seasonable menace of war, is a specific, for undoing a rival country, which seems to me impossible to fail.”*

No

After repeated armaments and disarmaments, we discovered, that war afforded us a better security, and more real quiet, than a peace of unceasing alarm, and preparation for hostilities. War was accordingly entered upon with a glow of thought, and an energy of feeling, which marked the spirit of the nation, which confounded the expectations, and baffled the projects of the enemy. The fundamental principles, then, of the present war, varied materially from the causes of the first revolution war. apprehensions were entertained respecting the political sentiments of the people; they had returned into the paths of subordination, and resumed their native good sense, loyalty, and patriotism. This is, therefore, the war of the people; and it originated in acts of unexampled injustice, and in proposals of such an injurious tendency, on the part of the French government, that neither could be tolerated any longer, without an unmanly sacrifice of the liberties, power, and independence, of our country. These acts, and insolent propositions, I shall here recapitulate; because the grounds upon which we recommenced hostilities ought never to escape our recollections.

I. The prohibitions which had been placed on our commerce during the war, were enforced with increased rigour and severity during the peace; violence was committed, in several instances, upon our vessels and property; and, in no case, was justice afforded to the aggrieved, in consequence of such acts, nor had any satisfactory answer been given to the repeated representations made by our ministers at Paris.

II. Under these circumstances, and when no commercial treaty existed between the two countries, the French government sent a swarm of commercial agents, or consuls, for the avowed purpose of residing in our sea-ports. The instructions given by the French minister, Talleyrand, to one of these men, named Fauvelet, who was resident at Dublin, proves, that their mission could not have been of a commercial nature, and that their proceedings were altogether inconsistent with every principle of good faith, moderation, and justice.

III. A French army was retained in Holland, against the will, and in defiance of the remonstrances, of its government, and in repugnance to the spirit and letter of three solemn treaties.

IV. The invasion of Swisserland, in a period of peace, and in violation of the treaty of Luneville, by which the independence of that country was guaranteed.

V. The annexation to the dominions of France, of Parma, Piedmont, Placentia, and the isle of Elba, without allotting any provision for the king of Sardinia, though France had bound herself, by a solemn engagement, to the emperor of Russia, to provide for his establishment.

VI. The formal denial of our right to interfere with the proceedings of France towards other countries.

VII. The refusal to make an adequate provision, conformably to the treaty of Amiens, for the independence of the island of Malta, in consequence of the suppression of several tongues, and the sequestration of their revenues.

VIII. The refusal to give any satisfactory explanation relative to, or security against, the views of Buonaparte upon Egypt, and the Ottoman empire; views which had been officially announced in the report of Sebastiani, and admitted by Buonaparte, at his interview with lord Whitworth.

IX. Indignities offered publicly to our sovereign and the nation, in the above-mentioned report; in the official publications of the French government; in the personal and unworthy behaviour of Buonaparte to his majesty's representative, in the presence of the ministers of other states; and in the declaration, intended to diminish our relative importance in the opinion of all Europe," that Great Britain could not singly contend against France."

X. The refusal to disavow, publicly, the atrocious libel against the king and people of this country, inserted by Rheinhardt, the French minister, in the official paper of Hamburgh; and the violation of the independence of that state, by the violent measure pursued to cause its publication.

XI. The demands repeatedly urged by Buonaparte, that the laws and constitution of this country should be altered, relative to their fundamental principles, freedom of debate in parliament, and the liberty of the press.

* Vide Mr. Windham's speech, Nov. 4, 1801.

XII. Similar requisitions that we should violate the sacred rights of hospitality towards those princes who had been expatriated by the sanguinary proscriptions of the rulers of France, and whose demeanour here was, in all respects, harmless and inoffensive; while a knot of self-convicted traitors to our sovereign were not only patronized, but salaried by the French government.

