the successive desertion of our allies, gravely told us that these allies were blind to their own best interests, and that nothing on the part of his majesty's ministers could justify their treachery. When I see that they have been so often deceived, I must hesitate to give implicit testimony to their assertions about the fidelity of our ally, while I must lament that the papers which alone can ascertain this fidelity have been so obstinately refused. As these papers, however, are refused, we are left to calculate on what is kept back by what is disclosed. Now, Sir, let me ask the gentlemen on the other side to recollect, that the treaty with Austria was never concluded till the news of the diastrous battle of Marengo had reached Vienna. I ask, whether, prior to that time, the Emperor did object to come into any positive engagements of not making a separate peace; and whether his co-operation was not refused till his assistance in the common cause was rendered useless by the fate of war, and the conclusion of the armistice. This armistice is to last till the answer returns from Vienna; instantly St. Julien sets out for Paris, and, in the mean time, the armistice continues. Now, I say, that, from this prolongation of the armistice, Buonaparté must have supposed that St. Julien did treat by the orders of his sovereign, else he could never have consented to continue an armistice from which he lost opportunities which might never return, and gained nothing but the hope of peace. St. Julien signed preliminaries, said M. Otto; he did not, affirms lord Grenville. The Emperor has been uniformly faithful, re-echoes the chancellor of the exchequer! I wish them to see the whole of the matter cleared up and explained by something better than contradictory testimony. At length the notion of a joint negotiation is started; a determination seems to be formed on the part of the two courts, to co-operate with each other in vigorously resisting the common enemy in the event of a peace being refused. The discussion for a naval armistice takes place, and, on its failure, our great ally resolves to take the field to resist his ambitious foe. He hastens to leave his capital with solemn preparation; his last will is deposited in the hands of his friend, and, like another Decius, he departs to offer up himself for his country, Does a vigorous prosecution of the war ensue? Are the first days [VOL. XXXV.]

of his command signalized by a bold resistance or a glorious victory? None of these things take place: he terminates his warlike career by an armistice! Is this the ally so much distinguished by fidelity? Is it for him that we are called upon to make still further exertions? Is it for him that we are called upon to make still greater sacrifices? But gentlemen tell us, that the cabinet of Vienna heard of the late breach of neutrality with indignation, and that they coupled together the words Perfidy and Tuscany. But, Sir, I see none of this boasted indignation. I see, indeed, that the council sat in solemn debate for several hours; that general Bellegarde, like his illustrious master, makes a show of resenting the injury; and the result I find to be a new truce, by which the two armies are to share the unfortunate country. From all these circumstances, and from the face of the papers, I think, Sir, that ministers have acted very unwisely in rejecting the offers made for a separate peace; for, have we not already attempted a separate negotiation, and may we not finally be compelled to treat separately? On this point the secretary at war speaks boldly and openly. Does he not say that we should not negociate, or think of peace, only as a lesser evil, and that even when it is concluded, it must be with an hostile mind? Ministers, then, will not seek for peace in the spirit of peace and reconciliation, by which sentiments only a secure and lasting peace can be obtained. Besides, when they are known to be actuated by be actuated by opposite tempers, must not a proposal of peace from them be sufficient to defeat its conclusion? Such proposals from them must be a confession of weakness; for it cannot be supposed that their malice is assuaged, or their animosity abated. On the contrary, they will think of nothing but courting new alliances, and of continuing a contest in which they will still be foiled, unless this House interferes, and recommends the administration of our affairs to hands more capable of rescuing us from our present difficulties and dangers, and of restoring to the country the blessings of peace."-Mr. Grey, after adverting to the late conduct of Russia and Prussia, and to the claim which the northern powers seemed again inclined to set up to the independence of their flag, observed, that ministers might have easily foreseen this effect of the change of their [2 Y]

disposition towards England, but that they had taken no measure to avert it. As all these proofs of incapacity and want of foresight must be evident to the House, he would give his most cordial support to a motion, the adoption of which might speedily tend to disentangle the nation from its present embarrass.

ments.

-

Mr. Secretary Dundas said :-Sir; the chief object of the motion which has been made, and of the arguments we have heard is, to convince us that it is not our interest to connect ourselves with Austria; and this is the advice which the gentlemen opposite give us at a moment when the recommencement of hostilities between Austria and France has been announced, when we do not know whether hostilities have not actually recommenced, or what has been the issue of the conflict. But we do know, that the advice which the hon. gentleman gives us is neither more nor less than this-to say to France, "press upon Austria as hard as you can, for we have counselled the king of Great Britain to give her no assistance." This is the general object of the motion; it does not say whether the ministers have acted hitherto right or wrong: indeed, one part of our conduct has met with applause I mean, our not consenting to a naval armistice. In arguing then upon this ground, I need not remind the House of that established maxim of our constitution, that, in all questions of peace or war, the decision belongs to the king, and that it is not the province of this House to interpose, unless upon very important occasions. These occasions can scarcely occur, except when the interposition of the House ought to be accompanied with an advice to his majesty to choose new counsellors. Gentlemen will not surely deny that we are as sincere in our wishes for peace as Buonaparté. We have been told, that our treaty with Austria ends in March; but gentlemen have not told us, that government are precluded from maturely deliberating whether it would be for the interest of this country to renew the engagement. Whether it may be proper or not to renew that engagement, must depend on circumstances. In the best times of this country, it has ever been considered the interest of this country, when at war with France, to obtain a powerful ally on the continent. If this general maxim is admitted, I do not

