diation offered by Russia and Austria. At a berg was petulant, and did not evince any crisis like the present, it was of great im- disposition on the part of ministers favourportance to know, whether ministers had able to peace. Whatever were the objectaken advantage of any opportunity that tions to the mediation of Russia, they did offered for pacific negociation, with a dis- not apply to that of Austria. The note of position favourable to the attainment of Prince de Starhemberg on this subject peace. With respect to the qualities of a was dated the 25th of April, and nothing mediator, he did not think it was neces- appeared about it in the Papers before the sary that a mediating power should be house until the 20th Oct. During this totally unconnected with both the bellige- long interval, he had conceived that there rents it was scarcely possible in human would be some further correspondence on affairs to meet with perfect impartiality, the subject; he had been, however, inat the same time he admitted that where formed by the noble secretary of state, there was a close connection between the that in point of fact there were no official power offering to mediate and one of the notes: there had been some conversations, belligerents, that the other belligerent was which, however, were not in a shape to be justified in refusing a mediation under laid before parliament. It was important, such circumstances. With respect to however, that their lordships should Russia, much had been said about the be in possession of all the information treaty of Tilsit: he did not believe that at that could be had, and it should be rethe time of concluding that treaty, there collected that we had at that time two miwas any dereliction of our interest on the nisters at Vienna, one of whom was there part of Russia, but that that measure was on a special mission. He therefore intendthe offspring of necessity. His noble friended to move for copies, or extracts, of Dis(lord Hutchinson) had stated on a former evening the vast losses sustained by the Russian army; and, after hearing that statement, could there be a doubt of the necessity under which Russia must find herself of making peace? It had been said, that there was a secret article in the Treaty of Tilsit, in which Russia pledged herself that the Danish fleet should be at the disposal of France; but he did not believe the existence of any such article. Was it possible to suppose that Russia, even prostrate as she was at the feet of France, would have agreed to an article which would have rendered France mistress of the Baltic, and placed the Russian empire completely in her power? He did not believe that Russia was really hostile to this country until the event of the expedition to Copenhagen; a measure which he feared we should repent to the latest hour of our existence. The Russian offer of mediation, limited as it was in point of time with respect to our acceptance of it, and communicated as it was, might be considered grating to the feelings of this country; but from the statement of his noble friend (lord Hutchinson) on a former evening, it was proved that the emperor did not wish to limit the time of our acceptIf, however, he was not disposed, under all the circumstances, to find much fault with the rejection of the Russian mediation, he saw much to blame in the rejection of the Austrian offer of mediation. Ile thought the answer to prince Starhem

ance.

patches which passed between his majesty's government and the Austrian minister, and from the British minister at Vienna.The next point on which he wished for further information related to the note of baron Budberg, of the 30th of June. In that note, some charges affecting the honour and character of this country were preferred, charges which it was the duty of his majesty's minister at the court of Russia to repel. These charges were afterwards repeated in the note of count Romanzow, and more specifically set forth in the Russian Declaration. They were contained under three heads: the refusal to lend any military assistance to Russia, the refusal to facilitate the negociation of a loan in this country, and the vexations suffered by the commerce of Russia. Of these three heads of accusation the last only was repelled in his majesty's Declaration. The two first were passed over in that perfect silence, which implied an acquiescence in the truth of the charges. The first was by far the most serious, and upon that he must claim their lordships indulgence for some time. The refusal to make any military diversion in favour of the continent, was one of the chief accusations against that administration, of which he had the honour to form a part. It was a charge which had been pressed against them by their opponents in all possible shapes. This calumny had been industriously circulated among the public, and much relied upon in another place; but

chants, that it would be impossible, unless the repayment was guaranteed by the British government. Russia offered a species of security, to be sure; namely, that the duties levied in that country, upon the

made payable here as an export duty; but this being a duty of a precarious and uncertain nature, was not accepted. The lenders would accept of nothing short of a guarantee of the government; and that, for many reasons, could not be granted. The negociation, therefore, fell to the ground.-The only charge remaining was, the injury sustained by the Russian commerce. It was true, a number of Russian vessels bound to the ports of France had been detained; but they were afterwards released, and ample compensation made to those who suffered by their detention. They were released in consequence of a representation from the Russian minister, that though France and Russia were at war, there was no interruption to the commercial relations between the two countries. In proof of this he mentioned, that the Russian consuls remained at all the French ports, in the full exercise of their functions. To this representation ministers listened, and the detained ships were released,and an assurance given,upon an understanding that they should convey no contraband of war, that they should meet with no interruption for the future. The noble lord expressed his hopes, that he had in some measure satisfied their lordships as to the injustice of some of the charges preferred against him and his col