These constitute the black catalogue of our wrongs, and the deep transgressions of France, during a period of peace. Whatever may now be thought of the validity of some of these grounds, to justify our continuance of the war, it is indubitable, that the first, second, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth, eleventh, and twelfth articles, remain in their full force, and would be revived under additional circumstances of insult, if our cowardice and impolicy should lead us to conclude a peace with the public enemy. It has been the undisguised ambition of the ruler of France to become the dictator of Europe, and to intermeddle in all the internal transactions of its different countries. With the presumptuous arrogance of pope Calixtus, in the benighted ages of European history, he insists, that "no business of any importance ought to be transacted in any nation of Europe without his knowledge and direction." Having made the great experiment of a peace with France, and having found that the system of Buonaparte cannot exist together with the existence of the British constitution, we have no alternative left but to choose between submission and tranquillity, with the loss of public freedom, and all our social endearments, or resistance and war, for the maintenance of these sacred principles. In the innocence of our cause, union and vigour will render disorder itself respectable, and qualify us to lay the basis of future uninterrupted domestic security; while the atrocious career of Buonaparte will prove ruinous to the virtue and the happiness of his people. Where the power of the chief is above the controul of the nation, he is likewise above the restrictions of law. Rapacity and terror are the predominant motives of his conduct, and form the character of the only parties into which a nation is divided-that of the oppressor, and that of the oppressed. The worst principles of our nature are at the bottom of this immoral policy. Hence, he has raised the colossal fabric of despotic empire, where he might have laid the foundations of public freedom; he has proved, that where the French were capable of the greatest improvements, they have displayed the lowest corruptions to which the human mind can be brought.

This present struggle, therefore, is as necessary to exercise our virtue, as steel is to flint in the production of fire; and, at its termination, France will be taught a lesson, which she does not seem to comprehend at present, that the real strength of a nation is derived from the character, not from the multitude of its people. Mankind also will learn, that there can be no peace in the absence of justice; it may subsist with divisions, disputes, and contrary opinions, but not with the commission of wrongs. If, through any criminal indifference on our part, (for no other cause can possibly accomplish it) the issue should prove unfavourable to this country, the power of language is inadequate to express the horrible cruelties we should have to endure. The massacres in Italy, or at Jaffa, are nothing in comparison, for death to a virtuous captive is the cessation of pain. But insult and revenge, tortures and derision, would be loosened upon us by the ferocious conqueror. All the wild and ensanguined freaks of the Caracallas, the Neros, the Caligulas of antiquity, would be collected into the bloody mind of the usurper, and practised upon us. In proportion to our former greatness would be meted the dreadful extremity of our sufferings, and in our downfall, the liberty, the virtue, the honour, and the independence of mankind, would be trampled under the feet of remorseless barbarians.

Nobilitas cum plebe perit; lateque vagatur
Ensis; et a nullo revocatum est pectore fenum.
Stat cruor in templis; multâque rubentia cæde
Lubrica sæpe madent. Nulli sua profuit ætas.
Sed satis est jam posse mori. Trahit ipse furoris
Impetus, et visum est tanti, quæsisse nocentum.
In numerum pars magna perit; rapuitque cruentus
Victor ab ignotâ vultus cervice recisos;

Dum vacuâ pudet ire manu. Spes una salutis
Oscula polluta finisse trementia dextræ.

Luc. 1. 2.-y. 100.

THE LAST HOUSE OF COMMONS.

There are few circumstances by which the public interest more poignantly suffers, than the political candor which public men find it necessary to shew to each other. I am aware that it is contrary to the usage of parliament, to impute improper motives; which ought, indeed, to be as cautiously exercised in other places: but, it is one thing to impute motives, and another to describe conduct and principles by their proper names, and to shew the world what is likely to be the result of such principles and conduct.

