whether these sovereigns expressed that jealousy in the noble lord's presence, and whether they obtained his acquiescence. It would, indeed, be surprising if the noble lord, who had himself acquired so much distinction as a parliamentary orator, especially in favour of popular privileges, and who was said to have made such long speeches to these sovereigns themselves, no doubt in the same strain, could silently listen to such an expression of jealousy with regard to the freedom. of the British parliament. Yet the noble lord had observed, that these arbitrary monarchs were truly indisposed to follow up some arrangements which they had in contemplation for the establishment of popular privileges, in consequence of some speeches in that House. What a compliment did the

noble lord thus record in favour of the virtue and firmness of these sovereigns. So, they were dissuaded from doing that which they themselves thought proper, in consequence of parliamentary speeches in England! They declined to do right, because some of them might have been censured for doing wrong because, for instance, such an able senator as the late Mr. Whitbread because that great man, who had, perhaps, more of the good man in his composition than any great man that ever existed, felt it his duty to expose and reprobate some act of oppression or injustice. He trusted, however, that such a feeling of duty would ever be found to prevail in that House. But, seriously, could it be believed that the sovereigns alluded to could have been prevented from making arrangements in favour of popular liberty, by any thing that happened to fall from an obscure minority in that House, seconded as their disposition must have been by the noble lord himself at the head of his immense majorities? The opinions of these military despots, on this, as well as upon other subjects, he entirely disregarded. No prospect could be entertained that any thing would be done by them for the rights of mankind. His hopes of improvement were derived from a different quarter. They were not directed to innovation, but to a beneficial change effected through the medium of constitutional organs, and the wholesome operation of public opinion. Even though there was reason to believe

that the sovereigns appointed their meetings with no preconcerted designs against the liberties of the world — even although they formed no deliberate conspiracy against the rights of their subjects, still he could not but view the close association, that would appear to be established between such great military powers, without great jealousy. The great object of our late struggle was avowed to be the destruction of the military principle in Europe, which was incompatible with the liberties, the happiness, and the social tranquillity of mankind. By unparalleled efforts, by persevering and heroic sacrifices, we had extinguished the great military despotism, which agitated and conquered and oppressed the nations of the Continent; but was the situation of Europe much improved, if the present system was to be carried into complete effect, and the late arrangements were henceforward to be universally adhered to? We had, indeed, annihilated the most extensive, the universally felt military despotism, but there were now three or four to spring up and to occupy its place. Their union, for purposes connected with their own support and extension, might be nearly as dangerous as the one from which we congratulated ourselves on being delivered. These military sovereigns were to meet and consult for their common security or mutual interests, and nothing could be done, or permitted to exist in Europe, without their consent. [The hon. and learned gentleman then went into an examination of the securities established in the treaties.] He wished to meet the question of security fairly and impartially; but he could not help inquiring at first, what were the evils against which security and guarantee were required? What were we to guard against? We were at the end of five and twenty years of convulsion, revolution, and war. In that period the institutions of society, the political arrangements, and the relative condition of the different orders in the civil state, had undergone great changes. A new spirit was created, and had operated powerfully in bringing about the present circumstances. There might be different views entertained, and there were certainly very different opinions delivered on our present situation. Some thought that the revo

