have a better army than we had with Russia?  After such unqualified praise upon Russia, and after her defection, is not such language, I ask, inconsistent, absurd, and preposterous?  If Germany possessed these wonderful forces before, why were they not called into action; and if not, why are we to subsidize the posse comitatus, the rabble of Germany?  But who is the person that applies for this subsidy?  As to the Elector of Bavaria, I leave him out of the question.  It is the Emperor of Germany.  Is there anything in his conduct and character to incline us to listen to him?  I think not, and for these two reasons.  First, he applied once on a false pretence, and secondly, he failed in performing his stipulated engagement.  What was his false pretence?  He said he could not open the campaign without the pecuniary assistance of this country; and yet he did do so, and displayed more vigour, energy, and resources than ever.  Now, if to this we add experience, and the evidence of facts, when he dared, though bound to this country, to break faith with her, and make a separate peace, does it not furnish a reasonable cause for declining to grant a subsidy to such a Power?  The honourable gentleman is offended at our connecting the situation of the country, and the present scarcity, with the question of war.  I do not know to what extent this principle is to be carried.  I see no more objection to state the pressure in this particular from the continuance of the war, than there would be to advance the increase of the public debt, the situation of the finances, or any other of those reasons so often repeated without its having been ever objected that they were of an improper kind.  Sir, I say, there is no more impropriety in urging this argument, than in urging Ministers not to press the people too far, but to apportion the burden to their strength to bear it.  What has my honourable friend said?  We see an opulent commercial prosperity; but look over the country, and we behold barracks and broth-houses, the cause and the effect, the poverty and distress of the country; for surely it will not be contended, but that among the calamities of war are to be reckoned families left without support, and thrown upon charity for subsistence.  That the war is unnecessary, as being useless, is self-evident, and nobody can deny it.  But, say they, Buonaparte has taken us at an unguarded moment:  we do not object to peace, but we have a fear and jealousy of concluding one, except with the House of Bourbon:  in a peace concluded with it we should have confidence, but we can have none in the present Government of France.  I say, were that event arrived, and the House of Bourbon seated on the throne, the Minister should be impeached who would disband a single soldier; and that it would be equally criminal to make peace under a new King as under a republican government, unless her heart and mind were friendly to it.  France, as a republic, maybe a bad neighbour; but than monarchical France