mutiny, from every thing we have seen and heard, appears to have had nothing of disloyalty, or of politics, in its motives.

On the 14th inst. pursuant to advertisement, a general meeting was held, at the London Tavern, of the BRITISH CREDITORS IN THE FRENCH FUNDS. -Mг. IMPEY took the chair, and rose to explain the object for which the meeting had been convened. He began by adverting to the memorial presented by the Committee in the name of the creditors at large to Lord Hawkesbury, and to the result of the different interviews which they bad with his Lp. since the 20th Sept. ult. down to Wednesday last. It were unnecessary to enter into any detailed account of the preceding interviews, because what passed in that of Wednesday is contained the general result of all the others Mr. Impey then proceeded to state to the meeting the grounds on which the Brit. creditors in the Fr. funds thought themselves justified in resting their claims, and which he had submitted to the consideration of the noble Sec. of State. These grounds he reduced to three heads :-1st. The conditions held out by the Fr. Gov. at different periods to induce foreigners to take a share in their loans, assuring them that in such cases the y should not be subjected to the laws by which thef natives might be bound.-2d. The stipulations o the commercial treaty, conformable to which a notice of twelve months should be given to Brit. subjects to remove their property in case of the breaking out of a war.-3d. The 14th article of the treaty of Amiens, by which it was stipulated, that all sequestrations on either side on funds, revenues, &c. shall be taken off immediately after the signature of the definitive treaty. None of these conditions had been complied with in the present case; but, notwithstanding the inconveniencies the British holders of French stock had already suffered, yet they were willing, nor could they think it an unfair or presumptuous expectation, to be put on the same footing with the subjects of the French Gov. To the justice of that Gov. they were not reluctant to submit their claims, and if his Lordship approve and abet their views, it was their wish to forward a memorial to bis Ex. Ld. Whitworth, praying him to present the same to the French Gov. hoping at the same time that his Lp. would kindly second their request to L. Whitworth, and exert his best endeavours to give weight to their representation. To the grounds here adduced, Lord Hawkesbury made a few objections, not, he said, such as his own mind would prompt him to urge; but which be thought it was as likely might be urged by others. In the first place it might be thought equitable that British creditors should be dealt by in the same manner as the Prussian or Austrian creditors. 2d. It might be said, that no stress could be laid on the commercial treaty of 1786, because that treaty could not be supposed to exist after the passing of the Alien Bill. 3d. The treaty of Amiens was supposed to have in view property in esse, and not that which had been sequestered, or the payment of which had been suspended. Whatever might be the force of these objections, he was not inclined to lay any stress upon them; but all he imagined himself able to do was to recommend the matter to Lord Whitworth, and in that view he should write a letter to his Lp. requesting he might espouse the cause of the claimants in the manner which to him might appear best calculated to obtain their object. With this determination of the noble Sec. of State the meeting seemed to be highly satisfied;

and on the suggestion of Mr. Saunders, it was proposed that Sir Elijah Impey, who was now at Paris, should be requested to act as their agent, and that a power of at. should forthwith be sent to him for that purpose. This proposition was unanimously agreed to.

Bankrupts.-Chapman, J. Liverpool, merchant. Danks, T. Oldbury, innkeeper.-Fawcets, T. Old Change, merchant.-Short, J. Alfred-place, Southwark. Delvalle, J. Savage's Gardens, tobaccobroker. Miller, G. Bodmin, vintner.-Allen, J. Bartlett's Buildings, taylor.-Berger, T. Cockspur street, hatter.-Jones, J. Penmaon, drover.-Midkiff, J. Liverpool, merchant.-Simpson, Elizabeth, Rolles Buildings, taylor.-Hindley, R. Salford, .wine-merchant.-Sadler, Eliz. Westbromich, grocer.-Porwell, M. and W. Wells, shop-keepers.Wrighton, D. Little Alne, flax-dresser.-Warren, J. Sandy street, weaver.

Marriages. A few days ago at Ash, in the county of Surrey, the Rev. James Beaver, rector of Childry, Berks. to Miss Henrietta Halsey, eldest daughter of Henry Halsey, Esq. of Henley Park.

Deaths. On Tuesday last, in Wimpole-street, the lady of Admiral Sir Peter Parker.-On Friday, in Manchester Square, Sir H. Lambert, Bart.-Oa the 12th, at Edinburgh, the Right Hon. Lady R. Bruce.

Rye.

Barley. Malt. Oats

35 ...

2 us. LEGHORN ...... 50 NAPLES......... 40

46

2 us. GENOA 24us. VENICE, 51 livres piccole 24us. effective per £. ster. LISBON...

