vering over some descriptions of men. There were those who turned with indifference or scorn from the hardships of their own countrymen, while struggling in the cause of the honour and independence of the country, and yet shewed themselves tenderly alive only to the sufferings of America and Denmark. But such men misinterpreted the opinion and the feelings of the country. The country valued wealth, and certainly much of its power and energies depended upon that wealth; but under circumstances like the present, it felt that wealth must be subservient to honour. That sentiment neither Buonaparte, nor the friends of Buonaparte, wherever they moved, nor all the violence of his sanguinary decrees, would ever be able to extinguish. It was not to be extinguished by the partial sufferings of some of our manufacturers ;-no, nor could it be extinguished by the complete stagnation of our whole trade. Those who held a different language of the character of their country, could be only the indisposed few who endeavoured to blow every spark of disaffection and discontent into a flame, and to place in an odious light the conduct of the present administration, chiefly because they felt the damning contrast which it exhibited with their own. Men who, while in opposition, were clamorous; while in government impotent; whose apathy was called moderation, and whose attempts to delude the people were dignified with the name of patriotism. Give him much sooner the inflexible firmness, the persevering fortitude, of the men who now guided the destinies of the nation, than the pusillanimous precaution of those who would seek for comfort and ease at the expence of honour and security. Fresh aggressions called only for fresh resistance, and more determined resolution. Such, at least, he trusted, were the sentiments with which his majesty's ministers were nerved, and that he might venture to say of them, what the poet said of the resolute and just That very argument was in his mind a strong reason for endeavouring to negociate a peace; because, if by so doing we could establish the fact, that he had really made such a vow, or that he had determined not to make peace but such a one as would be dishonourable or disgraceful to this country, he had no doubt but the good sense and spirit of the people would exert itself, and that they would resolve to bear, if not with cheerfulness, at least with patience, all the privations they might suffer in consequence, rather than the national honour should be tarnished. The present war, he said, had been originally entered upon to prevent the fulfilling the conditions of a treaty a matter which in itself he thought highly blameable. It had since been carried on, as had been acknowledged, from mere punctilios of honour respecting Russia; and he must say, it was astonishing to him how his hon. friends, or any of them, could differ in opinion with the hon. mover of the present question. We had, he said, long had houses of commons who had permitted ministers to go on with the war, he hoped they would now have one that would stop them in the career they had shaped out for themselves of eternal war. He could not avoid once more adverting to, the state of Ireland, of which ministers had not taken the smallest notice, in that elaborate manifesto they had given in the shape of the king's speech. He could not but reflect with the deepest concern on four millions, the proscribed majority of that country, which it appeared to be the intention of minisiers to persecute, instead of holding forth the gentle hand of conciliation. In short, he was very sorry to say, that from every appearance, and from every information he had been able to collect on the subject, that country was at present in imminent danger. It was the duty of ministers, because it was their true policy, to use every means in their power to conciliate Ireland, which could only be done effectually by peace and toleration,and by rendering Catholic emancipation less urgent. He was, however, afraid that would never be the case with Lord Mahon observed, that all the maxthe present ministry, whose avowed inten- ims which were laid down on the opposite tions and charter to their present offices side had a tendency to support the princihad shewn them determined on persecu-ple of eternal war. There was not an ar tion. Mr. Blachford, in a maiden speech, lamented the prejudice and perversion of opinion and talent to which a spirit of party and faction seemed capable of deliVOL. X. Si fractus illabatur orbis, gument that was advanced this night in opposition to the motion which might not with equal propriety be urged in favour of any other war, at any other time, or under almost any other circumstances. Every 3 K power in Europe that was formerly our ally was now converted into an enemy. From this consideration, together with that of the distressed state of our manufacturers, he thought it his duty to support the motion. The house ought to consider these things in fact of its own free will; but from circumstances which had lately occurred, it appeared to him that they were called on by the imperious voice of the people to the performance of this duty, in order to avert, if possible, a tremendous evil, and prevent incalculable distress from falling on the working part of the community. Mr. John Smith wished to know how long ministers meant the war to continue. If it continued two years longer, was there any prospect of negociating for peace on more honourable and secure terms than at the present moment? He certainly would sorry to present the subject of peace to that