of the house of Commons were, however, as complaisant to Lords Grenville and Grey, as they had before been to Mr. Pitt and Lord Sidmouth, and as they have since been to the Duke of Portland and Mr. Perceval; and instead of censuring the conduct of those ministers who had so wantonly thrown away an opportunity of making peace upon honourable and advantageous terms, and who so heedlessly re-plunged us in all the expences, crimes, and horrors of war, gave them their entire approbation :-an address in the usual adulatory style passed without a division.

The system of taxation pursued under the Grenville and Grey administration was likewise similar to that of their predecessors, and successors. One melancholy instance will be sufficient to prove the truth of our assertion. That most vexatious and oppressive of all vexatious and oppressive taxes-the horrible INCOME TAX, and which had been severely reprobated by the leaders of oppositionthat very tax was, under their administration, DOUBLED. Our present ministers, as well as the nation in general, have, therefore, a right to ask Lord Grey, why the calamitous state of the nation is to be ascribed SOLELY to the measures of Mr. Pitt, and Mr. Perceval? To Lord Grey and his coadjutors, a proportionate share of blame is justly to be attributed.

But what must confirm the opinion of our countrymen, that the systems of the different administrations are not very dissimilar, is the language of Lord Grey, just quoted; his perceiving "no indis"position on the part of his Majesty's ministers to accede to any "reasonable and justified course" calculated to restore peace-his approbation of their declining to make any overtures--his assertion that there exists no necessity for the house to interfere on the subject," and above all, his hostile declaration-" that the restoration of peace, whenever such an event shall happen, ought not to be "considered in any other light but as a preparation for the renewal "of the contest!" Melancholy indeed is it to read such language from one who for many years stood foremost in the ranks of the opposers of war, and the friends of negociation. The horrid principle of ETERNAL WAR was never more loudly proclaimed either by Pitt, Burke, or any of the most violent, furious, war-loving statesmen in either house of parliament. We will venture to affirm that should statesmen in general make such shocking principles a rule of action, it is impossible there should be any lasting peace for our own country, or for Europe in general. It is indeed somewhat surprising, that if statesmen really entertain such principles, motives of policy do not prevent an avowal of them to the world; such an avowal being nothing less than an unblushing display of their own hypocrisy. We tremble for the consequences of such frantic conduct. Should the French Emperor take Lord Grey at his word, and con

sider his lordship as proclaiming the real sentiments of ministers, will he not prepare himself accordingly; and being assured that the rulers of this country consider " the restoration of peace, whenever "it shall happen, but as a preparation for the renewal of the con"test," will he not treat them, as opportunity may offer, as hypocrites, signing solemn treaties for the mere purpose of deception? And will they not justly merit such treatment?

Lord Grey has, however, no right to use such language. Is his lordship certain that motives of policy may not induce the Emperor of France to remain at peace with surrounding nations; or that he may not sincerely desire a state in which he may be the better able to consolidate his power, and promote the internal prosperity of France? Will his lordship venture to assert, that in the principal points of difference between the two countries, BRITAIN has not been the aggressor? The speeches of his lordship in which he has repeatedly condemned the system which produced both the last and the present war are on record; although at the time they were uttered, it must be acknowledged, he was not quite so intimate with his "noble friend" Lord Grenville, as he has been for some time past, nor was he the panegyrist of the principles and characters of those "great men now no more,”—Mr. PITT, and Mr. WINDHAM!

It is now but too apparent that the country has no brighter pros pect of peace from the administration of Lords GRENVILLE and GREY, than from that of Mr. Perceval and Lord LIVERPOOL. Indeed the latter have not, during the late session of parliament, used such incautious language as that we have quoted, and we question whether the regard they have for their places, will not prevent them from adopting, or at least from avowing such principles of action.

pre

This topic demands the most serious attention of our countrymen; and we cannot but express a wish that, at their public meetings, they would pass resolutions expressive of their, opinion, and present petitions to his MAJESTY on the subject of PEACE. In what an ungracious situation is this country placed, owing to the pride and folly of our statesmen? All the overtures for peace during the sent war have been first made on the part of the enemy. Our statesmen have not only rejected these overtures, but, some of them at least, have given pretty broad hints that they do not mean to negociate with sincerity! Ought not the people on such an occasion to declare their sentiments in the same free, constitutional, and dignified manner, as they have recently declared them on other important points? That national desideratum, a REFORM OF PARLIAMENT, can, after all that has been said on the subject, be considered only as a grand and effectual mean to produce grand and beneficial ends; and if the people do not cultivate sentiments and feelings of peace,

and of justice towards other nations, even a fair and an equal representation in the senate will be of little avail.

