full redress of their grievances was they had the weakness to believe, removed; and the prudent and con- in preference to the official dis siderate were disinclined to those patches, of which he was the bearviolent counsels, from which they er. This miserable fabrication was had already suffered so much; it eagerly circulated by the ministers was not to be supposed that all the then in town, and for some days it Irish Roman Catholics were mode- met with universal credit among rate and prudent, but, that many their adherents; but when the his of them would join themselves to a tory, as well as the falsehood of French army, as soon as it made their intelligence was known, it its appearance in their country. covered them with shame and ridicule, and exposed them to the derision even of those who had been the dupes of their story. At this moment of danger and dismay, when the surrender of Ulm and battle of Austerlitz were still recent events, when the extent of the late calamities was still unknown, and the immediate consequences were apprehended to be more fatal than they have yet proved, there was no efficient government in England. Mr. Pitt, in whose wisdom and patriotism the great majority of the people had, for many, years reposed their confidence, was sick at Bath. His colleagues were men of very inferior parts, and at that time they had credit for still less ability than they possessed. By giving effect to a system of exclusion, in the formation of his ministry, he had suffered his country to be deprived, at the late critical period, of the services of her ablest statesmen, and he had now the mortification to behold his schemes on the continent baffled by the enemy, and his government at home destitute of any effective support but his own. If any thing could have lessened the public opinion of his colleagues, it would have been the publication, at this time, of their demi-official bulletins, in which they announced a great victory of the allics over the French, after the battle of Austerlitz, on no better authority than the report of a prating messenger, whose idle hearsays In this posture of affairs, parliament, after repeated prorogations, was at length suffered to meet, on Tuesday, Jan. 21, and, as the state of his majesty's eyes did not permit him to open that assembly in person, it was done by commission, the commissioners being the lord chancellor, the archbishop of Canterbury, lord Ellenborough lord chief justice, the earl of Dartmouth lord chamberlain, and lord Hawkesbury principal secretary of state for the home department. After the usual formalities, the commission was read by the clerk at the table, and the lord chancellor then read the speech from the throne. The principal topics of the speech were congratulations on the splendour of our late naval suc cesses, mixed with suitable expressions of regret for the lamented loss of lord Nelson, and a recommendation to parliament to bestow some mark of national munificence on his family. His majesty next informed parliament that he had directed the treaties to be laid before them, which he had concluded with foreign powers; and while he lamented the late disastrous events on the continent, he congratulated them them on the assurances which he continued to receive from the emperor of Russia, of that monarch's determination to adhere to his alliance with Great Britain. He then signified to the house of commons, that he had directed the sum of one million, accruing to the crown from the droits of admiralty, to be applied to the public service of the year; and concluded by recommending vigilance and exertion against the enemy, as by such means alone the present contest could be brought to a conclusion consistent with the safety and independence of the country, and with its rank among the nations of the world.* The address, which, as usual, was an echo of the speech, was moved, in the house of lords, by the earl of Essex, and seconded by lord Carleton, and in the house of commons, it was moved by lord Francis Spencer, and seconded by Mr. Ainslie. The speech, as was stated by lord Hawkesbury in the house of lords, had been intentionally couched in such language, as, it was supposed, would create no difference of opinion, as to the terms of the address; and, accordingly, the only part of it, which could lead to any discussion or debate, was a passage, in which his majesty, in allusion to the late war and coalition on the continent, had been advised to "express his confidence, that his parliament would be of opinion, that he had left nothing undone, on his part, to sustain the efforts of his allies, and that he had acted in strict conformity to the principles declared by him, and recognized by parliament as essential to the interests and security of his own dominions, as well as to the general safety of the continent." But where, and in what manner, it might be asked, had his majesty's government sustained the efforts of his allies? was it by landing an ar my in the north of Germany after the capitulation of Ulm; or, by disembarking troops in Naples, after the French had evacuated that kingdom? or, by