I have been led to this train of reflection, by what I conceive to have been the blameable tameness, and quiescence of the present administration and their friends, at the charges and imputations made against them by their adversaries, more especially on the subject of the late dissolution of parliament, as compared with that which took place during the last autumn. The present administration have very satisfactorily justified the last dissolution. Indeed, to do so is a very easy task: for when the late ministers had the hardihood to appeal to parliament against their sovereign, there was no alternative left for his majesty, and his new servants, but to appeal to his people from that appeal. It would have been another defence of the last dissolution to say, that it became the bounden duty of the new ministry to dissolve a House of Commons elected in the most unconstitutional manner that ever was witnessed, containing within it no less than a hundred persons avowedly unfriendly to the church establishment. Easy as it was for the new ministry to justify their dissolution, it was as impossible for their adversaries to justify that which took place; nor have they even dared to state the true grounds of that dissolution. Yet, notwithstanding this, they have been tamely suffered to shelter themselves under a pretence, as futile as absurd, viz. that they dissolved the parliament because a new æra in the war had taken place. No new æra in the war had taken place; at least as regarded its impression on the public mind. The parliament, and the people, both supported the war, and had never called for peace. Negociation was the work of the ministry, in direct opposition to the sense of the country. And it would therefore have been much more constitutional, (and Heaven knows how much more fortunate for Europe, and the world) having failed in this object, for the ministry to have resigned their places, than to have dissolved a parliament, and appealed to a people who were both known to acquiesce and rejoice in the failure of the negociation. No man was, at the time, weak enough to consider this as the true cause of the dissolution. Other reasons, therefore, were suggested, with more or less appearance of truth. Some thought the parliament was dissolved because, (under the honest administration of Mr. Addington) it had been elected without a sufficient share of treasury influence: others, that it was dissolved to get rid of the charges against lord Wellesley: others, that it was done by the Grenville's, on the death of Mr. Fox, to enable them to break with his adherents. The true reason, with the then ministry, for dissolving that parliament, has not, however, been yet stated. I take that reason to have been an intention, on the part of the ministry, to pass the catholic question, (or, at least, to throw the odium of its rejection upon the king,) but which there was no chance of doing through the means of a parliament which had so recently, and unequivocally, resisted it. This I take to have been the true cause of the former dissolution of parliament; and, indeed, it is every day, in effect, admitted to have been so by the late ministry and their adherents, by their continued avowal, that catholic emancipation is indispensible for the public safety. Of course they will not distinctly admit it, because, by so doing, they would acknowledge the fraud and imposition practised upon the country; for I take it to be the sound and required practice of the constitution, that where a dissolution of parliament takes place, out of the common course, the proclamation for dissolving it ought to state all the peculiar reasons for so doing. Why the true reason of the ministers for dissolving the parliament last autumn did not appear in the proclamation, we may easily conceive: first, because his majesty would not have set his name to such a proclamation: and, secondly, because the avowal of such a reason would have defeated its purpose, by putting the people upon their guard, and raising that very cry of, "No popery," which has been falsely charged upon the present ministry; but which, if true, would not be quite so blameable as the feeling of, "No religion," which, I fear, actuates some tolerant minds. Believing the late ministers to be sincere that catholic emancipation is essential to

the safety of the country, and assuming, as I do, that it would produce a total change in the constitution, both in church and state, I impute no improper motives to the late ministers when I assert, that their true reason for dissolving the last parliament was to bring about a change in our church establishment. That an impression of this sort was both felt and acted upon, is, I think, sufficiently apparent from a fact to which I have already alluded, and which ought to be more generally known than it appears to be, viz. that the last House of Commons contained no less than one hundred members, known and avowed dissenters from the established church; every one, or nearly every one of whom were supporters of the then ministry. I do not mean to say that the elections of these persons were favoured by the government. I do not say that they sat for treasury boroughs; and I do not say so merely because I am ignorant of the fact, and which are treasury boroughs: but what I do mean to state is this, that there were a hundred dissenters in the last pariiament, the greater part of whom were new members, and supporters of the ministry. I am aware just how much credit is due to such an assertion as this, unsupported by proofs. It is an assertion, however, which admits of pretty accurate investigation, There are many persons to whom its truth is perfectly well known: those who have the means, and will take the trouble of inquiring, will find the fact to be as I have stated it. Here then is one House of Commons dissolved for the purpose of bringing about a serious change in ' the constitution: a hundred dissenters find their way into parliament: the king and his people declare themselves decidedly against the measure: the ministry who favour it are dismissed: they, relying upon their influence in the House of Commons, appeal to it against their dismissal, and nearly effect their purpose: the people are then called upon to rally round their king; this they have done, and the hundred dissenters are not now in parliament.

There can be little difficulty then in deciding that the first dissolution was highly improper, and uncalled for; and that the second was the necessary consequence of the first.

PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES.

SIR,Few circumstances have been at once more interesting and lamentable, more anusing and ridiculous, than the woeful (but truly constitutional) outcry raised by the very respectable gentlemen connected with the daily papers, at the public being deprived of the interesting debate upon Mr. Whitbread's late motion, Are not your fellow feelings, Sir, all alive to the miserable situation of a brother editor, who, having snugly assured himself of four full columns from St.Stephens, is suddenly rouzed from his tobacco by this wicked Mr. Dennis Browne, and is forced to rummage his muddy pericranium for a long leading article about nothing at all? The sensations of some of these gentlemen, it is true, were vented in terms not very respectful to the House ; but then it was all for the good of their country; and of what value would the liberty of the press be, without a plentiful share of its licentiousness? However, we were consoled by an assurance, that this affair would lead to a permanent settlement of the matter. Mr. Sheridan-(who, your readers must have observed, is, from his connection with theatrical bones, a mighty favourite with all the papers,) Mr. Sheridan, forsooth, would make a motion upon the subject, which would effectually seat them all; and there seemed little doubt, but that the speaker, the serjeant at arms, and Mr. Dennis Browne himself, would soon dwindle into nothing. Mr. Sheridan, obedient to this powerful and respectable call, immediately gave notice of his motion;—— a motion, however, which, we have been since informed, he has wisely thought proper to withdraw.

