the extravagant price of grain, whilst at the same time every praise, he said, ought to be given to the committee for their exertions. The conduct of the people likewise in bearing, with the utmost patience, the greatest privations deserved the warmest applause. He felt the utmost confidence, that, as soon as his majesty could obtain a peace, he would embrace the opportunity, though little was to be hoped from the disposition of the present ruler of France. In the event of a continuation of the contest, he felt, in our maritime greatness, the superiority of our navy, the extent of our commerce and agriculture, aided by the energy of that kingdom for which the parliament was now for the first time met to legislate; that we could have but little to apprehend from the efforts of the enemy. Under such favourable circumstances, he looked forward to the termination of a lasting and honourable peace. He concluded by moving an address to his majesty, the terms of which were an echo of his majesty's speech. ledge, and possessed of a very considerable portion of information, the more useful on account of its locality. He doubted not that the cordial co-operation of the talents, the ability, and the information of the united kingdom, concentrated in one point, and directed to one object, would render Great Britain triumphant over every danger. To give full effect to the Union, many measures naturally consecutive upon it, would no doubt be from time to time adopted. To heal divisions, it was to be desired that nothing consistent with the full security of the Protestant religion in Ireland should be omitted. It would be presumption in him to expatiate upon the numerous and obvious advantages resulting from the Union with Ireland, one, however, forcibly struck him, and he therefore could not help noticing it; he alluded to the quantity of waste land Ireland had hitherto contained, which there would now be every encouragement to cultivate, and from the produce of which it might be justly hoped the country would be saved from all further expense attendant on the importation of corn; as such a measure would then become unnecessary, and the money appropriated to that purpose would serve to enrich the united kingdom, instead of turning the balance of trade against it. He said it would ill-become him, possessed of so little experience, to expatiate upon the contest in which this country was at present engaged with the northern powers, but he would observe, that every thing dear to us was involved in an independent commerce, which could only be preserved by a naval superiority. With respect to the subject of peace, he conceived that every effort had been made to obtain that desirable blessing consistent with the national honour, but they had been invariably disappointed by the gigantic ambition of France; he trusted, therefore, the contest would be continued until the same cause ceased to operate, and peace could be obtained upon terms honourable to the country. He concluded by seconding the address. Mr. Cornwallis, after hoping he should experience the usual liberality of the House, adverted to the subject of the Union. He said, when a union with Scotland was in contemplation, queen Anne was anxious it might take effect in her reign, and when completed, she declared she considered it as the happiest event of that reign. How much greater, then, must be the happiness of our present most gracious sovereign, at completing an union with Ireland, when all the hopes of benefit which it had been foretold would result from the union with Scotland had been realized, and were not in this case held forth as uncertain speculations, but as certain and happy effects which must inevitably result from a union with Ireland. He should not attempt to discuss its various and extensive advantages; they had been already ably stated by gentle. men of the first abilities, and he entertained the most sanguine hopes, that the expectations which had been formed of them, would be fulfilled. About the time of the union with Scotland, great jealou. Mr. Grey said:-The present aspect of sies had subsisted between the two par- affairs in this country is calculated to liaments; but this was not the case be- inspire so much doubt and apprehension tween the two parliaments of Great Bri- with regard to its future fortunes, that I tain and Ireland. Nor was it the least confess, Sir, that I came down to the advantage resulting from that union, that House this day with feelings of considerthe deliberations of that House would able anxiety, to hear what were the meabe ably and frequently assisted by gentle-sures to be proposed to avert or to meet then of talents and parliamentary know the dangers with which we are threat ened. My feelings, indeed, were not those of unmanly dismay and despondency. I was open to topics of consolation, and to arguments of hope. The speech which has been read from the chair, and the views of the hon. mover and seconder of the address upon it, have not tended to remove my fears. I cannot pass from apprehension to confidence on the grounds which have been laid before us. I cannot banish the uneasiness under which I labour, when I find no prospect held out of a change in that ruinous system of policy, which in following with such obstinate perseverance, has reduced us to the state of distress and calamity in which we are placed. Still less do I discover any cheering prospect, or any reason to flatter ourselves that our distresses are likely to come to a termination, when we are told that with regard to peace the same dispositions by which ministers have hitherto been actuated, continue to govern their conduct. Can we doubt what those dispositions are? Have we not year after year, been amused with the same declarations? Have not such professions been advanced in almost every stage of the contest, merely to reconcile men to its prolongation, and to obtain new means for its support? In such