cially in the military expenditure, by a reduction in the numbers of the army, and by a constant and vigilant superintendance over that and all the other departments connected with the application of the ample supplies granted by this House."

The Marquis of Londonderry, while he claimed for ministers a certain degree of constitutional confidence, would not for a moment deny the right to call upon administration to explain what they were doing, or meant to do, for the reduction of the public expenditure. He would be a hypocrite, however, if he expected any candour from the honourable gentlemen opposite in their estimate of these points. They were accustomed to look with a jaundiced eye on every thing done by ministers. Their expectations must always keep in advance of any government, not ready to engage in attempting what was impracticable. He had great respect for the honourable member for Aberdeen; he admired his industry, but unless the honourable gentleman were the Deity, instead of being but a laborious individual, it was physically impossible that he could have exercised a sober or sound judgment upon the mass of complicated details which he had in his speech presented to the consideration of the House. In what he said, he did not wish to undervalue the labours of the honourable gentleman; they did him great credit as an individual, and no doubt, in course of time, he would become a valuable acquisition to that House. He believed, that the measures of reduction adopt ed by ministers would satisfy the country, in preference to the impracticable schemes held out by their opponents. He must say this on the behalf of the people of England, that he could not name one moment in their history of late times, in which the country was more tranquil than it was at present. In all the parts some time ago disturb

ed, there was now a repose and calmness; there was, he believed, more good humour and undivided comfort and happiness now prevailing throughout the country, than could be remembered almost at any former period. On the subject of the address of the honourable member, he had no hesitation in saying, that he agreed to its principle; indeed, so far as the principle went, he saw no difference between the original address and the amended one. But he thought it due to the intentions of his Majesty's government to call on the members of the agricultural committee in particular, to say whether there was any part of the report of that committee the necessity of which ministers pressed more strongly for adoption, or to which they wished to give so strong and decided a colour, as that which urged the necessity of adopting a sound, constitutional, and practical economy in the public expenditure. Every successive year since the peace ministers had gone on adopting the utmost principles of reduction. He knew, indeed, there were some who thought it extremely easy to effect retrenchments at first sight-who, like the honourable member opposite, could reduce fancied savings to paper, and take the estimate of 1792 as the criterion of the public expenditure. The House knew that the estimates for the present year were 18,022,000l., and for the last year they were 19,673,000l., shewing a present reduction of 1,670,000l. The noble marquis was greatly in error if he supposed that ministers kept their places by the force of selfish patronage, or owed their influence to any other source than the general confidence of the country. He never would, as a minister of the Crown, endeavour to satisfy any excited feelings of the country, by deluding the people with a show of impracticable retrenchment; he would never consent to break down the govern

ment which his Sovereign intrusted to his charge, by risking its safety to seek popularity. These were the principles on which his Majesty's government wished always to be judged; they desired to call for the opinion of Parliament, not upon their words, but their acts. And they were prepared to labour during the recess in preparing for Parliament at its next meeting, that plan of retrenchment which could alone be safe, because it was the result of a practical survey of the state of the establishments of the country.

Mr Huskisson enforced these views, which were opposed by Lord Milton, the Marquis of Litchfield, Mr Creevey, and Mr Maberly. After a reply by Mr Hume, the House divided upon the two motions, when that of Mr Bankes was carried by a majority of 174 to 94.

The Session might thus be considered as having terminated triumphantly in favour of economy. On the 29th June, when the House went into a committee on the Appropriation Bill, Mr Hume again, in a good-humoured style, urged his various items of reduction. The Marquis of Londonderry replied, that ministers would equally have acted on the principles of economy, if none of the addresses had been moved. By these, however, they had given a solemn pledge, which they would strictly fulfil.

In the House of Lords, on the 2d of July, Earl Darnley moved an address similar to that of Mr Hume, which was met from Lord Liverpool with an amendment similar to that of Mr Bankes. After a little discussion, the amendment was carried without a division.

