that treaty, bound, under tho present circumstances, to evacuate the island of Malta; that, the ministers in keeping possession of it, are guilty of no breach of public faith, but that, on the contrary, in giving it up, they would commit a crime against their country; and that, the retention is not to be regarded as

an indemnity for the unjust encroachments of the French government," as it has been represented by those men of "English feeling," who one minute cry out against the injustice, insolence, and tyranny of Buonaparté, and the next declare their readiness to make new concessions rather than resist this injustice, insolence, and tyranny by arms; we flatter ourselves, that we shall be able to prove, that the retention of Malta is not to be considered as an indemnity of this or of any sort, nor even as the first act of hostilities in the new and just war into which we are about to be driven, but purely and simply as the preservation of a thing which lawfully belongs to us.-By the treaty of Amiens, article X, it is agreed, as a basis, that "the islands of Malta, Gezo, and "Comio, shall be restored to the Order of "St. John of Jerusalem, to be held on the

same conditions, on which it possessed "them before the war, and under the fol"lowing stipulations."-These stipulations, which provide for a modification of the Order are contained in the clauses 1, 2, and 3*. They state, in substance, that the French Langues shall be suppressed, that a Maltese Langue shall be established, and that the Order shall be composed of the Langues which "shall continue to subsist "after the exchange of the ratifications of "the present treaty;" that is to say, of the same Langues that subsisted before the war, with the exception of these two alte rations. The Order, such as it ought to be for the purpose of receiving the sovereignty of Malta, Gezo, and Comio, is here, then, accurately described. It was not to the Order of St. John, generally, but to that Order constituted conformably to the treaty of Amiens, that we were bound to surrender the sovereignty and the territory of Malta. Whether the Order thus constituted would, or would not, be capable of maintaining its independence, is a question which has nothing to do with that now before us. We have no right to plead the ignorance and selfishness of our ministers as a ground for the non-fulfilment of a treaty that they have made; but, if the Order, such as it is described and specified in the treaty, has undergone any material change, and, particularly if that change tends to weaken it, and has, moreover, been produced by any

* See the treaty, Register, Vol. 1. p. 323.

power or powers, other than ourselves, who were parties to the treaty, it is evident that we are not bound to surrender the island, of which we possess both the dominion and the sovereignty, into the hands of the Order thus mutilated; because, in so doing, we should surrender it to a sovereign, who is not the sovereign designated by the treaty to receive it. If the reader allows these premises to be just, a simple narrative of facts is all that is wanted to make out our position. Before the epoch fixed on for the surrender of the island (see Art. X. clause 4,) the Order of Malta, which, according to the terms of the treaty was to consist of the Langues of Italy, Castille, Arragon, Germany, and Bavaria, was materially curtailed and enfeebled by the suppression of the Langues of Castille and Arragon, and this suppression was made by the King of Spain, the ally of France, one of the parties to the treaty. treaty. More recently the Langue of Bavaria has been suppressed, and also that part of the Italian Langue comprised in Piedmont and the Duchy of Parma, now united to France (another of the parties to the treaty of Amiens), thus reducing the Order to a skeleton, rendering its sovereignty and independence a mere mockery, and preserving its name only for the purpose of enforcing the stipulation by which we have agreed to evacuate the island. That such must have been the effect of these suppressions no one will deny, and, it follows of course, that we are absolved from our obligation relative to the surrender; for, the object of the two principal contracting parties respecting Malta is, in the 2d clause of Art. X. clearly declared to be," to place the "Order and Island of Malta in a state of entire "independence with regard to themselves." The subsequent stipulations turn almost whol ly and entirely upon the manner of effectually providing for this independence, in speaking

of which the Order and the Island are never separated. Every thing indicates, that the Order was, in itself, even previous to the amputations it has undergone since the treaty, considered as insufficient for this purpose, and, for that reason, a foreign garrison is provided together with the guarantee of the six principal powers of Europe. Any change, therefore, tending further to enfeeble the Order, and absolutely to destroy the means already looked upon as insufficient, must, unless England has occasioned such change, fully acquit her of a breach of faith in retaining the island, and, we hardly think that Mr. Barrère, or even Mr. Fox, will attempt to prove, that this country has forced Spain, Bavaria, and France to make those suppressions, by which the Order is reduced to 2, hundred

knights, almost destitute of revenues, and no more able to defend Malta than they are to conquer the Empire of Russia. Since, therefore, the Sovereign, to whom Malta was to be surrendered, not only no longer exists, but has been mutilated and destroyed by the opposite parties to the treaty of Amiens, England has not only a right to retain the dominion and sovereignty of the island, but such retention is a duty which she owes to Europe in general, and to the people of Malta in particular, whom she is bound, by obligations the most sacred, not to surrender to, or leave at the mercy of, any foreign power whatever.