dispositions I can find no ground of confidence or consolation. It was by implicitly assenting to these declarations that the nation had so long been doomed to the scourge of war, and has been plunged into the new perils by which its safety is endangered. -I agree with the hon. mover and seconder, that it would be better to avoid every topic of debate unconnected with the points on which we are immediately called upon to deliberate. The matter presented to us in the address proposed, is indeed sufficiently extensive. In that view, however, the hon. gentleman might have passed over one principal topic of their observations-the benefits of which the Union is calculated to produce to every part of the empire. From that argument I should likewise have been disposed to abstain; but, lest any inference which I am anxious to obviate should be deduced from my silence, I allow it to be understood that I have renounced the sentiments which I expressed when the Union was under our deliberation. Having disapproved of that measure in every stage, I cannot suffer it to be inferred that I recant my opinions. My sentiments remain unaltered, that the best way of consolidating a sincere and cordial connexion, of obtaining a union of heart and affection, a permanent, solid, inviolable community of interests, was by adhering to the principle of the settlement of 1782. I have seen nothing to render a deviation from that basis necessary, nothing to which a faithful application of its principle was inadequate, either as a remedy for past abuses, or a preventive against future dangers. The evils for which the Union has been adopted as an infallible cure, were not the fruits of Irish independence, but the fatal effects of a mischievous system pursued by those who hated that independence, and proscribed it as incompatible with their schemes of administration. But we are told of the wonders which the Union has already wrought! Ireland is quiet. But may it be permitted to ask, is this the quiet which results from affection. Has that quiet been followed by a relaxation of that severe policy, of which Ireland has so long been the victim? Are we to be called upon to repeal those vexatious laws, of which so many of its inhabitants still complain? Are we invited to extend the privilege of the constitution to those who hitherto have been excluded from the enjoyment of them? If, indeed, those jealous restrictions to which the Catholic inhabitants of Ireland are still subjected, were to be removed, a freer and happier state, compared with the irksome and degrading situation in which they had previously lived, might be considered both as an evidence of improvement, and a pledge for real tranquillity. But this is not the case. Ireland was quiet; the rebellion was extinguished be fore the Union; Ireland was quiet for a year after the Union was rejected: but these circumstances were not received as proofs that the country was out of danger, and that security was restored. Why, then, should it be inferred that the Union has produced the quiet which now exists? and upon what data is it that so many benefits are said to have been realised? The experiment is but just begun; many obstacles to the full completion of the measure are admitted, and must be provided for; practice will discover many more; and a considerable period must elapse before the success of the measure can be ascertained. So much for the benefits that have been ascribed to the union of Great Britain and Ireland. I should indeed have augured more favour ably of that Union, had I found that the speech from the throne contained a recommendation (as it was reported it would do) to consider of taking off those disabilities to which the Catholics of Ireland are subject. The surest means of incorporating the two countries, and cementing their connexion, would be, to extend to all in common the blessings of the constitution. A large and liberal policy might do much. But I regret to see that no such measure is hinted at. There was, even in the speech of the hon. seconder, a phrase which excited, in my mind, a considerable degree of jealousy. The hon. gentleman alluded to what might be consistent with the security of the Protestant religion. When I consider, however, the construction which has often been put on these words, I feel some suspicion that those measures of liberality and justice towards the Catholics of Ireland, which were expected as the fruits of a legislative union, are yet far from being realised. The next point to which the Speech and the Address refer is, the melancholy prospect of a war against almost all Europe confederated against us. Both the hon. mover and seconder classed the differences between this country and Denmark and Sweden, with the disagreements which have arisen between Great Britain and Russia. These disputes, however, I conceive to be totally distinct. I beg to be understood as decidedly of opinion, that Russia has been guilty of the grossest violence and injustice towards this country, in the confiscation of the property of our merchants, and in the treatment of our sailors. The injuries we have thus suffered demand satisfaction and reparation. Nevertheless, though I cannot acquit the emperor of Russia of the charges of violence and injustice, it does not follow that ministers are free from blame. They may have given ground of offence, though that offence could never justify the conduct which Paul has exhibited. The emperor of Russia accuses the ministers of this country of having violated a convention, by which he was to receive the island of Malta as the reward of his cooperation against France. Does such a convention actually exist? I am disposed to believe that ministers could not have been guilty of the violation of an express stipulation into which they had entered. Yet the charge furnishes ground of inquiry. I cannot help thinking, that, as Mi the motive of the confederacy, or the encouragement of its