possession of it, in defiance of the proceedings of a brave and gallant officer, sir Sidney Smith, who negotiated for their evacuation. Were they to be thanked for rejecting Buonaparte's overtures, because he had not given a proof of his power? They rejected them because they would not desert their allies; and they pleaded in apology, that they made peace because their allies deserted them. They should have known, that at the time they rejected these overtures, the allies were not to be relied upon. Ministers were answerable for the alliances they formed. They contended that all their plans had succeeded; their means had succeeded, but they had failed in their ends, because their means were not applicable to their ends. Mr. Pitt was praised for his skill in finance. Mr. Fox acknowledged his quickness, but doubted his judgment respecting our resources. He always approved his plan of the sinking fund, but thought it extraordinary and absurd to praise him for persevering in a plan of his own found successful. He never could call a man a great financier who proposed the income tax, an impost against all principle of taxation; it was, in fact, a confiscation of property. If the late and present chancellor of the exchequer were not on such a friendly footing, there would be a danger of their quarrelling about the 56 millions for which the income tax was pledged; the one would not allow it to be a part of our permanent debt; the other made it so.-Mr. Fox reviewed Mr. Pitt's conduct in the stoppage of the Bank, and censured it; but the most important object was the constitution. He should ever remain of opinion, that liberty was the fundamental cause of all our greatness. He would not say, that no occasions could occur for suspending it; but those who conceived themselves aggrieved and imprisoned, should be left the means of redress. A precedent was set of suspending our liberties, which rendered them of small value. He compared the ground of alarm and the cause of suspension, with the cause of alarm in the rebellion in 1745; and showed that the danger of the present day was nothing like that of the former time, when persons of real property and influence were engaged against the state. Now, no persons of property or influence had conspired, but harsher measures had been taken than in former times, when the danger was real. It had been said, the ground of alarm in Ire

land was great; it was so. Here Mr. Fox contrasted the conduct of ministers, who made war to extinguish jacobin principles in England, where he said they did not exist to a dangerous extent, with their now boasting that peace had extinguished jacobin principles in Ireland, where the danger was really great. He condemned the use of the torture in Ireland, as worse than any thing in the conduct of Robespierre. He again touched on the war, and said this reign had been remarkable for two wars, in the objects of both of which we had failed; by the one we lost America; by the other we have overthrown the balance of Europe, which we pretended it was our wish to preserve. And how preserve? By overthrowing France, which formed so great a part of that ba lance. He then reviewed the different periods at which we might have made peace, and showed, that the longer it was delayed, the worse the terms necessarily became. We would not make peace when France was "in the gulf of bankruptcy," and we were not "scratched" by the war; and the consequence was, such a peace as we had now obtained. If we were to thank ministers for success in preserving us against jacobinism, why might not the emperor boast of this as a successful war? Why might not the king of Sardinia boast of having preserved the island of Sardinia, though he had lost Piedmont ? He, however, thanked the present ministers for having concluded the definitive treaty, which he highly approved, under all the circumstances; and concluded by observing on the absurdity of thanking all his majesty's late cabinet ministers, maintaining, as they did, different opinions, some of them consequently being wrong.

Mr. Chancellor Addington said, the right hon. gentleman had expressed his determination not to vote in favour of the original motion, because he was not prepared to give it an affirmative. With respect to the removal of the late minister, he affirmed it not to be a dismissal from his majesty's councils, but a voluntary resignation, influenced by the deepest sense of duty. There was nothing in the life of that great and distinguished man which more entitled him to the admiration of his country, than the motives which induced him to resign an office that he had so long held, with equal reputation to himself and advantage to the country. The amendment moved by the noble lord was not on this occasion hastily or obtrusively brought

forward; but after an interval of fourteen months, and after an hon. baronet (sir Francis Burdett) had brought forward a motion which tended to a vote of censure. The amendment did not require an unqualified assent to every measure of the late administration. It was a motion of approbation in the lump, without specifying particular measures. From M. Maret's overtures to this country in 1793, he believed that he himself was very zealous to accommodate matters; but the truth was, he had no powers to negotiate, and therefore was not attended to. And as to the negatives given to the overtures of Mr. Wickham and other persons, he assured the House of the deep regret felt by Mr. Pitt at these repeated failures. He had never seen affliction more keen, or distress more visible, than in the mind of his right hon. friend, on being obliged to continue the war. He extolled the great services of our army and navy. With regard to the financial operations of the late chancellor of the exchequer, it was owing to his consummate abilities, that the war, which had been undertaken for the destruction of our property, had terminated in a manner so favourable to our resources. He hoped the opinion of the utility and wisdom of the income tax would survive its being withdrawn. To that alone was to be attributed the high value of our funds. On the whole, the late administration had done every thing in their power to give security to the people; and he should, indeed, be forgetful of the transactions of the last nine years, were he not to concur in the amendment.

