Star.
London, England, 1817-03-19 00:00:00

was Ike laugnage of General Bonaparte. He
(Earl Bathurst) did not object to his rejecting this
or the proposal to build a new one; but what'
hr e(mplained 01 was, that he should in the first in-
stance reject all overtures to have his residence•made
wore comfortable, and then in the next place inveighi
against its smallness, and the privations which *the'
aat of :u Mot et r.:cn imposed —(f/ear, hear.) He
came to the observations of the Noble Lord on
;:te subject of General Bonaparte's place of residence
as being decided on at the Congress of Vienna. This
was really one of those rumour, from foreigners to
ankh the Wale L. :al appeared to lead too ready
an eir
Lord HOLLAND--'a I have not received this in-
f rmation from foreigners alone."
I:4:1 BATHURS'f —Well, it was a matter of in-
diif-rence from what source the information came;
!:e had no hesitation in saying, that no such point
I, ..1 been ever decided upon in Congress, and that the
rumour was altogether unfounded —(llear, hear.)—
The Noble Earl next proceeded to touch upon the
espeditore necessary for the maintenance of General
Il.,nparte and his suite. The first sum assigned for
this e.driblishment was dill,UtA, best it subsequently
sipparing that a larger sum might possibly be re-
quire& r.e instructunts to Sir Hudson Lowe were,
rut .d;,r making the calculation at a Lair rate. it
,flonaraite shook, require a larger allowance. he-
sh.,ul.l b.: informed that the funds must be supplied
ti,.r,11:. wen parse.. The rst,blishment of Sir Hud-
its entire expenditure, cost blot ‘12,000
How then could General Bonaparte require
4:,0,(;00? Stately he ought to be satisfied as a maxi-
rota with Or found sufficient for the Governor's
who is constantly exposed to expenses
ebich the other cannot be called upon to meet ; and
Jet there w i, no reason to suppose that he would be
seiefied with an equal allowance with the Governor.
I; AVIS till • that Bonaparte agreed to provide for his
r:;; expe-dirure ; but upon what conditions ? That
hN sh Held have permission to correspond under his
own seal (which was not to he broken) with some
biuker, either of England or the Continent, and that
the money he should receive from such sources should
b 2 entirely and absolutely at his own disposal—
and so confident was he of the nature and extznt of
his resources in Europe, that be frffered to draw a
bill of exchange at once. and required Sir Hudson
Lowe to make an advailce on the faith of its being
instantly nep,ociated. He mentioned this circum-
stance relative to the funds of General Bonaparte,
not with a view of maintaining, that, because he
*add command them, the British Government had a
right to I,:e that he paid the whole expense of his
establishment. No such:thing ; but that he had a
:Wit to provide from his private funds whatever su-
perfluities he conceived his situation required, beyond
t re ample allowance which the Governor found suf-
ficient for his O'bn establishment in the island—if be
wants mule, let him provide it foi himself. (Her,
tar.) There was one other point which he should
notice, u it related to a statement is a publication
formerly mentioned by him—that one bottle of wine
a day only. was allowed for each person, and that if
this allowance was drank by any of the individuals
on the establishment—he could get no more. In or-
der to ascertain the expenditure of any establishment,
3: was usual to calculate on a certain quantity of such
things as were used for each individual, per day. It
tray by no means intended, that the sense quantity
ctoold Away, be drank by each individual. With
respect to the calculation of one bottle per day, for
each person, it was one which would be considered
ra this country as not an unfair one—this was the al-
lowance for his Majesty's table. A bottle a day, for
each person, was considered by Military Gentlemen
as sufficient for the supply of their niesses—sufficient
far themselves, and for such company as might be
invited—it was not usual to allow more one day
with another to any Person in the prime of life.—
But to chew how liberally the allowance to General'
Bonaparte WAS calculated, he should read to their
Lordsli ps an extract from the estithate for his table,
in which this very article of wine was minutely spe-
cified. There was an allowance of strong and of
weak wine. The quantity of weak wine was S-1,
bottles in the course of the fortnight ; but he should
put that out of the question, and merely state the
quantity of the other description of wine. Of that
better sort of wine, there was no less than 266 bot-
tles in one fortnight, applicable, wholly and entirely,
to General Bonaparte and his attendants. The pant.
cedars were-
-7 Bottles of Constantia (or 14 pint bottles.)
14 Bottles of Champaign.
21 Bottles of tiu de Grave.
Uettle* .if Teueriffe.
140 Bottles of Caret.
In all 466 Bottles.