sending an expedition to a distant part of the globe, under sir David Baird and sir Home Popham, instead of employing the whole disposable force of the em pire in some effective diversion in favour of Austria? Had proposals of peace, of any sort, been made to France by the allies, antecedent to the recommencement of hostilities? as from repeated declarations of his majesty's government, and more particularly from the tenor of lord Mulgrave's letter to Talleyrand, (14th Jan. 1805) the public had been led to expect. Whatever might have been the principles on which the late coalition was form. ed, could it be denied, that the consequences to which it had led, were so disastrous as to call for the enquiry of parliament? Could any acquiescence, however slight, in the late measures of administration, be expected from those, who, at the conclusion of the preceding ses sion of parliament, taking it for granted that some terms of peace would be offered to the enemy, had entreated ministers that they might be reasonable, and such as his majesty's government, if in the place of the French government, would not think it unreasonable to accept? who had expressed an opi *For the speech itself, see State Papers, page 654, nion, that if an alliance could be formed with Russia, Austria, Prussia, and the other powers of the continent, which might gain their good will, without attempting to rouze them, before their own interests, in their own view of them, would call for their exertions, such an alliance would afford hopes, that we might obtain reasonable terms of peace? but, who had objected to the ministerial phrase of rousing Europe to exertion, because the attempt to do so had the effect of producing a disinclination to cooperate with us; and who had argued against the project of instigating the powers of the continent to a renewal of hostilities, whilst they wished to remain at peace, because it would alienate from us the affections of Europe, where, what ever we might say of our disinter. edness, our forbearance and moderation, a differen't opinion was entertained of us, and the character of our government was, that it was actuated by selfish motives in instigating the powers of the continent to war for British interests? Was connection? what of the liberties of Europe? what of the prospect of setting limits to the power of France, justly and rationally considered, before the disasters of the late coalition, as too formidable?* Could, the authors of the ruin of Europe imagine, that parliament would meet, and no observations be made on their fatal labours in hastening the catastrophe ? An amendment to the address had, therefore, been prepared by opposition; and it was read in the house of lords by earl Cowper, and in the house of commons by lord Henry Petty, in the following words : "That this house feels the deepest concern at the series of disasters which have attended the arms of your majesty's allies on the continent, and will, without delay, proceed to enquire into the cause of such disasters, as far as they may be connected with the conduct of your majesty's ministers. This house is perfectly sensible that the alarming and unexampled state of public affairs renders the most vigorous exertions necessary for the preserva, tion of the empire; and we feel it our peculiar duty, when we call for these extraordinary efforts, to provide that the resources we furnish, and the powers we confer, may not in future be so employed as to encrease the perils they were intended to avert, and to aggrandize that power to which it is the common interest of all Europe, as well as of Great Britain, to set proper limits." But this amendment, though read * See Debate, June 21, 1805, in a committee of supply on his majesty's message to the house of commons, brought down by the chancellor of the exchequer, June 19. in both houses of parliament, was covery. Whether he would have not brought forward as a motion, submitted long to this prescription, on account of the indisposition of the cannot be known, for a few days person, who was at once most deeply thereafter he was seized with symp interested in the defence, and best toms of fever, of that sort called Tyqualified to vindicate the mea phus by physicians. His pulse rose sures of administration. Mr. Pitt, to 130, and his tongue and lips were as it afterwards appeared, was, at dry and furred. He was occasionthat moment, on his death.bed. A ally delirious, and he talked incoreport had been circulated in the herently on various subjects, but in morning of the 21st, that he was general he was drowsy and lethardangerously ill, and this had in- gic. When spoken to, he gave duced opposition to give up their a pertinent answer, but relapsed intentions of moving the amendment immediately into rambling or inthey had prepared. But, the very sensibility, and he was quite incadangerous state to which he was pable of any rational or connected reduced, was far from being sus conversation; nor, whatever stories pected; and that very evening, in have been circulated to the contrathe house of commons, some of his ry, was he ever sensible of the daumost