Mr. W. Smith said, that during the late administration, there was only one instance of a vote of personal approbation, namely, in 1796, when a loan was made, which then occupied a good deal of the attention of the public. He had taken the liberty on that occasion to move some resolutions, implying a censure on the chancellor of the exchequer; the result of which was, that the subject was referred to a committee, upon whose report the House thought proper to pass a vote of approbation. That, however, was not done without a previous inquiry, which was very different from the mode at present meant to be adopted. With regard to the income tax, he would only say, that so far from giving the minister credit for his ingenuity in forming it, he thought it impossible to devise any means of supply so odious and injurious.

Lord Glenbervie said, that he was the person who had moved the vote of approbation alluded to; but that it was done after inquiry had taken place in a committee. He did not conceive that such a circumstance having then happened, could be adduced as a precedent to regulate any future proceeding.

Mr. Calcraft thought very highly of the conduct of the late chancellor of the exchequer, but considered this vote of approbation too general.

Mr. Foster said, that if the amendment had been confined to measures of the late ministers relative to the war, he would have supported it; but it embraced many other objects, particularly the union with Ireland, which he could not praise ministers for, because he had always opposed this measure. He thought there would be an inconsistency in those Irish members voting for the amendment who had disapproved of a union, which had been carried by the most improper means.

Lord Castlereagh said, he could not tamely sit by and hear such fallacious insinuations. The union would stand on its own ground, and was not to be shaken by side-winds and unfounded aspersions on individuals, who had sacrificed so much in bringing it about.

Mr. Foster observed, that what he had said was not an insinuation, but a positive charge of the most corrupt practices, which he was ready to prove.

Mr. Tierney observed, that here was another ground for the House not to acquiesce in the amendment. A privy counsellor of Ireland had broadly asserted charges of corruption against the late ministers. If this vote should pass, the present chancellor of the exchequer might think he was minister of the country; but he could assure him he would no longer be so, since the present motion was evidently intended to bring back Mr. Pitt to the king's councils. It was said by some persons, that he was dismissed. If this were the case, what a reflection on the royal prerogative to bring forward such a vote! If he resigned, the amendment would seem to insinuate that the royal authority acted wrong in refusing to listen to his salutary advice. How would this vote bear in respect to the spirit of conciliation now asserted in regard to France? How would the present ministers feel, if the first work of the peace were a statue in France in honour of Marat and Robespierre? How might the French govern

ment think if we voted so immediately such a fulsome panegyric on a person so obnoxious to them? It was a wanton act to drag the House of Commons through mud and mire to bring back the late ministers against the king's will.

The question being put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the question," it passed in the negative. Then the question being proposed, that the words, "It is the opinion of this House, that, by the wisdom, energy, and firmness of his majesty's councils, during the late arduous contest, supported by the unparalleled exertions of our fleets and armies, and by the magnanimity and fortitude of the people, the honour of this country has been upheld, its strength united and consolidated, its credit and commerce maintained and extended, and our invaluable constitution preserved against the attacks of foreign and domestic enemies," be inserted instead thereof; an Amendment was proposed, by sir Henry Mildmay, to be made to the said proposed Amendment, by adding at the end thereof these words: "That the right hon. William Pitt has rendered great and important services to his country, and deserves the gratitude of this House." Upon this a long conversation arose; after which the House divided:

Then the main question being put, that after the word "That," in the original motion, the words, "It is the opinion of this House, that, by the wisdom, energy, and firmness, of his majesty's councils, during the late arduous contest, supported by the unparalleled exertions of our fleets and armies, and by the magnanimity and fortitude of the people, the honour of this country has been upheld, its strength united and consolidated, its credit and commerce maintained and extended, and our invaluable constitution preserved against the attacks of foreign and domestic enemies," be inserted. The House divided:

So it was resolved in the affirmative. Then the main question, so amended, being put; Resolved, "That it is the opinion of this House, That, by the wisdom, energy, and firmness, of his majesty's councils, during the late arduous contest, supported by the unparalleled exertions of our fleets and armies, and by the magnanimity and fortitude of the people, the honour of this country has been upheld, its strength united and consolidated, its credit and commerce maintained and extended, and our invaluable constitution. preserved against the attacks of foreign and domestic enemies."

Mr.

