pliments to our navy, begged to call the attention of the house to that miserable pittance which was given to our brave naval officers in peace as their half-pay. Independently of the duty of gratitude, by which we were bound liberally to reward all those who had rendered us such distinguished service in war, he thought state policy required that we should give our naval officers something like a comfortable subsistence in time of peace. We knew how highly their valour and their skill were thought of all over Europe; and if we did not bind them to our service, foreign powers would endeavour to attract them to theirs. The half-pay of a lieutenant now did not exceed 50l. per annum. He should not press those observations further at present: he thought it was sufficient to throw out the idea to the consideration of the house and the go

vernment.

Mr. Foster highly approved of the ideas thrown out by the secretary of war, and hoped that the plan of consolidating the militia laws, and the other improvements in the system, might be extended to Ireland.

The Secretary of War said, he was glad the right honourable gentleman had put him in mind of this. He certainly wished the Irish militia to be put on the same footing with the English.

Mr. Windham rose to request that a day might be appointed for the consideration of the definitive treaty. He could by no means agree with an observation which had been made by lord Hawkesbury, that it was unusual to have an inquiry on a definitive treaty, when the preliminary treaty had received the approbation of the house. The points on which he proposed to touch were, 1st, those which, though they existed at the time of the preliminary treaty, were not then known to the house; 2dly, what had happened since the preliminaries; 3dly, whether the principles of the preliminaries had been departed from; and 4thly, what were the points in the definitive treaty which did not exist at the time of signing the preliminaries? Under the first head he classed the cession of Louisiana, and of the island of Elba, and the new boundaries of French Guiana. all these topics, he contended that the French had behaved with the most marked ill faith, and had obtained advantages which neither parliament nor the country dreamed of at the time of signing the preliminaries; as to the value of Louisiana, he considered it incalculable, and that it gave them all South America. Since the preliminaries, the French government has seized upon the Italian republic: they

On

Leave was then given to bring in the bill, as also a similar bill for Scotland.

Prior to the day which was appointed for the discussion of the definitive treaty, many questions were asked by the opposition. On the 3d of May, in the house of com

mons,

VOL. XLIV.

ment to the West Indies, to reestablish their power in that part, of the world. Among the points in which this definitive treaty differed the most from the prelimi naries, was the fate of Malta. By the preliminaries that island was to belong to the independent order of Malta, but France has since confiscated their possessions

both in France and in the Italian republic. Spain has acted in a similar manner; by which conduct, this order, that was to be independent, is reduced to one fifth of its former revenues, and is utterly incapable of maintaining its independence. The actual revenues of the order are now but 30,000l. annually, which is evidently not enough to maintain its garrisons and fortifications. Malta he therefore considered as a French island. As to the Cape of Good Hope too, which had been yielded to the Dutch in full sovereignty, what was to prevent them from yielding it to France? After touching on the non-renewal of treaties, the entire omission of the interests of the prince of Orange, and indeed the desertion of all our allies, he concluded by moving, that the house do, on the 18th of May, take into consideration the defininitive treaty concluded at Amiens.

Mr. Elliot seconded the motion. The Chancellor of the Exchequer admitted that the motion was an extremely proper one, and he was "glad that it was made: he could not himself have made it, because it was contrary to the established practice for any of his majesty's government to make a similar motion; but he was glad that it came from another quarter, as it would allow his majesty's ministers an opportunity of defending the treaty they had made. He did not, however, think this was the time to examine the various objections his right honourable friend had made; he should. reserve himself to enter at length into the subject, when it should be regularly before the house. He should, however, say, that as to the surrender of the