The number of persons connected with General Bo-
naparte, excluding those of tender age, amounted to
nine, so that there was an allowance of nineteen bot-
tles in one day for ten persons; and taking one day
with another, the allowance might be considered two
Lotting a day for each grown person. In addition
t this quantity of wine, 42 beetles of porter were al-
lowed every fortnight, being at the rate of three to
ouch individual. Having stated so much he trusted
he had copvinced their Lordships that there was not
a'.7 ground whatever for apprehending that they
were acting towards General l3onapaste with an,
t'•; :g like severity. Those persons who were placed
under his coniroul had behaved in the most insolent
manner towards the Governor; and if their Lordships
were willing to lend an err to every complaint pro-
ceeding from them, there would be no end to their
tompinuting. WA respect to the Governor, he could
hot support his authority unless he endeavoured to
enforce obedience to all the dispositions which be
Nras by his instructions appointed to make. If they
thought that Bonaparte ought not to be detained at
Helena, then dismiss him ; but if they thought
that he ought to be detained, it would be unjust to
throw such a heavy responsibility on the Governor,
tend at the same time prevent him from enforcing
such measures as the secure detention of his prisoner 1
demanded !rem him. The Noble Earl concloded by
expressing his decided opposition to the motion.
[he Marquis of BUCKINGHAM concurred its
opinion with the Noble Lull, that this motion ought
tu be rejected. The motives 'of his Noble Friend
(Lord H, IlAnd) who made it, were pure and disin-
?et ested, though it was to be Lamented that, embark-
irg in the course he had this night pursued, he might
!;Pose himself elsewhere to imputations from which
I=ts generous pause was utile:ly rand completely face.

The question involved in this debate, real)), resolved
itself into this :—Had we, or had we not, a right to
detain Bonaparte in custody ? If we had not, as the
Noble Earl well said, let it be fairly avowed ; but if,
on the contrary, the necessity of hls detention was
manifest, could any one who heard what had been
said this night, say that the restraints imposed upon
him were more than necessary far his salty? (Near.)
The Noble Marquis here referred to the letter ut
Count Montholon, containing the cumplaints of 80.
naparte..These complaints had be :11 completely and
triumphantly refuted. by the No de Earl opposite.
Would they then believe the contradiction of the No-
ble Secretary of State, in his place in Parliament, and
on his own responsibility ? or would they credit the
statement of Bonaparte? Could they possibly con-
ceive that the Noble Earl would, in his clue in Par-
liament, assert a deliberate falsehood Ha was satis-
fied that the complaints were unfounded. The whole
of Count Montholon's paper was a tissue of insult
upon this country—(iseer, hear, hear.) Bonaparte
denied that be had surrendered himself a prisoner to
this country—(Hear, hear.) Was that the fact ? He
said that he might haVe put himself at the head of
the army of the Loire, and made better terms for
himself—why did he not ?—(liear, hear.) He says
he might have surrendered to Austria, or Russia, or
Prussia—why did he not ? Perhaps the recollection
of the devastations he committed in Russia, and other
parts of these territories, deterred him from making
the experiment—(Hear, hear.) He beamed of hav-
ing shewn his clemency to these States when tie had
invaded them, and replaced their Sovereigns on their
thrones when he might have overturned their dynas-
ties. This was all vain boasting ; for had not these
Powers conceded to his canfederacy against Eng-
land, there can be no doubt that he would have
fully establiated himstlf in their States with the
while force of his arms (Hear, hear, hear.)—'
It was imp issible not to see the necessity, now that
Bonaparte was in safe custody, of detaining him in
effectual captivity, so as to prevent the possibility of
his ever.again becoming the scourge of Europe.--
Political justice required that he should be detained
in close custody, and no measure should be thwarted
that had that object fairly in its view—(llear, hear).
The Noble Marquis concluded by expressing his
strong dissent from the motion, although he did full
justice to the motives of his Noble Friend from whom
it originated, and to Whom they were certainly in-
debted for the able and complete refutation, by the
Noble Earl opposite, of the charges made by Bona-
parte—(Hear, hear).
The Earl of DARNLEY had not intended to say
a word in the course of the debate. He could not,
however, retrain from saying, that his N'ale Friend
(Lord Holland) was justified in making the motion,
though the candid and able statement of the Noble
Earl opposite had refuted the allepations on which
the motion was doubtless founded. Thanks were due
to his Noble Friend for being the person through
whose means an effectual contradiction was given to
the serious charges made by Bonaparte. After the
statement of the noble Secretary, perhaps his Noble
Friend would content himself with the good he had
done, and withdraw his motion—(Hear, hear).
