objects. But surely the expences of the Prince of Wales must be still more dependent on the increase of prices, and the charges on the mode of living? The Prince of Wales having in the first outset of life exceeded his allowance, has been restricted to 60,000l. a-year. But did parliament in his case consider the change in the value of money, and in the price of living, by which the Prince of Wales must be so much affected? The Prince of Wales, in 1787, having declared that his allowance, as then fixed, was sufficient, I conceived that he ought to adhere to that declaration, and that a reservation of his new establishment should be made for the payment of his debts. But has not the crown, by conferring marks of honour on Sir Fletcher Norton, and more recently by the message in 1786, declared that the sum of 900,000l. was sufficient? for the civil list ought to be no less bound to adhere to that engagement, than a young man just entering into life. But, if it is proper to maintain the splendour of the monarchy, the same argument holds good in the case of the heir apparent. Parliament, however, thought it right for a season to abridge the splendour of the Prince of Wales's establishment, in order to supply a fund for the extinction of his debts; and the same principle ought now to be acted upon. If this be not adopted, at any rate only the tradesmen's bills should now be paid; but the occasional payments, and other branches of debt, should be treated agreeably to the spirit of Mr. Burke's act. I hope that peace will put an end to that species of misrepresentation so prevalent of late years, that every man who opposes measures calculated to increase the influence of the crown, and the power of a minister, is an enemy to the monarchy itself. The influence of the 'crown has increased so much, that a temporary reform in its means of expence could be attended with no abridgment of its authority. Formerly, the crown had more to give with smaller burdens. Its influence now arises from the enormous naval and military establishments, which the wars of Europe and our relations with other powers have produced. In these there is ample compensation for any suspension of inferior offices connected with the civil list. Mr. Justice Blackstone has been quoted. Mr. Justice Blackstone rather leaned to the principles most in fashion anterior to the Revolution; and yet this writer has the good sense and candour to admit, that it may be doubted whether the admirable arrangement in fixing the civil list has not compensated to the crown for many of the prerogatives which it formerly used to exercise. I can truly affirm, that it is my wish to contribute every exertion of mine, by every legitimate means, to promote the happiness

and glory of the sovereign; but there is a duty I owe to my constituents and the country, not inferior to the respect I owe to the monarchy. I wish to address the throne in language different from the language of servility. Courtiers may flatter kings, by telling them that parliament will pay whatever they think proper to spend. A different language is more seasonable and more consonant to the principles which placed his majesty on the throne. I would recommend this House to address his majesty with due respect, to suggest to him that he ought to reject the insidious advice of his courtiers; that he should distrust the ministers who mislead him into unnecessary expence; that it is his duty in all matters of finance to comply with the restrictions of parliament; and that it will be for the dignity of his crown, and for the prosperity of his people, to quadrate his expences by the rules which the wisdom of parliament has prescribed.

ADDRESS ON THE KING'S MESSAGE RELATIVE TO THE WAR WITH FRANCE.

May 24. 1803.

ON the 16th of May the chancellor of the exchequer presented

the following message from his majesty:

"GEORGE R.

"His majesty thinks it proper to acquaint the House of Com mons, that the discussions which he announced to them in his message of the 8th of March last, as then subsisting between his majesty and the French government, have been terminated; that the conduct of the French government has obliged his majesty to recall his ambassador from Paris, and that the ambassador from the French republic has left London.

"His majesty has given directions for laying before the House of Commons, with as little delay as possible, copies of such papers as will afford the fullest information to his parliament at this im portant conjuncture.

"It is a consolation to his majesty to reflect, that no endeavours have been wanting, on his part, to preserve to his subjects the blessings of peace; but, under the circumstances which have occurred to disappoint his just expectations, his majesty relies with confidence on the zeal and public spirit of his faithful Commons, and on the exertions of his brave and loyal subjects, to support him in his determination to employ the power and reources of the nation, in opposing the spirit of ambition and

incroachment which at present actuates the councils of France, in upholding the dignity of his crown, and in asserting and maintaining the rights and interests of his people."

On the 23d of May, Lord Hawkesbury moved, "That an humble address be presented to his majesty to return his majesty the thanks of this House for his most gracious message, and for the communication of the several papers which have been laid before them in obedience to his majesty's commands: To assure his majesty of the just sense we entertain of his majesty's anxious and uniform endeavours to preserve to his people the blessings of peace, and of our perfect confidence in his majesty's disposition to terminate the calamities of war, whenever that object can be accomplished consistently with the honour of his majesty's crown, and the interests of his people: That we have observed with the strongest feelings of indignation, that his majesty's endeavours have been frustrated by that restless spirit of ambition and domination by which the government of France have been led to advance pretensions the most extravagant and injurious, and to avow designs at once inconsistent with the obligations of good faith, and with the essential interests of the British empire; and that for these indignities and provocations, his majesty has in vain demanded satisfaction and redress: That, actuated by these sentiments, we feel that the trust reposed in us by a brave and loyal people, requires on our part a firm determination to co-operate with his majesty in calling forth the resources of the United Kingdom, for the vigorous support of a cause in which are involved the dignity of his majesty's crown, the rights and liberties of his people, and all that is dear and valuable to us as a free and independent nation." The address was supported by Mr. Pitt, Lord Castlereagh, Mr. Wilberforce, and others. Mr. Grey acknowledged the necessity of resisting the spirit of encroachment shewn by France; yet, with a view to leave an opening for accommodation, moved as an amendment, to leave out from the first paragraph to the end of the address, in order to insert these words "To assure his majesty of our firm determination to co-operate with his majesty in calling forth the resources of the United Kingdom for the vigorous prosecution of the war in which we are involved; and to express to his majesty the satisfaction with which his faithful Commons have received his majesty's gracious declaration, that he is willing to afford, as far as may be consistent with his own honour, and the interests of his people, every facility to any just arrangement by which the blessings of peace may be restored to his loyal subjects." The debate was adjourned to the following day, when after the original address had been supported by Mr. Thomas Grenville, Mr. Dallas, General Maitland, Mr. W. Elliot, Mr. Serjeant Best, and Mr. Canning; and the amendment by Mr. Whitbread,