2 us. OPORTO DUBLIN eff. BILBOA

68

68

13

354

MADRID.. 35 effective AG10, bank on Hol. p. PRICES CURRENT IN LONDON. Eng. Wheat prq. 46s. to 62s | Hops per cwt. 2001 to 224s 35..38 Hay per load.... .75..140 24..28 Beef, per stone 4s. to 5s.6d. 43..47 Mutton 5s. od. to 6s od. 15..22 Veal .... 6s. od. to 7s. 6d. Pease (white).... 33..39 Pork.... 4s. 8d. to 5s. 8d. Beans (horse).... 34..38 Tallow . . . . . . . . 45. 6d. Flour per sack.. 45..50 Av. of Sugar pr cw 37s. 2d. Seconds... 40..45 Salt, per Bushel 13s.10d. Coals per chal... 57 Bread 9d the Quar. Loaf,

..

52..

SUMMARY OF POLITICS. Towards the close of our last summary we made an extract or two from a paper, which appeared to us to have been published by the merchants immediately concerned in the trade to the B. of Honduras. That paper we have now (see p. 110) inserted entire. -It will be perceived, that these gentlemen, think their rights unimpaired by the non-re newal of former treaties. It is our opinion

that those rights are totally abrogated by that non-renewal; and, on some future oc casion, when we have more room and time than we have at present, we shall offer to our readers the reasons, on which this opinion is founded. In the mean time, we shall here briefly state the opinions advanced in Parliament, by the opposers of the treaty of Amiens. Our right to the use of the limits, as settled and enjoyed before the war, was not asserted to be necessarily abandoned; but it was asserted, that the security of an express recognition, in this, and other similar cases, being omitted, every channel was left open to the ancient disputes of contradictory claims, and the possible decision of the sword, as any one of those points might be ground of a new war, or new humiliation in the abandonment of it. Mr. Windham put the argument very happily in his opening speech for taking the treaty into consideration. It was, he observed, "as if a "man, in private life, having been quieted❘ "in the possession of an estate, by a solemn "instrument under the hand and seal of the "opposite party, should cancel the deed, or, "when it had been cancelled, neglect to "revive and renew it; and when his friends "remonstrated with him, should answer: "Oh; what signifies the deed? My right is "as secure as ever. My solicitor and coun"sel tell me I have an excellent cause to

"

go into court with. If I have not the "deed, I have as fine a law-suit as heart can "wish!" It was afterwards stated, by others on the same side, that they did not wholly dissent from the position, that the basis of the treaty being evidently the state of possession before the war, we ought to be considered as retaining that sort of usufructuary possession, which we previously had, however begun, and which we had in fact exercised before our first treaty with Spain relative to America, in 1670. But the main point was, whether the min. would defend this position by the last and best argument of kings and states. If so, it was said, our right to Honduras, though the weakest, in itself, of all our claims recognized by the former treaties (because it admitted the sovereignty to be in Spain) was not yet relinquished; but then, the min. must declare themselves ready to maintain this right by a new war, when they had declared, that so many more important objects were not worth the continuance of the war, with all the advantages which we then possessed, but which we had now given up; and, if it was worth a new war, why was it not worth insisting upon in the treaty, to prevent a new war, when we were bargaining for peace with a richer fund for the purchase than we ever possessed at

the most triumphant termination of any former contest? These were the arguments used in Parliament, and that they were irresistible was clearly proved by the miserable defence which was opposed to them even by the Master of the Rolls.-But, what shall be said to the low trick of hiding from the Parliament and the nation the important circumstance, now first made public by the Honduras merchants, that we bad extended our limits during the war, and that "this "extension was become absolutely neces

sary, for we had so cleared the country, "in our possession, of logwood, that any more which we wanted to procure was "got at so great an expense, that it en"hanced its cost almost beyond what it "would bear,” and, that, in short, without the extension of limits, the settlement was good for nothing to this country! Not a word of this was the Parliament suffered to know, though, as it now appears, the Honduras merchants, had fully stated it in a memorial to Lord Hawkesbury, pending the negotiation of the treaty. The knowledge of this circumstance, so material to the just appreciation of the conditions of the treaty, because it rendered a positive and specific confirmation so essential, was closely hidden from those who were to decide on the merits of that treaty; and, if we are to judge from their arguments, it was not known to the Master of the Rolls or the Ld. Chancellor, or to Mr. Pitt! Look at all their speeches, and you will find, that they speak of Honduras as a settlement where NOTHING is to be given up; as a settlement totally unaffected by the peace. But now, behold, it appears, that the peace is to rob us of all that part of the settlement which is of any value; and, as we before observed, our readers may rest assured, that this will be seized on as a lucky pretext for withdrawing our settlers altogether: foreseeing that France will command it, we shall, as in the case of the lilies, prevent the command, by an anticipated obedience! Poor, miserable shift! As if the world were to be deceived by this! As if our motive were not seen through! As if a paltry subterfuge like this could save us for only one moment from the contempt of mankind!

