another war which would not be a loss to France and a gain to Great Britain. He hoped that the unanimity of the House that night would convince all Europe of the unanimous determination of the people of the united kingdom, to support and maintain their weight and importance in the scale of nations.

The Earl of Carlisle expressed the satisfaction which he felt at the change which had taken place in the sentiments of ministers, as conveyed in the Address. He congratulated the House and the country on the tone in which that Address was conveyed, which he hoped would have the happy effect of inspiring public confidence. As to the terms of the peace, he entertained but one opinion of them; and that opinion he had expressed when those terms were submitted to the House. Dr. Johnson, having been asked his opinion of Ossian's Poems, answered, that they were poems which might be written by any man, any woman, or any child; the same opinion might be advanced with greater certainty of the peace. He had watched the present administration from the first concoction of it-it was weak in its formation; and on that account he entertained very little hopes that it would gather energy in its progress. He wished to know, then, what had been done? Why, Piedmont had been annexed to France, with other important places, and yet ministers sat quiet spectators of the aggrandisement of that country? The effect of this indifference was felt over all the country. It inflated those who exercised the government in France, when they found that the administration of this country did not hold the string in their hand to pull them down again to a proper level. When the French troops were collected to embark for the West Indies, that would have been a proper time to have convinced the rulers of France, that, however disposed the cabinet of this kingdom was, to listen to peace, they were determined that the best means of securing the continuance of it was to prevent the execution of such a measure, which could not fail to strengthen the power of France, and to lead to an opinion that we were disposed to accept of peace on almost any terms. The Address, however, met with his cordial approbation; and he was heartily pleased with the spirit and tone which it breathed.

The Duke of Norfolk cordially approved of the Address; it was such as became

the dignity of that House, and could not fail of having its due effect on the country at large. If, however, the change in the minds of ministers arose from any hopes of a disunion between France, and any of the continental powers in amity with us, he wished to have it understood that he did not vote for the Address under that construction. He was sorry that any allusion had been made to an event which was at all times to be lamented, however weak in its origin, and feeble in its progress (alluding to the affair of colonel Despard); that affair had made a great sensation in the country, and he wished that ministers would not follow the example of their predecessors in magnifying such wicked attempts; but that they would bring these men to trial, that they might be punished according to their crimes, without wounding the constitution.

Lord Grenville said :-I perfectly agree with a noble lord who preceded me, that the new parliament has been assembled at a period pregnant with events of the greatest importance to Europe, and to mankind at large. At no convocation of parliament was the curiosity of the public more strongly excited. All men, doubtful of the principle and policy of the present ministry, were anxious to learn whether we were to have peace or waranxious to know whether we were ready to truckle to France, or about to defend ourselves against the daring encroachments of that government. The interests and happiness of Europe were nearly destroyed by the inordinate ambition of the French government, which was extending its power and authority to the total subversion of the liberties of mankind. Were we, therefore, to view with silent indifference this deplorable subjugation of Europe on the one hand, or meet with manly fortitude the perilous consequences of war? I am for the religious maintenance of our national character and glory, against all the artful contrivances or combinations of France; and I cannot recommend the adoption of a better policy for the attainment of that end, than a laudable vigilance and an exemplary activity for the general interests of Europe. The speech from the throne meets, in several sentences, with my hearty concurrence. It may be reduced to three propositions, with every one of which I most heartily agree, because every one of these propositions tend to censure the present men in power for their want of capacity, and want of vigi.

lance. The speech expresses satisfaction at the opportunity of resorting to the advice and assistance of parliament, By this observation the ministers evince their wisdom, and it is one of those sentences which deserves the approbation of both Houses. If, however, ministers had been in a state of vigilance and activity since they last met parliament, how came it to pass that France had been suffered to invade the rights and overturn the liberties of various states on the continent? If ministers had conducted themselves with manly fortitude-if they had been actuated by the true spirit of Englishmen if they had felt for their own honour and the national dignity, they would not have looked on with a censurable indifference: they would have demanded satisfaction for a breach of treaty-they would have checked the violence and rapacity of France, and thus have saved, perhaps, the liberties and independence of several states, once important in the scale of Europe. These remarks form two propositions. Was any attention paid to the machinations of France between the signature of the preliminaries of peace and that of the definitive treaty? No. Did not France, during that interval, dispatch a powerful fleet to the West Indies, without the smallest intimation to us on the subject? Did not she then take measures dangerous to our interest as a maritime power? Did she not, in the plenitude of her rapacity, take possession of the valuable settlement of Louisiana? Ought not that measure alone to have aroused our jealousies on account of our influence in America and the West Indies? We saw also Europe prostrate at the feet of France, and, in the insolence of conquest, her territories plundered, and her liberties destroyed. Ought we not at that alarming period to have demanded retribution? Had we then boldly stood forward in the cause of liberty, France would have receded from her desperate measures. Had we invoked her justice with arms in our hands, we might have saved Europe from the tyranny of the French republic. -What occurred after the signature of the definitive treaty? Did France conduct herself with moderation? Did she give any testimony of her wish to render peace permanent? No. The ink was scarcely dry with which it was signed, the wax scarcely cold with which it was sealed, when France, in violation of the treaty of Amiens, began to add territory to territory

