naturally friends; and it would be difficult to provoke the English cabinet into a war. But a method was found. It was not enough to revive a treaty hostile to the greatness of this country, but a most flagitious breach of faith was to be committed by Russia. Our merchants and seamen trading in that country, with honour to themselves, and advantage to both nations, but most of all to Russia, although trading under the sanction of treaties, were seized, and treated with unexampled barbarity. This, the Russian ministry said, will not be endured by England, and we shall plunge her into war. And how, the noble duke asked, was this war to be avoided by a british ministry? Would their lordships recommend his majesty and the British nation to dissemble the injury, and bear all it should please Russia to inflict? It was to be hoped the great prince that ruled over all the Russias would see the wicked designs of his ministers, and would hearken to more just councils. That was to be expected when that great prince should know what his ministers had done, and the existing treaties with England-treaties that stipulated, in case of a rupture, that the merchants should remain unmolested for a year. And the House would observe with pleasure, that his majesty had assured them of his readiness to return to his accustomed relations with Russia, and the other northern powers. His grace explained fully the nature of the confederacy in the north. Its object, he contended, was, to contravene the law of nations, and to destroy the rights of all maritime belligerent powers. He appealed to all writers on the subject, and to all decisions on the question: he called on their lordships to consider the very nature of the thing. A neutral power, that aids the commerce and supplies the wants of the enemy of a belligerent state, declares its hostility to that state. And this was so well understood, after the close of the American war, that it was expressly declared, in treaties with Denmark and Sweden, that the confederacy of 1780 had no object contrary to the acknowledged rights of a belligerent state, viz. that its enemy shall not be supplied to the detriment of that state, under the pretext of a neutral flag. Russia had since made the same concession in treaties she had made during this very war. There was still, therefore, good reason to hope that these powers would recollect the wrong they were doing this country;

as it was committed in the face of treaties, and in contradiction to the law of nations, and all authorities on that law. There was a time when it would not have been prudent in this country to resist such a combination as that now formed in the north of Europe; but thanks to the noble earl who presided over the Admiraltythanks to our gallant naval officers and sailors-we were now in a situation not only to resist all such unjustifiable proceedings, but had it in our power to oppose the whole world, if it should be united against us. Our right to search neutrals was not to depend on the will of Russia; and if this right was relinquished, the maritime strength of the country was gone for ever, and the sun of British glory was set.-His lordship now adverted to the scarcity and dearness of provisions. He was persuaded, from the eager manner in which persons of the highest rank and largest fortune embraced the measures of economy in the use of provisions, recommended by the executive government, that the House would be unanimous in using every mode that could be devised to remedy the scarcity, and prevent a recurrence of the evil. Ireland, in this, would give a proof of the benefit of the union. That fertile land, when the capital of this country had found its way there, would produce a great deal more than ever towards the supply of this country. Even from the last harvest, some grain would be spared for our consumption. Many useful plans might certainly be adopted in England to increase the growth of corn. Something beneficial might also be done by revising the corn laws. It was a delicate subject; yet it had been held by very judicious men, that the policy on which those laws were grounded was not the wisest; and even many, who thought those laws necessary, still admitted that useful modifications might be adopted. From the consideration of domestic subjects, he would next beg leave to call the attention of the House to the present state of Europe. prospects before us were certainly far from being pleasing; but, at the same time, there was no cause for despondency. Of the government of France he did not expect to hear it said, that it was sincere in talking of a general peace. The first consul, in affecting to negociate, had attempted to draw the court of Vienna into a separate peace; and in offering to treat with this country also for a separate

The

peace, he had shown his intention to avoid a general peace. The interest of his power demanded a continuation of war. He hoped the agents, friends, and admirers of France, would not proceed in making this country the dupe of its artifices. The generals of France, after every victory, hold the language of peace; congratulate the first consul, and the French nation, on the power it will give them of making a general peace. The sincerity of these professions will soon be tried. England would not make a separate peace with France, because she was bound by treaty not to negociate without Austria. She gave the example of dignity and good faith. Unhappily, Austria was now in that condition; she had been compelled to break her engagements with this country; and as she must make a separate peace, England would have no obligation to refuse to treat with France separately. The moderation, therefore, and disposition to a peace with England, of the first consul, would be put to the proof. But it was not to be dissembled, how little was to be built upon that. France, it was his firm opinion, was more powerful than at any former period, and her ambition did not seem to be less. The situation of England, with respect to that power, was, therefore, arduous, and demanded all the integrity and zeal of their lordships; that they might not be lulled into a fatal security, that peace might be obtained on equal grounds, and not dictated by an imperious enemy to a divided and betrayed people. The noble duke then moved an Address, which was an echo of the Speech from the throne.