As soon as the termination of the proceedings against the Queen had tranquillized the nation upon that agitating question, the attention of British statesmen was powerfully directed to the great movements taking place on the continent; to the principles professed by the combination of the great powers, and above all, to the active measures which they were taking in furtherance of them. On one side, it was urged, that Britain could never view with indifference events so deeply affecting the cause of liberty; that she ought not to regard tamely the measures in progress for putting down, by military force, every attempt to establish a representative government, and limit the monarchical power. Ministers, on the other hand, represented, that having disavowed generally the principle of interference, and declared their determination to be no party to any measure founded upon it, they had done all that the circumstances either called for or admitted.

VOL. XIV. PART 1.

It has been seen how, at the very opening of Parliament, the discussion on the affairs of Foreign Europe formed a prominent feature. After several preliminary motions and notices, the subject was brought into full consideration on the 19th February by Earl Grey in the House of Peers, and on the 21st, by Mr Tierney in the House of Commons. The ostensible object in both, was a motion for the production of papers, but the actual purpose, to obtain for each party an opportunity of expressing their sentiments at full length on so interesting a topic.

Earl Grey began with taking a view of previous proceedings. He had on the first day of the session availed himself of the earliest opportunity afforded him, to direct the attention of their lordships to this important subject; and on a subsequent day he had inquired whether the representation issued by the allied courts on the subject of the Neapolitan revolution did correctly and truly state the dis

F

position and engagements of his Majesty's government with respect to such events as those which had taken place. The answer given on that occasion by the noble lord opposite appeared to be in a great degree satisfactory. He said that the document which had appeared in the public papers, though substantially true, was in some respects not correct. He disclaimed the engagements to which it was therein stated that this government was a party; and he disclaim ed the principle of interference with the internal arrangements of independent states-stating, what every one would admit, that circumstances might arise by which such interference would be justified. The noble lord then proposed to lay before the House a document, containing a full explanation of the conduct pursued by his Majesty's government. (This was the circular dispatch of Lord Castlereagh to British ministers at foreign courts, dated 19th January. See Appendix.) He could not consider it as satisfactory; yet it certainly contained a disclaimer, though cold and feeble, of the principle of interference. Notwithstanding this, he could not forbear animadverting on the circular of the allied powers. The claim set up was nothing less than the right of a general superintendence of the states of Europe, and of the suppression of all changes in their internal government, if those changes should be hostile to what the Holy Alliance called the legitimate principles of government. It mattered not how general the wish of the people for the change might be; it mattered not, however inoffensive that change might be to other states; it mattered not that every people were acknowledged to possess the right of correcting the abuses of their government, and rescuing themselves from political degradation. Yet those

monarchs who had assumed the censorship of Europe, and sat in judgment on the internal transactions of other states, took upon themselves to summon before them the monarch of an independent state; to pronounce judgment on a constitution which, in concert with his people, he had given to his country, and threatened to enforce their judgment by arms. This was plainly declaring that all changes of government which did not square with their ideas of propriety, were to be put down. Nothing could be more unjust, nothing more atrocious, than this principle. A number of other documents held the same language, particularly a paper in the Berlin Court Gazette of the 19th December, of whose official character there could be no doubt. In that paper, the new constitution was declared to be the product of unlawful power, and it was distinctly stated that "the monarchical principle rejects every institution which is not determined upon and accomplished by the monarch himself of his own free will." Were this principle to be successfully maintained, the triumph of tyranny would be complete, and the chains of mankind would be riveted for ever. Was there, then, to be no improvement in government except such as was granted as a matter of favour? Hopeless, indeed, was the condition of the human race, if they were to obtain no political rights, except such as sprung from the benevolence of sovereigns-of the monarchs who composed the Holy Alliance. His lordship remarked on the date of the circular, so long after the principles of the allied powers had been clearly declared, and only a few days before the meeting of parliament, as if it had been with the express view of providing for that crisis. The conduct of ministers towards Naples, had consisted in a suspension of all ami