to the republic. Piedmont, one of the most beautiful parts of Europe, in complete defiance of justice and public faith, felt the griping hand of rapacity and ambition. Had Great Britain at that time, in concert with Russia, remonstrated against these aggressions, France would not have ventured upon this wanton exercise of power. With that cunning which has characterised the French government, Piedmont was at first occupied as a military position. This plan was adopted in the contemplation of the act of aggression which followed. They concluded a treaty with the king of Sardinia, our old and faithful ally. After this, they congratulated themselves on the success of their scheme. "Now we are safe!" said they: "Now we can fall upon our victims like birds of prey!" and soon published a decree, by which they threw off the mask, and added Piedmont to the French republic. The treaty was signed by the king of Sardinia, when a prisoner in his own capital. Notwithstanding the deplorable state to which he had been reduced by the treachery of France, he insisted, that he should not be obliged to act with hostility against Great Britain. This was another proof of the integrity and honour of the king, who therefore merited our best attentions. On a proposition having once been made to him by the French, that he should exclude the English from his sea-ports, he indignantly rejected it; and thus proved, that his fidelity to our interests was not to be shaken by adverse fortune. This, however, was the very man whom we afterwards abandoned! When we had signed the definitive treaty, we had not signed at the same time an admission on the part of France to her right of occupancy of Piedmont-we had not surrendered our right of interfering for the preservation of the liberties and independence of the other states of Europe. As there was evident danger from the possession of Piedmont by the French, we ought to have checked their ambition in that memorable instance of injustice and depredation. Mark the rapid progress of the aggressive spirit of France. The definitive treaty was signed in March, and ratified in June. In August, France took upon herself to regulate and newmodel the several states of Europe. As our ministers made no remonstrance, it may be presumed, that they gave their acquiescence to the encroachments of the French. The ambition of the latter was

not very easily gratified; for, in their predilection for new-fangled doctrines, they were resolved to overturn and new model the constitution of the German empire itself, and this attempt engaged their attention so early as the said month of August, some very few months after the signature of the definitive treaty. Still, however, our ministers viewed the passing scene with indifference. In the height of their pacific disposition towards the French, they never made the smallest attempt at complaint or remonstrance for these daring encroachments, which threatened the total subversion of the liberties of Europe. These acts, particularly the last, were direct violations of the treaty of Amiens. In the terms of pacification, another old and faithful ally had been forgotten, if not sacrificed-I mean the House of Orange. We had looked on with criminal indifference, while that illustrious House, always warmly attached to Great Britian, was robbed and plundered by the French government. I well remember when this question was once agitated in this House, that the noble marquis (Cornwallis) who had concluded the treaty of Amiens, rose up with honest warmth, and asked, if any man could for a moment believe that the house of Orange, so deserving of the protection of this country, would not be amply indemnified for the losses which it had sustained? Notwithstanding the manly remarks of the noble marquis, all passed away in silence. Instead of a manly interference, our ministers sunk into a state of submission to the will of France. These transactions bring the conduct of administration down to the month of September, when it appears they viewed the aggressions on the part of France with the same apathy which had marked their precious direction of affairs. The third proposition to which I formerly alluded, was that in which his majesty's speech recommends an augmentation of our forces. This was certainly not very pacific; but the eyes of ministers were at last opened; they see the necessity of vigour and watchfulness. This proposition receives my hearty concurrence, because it is the strongest censure of the ministry. It proves that none but idiots or madmen, in the critical state of Europe, could be induced to a reduction of our naval and military forces. We were now, however, called upon to consent to an augmentation of those very forces; and there was no doubt but that