But really, Sir, to be serious, ought it to be borne with, that the writers in the public papers should make this fuss about the loss of a debate, when every one who ever hears a debate in parliament, must feel that the publication of thein had, perhaps, better be wholly suppressed, than given in the false, garbled, and partial manner in

*This is one of the names given to the new-fashioned introduction prefixed to most of the papers, in which, instead of the news, we are presented with the editor's sagacious remarks. It is likewise called the leaden, or leaded article, from the lines being widened by pieces of lead, as well as for another equally apposite reason.

which they now, for the most part, come before the public? You have, Sir, in a former number, given a very strong instance of this, in the constant omission of the later and most interesting speeches in a debate; and your last number contains a l more irrefragable proof in the admirable speech of Mr. Ryder, on the first day of this session, to which none of the papers dedicated three lines. The most argumentative speeches are generally the least eloquent, and always the most difficult to report; which I take to be one of the reasons why Mr. Ryder's speech was not in the newspapers; and why the best speeches are generally omitted. It is no uncommon thing, when a particular speaker rises, (Lord Castlereagh, Sir P. Francis, Dr. Lawrence, and many others) for the reporters unanimously to ground arms, that is, to put their pens in their ink-bottles till the speaker has finished, or sometimes, if they deign to take a minute of his argument, they come to a general agreement, afterwards, to give him only so many lines in their paper.--While on the other hand, should any frothy declaimer get up, we have his speech verbatim, in the first person, and not unfrequently from the most authentic source. Half the business in the House of Commons is absolutely so perverted, or misunderstood by these gentlemen, that they frequently state the very reverse of what takes place; and the arguments assigned to speakers are, in the same proportion, diametrically opposite to those which they use. As for the House of Lords, this branch of the legislature (though it may fairly rival the other house in talents) seems, in general, quite beneath the notice of the papers, whose avarice is such, that I believe that there is not above one or two reporters for them all; which will be apparent to every one who will take the trouble of observing, that in several papers the proceedings in the Lords are precisely the same, word for word, and of course so many copies of one report. The persons who profess to give the debates in a more perfect and lasting form, are at no further trouble than in merely copying them from the newspapers; and thus the very materials for the future historian becomes poisoned at their source.

Now this being the state of parliamentary reports, is it not ridiculous to hear these people indulging in coarse, inflammatory allusions at the loss of a debate, which, if it had been given, would, most likely, have been as inaccurately given as its predecessors? And therefore, however the public may regret the loss, I think these gentlemen, before they indulge in such furious regrets, should, by giving a fair analysis of one or two debates, shew us what we really lose by their expulsion from the gallery.

As to the general question of the propriety of reporting debates in parliament, it is open to much argument; and though its advantages would, perhaps, be found to exceed its inconveniences, it is not without many of the latter. It is a circumstance of very recent date; and we have not to learn, that our liberties were as well preserved, and our affairs as well conducted, when no such permission existed. At all events,

it is (and I trust ever will be) a matter of mere sufferance with the house; and I trust it will always be in the discretion of every member, to guard the public mind from being inflamed, or depressed, by what he may think unfit for its car. It is as shameful as it is false, to induce the people to believe, that they have interests apart from those of their representatives. On the contrary, the privileges of the House of Commons are the dearest privileges of the people; and though ignorant and interested persons may assail those privileges, with specious and declamatory arguments, God forbid that the House should ever be induced, by threats or delusions, to yield one particle of those liberties which our forefathers so slowly and painfully won from former monarchs, and of which their representatives are the solemn depositaries and trustees for the people. I am, &c. July 14, 1807.

NO POPERY.

OBSERVATOR.

The last ministry, and their adherents, express themselves woefully enraged at the cry of "No Popery"-and which, I admit, is so obnoxious in the eyes of many persons, that I have not the least doubt but it was attempted to be set on foot by themselves, for the sake of casting a slur upon their opponents.

It is worth while, however, to consider whether such a cry would have been altogether so blameably mischievous as it has been represented. Mr. Windham, in a late debate, quoted it as a proof of barbarism: I think he said, that the cry of "No Popery"