if the accounts in the German papers, and even in the Moniteur, the official gazette of France, were credited, what a miserable figure did the present administration cut! The very argument that it could not be true, because the Congress had not met, was an admission of the fact, that the Bri

tish minister had given his consent to these lawless measures. If he had consented, the British minister had disgraced his title, and betrayed the honour of his country.

gency on a former night, had volunteered his powerful aid. After all that ministers had said, all that it amounted to was, that the Congress had not met. But was it, or was it not the fact, that all the great points were settled before the assembly of the Congress? To revert to the proclamation of prince Repnin-Was it, or was it not a forgery? If not, and lord Castlereagh knew nothing of it, he had a right to demand that exemplary punishment should be inflicted upon the person who issued it. Was the wording of the document at all like a provisional arrangement? It began,

Mr. Tierney said, that the total amount of force to be kept on foot by the allies was 300,000 men, of which we paid for 75,000. Now, unless all our 75,000 were employed in the Netherlands, which no man would assert, where was the rest of our quota, if it did not constitute a part of the army of our allies on the continent, which force had been employed to take possession of Saxony? In point of fact, therefore, we were paying for the military occupation of that unfortunate kingdom. Would the right hon. gentleman say, that it was only a provisional possession to which lord Castlereagh had consented? and if so, why such a provisional possession was necessary?

Mr. Bathurst did not mean to deny the fact, but he denied the inference of the right hon. gentleman. It was merely a transfer of the possession of Russia, who held it, to Prussia, who holds it now. It might be just as truly said, what power have you to negociate respecting Poland, where we had no force ?

Mr. Whitbread complimented the right hon. gentleman on his talent at splitting hairs; he had not, however, at all affected the main question. Was it to be supposed, for a moment, that Russia would dare to publish to the world what she had done with regard to Saxony, if the consent of the British ambassador had not been obtained; or if it had not, would lord Castlereagh continue an instant longer at Vienna, to degrade the character and honour of his nation? The right hon. gentleman had said, that ministers were not responsible for the acts of the Russian prince. True: they had enough to answer for without that additional burthen, even with the support of the right hon. gentleman, who so generously, in an emer

Saxony having been placed in the hands of the king of Prussia, by virtue of a convention between Russia and Prussia, and to which Austria and England have acceded," (lord Castlereagh had never been consulted, and yet prince Repnin had dared to assert that England was a party consenting!)" and the solemn delivery of the general government having been this day made by me to the baron Von Reek and major-general the baron Von Gandy, all the Saxon officers and inhabitants are informed, that they must address themselves to the new general government." It then went on to praise the king of Prussia, and to speak of the happiness and liberty the Saxons would enjoy under the rule of that noble, virtuous, and magnanimous prince. If this were a forgery, Mr. Whitbread called upon ministers to avow it: if it were not, and lord Castlereagh had given his colleagues no information upon the subject, although he was in possession of the whole, he had been grossly deficient in his duty. If it were true, that lord Castlereagh had consented, on the part of England, it was a humiliation and a degradation to this country, so low as to be beneath all expression.

Mr. Bathurst observed, that he had never allowed that the proclamation was a forgery, but he did assert that it was unauthorized. He begged to know the date of it. [Mr. Whitbread said, "Dresden, 11th Nov."] It so happened that the last dispatches from lord Castlereagh were of that date, and of course he could not mention it. Certainly, if ministers were accountable for the acts of prince Repnin, they would deserve censure. It was an unauthenticated paper, and did not at all prove that the fate of Saxony was decided.

Mr. Tierney. Does lord Castlereagh, in his last dispatches, take any notice of such a proclamation?

Mr. Whitbread. Or does he say any thing regarding the intended surrender of Saxony? [Mr. Bathurst smiled, but gave no answer]. Are we to understand distinctly, that lord Castlereagh, in his last dispatches of the 11th of November, does not mention the subject of the surrender of Saxony to Prussia?

No reply was made by ministers.

Mr. Lyttelton having resided for some time in Saxony, bore testimony to the desire of the natives for the rule of their ancient sovereign. From one end of the country to the other, from the noble to the peasant, there was scarcely a man who did not detest the transfer that was about to be made. There might be a few, but very few they were, who, by bribes, promises and threats, had been induced to join the cause of the king of Prussia. It was important for the House to know whether the British minister had been made acquainted with the transaction which had taken place. If he had not been made acquainted with the steps taken by Prussia with respect to Saxony, it was indicative of the mean estimation in which this country was held by the allied powers-an estimation inconsistent with the force which she maintained, and which could only be occasioned by the misconduct of his Majesty's representatives abroad. He had thought proper to state thus much, and on a future opportunity, if any occurred, he should enter more at large into the subject.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer, without again reverting to the general question, whether or no Saxony had been taken possession of definitively, wished to state, that the convention supposed to be mentioned in prince Repnin's letter could not exist, as far as the consent of the British minister was concerned.

Mr. Whitbread. Then prince Repnin must have published to all Europe a barefaced falsehood.

The conversation dropped, and the resolution before the House was agreed to. On the subsequent Resolution,

Mr. Whitbread asked, what was the meaning of an item, in the estimates which had been printed, of 1057. to the right hon. George Rose, clerk of the parliaments, for Acts of Parliament ?

The Chancellor of the Exchequer stated, that it was an usual annual allowance to the clerk of the parliaments, instead of the copies of all Acts.