house, were there not one particular circumstance to induce it to be immediately procured, namely, Ireland. be passed through the hands of count Starhemberg, the Austrian minister, an ambiguous style was conspicuous, evidently the effect of design. After the 12th of June, 1807, Austria was no longer an independant power. She was so completely influenced by the minister of France, that her prince had no choice but to aid the views of France. The hon. member who had alluded to the subject of these offers of mediation, would find no instance where a neutral, under the influence of a superior power, had been accepted as a mediator. We were called upon to accept an unaccredited agent in the person of the Austrian minister. There was no basis established for negotiation which constituted security. In the year 1805, Austria offered her mediation to France, who said, shew me a basis. She afterwards offered to mediate for Russia, who also required a basis. If these powers considered it necessary to make such demands of Austria, this country was right in demanding strictly the basis of negociation before we Mr. Secretary Canning did not think it accepted the offer of mediation. With proper to intrude himself upon the house respect to Austria, it was well known that at an earlier period, because he conceived this country had preferred her friendship, it to be the duty of his majesty's ministers and offered her every indulgence, while on this subject, to leave it to other mem- she remained in the interest of G. Britain; bers of the house to express their senti- but when she became under the controul ments before they should themselves take of France, it was not our interest to trust any part in the debate. He expressed his her. Was it not well known, two years readiness to enter at any time into nego- since, that the British flag was expelled ciations for a peace, consistent with the from the ports of Austria? England had honour and the dignity of the country; not retaliated, under a belief that Austria but he maintained, that until certain infor- was under the direction of France. He mation was received that the French go- stated these facts to prove, that a mistrust vernment was prepared to enter into ne- was properly entertained towards Austria. gociations on an equitable basis, it would Ministers had determined not to enter upon be imprudent to attempt any. It was ob- negociation, unless it was upon a footing vious, that if any negociation which might that was likely to insure a successful issue. be undertaken, should fail, peace would It had been said, that the enmity of France be placed at a still greater distance, and was directed against this country, in conthe sufferings of the people, which had sequence of the offers made for peace havbeen so much exaggerated, instead of be- ing been rejected during former adminising diminished, would be augmented.-Ile trations. He would ask, if it was fair that could not help making a few observations the present ministers should be responsion the subject of the Austrian offer of me- ble for the conduct of others with whom diation. The first offer of mediation on they had no concern? This argument apthe part of Austria might have been wor-plied to the conduct of the hon. gent.' thy of attention, if the fortune of Bona-friends, who composed the late adminisparte had not taken a different turn. Aus-tration, and who broke off the last negotria fell under the controul of France; and no security existed in negotiation. The last offer of mediation proved palpably fallacious, and both attempts exploded together. It was the intention of the British government to enter into negociations peace, but in the official notes which for ciation. It was true the hon. gent. had disagreed with them also on that point, he therefore could not deny him the merit of having acted with consistency. Mr. Wm. Smith thought the two first resolutions involved in so much difficulty, that he could not vote for them; but if Latouche, R. Piggott, Sir A. Scudamore, R. P. · Sheridan, Rt. b. R. B. : Wharton, J. Whitbread, S. Tellers. Mahon, Viscount. HOUSE OF LORDS. the third was to be brought to a division, | it should have his vote. He conceived that ministers, by their own shewing, gave very little hopes of peace. He thought that it would be acting more consistently with the honour, the interest, and the dignity of the country, to enter into negociation now, that at any future period. Mr. Sheridan did not agree with his hon. friend who had just sat down. He would vote for all the three propositions. He contended, that ministers had shewn an aversion to peace in two instances, and that they ought not to be trusted to reject a third offer. He was sorry to hear a great deal stated respecting commercial distress, from a very respectable quarter : but he was certain that the picture which had been drawn was greatly overcharged. He knew there was no such distress in the country; and if it did exist, he never would avow it for to hold such language was to capitulate at once. It had been said, to vote the third resolution would be to encourage petitions for peace. In his opinion it would completely put an end to them. As it did not appear that the dis-had existed in the former parliament had cussion could be terminated this night, he moved that the debate be adjourned until to-morrow. Mr. Adam wished that his right hon. friend would withdraw his motion for adjournment. He declared that he would vote for all the three propositions. Mr. Sheridan withdrew the motion of adjournment. Tuesday, March 1. [OFFICES IN REVERSION BILL.] On