disposed them both to friendship without lulling either into a dangerous repose in professions, or suspending the necessary precautions against danger. It was argued, that this Treaty tended to throw a great part of our commerce into the hands of France; and that we ran the alarming hazard of suffering a loss in case of a war. What was the consequence of the last war, when, though engaged with four maritime powers, our commerce was not only protected, but was seen to flourish; nay, when it contrived to send into, and circulate through France, our producé and manufactures? There was an ability in the English commerce which baffled competition; and the same ability would be found in our manufactures. He was by no means alarmed at what the noble duke had stated of the condition of the French manufactures. Not only our hardwares and pottery, but our cottons and woollens, and various other most valuable articles of our trade, would find their way into great and decisive circulation in France.

in the latter they had contracted for whole forests. They had built no less than sixteen line-of-battle ships since the peace. To what did all this tend? To inspire us with confidence in their pacific intentions? Surely not; such formidable preparations, attended with expenses so enormous, at a time when they could so ill bear expense, indicated nothing but hostility; and that hostility must be pointed against England; for were it against any other power, her means would be different. In this great political aspect, therefore, he must be free togive his opinion, with all proper respect for the polite feelings of the day, that he distrusted the views of France. In the lesser considerations of the Treaty-the advantages of tariff, he had also his doubts. How few of the articles of manufacture were there which we enjoyed without their competition! He believed, that excepting the Birmingham and pottery branches, in the hardware, there was not an article in which they were not making vigorous and successful efforts to rival us. In glass it was manifest they would rival, if not excel us; in cabinet-ware they were as dextrous, and 50 per cent. cheaper; in many other articles, even in woollens, he was afraid that our manufacturers would find themselves deceived in their expectations of increased consumption.

The Marquis of Buckingham observed, that as far as the point could relate to the insincerity of the French, it certainly was not the design of ministers to consider them as morally sincere at this time more than formerly; neither was this Treaty to make ministers less jealous of the designs or of the preparations of France. The noble duke said, that there was evidence in history of the French having been uniformly the natural enemy of England. In what history, or in what part of Europe could the noble duke find a power which either had been, or which then was, the natural enemy? There was no such thing between independent states as as natural friendship or enmity: it was interest and contingency all. What ministers observed on the subject of the Treaty was, that it gave us a rational hope for the duration of peace, because it made it the interest of the French to be friendly. Her true prosperity depended as much on the faithful pursuit of this new commercial connexion as did that of England; and this was the sum total of the change which the Treaty made in the relative condition of the two countries; that it

Viscount Stormont declared, that he had not yet heard a syllable in support of the Treaty, which in the least altered his opinion. Adhering to those sentiments which he had the honour to deliver on a preceding day, he would not trouble their lordships with going over the same ground. He could not avoid, however, taking an opportunity of condemning that part of the Treaty in particular which recognized, or at least tacitly acknowledged, the principles of that system which would prove the ruin of our navy; he meant the neutral code.

The Earl of Carlisle persisted in thinking the Treaty hostile to the interests of this country. He admitted the superiority of our manufactures, but dreaded that we should not long be able to preserve that superiority; and with respect to our superiority of industry, that was of a more temporary nature than even the other. He animadverted on the conduct of ministers, in trusting the business entirely to noble peers, who could not be supposed to be so well acquainted with the subject as themselves. Ministers, no doubt, preserved their silence on the same grounds that they had stated the manufacturers to have done; and, like them, it was to be interpreted as a positive and direct approbation of the Treaty! He, however, thought it was a duty incumbent on those who were responsible for the measures of

The Marquis of Carmarthen assured the House, that his silence had not proceeded from any want of due respect to their lordships, nor from any difficulty which he found in being able to support a measure which he was firmly convinced would prove of infinite advantage to this country. Had it originated in that House, he should have thought it his duty to have given his sentiments fully on the subject; but as it had already been so often discussed, he deemed it unnecessary to go at length into the consideration of it. The marquis then went into a general defence of the Treaty, which, in every view that he had considered it, he asserted to be highly advantageous to England in the extension of her commerce; and that it would terd to promote an amicable intercourse between the countries; and while it gave us those advantages in point of commerce, we lost nothing in a political sense.