When the hour comes to surrender this settlement, there will not be wanting a great number of persons to discover, just then, for the first time, as Lord Ellenborough did with respect to the ba nour of the flag, that it never was good for any thing, and that we ought to be glad to get rid of it By way of preparation against these Fox's arguments, we just state, that the trade to Honduras employed 1500 seamen, and 12,000 tons of shipping, and the population of the settlement is camputed at 4000 souls, which necessarily consumed a large quantity of British manfactures, beside what found their way, through the settlement, into the Spanish territory, and were paid for in specie.

By turning to p. 119, our readers will find a sort of report respecting the state of the debts due to British creditors in the French funds. These stock-jobbers had, it would appear, entertained a notion, that the 14th article of the treaty, which brought us the "blessings "of peace," would bring them the payment of their sequestrated stock, not recollecting that the word pay has long been abolished from the French language, except as it applies to those on whom the Republic may have demands. It is really a good jest, that these poor rich men should have taken in a serious sense that ironical article of the trea

ty! Ld. Hawkesbury and the honest Talleyrand must have fine diversion with them! "To the justice of the French gov. they are not " reluctant to submit their claims." Poor creatures! they know well, that it is useless to appeal to any thing else. They know well, that the English government dares not stir a hand to assist them. "To the justice of the French gov. they were not," they said, "unwilling

to submit their claims, and if his Ldp. ap"proved and abet their views, it was their "wish to forward a memorial to Ld. Whit"worth, praying him to present the same "to the French gov. boping, at the same "time, that Ld. H. would kindly second "their request." If Buonaparté had the money to spare, it would be good sport to insist, that this boping, praying, submitting crew should crawl upon all fours from Calais to St. Cloud, a condition of payment to which they would cheerfully submit. The language of these people furnishes a striking proof of the fallen state of this nation. In general, no persons are so bold and clamourous as your monied men, who are apt to conceit that even a prime min. is nothing more than their caterer. Were such men ever before known, in order to obtain the fulfilment of the conditions of a solemn treaty in their favour, to "submit "their claims" to the justice of the party indebted to them, and to give up all reliance on the remonstrances or the power of their own government? The truth is, that persons, of almost every rank and degree, are beginning, as it was easy to foresee they would, to look to the French government for protection, to throw themselves on its mercy, to give up all notion of resistance, of any kind, to the will of France; they are, as often as an occasion offers, beginning to throw themselves on the mercy of the French government, and to look to that government, and to that government alone, for protection! Lord Hawkesbury's answer, too, is not a little curious. He has not said, that a refusal on the part of France, to fulfil this stipulation of the treaty, would be just; but he has suggested

such objections as may be urged, and has by no means signified his intention to regist those objections, though one of them, (that respecting the effect of the Alien Bill) is, be it well observed, in direct opposition, as we may hereafter have occasion to show, to the former assertions of himself, of Mr. Pitt, and of almost every member of the present administration.-But, in short, if France is disposed not to fulfil the stipulation in question, some excuse must be found for not attempting to compel her to do it. As in the case of Honduras, all the ministers are anxious about, is, a pretext for yielding up the rights of their country, a long story, strung together with ifs and buts, wherewith to bewilder the people, and to present to the world a shew of remaining dignity.

It has long been the practice of the French revolutionists to cause first to be promulgated, in other countries, those facts (true or false), and those sentiments, which they, for some reason or other, wish not to have the appearance of originating with themselves. Of this sort is an article, (see p. 114). which has lately been published, at Stutgard, and republished in the Paris papers, and the principal object of which is, to renew the assertion, that England has nothing to do with the affairs of the continent, and that, if France chooses to send troops to Malta or to Egypt, England has no right to interfere therein, because no mention is made thereof in the treaty of Amiens Upon this subject, it has been observed, in one of our daily prints, that France, in refusing to admit of the proposition of Lord Whitworth (see the article alluded to), and in insisting to hold us to the treaty of Amiens, "is not to blame. She "has a right," continues this print, “to abide "by that treaty, and is not bound to make "further concessions without an equivalent. "If the treaty of peace has not bound up "France sufficiently from sending troops to "Malta, or Egypt, that is the fault of the "British ministers who made the treaty." Now, though we never have, and never can, justify either those who made, or those who approved of, the treaty of Amiens, we cannot join in the charge, which this writer has preferred against it, and which amounts to nothing short of an acknowledgment, that, by the said treaty, we have, both now and for ever, forfeited all right to make use of either persuasion or power to prevent the subjugation of any other country besides our own. it is somewhat strange, too, that this writer should reject, with disdain, the very same principle, when applied to Parma and Etruria, respecting which also, it is said, our minister at Paris, has made a remonstrance.

