racters were generally well supported. The Prince of Wales was habited in a rich Highland dress, and he had a room exclusively for his own party. An adjoining one represented a subterraneous cave for a number of banditti. These sung several excellent comic songs, for the amusement of his Royal Highness. The banditti consisted of Lord Craven, the Hon. Berkley Craven, Mr. Manners, and Mr. T. Sheridan. The greater part of the Foreign Ministers were present, and also several strangers of distinction, among whom was the beautiful Madame Recamier. Lord Headfort, Lord Besborough, and Lord Ossulston, were directors: the club consisted of nearly four hundred of the first nobility. This was one of the most splendid fêtes ever given in this country.

The Definitive Treaty of Peace was debated with some warmth in both Houses of Parliament. In the House of Lords, Lord Grenville, in an eloquent speech, one of the most masterly ever uttered within the walls of parliament, animadverted strongly upon the terms of the treaty; he pronounced them impolitic and ill digested; and concluded, by moving an Address to the King, that those points which were left untouched by the treaty, should be amicably and speedily adjusted.The Duke of Norfolk refuted the fears of Lord Grenville: he was thankful for the peace: it was necessary to heal all the discords of commerce; and he hoped that war would not be renewed upon trifling points of controversy: he moved an amendment, that the prayer of the Address should be expunged, as altogether unnecessary. Lord Pelham argued, that Lord Grenville had taken a wrong view of the treaty; he perceived the noble Lord merely considered the peace as nominal: he maintained that it was wisely concluded, and that in train it would bring back mutual confidence among the commercial interests.-Lord Mulgrave supported all the points of Lord Pelham; he considered there was no danger of Malta falling into the hands of France, as it already was tired of French alliance. He admitted that the assumption of the presidency of the Cisalpine government by the First Consul of France, was a cir

cumstance of essential moment, yet not so great as to induce him to disturb the treaty of peace. He recommended continual efforts to establish friendship with France. Lord Auckland argued against the apprehensions of Lord Grenville; he did not think that our marine sovereignty was injured, or the Indian possessions encroached upon; he maintained that the resources of the country were sufficient to protect the empire of India. He contended that the nation would continue happy and unassailable as long as she continued true to herself, her sovereign, and her constitution.-Lords Westmoreland and Ellenborough maintained the wisdom of the treaty. The latter thought the succumbency of the Dutch would neither add to or subtract from our naval dominion.-Lord Darnley remained neutral; some points of Ministers met his approbation, as also did those of Lord Grenville: he would vote neither way. The Duke of Richmond spoke against the treaty. The principal supporters of it were the Lord Chancellor and Lord Hobart. After some observations from other noble Lords, the question on Lord Pelham's amendment was carried without a division.

In the House of Commons, Mr. Windham ably objected to the treaty; he contended, that the peace was dear bought; it had imaginary charms, and the people were clamorous for it. He feared every thing from France; her ambition was insatiable; her immense power, which she had gained by conquest, was insufficient for her. The thirst for more would instigate her to fresh infringement; he thought the nation ought to be armed and prepared for attack. He concluded an eloquent speech of three hours, by moving a similar address to that moved by Lord Grenville.-Lord Folkestone seconded the motion. He said the British flag was disgraced by the treaty. Concessions had been made, which the dignity of the country could not suffer, had its dignity been consulted. He saw nothing left by such unwise policy, but dishonour, degradation, and ruin.

Lord Hawkesbury defended the measures of Ministers. The treaty, he said, had secured the integrity of

the British Empire, procured better conditions for our allies than could have been hoped for at the commencement of the negociation; and confirmed the acquisition of two important possessions in the East and West Indies. The treaty was altogether honourable. He concluded by moving, that "the House were fully sensible that his Majesty had wisely consulted the interests of his people in forming a Definitive Treaty on the basis of the Preliminaries; that they relied on his Majesty's known disposition to adhere with the most scrupulous fidelity to his engagements, but that they entertained a perfect confidence that he would be always prepared to defend, against every encroachment, the great sources of the wealth, commerce, and naval power of the empire; and that they were firmly persuaded his Majesty's faithful subjects would be always ready to support the honour of his crown, and the rights, laws, and liberties of their country, with the same spirit they had manifested during the war which was now happily brought to a conclusion."