the order of the day being read for the 2nd reading of this bill, The Earl of Lauderdale called the attention of the house to those passages in the speeches of his majesty to parliament, on the 27th of April, and the 26th of June, expressing a desire that the inquiries, with a view to public economy, should be continued. The committee of finance which been re-appointed in this case; which committee had recommended this measure. His lordship adverted to the circumstance of this bill having been thrown out in the last session, when none of the ministers were present, except the noble and learned lord on the woolsack; and expressed a hope that, under all the circumstances in which this bill was again pressed on their lordships' attention, they would not now Mr. Whitbread replied; after which the house divided on each of the three Reso-reject it. lutions, which were all negatived. The following are the numbers which appeared on each division: 1st division, Ayes 70; Noes 210; 2d division Ayes 67; Noes 211; 3d division Ayes 58; Noes 217. Lord Arden opposed the bill, on the ground of its being a direct and unnecessary infringement on the king's prerogative. He also objected to the resolution of the house of commons subsequent to he considered rather as a species of legisthe rejection of the bill last session, which lation. He was aware that his opposition to the bill was liable to much misrepresentation; but that should not deter him from performing what he conceived to be an act of public duty. Earl Spencer was perfectly convinced of the purity of the motives which actuated the noble lord. He did not think this bill of any essential or vital importance; but under the circumstances in which it was before the house, he thought their lordships ought to pause before they again rejected it. He thought it rather tended to support the prerogative of the crown, than to infringe upon it. The Lord Chancellor objected to the bill in its present shape, as wholly unfit to pass into a law, from the vague manner in which it was drawn up, and the general enactments which it contained. He was willing, however, to vote for the 2nd reading, if there was any prospect of so modifying it in the committee as to free it from those objections to which at present he thought it liable. The Earl of Darnley supported the bill. Lord Auckland, from the unlimited enactments of the bill, was not prepared to assent to it. The house then divided on the question, Contents - - 34 Proxies-- 35-69 Non-Contents - 36 Majority HOUSE OF COMMONS. Wednesday, March 2. - 25-61 [LORD LAKE.]-Lord Castlereagh, in call Lord Hawkesbury wished the bill to go to a committee, on the grounds that it might be expedient to regulate the granting of offices in reversion, so as to preventing the attention of the house to the noabuses; and also to give time for the maturing of any plan of economy which it might be wished to propose, and which might, therefore, render it adviseable to suspend for a certain time the granting of offices in reversion, that in the mean while it might be ascertained whether there were any offices which it would be expedient to regulate or abolish. Earl Grosvenor approved of the bill in its present shape, and hoped that no compromise would take place, but that the bill would pass as it was. The Earl of Westmoreland supported the 2nd reading on the same grounds as lord Hawkesbury. As to ministers not attending on the discussion of this bill last session, why did not noble lords on the other side attend that discussion; and why had not this bill, if it was so important, been sooner taken up by them? Lord Redesdale objected to the bill altogether, and thought it incapable of any modification which could render it fit to be passed into a law. Lord Holland deprecated that species of recriminatory observations, which could tend to no possible good. Noble lords on his side of the house had not previously taken up the bill, only because they did not wish to shew a want of candour towards ministers for the sake of catching at a little popularity. He could not help observing, that those noble lords who had opposed the bill in toto had acted with the greatest fairness. His lordship defended the vote of the house of commons, which, being merely for an humble address to his majesty to suspend the granting of offices in reversion until six weeks after the commencement of this session of parliament, he could not conceive liable to the objections of the noble and learned lord. The Duke of Montrose opposed the bill in toto, thinking it incapable of any desirable modification. tice respecting a Monument to be erected to the memory of lord Lake, which had been suspended by a notice, having a prior claim to the attention of the house, on a former night, did not mean to recur to that notice, or again to offer to the house the motion which was the subject of it. Having communicated with many persons devoted to the memory of Lord Lake, and participating in the high veneration in which he held the services of that gallant man, he found that it was the general wish of those persons to give way to the difficulties, of parliamentary form that had arisen. The family of the noble lord, deeply penetrated with a sense of gratitude for the vote passed the other night, was willing to rest its claims on the public bounty there, than press a point upon which many of those who had voted in approbation of lord Lake's general merit and services, might be found in opposition. In this feeling he thought it his duty to concede; but he could not help lamenting, that parliament appeared to have