the caution was founded in prudence and necessity.-On the retrospect of affairs, I cannot help expressing my astonishment at the absurd conduct of ministers. We have now obtained peace, and yet, instead of the boasted reduction and savings which we were taught to expect, we are to have a speedy augmentation, with all its consequent expenses. Is the aspect of affairs more alarming now than in October 1801, when our secretary for the foreign department signed the prelimina. ries of peace? Yes. Who has produced this dilemma? His majesty's present ministers. Every step of their conduct since has been a proof of their total incapacity to govern a great nation in times of difficulty and danger. They can form no judgment of the future, from a comparison with the past. They are men of weak understandings, and completely unfit for the situation in which they move. But they now see their error, and tell us that we must be watchful of the conduct of France. If, however, we are to expect any real good, there must be a total change of men and measures. The poli tical career of the present men in power may be termed a series of ignorance and disgrace. In our madness for a hollow peace, we had sent out orders to surrender all our conquests to the enemy. Why not wait for the confirmation of peace by some sincere and indubitable act of the French government? Why surrender Martinique, &c.? I would not have disbanded one man, or dismantled one ship. But a report is prevalent, that ministers have sent out orders not to surrender the remainder of our conquests. Why not have issued the same orders in time against the surrender of Martinique? I rather wish than expect, that the orders for retaining the Cape may reach that settlement sufficiently early to answer the end proposed. Malia, I believe, is still in our hands. I hope we shall not expose ourselves to the scorn and ridicule of Europe by its surrender. This country has now the happiness to hold that important place; and its commanding interest in the Mediterranean is too great ever to be abandoned by a wise and vigorous government. From all these considerations, I can have no confidence in the present administration. Respecting the internal situation of the country, I have forborne to say one word. I do not wish to excite needless jealousies and alarms. The more judicious and vigorous a government in

dangerous times, the more safe is the community at large. But lately, instead of acting on the defensive, instead of watching the operations of France with an eager solicitude, we have been aiding France against ourselves. History records, that our ancestors, in order to induce the Saxons or Danes to desist from the resolution of the invasion of this country, gave them large sums as bribes. What was the consequence? They applied the money thus obtained for the purchase of ships, ammunition, &c. with which they made a grand effort, and thus subjugated this country. Our present conduct was somewhat similar. We surrendered Martinique, &c. as a bonus not to violate the peace. Let us add Malta to the bribe, and the price of peace will be complete. We shall then, perhaps, experience a similar attempt against our liberties and independence by the daring ambition of the natural and avowed enemy of Great Britain. The whole conduct of our ministers has tended to the increase of the strength of the enemy. France has been continuing a system of conquest and aggrandisement which is now coming home to our own doors. Is any man so absurd as for a moment to imagine that she will be more favourable to Great Britain than to Piedmont, Switzerland, &c. What claim have we to her partiality? It is a lamentable fact, that whether you do or do not maintain the relations of peace and amity with France, she is now at war with you. You have no hope of salvation, but by a strong system of defence. Europe is at this time sunk in distraction and despair; but the energy and spirit of Great Britain may arouse the states of the continent to a glorious struggle for their liberty and independence. If, however, there be any hope, it is to be found in measures of decision and firmness-in a bold and animated tone, held by a leader of courage and capacity-not by any of the men now in power, but by him to whom this country, to whom Europe, looks up at this awful hour for the preservation of their dearest rights and liberties.

Lord Pelham said, that was not the proper time to go into a detail of the nature and extent of the intended augmentation of the force of the kingdom; he hoped, therefore, that his silence upon the subject would not be construed into an assent to the construction that had been put upon that part of his majesty's [VOL. XXXVI.]

speech; but thus much he would say, that no sudden or great augmentation of the troops was intended, nor did there appear any thing in the state of Europe that made such an augmentation necessary.

Lord Carysfort said, he was sorry to learn from the noble secretary of state, that they were not likely to be gratified with that essential augmentation which the critical situation of the empire required. It was undoubtedly a serious thing to engage in war, but there might occur circumstances which might make such a measure unavoidable. His lordship drew the distinction between peace and war being considered as experiments. War, he admitted, to be an experiment, because the events of a war were uncertain; but peace, he contended, was not an experiment, but a matter of certainty. gave his hearty assent to the address.

He

Lord Hobart complained of the injustice of a noble lord, late one of his majesty's ministers, in censuring the king's present servants on account of the dismemberment of Germany, when he could not but know that the treaty of Luneville was made during that noble lord's administration, and that Germany was brought into its present condition by circumstances which were not subject to the control of any ministers. It was enough for him to say, that the indemnities in Germany were not considered as of sufficient importance to prevent our making peace. The noble lord had charged his majesty's servants with incapacity; it did not become him, to say one word in answer to such a charge. He would however, say, that the present ministers did not seek their situations. They were called upon to take them in a moment of great and accumulated difficulties. He therefore only desired, that the present administration might be judged by its conduct. If France had extended her dominion over the greatest part of the continent, it had been under her power long before the noble lord retired from office; and if that noble lord had not been able to prevent such aggrandisement, he had no right to charge the present ministers with misconduct. But that noble lord could not charge the present ministers with incapacity, without at the same time criminating himself for having relinquished his post.

The address was agreed to nem. diss. [3 Pl