gained strength at every throw: but Buonaparte proceeded like Hercules; he gave it a true fraternal hug, and strangled it. Did the French annex Piedmont, did they enter Switzerland with the Rights of Man? Did they talk of those rights when Buonaparte told the people of Italy they were a set of dolts and drivellers, and were unfit to govern themselves? But now the right hon. gentleman seems in a greater fright than ever. He seems as if he had rather have the old ghost back again. Most whimsically he wants to unite all parties against France

"Black spirits and white,
Blue spirits and grey,"

all are welcome to him. The moderate jacobins he takes to his bosom; they were only misled by their feelings. The violent jacobins he appeals to as men of proud spirits. He wishes to sing Ca Ira to them, and to head them all. "O! had I," he sighs, "but plenty of jacobins here!" But on what principle would they carry on the war? If they were able to curtail the power of Buonaparte, would not their views increase, and would they ever stop without making an example of the regicide republic? If they will speak out fairly, will they not confess this? Will the country, then, for such a purpose, consent to turn out the present ministers? Sir, upon the spirit of the country I wish to say a few words. I have heard from one noble lord, with regret, what I hope was but a slip, that the spirit of the country is worn out. I think that noble lord must retract that idea. Sir, I certainly looked to the rejoicings at the peace as an unmanly and irrational exultation. Do I rebuke the people for rejoicing at the blessings of peace? joicing without asking about the terms. we had gained Trinidad and Ceylon? Would two farthing candles have been burnt less had we not obtained them? No, sir, if they had believed that they had been fighting for civilized order, morality, and religion; and if, believing this, they exulted in such a peace, then it proves that their spirit was worn out. But I allude to this, in order that the enemy may not be led into a mistake upon the subject. Sir, one of the disadvantages attending the present administration is, that they will not turn, when they are attacked by the last administration. They are hampered by the votes they gave for the war. But from the

No, sir, but for reDid they rejoice that

period of the allegations that it was a war for the Scheldt, I assert that it continued to be a war upon false pretences. The people were told that it was a war for religion and good order, and they found that peace was ready to be made at Lisle, without any reference to those causes. The right hon. gentleman ⚫ says, "what baseness, while religion was in their mouths, to consent to steal a sugar island!" It is true, sir, though it comes a little extraordinarily from that man who was one of the cabinet ministers at the time of the negotiation at Lisle. It should appear as if there had indeed been great discord in the cabinet; "there never was greater," says the hon. gentleman. They acted not merely like men in a boat, rowing different ways, but like men in the boat of a balloon. Up the ex-secretary of war was ascending to the clouds, whilst Mr. Dundas was opening the valve and letting out the gas to descend; while one was throwing out ballast to mount to the most chivalrous heights, the other was attempting to let drop an anchor upon a West India island. Each of these ministers was suffered to have his favourite plan. The ex-secretary at war was allowed to nibble at the coast of France, the war secretary of state to make a descent upon a sugar island; and thus they went on till the letter from Lord Grenville-that letter never to be forgotten, and, I will add, never to be forgiven-made its appearance, and the people took a deep and settled disgust. Why did this not appear? And this, sir, ought to be a lesson to us. The mouths of the people were shut and gagged, and the government were acting without knowing anything of their circumstances. Sir, in such circumstances, the integrity of their minds was disgusted, and they were glad to get rid of the war at any rate. Upon this subject I have dwelt the more particularly, because I wish Buonaparte not to mistake the cause of the joy of the people. He should know, that if he commits any act of aggression against them, they will enter singly into the contest, rather than suffer any attack upon their honour and their independence. I shall proceed no further. I perfectly agree with my hon. friend, that war ought to be avoided, though he does not agree with me on the means best calculated to produce that effect. From any opinion he may express, I never differ but with the greatest reluctance. For him my affection, my esteem, and my attachment, are unbounded, and they will end only with my life. But I think an important lesson is to be

learnt from the arrogance of Buonaparte. He says "he is an instrument in the hands of Providence-an envoy of God." He says "he is an instrument in the hands of Providence to restore Switzerland to happiness, and to elevate Italy to splendour and importance." Sir, I think he is an instrument in the hands of Providence to make the English love their constitution the better; to cling to it with more fondness; to hang round it with truer tenderness. Every man feels, when he returns from France, that he is coming from a dungeon to enjoy the light and life of British independence. Sir, whatever abuses exist, we shall still look with pride and pleasure upon the substantial blessings we still enjoy. I believe too, sir, that he is an instrument in the hands of Providence to make us more liberal in our political differences, and to render us determined, with one hand and heart, to oppose any aggressions that may be made upon us. If that' aggression be made, my hon. friend will, I am sure, agree with me, that we ought to meet it with a spirit worthy of these islands; that we ought to meet it with a conviction of the truth of this assertion, that the country which has achieved such greatness, has no retreat in littleness; that if we could be content to abandon everything, we should find no safety in poverty, no security in abject submission. Finally, sir, that we ought to meet it with a fixed determination to perish in the same grave with the honour and independence of the country.