Sir Henry Mildmay's motion, viz. "That the right hon. William Pitt has rendered great and important services to his country, and especially deserves the gratitude of this House," was now put separately. Upon which, an amendment was proposed, by Mr. Fox, to be made to the question, by inserting after the name of the right hon. William Pitt, the names of lord Grenville, earl Spencer, Mr. Dundas, Mr. Wyndham, and the earl of Rosslyn; as they were Mr. Pitt's colleagues in the conduct of the war. Thomas Grenville considered this amendment not seriously meant as a mark of respect to his noble relation. Mr. Chancellor Addington intreated Mr. Fox to withdraw his amendment. Mr. Fox declined so doing, and said, that inasmuch as the House so warmly approved of the war, those men who clung to it with so much fondness, were as well, if not better, entitled to the thanks of the House, than the right hon. gentleman who had deserted it. The amendment was negatived. Another amendment was proposed, by Mr. Grey, to be made to the question, by inserting after the word "country," the words "by which the present government has been enabled to conclude a safe, honourable, and glorious peace. This passed in the negative. Then the main question being put, "That the right hon. William Pitt has rendered great and important services to his country, and especially deserves the gratitude of this House;" the House divided:

List of the Minority.

Milner, sir W.

North, D.

Nicholls, J.

Porter, colonel
Ponsonby, W.
Ponsonby, J.
Philips, J. G.
Russel, lord W.
Richardson, J.
Robson, M. B.
Ridley, sir M. W.
Spencer, lord R.
Stewart, C. W.
Stanley, lord
Smith, W.

Sheridan, R. B.
Shum, G.
Sturt, C.

St. John, hon. St. A.
Somerville, sir M.
Turner, sir G. P.
Tufton, hon. H.
Tierney, G.
Western, C. C.
Walpole, hon. G.
Whitbread, S.
Wennington, sir Ed.

Debate in the Commons on the Yeomanry and Volunteer Corps Offers of Service Bill.] May 4. Mr. Yorke (secretary at war) rose to move for leave to bring in bill to enable his majesty to accept of the offers of service of the yeomanry and volunteer corps, under certain regulations. It was unnecessary for him to dwell upon that subject, as the late thanks of the House was a sufficient proof of the effectual service they had rendered the state, and how much they had contributed to the tranquillity of the country in very dangerous circumstances. He hoped that that their active assistance would no longer be necessary to preserve internal tranquillity. Every Englishman must be convinced that his own constitution was superior to all others. He hoped also, that Europe would enjoy a long repose, and that we should have nothing to fear from external foes. But after such violent convulsions, it was improper to throw aside at once our means of defence; it was prudent still to keep up a corps, from which most effectual protection could be derived. These considerations, were sufficient to show the propriety of enabling his majesty to accept of the services of the yeomanry and volunteer corps under certain regulations; and the regulations he should propose were these: that their services should be perfectly voluntary;

and that only such corps should be kept up as were to receive no pay. As an inducement to the yeomanry to offer their services, he intended to propose certain exemptions in their favour; viz. that a member of the yeomanry corps might procure an exemption from the militia, by appearing completely armed and equipped on horseback at military exer. cise for seven days each year; and from the horse-duty, by appearing in the summer one day each year. If it should be judged expedient to keep up any of the volunteer infantry, he should propose, that this should take place only in the great cities, where they could be easily col lected. The exemptions he meant to attach to their service were, an exemption from the militia if they appeared 14 days each year at exercise; and exemption from the hair-powder tax, if they appeared one day each year at exercise. The only expenses which he meant should fall on the public were, a serjeant to each troop with adjutant's pay; arms from the public stores, and a small allowance to the ser. jeants to keep their horses in order. In case of actual invasion, he meant that these corps should be placed under military law, and at the call of the Sheriffs. It was needless for him to dwell on the excellence of any measure that tended to keep up the martial spirit of the country; for unless a martial character was preserved, all our other advantages would perish "like the baseless fabric of a vision." It was only by cultivating among all ranks this military character; it was only by every citizen being ready in circumstances of emergency to go forth with his sword by his side and his helmet on his head, as in the days of our ancestors, that our national independence and glory could be preserved. He then moved, "That leave be given to bring in a bill, to enable his majesty to avail himself of the offers of certain yeomanry and volunteer corps to continue their services."

Sir E. Knatchbull seconded the motion. He paid some handsome compliments to the valour and loyalty of his constituents; and hoped, that if their private concerns obliged several of them to retire from the yeomanry, it would not be considered as any diminution of those principles.

Mr. Spencer Stanhope said, that this was, he believed, the first attempt to keep up such an establishment as this when the country was in profound tranquillity, and