The Earl of Lucan seconded the motion. The union, he said, was an event in which every man who desired the strength and happiness of the empire at large must rejoice; and it was a happy thing that, at a moment when the course of events required all our exertion, we had thus secured the co-operation of the sister kingdom.

Earl Fitzwilliam lamented, that the course of events had made so momentous a change in the aspect of Europe, and in the affairs of this kingdom. He lamented that he could not this day rise to join in an unanimous vote of thanks to his majesty for his most gracious speech on the occasion of the union with Ireland-an event upon which his ideas were sufficiently known. As the event was now past, he would suppress the emotions he felt,

and sincerely hoped that the sanguine expectations of the noble duke would be fulfilled. He could not, however, withhold his astonishment, that, at a crisis so awful, when we were about to be plunged into a new war, his majesty's ministers, instead of giving information to the House, had called upon them for new confidence and new support. He thought it the duty of that House to pause, and to inquire why we were to go to war, before they pledged themselves to support his majesty's ministers in it. He thought that, from a decent regard to the honour of his majesty, as well as from a sense of duty to their country, they ought to institute an inquiry into the causes of this calamitous predicament. He had deeply felt the consequences of the spirit that had broken out in France, and the destruction to which it led. He confessed that his hopes had been disappointed. The people of France had been called upon to rally round the standard of order, and to reinstate the ancient family of their kings. The nations of Europe had felt it their just and wise policy to join this cause; and no man had gone farther than himself, in maintaining the propriety and wisdom of this effort, to oppose the anarchy and disorder of the new doctrines. No man would go further than himself, even yet, in combating for the cause'; but he must own that the thing was hopeless. The anarchy, however, to a great degree was gone. France was now, in fact, established into a monarchy, under republican forms, and under a new ruler. It did not depend on the opinion of an individual; and he feared it no longer depended on the power and energies of the nation to withstand the organization of the new order of things in France. The die was cast: he must submit. But he could not think it possible for that House, consistently with their duty to omit inquiring into the causes of the failure of our efforts, when such unlimited powers had been entrusted to ministers, and when they had all Europe in friendship with them in the common cause. It was surely incumbent on them to inquire how, instead of succeeding in this great object, they had all at once plunged us into a contest with our own allies. The war into which we were now to be plunged, was a war of our own seeking, as far as Sweden and Denmark were concerned. We had it in our power to suspend the discussion of the subject of the neutral

for the advantage and benefit of the enemy? It would have been answered, "Instead of attacking France in her own territory, which she dreads, send them to Holland, or some other dependency, and fritter them away in an unhealthy climate, at a season unfavourable to military opera tions." Just so had they acted; and yet the same persons called again for confidence! The noble earl, after declaring that he could not bring his mind to give support to men who had proved themselves so unfit for the situations that they filled concluded with moving an Amendment, as follows:-" And that this House will proceed with all possible dispatch to make such inquiries into the general state of the nation, but more especially into the conduct of the war, and into our relations with foreign powers, as shall enable us to offer to his majesty such advice as we may think most conducive to the honour of his crown, and the general interests of his people.-And further, to assure his majesty, that if, owing to any unjust and unreasonable pretensions on the part of the enemy, peace cannot be obtained on such terms as are consistent with security; if the representations which his majesty. has directed to be made to the court of Petersburgh, in consequence of the outrages committed against the ships, property, and persons of his subjects, have not received that reparation which the nature of the case requires; and if the differences which appear unhappily to have arisen between his majesty and the other Northern powers, are of a nature. which presses for immediate decision, and the impossibility of any equitable adjustment renders new and more extended wars inevitable, we will give his majesty every support which the means of the country can afford; in the just hope and confidence that his majesty's paternal care for the welfare of his people will induce him to take such measures as shall prevent henceforward a calamitous waste of their remaining strength and resources, either by improvident and ineffectual projects, or by general negligence and profusion; and shall ensure a wise and vigorous administration of their affairs, under the unexampled difficulties in which they are now involved."