The Earl of Sandwich expected to have heard from ministers the most ample information on a question of so much magnitude as the present, but he had been disappointed. When he had the honour of a share in administration, those noble persons who now preserved such profound silence were the first to call on his Majesty's ministers for that information, which, from their situation, they were bound to give. The noble marquis who had lately spoken seemed to place much confidence in the operation of the Treaty, and particularly in its pacific effect. For his own part, so far was he from imagining that it would tend to prolong peace, that he was convinced it would have a contrary tendency. Every commercial negociation between rival nations, so far as experience led him to judge, had been productive of dissention. Had not our commercial treaties with Spain occasioned all our disputes with that nation? And if we look to private life, do we not see what a jarring of interests interferes with the best dispositions, and is always the means of sowing the seeds of discord? Powerful nations so nearly situated must invariably be rivals, and they have been so from the age of Rome and Carthage, down to the time when Great Britain and France flourished as rival countries. He had known France in negociation; he knew her to be a wise and an agreeable nation; but he knew likewise, that she was artful and insidious. She had but one great object

own aggrandizement upon the ruin 01 Britain. Unfortunately for this country her councils were directed by no uni form pursuit; she must, therefore, be the dupe of the superior policy of France What were we to think of her stupendous fortifications at Cherbourg? They were not defensive, they were offensive works and he could not but admire the address of that nation, who, with all the show of hostile preparation, had prevailed upon a rival to enter into a cordial treaty of alliance with her. He confessed he viewed those fortifications with a jealous eye, and he thought it was incumbent on us to look to our own coasts. He was a friend to the navy, and he was also a friend to fortification, so far as it aided the navy. What must be the consequences of the fortifications at Cherbourg? Will they not necessarily oblige us to keep a larger fleet in the Channel than ever we had found necessary before? Such being the case, it was surely essential to our security, that we should follow the example of France so far as to protect our coasts, and by that means to leave our fleet more at liberty to act elsewhere. With respect to the commercial part of the Treaty, he saw none of those advantages which the advocates for it held out; and for these reasons he found himself compelled to give his negative to the motion.

Lord Porchester renewed his objections to the Treaty: not even, he observed, had the noble marquis (of Lansdowne) who had spoken so ably on both sides of the question, made an impression on his mind.

The Duke of Richmond contended, that the fortifications at Cherbourg were not the only works which it was in the contemplation of France to erect; and this was not owing to any want of vigilance in Administration; it was in consequence of the last Definitive Treaty of Peace, which unequivocally yielded up the important article of the demolition of the fortifica tions at Dunkirk. The fortification of Dunkirk, then, was the next object, which would certainly attract the attention of France. This would give her still more the command of the Channel, and it must of necessity oblige us to counteract her operations, by looking to the protection of our own coasts. Adverting to what the marquis of Lansdowne had said on this subject, he insisted that it was absurd to contend, that we could remonstrate and observe to France, you must not carry on

night, particularly on the important subject of what he considered, between independent states, as the only natural enemy; namely, that power which, in time of peace, should keep up an army of 300,000 men. In this, however, he had been misrepresented elsewhere; in a newspaper, and in one which had the general character of accuracy-he was said to have mentioned the name of the king of Prussia, as the natural enemy of other states. Nothing could be more distant from his idea, nor from his language. The king of Prussia, whom he had the honour to know as one of the most exalted lovers of humanity, was, and would be more, distinguished for his cherishing no views but such as were consistent with the peace and happiness, not the vain-glory of his people. He thought it necessary to say this to prevent a farther impression from being made on the public mind, and on Europe, by the mis-statement.

those fortifications. With the same propriety she might come and say to us, you are not to fortify your dock-yards. With respect to the different questions asked by the noble marquis, Why had we not dissented from the neutral code? Why had we not settled the state of India? &c. He would tell their lordships shortly-that the reason they had not done so was, because France would not have listened to their propositions.-The Duke then proceeded to take a cursory view of the Treaty, which he defended both in its principle and in the detail. He presumed on the silence of the manufacturers as a positive proof of their approbation; and had they come to the bar, he was convinced that they would have given such information of the advantages to be derived to their respective manufactures, as would have alarmed France. The immense advantage which this country derived from the abundance of fuel in our coal mines was the life and soul of our manufactures, and it would always give us a decided superiority. He adverted to the situation of our trade with Portugal, which, he said, had been for some time on the decline, though he admitted that it was of considerable importance, and that it was the interest of both countries to be on an amicable footing. He contended that our Treaty with France did not interfere at all with the Methuen Treaty, and that it was highly expedient that the revenue should reap some advantage from a trade which had hitherto been almost totally in the hands of the smuggler. Such, for instance, was cambric, and several other articles, which, though prohibited, were in general use. He added, that however the French might go beyond us in invention and discovery, their manufacturers had never yet been able to execute and Finish their work as well as the English.

