-25,5641. 13s. 6d. to the Bank of England, for discount on the Loan of 1802; and 22,5381. 2s. 2d. to ditto, for receiving the contribution to ditto.3711. 175. to John Wilmott, Esq. for examination of certain American claims.—36ool, for certain incidental expenses for the last year.

The Master of the Rolls moved for leave to bring in a Bill to remove certain inconveniencies and disabilities to which the Catholics of Great Britain are at present subject, in consequence of two oaths prescribed by the Acts of the 18th and 31st. of his present Majesty.-Leave granted, and the Bill read a first time.-Irish Militia Bounty Bill read a third time and passed.-The Attorney Ge neral moved, "that leave be given to bring in a Bill for appointing commissioners to ascertain the individuals who had claims upon a certain fund of 6co,cool. which, according to a convention of the year 1800, the American government had agreed to pay by installments; and to distribute the fund accordingly." Leave granted.-Report of the Militia Officers Bill brought up.-Upon the motion for the amendments being read, a short debate ensued, for which see Supplement. Amendments read and agreed to.

Thursday, March 24.-LORDS.-Royal Assent given by commission to about forty public and private Bills. Irish postage Bill read a third time and passed.

COMMONS.-The Chancellor of the Exchequer presented the following

MESSAGE FROM HIS MAJESTY. "G. R. His Majesty having taken into his serious consideration the many eminent services "of Sir James Saumarez, Bart. K.B. Rear Admiral "of the Blue, and particularly his engagement "with the Spaniards in the Streights of Gibraltar,

on the 12th July, 1801, has deemed it proper to "communicate this his most gracious considera❝tion to this House, in order that his most faith"ful Commons may take such steps as will enable "his Majesty to reward such signal services, by "the settlement of an annuity of 12cal. upon the *said Sir James Saumarez for the term of his na"tural life. G. R." The Chancellor of the Exchequer then moved that the above most gracious message be taken into consideration in a committee of the whole House to-morrow. Ordered. -St. Giles's Burying Ground Bill, Duke of Athol's Bridge Bill, and Southampton Water Works Bill read a first time.Woolwich Trustee Bill read a second time.-Clergy Non Residence Bill read a third time and passed.

Friday, March 25. LORDS. Lord Pelham brought down a message from his Majesty similar to that delivered to the Commons yesterday, which, on his Lordship's motion, was ordered to be taken into consideration on Monday. Royal assent given by commission, to the Irish OfficeDuty Bill, and to some other public and private Bills.

COMMONS.-Mr. Mac Dowall moved for leave to bring in a Bill for erecting a Theatre in the town of Glasgow. Granted. The petition of James Trotter, who had been summoned as a witness on the Dumfermline committee, was presented by Lord Euston. On the motion of the noble Lord," that James Trotter be on Monday next brought to the Bar of that House and discharged," a conversation of considerable length succeeded, which turned upon a point of form by which the House might, with the greatest propriety, regulate their proceedings in this case. will be preserved in our Supplement. It was then ordered, that James Trotter should be brought to

It

the Bar of that House on Monday next.-In a committee of the whole House on his Majesty's most gracious message respecting Sir James Saumarez, the Chancellor of the Exchequer moved, "that it is the opinion of this committec, that the sum of 1200l. per annum, be granted out of the consolidated fund of Great Britain, to be settled on Rear Admiral Sir James Saumarez, for the term of his natural life." The question was then put, and carried unanimously. In a committee of the whole House, to consider further of ways and means for raising the supply granted to his Majesty, the Chancellor of the Exchequer moved,

that it is the opinion of this committee, that towards raising a supply granted to his Majesty, the further sum of four millions be raised by loan in Exchequer Bills." Granted.-American Compensation Commissioners Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday.-Surveyor General of the Forests Office Bill read a third time and passed-Report of Greenland Fishery Bill brought up and agreed to.

Monday, March 28.-LORDS.-Counsel were further heard relative to the important Scotch Appeal, Crawfurd v. Coutts.-Irish Chalking Bill read a first time.-Irish Militia Bounty Bill read a second time.

