MIsSTORY OF: EUROPE. 
gee the government of the country 
in the hands of such men. He 
therefore voted against the bill. 
The earl of Darnley expressed 
his doubts, whether such a force 
as had been proposed, could be 
safely trusted in the hands of the 
present ministers: he considered 
the ambition of Bonaparte to be so 
gigantic, that he would never be sa- 
tisfied, till he forced the doors of 
the bank of England with his legion 
of honor, and planted his flag upon 
the tower of London. Against such 
an enemy, he thought, this country 
should employ its ablest ministers. 
Lord Hobart denied that go- 
-yernment had compromised the 
honor of the country, either in the 
affair of Switzerland; or in any 
other respect. He stated that a 
greater force than that which was 
now demanded had been entrusted 
to ministers in 1801 : he complain- 
ed that some noble lords who had 
promised an active, constant, and 
zealous support to the present ad- 
ministration, had on the contrary, 
honored them with an active, con- 
stant, and zealous opposition; 
whichincreased in proportion, as 
they gained the confidence of the 
ublic. 
The duke of Norfolk, expressed 
his surprize at the opposition of 
some members of the late adminis- 
tration, to the present measure: 
The person who was at the head of 
that administration, resigned his 
situation at a period which called 
_ for the exertion of his great talents: 
_ he was sure that the conclusion of 
peace had given general satisfac- 
tion; and that the majority of the 
nation wished for its continuance. 
He concluded by declaring his con- 
_ fidence in the present administra- 
ton, 
59 
Lord Grenville commenced an 
animated, and very able speech, 
by denying that he or any of his 
noble friends wished to stop the 
supplies: they wished, that accord- 
ing with parliamentary usage, a mes- 
sage might be sent from his majesty 
to the house, to inform them of the 
causes for which an increased sup- 
ply was necessary. Such a mes- 
sage might be sent down the next 
day, and then there would be no 
delay in passing the bill: at present 
the house was ignorant whether the 
establishment proposed was for 
peace, for war, or for preparations 
of war. There were abundant pre- 
cedents of the line of conduct which 
ought to have been pursued. 
George the first, did not hesitate to 
tell his parliament in the first speecle 
from the throne, after the conclu- 
sion of a peace, that the peace was 
insecure and precarious. In such 
a case, parliament knew what they 
were about, in voting the military 
establishments. As to a charge of 
inconsistency, brought by the noble 
secretary (lord Hobart) against 
him and his friends ; he must reply, - 
that he supported the present mi- 
nisters, as long as he could approve 
their conduct. It was not till after 
the convention with Russia and the 
peace of Amiens, that he found 
himself obliged, in honer, to with- 
draw that support. After those 
events, he had no confidence in the ~ 
wisdom of their councils: He cid 
not wish to pry into the arcana of 
government, or secrets of the state ; 
‘but he, and every noble lord who 
heard him, were ‘constitutionally 
entitled to’those proper communi- 
cations, which’had been heretofore. 
uniformly *made. ‘The power. of 
France had, since the peace, been 
regularly 