he trusted before he sat down he should satisfy their lordships that it was wholly unfounded. His lordship here went into a detail of the military operations upon the continent during the time the late administration were in power, and maintain-importation of British goods, should be ed that at no time was the course of events such, as to justify them in sending a large army to the continent. There were only three points at which a diversion, or co-operation, could be effected. It must have been attempted either in France, Holland, or within the Baltic. What would 25 or 30,000 men, the most which could have been spared by this country, effect against the population of France? It would be to send them to certain captivity or destruction, for within three days,three times their number might be collected against them. Was it in Holland that this diversion was to be attempted? Independant of the difficulty of establishing magazines, there were other obstacles to the effecting a descent in that country. The season rendered access to the coast almost impossible, and there was no strong place under cover of which the army could take post. Was it within the Baltic that this diversion was to take place? He would put it to the noble lord (Mulgrave,) both in his military and nautical capacity, to declare, whether, after the Russians had been driven across the Vistula, any descent could have been attempted with the smallest chance of success, on the coast of Denmark. Stralsund was the only place where a landing could have been safely effected, and Swedish Pomerania was observed by a French army, too powerful for any force that this coun-leagues, and the propriety of their refusing try or Sweden could have collected in that quarter. Where, then, was this military assistance to be given? Did the noble lords opposite suppose, that the landing of 20 or 30,000 men at Memel could have changed the fortune of the war? His noble friend behind him (lord Hutchinson) could bear testimony that it would not. The Russians were so deficient in arrangements, that they were often in want of provisions. They had neglected to establish magazines; and the accession of such a force, instead of being an advantage, would have only added to their embarrassments. He trusted that he had fully replied to this charge; the next, respecting the refusal to facilitate a loan, would be more easily disposed of. Russia, it was true,. had proposed to make a loan of six millions in this country; but it was found upon consulting with some of the first mer

to accede to the proposals which made the subject of another; and concluded with moving for the several Papers to which he had referred in the course of his speech.

Lord Hawkesbury felt it necessary for him to make some observations on the speech which the noble lord had just delivered. That speech was principally divided into two heads: first, respecting the Russian mediation, and the conduct of the present ministers upon the subject; secondly, the noble lord had thought it necessary to go at considerable length into an apology or defence of the late ministers from the charges which had been made against them by persons in this country, and by the Russian Declaration, which charged the government of this country with neglecting to co-operate with their allies on the continent. As to the first point, namely, the Russian mediation, he

then, the late ministers were wrong in not | effect on the campaign. It would not have

. giving, at least, that pecuniary assistance which the circumstances required, and which our allies had a right to expect. He thought also, that, although he did not charge them with any positive breach of promise or violation of any express assurance of co-operation, yet that they had by their expressions held out a hope, and induced a belief in the allies that it was their intention to co-operate. Those hopes and expectations had been deceived, and the continent were now taught to look upon this country as a nation that goaded others, but which avoided partaking in the dangers and losses of a continental war. He thought it would have been better to have run the risk of a loss of troops, than to lose our national honour, and be considered a country which would involve others in dangers which we ourselves would decline. He also thought that the late ministers had been wrong in talking of cooperations, when they made no preparations for that purpose. So far from having a proper number of transports ready, they actually discharged in the month of March many transports, which had before been in the service of government. After a variety of observations on the other parts of the speech of the noble lord, his lordship concluded with expressing a readiness to grant many of the papers moved for; but there were some which he thought it would be improper to produce.

Earl Moira conceived that his majesty's present ministers had no right to ask Russia to communicate the secret articles of the treaty she had been forced to sign at Tilsit. If the emperor of Russia signed secret articles, he had pledged his honour that they should be secret, and we could not reasonably expect him to violate that pledge. At the same moment, however, and in the same breath, that we denied the power of Russia to be a fair guarantee between us and France, and rejected that mediation, we solicited it as between us and Denmark, and thought that, in that case, her guarantee was quite sufficient. If the late ministers, however, did not send an army to the assistance of Russia, it was because no army which this country could send had the smallest chance of turning the fate of the last unfortunate campaign. The greatest force that was ever spoken of as possible to attempt a diversion with, was 30,000 British troops and 15,000 Swedes. This force, collected at Stralsund, could have had but very little