COMMONS. A report was brought up from the Committee appointed to try the merits of the Chippenham election, stating that Mr. Brooks was not duly elected, and that Mr. Maitland 'was duly elected. The Clerk of the Crown was then ordered to amend the return accordingly.-Glasgow Theatre Bill read a first time.-Stephen Brooks, who was guilty of prevarication before the Nottingham Committee, was brought to the bar of the House, and after a reprimand from the Speaker, discharged.-Greenland Whale Fishery Bill read a third time and passed.-Catholic Oath Bill read a second time.-On the order of the day being read for bringing James Trotter to the bar of the House, who had wilfully absented himself from the Committee appointed to try the merits of the Dumfermline election; and the question being put that James Trotter be now discharg ed on paying his fees," a debate of considerable length took place, which will be given in our Supplement. The motion was negatived, and the question was then put, "that so much of the minutes of the evidence given before the Dumfermline Committee as relates to James Trotter, be laid before the House." Ordered.-Mr. Addington moved, "that a Committee be appointed to enquire into the joint expenditure of the United Kingdom, from the 1st of Jan. 1801, to the 1st of Jan. 1803, and the sums contributed to the state of Great Britain and Ireland respectively." Ordered, General Gascoyne moved, "that leave be given to bring in a bill to equalize by weight the bushel of all salt imported to Ireland." Motion withdrawn.-Militia Officer's Bill read a third time and passed,-Mr. Vansittart moved for an account of all rock and white salt exported from Great Britain for the three years ending the 5th Jan. 1793, and for the three years ending the 5th Jan. 1803. Ordered.

Tuesday, March 29.-LORDS.-Counsel heard on behalf of the claim of the Rev. E. Timewell Brydges, to the Barony of Chandos.-Clergy Nonresidence Bill read a first time.

COMMONS.-Mr. J. Smyth brought up the report of the Committee appointed to try the merits of the election for the borough of Ilchester. It stated that W. Hunter, Esq. and T. Plummer, Esq. were not duly elected; that the petitioners, Sir

W. Manners, and J. Graham, Esq. were not duly elected; and that the election for the said borough was void. Mr. Smyth stated, that he was further directed by the Committee, to report, that such a system of corruption had been formed, and so many instances of individual bribery had been discovered previous to the election, that the Committee thought it necessary to communicate the same to the House: he concluded by moving, "that the minutes of the evidence taken before the Committee should be laid before the House." Ordered. A new writ for Ilchester was ordered to be issued out.-Sir J. Saumarez's Annuity Bill, and Exchequer Loan Bill read a first time.Clergy Non-residence Bill, and Woolwich Ordnance Bill read a third time and passed.

Wednesday, March 30-LORDS.-Counsel finally heard relative to the Scotch Appeal, Crawfurd v. Coutts. Clergy Non-residence Bill read a second time. The debate which took place on this occasion will be given in our Supplement.-A copy of the relevant proceedings in the Consistory Court of York being duly laid before the House, the bill to dissolve the marriage between the Rev. George Markham, and Susan his wife, was read a first time.

COMMONS.-The Speaker read a letter from Vice-Admiral Rainier, acknowledging the thanks of the House to him, and the officers under his command, and expressing his high gratification of the polite manner the Speaker had communicated the same. A report was brought up from the Committee appointed to try the merits of the Renfrew election, stating that Alexander Houston was not duly elected, and that Boyle Alexander was duly elected, and that none of the petitions were frivolous or vexatious. The Deputy Clerk was ordered to amend the return accordingly.In a Committee of the whole House, on the Grenada Loan Bill, the blanks in the bill were filled up, and the period for paying the money is to extend from the 4th of October, to the 5th of March, 1804.-Roman Catholic Oath Bill read a second time,-A message from the Lords stated, that they had agreed to the Irish Militia Bill, without any amendment.-Sir James Saumarez's Annuity Bill, and Exchequer Loan Bill read a second time.

Regulars

Total..

