truce. On the other hand, war would have preserved us from all communication with the enemy, and consequently from all contagion from their principles: it would have left us in possession of all our commercial advantages, and have given us all those chances which arise out of war. When he has heard so much of the wealth, energies, and resources of the nation, he has always thought that there never was a time when they were more necessary to be called forth than at present, when the security and the very existence of the nation is in danger. There was another point to which he wished to direct their attention; he considered the entire desertion of the interests of the emigrants (who had shown such attachment to the cause they, embraced, and given such cooperation to the British forces), as a thing most disgraceful to the country. There ought to have been stipulated for them at least a safe return to their country. He thought that the chief fault throughout the war was, that the people were not sufficiently aware of their danger. The people, always accustomed to wish for an end to the war, had not sufficiently reflected on the dangers of a peace.

Mr. Wilberforce rose in reply to Mr. Windham, and took notice of the universal joy which pervaded all classes of people when they heard that peace was made, and which was not diminished by hearing the terms of it. He complained of the ideas which the honourable member had imbibed, and seemed anxious to propagate: it appeared as if that right honourable gentleman thought there ought never to be peace with France, till a counter

revolution was effected in that country, and yet the whole nation was convinced that this country alone, without continental cooperation, could not effect such counterrevolution. The only difference between this peace, which the right honourable gentleman painted as a funeral, and that which he would have solemnized as a festival, was, that some colonies were restored, which he would have wished to have kept. Mr. Wilberforce then, in speaking of Trinidada, lamented the probable increase of the slave trade: he concluded an animated speech by deploring the contagion of modern French morals, although he thought this contagion would be as fatal in war peace.

as in

Dr. Lawrence spoke at great length, and very ably, against the peace. The strongest topic he urged in addition to the grounds which had been taken by the other speakers on the same side, was, that while the French were always faithful to their allies, his majesty's ministers deserted ours. He added that general Menou, when cooped up in Alexandria, obtained better terms for his allies in Egypt than we had pretended to do for ours in Europe. The consequence he conceived that must result from this conduct was, that the weaker powers would for the future put themselves under the protection of France, whom they knew to be faithful to her engagements.

Mr. Elliot looked upon the peace as ruin, and the treaty as an unnecessary sacrifice of our honour and interests, merely to purchase a short-lived and precarious tranquillity. [Mr. Elliot necessarily went over many of the grounds which

the

the other speakers had taken and nearly exhausted].

The Secretary at War supported the peace, and considered that the future security of this country. might be sufficiently provided for, by improvements in the system of military defence.

Several other gentlemen spoke on the question: most of whom were in favour of the peace.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer closed the debate by a short reply to the arguments against the preliminaries.

Thus terminated, after two days long and close argument, the very animated discussion of the preliminaries of the peace: a peace the most important in all its lights and bearings that the world had ever witnessed. In what situation it left the belligerent and the neutral powers of Europe, as well with respect to their territorial, as to their political relations, it will belong more appropriately to another part of this sketch of the History of Europe, for the year 1802, to detail: but it may be necessary here to call the attention of our readers to the line of conduct which the great leading characters of the country chose in this memorable debate to risk their political fame and reputation upon. No occasion could be more solemn, no question more momentous, no decision more important, Impressed with these sentiments, each individual, whether leader or partizan, carried with him to the arduous contest all his energies of mind, all his powers of ratiocination. Each seemed to think the present contest that on which not only the dearest interests of his country were to be decided, but by which his own character as a statesman was to be determined on by his contemporaries

and by posterity: nor was the scene less interesting to the people of England, who were anxiously waiting the investigation and decision of parliament, assembled for the express purpose at so early a period for the consideration of this great object of their wishes. This anxiety was still more widely spread, for there was not a power of Europe which did not look to the arguments and resolves of this day with an interest proportioned to the importance and magnitude of the subject.

That

It naturally occurs, from the trifling division in point of number in the house of lords against the address, and its being carried in the house of commons without a division, that the sense of the country was with the peace, and that, regardless of its terms or its consequences, it met with the entire approbation of the public. this was the case it is not possible to deny a series of years of most expensive war, of unusual pecuniary contribution, of real or apprehended scarcity, the total discomfiture of our continental allies, and the apparent impossibility of achieving any of the great objects for which war had been resorted to originally, had in their united effect contributed to render a cessation of hostilities highly popular. It was considered that those who made the peace were among the most violent and steady supporters of the war systein; that their abilities were guarantied to the public on their coming into office by the late minister; and that Mr. Pitt, himself a host, had given his unqualified approbation to the measure, as it now appeared before the public. It could not be conceived, that

men who had so long filled up the inferior departments in an administration, composed of the most splendid abilities this country had ever seen, with decency, and even credit, would sacrifice the opinions and politics of their whole lives for a momentary popularity; or for the continuance of the high situations they had, so much to the surprise of the world (perhaps to their own), been placed in; and, above all, that whatever their abilities might be, that they had sufficient patriotism and political science, not to abandon all the advantages we had gained, with so much blood and treasure, to France, without securing at least the permanency of a peace which had cost us so dear. The result therefore of this important debate was highly acceptable out of doors. The character of the first consul, the aggrandisement of France, the abandonment of our allies, the surrender of our conquests, the abrogation of all former treaties, the loose and ill defined terms of the present, were of trifling consideration when contrasted with the "blessings of peace:" nor did the eloquence and arguments of those in both houses of parliament, who ventured to doubt the solidity of the principles on which it was made, or the permanency which those by whom it was supported, asserted must belong to it, weigh with the world when put in the scale with lord Hawkesbury's assertion, viz. "That should we have to renew our contest with France in the course of eight or ten years, we must commence it with greater advantages than we did the last war!" and with Mr. Pitt's, who said, "We had every prospect of a long peace; for "that he saw

some symptoms of the views of France corresponding with our own."