Earl Fitzwilliam, after disapproving of he Treaty with France, stated that the pprehension of a rupture with Portugal ad given a very serious alarm to the maufacturers of Yorkshire.

The Earl of Carlisle said, he could bear estimony to what had fallen from his noble riend, and condemned those who endeaoured to depreciate the importance of ur trade with Portugal.

The Marquis of Lansdowne said, that e was happy to find from the tenor of heir lordships speeches that night, that e was perfectly understood in what he ad troubled the House with on a former

He could have wished, he said, that noble lords in office had been a little more explicit in answering the various topics that had been thrown out. A noble lord behind him had been pleased to say, that on a former evening he had spoken "on both sides of the question." He was very much astonished to hear the noble lord give to his sentiments this character. He had, as precisely as words could speak, declared his full and complete approbation of the principle of the Treaty; but he had as clearly expressed his wishes that the detail had been more cautiously guarded, and that some points had been secured which were left totally untouched, or vaguely provided for. Now, if there was a fair, an explicit, an independent mode of discussing a subject, it was that which he had pursued. Approving of the ground-work, principle, and tendency of the measure, thinking it a great and important good to the country, he had delivered his thanks to ministry for the design; but seeing articles in the detail which might be mended, and thinking it yet time to mend a part of them, he had as frankly communicated his objections: stating those objections, he trusted, with candour, certainly without any design of captious opposition to men, he had clearly stated, that, with all the errors which he had noticed (and he was free to confess that he thought them great and important errors), he saw so clearly the importance of the principle, and was so perfectly convinced that that principle would triumph over

a hundred petty obstacles, that he should give his hearty assent to the resolutions by which it was to be carried into effect. If the noble lord meant that he had spoken on both sides, because he had not forborne, out of friendship to Ministers, to state his objections to the detail, and because he had not, in complaisance to the Opposition, forborne from paying his tribute of praise to the principle, the fact was, that he was, and had through life, stood aloof from parties. He was of no party. It was his pride and principle to be of no faction, but to embrace every measure on its own ground, free from all connexion. Such had been his political creed; as such he stood before the people, and as such he coveted to be judged by them. In respect to his conduct on this precise Treaty, it was strictly consonant to this practice.

The principle of the Treaty he had acknowledged in the preliminary articles. He had left those articles, as he had stated, very large and open, and in order to give scope for the negociation of the Commercial Treaty, and that the nation might be as little committed as possible. In viewing the use that had been made of this advantage, he had observed several matters in the Treaty which struck him with astonishment. He repeated the six separate objections he had made the night before: 1. That we had procured no advantage on our part, either in navigation or otherwise, to countervail the unreciprocal articles and the political tendency of the Treaty. 2. That we had conceded the neutral code. 3. That we had taken no step to prevent or stop the erections at Cherbourg. 4. That the wording of the seventh article was so obscure and unexplicit, as to threaten the extinction of our commerce with Spain. 5. That by the Treaty we left Ireland more connected in freedom of trade and facility of intercourse with France than with England: And, 6. That we did not seize the favourable opportunity to settle India. On these several topics he had urged their lordships, and he wished he had received more explicit and convincing explanations than those he had been honoured with. The noble duke in the blue ribbon had shortly said, that it was in his mind ridiculous to have stood in the bargain, making demands, which they were sensible would not be complied with. He did not pretend to know what would, and what would not be complied with; but he knew what