66 231 9 46 196 25 217 218656

ORDINARY.

Portsmouth Plymouth. Chatham Sheerness River..

England and Wales

64

North Britain..

64

66

Ireland

7 23 30

62

Jersey, Guernsey, &c...

30 15

31 16

Gibraltar...

Egypt and Malta

Canada, Nova Scotia, &c..

West-Indies

....

5 5

5 19 24

Cape of Good Hope, Goree, &c.....
East-Indies, and on Passage to
On Passage to England or Ireland. 1 6

Total..

7

53 132 167 The above statement is exclusive of artillery, engineers, artificers, and Militia,

FRENCH FUNDS.-March 16th, 58 fr. 50.-18th, 60 fr. 60.-19th, 59 fr.-21st, 56 fr.-23d, 57 fr. -24th, 55 fr. 90.--25th, 55 fr.-26th, 54 fr. 40.

TO CORRESPONDENTS.

As several articles which have been left for the purpose of insertion in our Register, but which we have not deemed suitable for publication, have afterwards been sent for; we beg it to be generally understood by our Correspondents, that all anonymous articles of the above description will, henceforth, be immediately committed to the flames, unless directions, specifying where they are to be returned are sent with them.

ERRATUM. Page 391, line 8, for and mock read and not mock,

VOL. III. No. 14.]

TO THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EX-
CHEQUER.

SIR,-The peace of Amiens was, by you and your colleagues, defended, principally, upon the ground of economy. You have, indeed, at different times, styled it a peace of honour, a peace of security, a peace of experiment, and, finally, a peace of the people; but, the standing defence, the reply to every argument, the opiate for every apprehension, the compensation for every sacrifice whether of interest or of honour, has been, the economy of peace. All mankind dislike paying taxes, of any and of every sort. Men of reflexion and of elevated minds, will, indeed, prefer the bearing of taxation, and will even support poverty and misery, rather than see the safety of their Country endangered, or its honour tarnished; but, with the mass of every people, to get rid of pecuniary burdens is, at all times, a positive good; and, in a country where a great portion of the wealth of individuals consists of a species of property, the value of which is enhanced by every diminution in the expenses of the state, a mea. sure, be it wise or unwise, be it virtuous or wicked, which promises areduction of public expenditure, will seldom fail to be received with general applause. Aware of this selfish propensity, you, Sir, seem to have availed yourself, to the full extent, of the temporary advantage which it gave you over your opponents, who appealed to the better, but, unfortunately, less prevalent feelings of the people. Had you, however, in pursuance of this your art of acquiring and preserving popularity, confined your statements within the bounds of truth, though I should still have condemned the principle, I should have had no disposition to bestow any particular censure on the practice; had the œconomy of the peace of Amiens been fanly laid before the public, I should still have despised the people, who could look upon œconomy, whatever its magnitude, as compensation for the loss of permanent security and of honour; but, I should have been ready to acquit you of an intention to abuse those despicable people; had you, in order to preserve your place, your power, and

a

[514

your profits; had you, in order to gratify your own vanity and covetousness, and to quiet the cravings of your numerous and greedy relations and dependents; had you, for those, or for any other purposes, availed yourself of the selfishness of the people, without practising upon their ignorance, I should have condemned your conduct, but should have acknowledged its effect to be a just punishment on those by whom that effect was experienced. But, Sir, your financial statements do not leave you even this title to forbearance. Those statements, from the moment the peace was concluded to the present time, have, from some cause or other, been such as tend to deceive the nation, to create and maintain opinions, relative to the economy of the peace of Amiens, totally false in themselves, and extremely dangerous in their consequences. To counteract, in some degree, at least, the tendency of these statements is the object of the present letter to you, an object which I shall endeavour to accomplish by a detail of facts and a mode of arguing, reduced, for reasons too delicate to mention, to the level of the meanest capacity.

