their respective opinions on the various topics which the full discussion of the king's speech naturally embraced; both to the sentiments and arguments of those who thought themselves still qualified to govern the country, and to the sentiments and arguments of those who thought themselves better fitted for that ardent situation. And the result of the whole was, to confirm more and more that calm conviction of mind, with which he had entered that House, of the necessity, sooner or later, of an entire change of system; and a thorough, constitutional, and temperate reform in parliament. With respect to the leading complaints made against the present ministry, never were men in such a state of self-abandonment. They had nothing to say for themselves; and could have confidence in nothing but in that assembly, in which there seemed to be a mysterious something that might justify the most culpable in expectations the most extravagant, not only of impunity, but protection. Yet he could derive no hope of any benefit to the public from a change of ministry. Change of men could do nothing, while they would be necessarily obliged to act up to that fatal system in which all our danger lay. He enumerated several, among the many acts of administration since the commencement of the recess, which had been the subject of general complaint. Of these there was one more immediately growing out of the system to which he had alluded, than the rest. This was, the insult that had been inflicted, in his majesty's name, on the corporation of London. The

king's speech, at the opening of parliament, ought to be a general exposition of every prominent event and extensive operation that had occurred during the recess, and not a mere milk-and-water composition, turning merely on general positions, not to be disputed, and so cautiously shaped and modelled by the apprehensions of ministers, as to slide harmlessly through discussion. The present speech said nothing of the state of affairs in India. While in this respect the speech was defective, in another it was redundant. He alluded to what had been tacked to the speech relative to the poorer order of the clergy. He should be sorry to oppose any method of relieving their wants, if this could be effected without imposing additional exactions on a burthened and almost exhausted country. If the poor clergy were so indigent, they could not derive relief from a fitter source than the wealthy part of their own calling. The higher order of the established clergy were, in all conscience, rich enough to contribute to the poorer class of their brotherhood; and while they were amply gifted with the means, it would be invidious to express a doubt that men of their profession would be wanting in the inclination.

Mr. Yorke called on the House to observe the remarkable words made use of by sir Francis Burdett, whenever he spoke of the House of Commons, whom he always called "this assembly," "this room," or this meeting. If by this the honourable baronet meant to insi. nuate that they were not the legal and constitutional representatives of the people, he dissented from

it as

any such monstrous doctrine, and gave his opinion, that the reform recommended by the honourable baronet would only increase the danger it was designed to remedy. He would support his majesty's administration; he meant, that he would never enter into any systematic opposition against it. He approved of the address, because it did not pledge the House to any thing. As to the Walcheren expedition, that part of it which had succeeded, had been very much undervalued. The Scheldt, for four months of the year, was not navigable, and the French fleet had begun already to feel the want of their basin. The capture of Flushing was an important service.- Here general Tarleton turned up his eyes.-Mr. Yorke lamented to see in his honourable friend, on the present and other occasions, such a disposition to withhold that defence from brother officers in their absence, which it would so well become a brother officer to make. With regard to the advance of lord Wellington to Talavera, he thought there was no part of that illustrious officer's proceedings that was not worthy of his exalted reputation. Yet if there was any thing that might admit of the nicest investigation of military criticism, he would select two points, one was, the seemingly too great reliance placed by that gallant officer on the Spaniards; the other was, his not having secured the pass of Banos, which sir Robert Wilson had so gallantly defended against a superior force for nine hours. These were the only points on which he thought there could be any doubt.

General Tarleton still maintained that the merit of lord Wellington was equivocal. He had blamed that noble lord, when present in the House, for the convention of Cintra ; for to him it was almost entirely to be attributed. He might have known that it was first necessary to secure the supplies. From the days of Homer till now, armies could not march and fight without eating. General Tarleton admitted that the army had gained great glory at Talavera. But the conduct of the general was a totally distinct consideration, and that alone he blamed.

Sir John Sebright thought the present ministers incapable of serving the country efficiently at the present awful crisis. He did not blame the right honourable gentleman at the head of the government, whom he highly respected, for the dissentions and bickerings, &c. that had lately occurred in the cabinet. But if there had been an efficient head, there would have been no such dissentions. With regard to the Walcheren expedition, he could not see the neces sity of waiting for the production of papers before they gave their opinion upon it. What could those papers contain? Could ministers shew him a new map of Europe, essentially different from all that he had ever consulted?

As to the glorious victory of Talavera, as it had been called, there was a glory of the soldier, and a glory of the general. The former had been displayed in all its lustre at Talavera. But although he admired lord Wellington, he did not think that he had, in the advance into Spain, acted the part of a wise general. Before he ad

vanced, he ought to have ascertained what was the strength of his ally, and what the position of the enemy. He beat the French; but then he was compelled to retreat, as if he had been beaten. Sir John, after adverting to the disgraceful manner in which the high offices of the state had been bandied about, animadverted on the abuse of the term loyalty. He admitted the loyalty of Mr. Perceval, and that loyalty was a very high virtue. But he could not allow the right honourable gentleman to be the sole possessor of loyalty. No one, had a right to identify himself and his party with the king. It was equally injurious to the king, and inconsistent with the constitution.

The report being brought up and read, Mr. Whitbread, after some prefatory observations, moved an amendment to the address, the substance of which was, "that in justice to the people, the House would, on the earliest opportunity, diligently apply itself to the effecting such economical reform, as might be consistent with the welfare of the state, satisfactory to the feelings of the people, and in some measure prove an alleviation of their burthens."

The Chancellor of the Exche

quer did not see the least occasion for this amendment, his Majesty having promised that the estimates for the current year should be prepared with the utmost attention to economy.-Mr. Ponsonby supported the amendment on the ground that the estimates related solely to the war expenditure, while the amendment related to measures proper at all times, but particularly so at a time when the war expenditure was enormous. Mr. Bathurst thought the paragraph unnecessary, as matters connected.-Earl Temple thought it important that the House should show a disposition to prove and examine into every abuse; for otherwise the people would be apt to think that the abuses were greater than they were.-Sir A. Pigot put the question, what confidence parliament could place in the assurances of ministers, that the estimates for the present year should be framed with a strict regard to economy, when they opposed an inquiry into the profuse expenditure of the year that was past?

On a division of the House, there appeared,

For Mr. Whitbread's amendment, 54:

Against it, 95.