As

island of Elba, it was not the act of his majesty's ministers, but of a state, whose independence we had acknowledged. As to the occupation of the Italian republic by France, it was certainly a point of the utmost importance, and what every one who felt an anxious jealousy of the aggrandizement of France must sincerely regret; but yet he did not suppose that his right honourable friend would advise the renewal of war on that ground. to the non-renewal of certain treaties, respecting commercial arrangements, he could assure the right honourable gentleman, that that omission, as he scenied to consider it, was perfectly deliberate and wilful on our part; and he trusted that when the time came for fully discussing the merits of this treaty, the house would, in that respect, agree with his majesty's ministers in the propriety of their conduct. After giving a short answer to several of the points touched upon in the speech of the right honourable gentleman, he lamented that he had not gone a little further, and stated what was the object of the objections he intended to make; whether it was by way of opposing the restitutions agreed by the treaty that this country should make? or whether it was only a general censure on the treaty, and a condemnation of the ministers who concluded it? It, however, appeared to him that it was too long to keep the public mind in suspense, on such an important subject for a fortnight: he therefore should move, as an amendment to the motion of his honourable friend, that instead of the words 18th of May, the 11th should be substituted in the motion.

Mr. Thomas Grenville expressed great

great astonishment, that a fortnight should be considered too long a time for gentlemen to bestow to make themselves masters of that important subject, and to obtain that information without which discussion was idle. If this treaty contained no other feature, but the omission to renew our former treaties on which our sovereignty in India depended, even the consideration of a subject, involving so many complicated relations and bearings would require at least a fortnight. If it was really the intention of his majesty's ministers to give a full, fair, and candid discussion, why should that discussion be so precipitated? This desire of precipitation certainly seemed very inconsistent: it appeared like the conduct of school-boys, who, when they are obliged to swallow a nauseous draught, gulp it all down at once. As he was convinced the necessary information could not be obtained in less than a fortnight, he should vote for the original motion.

Lord Hawkesbury said, that he should delay fully answering the objections of Mr. Windham till the day appointed for the discussion. But he said it was evident, that although every time for information ought to be given, yet on a business of such extreme importance, and so deeply interesting to the feelings of the nation, there should be no unnecessary delay. As to the cessions of the isle of Elba, Louisiana, and the acceptance of the first consul of the presidency of the Italian republic, these were events which the public had been perfectly apprized of for several months, and certainly did not require at this moment any delay,

in order to form an opinion about. In point of fact, the definitive treaty had been for a considerable time before the public, as it had been published by France very shortly after it was signed. He had not heard any thing stated by either of his right honourable friends, which could afford the least clue to judge what was the information required.

Mr. Windham then mentioned, that probably a good part of the fortnight would be occupied in motions for such papers as might appear to him and his friends necessary for the purpose of having that information on the subject that was required.

Mr. Pitt hoped that his right honourable friend would to-morrow state distinctly what papers he wished to move for. He said, that his speech had shown such mass of information, that he could not conceive that much more was wanting to him. The amendment was then carried.

3

In the house of lords, on the 4th of May,

Lord Grenville called the attention of the house to the same subject: he said, that he had carefully abstained from offering any objec tions, after the approval of the preliminary treaty, to the signing of the definitive, as he wished to cause no obstructions to the complete establishment of peace; but now that the ratification has taken place, and the public faith and honour are irrevocably pledged, he thought the time was come to examine this peace in all its bearings, to see how far it differed from what the nation had a right to expect from the preliminaries. The Methuen treaty is now given up, and we have ceded

to France a most important maritime position at the mouth of the river of Amazons, which in a manner throws Brazil, and with it our East India commerce (in war time), at the mercy of France. The house of Orange too has been plundered of landed property to the value of 100,000l. annually, merely from the attachment of that prince to our interests, and those losses are carelessly mentioned as losses suffered by the house of Nassau. We should, under those circumstances, have certainly done more; we should have insisted upon complete restitution of all that was forfeited in our cause. As to his hereditary rights and dignities, where was he to receive compensation for their loss? There was no definite obligation imposed upon any body, and while the British ambassador was signing the treaty, the Dutch ambassador, by a private understanding with the French minister, was discharging his country from that obligation under which it was understood to be bound. As to the observations he intended to offer respecting Malta, and other points in which the definitive treaty differed from the preliminaries, he found himself anticipated by the political, reflections of a French Paper, which seemed authorized by their government. That paper states, and very truly, that the definitive treaty was still more glorious for France than the preliminaries, and that as to Malta, the arrangements are all in favour of France; for while Malta is Neapolitan, it may in fact be considéred French. The French commentator laid most particular stress on the advantages France and her allies had acquired by

