HISTORY OF EUROPE. 
The speech of the duke of Bed: 
ford, like those he had already de- 
livered, was. extremely animated. 
It had, he said. been,explicitly af 
firmed, by ministers, that the French 
were utterly unable to defray the 
charges of avother campaign; and 
yet, experience had shewn thay they 
had, in the last, baffled all the cal- 
qulations founded on.their phi 
It was absurd to infer their want of 
means from the prodigiousness of 
their expences ;, and of, these.no va~ 
Iid proofs had. been stated. He 
condemned, with great warmth, the 
idea of a war of mutual extermina- 
tion, which was, in fact, the object 
pursued and recommended by. mi- 
nisters. He concluded with point. 
ed strictures on the exhortation of 
Ministers, tO unite in supporting 
what they styled the generous ex- 
ertions of war: these words he 
stigmatised, as inconsistent with the 
miseries and distresses accompany - 
ing a military life; and, more than 
all, with the sen ations that must be 
felt, by men torn from all domestic 
comforts, and compelled to leave 
their dearest relatives exposed to 
want and wretchedness. 
Lord Grenville ended the debate, 
by declaring that, notwithstanding 
the insinuations, that the royal 
speech purported To peace would 
be made with France while it con- 
tinued a republic, such a construc. 
tion was erroneous, and could not be 
Warranted by any part of it. On 
psifieu the question for Jord Guild- 
’s amendment, it was rejected 
by one hundred and seyen votes 
957394 twelve, 
the house of commons, it being 
2 previously to moving the ad- 
dress, to read the bill for Af prose~ 
cuting of clandestine outlawries, 
the speakes, of course, presented the 
fish 
bill; but, Mr,:Sheridan opposed its, 
reading, His reason was, that it 
heing acustom established, merely, 
to. assert the right. of the house, to 
proceed, to any. business they judged, 
proper, before that of the roya 
speech, they ought to realize thas, 
right, with which they were, doubt. 
less, invested for useful purposes. 
Instead of reading, therefore, t 
outlawry. bill, he “would move th 
reading of apart of much more 
importance, at the present junCture., 
They were.called together to give, 
their advice to the king, on subjects 
of the highest consequence to the 
nation; but before they, could con- 
sider themselves in a situation to 
advise with freedom and impar- 
tiality, it was proper they should: 
be ina state of liberty ; and this 
they could not be while under the 
terrors of a suspension of the habeas 
corpus act; his intention, therefore, 
was to move for a repeal of thas 
suspension. 
This motion was warmly opposé sd, 
by Mr. Dundas, who declared peed 
self of opinion, that instead of bie 
repealed it ought to. be renewe 
He was supported by the solicitor- 
general, who, in a speech of some 
length, asserted that the evidence 
on the late trials had proved the 
reality of a conspiracy, though by 
the verdi¢t of the jury, the persons 
acquitted .could not be brought to 
a second trial. Others beside him- 
self were, he said, of this opinion. 
He then detailed the proceedings of 
the several societies, and concluded 
by condemning, in violent terms, 
their claim to universal suffrage, 
The solicitor-general was opposed 
by Mr. Fox. According tothe spirit, 
as well as the letter of the law and 
the constitution, it appeared to him, 
that a jury’s acquittal established 
L4] the 
