HISTORY OF EUROPE. 



[103 



such advancesasmiglitbe necessary, 

 for the purpose of insuring, at an 

 early period, a vigorous co-opera- 

 tion of the emperor of Germany, 

 the elector of Bavaria, and others, 

 in the ensuing campaign, against the 

 common enemy." — Thismotion was 

 opposed by Mr. Nichols, Mr. Tier- 

 ney, the honourable Mr. William 

 Bouverie, Mr. Sheridan, sirWilliam 

 Pulteney, and Mr. William Smith ; 

 and defended by Mr. Joliffe, Mr. 

 Pitt, (in a warm and long reply to 

 Mr. Tiemey) Mr. Wilberforce, and 

 Mr. Windham. 



Mr. Nichols hoped that the com- 

 mittee would pause before they con- 

 sented at once to adopt a measure, 

 which might prevent the relief of 

 the poor of this country, and, at the 

 same time, affect its commercial cre- 

 dit. He hoped they would inquire 

 Avhether we were able to pay away 

 two millions and a half in subsidies 

 to foreign powers, and, at the same 

 time, pay twelve millions for the 

 supply of the necessaries of life, 

 without endangering our prosperity 

 and trade. 



Mr. Sheridan asked, if Germany 

 possessed those wonderful forces we 

 had heard of, before the present 

 subsidiary treaty, why were they 

 not caUed into action ? And, if not, 

 why were we to subsidise the posse 

 comitalns, the rabble of Germany? 

 He also put the question, whether 

 it was not Buonaparte's interest to 

 make peace with us? Whether it 

 could be supposed, that, if peace 

 were made, he had not the power 

 to make it be observed by the peo. 

 pie of France? and whether the 

 people of France were not aware 

 that an infraction of that peace 

 would bring with it a new order of 

 things, and a renewal of those cala- 



mities, from which they were desi- 

 rous to escape? Mr. Sheridan was 

 a friend to peace at this time, be- 

 cause he thought that Buonaparte 

 would be as good a friend and 

 neighbour to this country, as ever 

 any of the Bourbons were. 



Sir William Pulteney observed, 

 that there was, in the overtiu'es 

 made to this government, on the part 

 of France, a general, but loose and 

 remote allusion to a general peace. 

 If that was too vague on the part 

 of France, our ministers should have 

 returned an answer to that efiect. 

 They should have endeavoured to 

 know what the terms were which 

 the French were willing to accede 

 to, instead of rejecting all consi- 

 deration of them before they knew 

 what they were. Because ministers 

 neglected to try the effect of a ne- 

 gociation, he thought they were 

 wrong; and, as the measure now 

 before the house was part of that 

 system, which, in his opinion, was 

 founded in error, he should there- 

 fore vote against the present mo- 

 tion. 



1 1 appeared to Mr. William Smith 

 tobeagreat misconduct in ministers 

 to give away the money of Great 

 Britain to other powers, who, if 

 ministers choose to be consistent in 

 their language, were bound to take 

 care of themselves as much as we 

 were ; and the powers on the con- 

 tinent had proved themselves able 

 to maintain this contest without 

 our aid. 



Mr. Tierney having expressed a 

 wish that Mr. Pitt would state, if 

 he could, in one sentence, without 

 his ifs and Inds, and special plead- 

 ing ambiguity, what the object of 

 the war was: the minister replied, 

 that he could tell him, in one word, 