The extended power and influence of France, is thus described by Lord Grey. "France is now mistress of the continent: that "dominion which under Lewis the fourteenth, she so actively but "ineffectually struggled for, she has now acquired: the indeden"dence of Europe is lost; the balance of power destroyed: Russia "incapable longer to oppose, is made wholly subservient: the "hordes of Italy, and Germany are now appointed to recruit their "numerous armies, whilst France has at her disposal the means of "all the maritime powers of Europe: in addition to all these means "the acquisition of the Spanish Peninsula is too probable." This description is as just as it is awful; and what renders it still more awful is the reflection, that not the united abilities and exertions of all the cabinets of Europe have been able to arrest France in her victorious and triumphant career. The great question therefore which ought seriously to engage the attention of our rulers and of our countrymen is-What course ought Britain to pursue for her own preservation ?-That the vast, gigantic, and unwieldy empire of France, will continue in its present state for any length of years we have our doubts: that it would ever have arrived at that state had it not been for the injustice, and the folly of those who were the original aggressors, who pronounced France for “ ever "incapable of being a formidable enemy," we do not believe. The experience of eighteen years, the waste of millions of lives, and of hundreds of millions of property, the ruin of states, kingdous and empires in the fruitless contest, must surely convince every man whom God has not in his judgment given up to a spirit of infatuation, of the truth of a sentiment we inculcated in the first number of this work-a sentiment we have since frequently repeated, and which we again repeat, but of the truth of which neither our rulers nor our countrymen, after all their dear bought experience appear to be yet fully convinced :-" That all attempts of "the different powers of Europe to abridge by force of arms the "power of France, will to the confusion of the parties concerned, "terminate in its increase."-Do not therefore the national welfare, and safety, depend on our pursuing a course diametrically opposite? Is it not equally our duty and our interest to seek peace and pursue it? Let us not be told of the injustice and the rapacity of France, till we have offered such reasonable terms of peace, as may secure to us the possession of our dominions, and our trade; such terms France has repeatedly offered: and until we show a disposition equally amicable;-unless we make overtures that power whose overtures we have so frequently and unreasonably rejected, we have no rational prospect of success, or of obtain

ing the favour and friendship of heaven. It is only by a return to the paths of reason, equity, and justice; by cultivating a spirit of peace abroad, and by reformation at home, that we can expect an amelioration of our national affairs, or the protection and blessing of the GREAT GOVERNOR OF NATIONS!

It is impossible that in the studied, and prepared speeches of a statesman, possessing the talents and experience of Lord Grey, there should not be various observations deserving the serious attention of his auditors: the remarks respecting the "six hundred Iyears of political mismanagement in Ireland, of the increased "influence of the crown," and on various other topics, our ministers would do well to profit by: but alas! the force of his lordship's admonitions is much weakened by the insinuations thrown out against those who have, without any apparent view of procuring either place, pension, or emolument from the public, been assiduously endeavouring to inculcate and enforce similar admonitions. Whom does his lordship mean by "those fanciful theorists whose "lengths he cannot go, who deny the due legitimate influence of "the crown to a certain extent?" We are persuaded he cannot point out any such persons amongst those who have been conspicuous in the cause of national reform. Are the complaints of his lordship respecting the "six hundred years mismanagement of Ire"land,"--are his frequent and energetic remonstrances against the numerous acts of tyranny practised under the PITT administration to be at all reconciled with the broad assertion in the speech under consideration?" I must do this justice to all administratious for a number of years past to observe that there has been no dispo"sition on the part of ANY OF THEM to stretch their power to " an extent which could render it burdensome to the people?" Is it possible for his lordship or any of his friends to reconcile these gross inconsistencies?

That part of his lordship's speech which affords equal, if not increased dissatisfaction with those parts we have already noticed is towards the close, when touching on the great topic of parliamentary Reform, and which comparing with what he has so repeatedly and energetically urged in the lower house, we cannot help exclaiming "Oh! what a falling off is there!" One might reasonably have supposed that the events of the past ten years would have confirmed his lordship in his opinion of the necessity of a radical reform,-such a reform we mean as he proposed to the house of Commons a few years since: instead of which we find that "his opinions on the subject had undergone some change; "and he confessed that to go the full extent of his original ideas "would be too much: a more limited reform would be more pro"bable. If he had ever said that without a Parliamentary Re

*form no administration could act usefully for the country, THAT "OPINION HE MUST NOW RETRACT: he thought if ministers "had sufficient power, even as the house of Commons was now “composed, that they might do every thing that was required for "the good of the country; but to do so they must possess the "confidence of the people, and the confidence of the crown; for " without the latter as well as the former they could not act with "full effect, but must be subject to every obstruction."*

So then, after all his lordship's professions during the past twenty years, after his repeated assertions respecting the absolute necessity of Parliamentary Reform, it at last turns out that the only end proposed by such Reform is, that the ministers for the time being may have sufficient power in the two houses, so that they may do every thing they think proper for what they term "the good of "the country;" and that if they have the confidence of the crown, and of the people, so that they can "act with full effect, and with"out obstruction," Parliamentary Reform will not be necessary!

In answer to this miserable apology for apostasy, those who so long looked up to his lordship as one of the firmest friends of Parliamentary Reform, have a right to demaud-What is here meant by the word "confidence?" How is that confidence procured? Is it not easy to point out various periods in the English history, when ministers too successfully employed the corrupt means which the present system at all times places in their hands, to gain the "confidence of both the crown and the people?" Has his lordship totally forgotten the many warnings he has given the people against imposing a blind implicit confidence in ministers? Has not a considerable part of his political life been spent in strenuously opposing the measures of an administration the leader of which appeared for many years to possess the unbounded confidence of the King, the two houses of parliament, and the people at large ?-Did not that administration act with "FULL EFFECT?"-Did not all the measures, of the despotic, profligate, and abandoned minister alluded to, (Lord Grey's "great man, now no more"), a minister, who, to use the energetic language of Mr. Fox, "wasted more lives in foreign wars, than that ambitious, unprincipled despot, Louis "XIV. and who aimed at more innocent lives at home, than " HENRY VIII.”—Did not all his wasteful, extravagant, tyrannical, and bloody schemes, receive the sanction of large and triumphant majorities?-And were not the people in general, throughout the nation, either the approvers or the supine spectators of all these scenes of gigantic wickedness? Did not Lord Grey and the leaders of the

We have copied the Report of the above speech from the paper conducted by Lord Grey's friend and panegyrist :-the Morning Chronicle.

VOL. VIII.