intimate friends gave it out, ger of his situation. A constitution that he was no longer in danger, so exhausted as his had previously but in a fair, though slow way of been, sunk rapidly under the viorecovery. lence of the fever, and early on the 23d Jan. he expired. He had left Bath, January 10, and on his arrival in the neighbourhood of London, he took up his residence at his own house on Putney heath. His health had been for some time in a most alarming state. He was reduced to the greatest possible weakness and extenuation, and as the functions of his stomach were greatly impaired, there seemed to be little hopes of his speedy re-establishment. A suspicion having been entertained that his complaints proceeded from some organic disorder of the stomach or liver, a consultation of physicians was held on his case, and he expressed great satisfaction at being told that they saw no reason to adopt such an opinion. He was then advised to seclude himself en tirely from business, and to abandon every other care but that of his health, and upon these terms he was flattered with hopes of re Thus died William Pitt, in the 47th year of his age, after having enjoyed greater power and popularity, and held the first place in the government of his country, for a longer course of years, than any former minister of England. It is not our province to enter at large into his character and merits. That he was a person of the most rare and splendid qualities, a powerful orator, a skilful debater, an expert and enlightened financier, his greatest enemies must admit. That he was disinterested with regard to money, and sincerely and ardently attached to the honour and welfare of his country, can as little be doubted. But, whether the appellation of illustrious statesman has been justly applied to him, is a question on which men may reasonably differ. The French revolution was the great event of his time, and his conduct in regard to it is the touchstone by which posterity will try his claims to that honourable distinction. It is in vain to say, that the French revolution 'was an event without a precedent. It is the part of a great statesman to steer his way in safety, where there is no precedent to direct him. But though it must be always a matter of uncertainty, whether a different policy from that pursued by Mr. Pitt, would have been more fortu nate than his, it cannot be denied, that a more complete failure of success than attended his efforts to check the progress of the revolution, cannot well be imagined. Had he interfered, as Mr. Fox in his situation would probably have done, at an early period of the revolution, to prevent the great continental powers from intermeddling in the affairs of France, and disturbing the settlement of her government, the direful events that followed, might possibly have been prevented, and France, at any rate, if left to herself, could never have become such a military power as she is at present. Had he, on the other hand, followed the counsels of Mr. Burke, and taken part decidedly with the royalists, he might possibly have destroyed the republican government in its infancy, and reestablished the Bourbons on their throne. But he chose to take a middle course, which, though commonly the safest in ordinary occurrences, has been always found the most dangerous in great emergencies. Its effect on the present occasion was to rouse the republicans against him, without attaching the royalists to his party, and to excite an alarm among Frenchmen of all descriptions, that his intentions were merely to weaken the power and dismember the territories of France. His wavering and uncertain policy, so unlike that of a great statesman, is not, however, to be entirely at tributed to his want of original genius, but was owing in part to his excessive love of popularity, and to his habits of contemplating all objects with reference to their effect in parliament. If he could not destroy French anarchy, it was something to boast of in the house of commons, that he had taken the French sugar islands. If he could. not restore the throne of the Bourbons, he was, in some degree, satisfied with having a new sceptre to place in the hands of his own sovereign. If the French armies were victorious, he comforted his countrymen with accounts of the lowness of their funds; and argued to the conviction of bis hearers, that there could be no stability in the republican government because the French five per cents were only at 17, when the English three per cents were above 50. It is extraordinary, that, with so little system in his operations against France, he was so pertinacious in his hostility towards her; that, when he ceased to have any rational object in the war, he continued to be so obstinately averse to peace. The true key to this inconsistency in his conduct, it may be difficult to give; but, the fact is much to be lamented; for, to the long continuance of the war, may, in a great measure, be attributed all the evils that Europe suffers, or is likely yet to suffer, from the arms of France. His power as a minister was for many years unbounded, but the circum |