prevented the defeat of the Russians, and if the event of the battle had even turned out the other way, and that the French had been defeated, still that force would have been too small to throw in the rear of such an immense army on its retreat. It was impossible that this force could have acted upon the flank of the enemy, for they were covered by great rivers, the Oder and the Vistula. In such an expedition, our risk would not be merely an army, but it would be the army of G. Britain. This certainly should not be risked, unless there was a probability of gaining some most important advantage. The fact was, that the late ministers were convinced upon the fullest consideration, that the troops which they could send were not likely to produce any important effect, and that there was only one chance remaining for Europe. To that one chance they paid the utmost attention. That chance was that Austria might be brought to move, and that if the Austrian army marched down to the Lower Elbe, behind the communications of the French army, in that case Europe would have had a fair chance of its deliverance. If that chance had occurred, the circumstances would have arrived in which the late ministers would have been prepared to co-operate with a military force. Combined with the Austrians, every thing might be hoped for; but if merely combined with the Swedes, the danger that our army would run was much greater than any chance they could have of altering the fate of the campaign. It appeared from all accounts, that the French army had a superiority over the Russians of at least 60,000 men; and when it was considered in how different a manner the two armies were commanded, it could not be supposed that any reinforcement we could have sent would have out-balanced this disproportion in numbers. He utterly denied that the Russians had ever any prospect of success, although their soldiers gained immortal honour at Eylau. It was a military policy in all countries to endeavour to keep the people in good humour by giving very favourable accounts of their military successes; but the fact was, that in the battle of Pultusk, (which they claimed as a victory,) they were defeated with the loss of 80 pieces of cannon, and the Russian army would have been utterly annihilated, if the badness of the roads had not prevented a division of the

the French army from coming up in

time.

cussion, and therefore that he could not be

said to be out of order.

Lord Grenville wished to know whether their lordships would submit to the doctrine, that it was quite regular, as had been done in another place, to read partial extracts from correspondence, where, by stopping short in the middle of a sentence, the meaning was altogether perverted, and that they should be debarred from the privilege of rectifying the false impressions to which this conduct had given rise? And he would ask, whether it was for those who had themselves set the example of publishing garbled extracts from official papers, which of all others ought to be considered as the most secret and confidential, to complain of his noble friend, particularly when it was recollected that he deemed it absolutely necessary to the justification of his own character, which had been most wantonly and falsely aspersed?

Lord Hutchinson hoped the house would allow him to state some matters which, from the situation he had held, were within his own personal knowledge. The Russian army never had any chance of succeeding in the campaign, or even in the battle of Eylau, where they fought so bravely. The French had certainly the victory. They remained for ten days in the field of battle, and immediately after made themselves masters of the magazines at Eibing, and returned to their cantonments, where they effectually covered the blockade of several strong towns, which afterwards surrendered to them. At that time the king of Prussia retired from Konigsberg to Memel, and not thinking himself quite safe there, had even engaged a house at Riga. On the 23d of Feb. he wrote to ministers, mentioning that a French general had arrived at Memel to propose a separate peace; and if the count de Zastrow supported the idea of a separate peace, it was not because he was less attached than any other man to the cause of Prussia and the continent, but because he knew the situation of Russia and Prussia, and was convinced that they had no chance by continuing the contest. In the beginning of April he had had a long conversation with the emperor of Russia, who afterwards referred him to one of his ministers, who told him, that as soon as the Russian guards came up they would be superior in number to the French, and were determined to attack them. The Russians nei-patch was supposed to belong; and he ther knew the force that opposed them, nor how much their own numbers in the field were inferior to their armies upon paper. The noble lord was then proceeding to state the nature of different dispatches between him and the present ministers, when

Earl Bathurst rose to order. He thought it was completely out of order for any noble lord to state, at his own pleasure, all the conversations between kings and emperors, which, from his official situation, he might have heard, or to divulge the confidential communications which took place between him and his government; and if it was competent for any one individual to do so, it was equally competent for any other individual in his majesty's service.

The Duke of Norfolk said, that whether the noble lord acted right or not in entering into these details, they were completely relevant to the question under dis

The Lord Chancellor reminded the noble lord that it was a great breach of order in that house to refer or allude to any thing which had passed in another house of parliament. And if a breach of order had been committed and permitted in another place, that was surely no reason why a similar breach of order should be tolerated by their lordships. He was clearly of opinion, that it was disorderly in any person who had been employed in a public capacity to read a part, or to disclose the contents of a public dispatch, without the leave of his majesty, to whom that dis

thought that they had already gone a very dangerous length in allowing a minute of a conversation, supposed to have passed between an accredited minister and a foreign sovereign, without his majesty's permission to that effect.

Earl Grey contended that his noble friend was not reading a dispatch, and much less a partial and garbled extract from such dispatch, when he had, in his opinion, been most improperly called to order by a noble earl. He had been merely giving an account of his public conduct, in perfect consistency with his duty, and, as he conceived, within the rules of order by which discussions in that house were regulated. He was hap

py,

however, to hear from so high an authority as the noble lord upon the woolsack, an admission of the impropriety and indecency of reading extracts from dispatches, which he asserted to be the pro