nimity of juries in England; a greater number being originally sworn, though always a number of which twelve was the majority, as in our grand juries to this day, (which may consist of twelve, or of any number greater than that, but not exceeding twenty-three,) till verdicts came to be known as the finding of twelve men upon their oaths.

Affectionately yours,

FRA. HORNER.

Parliament met on the 8th of November, but adjourned on the 1st of December to the 9th of February. During this short session, Mr. Horner spoke on several occasions.

TREATY WITH THE KING OF NAPLES.

On a motion for the House going into a committee on the Army Estimates, on the 21st of November, Mr. Whitbread put some questions to ministers relating to some proceedings of Lord Castlereagh at the Congress of Vienna, more particularly with regard to a treaty between Austria and the King of Naples, Murat, to which the British government had become parties; and a notification, signed by Prince Repnin, of a convention, by virtue of which the Emperor of Russia, in concert with Austria and England, had placed in the hands of the King of Prussia the administration of the kingdom of Saxony. Ministers only partially answered the questions; and the Chancellor of the Exchequer urged "the impropriety of bringing forward into public discussion every thing which formed the subject of discussion at

Vienna." Mr. Stephen (Master in Chancery) took the same view, saying, that "it would be a practice very inconvenient for the House to have questions of this sort daily put to ministers."

Mr. Horner replied to Mr. Stephen: he said that "nothing could show more clearly the change that had lately taken place in the practice of parliamentary proceedings, than to find a gentleman of the experience and ability of the hon. and learned member who spoke last, condemn the practice of seeking information of ministers. What had become of the functions of that House, if, when ministers demanded a large supply of money, gentlemen should be told that it was irregular to ask for what purpose it was wanted? If, indeed, there were any irregularity in this practice, it proceeded from the much greater irregularity that had lately been introduced on the other side of the House, in proposing large grants of money, and great armies to be kept up in time of peace, without condescending to inform the House for what purposes they were wanted. The right hon. gentleman desired them to wait with patience till some future day, when those subjects might be discussed with more regularity. He, however, conceived that the House had a right to be informed generally of the state of our foreign relations, although they knew that negotiations actually pending could not, with propriety, be communicated. His hon. friends, however, had not asked about any thing that was doing, but about things actually done. They did not ask what crimes were meditating, but they wished to be informed about crimes actually perpetrated. They did not inquire about an act of Prince Repnin alone, but they asked whether this act had not been sanctioned by Lord Castlereagh, and whether this country was not thereby already commit

205 ted? He saw no difference, in the principle, between the annexations that were now making, and the tyrannical acts of that government against which we had been so long contending. The only difference that he could see was, that instead of being the work of one great spoliator, it was the work of many."

On the following day, Mr. Whitbread again brought the subject of this treaty before the House. "It was," he said, "a treaty of alliance between the reigning King of Naples and the Emperor of Austria, by which the possessions of the former were guaranteed to him; and by a secret article in the same treaty, an accession of territory was promised to him from the dominions of the Pope, on condition of the immediate co-operation of his army with the army of the allies. This treaty was acceded to, on the part of the British government, by Lord William Bentinck; and a note signed by him bore that, in case the Neapolitan government should not exact the entering into a written treaty, but, relying on the word of a British minister, should be contented with a verbal engagement, the undersigned was instructed, officially, on the part of the British government, to approve of the treaty; and that, if the English government refused to sign a regular treaty, it was from sentiments of delicacy towards an ancient ally, the King of Sicily." The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in reply, stated, "The note itself assigned a reason for refusing to enter into a treaty; and it never surely could be contended, that the faith of the country was so pledged, under such circumstances, as in the case of a regular treaty; but, at all events, when the circumstances were fully known, it would turn out that this country had fully performed all its engagements.".

Mr. Horner replied to the Chancellor of the Exche

quer: he said, "It was true there was no actual treaty signed; but, in the same breath, the minister of the country said, although he would not sign a treaty, he pledged his honour and the faith of the nation to the execution of his engagement. The honour of the country was as much given to Naples as if the most solemn treaty had been entered into. But there was an important consideration arising out of this business. It had been stated last night, on the part of government, in that House, that ministers possessed no information whatever of any accession on the part of Lord William Bentinck or Lord Castlereagh to the treaty between Austria and Naples. The denial was not so strong to-day as that which they had heard yesterday. But, at all events, he hoped the House would not forget, that if there was any accession to this treaty on the part of this country, ministers were in utter ignorance of it if there was any such thing, they were altogether strangers to it. With respect also to the order of Prince Repnin for the surrender of Saxony, they had no official information respecting it. It had been stated, that Lord Castlereagh had given his sanction to this order. If so, the right hon. gentleman ought to have had official information of it. A Secretary of State had, in this instance, been sent abroad, instead of one of the description of persons hitherto delegated. It would be extremely inconvenient to the House and his Majesty's ministers in general, if persons holding high ministerial offices should be sent abroad, who might not think fit to communicate regularly with the government at home, and thus keep his colleagues from being officially informed of such important proceedings as the accession on the part of this country to the treaty between Austria and Naples, and the order of Prince Repnin for the transfer of Saxony to Prussia."

The subject was resumed on the 25th, when Mr. Horner again spoke. "The House," he said, "had a right to demand information, as it regarded the honour and faith of the Crown in its foreign relations, which should ever be dear to the House, whether we were not acting contrary to our treaty with the King of Naples. We had guaranteed to him the territory of Naples, with an addition even of territory, which would explain his present movements on the shores of the Adriatic, in the march of Ancona, and the duchy of Romagna. We had not pledged our honour to him on this subject gratuitously, but we had value received for our stipulation. We had not rushed into the arms of Joachim Napoleon, from any wish to secure those persons who had been raised on the ruins of the ancient dynasties, but because he had assisted us to overthrow the power which had raised him. We had received his co-operation in Italy, without which the movements of the allies, as well on the Rhine as in Italy, would have been embarrassed. Even at the time when Lord Castlereagh gave instructions to Lord William Bentinck to conclude the engagement with Joachim, the co-operation of that monarch was, he understood, necessary to render the position of Count Bellegarde on the Mincio secure. The state of our engagements with Joachim was this:- In April last, a treaty was concluded with Austria, which was presented to Lord Castlereagh for his concurrence. That noble lord returned the treaty with alterations in his own hand-writing, which secured an indemnity to the King of Sicily for Naples; and which territory was left to King Joachim, provided King Joachim should withdraw his claims upon Sicily. The treaty, thus altered, was agreed to by Naples; and Lord Castlereagh, at Dijon or Chatillon, signified his concurrence in it,