mencement of hostilities; not as a cause of war, but as an act of war. Here all discussion about Malta, should have ended. Lord Whitworth had said, the occupation of Malta by England, in some shape or other, was necessary; and Talleyrand had said such occupation would be deemed the commencement of hostilities, Ultimatum is sent after ultimatum; and at last you give up the idea of retaining Malta for ever, on the dignified and honorable condition, that France agreed to your reserving it for ten years only, and secured your possession in full sovereignty of the island of Lampedosa. Your last Your last ultimatum,(for however absurd may be the expression, there is no way of stating the proceedings of this negociation, but by talking of the 1st, 2d, 3d, and last ultimatum) by which you, of course, pledge yourself to abide; and which, if it had been agreed to, would have brought the negociation to a favourable issue; proposed, that in consideration of the immense accessions of strength obtained by France, upon the continent, she should give up Malta for ten years, and steal Lampedosa for you for ever! You therefore gravely state, that at the end of ten years, the vast accession of force to France, confirmed by ten years possession; the immense increase of her resources, ripened to ten years maturity; her possession of Italy, her influence in Germany, in Spain, and in Portugal, and her command of Holland, will be counterbalanced by the enormous acquisition of a barren rock, of an island without an inhabitant, of that nursery of gulls, Lampedosa! The next cause of war is

the attack upon the liberty of the press, and the requisition to transport the emigrants to Canada or elsewhere. I call upon ministers to point out to me, in any part of the correspondence, which lays upon your table, one remonstrance against the insolent attack upon the liberty of the press. Lord Hawkesbury writes very prettily on the subject, and lord Whitworth assures M. Talleyrand that it is impossible for lord Hawkesbury to controul the licence of the press here, because he could not influence a single newspaper for his own objects. He trusts, therefore, that the first consul will not be so unreasonable as to insist upon his controlling the language of the news writers and pamphleteers in this country.-But have we one word of remonstrance against the insolent language, or the insulting tone of the French government? Can ministers point out one instance in which they directed lord Whitworth to ask satisfaction for the outrage, and to say, in distinct terms, that unless interference in our own concerns, by France, was distinctly and openly disavowed, he would leave the country? No; in proportion as France increased in insolence, we multiplied concession; and the more revolting and violent became her demands, the weaker and the more inefficient became our remonstrances. When WO look to the subject, relating to the French emigrants, disgraceful indeed, is the tale we have to tell, and disgusting the scene of humiliation which his majesty's ministers have acted. The first attack made by? the French government is a remon→ strance from Talleyrand to Mr.

Merry,

Merry, against the conduct of the French princes, in publickly wearing the insignia of their orders, which Talleyrand describes as insulting to his government. The tame and disgraceful answer which ministers make to this childish and impertinent complaint is, that it would be more proper if they (the French princes and nobles) abstained from it. But how could ministers help it, or prevent it? Was that the language for his majesty's ministers to hold in reply to such a remonstrance? I ask them, if ever the chastising hand of providence were to plunge this country into the same misfortunes which have overwhelmed France, if ever our nobles were sent to seek refuge in a foreign land, how they would brook the idea of our nobility surrendering the badges of their rank, and the insignia of their honors, because they no longer dared to wear them? Yet this is the conduct which ministers think it would have been more proper if the French nobles had followed.--The next demand the French government makes, is that the French superior clergy and noblesse, who were emigrants in England, should be removed from the kingdom, to Canada! These august, these venerable characters, who, true to their. religion, and faithful to their sovereign, gave up even the means. of subsistence, and left their friends, relatives, and dearest connexions, rather than remain in the land where that sovereign had been murdered, and that religion prophaned; who, encouraged by the general voice of England, sought that refuge here, which almost every other country refused them.