prosecution, some reciprocal stipulations of mutual benefit may have existed. What these were, it is fit matter for the House to examine, before it determines that the rupture with Paul was occasioned by no misconduct on the part of ministers. Nay, I will go farther, and say, that ministers, apprized of the character of Paul, and acquainted with the views which the politicians of Petersburgh entertained of the interests of their country, ought to have made some sacrifices, if they could have succeeded in conciliating the friendship, and securing the co-operation of the Russian empire. Last session, I recollect, when the prospect of a rupture with Russia was first mentioned, a right hon. gentleman opposite said, that Malta had no connexion with that affair. In the proclamation of the emperor of Russia, however, an assertion directly contrary is advanced. If, then, it had been possible, by the cession of Malta, or any other port in the Mediterranean, to satisfy the ambition and to secure the assistance of Russia, would it not have been the true policy of this country to pursue that course? nisters have often told us of the balance of Europe. But where does it consist? Who are its guardians and supports? France, which it was the object of ministers to limit and control, has extended her acquisitions beyond what the most ambitious of her former rulers had projected. Austria has been so ruined by pursuing the counsels of the ministers of this country, that she has ceased to be an adequate counterpoise to the republic. It might have been politic, therefore, to bring a new power into the Mediterranean, to oppose the aggrandizement of France; a power that would have been naturally united in alliance under common interest with this country, against the ambition of the republic. Such would Russia have been; and it would have been no less easy than advantageous to gratify the wishes of the Emperor. These are considerations of policy which ministers, aware on the one hand of the benefits that might have been derived from the Russian alliance, and the evils that might result from its hostility, ought duly to have weighed. But whatever blame may be imputed to ministers, it cannot be any justification of the violence committed upon the property and the persons of the subjects of Great Britain. We now have to examine what is the nature of the dispute between this country and the other northern powers, Denmark and Sweden; and though the Speech is silent as to Prussia, I am authorized to assert, that Prussia is equally engaged in those measures which have been considered as hostile to this country. These powers have, along with Russia, subscribed a convention, the professed object of which is, to secure their commerce against the vexations to which it has been subject. I am not here to give any opinion respecting the confederacy; but I conceive it highly necessary to warn the House against the precipitate conclusion, that the agreement entered into among the Northern powers, is in its nature so decidedly hostile to this country, as to justify measures of open war. From all the examination I have bestowed upon this subject, I have not been able to discover either in writers upon the law of nations, in treaties, or the practice of states, any law or practice universally acknowledged, of the nature of that which the Northern powers dispute, and the denial of which ministers consider as tantamount to a declaration of bostility. It has been asserted, that the claims advanced by the Northern powers were never beard of till the American war. This assertion, however, is utterly destitute of foundation. In 1740, the king of Prussia disputed the pretensions of this country on the same grounds as the famous armed neutrality assumes, and contended as strenuously for the principle, that free bottoms make free goods. In 1762, the Dutch resisted the claim of right to search vessels under convoy. This, too, they did at a period when, from the naval and military strength of this country, flushed with the glories of a successful war, it was little to be expected that any insult or injury would be passed over with impunity. In 1780, however, the assertion of the rights of neutrals, frequently the subject of controversy in different wars, assumed a greater degree of consistency and concert. The armed confederacy was entered into, and its principles announced officially by the subscribers to all the powers of Europe. They claimed the rights enumerated in that famous document, as agreeable to the law and practice of nations. Let us examine the question then with impartiality; let us inquire whether there be not some great leading principle by which the claims may be tried and determined. Such a principle will be found, and it is the principle of justice. Can our preten sions stand the test of this criterion? The more I have read, the more I have observed of the conduct of societies and of men, the more am I convinced that true policy can never be incompatible with justice. Adherence to this grand principle, it is, that constitutes the difference between an enlightened statesman, and a tricking, shuffling politician. As the conduct of states to each other ought to be guided by the principle of justice, it fol lows that whatever advantages might be supposed to accrue from the rights for which this country contends, they ought to be given up if they cannot he shown to be just. Even though they could be asserted and maintained by successful war, unless they were just, the enjoyment of them could never be secured. Any temporary acknowledgment of them, dictated by superior force, could never compensate the disadvantage of confirming the hatred of other states, of rendering their animosity inveterate, and sowing the seeds of future confederacies, whenever the embarrassments and difficulties of this country presented the prospect of establishing the disputed claim. Our naval ascendancy, indeed, ought for ever to