ought to have been the language of England, and he saw plainly what had been the language of England, and where it went wrong at first setting out; viz. in suffering our supposed superiority in certain manufactures to be set for a moment against the solid, permanent advantages of France. France had in her produce four extensive articles of commerce, against which we had nothing to reciprocate, for it was ridiculous to listen to any argument in regard to our manufactures: they were. transitory and fleeting. Nothing could be more precarious than an estimate founded on our present real or pretended superiority in this respect. Our boasted cottons were the growth of a day; we saw manufactures rise up almost instantaneously. Even in ship-building, a thing which might be supposed to occupy much of our time and study, it was only within these two years that we had discovered the important fact, that men of war might be built all round the coast. To talk, 1 therefore, of the excellence of our manufactures and of their superiority, was ridiculous: but the advantage in the produce of France was positive and eternal; as long as the earth endured, it remained to France. Ought not the ministers, then, to have claimed something in exchange? they not know how impatient France was for the Treaty? He called on the noble marquis to say, if France had not complained that a gentleman should be sent to France and continued there without instructions? The fact was, that France was eager, justly eager for the conclusion of the Treaty; and he was sure the noble marquis had too much candour to think, that a minister of the wisdom, experience, penetration, and forecast, of M. de Vergennes, could have been so eager, unless there was some great point to be gained. There was a great point, an enormous point for France; it stretched beyond the powers of human estimate, and was a matter of so much speculation that it could not too much arrest the notice and awaken the powers of Englishmen. What had we done? We had stipulated for no one thing. We had given up the neutral code, which was the great weapon of England. He needed not say how anxiously and how positively he had refused it on making peace. He had refused it to Holland-positively refused it to Holland. Ought not this to have been a lesson to them? Could they ask it after it had been so peremptorily denied to an old

Did

ment.

On the subject of the erections at Cherbourg, the noble duke had insinuated that he had said they ought peremptorily to have remonstrated against them. He never was so absurd: he knew our situation too well to think that we could dictate to any nation, much less to a court so formidable as that of Versailles, on a topic of internal concern. He said only, that in the negociation of the Commercial Treaty, the matter ought to have been represented as a thing that engendered suspicion, and which was likely to exasperate the high-blooded people of England. But the noble duke had said, we had nothing to do with their erections at Cherbourg, no more than they had with ours at Portsmouth and Plymouth. We certainly had not, nor perhaps so much; for he did not think it at all probable that the French would object to our fortifying our coast, since, on the event of an invasion, they would take possession of the fortresses as advantageous posts. But the noble duke said they had the power granted them by the Treaty of Peace; and he had informed the House that they were going to fortify Dunkirk. Now, he had, as he thought, so clearly explained what had occurred at the negociation of the preliminary articles, with respect to this matter, that he did not think it would have been again brought up. The fact was, there was much conversation, much reasoning on the subject; but it was made so peremptory a condition, that he at length gave way. There were two grounds stated: first, that it was an insult, secondly, that it was futile; for the back-water which made the port of Dunkirk, might be carried beyond the li[VOL. XXVI.]

The noble Marquis proceeded to the objections on the obscurity of the seventh article; and the question of India. Why that important point was not settled, he confessed astonished him. The noble duke had said, that he knew not how it could have been settled. He wished the noble duke had explained to him the circumstances of the Treaty he had mentioned on a former evening, and which was, as he had said, a complete surrender of all the advantages of the India Company, as well as of its privileges, without having gained one thing in return. He stated this at great length, and then came to Ireland: this matter gave him the, highest concern as well as astonishment. When he lately heard in the country, that a body of the Irish privy counsellors had been collected in England, to consult with ministry, he had no conception that the conference was on the subject of a French treaty with Ireland, while England and Ireland still remained in the same distracted state as before. Nothing could be more extraordinary than this; for the time was favourable: Ireland was a nation of good humour; the duke of Rutland and Mr. Orde were men who would make her good-humoured, if she were the contrary. The conduct of the English manufacturers, in the present case of the French Treaty, must crush all their former objections to the system of the Irish propositions. The present, then, was the moment for ministers to revive the idea of a beneficial connexion. Why was it not done? He did not mean the vague, ill-natured, and inadequate Irish propositions, as they were called; but a plain, simple, good-intentioned scheme of reciprocal intercourse, taking off the shackles that lay on our trading laws; which was all the union that he desired. And, by-the-by, if he might not be called impertinent for alluding to another part of the kingdom, in which he had no property, he would say that he saw no objection why Scotland might not gradually receive the law of [2 P]