We are called upon by the authors of their miseries, who are at this moment revelling in their spoils, and exulting in their misfortunes, to remove them from the refuge we gave them, and thus to violate that hospitality, on the faith of which they came. Those gallant men, who so sacrificing every consideration of personal risque, made an unavailing, but glorious attempt, to restore the throne of their kings, and to establish the altars of their faith, whose exertions we animated, and whose arms we assisted; who engaged in this memorable struggle on the faith of British promises, and in the confidence of British assistance; we are called upon by the very men against whom they fought, and against whom we once made common cause with them, to deporter' to Canada. Let gentlemen recollect the meaning attached to that word by the present rulers of France, let them recollect the horrors of the former deportation to Cayenne, as described by the miserable survivors of it; let them recollect, that to a deportation of this kind, the French government wished to doom the loyal and persecuted emigrants of France, and then let them turn to the answer which his majesty's ministers chose to give to this CRUEL, this INFERNAL proposal. His majesty is very desirous to obviate any cause of complaint or uneasiness with respect to their persons, and measures are in contemplation, and will be taken, for the purpose of removing them out of his majesty's European dominions.' I shut the book in disgust, in horror, and in shame.--In disgust and in horror at the bar- *

barity which could dictate this sentence, and inshame and in confusion at the eternal stain and blot which it will fix upon this page of our history. I have thus gone through the different points which appear to me to bear upon the subject before you, and to justify the resolutions which are submitted to the House. From these extracts, which I have made from the papers on your table, from the facts which they avow, and from the dates which confirm these facts, thence deductions are to be made. The first is, that from the moment the treaty of Amiens was signed, his majesty's ministers were aware of the hostility avowed and expressed by the government of France towards this country; secondly, that being so aware of them, they concealed that conviction from the country, and encouraged the people with hopes of permanent peace and tranquillity, knowing at the moment they held out these hopes, that they were false and illusory; and thirdly, that on many ports, which they now make, either distinctively or collectively, causes of war, they made no remonstrance, or such remonstrances only, as were degrading to the dignity of the nation; and that when they interfered or mediated, they interfered without firmness, they mediated without honor."

Mr. Hobhouse defended, at some length, the conduct of ministers, against the accusations which had been brought against them. He did not recollect, that ministers had made declarations, in the forms mentioned by lord Temple.

Mr. Charles W. Wynne, condemned ministers, for submitting to

so many insults from France. He considered, that this submission to insult was, whether in a state, or in an individual, the surest way to have them repeated.

Mr. Courtenay, compared the conduct of ministers, in breaking the peace which they had made, to the doctrine of Hippocrates, who advised, in case a limb was broken, and badly set, that it should be broken over again, and take the chance of setting it better.

Mr. T. Grenville, re-stated the various objections, which had before been made to the conduct of ministers, during the short interval of peace. He dwelt particularly on their interference in Switzerland, at a time when it was too late for their interference to do any good.

The chancellor of the exchequer then rose, in vindication of the conduct of ministers. As to the peace of Amiens, he now entertained the same opinion, that he did at the conclusion of it: namely, that in the then existing circumstances, it was a wise and necessary measure, As it was deemed right to enter into that treaty, ministers had, after the conclusion of it, done every thing in their power to maintain it, He was proud to attribute to the forbearance of ministers, that spirit, which now so universally animated the nation. Upon the signing of the peace, ministers did not calculate upon a very friendly disposition, on the part of the French government, and therefore they had prepared considerable establishments, both military and naval. He admitted, that in perusing the documents on the table, many acts of forbearance might be found, on the part of ministers; but nothing

dishonorable or disgraceful would appear. The house was in possession of every document that could be produced, and all that ministers now asked, was their decision.

