him, at the close of a long life, to use the influence of his great name and reputation in taking upon him the government of India; even during the three months that he governed India, he had made such arrangements as were likely to conduce to the permanent glory of his own country, and the mutual prosperity of both. It was impossible the nation could have sustained a great er loss than in the three illustrious characters lately withdrawn from it (Lord Nelson, Mr Pitt, and Marquis Cornwallis.) He then moved an address to his Majesty, to give directions for a monument to be erected in St Paul's Cathedral to the memory of the most noble Marquis Cornwallis, with a suit. able inscription.

Mr Charles Grant supported the motion, and recounted several of the wise measures by which the Noble Marquis conferred such signal benefits on the peninsula of Hindostan.

Mr Francis said, the motion required no recommendation, as it was in unison with the sentiments of every man in the country. He owed that Noble Lord some gratitude in having acted upon the plans which he many years be fore recommended in the settlement of landed property in the natives. He said that he did not rise on this occasion so much to do honour to Lord Cornwallis as to himself, but sensible that the Noble Lord acted on the purest principles, he cheerfully concurred in the motion.

Mr Windham said, that with all his respect for Lord Cornwallis, notwithstanding his regret for his loss, and his firm persuasion of the many virtues that he possessed, he still very much doubted, whether he was entitled to such honours as had been proposed. The same objection occurred to him that he had stated on a former occasion. He thought, that those honours should principally be given on account of splendid talents successfully employed. As for his concluding the peace of Amiens, it could not be expected, that he should think that added much to his claim. Altho' his services had not been altogether so brilliant as those of some men, yet, when he considered the purity of his mind, and the great virtues which he possessed, he should not in this particular case oppose the motion,

Mr Wilberforce was glad the Hon. Gentleman who spoke last, agreed with him in the conclusion, however they might differ in the premises.

Mr Huddlestone spoke in warm terms of admiration of the great virtues displayed by the Marquis Cornwallis.

Mr Fox said, that whatever might be his opinion as to the general principle of the sort of services for which those funeral honours should be granted, yet, after the vote of a former night, he could see no occasion for opposing the present motion. He must observe, however, that he liked the motion better for not having the words "excellent Statesman" in it. He could not allow any degree of merit for the measures that were taken to procure the Act of Union. He considered that the means which were taken to procure that act, and all the circumstances attending it, were disgraceful in the highest degree to the Government.

The motion was carried unanimously.

MR PITT'S DEBTS.

Mr Cartwright rose, and said, the precedent afforded in the case of the late Lord Chatham, had been followed, and the same method he now intended to adopt. When he recollected the length of the services of the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the perfect and entire devotion of his time to the business of the country; when he recollected, that for ten years of his administration, he received nothing but the mere income of his two offices, and that he took nothing in addition, except the situation of Warden of the Cinque Ports, which was forced unwillingly upon him, he saw a proof of his integrity and honour, and a worthy theme of public admiration. He asked for the vote of the House, on this occasion, for no common services. He asked it for him who had dedicated his whole life to the public advantage; who had struggled through the most difficult period of our modern history with success, and who, by his efforts, had confirmed the stability and security of every thing we possessed. He found, from the best enquiries that had been made, that the sum of 40,000l. was sufficient. If, in considering this sum, Gentlemen compared the actual difference in the necessary expences of life between

between the present times and those of Lord Chatham, the whole amount would not appear considerable. He concluded by moving a resolution, stating, that the House, upon receiving information that various debts had been left undischarged by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, and being willing to show every mark of respect and esteem for his memory, should humbly address his Majesty, to issue the sum of 40,000l. for that purpose; and to assure his Majesty, that the House would take care to make good the same.

Mr W. Bootle seconded the motion; he thought the discharge of these debts was only the payment of the debt of the public. The Hon. Member professed himself to be no friend to extravagance of any description, but he was sure that no person could point out in the debts of Mr Pitt any articles of that description. He hoped that this would be an unanimous vote. He never knew any appeal to the feelings and magnanimity of Parliament unsuccessful; and he hoped that this measure, unanimously passed, would be a monument of national munificence, and of the liberality of Parliament.