the non-renewal of former treaties. Independently of the great commercial advantages which England was allowed to possess in all those treaties, advantages which contributed so much to the great superiority of her navy, there were some points in those treaties which were degrading to the allies of France; for instance, that article which obliged the Dutch to lower their flag to that of England. This species of vassalage was done away with, the old law was destroyed, a new public law commences,and other nations might one day have their act of navigation. His lordship, after forcibly arguing in support of these observations, touched upon points which, though of great consequence in themselves, must yet be considered of lesser importance. The cession of Louisiana, and the occupation of Italy, both which events occurred since the preliminary treaty, seemed to require that we should, at least, have demanded some equivalent. By the non-renewal of treaties we seemed to have abandoned both the gum trade and our right of cutting logwood at Honduras. His lordship then read to the house the last speech of William the Third to his parliament, which appeared in some sort a dying legacy to the country. He at that time felt perfectly aware of the dangers which the great power and restless ambition of the French monarch threatened all Europe with. He had, with unremitting zeal and skilful management, formed the grandest coalition against France which was ever made. This speech pointed out to the country, in the most forcible language, the great danger that threatened Europe from the French king placing his grandson

Lord Pelham could not see that there was any necessity for discussing the definitive treaty in that house, unless merely to ground a vote of censure against ministers. He must confess that the peace was not exactly such a one as might have been wished by this country; but, such as it was, he would venture to say, that by far a majority of the people of this country would prefer it to a renewal of the war. Ministers had done as much as it was in their power to do, and he was sure impossibilities would not be required from them. With respect to their allies, Portugal and the prince of Orange, they had certainly by no means abandoned their interests, although they had not been able to obtain them such terms as they could have wished. He concluded by moving an amendment, that instead of Friday the 14th, should be inserted, Wednesday the 12th.

Lord Thurlow conceived the noble mover was extremely irregular in entering so much in detail upon a motion merely to fix a day for a discussion. As to subsisting treaties, they were always at an end when war was commenced between those who were parties to them. It behoved therefore those who plunged the country in hostilities not to have set those treaties loose in that manner; for after war was begun, it by no means followed that those treaties must be renewed at the peace, that depended on the will of the contracting partics.

Lord Carlisle was surprised at the noble secretary's not perceiving that any arguments had been adduced by the noble lord who made this motion for a discussion of the treaty. He thought every sentence, or rather every period, he had uttered was a strong argument in favour of a discussion. He declared, that it was not his intention to move a censure on ministers, his views were of a more liberal and dignified nature; it was to call upon their lordships firmly and manfully to meet the dangers and difficulties in which this treaty had left the country, and to endeavour to prevent them. This he thought might still be done without a renewal of hostilities. He thought moreover, that if ministers had been more firm and decided in the interval between the preliminaries and definitive treaty, there would then have been no occasion for discussing the definitive treaty after the preliminaries had been approved of

The Lord Chancellor was glad that such a motion had been made, as from the share he had in his majesty's councils, he naturally wished for an opportunity of defending the measures which he had advised, and yet, according to the established practise, no motion for discussing a definitive treaty could come from his majesty's ministers. If, by the omission of naming the former treaties, they were to be considered as abrogated, then indeed his majesty's ministers would deserve for ever to be dismissed from his councils and presence.

Lord Auckland heard, with great satisfaction, the opinions of several noble lords respecting our rights in India. He asserted, that they did not depend upon any treaties made K 3

with