HISTORY 
@eserve to retain their situations a 
single hour. It had been, however, 
supposed that they were governed 
by that principle, both in the affair 
of Napper Tandy, and of Count 
D’ Auvergne. 
Lord Pelham said, that in the 
Jatter instance, the F rench govern- 
ment had released Count D’Au- 
vergne as soon as application had 
been made for that purpose by the 
British minister ; and the conduct 
of government with respect to Nap- 
per Tandy, was occasioned by cir- 
cumstances very different from a 
fear of offending France. 
The earl of Carlisle supported 
the opinion which had been given 
by earl Spencer. 
The duke of Norfolk differed 
from both the noble earls. He 
thought the circumstances of the 
times were notorious enough, to 
justify ministers in proposing an 
increased establishment. The cir- 
cumstances of the times were now 
very different from those times, in 
which it was necessary to inform 
parliament, of what otherwise they 
might not know. 
Lord Limerick justified the con- 
duct of his majesty’s ministers ; he 
thought peace had been necessary 
for the recovery of ourstrength, and 
he hoped before war was renewed, 
the disturbances which had existed 
in Ireland would be at an end, and 
the people of that country recon- 
ciled to the mild government and 
free constitution of the country. 
* Lord Grenville thought the house 
could proceed no farther in a sup- 
ply bill, without information from 
his majesty, as to the causes which 
called for an extraordinary supply. 
It had been the invariable usage 
for the last hundred years, for the 
OF 
EUROPE. 57 
crown to demand such supply, and 
state its reasons, before patliament 
votedit. The house had now no 
information that could warrant 
them in. granting extraordinary 
supplies; they could not even guess 
whether ministers intended to keep 
Malta and the Cape of Good Hope, 
or to surrender them; and there- 
fore could form no opinion about 
the probability of immediate war. 
The lord chancellor replied, that 
the present bill. was not for an ex- 
traordinary supply, but one of the 
usual supply bills, brought in at 
the beginning of every session. He 
contended, that public notoriety 
was a sufficient ground for parlia- 
mentary proceeding: he could not 
pretend to state positively, the. 
words used by any other of his ma- 
jesty’s ministers: but he could po- 
sitively say, that he never was of 
opinion that the peace was an ad- 
yantageous one; but it was still 
better than continuing the war 
without object or possible advan- 
tage. 
After a few explanations between 
the lord chancellor and lord Gren- 
ville, the bill was read a first time. 
On the 15th, when the bill came 
to be read asecond time, the de- 
bate was resumed in a more for- 
mal manner. 
Earl Spencer addressed their 
lordships at very considerable 
length, on the ground that he had 
before touched upon. His objec- 
tions to the establishments, for 
which the supply of the year was to 
be voted, were principally reduced 
to three heads: first, he objected 
to the manner, as being to be raised 
without that communication from 
the crown to parliament which was 
usual and necessary : secondly, he 
objected 
