sources of His Imperial Majesty are in such a situation, that, with all his zeal to persevere in the contest, and all his honour in keeping his engagements with his allies, he cannot put the full force of his dominions in action without pecuniary assistance. Will any man then tell me that, if we cut off all hope of this assistance, he may not be able to persevere in his exertions? Will any man tell me that, if there were no military diversions created upon the Rhine or in the Tyrol, on the north or on the south of France, her numerous armies would not be employed in menacing our territory, and perhaps in invading our coasts? Or will any man tell me that if we withhold pecuniary assistance from the Emperor, that refusal may not lead to a separate peace between Germany and France? The difference, then, is not carrying on a defensive instead of an offensive war, but it is carrying on a war solely on your part, without any assistance to aid your efforts, or any diversion to divide the force of the enemy, instead of carrying on the war as at present, in conjunction with an ally whose exertions are able to resist the whole military power of France, while your fleets are occupied in protecting your trade and extending your foreign dominions. And do not the advantages which we enjoy, as they may be estimated from this short and simple statement, infinitely more than counterbalance any temporary inconvenience that we may sustain from the mode in which they are procured? The honourable gentleman took occasion to introduce the subject of a report from a secret committee of which he is a member, but which is not yet before the House. I should wish, therefore, that the House will wait till the report is produced, and not repose implicit confidence in any of the statements made by the honourable gentleman. I do not know whether the peace establishment came under the enquiry or calculation of that committee. I rather think that it could not immediately come under their investigation. But whether it did or not, I am happy to assure the House that no such result, nor any thing approaching to it, will be found to arise out of a fair examination of the circumstances of the country.

But I find I am discussing the question on grounds on which I ought not to object to it. Upon the train of argument which I was before pursuing, it is easy to shew that, if we do not intend to lay down our arms, if we mean to continue any method of exertion, if it be our wish to be in a situation to persevere in hostilities, if hostilities are necessary from the overbearing pride and unjust pretensions of the enemy, it cannot be a measure of economy to abandon the plan of availing ourselves of the cooperation of His Imperial Majesty by contributing money to his assistance. When we consider the amount of the expense, and the magnitude of the service, there is no ground of comparison between them! Upon what data does the honourable gentleman assume that the measure will lead to any difference of expense at all? He may consider the war as unjust as it was unnecessary, and as i conducted in its process as it was groundlessly undertaken: he may, if he pleases, think that the French were right in every thing in which this country thought them wrong, but he does not contend that we should this day throw down our arms and make unconditional submission to the enemy, Overlooking, then, the consideration of additional security arising from the co-operation of the Emperor, and the effects of that co-operation acting upon the spirit, the trade, the manufactures, and the population of the country; overlooking, I say, these considerations, (and surely when I put them aside none will suppose that I view them as trifling or unimportant,) let him calculate the additional direct expense which it requires to protect our coasts from a vigilant and enterprising foe, who would have nothing to do but to molest his only remaining enemy. Reduce the public expenses as much as you can, and let the inevitable burdens of the war be alleviated as much as possible by well judged economy in the different branches of the public service but be not so weak or so treacherous to yourselves as to blot out one part of an estimate under pretence of economy, while you create another service which must be provided for at a much larger expense, and which would tend to aggravate the evil which it is your intention to cure.

The honourable gentleman does not recommend his motion, or rather he does not ground his opposition to the measure hereafter to be proposed upon the tendency of this opposition, to accelerate the restoration of peace. This, however, is an object which on no political question ought to be set out of view, and therefore I shall say a few words upon the subject in this point of light. Of those who wish for peace, there are two classes. There are some, and of these a very numerous body, who are desirous for peace, as soon as peace can be obtained on safe and honourable terms. To such it must be clear that the object of their wishes cannot be secured by laying aside the means of action. But there are others, and the honourable gentleman may be one, who are of opinion that, for the attainment of peace, there are no terms which we ought not to accept, no law to which we ought not to submit. Even those who entertain these humiliating ideas, would be guilty of insanity, were they to add to the degradation by laying aside one of the weapons to which they have to trust for the acquisition of their darling object. Such conduct would betray a desire not only to take any terms which the enemy might be pleased to dictate, but to take every means to render these terms as bad as possible. It is evident, then, that the measure in agitation affects the question of peace, both as it depends upon the period of its restoration, and the terms on which it may be concluded. Did the reasonings upon the subject leave any doubt as to the fact, the conduct of the enemy through the whole course of the war would put the matter beyond all question.