be carefully preserved; as the source of its glory, and the bulwark of its safety; but sorry should I be that the maintenance of that distinction should depend upon any claim inconsistent with the interest of other independent nations: sorry should I be, if, to preserve the rights and interests of the British nation, we should be compelled to abandon the rules and maxims of justice, in which alone are to be found true and permanent greatness-true and permanent security. This view of the subject, however, it is chiefly necessary in this stage to consider, to prevent any rash conclusion respecting a transaction, the true character of which ought to be fully investigated, before it becomes the ground and justification of an appeal to arms. But, without insisting farther on this point, there are other aspects in which the question deserves to be examined. If it be necessary to prove that the claim is just, it is no less necessary to prove that it is really valuable. On this head I shall remind the House of a saying of a late great and distinguished member of this House:-"As you ought not to go to war for a profitable wrong, so neither ought you to go to war for an unpro fitable right?" It is of the first importance, therefore, to ascertain whether the claim is supported by its utility. The maritime ascendancy of Great Britain is of inestimable value; but let us inquire, whether this claim, so odious to our neighbours, is essential to its existence? Let the advantage, nay, the necessity of the privilege be clearly demonstrated, before we engage in a universal war for its defence, and purchase it at the price of blood.-Admitting, however, that the right were just and useful, circumstances might be conceived which would justify and demand a relaxation in the rigour of its exercise. A right in itself useful and valuable may not be equally important at every period. There may be occasions when the infringement of it would be productive of no inconvenience, and the assertion attended with imminent danger. In being exercised with moderation at such periods, the right is secured and confirmed; in being pushed to extremity, it may become so grievous as to be shaken off for ever. Suppose even, that at the present moment the admission of the claims of the Northern powers had enabled them to supply France with many articles necessary to the equipment of her fleets, what would have been the inconveniences resulting from it? France, destitute of seamen, her fleets without discipline, not merely destitute of ships, but of every thing that constitutes a navy, what advantage could she have obtained from the supply of a few naval stores? What would have been the importance of a numerical addition to her marine, without the nerves and sinews of naval greatIn 1780, by the principles of the armed neutrality, the right of entering places blockaded is distinctly abandoned. What is understood as a place blockaded is clearly explained. A place blockaded, is that into which, from the arrangement and distribution of the ships blockading, it is dangerous to enter. At the present moment, thanks to the ability with which the blockade of the enemies' ports is conducted by the skill of our naval commanders, the enemy could derive little benefit from an extension of the privileges of neutrals. But granting that all these facilities were permitted to France, could she, without seamen, skill or discipline, establish formidable navies? Could she in a twelvemonth almost double her fleet? But what is the consequence of carrying the dispute with the Northern powers to [VOL. XXXV.] extremities? Do not we in a moment double her marine, and supply her with experienced sailors? Do not the hostile navies of Europe, to use a military phrase, outflank us on every side, from Archangel to the Tagus? Does not France, there fore, acquire new means of annoying us, by our forcing the Northern powers to make common cause with her? Not merely does the enemy increase his opportunities of attack, while he divides our means of resistance, but by these measures we do not possess a single friendly port in Europe. Naples cannot, in the present state of affairs in Italy, be considered as open to us. Turkey and Portugal, by the growing preponderance of our foes, cannot be considered as points of contact on which we can long rely. Consider, then, with increased force, the advantages for attack which this extended line of coast presents! Will it not require all the activity, vigilance, and skill, of our navy to ward off attacks menaced on so many points? When we consider the difficulty of guarding against the projects of the shattered and subdued navy of France, how much will the difficulty be increased when we find so many new enemies to resist? We shall be told, however, that our superior navy will destroy the enemies' trade. But is not trade necessary to us too? Is not commerce the basis on which our revenue, our strength, our naval dominion, and our national greatness are founded? And, if our commerce is excluded from every quarter in Europe-if every market is shut against us-what is to become of the invaluable sources of our splendor and security? While successful in destroying the trade of our enemies, we lose our own. Nor is it merely in being deprived of a market for our commodities that we must suffer. We must be cut off from the supply of naval stores; and though it may be supposed that other countries could furnish that supply, it could not be depended on, either as a permanent supply, nor rendered available for the necessities of the present moment. But, independent of naval stores, an article for which we are in so great a degree dependent on the Northern nations, can we forget how important, in the present distressed and starving situation of the country, is the supply that might be ob tained from the Baltic? Is it overlooked how much the menacing aspect of affairs in that quarter has contributed to disap[3 Mj |