Lord HOLLAND defended the grounds on which
he had made his motion in behalf of the hoi.our and
character of the country, which were deeply impli-
cated in the statement of Bonaparte. He thanked
his Noble Friends for their testimony to the purity of
his motives, but he could not accept their thanks for
having led to the production of the Noble .Earl's
speech opposite—differing as he totally did with the
sentiments contained in that speech. From the roan.
ner in which the motion had been treated, he telt him-
self bound to declare, that he was impelled to make
it by a conscientious sense of duty, and thi.ugh hr
was aware it would be rejected by their Lordships,
he was yet proudly sensible of the benefit that he had
conferred upon his country by starting the debate, it
the result should prove a confutation of the statements
already made, or a correction of the practices, if any
such existed, of which these statements complained.
At any rate, he was satisfied of this, that there was'
not one man in England who could hear such charges
of cruelty against his Government without calling
upon it for a full contradiction of the allegations.—
The Noble Earl had commenced by stating, that
those persons who, in the first instance, had objection
to the detention of Bonaparte, were not -very unpre-
judiced judges of the mode of carrying that detention
into effect. Then it seemed that the only persons
who were unprejudiced judges of the mode of treat-
ment to be adopted towards Bonaparte, were those
who declared for the measure of his imprisonment.
He had season to complain of the way in which his
motion had beets treated by the Noble Earl. His
motion was for the production of papers that would
contradict the statement that had gone abroad.—
This course was resisted by the Noble Earl, who,
though be refused to produce the papers called for,
yet quoted partial, and, possibly, garbled extracts
from them, to shew that the charges were unfound-
ed. The case was this :—one Peer called in his
place in Parliament for certain papers, and another
read extracts from them against their production.--
This course had crept into practice within the last
eight years, and could not be too much censured.—
The Noble Earl was a great master of wit and
ridicule, and he congratulated him upon the tier
exercise of this talent towards the individual who was
wholly in his power,, in distant captivity, and who
had no opportunity of being heard in his defence.—
Sooner than be gtfilty of such an act, lie would pre-
fer the odium of prevarication and mistatement, with
which Bonaparte was charged, even by the Noble
Earl opposite, whose whole argument went for the
production of the papers which his vote refused. He
(Lord Holland) never stated that the reports were
true ; on the contrary, he had stated that he knew no-
thing of the documoent alluded to, except having
merely read it, and finding it in many part; confir-
matory of the rumours be had already heard. It this
docuMent were untrue, then why not contradict it in
the face of the world by positive documents, rather
than let the refutation -solely depend on the Noble
Earl's speech, able as it' certainly was ? It was not
fair, either to Parliament or the country, to leave so
important a refutation dependant on the fleeting
breath of the Noble Earl's speech. On the subject
of the Noble Earl's denial, that arrangements for Bo-
naparte's removal were made at Congress before
Bonaparte's return to France, all he had to say was,
that he 'had himself heard the intention of this removal
mentioned before the battle of Watcrloci, and copse-

qttently betot.e the last tattchict of gotiaperte brought
down upon him the vengeance of .the other Powers.
Could any man believe that Bonaparte set such a
rumour aeon merely from a wisb to suggest it to
Congress, or that lie mentioned it after having had
reason to suppose that such an arrangement was iv
contemplation ? The motion he had made called for
no opinion whatever nn the part of their Lordships.'
it merely related to the production of these papers, to
answer an assertion deeply affecting the honour and
character of the country. His obj:xt was not for the
information of the Honst alone, but for the satisfac •
tion of Europe and posterity ; and would not this
object be more effl.ctually attained by the production
of authentic: do:nrtrrots, than it cool l be by any
speech, however sarcastic or eloquent? By rejecting
the motion, tie appearance to the world would be
that they were unwilling to inquire into the facts, or
that they deemed them of too trivial a nature to call
for Parliamentary investigation. To either of these
conclusions they must expose themselves to the world.
He thought the subject every way of great impor-
tante, and one which required to be met by a different
course of proceeding from that they seemed to adopt.
The Noble Lord here very pointedly animadverted
upon the description given by the Noble Earl of what
he termed the " horrible".situation vi whoever had
the custody of Bonaparte, and the insolence to which
a person so situated was exposed. If the papers for
which he moved were produced, then "it wool., ap-
pear whether this :hiracter of the prisoner was a true
one or not. At atl events, whatever were the vices
of Bonaparte, he thought there was little of taste or
,feeliag in selecting specimens of his language or acts,
from those partial ebullitions of his temper, which
were possibly induced by the treatment to which he
was exposed. The Noble Earl. concluded by declar-
ing he would persevere in his Motion; and that solar
from the Noble Earl's speech being an answer to it,
it furnished rather reason for his pressing it.
The question was then put, and negatived without
a division..--The House then adjourned.