England," says he," has a right para

"mount to all treaties; a right in common "with every other great state, to watch, "that no one power acquires an undue ac"cession of territory, or an undue ascen"dancy, and to watch, above all powers, "France, her natural and constant enemy."

And, why, we should be glad to know, does not this " paramount right" hold good with respect to Malta and Egypt as well as with respect to Parma and Etruria? Is it because the preserving of the two former from the clutches of France is more immiediately necessary to our interests, than is a like preservation of the two latter?-As to the real state of the case, relative to Malta and Egypt, our opinion is, that France will endeavour to send troops to both, but to the latter in particular, where her emissaries now are in full activity; and, we are very sure, that there is no power, Russia excepted, capable of preventing the accomplish ment of this project, without having recourse to arms. Whether Russia will insist upon the real independence and security of Malta and Turkey with its dependencies, is more than we can say. Much depends upon the sort of ambition, with which that empire is actuated. At any rate, in order to obtain the necessary guarantee from Russia, Great Britain must act that part, which is becoming only in a power of the second rank. This is the level, which Buonaparte's paper says we have been so long seeking, and which, under the auspicious guidance of "THE "Family," we have at last happily found :a just punishment for applauding the disgraceful peace, by which those low, obscure. untried, unknown men were enabled to sink the country to a level with themselves.-As to PRINCE RUSPOLI's accepting, at last, of the Grand Mastership of Malta, as is stated in the Hamburgh intelligence, we do not believe a word of it. If that island should not finally become an article in Buonaparte's wholesale and retail shop of indemnities, at which we should not be at all surprized, probably the Baillie Tomassy, now at Messina, will be appointed Grand Master.

Our readers will perceive, that a convention has been agreed on between Austria and France, relative to the Gr. D. of Tus. cany, but of the terms we imagine little is yet known. A little time, however, must bring them to light. They are not, indeed, an object of much interest; they can contain nothing more than merely a very small mitigation of the blow against the Imperial family.-The Swiss constitution is said to be completed; but of this we have received no certain information. In the mean time Switzerland is provided with a most ample and comfortable protection from all injuries, foreign or domestic. General NEY, the

French Ambassador, has 2,000 men under him in the city of Berne (a pretty good suite for an Ambassador). There are 1,000 more. in its dependencies. Gen. SARRAS, with 2,000 men in the canton of Lucerne; Gen. BORNEAU, with 4,000 men in the canton of Zurich; 4,000 more in the Pays de Vaud, and 2,000 in the north of Switzerland; single battalions occupy Basle, Friburgh, and Soleure; and the Helvetic troops, who are under the command of the French, are chiefly employed in levying contributions ! Happy effects of neutrality! Happy effects of that system, which the old opposition proposed in the year 1793! Happy effects of profiting from the mutual injuries of conflicting nations!" The Swiss may now learn, perhaps, to feel for the French emigrants, whom, after drawing from them their last shilling, they hunted from their cantons. Had the Swiss joined heartily in the cause of the allies, Europe might still have been free at any rate, Switzerland could not have been more completely enslaved.

We quote the following passage from the Mg. Post of Thursday last. By a Philadelphia paper of the 15th December, which we received yesterday, it appears the Americans have taken the alarm at the approach of the French in Louisiana.' The paper alluded to says, "We have authority "to state, that government is taking all the necessary steps to prevent any reasonable

66

ground of uneasiness arising on account of "the French occupying Louisiana, New Or"leans, &c. in consequence of which, it is "supposed, our Western boundary will become "insecure." If the danger to the United ⚫ States of America be such as here repre'sented, we well know what will be the result. By cajoling and menacing, Buonaparté will reduce them to as absolute a state of dependence as Holland. He will squeeze sums ' of money when he pleases, and in any future war with Britain, he will cut off one of our greatest commercial resources.-As the man in the play says, "We have certainly beard this before, somewhere or other ;" and, we have little doubt but our readers will remember having seen every word of it in Mr. Windham and Mr. Elliot's speeches, almost a twelve month ago. We are afraid, too, that we cannot say, in this, as in many other cases, "better late than never," for, if we are not greatly deceived, these sentiments might as well never have been expressed as to be kept back until now. Mr. Windham, in his speech of the 3d of May, 1802, said, in speaking of the cession of Louisiana to France, What a present have we made to "the Americans? We have placed a ser

pent in their bosom, by which they will "be ultimately devoured. We have put