PUBLIC CREDIT-While the retention of the places, of which we have spoken above, is fully justified by the conduct of the enemy, we imagine it will be very difficult for the ministers to justify themselves to the nation for the contradictory orders they have given in this respect, and for the blow which their selfishness has finally given to the credit of the country. The Imogen, which took out the orders for the retention of the Cape, must have sailed from England late in October. On the 10th of December Mr. Addington came to the par Jiament with his grand financial display, in which he presented an estimate explicitly founded upon a reduction of our establishments during the present year *. Just before the Christmas recess, in the debate upon the Navy Commissioners Bill, to which Lord Folkestone objected, as unhinging the naval service at a moment when war might be expected, the candid Chancellor of the Exchequer replied, with his usual modesty, that "whatever ill-boding opinions his lord"ship might entertain, he was sure the "House would not adopt them." And, no longer ago than the 18th of February, only four days previous to the delivery of the King's Message, he offered, as a reason for voting the money to the Prince of Wales, that we were now in a state of peace. If, therefore, orders had not, between the sailing of the Imogen and the 10th of December, been sent to evacuate the Cape, on what did Mr. Addington found those hopes, which he held out to the country on the latter day, of a reduction of our establishments? And, if the Cape be now delivered up, how will be answer to his country for having surrendered that important place, when we had an undoubted right to retain it, and for having thus, on the eve of a war, put one of the keys of India into the enemy's hands? But, his subsequent conduct it will be still more difficult to justify. Did he know nothing of the hostile disposition

See Debates, Register, Vol. II. p. 781.

and preparations of France on the 18th of February? Was the present armament resolved on and the Message delivered to Parliament in fourteen days from the first moment of his having obtained any knowledge of the circumstances that led to that important measure? No longer ago than the 18th of February, he must have been totally ignorant of all the grounds of alarm, or, his declaration of that day, must have been intended to deceive the holders of stock. Let him, therefore, take his choice between the profoundest ignorance or the profoundest duplicity.-Whatever may have been the motive of his conduct, the effect is certain; he has depreciated, not the funds, but the credit of the country. However men may differ in other respects, they all agree, that he will never be able to make another loan under twenty per cent. No monied man will ever again place confidence in his assertions or his estimates, both of which have proved to be shamefully fallacious; and, which is still worse, his bad faith will be entailed upon his successors, as the bankruptcy of a partner never fails to bring lasting discredit upon the firm. For this reason, if for no other, the candid minister must yield his place in "the machine.” It will require no intrigue, no force, to put him out; out he must come, or the machine will first stop, then crumble into dust.

SIR THOMAS TROUBRIDGE-Connected with the foregoing subject is the conduct of a certain person in office with regard to the stocks. The imputation has been publickly made, and has not been removed, that persons have profited from the information, des rived from their official situation, and have dealt in the funds to a very great amount. Certain it is, that there never was known so material an anticipation. To what cause it was to be ascribed we cannot say, but we know that the suspicions of the people in the city are not to be done away, without something more satisfactory than the whining nonsense, which the news-papers have published on the subject.-On the Rich mond-Park ministry, no blame can certainly attach; those three words must always awaken ideas of purity, sanctity, and, particularly, of fair dealing; and, it was with no less astonishment than regret, that we saw Capt. Markham bring forward the story relative to Sir Thomas Troubridge, who, besides his being of the Shelburne school, and belonging to the Richmond-Park ministry, has a character for bravery quite sufficient to shelter him from the malignant insinuations of the losers in 'Change Alley-We have read the letter of Sir Thomas's agent, and have heard Captain Markham read the affidavit of the same person, to both which documents we,