lutionary spirit, which produced such atrocities in its first display and subsequent operations, still existed in France in all its malignity, and that its existence, in any degree, was inconsistent with national tranquillity or civil order. This opinion had been declared by many members in the House, and was entertained by a great party out of it; but he thought that it was entertained upon false and narrow views. There were other persons who took views entirely opposite, but equally distant from reason and sound policy. They would not be satisfied, if France did not at once carry into practice all those ideas of political freedom that they entertained: they would not be contented with less than seeing France in possession of all those institutions, and that free constitution, that this country enjoyed, without taking into consideration the difference that existed between the state and the ideas of the two nations. It was needless to say that he disapproved of both these extremes. Whether the Revolution in France was good or bad, whether it had contributed to promote the liberties and rights of the nation or not, it could not be denied that there had arisen out of it a state of things which could not be altered, a spirit which could not be entirely extinguished. If the restoration of the Bourbons proceeded upon the supposition that every thing was to be restored to its former condition, and that every new interest was to be destroyed, the project could not be realised; and those who entertained it were not aware of the obstacles they would have to encounter in attempting its execution. Every thing was changed in the Revolution property had been transferred to new handsthe people had acquired new ideas — the privileged orders had been abolished, or their claims reduced — political institutions were altered, and a new distribution of political power had established a spirit of inquiry, and a disposition to discuss the conduct of rulers was every where diffused. It was difficult to calculate the power of these changes. We might guard against the effects of them, but we could not bring things back to their former situation. Happily this was not necessary for our security, as it certainly was not practicable in its execution. The real security which was required from

France, after the destruction of that military monarchy which oppressed the greatest part of the continent of Europe, combined the integrity of that kingdom with the establishment of a government agreeably to the wishes, and deserving of the confidence of the people. The hon. and learned gentleman said he would decline entering upon a discussion of the other kinds of security required against France. The question of territorial cession had been discussed at great length, and he would merely state, that in his opinion any attempt to dismember France, instead of being likely to afford any security for the continuance of peace, would be the certain source of inquietude and danger. He would not enter upon the propriety of demanding a barrier on the side of the Netherlands, as that seemed to be of the same nature with territorial cessions; but he would say that he would place no reliance on any guarantee founded on the basis of reduction or dismemberment. There was no chance of the stability of peace, if guarantees were sought for in measures that must be galling and irritating to the French people; there was no chance of continued tranquillity but in conciliatory arrangements; there was no chance of reconciling them to Europe but by allowing them to establish the government they liked. We could never rationally entertain confidence in the pacific dispositions of people on whom we forced a government by conquest, which we maintained by arms. The sentiments of the people could not manifest themselves while a powerful army occupied a part of their territory, and might be called in to repress them. There had been a good deal said by a right hon. friend of his (Mr. Elliot) concerning the Chamber of Deputies; but he could not agree with him in supposing, that that body could be considered as an organ for the expression of popular feeling and opinion. How was the Chamber elected? It was elected by the influence of the royal power - it was filled by that execrable person Fouché, a name connected with the greatest atrocities of his country. That immaculate statesman, during the short period that he served his sovereigu, had performed for him the office of selecting the depuThe French Revolution had exhibited many scenes of

ties.

cruelty, atrocity, and horror, and its principles had been often dishonoured by the profligacy of those who held them, or professed to carry them into execution; but it arose at first from a love of liberty, and had been attended by consequences of the most important kind. Any man who had examined the state of France before the Revolution, and after it, would perceive the good effects that it had produced. The great body of the people, whose interests were the most important, were raised by it in education, in character, in property, and in independence. No revolution since the Protestant Reformation appeared so important as that of France. The people of France might, therefore, expect that some attention would be paid to their wishes, and that all the advantages for which they had suffered would not be extorted from them. They might expect that they should be allowed a free constitution, and would it be honourable in us to obstruct them in that object? The first men in this country had anticipated great good from the Revolution. Having thus delivered his opinion on our foreign policy, he would refrain at that late hour from any discussion on our military establishments to support it.

After what I have said of the impression this speech had made (page 341,) had been printed, I was favoured with the following extract from a letter addressed by John Whishaw, Esq., to Thomas Smith, Esq., of Easton-Grey, Wilts, dated the 28th of February, 1816.

Speaking of the debates on the treaties, he says, "But the most fortunate circumstance in these debates, and which has contributed more than any thing else to keep up the spirits of the Opposition, was the admirable speech of Horner; which, both in the style, manner, and, above all, in the excellent principles with which it abounded, was universally acknowledged to be one of the completest performances that has been witnessed in parliament for a great number of years. It derived great weight from the opinion universally and justly 47

VOL. II.