code; for it was suspended in the year 1780, when surely this country was not in the very difficult situation in which she stood at present. What evils resulted from suspending the discussion of this question in 1780? None. The confederacy died away: it did not revive again on the breaking out of a new war; and this country suffered nothing from the circumstance. Why, with this experience of a wise and prudent course before our eyes, we did not again avoid the discussion of a subject leading to litigation, he could not comprehend: it was, in his opinion, the height of impolicy. We had, by this rashness, consolidated the powers of Sweden and Denmark with that of Russia. Nothing could be more distinct than the aggression of Russia and the question of the northern confederacy. The violence of the emperor Paul, the seizure of our ships and seamen, the disrespect to his majesty's representative were all separate and distinct from the confederacy for the neutral code; and surely policy demanded that we should have kept them distinct. But we had thrown into the arms of Paul, the powers of Sweden and Denmark. Surely, if it was unjust in Russia to seize and detain C our ships and property, it was equally unjust in us to seize and detain the ships and property of Sweden and Denmark. It had not been thought necessary to our honour or dignity to go to war with them before for the neutral code, and we had suffered nothing by our moderation. It surely, then, was important that the House should inquire into the circumstance of this most calamitous and rash proceeding on the part of ministers, before they pledged themselves to enter into this war. It was incumbent on the House also to inquire into the use which they had made of the powers entrusted to them, before they gave them more. In the years 1799 and 1800, the encroachments made on the property and freedom of the subject in order to arm them with power, had been unexampled; and yet, what had they done with this power? Every object of the war had been frustrated. Every expedition they had undertaken had been attended with discomfiture. The expedition to Holland had been marked by imbecility in the contrivance, as well as criminal delay in the execution. If it had been asked, where 50,000 men, entrusted to ministers, could be placed most

The Earl of Suffolk seconded the amendment. He arraigned all our late expeditions, as being deficient in wisdom, vigour, and promptitude; by which the skill and courage of our troops had been

wasted, and our arms disgraced. He accused ministers of having artfully determined not to employ a noble earl in an expedition for the same reason that Thugut had not employed the archduke Charles, because they were afraid that by his eminent talents he would have given peace to the nation. The noble earl said it was understood that most important topics of discussion were coming on with respect to the establishments of these kingdoms; and it was believed that there were also discussions in another place respecting his majesty's foreign dominions, in all of which the heir apparent was most deeply concerned. Was his consent obtained? Was he called to the cabinet on these subjects? He should feel it his duty to impeach ministers if they proceeded in these things without the consent of his royal highness. There were other most important points, on which, in the event of failure, he should think it his duty to impeach them: the sending 30,000 men to Egypt, and elsewhere, and leaving this country without an adequate defence; the refusal of ministers to negociate; and the unfortunate letter of a noble secretary, which would have disgraced a school-boy, was another strong ground of impeachment. The violation of the treaty for the evacuation of Egypt, so wisely made, was another ground. And all our series of military expeditions was another. Upon all these he should think it his duty to call ministers to account.

The Duke of Athol rejoiced in the union, which he doubted not would produce all the benefits which a noble duke had foretold. He could not say that his ancestors had supported the union with Scotland; but he was sure, if they were alive now, they would confess that they had been mistaken as to its operation. He objected to the amendment, because it tended to repress the energies of the nation, at a moment when we ought to be unanimous in our exertions.

The Earl of Romney was of opinion that Buonaparté was not sincere in his offer to treat for peace; and that our ministers had acted wisely in the course they had taken. The present prospect, he owned, was gloomy; but he would not encourage a desponding idea; for our maritime power depended on the principle which the northern confederacy threatened to overturn.

The Earl of Darnley said, he did not despair of the ability of the country; for

he was convinced that it was still capable of resisting the world in arms; but to give full effect to its energies, an inquiry into some recent transactions was necessary. The present ministers had obtained a confidence on the part of parliament and the people, unexampled in our history. How bad they had used it? Was it in the expeditions to Holland and Ferrol, or in their conduct with respect to the treaty of El-Arisch, that we were to look for a justification of that confidence? Were we to look for it in their treatment of our allies and the neutral powers? The maxim of the Romans was, " parcere subjectis, debellare superbos;" our ministers inverted this maxim; theirs was, " parcere superbis, debellare subjectos." Russia had been permitted, in the first instance, to insult us with impunity; but the moment a weaker power advanced a pretension, an ambassador was sent to negociate at the cannon's mouth, and yet the negotiation terminated without any adjustment of the point in dispute. Ministers asserted, that the northern confederacy was established on the basis of the neutral treaty of 1780. This, however, did not appear to be the fact from count Bernstoff's official note to our ambassador; and they themselves did not think so; otherwise, without the most manifest pusillanimity, they must also declare war against the king of Prussia, who was a party to that treaty, and who had likewise acceded to that now entered into by the Northern powers.

Earl Spencer said, that with respect to the amendment, the noble earl who had moved it appeared to think, that before the strength of the country was exerted, it would be proper to go into an inquiry; that, from the nature of it, must go back through the events of a long period, and involve much difficulty, and this before any decision was come to upon a point which the noble mover himself admitted it was both right should be done, and was the duty of the House to do. This proper act, and this duty, were however to be postponed for an inquiry which must thwart and be injurious to the safety of the country. His majesty's ministers had indeed, as had been stated, enjoyed the confidence of the country-a confidence for which they were grateful. Was the present, however, the time to withdraw from them that confidence? What were the motives urged for so doing? Because the expeditions which administration had