Mr. Wellesley Pole seconded the motion.-Mr. T. Grenville opposed it in an able speech.-Mr. Dundas said he could not go all the length of Mr. Windham; he regretted the cession of the Cape of Good Hope; it was a most excellent depôt for commerce and military stores; it was the bulwark of India. He had but one opinion on the island of Malta: it was of the utmost importance; by retaining it, the surrounding nations would feel assured of the protection of England. He concluded by voting for the amendment of Lord Hawkesbury.-Sir William Young preferred the address of Mr. Windham: he regretted the loss of Malta ; it would give the French infinite importance in the Mediterranean, and they would readily take the advantage it gave. He regretted the peace with the republic-republics were always ambitious. He hoped that establishments would be formed, so vigorous, that perfect reliance might be placed upon them, in case of a future contest.-Lord Temple and General Maitland followed. The Noble Lord deprecated the treaty as

insecure; the General supported it.-The Master of the Rolls defended it.-Dr. Lawrence urged the objections that had been made to it.-The Chancellor of the Exchequer imagined that such a motion as had come from the Right Honourable Gentleman, would have come from one who had before maintained that the peace was ruinous. He condemned the attack of the treaty by piecemeal; it was not done upon fair grounds; the treaty ought to be taken as a whole; the question ought not to be about points, but whether, under such circumstances as the country had been, war or peace was preferable? He expressed the desire of Ministers, that the peace should be long preserved. Mr. Sheridan moved another amendment, "That the omissions of various opportunities of negociating peace, and particularly the rejection of the overtures of the First Consul in 1800, had led to such a state of affairs, as to justify the important sacrifices which his Majesty had been advised to make." In an eloquent speech he contended, that France had obtained all the advantages of the treaty; and he saw nothing to prevent the Ruler of France from exerting all his energies in another war which he might declare against us. All the prospective danger he attributed to Ministers; there was with them a secret admixture with the ex-servants of the Crown, and he could not give his assent to measures, the principles of which were engendered in secrecy, or were of latent meaning. -Mr. Grey was friendly to the treaty, but not to that part of the amendment which approved of the war; it was unjust, calamitous, and disgraceful.-Mr. William Smith, Mr. Whitbread, and Mr. Bouverie, coincided with Mr. Grey; they dissented from the amendment, but approved of Ministers making peace.-Mr. Windham replied to the objections to the address: it was not the intention of it to censure Ministers, or condemn their policy, which ratified the conditions of peace. On this memorable debate the House divided, and there was a majority of 256 against the address.

About this time, Buonaparte was actively employed for his own personal aggrandizement. The French had

imbibed a military spirit, and their late conquests had changed their character. His object was to fan this propensity, to inflame the already heated imagination, that, so directed, it might not pry into the procedure of his own secret designs. He had long viewed the naval sovereignty of England with jealousy; his object was to obtain the co-operation of the whole talent of France to destroy it, and advance himself in their affections, as the provocative to such an enterprise. For this purpose he instituted what he chose to call a Legion of Honour, for the incorporation of all those who had made themselves conspicuous for talent, military or otherwise. He was deeply skilled in the machinery of the heart, and he knew such an institution would flatter self-love, and bind all chosen into it to him as its head. This Order had no apparent tendency to affect the interests of England; but it was afterwards found it had; for all the talent, all the wisdom of the republic, being congregated, one spirit, the same ambition, was infused into all. All France had no greater wish than for further renown, further conquest. Accordingly, a M. Roederer proposed the institution of the Order in the Legislative Assembly. It would, he said, support the grandeur, the glory of the French nation; it would hold it up to the envy and admiration of the rest of the world. He added a remarkable expression, which seemed to have been taken from the secret intentions of the First Consul, that it was far from improbable, but that the dignity, the honour of the nation, might be attempted to be tarnished by the envious spleen of a new war. He then read the project for the Order, the principles of which were as follow:

or

"The Legion shall be divided into fifteen cohorts, which are to be stationary in different quarters of the empire. Each cohort shall consist of seven great officers, twenty commandants, thirty inferior officers, and 350 privates. Each great officer to receive 5000 franks per annum, and during life; each commandant 2000 franks, each inferior officer 1000 franks, and each private 250; all for life.

Every individual shall swear, on his admission to the Legion, on his honour, that he will devote his life and services to the well-being of the republic; to the preservation of its territorial indivisibility; to