Mr. Fox rose, and assured the house of his unwillingness to ask for its attention, after the long and able discussion which the important subject before them had already received, after the fair and comprehensive manner in which his honour

able friend (Mr. Grey) had brought forward his amendment to the address, and after that full investigation which it had met with from the several gentlemen who had spoken both on that and the preceding day, did he not feel it his absolute duty to the people of England, to endeavour at least, as well as he was able, to prevail on that house, by the timely interposition of its counsels, to rescue them, not only from a considerable danger, but from the certain misery which must be their doom in any event of war, even the most successful.

He should first endeavour to clear the subject from the embarrassment into which it had been thrown by some of those who had supported the address, and particularly by a right honourable friend of his on the bench near him, (Mr. T. Grenville,) for so he would call him, notwithstanding any difference of political sentiment that might subsist between them, knowing that those differences produced as little alteration on that gentleman's private feelings as they did on his own. Among those differences he should class the opinion to which he was about to refer, and which had also received the support of a right honourable gentleman who had just spoken (Mr. Canning). To the course recommended by those gentlemen it was impossible for him to assent. It was their object to divide the question in debate into two parts, and to consider the justice and expediency of the war as totally separate from the conduct of the ministers which had produced it. With regard to a question of war, it was, generally speaking, like any other question, extremely difficult to be distinguished from the measures by which it had been occasioned. In the case immediately before the House, the distinction for which those gentlemen contended, appeared more particularly inadmissible than in almost any other. Might not the justice of this war, for instance, rest entirely on the refusal of explanation where explanation had been demanded? on the refusal of redress where redress had been demanded? or on the refusal of satisfaction where satisfaction had been demanded? Was it not, therefore, in the very nature of the thing that the whole question, as to such refusal, might, nay to a certainty must, depend on the terms, the time, and the circumstances under which we had asked this explanation, this redress, or this satisfaction?

Putting the case, however, of its being possible to admit that, without such previous enquiry, it could be fairly decided in that House whether a foreign power was right or wrong in its refusal of satisfaction, Mr. Fox called strongly on his right honourable friend on the bench near him, and on others who agreed with that gentleman in opinion, to say whether, considering the manner in which the address expressed itself, they could with any consistency support it? In the language of

that address it was affirmed, that his majesty (which, of course, always meant to say his ministers) had been "anxious and uniform in his endeavours to preserve to his people the blessings of peace." For himself, Mr. Fox said, that voting on this awful event, he could not conscientiously agree, that the efforts of his majesty's advisers had been anxious and uniform to preserve peace. From a due examination of the materials before him, he could find no such anxiety or unifomity in their efforts. The very reverse might, in many instances, be inferred; without much further inquiry, therefore, he could not assent to any proposition which should affirm that fact. But if the gentlemen, to whom he alluded, thought differently from him on this point, (although he scarcely conceived it possible that they should,) and if they were, indeed, ready to declare that the ministers had been uniform in their efforts to preserve peace, would they be equally ready to applaud them for it? they, who had constantly condemned the object itself, and of course all efforts to obtain it. Were they ready, too, to thank the ministers for the manner in which they had conducted the negociation, if negociation it could be called? Consistently with all their known ideas, those gentlemen certainly could not support the proposed address.

His right honourable friend, (Mr.T. Grenville,) indeed, had said, that although he should vote for the address, there was not one word in the amendment in which he did not fully concur, and which he was not ready to vote without any qualification. But, in voting for the address, he expressly guarded himself against any approbation of the conduct of ministers. It was for the sake of unanimity alone that he did not oppose the original motion. Now, when it was evident that neither his right honourable friend, nor any one of those who professed their intention of voting for the address, would venture to do so without qualifying his support of it, by stating that he did not mean to prejudge the question of the conduct of ministers; when it was evident that the original address contained in it many sentiments, with which those, with whom he (Mr. Fox) acted, could not possibly concur; when not one sentiment or expression in the amendment called for the disapprobation of his right honourable friend, or any other individual of that House; and when the ministers themselves were stated by the noble lord opposite, (Lord Hawkesbury,) not even to desire to obtain from the house any declaration of approval for what they had done, it struck him, that it was in the amendment, and not in the address, that the true view of the subject was contained, and that by voting for the amendment, unanimity, real unanimity, would be most effectually secured. For how stood the question upon this point? One right honourable