think that the gentlemen on the other side are better judges whether Austria is a good ally than we are. The result, then, is, that they are calling upon his majesty to take their advice, which they acknowledge they are not in a situation to give. Gentlemen are very fond of using the word peace; but I wish to guard the House against the effect which it may produce. Before they are influenced by an expression, let them ask themselves whether peace can be obtained or not? It is surely worth while to ascertain that point, before they tell the enemy that the country is in such a situation that, if it does not obtain peace, it must be ruined. Now, though I am far from believing that any such consequence would ensue if we do not obtain peace, yet, I think it would be as well if such language were not held, unless it be the opinion of gentlemen that peace upon any terms ought to be obtained. If gentlemen advise us to give up our connexion with Austria in a nego tiation for peace, we must consent to give up any assistance we might derive from her co-operation in war. We are in a situation in which we do not know upon what terms we can obtain peace: we may be forced to carry on the war; and would it, under these circumstances, be prudent in us to shake off the only powerful ally we have upon the continent? Many persons think we should obtain better terms of peace if we were to negociate separate from Austria; but whatever their opinion may be upon that subject, they must agree, that, until we arrive at the period of negotiation, the assistance of Austria must be of great importance. Whether, with a view to that assistance, we ought to grant another subsidy, is a totally distinct point: the question is, whether we ought to say to Austria, we may be obliged to continue the war, but we will not take the benefit of your assistance? If, then, the motion of the hon. gentleman be rejected, no possible inconvenience can ensue; but if we adopt it, its consequences may be most injurious, because we shall tell the enemy, that after March next, Austria will no longer be our ally, and that France may take her measures accordingly. The hon. gentlemen assert, that the cabinet of Vienna would not sign the subsidiary treaty with Great Britain, until it received the news of the fatal battle of Marengo. This has been advanced and argued upon confidently; but I do assert that the treaty was signed five days

Debate on Mr. Robson's Motion respecting Corn used by the Cavalry.] Dec. 2. Mr. Robson said, that the motion he proposed to bring forward was of importance, inasmuch as, within these few days, nay hours, a change of circumstances had taken place with regard to provisions, which might render new measures necessary. Had not the most magnanimous Paul, who had so often been the subject of encomium, destroyed our hopes of supply from the Baltic, from which quarter so much was expected, and actually seized our ships and their commanders? Surely we had long enough been the dupes of such deception. This melancholy affair, which had so much to do with the price of provisions, was treated, when the subject of the war was last night before the House, in a most ludicrous manner: heaps of rubbish-mops and pails -were introduced, to complete the joke. The present cavalry establishment had been augmented beyond all precedent; and he could not but consider this as the most consuming, destructive engine of public expenditure. He wished to state to the House the number of cavalry kept now, and to compare it with what was kept during the American war. For home service the greatest number during the American war was 6,858, besides 494 in America, making in all 7,352, the cost of which was about 388,000l.: that war did not fail for want of cavalry; and he was led to look for some cause why this 7,000 cavalry, and the same sum of money, should not do now as well as then. He now found the regular disposeable force of this country to stand as follows: Guards 11,792; 23 Battalions of foot, composing 19,871; Invalids 6,099; Cornish Miners 633; Fencible Infantry 8,775; Militia 39,404; Scotch Militia6,026, Dutch troops at the isle of Wight 5,000, making in all 97,600 men, besides different corps of flying artillery, corps of artillery, engineers, fencible marines, &c. Of volunteers bearing his majesty's commission, some were paid, suuh as the volunteer cavalry 16,000, East India House volunteers 2,000, volunteers over all Eng

land, at least 130,000. Total 148,000 men. To all these we might add the corps of barrack-masters, who were fighting for a good situation; and he would ask why, during the American war, we had 7,352 cavalry, which cost 387,9771. 5s. 4d.; and for this war we were to have 23,581, which cost 1,638,440.? Why was the food of man to be now eaten up by 23,581 cavalry, especially when he witnessed such loyalty in the most trying times? When every one was crying out on account of their small incomes, and the shopkeepers were almost in a state of starvation, the soldiers were living a life of luxury upon the fat of the land. It was needless for him to point out the good consequences which would result from a reduction of the cavalry; the country called for it. He concluded with moving, "That an humble Address be presented to his Majesty, that he will be graciously pleased to give directions that the utmost economy be used in the expenditure of corn by horses used in the service of government."