of course, give implicit credit, and we must, therefore, regard Sir Thomas as completely cleared; but yet, for this brave gentleman's own sake, as well as for that of the service, to which he has the honour to belong, we could have wished, that the power of attorney, in virtue of which the stock was sold, had been produced. This instrument, we are told, still exists, and, as its date will, at once, put the matter to rest, we do wish that Sir Thomas, or some one of his friends, would move for its production. It was extremely unfortunate, too, that Captain Markham did not provide some one to second bis motion for an inquiry. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, worthy soul! did, indeed, most ably support all that Captain Markham had advanced, but the good man, in giving way to the warmth of his friendship, forgot the routine part of the business, and actually sat down after having seconded every thing but the motion! This omission was, too, the more untoward, when the fate of Sir William Elford's motion and the Admiralty comments thereon were recollected. Sir William's motion, which was for an inquiry into the conduct of Mr. Marshall of Plymouth, was not seconded; and this was regarded by the Admiralty and the newspapers as a proof of bis guilt. Far be it from us to to apply this mode of judg ing to Sir Thomas Troubridge; but, we cannot help lamenting, that the motion was not seconded.--We shall return to this subject another time, for we are extremely anxious, that not a shadow of suspicion should remain. For our own parts we are perfectly satisfied; but we again beg leave to recommend, that the public may be informed of the date of the power of attorney. If it shall appear, as we doubt not it will, that this instrument was signed, before the armament was resolved on in Council, or even before the Lords of the Admiralty had any intimation of it, then will the base calumniators be silenced, which we are much afraid they will not by any other means.

MILITIA. A bill is now laid before the House of Commons for the purpose of

more speedily and effectually completing "the establishment of officers in the militia " of Great Britain."-As the debates on this bill have given rise to some very malignant insinuations in the Morning Post of Thursday last, as well as to some gallery clap-traps elsewhere, we think ourselves called upon to make a few remarks on the subject; not so much, however, for the purpose of showing the evil tendency of the measure as for that of exposing the inconsistency of those who are endeavouring to throw an unmerited odium on the gentlemen, by whom it has been opposed, and through whose means

a considerable modification of it has been obtained. The ministers, conscious of deserving the severe reproaches of the country, for the whole of their conduct at, and since, the peace, but particularly for that part of it, which relates to their disarming, disembodying, disbanding, and dismantling system, by which they thought to have secured the never-ending applauses of the ignorant multitude, are now seeking for occasions to stifle those reproaches in their birth, by accusing their opponents of a desire to retard the restoration of the army and the navy. The measures they have brought forward relative to the militia both in Great Britain and in Ireland, are, to say the least of them, of a tendency extremely injurious to the military service of the kingdom; but, every objection made to these measures, every fear or doubt with regard to their effect, and, indeed, every suggestion, however, mildly and amicably offered, not implicitly coinciding with the projects of men, whose ignorance is universally admitted, is met by the imputation of a wish to dishearten the people and to obstruct the measures necessary for national defence.-This excellent mode of obviating the inconveniencies of discussion has been tried to its utmost, on the present occasion, with what degree of truth and of justice we shall, in a few words, endeavour to enable our readers to judge.— The bill in question enables persons, not having qualifications of landed or pecuniary property, to be officers of militia. There are various modifications as to the rank, manner of admission, &c. &c. but this is the regulation simply stated, it does enable unqualified persons to be officers in the militia service of England. Lord Folkestone objected to it, principally upon the ground, that it tended to keep the nobility and gentry out of the militia, and, at the same time, to injure, in various ways, the regular service. This was immediately laid hold of by the Secretary at War, who expressed his astonishment at what had fallen from the noble Lord, and also by Mr. Sheridan, who observed, that the young nobility and gentry' would do better to go into the militia than to follow their bounds. This brilliant sally, which caught "a loud cry of bear! bear! was not, to say the truth, much to the point, and his Lordship might certainly have observed, that the sports of the field were full as wholesome and as honourable, full as likely to strengthen the frame and ennoble the mind, as the various pleasures of the theatre or the gaming-house. To the astonishment of the Secretary at War, who brought in the bill, his Lordship had still a better reply; to wit; that the bill, then before the House, was, as far as it went, in direct contradic