laid it down as a principle, that the glorious testimony of a public monument was to be confined to the services of those who died in battle. Lord Howe's monument, was the only exception to this rule, for that of lord Cornwallis's stood on entirely distinct ground. He admitted that the limitation to those who died in battle was a good and convenient general principle. But at the same time, when Monuments were held to be the most appropriate marks of public gratitude, as being at the same time most honourable to the deceased, and best calculated to excite emulation in the minds of posterity, it seemed to be a strange exclusion that prevented a lord Lake, a lord Rodney, and a lord Duncan, from being found among the illustrious heroes thus consecrated to fame, while many persons of much inferior rank and merit were so honoured. The distinction would never be asked but for striking examples of merit and service, and the reward may safely be granted without the fear of deviating into abuse. It would certainly be no injury to those who fell in battle, to admit to a participation of this honour, those who had equally entitled themselves by victory, and who had no other bar to their claim but that of a greater interval of time between their service and their death. It was not the death but the service that was the proper object of reward. HOUSE OF LORDS. Thursday, March 3. [EXPEDITION TO COPENHAGEN.]-Earl Darnley rose to make his promised motion on this subject. His lordship took a review of the principal circumstances connected with this expedition; and contended, that the only ground on which it could be justified was actual necessity; which was not proved to exist by any documents before the house, nor by ministers, who, on the contrary, continually shifted their ground of justification, and had made out no case which, in his opinion, was at all satisfactory. It had been said, that an option was given to the prince regent to deliver up the Danish fleet; but could it be said to be an option, when it was evident, that if he had delivered up the fleet, Holstein and Jutland would immediately have been seized by France? This expedition, it had been said, was sent to ward off danger from this country; but how had that danger been prevented? The danger was not of an invasion of this country, but of the Baltic being shut against us; and instead of precluding this danger, the expedition had accelerated it. Possession of Zealand had not been retained, and Denmark had been thrown completely into the arms of France. The national character had, in his opinion, been degraded, and the national honour stained by this expedition; and what had we gained? 16 ships of the line, which could be of little service; and as to the stores, they did not amount in value to the stores expended in the expedition; and the whole was not equal to the expence of the expedition. -The noble earl concluded with moving, “That an humble Address be presented to his majesty, submitting, That after attentively considering all the public documents before us concerning the late attack on Copenhagen, and the war which it had produced, we have found the information which they afford extremely imperfect and unsatisfactory.-That in a matter in which both the honour and the interests of our country are so deeply concerned. we had hoped for the fullest explanations. The principles of our constitution and the uniform practice of his majesty, and the sovereigns of his illustrious house, require, that parliament should be distinctly apprized of the true grounds of entering into new wars, especially in a situation of our country wholly unprecedented. Had Denmark been a party. to any hostile confederacy against the rights or interests of the British empire, our resistance would have been necessary, and our warfare legitimate. Under such circumstances, we should only have had to regret, that the ports and arsenals of that country should so lightly have been abandoned, when advantages so very inconsiderable had been derived from their temporary occupation, and when by our continuing to hold them during the war, all real danger from that quarter might have been effectually averted.-But we cannot doubt, that Denmark, instead of engaging in hostile leagues, had resolved still to maintain her neutrality.-This fact is proved even by the imperfect documents which have been laid before us, and is confirmed by the proclamation issed by his majesty's commanders immediately before the attack.— Certainly Denmark was no party, nor does it appear that she was privy to any confederacy hostile to this country. We are not even satisfied that such a league did really exist. The conclusion of any secret articles at Tilsit affecting the rights or interests of the British empire appears to have been uniformly denied both by Russia and France. The correspondence of his majesty's secretary of state, and the dates of the transactions themselves, prove that his majesty's ministers could not be in possession of any such articles when the attack was ordered against Copenhagen; and it has been distinctly admitted in this house, that they have not yet obtained a copy of them. The king's ambassador at. Petersburgh, in an official note, rested the defence of the measure not on any hostile purposes either of Denmark or of Russia, but solely on the designs which it was said the French government had long since been known to entertain.-His majesty's ministers not only forbore to advise such measures as would have been necessary to repel any real hostility of Russia: but they actually solicited the mediation of |