Having said so much upon the topics of economy and the return of peace, I proceed to advert to it as a means of restoring public credit. Now, what does the honourable gentleman here assume? He assumes, that the great operating cause of the present embarrassments has been foreign remittances; and upon this assumption, he objects to any further advances being made to the Emperor. In this view of the subject, I shall beg leave to throw out a few suggestions, which will lead not only to a conclusion different from his, but to a conclusion directly opposite.

The honourable gentleman has had the goodness to give me intimation, that he has some serious charges to prefer against me. Of course, I shall probably have opportunities enough in future of explaining my own conduct; and with the decision of the House I shall most willingly abide, whatever that decision may be. As this is not the subject of discussion on this night, perhaps it is improper in me to say any thing upon it. I would only beg leave to observe, that the printed papers, upon which the honourable gentleman commented, contain the written representations of the bank, and, it is added, my answers. These answers, however, were not given in writing, and what is there printed under this title, is merely minutes of what passed between me and the governor and deputy-governor of the bank, reported for the perusal of the bank-directors, without having been previously submitted to my examination; nor did I so much as see them till just before they were printed. The honourable gentleman argues, that advances to the Emperor were calculated to produce ruinous consequences, that ruinous consequences did ensue, therefore, that the advances made to the Emperor were productive of ruinous consequences. This is very short logic: but if he will not believe it to be false upon my authority, if it is not too much to ask, let him compare it with information. In order to make his conclusion good, he must shew that the remittances made to the Emperor actually did diminish the cash in the bank, and that the issue of the order in council was occasioned by the diminution produced by these remittances. If it should appear that these advances did not occasion any diminution of cash at the time that they were made; on the contrary, that the balance of cash rather increased, and that the mischief so much and so justly lamented arose from the operation of causes widely different, then, in justice as well as prudence, the House ought not to ascribe an evil to a cause different from that in which it originated.

The honourable gentleman preferred another charge against me, which I heard without much dismay that I had persisted in sending money to the Emperor when I was aware that the bank, from the line of conduct I was pursuing, was approaching

to a state of insolvency. This, again, he takes for granted. without any information upon the subject. If it should turn out that, during the whole period that these remittances were made, so far was I from being aware of the approaching difficulties of the bank, that by the successful operation of commerce, the balance of exchange for all that time was in favour of this country, insomuch that, if these circumstances had continued, the state of the bank would at this day have been growing better, the honourable gentleman will surely not persist in the accusation, when he finds that the ground on which it was preferred is wholly and completely fallacious. The premises the honourable gentleman may wish to be taken on trust; but to this I object, not wishing to supersede his position by any assertion of my own, but merely because the House are not in possession of materials from which they can infer whether it be true or false. When these materials are before them, perhaps it may be found that the mischief arose from remittances of cash, which were sent to Ireland to a greater extent than usual, and to local alarms in this country, which caused a great run upon the bank for some time before the order in council was issued. This is all the answer which I think I need give to the honourable gentleman's charge of misrepresentation.

I have only a word more to say respecting an expression in the speech from the throne at the opening of the present session. In that speech His Majesty was advised to state, that the resources of the country were equal to every exertion an expression founded certainly not upon a knowledge of the balance of cash or bullion at that time in the bank, but upon the survey of the general state of trade and manufactures of the kingdom. Our trade and manufactures certainly depend in a considerable degree upon the stability of public credit, which is interwoven with the independence of the country. To preserve that independence, then, is necessary above all things to the restoration of public credit; and, next to the preservation of this independence, is the prevention of the danger of a future run upon thé bank. And here we may look at the question in two points of