tion to the complete code of militia law, which was passed by the parliament no longer ago than the 26th of June last, and which was framed and brought forward by the Secretary at War himself! That code, which fills up nearly a bundred pages of the statute-book, begins with these words: "Whereas a respectable military force, un"der the command of officers POSSESSING "LANDED PROPERTY, within Great Bri« tain, is essential to the constitution." It then proceeds to state, that great disorder and innovation have crept into the militia system;

after which it enumerates the several militia. acts in existence, and repeals them all, for the purpose of substituting a well-digested permanent code, the very basis of which is, that every commissioned officer shall have a qualification in property. What gentleman, then, especially a gentleman who had assisted in passing this "well-digested per"manent code," could be expected to give, without hesitation, his consent to a bill, which struck at the very foundation of it? And, with what degree of consistency, of common respect, or of common decency, could he be reproached for that hesitation, by the very person, who, only eight months ago, had digested, drawn up, and procured to be passed, that permanent code?" But, "the necessity of the times!" The necessity of the times may be great, but, with regard to the militia, it merely calls them out, and, if the "well-digested permanent code" be insufficient for that purpose, what is the use of it? Why does it swell out the statute book? Why were some hundreds of pounds expended in the printing of it? And why were the two Houses of the last Parliament compelled to waste upon it so many of those hours, which might otherwise have been devoted to the diverting speeches of Mr. Sheridan or to the bills about "pigeons "and rabbits' dung?" This code makes a fine figure in the rolls of Parliament, and in the printing-office of Mr. Strahan; but the moment it is to be acted upon, away it goes, and all the landed property," and "the "constitution" along with it. It was, it seems, a thing merely for show, like feathers, or grenadier caps, or any other of those baubles, which the soldiers describe as being "all for sight and none for fight," and which are always thrown aside preparatory to a battle.-The Secretary of War, aware of the force of these arguments, attempted to meet them by a precedent. He reminded Lord Folkestone, that the very same measure was adopted during the last war. "Yes," his Lordship might have said, “and

For sweeping the House of Parliament of some of these documents of peddling and dirty legislation, the country is indebted to Lord Holland.

"this very same measure it was, which

your code was principally intended to prevent in future!" But, besides this, the precedent was by no means in point. During the war, the men of the militia were suddenly doubled in number, which created an absolute necessity of admitting unqualified officers; whereas no augmentation of the militia has now taken place; its strength is as it was fixed by the " well-digested per"manent code." The precedent was, therefore, totally inapplicable to the case, and the objections of Lord Folkestone still remain to be answered by something better than a cry of disheartening the people," by which cry, we trust, his Lordship is not to be deterred from a discharge of that duty, which demands a strict examination into every measure proposed by those men, whose inconsistent and wavering conduct has, even according to their own acknowledgment, already brought their country into imminent danger, and who have the modesty to plead that very danger as a title to unlimited confidence.

CREATING DESPONDENCY.-This is the charge, which the ministry now prefer against all those, who attempt to awaken the country to a sense of its danger. Their object is evident enough; for, if the danger of the country be so great as we, for instance, affirm it is, the fault must be in the ministers, and, therefore, it is very natural for them to decry every thing tending to establish our position. The nation, too, has a feeling of somewhat the same sort it is conscious of having, in some degree, participated in the measure, which has so speedily brought it to the brink of destruction, and to the dreadful effects of which it would fain shut its eyes. Thus both the ministry and the people have adopted the sentiments and the language of the perverse and degenerate Israelites: "they say to the seers, see not; and to the prophets, prophesy not unto us right things; speak "unto us smooth things, prophesy deceits." This folly and timidity are represented by the prophet Isaiah as a symptom of that baseness, which was to produce, and which finally did produce, first the captivity and afterwards the dispersion of the Jewish nation; and, in spite of the cuckoo cry of "creating despondency," we give it as our settled opinion, that, unless a very important and speedy change takes place in this kingdom, the Jews will not be the only people without a coun try." If the blind lead the blind, both "shall fall into the ditch." It has always been our maxim, that the country cannot be saved, without being fully apprized of all the dangers of its situation, and of all the difficulties it has to encounter. This maxim