Mr. Windham said, that his answer to the hon. gentleman's motion was, that all possible economy in this respect was now used. And after all, any additional economy that could be used respecting the feed of cavalry, would be such a drop in the ocean as was not worthy the consideration of the House. The hon. gentleman's object seemed to be, not so much to reduce the quantity of oats consumed, as of horses; it went to the reduction of the military establishment of the country. If the hon. gentleman properly reflected on the extensive war in which we were involved, he would see it was no argument, that because we had had such a number in one war, we should have no more in another. The hon. gentleman might as well say, "Strike off so many ships of the line-reduce your expenses in time of war, and give so much to the poor." The object of the hon. gentleman's motion had been anticipated, and as considerable a diminution of the feed of cavalry had taken place as circumstances would admit of. The simple consideration that remained was, that if we were to have cavalry at all for public service, we must have them in good condition, and that could not be attained without allowing them a sufficient quantity of food.

Mr. Jones said, that this was a question between the food of man and the food of

horses. Ever since parliament had met, the price of bread had increased. In Worcester numbers lived upon turnips; and in York, numbers lived upon greens, &c. Every thing ought to be done to save the country from starvation.

The Master of the Rolls thought the motion unnecessary: its object could be obtained without an address to his majesty to interpose: he should therefore move the other orders of the day.

The House was counted for a division; but there being only 34 members present, the House adjourned.

Debate on Mr. Jones's Motion for the Dismissal of His Majesty's Ministers.] Dec. 4. Mr. Jones rose and said:-Mr. Speaker; In consequence of the notice I gave some days since, I rise to bring forward a motion on the present war. I assure you, Sir, that it is most irksome and grievous to me to bring forward the proposition which I shall offer this night to the House for their consideration. As to its acceptance or rejection, no personal motives guide me; measures, not men, are my object. And, verily thinking that his majesty's present councils have nearly brought this question to death's door, my country, my constituents, and my God loudly call on me to do my duty in the most conscientious and determined manner. By the king's speech from the throne, on the opening of this session, and by the subsequent and rapeated declarations of ministers since, and peculiarly manifested in the rejection of a motion brought in by an hon. gentleman (Mr. Sheridan), as to a separate peace not being adviseable; however the councils of Austria may be changed, it is evident that ideas of making a separate peace have never entered into the heads of his majesty's ministers. It seems to be the determination of ministers to pursue this endless contest, and to go on in lavishing British blood, in spite of the calamities which have befallen us, in spite of the disgraceful failures which have occurred, and in defiance of the famine which now threatens to desolate the country. This war seems their idol, and they bow to their idol. And, moreover, they have made the nation bow low indeed, and have sacrificed to the bloody shrine of this their idol, millions of lives of their fellowcreatures, millions of British guineas, the fortunes of the middle ranks of men, and some of the dearest interests of the empire.

Let me stop to observe on the destruction of the middle order of men. Old France, before the revolution, had but two descriptions of people, the very highest and the very lowest. God forbid that only two orders of men should ever be found in old England! His majesty's ministers, Sir, tell you the resources of the empire are not exhausted. I hope and believe they tell the truth. God forbid they should be! But why do they tell you so? Because they suffer no diminution of income. Their annual income arises in great part from the public purse, and, in many cases, instead of diminishing, increaseth with the distresses of individuals and the general impoverishment of the empire. Here I must observe, I do not think many of his majesty's ministers over-paid; they earn their salaries by their industry and attention at least (however ineffectual) to their duty; but no man ought to have the salary of ten, which in three or four instances is the case, and in one particularly, (lord Buckingham's salary, as one of the tellers of the Exchequer), which increaseth with the war, from 3,500l. to 17,000l. per annum! There are two or three others equally enormous and noticeable.

In the first place, Sir, I object to the continuance of this war, inasmuch as it tends to produce the present scarcity, the dearness of all the articles of life, and the famine itself. The chancellor of the exchequer has said, that, in his idea, it does not produce any material scarcity. Sir, I must differ much on this point, and think it a primary cause, no doubt, as to an inland war, and I think I can prove it to be so. Why, Sir, when you recollect the enormous quantity of floating paper currency, does not that tend to promote monopoly and scarcity, and dearness of all provisions. Let it be recollected, that the chancellor of the exchequer has substituted paper, in short, downright assignats, for gold. That circumstance of itself is enough; but it is still worse, for the forgeries are so great, that I shall mention a fact which has come to my knowledge, that, at this time, no less than seventy bank clerks are occupied in the detection of forged notes all over England! Without doors what was the consequence? Such was the depreciation of this currency in the public opinion, that since the war every article of food and raiment has been doubled and trebled in price.-Furthermore, Sir, but for the