members approved the duke's suggestions; while others condemned his interference as ill-judged and pernicious.

The two houses evinced, by several bills of seasonable regulation, a desire of alleviating the distress of the people. These acts contributed to prevent the recurrence of riot: but, notwithstanding the importation of foreign grain, and the use of substitutes, the price of corn was not materially reduced before the autumn of the following year.

This was the last session of the parliament, considered merely as the legislature of Great-Britain. The members of whom it consisted were reinforced, at the next meeting, by the allotted number of Irish peers and

commons.

When his majesty dismissed the British parliament, he took notice of a new contest in which he was involved. Complaint had been made to the Danish government, of an offensive act committed near Gibraltar. As the northern potentates had encouraged their subjects to go beyond the strict line of fair neutral commerce, the English thought proper to search even those vessels which sailed under the convoy of a ship of war. When a boat had been sent by a frigate to execute a visitation of this kind, a fire of musquetry proceeded from the convoying ship, and severely wounded an English seaman. Count Bernstorff vindicated the behaviour of the Danish captain, and denied the right of searching ships so escorted, as the honor of the government was a sufficient pledge for the non-conveyance of contraband articles or the goods of an enemy. The dispute remained unadjusted when it was inflamed by a new incident. Near Ostend, a frigate, convoying six trading vessels, fired at a boat sent from a squadron to search them, and boldly opposed several ships of war. Some men were killed on both sides before the Danish captain struck

his flag, and gave up the convoy. Lord Whitworth was now employed as a negotiator at Copenhagen; but he did not settle the dispute, though he agreed to the restitution of the captured ships.

The Swedes were equally inclined with the Danes to dispute the claims of Great-Britain; and they found, in the Russian emperor, a warm advocate of their pretensions. The czar was disgusted at the ineffective support given to his troops in Switzerland by the Austrians, whose sovereign he accused of being more influenced by selfish motives than by a regard for the general benefit of Europe. He also complained, that the British generals had not sufficiently protected his military subjects in Holland, but had seen them fall in multitudes. with cruel indifference; and that Malta had not, as he expected, been given up to him. Thus offended, he prohibited all British ships from leaving his ports, and imprisoned the seamen: and concluded, with the kings of Sweden and Denmark, a convention for the support of neutral commerce against British violence.

This new confederacy aroused the indignation of Great-Britain and the praises of the magnanimity of Paul were superseded by invectives against his arrogance and injustice. All the ships of his subjects A.D. in our ports were detained; and vessels of Swedes 1801. and Danes, though their sovereigns. had not, like the czar, committed acts of hostility, were also prevented from sailing. The Swedish and Danish envoys repeatedly remonstrated against these orders; and, as the embargo was not taken off, a retaliative prohibition was issued by the two kings. His Prussian majesty, more friendly to France than to Great-Britain, acceded to that convention which the former had promoted, and which the latter deemed decisively hostile to her interests; and he declared, that he would maintain his

connexion with the northern powers by such powerful measures as the impulse of circumstances might require. The naval prohibition being continued, and a British. fleet being sent to the Baltic to enforce a dereliction of the neutral claims, he shut up the mouths of the Elbe, the Weser, and the Ems, and took possession of the Hanoverian territories.

CHAPTER XXIV.

GEORGE III. (Continued.)

A. D. 1801-1802.

THE first meeting of the imperial parliament took place at a critical time. The power of France, far from being impaired by the last coalition, had been strengthened and consolidated. The Russians, from being allies of Great-Britain, had become her enemies. The boasted magnanimity of Paul had given way to jealousy, caprice, and animosity. The Austrians, humbled by the vic torious career of the French, seemed to shrink from a continuance of the war; and their sovereign was glad to submit to the terms imposed by the first consul. The united kingdom was left to maintain the struggle unassisted and a new contest menaced her maritime. superiority.

This crisis gave peculiar interest to the deliberations of the parliament. The address was strongly opposed by earl Fitzwilliam. After lamenting the extinction of all hopes of the reinstatement of the house of Bourbon, he recommended an inquiry into the conduct of those ministers who, having the treasure and blood of the people at their command, and powerful aid on the con

tinent, had not only been unable to check or humble the French, but had plunged the nation into a dangerous contest with an ally, and with princes who had hitherto been neutral. Such men, he thought, could not be qualified for the functions of government; and no friend to his country would wish for their continuance in power. An amendment moved by his lordship was supported by the earl of Suffolk, who censured in strong terms the incapacity and misconduct of the king's advisers. The earl of Darnley had supported them at the commencement of the war; but, as they had abused the confidence of parliament, and had manifested a very small share of political wisdom, he wished for an inquiry into various parts of their administration. Earl Spencer and the duke of Athol were unfriendly to such an investigation, thinking that it would repress the energy of the nation, and obstruct the efficacy of those exertions which alone could rescue the country from danger. The right of search (in cases of convoy) being disputed by the earl of Caernarvon, the lords Grenville and Eldon maintained that it was a part of the established law of nations. The earl of Moira was of opinion that the ministry had not properly employed the great military force which burthened the country by its expence, and that, for many other reasons, an immediate inquiry was necessary. But the house, by a majority of 56, voted against it.-Mr. Grey was the chief opposer of the address in the other assembly. He freely animadverted on the general conduct of Mr. Pitt and his associates; disputed the right claimed in the case of neutrals; and (if the right should be allowed) controverted the propriety of exercising it. The premier mentioned two ways in which the subject ought to be considered. In the first place, the general law of nations on this head ought to be ascertained;

and, secondly, it was proper to inquire whether that law was supported or opposed by precise treaties with the particular powers concerned in the present dispute. He maintained, that the principle upon which the court now acted, had been universally admitted and adopted, except where it had been restrained or modified by specific conventions. It was stipulated in the commercial treaty with France, that, if the inhabitants of that country should be neutral while Great-Britain waged war, they should have the advantage now claimed; but this concession, being merely an exception from the general rule, by no means invalidated the right which we claimed by the law of nations. If such exceptions had been more frequently allowed to different states, yet with other powers the established law would remain in full force; and more particularly ought it to be so in the case of any nation which had habitually maintained the principle in question. Russia, Sweden, and Denmark, instead of being exempt from the rule, were bound by treaties consonant in this respect with the general law; and, if they should presume to violate their engagements, by carrying the property and assisting the views of our enemies, the honor and interest of Great-Britain required a counteraction of such insidious hostility.-The address was voted, unaltered, by a majority of 182.

Before this debate occurred, Mr. Pitt, differing from his majesty on the subject of the catholic claims, and being perhaps of opinion that the first consul would not conclude a peace with him or his chief colleagues, declared his intention of resigning his trust. Lord Grenville, the lord chancellor, earl Spencer, Mr. Dundas, and Mr. Windham, also announced their intentions of retiring, to the great surprise of the public. But, on account of financial arrangements and the difficulty of settling the new appointments, Mr. Pitt continued in