Mr Windham felt satisfaction in thinking that it was as easy to concur in this vote, as it was difficult for him to agree to that which was proposed a few nights since. In viewing the character of the deceased, no one could ascribe to him any low attachment to pecuniary gain; his conceptions had too much grandeur to admit of any thing of that kind. He saw no dangerous precedent set by this measure. If these debts had been contracted by profusion and excess, by dissipation and vain luxuries, they might admit of a question. On the contrary, they were contracted by no lavish expenditure, no useless ostentation. The great character of Mr Pitt's mind was too sterling to descend to those means of prodigality; and he even neglected what, in these times, was due to the situation he filled.

Mr Rose spoke with much earnestmess in defence of the conduct of his deceased friend. He could appeal to an Hon. Baronet as to the truth of an application made to the late Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1798, when several considerable merchants proposed to make hi 2 voluntary gift of 100,000l. which

7

In

could have been produced in 48 hours, and the names of the parties were known. He had prepared his Right Hon. Friend for the reception of that proposition, but his reply was, that no consideration upon earth could induce him to accept the proposition. At another period of his life, in the prospect of retiring from power, he had declared his intention to return to his original profession. 1801, another proposition was made to him similar to the former, but with the same effect. He again rejected it.The Hon. Member was against the present application, though it was but justice, as he would rather have had the matter accomplished by private friendship, which would have been very readily done. It was notorious how every debt of Mr Pitt had been contracted, and none of them could be charged with arising from any species of extravagance.

The Marquis of Douglas complained of the arguments used for the motion, as he considered it solely with a view to act handsomely towards a servant of the public. He acquiesced in it as an act of the public generosity of a great nation to a departed servant; but not on the ground of his being a man without spot or blemish; not on the principle of approbation, but on that of generosity.

Mr Fox said, he never gave a vote with greater satisfaction, upon the ground stated, of a reward, if that word suited, of a great nation to a departed servant. But the arguments by which the motion was introduced, would not have procured his assent; they should not, however, have the effect of making him change his vote. Respecting the expression used, of Saviour of the country from anarchy, he begged to say, that on that subject he retained all his former opinions unaltered by events or circumstances, and he would state why he had not lately troubled the House with them. In 1803, and 1804, he thought, that on a full review of the situation of the country, it was expedient for the public benefit that debates and animosities, particularly of a personal kind, arising out of the disputes on past events, should, if possible, be buried in oblivion. At that time, from similar reasons, he wished that Right Hor. Gent. should possess a great and princi-" pal share of power; at such a time, he thought

thought it a point of delicacy to abstain from such topics, and he believed such was also the wish of Mr Pitt; indeed, he gave ample testimony to that effect since that, he had cautiously abstained from any observations of that nature. He felt that Mr Pitt was similarly disposed, and he conformed his own conduct to these very circumstances. Now, if he would not do otherwise while the Right Hon. Gent. was living, it was not to be expected that he should, when he is dead? Indeed, it was his intention never to touch in that House upon the points of personal disputation; from the moment he wish ed Mr Pitt again in power, such was the conduct he had maintained. He should give his vote cheerfully for the motion. Mr Pitt was Minister twenty years, and, excepting the Cinque-Ports, he never heard of any thing he had obtained of an advantageous nature. He considered him as a person eminently disinterested, and that this was the appropriate reward for disinterestedness. He, therefore, in giving his vote, should give it precisely on the grounds of the merits of Mr Pitt.

Mr Canning did not wish to depart from the line of moderation assumed by the Hon. Gentleman, which he thought had not been altogether kept up by him with the candour he expected. He admitted, that Parliament might be said to be rewarding a public servant, but they who stood near to the Great Man were not to be expected to receive this grant as an eleemosynary gift. He wished for unanimity as much as any gentleman; but he would not purchase a vote, by giving up a tittle of that high and splendid degree and extent of service that had been rendered to the country by his illustrious friend. He thought the original resolution couched in cold, inadequate, precedented words. He consented to it only because he wished for unanimity.

AUDITORSHIP OF THE EXCHEQUER.