Mr. Whitbread observed, that the 1057. (VOL. XXIX.)

must be an allowance for getting the Acts by heart, instead of keeping copies, since it was the duty of Mr. Rose, in some manner, to be acquainted with them. Mr. Whitbread asked for what the 6,000%. which was voted for the expense of conveying the prince regent of Portugal to Europe was to be expended, and whether there was any certainty at what time the prince regent would actually return from the Brazils?

The Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Croker, and Mr. Arbuthnot explained, that though the precise time when the prince regent would return was not actually known, he had demanded a vessel for that purpose, and the appointment of the officer who had been nominated. The sum (which was only 4,500l.) was to be expended in such preparations for a proper reception of his royal highness on board the ship appointed, as individuals could not be expected to bear the charge of. A certain proportion of the money was to be drawn by each of the officers for the purpose.-The Resolutions were all agreed to.

TRADE TO CANADA.] Mr. Marsh rose to move, "That there be laid before this House, an account, showing the annual amount of all imports from Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick, into Great Britain and Ireland, and of all exports from Great Britain and Ireland to the same, from the year 1800 to 1814, both inclusive; distinguishing such articles, in each year, as exceed the value of 1,000l.” [The hon. gentleman was proceeding to observe on the importance of the details which would be then afforded, with a view to a proper estimation of the real value of the American possessions of this country, when he was called to order by Mr. Bathurst. Mr. Bathurst in his turn was called to order by Mr. Horner, who conceived that it was not consistent with order to interrupt a member in the course of remarks previous to a motion, which, though brought forward without notice, was perfectly regular.] Mr. Marsh then observed, that the papers would shew how far it was consistent with prudence, that his Majesty's ministers should, in order to augment our Canadian territory, give a pledge to continue the country at war; and for that purpose, not only proposing the continuation of the property tax, but imposing still farther burthens on the country. The hon. member concluded by moving for the papers. (20)

The Chancellor of the Exchequer did not think there could be any inconvenience in producing the information required, and should not therefore object to the motion. -Ordered.

MOTION ON CONTINUING THE MILITIA EMBODIED IN TIME OF PEACE.] Sir Samuel Romilly, before he made the motion of which he had given notice, wished that the Act of the 42d Geo. 3, c. 90, for amending the laws relating to the militia in England, and for augmenting the militia, might be read; and the same being read accordingly, sir Samuel again rose. He said, it could hardly be necessary for him to apologize to the House for drawing their attention to a subject, the importance of which must be felt by every one. He should indeed want an excuse, if, without having viewed it attentively, he had brought this topic forward merely as a matter to embarrass ministers, or for the enjoyment which might arise from their awkward defence. Convinced that it was his duty to take all pains to investigate the merits of such a question, he had done so. He had considered it deeply in various points of view; he had consulted the gentlemen who could offer him the best opinions; he had listened to every argument that had been urged in public in favour of ministers; and the result was, in his own mind, that in keeping part of the militia embodied, they had acted both illegally and unconstitutionally. He had, therefore, thought it his duty to come before the House, and having done so, could not too soon enter into an explanation of his views upon the subject. When he said that the militia were kept embodied in an illegal manner, he did not mean that the fact of illegality exempted those who were enrolled, or might afterwards be ballotted, from executing the duties of their situation. He considered them all bound to pay obedience to their officers, and to the regulations under which they were called to serve. It remained solely with his Majesty to disembody and release them and the only question was, whether his Majesty ought not, according to law, to have been advised so to disembody them. There were many questions of prerogative involved in great difficulty, many that could only be solved through the medium of abstract reasoning and puzzling analogies; but on this question there could be no difficulty; it depended entirely on the plain words of the statute: it

required no lawyer to interpret them, for every man who could understand English was a sufficient judge of their import. The Act authorized his Majesty to call out the militia under four circumstances: in case of invasion, of imminent danger, rebellion, or insurrection. He would now ask the House, whether the country was in such a state as indicated the approach of any of those calamities? Should any of those unexpectedly arise, the Act directed that his Majesty should state the case to parliament; and if parliament were not sitting, should make the necessity for calling out the militia known by proclamation, and should immediately assemble the legislature of the country. If the House considered the state of the nation in times past, it would only serve to confirm the opinion, that without a violation of the law, no part of the militia could be kept embodied. It was in a state of profound peace and undisturbed internal security that a portion of that force was kept on foot, separated from their families, and subjected to all the inconveniences and rigours of martial law. The institution of the militia, however, although it pressed hard on the lower orders, and exacted great sacrifices from them, was, upon the whole, an excellent institution, on which the country justly relied with most confidence for its protection. At all times, a salutary jealousy had been entertained of the power of the crown over a standing army. Divided from the rest of scciety, subjected to different laws, and bound for no stated period, a standing army had always been considered a dangerous weapon to be intrusted to the sovereign authority. The militia, on the contrary, was regarded as the great pillar and safest defence of the country. This body were not to be torn from their occupations and their families, and put upon service, till actual danger demanded their exertions. Until called out, they retained all the privileges of the constitution, which were only suspended during the existence of peril. Every thing that tended to alter that spirit, and to retain them far from their homes longer than it was necessary, was not only most injurious but most unconstitutional. Though, in common with the rest of the world, he admired the conduct of those high-spirited men, who, out of the militia, had volunteered their services in foreign countries, yet he could not refrain from lamenting how considerably it impaired the institution itself.