We have seen that on this occasion Mr. Pitt gave his warm and decided support to the present government, as did those over whom his personal influence extended; but the ministry received at this moment assistance from another quarter, which, however it might increase the number of its supporters, certainly could not have added much to its satisfaction from the mode in which it was given. Mr. Fox, and those who usually acted with him, in approving of the peace, took this opportunity of charging, in the bitterest language, those who had carried on the war with culpable misconduct. "A war," said they, "which left us no alternative save that of utter ruin, or a peace like the present." Indeed the former gentleman went still further, and at a public meeting, said, that one source of his pleasure at the peace was, "because it was glorious to the enemy !" Nor could administration feel much pleasure in hearing from Mr. Sheridan, another of their present adherents, that "this was a peace which all men are glad of, but no man

can be proud of." Generally, however, peace in the abstract was approved of by those who were the most strenuous opponents of Mr. Pitt's administration, without either canvassing its terms, or revolving its probable consequences. But powerfully as Mr. Addington and his associates were supported on this momentous occasion, an opposition of very serious nature, both to them and to their measures, now began to manifest itself: an opposition, inconsiderable indeed in point of number, but of the first

magnitude

magnitude when estimated by the political experience, brilliancy of talent, and weight of rank and character of those who composed it. In the house of lords, where ten only divided against the address*, were to be found the Lames of the marquis of Buckingham, earls Fitzwilliam and Spencer, and lord Grenville, all of whom had filled the highest offices of the state with the greatest honour to themselves, and advantage to their country; in point of fortune and influence second to none. Nor were their opinions, however unpalatable to the multitude, lost upon the thinking part of the community. When it was understood in the world that the peace was considered by such men as tending to the humiliation and even degradation of the national character; that the terms of it left us for ever dependant on the good faith of France; that we had surrendered by it as much commerce as territory to our natural enemy; and that " as the threat of invasion terrified us into peace, so France would always have it in her hands with tenfold more

power, as it would come from so many more points;" and we could not reckon on the probability of peace for any long period;" it created considerable sensation, and damped in no small degree the rapturous joy evinced by all ranks of people on the first news of the cessation of hostilities. In the lower house of parliament, those sentiments were supported with the united judgment, talents, and eloquence of Messrs. Windhain, Grenville, lord Temple, Mr Elliot, Dr. Lawrence, &c. who now, with those of the lords who divided against the address, began to be known by the appellation of the new opposition.

We have gone into considerable length, both into the debates on this important subject, and into our remarks upon them, because we conceive that no subject could be more interesting to our contemporaries, or more necessary to go down to posterity, in as ample and satisfactory a manner as the limits and nature of this work would admit,

COME days after this discussion the thanks of both honses of parliament were voted to sir John Hely Hutchinson, and the general officers who commanded the army in Egypt, as also to lord Keith, and the admirals commanding the flect employed in that expedition. The votes of thanks passed unanimously in both houses, but several distinguished members, in each house, took the opportunity of paying the highest compliments to the gallantry of our army and navy, who had rendered such distinguished services to their country.

The next public business of importance which engaged the attention of parliament at the commencement of this session, was the consideration of the terms of the convention with the emperor of Russia, signed at St. Petersburgh, the 5th of June 1801, which terminated the northern confederacy, aimed at the vital intèresis, and even the very existence of the British empire, by a violent though insidious effort to extinguish our mantime rights and regulations, and to deprive us of our naval dominion, at a moment when we were deemed incapable of bearing up against the extraordinary and unexampled difficulties we

were then contending against. But, however well-grounded the hopes of our new adversaries, they had found in the vigilance and vigour of Mr. Pitt and his colleagues, and in the public spirit and magnanimity of the British nation, the complete frustration and overthrow of their hostile attempts. The victory of Copenhagen, the particulars of which we have detailed in our preceding volume, which, though fought under the auspices of a new administration, was the immediate fruit of the prompt and decided measures of the old, taught our adversaries that in the defence of our legitimate rights we were invincible, at the same time that our wisdom and moderation in the moment of victory rendered us truly worthy of it. The convention now to be considered was the consequence of this proud and glorious day. And it remained to be decided, by the investigation of both houses of parliament, whether we had followed up the brilliant success of our fleet, by securing on a solid and equitable basis the rights we contended for, or whether in negotiation we had bartered those rights for specious but futile advantages.

On the 13th of November this question