Mr Fox rose, to move for leave to bring in a Bill to remove doubts relative to the holding of the place of Auditor of the Exchequer by a person being at the same time First Lord of the Treasury. This was not, in his opini

on, quite necessary; but as it was most advisable to do every thing of this nature with the utmost publicity and fairness, he should propose to read it a first time that night, as it was material not to delay its progress. He then noticed the cases of Lord Halifax and Mr Pel. ham, and the expedients then adopted. A Noble Lord (Granville) at present found himself in that situation, and it was proposed to put the office into commission.

Some conversation ensued between the Speaker and Mr Fox, on the subject of the custom of the House, which, the Speaker observed, was to give a notice at least a day before the introduction of the bill.

The Attorney General supported the recommendation of the Speaker, as no time would be lost by adhering to the custom. He could not see what doubt existed on the subject of the bill, as it was contrary to the legal principle, that the same person should hold two offices, one of which was a controul upon the other.

Mr Ryder observed, that as the law stood, the proposed bill was absolutely necessary; but he imagined that it would have been more becoming in the noble Lord, for whose benefit it was introduced, to have avoided such a measure altogether, by resigning the office of auditor, the pecuniary emolument of which could not be an object to his Lordship, who already possessed so much wealth. Such a step would have given him some credit with the country. But he saw with regret that the magnanimous spirit of the great man lately deceast, had not been bequeathed to his noble cousin and succes

sor.

That "grandeur of soul," as it had been justly and appropriately termed, had been reserved exclusively for the family and name of Pitt.

Mr Fox next day introduced a bill to enable Lord Grenville to appoint a trustee to execute the office of auditor of Exchequer, who should be amenable to the public for the faithful discharge of his trust. The bill went through all the usual stages in a summary way, in both Houses, without opposition, and received the royal assent by commission on the 7th.

HIS

WAR ON THE CONTINENT.

AVING, under this head, given a

Brunn between a body of Russian and another of French cavalry, in which the Russians lost 300 men. And on the

in Germany from their commencement in October, we come now to record events so unexpected, rapid, and disastrous to the arms of the Emperor of Austria, as to compel that monarch to sue again for peace, and to consent to another dismemberment of his dominions. In the succeeding details, we are still obliged to adopt the accounts published by the French; those given by the other powers being extremely defective, vague, and contradictory.

On

On the 20th November the Emperor of Russia, with his staff, arrived from Berlin at Olmutz, whence the head quarters of the united armies were removed to Wischaw on the 23d. the 24th the first division of the 3d column of the Russian army, under Gen. Michelson, occupied Troppaw, and Prince Constantine's corps of cavalry were at Oldstau. Brunn, Znaym, and Tuntersdorff were possessed by strong divisions of the Russian and Austrian armies.

On the 14th the French army under Marshals Soult, Davoust and Lannes, entered Moravia, from the neighbourhood of Vienna, and advanced against Znaym and Tuntersdorf. The French division under Gen. Oudinot attacked the Russians at the latter place. The action was long and obstinate, but the Russians (say the French accounts) at length gave way, and retreated towards Olmutz, with the loss of 2000 killed and wounded, and as many made prisoners-Oudinot and his two aidsde-camp were wounded. The loss of the French, as usual, is not mentioned. On the 17th the French division of Prince Murat entered Brunn, where he found 60 pieces of cannon, and considerable magazines of every description. Bonaparte entered that city on the 20th, and was received by the States of Moravia, with the Bishop at their head. A rencounter took place near

tween the Russian advanced guard and a body of French cavalry, in which the latter suffered severely.

On the 28th November, the allied Imperial army was posted between Kremsir and Harditsh, the head-quarters at Knarowitz, two leagues in advance from Austerlitz. The French left towards Brunn, and their right exarmy lay on the Swartzach, with the tending to near Nicholsburg.

And now follows the battle of Austerlitz, the circumstances attending which are so very extraordinary, and the result so decisive, as to put a final conclusion to this unfortunate continental contest in less than two months. The statements in the French bulletins are extravagant beyond credibility, both as to the particulars of the battle, and as to the interviews or conversations which succeeded. The following bulletin was published in the Vienna Court Gazette of the 6th of December *.