Mr. Pitt then rose, and addressed the house, in nearly the following terms: "If I possessed a full and clear opinion, on the merits of the case, to the extent of either directly negativing or adopting the resolutions, which have been proposed, I should, following the unbiassed dictates of my conscience, give my vote on that side to which my judgment inclined. If I agreed with my right hon. friend (Mr. Grenville), in thinking, that the first steps we ought to take, in duty to the public, were, by a retrospective survey of the conduct of ministers, to judge of their fitness to exercise the functions to which they are called; and if, upon that result, I were forced to conclude, that the papers, on the table, afforded evidence of criminality, of incapacity, of misconduct; then, however painful the sacrifice of private feelings might be, in taking such a part in the case of individuals, whom I respect, I should feel myself bound to concur in an address to his majesty, for the removal of his ministers. On the other hand, if I were one of those, who considered the explanation, afforded by ministers upon general points, so clear as to justify a decided negative of the propositions, moved by the hon. gentleman over the way; a negative which would imply approbation-for in such a matter, to avoid ground of censure, may be considered the same as to have deserved applause-I should

feel myself happy, in joining in a decisive negative to the motion; but to this extent, cither of approbation or of censure, I am unable to go. I cannot concur in the latter, or in the extent of charges involved in the propositions, which have been moved. Besides, I am aware of the inconveniencies that would result, from supporting any measure which has the tendency of the present motion, unless the clearest necessity exists for it, Though I do not dispute the right of this house, to address the king for the removal of ministers, yet, nothing is more mischievous than a parliamentary interference, by declared censure, rendering the continuance of ministers in office impossible, unless that interference is justified by extraordinary exigency of affairs. Not disputing the right of the house, I contend, that the right is to be governed by a sound discretion, and by the public interest: we must look to considerations of public expediency, of public safety. There are some questions, in the discussion of which gentlemen must feel more than they can well express; and this, with regard to the interference of parliament for removing ministers, is one of them. Admitting even, that there were considerable grounds of dissatisfaction at the conduct of ministers, would it tend to promote those exertions, to encourage those sacrifices, which the difficulty and danger of our situation required? Would our means of sustaining the struggle, in which we are engaged, and of calling forth those resources necessary for our defence, by cutting short the date of administration, and unsettling the whole system of

govern

government? To displace one administration, and to introduce a new one, is not the work of a day. With all the functions of executive power suspended, with the regular means of communication between parliament and the throne interrupted; weeks, nay months, wasted in doubt, uncertainty, and inaction; how could the public safety consist, with a state of things so violent and unnatural, as would result from parliament rendering one administration incapable of exercising any public functions, with out any other efficient government being obtained in its stead? I will venture to hint also, that after such a step, any administration that should succeed, be it what it might, and what it would be, must still depend upon the crown; and would therefore feel itself placed in a most delicate situation. Toput the matter, as conscientiously and delicately as possible; would any set of men feel their introduction to power, in these circumstances, to be such as to enable them to discharge, in a manner satisfactory to themselves, the duties which so eventful a period must impose? These are considerations for the crown and the public; and they outweigh all those which present themselves, on the partial view of the advantages which could be hoped, from a prosecution of that censure and dissolution of administration, to which the propositions tend. I am aware, that the right hon. gentleman, on the floor, and my friends on the same bench, with him, must feel their situation irksome, under the weight of a question so important, in which they are personally involved, remaining undecided. Nevertheless,

when other sacrifices are demanded, for the public interest, personal feelings must be overlooked. Those who, with me, have not made up their minds to the extent of censuring ministers, by the adoption of propositions; or approving their conduct, by agreeing to a direct negative, must pursue some middle course. Those who, on the examination of the papers, from any feeling of regret for the steps which ministers took in the negociation, must consult their conscience on the vote they are to give. They cannot do that which implies approbation, when they do not find, from the case made out, that approbation has been deserved; neither can they vote severe censure, leading to an address for removal, when they do not consider the charges made, as completely sustained. Ilaving stated the opposite lines of conduct, which present themselves in deciding upon the propositions, I do not intend to enter into any detailed discussion of the papers. I wish, if good cannot be obtained by continuing to discuss them, comparable to the evil of interrupting the course of our parliamentary duty, to suspend them altogether. Since things more urgent, and more important, demand our care, let us keep the parliamentary pledge we have given. I shall behold, with much greater satisfaction, as first proofs of our determination to support his majesty, with our lives and fortunes, you, presenting a strong bill of supply, providing resources, not merely for every demand of public service, but adequate to every scale of execution; a measure that will display and call forth the means of sustaining the

struggle,