In the execution of this task, I propose, 1: To compare the peace expenditure, as set forth in the estimate, sanctioned by the House of Commons, in June last, with the peace expenditure, estimated in your speech of the 10th of December last; 2. To compare your estimate of the receipts, as set forth in your speech of the 10th of December, with the actual receipts of the last, and the probable receipts of the present year; and, 3. To compare the receipts and expenditure of peace with the receipts and expenditure of war, if war had been continued.--Before I enter on these comparisons, I must make one observation, for the purpose of fending off the misrepresentation, which might otherwise, by ignorant cavillers, be levelled at my consistency. I already hear the cowardly charge of" disheartening the people at this alarming crisis," and the more serious charge of "encouraging the enemy by exposing our weakness:" to obviate these charges, I most explicitly declare, as I have done on many occasions heretofore, that I

the war being now over, we shall, of course, revert to the state which we were in before it began.'-Upon this most fallacious notion you proceeded to make your estimate, taking first the expenditure of 1791, and adding thereto the additional annual charges on account of the national debt and civil list, and allowing £700,000 a year, additional expenses for the army, navy, and ordnance, making, together, £30,726,772 as the total of the expenditure of that blessed peace, in obtaining which for your country, you had been "the humble instrument in

the hands of Divine Providence." (2) Stripping this estimate of its treasury jargon and verbosity, it will stand thus: Annual expenditure of last peace.... £15,429,178 Additional annual expenses incurred

nce the beginning of the war, exclusive of army, navy, and ordnance 14,597,594 Amount of what the army, navy, and ordance will cost, during the present peace, moe than what they cost during the last peace..

700,000

£30,926,772

This was the estimate, on which the nation was to rely, as on the most authentic information that could possibly be obtained relative to its future expenses; and, as you, at the same time, estimated the revenue at £32,208,833,leaving a balance of £1,282,061 in favour of the revenue, the prospect was, altogether, very flattering to the lovers of peace and the haters of taxes.-But, Sir. before I proceed further in the examination of this estimate, let me ask, how you came to adopt such a strange mode of making it out? Would it not have been much more natural to take the year 1801, instead of 1791, as a basis, and to proceed by subtraction in place of addition? Would not this have been more consonant with that candour, for which you are so famous? The total expenditure of 1801, the last and most expensive year of war, was £63,054,978 (3) and, was not the natural mode of estimating, to state what part of this expenditure could, in consequence of peace, be dispensed with? Yes, this was the fair and only rational course of proceeding; but this course would not have suited the object, which you had in view. The specific deductions you could have ventured to make from the expenditure of 1801 would, upon the whole, have produced no very considerable diminution, whereas, a comparison between the expenditure of 1801 and that of 1791 was striking; it was

(2) See that specimen of most disgusting vanity, folly, and arrogance, Mr. Addington's speech at the Reading Ball; Register, Vol. II. p. 1036. (3) See Register, Vol. II. p. 9: 1.

calculated to produce instant effect upon the gaping, greedy gamblers in the funds. To add £700,000 to the last peace establishment, was much easier than to subtract £40,000,000 or even £25 000,000 from the establishment of the war. (4) ·

The two first heads of your estimate, as new-arranged by me, I must allow to be correct, because, though I have not the materials whereby to verify them, they are of a nature not to be materially mistated. It is the third head that furnishes the object of detection and exposure. Under this head you state, that the army, navy, and ordnance will, during the present peace, cost only 700,000 a year more than those departments of service cost during the last peace. You do, indeed, provide for an evasion by saying, parenthetically, that this calculation is exclusive of any augmentations that may take place; but, the evident tendency of all your statements and declarations, is, to discourage the idea of any such augmentation. Let us, then, first inquire what was the annual expense of maintaining the army, navy, and ordnance, at the time which you have chosen to refer to. In the same report which you cite (the report of the Committee of the House of Commons in 1791) the said annual expense was stated at £4,123,842, of which £2,000,000 for the navy, £1,748,842 for the army, and £375,000 for the ordnance. Adding to this expense the £700,000, which you, in your estimate, allow for increase of expense in these branches of the public service, our present peace establishment, would be, 14,823,842 according to the following more arithmetical exhibition :