From

*This will not surprize the reader when he learns, that M. Talleyrand, the French minister for foreign affairs, (the patron of the Moniteur, and projector of the Batavian State Gazette) has accompanied Bonaparte in this campaign as his confidential adviser; that he is the composer of all his speeches, proclamations, addresses to his soldiers, and messages to his Senate; that he remained at Vienna after the French army entered Moravia ;-and was then amusing the Prussian minister Count Haugwitz, who on the 20th November came on an important mission from his master to Bonaparte, but who in the hurry of his business had referred him to his Secretary; and that this same Talleyrand is the sole negociator and framer of the treaty of peace at Presburgh, so fatal to the House of Austria.

"From the 27th of November to the 1st of December, every effort was made to bring the Russians to a general engagement, and that object was at length gained. On the 1st their advanced posts were seen approaching, and a movement was made from their flank, with the view of surrounding the French right wing. The Russians marched in column, in one line, to the length of four French miles beyond the French army, which remained immoveable in its position, that the enemy might approach so near as to render their escape impossible. A long account follows of the French dispositions for battle. Marshal Lannes commanded the left wing, Soult the right, Bernadotte the centre, Murat the cavalry. Bonaparte, with his whole General Staff, ten battalions of the Imperial Guard, and ten battalions of Oudinot's grenadiers, formed the reserve, which was disposed in column in a double line, and drawn up in battalions, with a sufficient space between them for deploying, and 40 pieces of cannon in the intervals.

"At sun-rise on the 2d December the battle began. The Russians had advanced to the extremity of the right wing, but there they unexpectedly met with Davoust's division; and other divisions at the same time advancing, the Russians found their right wing completely turned, and all their plans deranged. The French cavalry now began to move, the left and centre also advanced, and a dreadful cannonade resounded along the whole line. In about two hours, the left wing of the Russians was cut off, and their right driven back to Austerlitz. The Russian Imperial Guard was now ordered to advance, to re-establish, if possible, the junction of the left wing and the centre. Marshal Bessieres moved forward with his invincibles, and immediately the French Imperial Guards were engaged. The Russian Guard was driven back in disorder, and its commanders, artillery, and standards taken. Prince Constantine's regiment was cut to pieces, and he himself owed his escape to the swiftness of his horse. The action was still obstinately maintained by the remaining part of the Russian army, but at one o'clock the victory was decidedly on the side of the French. The Russian corps which had been cut off,

was surrounded, and driven up against a lake, on the icy surface of which 20,000 men spread themselves, only to be drowned! Two columns of 4000 men each laid down their arms at the same time, and all theirartillery, 120 pieces, was taken. In short, half of the Russian army was destroyed, and the other half fled in the greatest confusion. The allied army is stated to have amounted to 105,000 men, the French to 95,000; the French reserve was not engaged (yet it was by that reserve that the Russian Imperial Guard was defeated!) About 20,000 prisoners were taken, including 12 or 15 Russian Generals: The Russians left 15,000 dead on the field, (does this include the 20,000 drowned on the icy surface of a lake?) The loss of the French is estimated at only 8oo killed and 1660 wounded among the latter are eight General officers."

Such are the French accounts of the famous battle of Austerlitz, which is called in the French army the Battle of the three Emperors,—and the Battle of the Coronation,-it being fought on the anniversary day of Bonaparte's coronation as Emperor of the French.

In a succeeding bulletin, we find the Russian loss greatly reduced, amounting to 15,000 killed and wounded,-among the former Gen. Buxhovden, and several others, and among the latter, Gen. Kutusow, and many other officers of rank. The French in this second account acknowledge they had more than 5000 killed and wounded; one General among the first, but a great number among the latter.

The Russian official account of the battle of Austerlitz, which differs widely from the French statement, has been circulated in Germany. It appears

from this document, that the Russian army, on the 2d December, consisted of only 50,000 men, and that the Austrians, chiefly new levies, were not above half that number. The French army is stated to have had from 15,000 to 20,000 more men than the Allies, in consequence of Bernadotte having joined them the day before the battle. The ridiculous story of several thousand Russians being drowned, is an utter falsehood. The total loss of the Russians is estimated at 10,000 men, whilst that of the French is supposed to have. been at least as great. Only six Russian

Gene