FEBRUARY 23, 1803.

PRINCE OF WALES'S ESTABLISHMENT.

The chancellor of the exchequer moved, "That his Majesty be empowered to issue annually to the Prince of Wales a sum not exceeding sixty thousand pounds.” MR. SHERIDAN said, he would have wished to have abstained from troubling the house, but that some points were absolutely necessary to be explained. He was ready to admit the arguments employed in support of the proposition by the right hon. and learned gentleman (the solicitor-general) opposite to him; the proposition itself was equally satisfactory to those who wished to replace his royal highness in his constitutional splendour, and to those who watched with a jealous eye the expenditure of the public money. There was, however, one thing which did not appear to be admitted, and which he was particularly desirous should be stated; it was not admitted that the Prince of

Wales, so far from burdening the public, had, on the contrary, made a considerable sacrifice to them; this certainly was the fact, and it should be known to the country. He was himself a real friend to the comforts and splendour which his royal highness ought to enjoy, but he was, at the same time, a greater friend to his honour and character. The prince came forward for the third time. Upon the first application, notwithstanding the arguments employed by the learned and unlearned, notwithstanding the vast fund of legal and historical erudition which was displayed, nothing was ascertained with regard to the petition of right. First, it was to be presented to the lord chancellor; then it was discovered that the chancellor was not the proper person, but that the petition should be given to Lord Pelham. Afterwards it was to be laid before the chancellor, and then it came into this house. An assurance had been given, that there was no compromise whatever, and that the prince was at liberty to prosecute his suit; but, for his own part, he gave his support to the proposition, because the prince did not come forward as a claimant upon the public, but asserting a just demand. As to the idea of a compromise, there appeared in that nothing of a disgraceful kind. An adjustment, by way of composition, when no other mode could be devised, was fair and satisfactory. The measure now adopted was, without doubt, the shortest; for had the suit gone on, it would have been spun out to a most tedious and insufferable length. The late chancellor kept the papers in his pocket for six years before he could make up his opinion; and if the suit had been carried on, it must, no doubt, have partaken of that glorious uncertainty which was one of the excellencies of the British laws. If he conceived the ground rightly, upon which the right hon. the chancellor of the exchequer formed his motion, it was to be understood that the sum was to be appropriated in immediately enabling his royal highness to resume the state and splendour appropriate to his high rank. He wished to know whether the house was to understerstand this to be the real fact? If so, he should have much greater pleasure in supporting the motion? but he begged to know from the right hon. gentleman if he was warranted from any authentic quarter to give this assurance to the house; because if they voted the sum under such an idea, and that afterwards it should be found that the resumption of that state, on

the part of the prince, was to be still protracted, much discontent and disappointment must be the natural consequence. Nor could that minister be fairly understood to consult the honour of the prince, in deceiving the house into a vote, under an idea, that by such a vote his royal highness was to be immediately restored to his rank in life, when in reality he must remain under embarrassments that must still longer oblige him to remain in obscurity. But in all events, whatever the fact was, it ought to be fully understood. An hon. member had this night moved for the reading of some passages in his Majesty's message on a former occasion, respecting the prince's affairs, in order to prove that the prince was thereby precluded from any further claims upon parliament, because he was thereby constructively precluded from contracting any new debts. But although the letter of those passages certainly did not expressly restrict his royal highness from contracting debts, yet, he was ready to allow, his royal highness was as firmly bound in honour upon that point to abstain from contracting new debts, after the vote then passed, as if bound thereto by a condition worded in the strongest manner! but the fact was, his royal highness had contracted no new debts; nor had he made any claims on the public for payment of his former debts; for surely the submittal to excessive restraints upon his own income for the liquidation of his royal highness's debts, was not to be termed a burthen on the country for that purpose. But though his royal highness had contracted no new debts, yet it was to be recollected, that if those arrangements made with a former chancellor of the exchequer for the liquidation of his debts, had failed in some instances of their intended effect, the prince, feeling himself bound in honour to make good the deficiency, was still embarrassed, under the sense of that honourable obligation. On the former occasion, a sum of £600,000 was voted in advance to the prince for the liquidation of his debts, to be vested in the hands of trustees; but, when by public advertisement all the claims of his royal highness were called in, the aggregate was found to amount to £650,000; consequently there was a deficit of £50,000. It was not thought advisable to make a further application to parliament; but the commissioners, to supply the deficiency, proposed to the creditors an abatement, on their respective debts, of no less than 10 per cent. This deduction was not upon claims