It is now high time, Sir, that Gentlemen should awaken to a sense of our danger, that Parliament should discard those wretched schemes of short-sighted policy, which cannot, in our present situation, afford even a temporary refuge. As yet, we experience only the beginnings of our sorrows; but the storms of adversity are gathering fast around us, and the vessel is still trusted to the direction of Pilots, whose ignorance and obstinacy has been manifest to all the world.⸺What thanks, Sir, to the vigilance of our Rulers, that we are not already sunk beyond the possibility of redemption? What thanks to them, that the flower of our army and navy, and with them all the hopes of Britain had not withered before the power of a lately dejected but now triumphant enemy? Is it owing to their care that the rich produce of the Western Isles has not flowed into every harbour of France? No, Sir, it is the hand of Providence that wards off for a while the ruin of this declining empire. It is Providence alone that has preserved our gallant Admirals in America, by an almost miraculous interposition.—It is due to Providence alone, that the heart-strings of our commerce are not cut asunder by the sword of our adversaries. I own, Sir, I cannot join in an implicit approbation of such ministers: I must be a little better acquainted with their merits before I can place an unlimited confidence in their wisdom and discretion; that discretion which has led us into a labyrinth of difficulties; that wisdom that cannot find a clue for our deliverance. [Sidenote: Mr. D[u]nn[in]g.] Mr _D[u]nn[i]ng_ said a few words, which, from the learned gentleman’s being particularly hoarse and uncommonly inarticulate, owing (as has been suggested) to a violent cold, and a multiplicity of business in Westminster-hall, we could not collect with the accuracy that we wish to observe on every occasion. His language was neat and pointed, though somewhat tinctured with professional pedantry: his arguments seemed ingenious, though perhaps too refined for the comprehension of his auditors. He had much antithesis, much verbal gingle, and many whimsical climaxes. He talked of the competency or incompetency of the House to the discussion of the present question; of the materiality or immateriality of the proposed amendment; of the responsibility or irresponsibility of Ministers. He said, he neither asked, nor knew, nor cared to what the present question might ultimately tend; but of this he was confident, that it’s propriety was clearly evinced, and it’s necessity irrefragably proved by that opposition which purported to baffle it.—Upon the whole, his harrangue seemed to be a medley of legal quibble and quaint humour. [Sidenote: Mr. S[olicito]r G[enera]l.]